more on BC controversy

I have a couple of thoughts on this. One, I applaud the general concern that awarding honorary degrees is extremely important and that these decisions say a lot about the character of an institution. It is a very different issue when a person is being invited to speak as part of an academic debate or to publish in the school's journals as part of a symposium. Awarding some one an honorary degree is very different. Bestowing an honor on someone with public positions that are in conflict with the Church's teaching is something that ought not to be done.

Second, I found it interesting that those opposing honoring Rice did not mention that she very publicly proclaimed that she was "mildly pro-choice." I don't think that she has had a lot to do with the Administration's policy on abortion but I would have thought that her statements on abortion (which clearly did conflict with Church teaching) should have been a part of any opposition to Boston College honoring her.

Third, while I have not been a supporter of the war (the Vatican's concerns about whether this was truly a last resort and about whether there was a real prospect of success really resonated with me), I don't think it is so clear that Rice's positions "conflict" with Catholic teaching. Her positions seem to be more in the nature of debatable prudential judgments. I don't think that would be an inappropriate reason for opposing that she receive an honorary degree but I think it would be better to be clear about the precise nature of the objection.

Richard