a few more thoughts on speakers

I very much appreciate the further comments from Karen Stohr, Tom Berg, and Father Araujo. I am not sure I have a lot to add. I do think that Karen makes a good point about drawing a distinction between Catholic and non-Catholic speakers. While I think it would be inappropriate for a Catholic university to give an honorary degree to the Governor of Michigan (Jennifer Granholm), who stated that she was 100% pro-choice the last time she ran for office, it would make it make it worse in my mind if a Catholic university did so because she is prominently identified as a Catholic.

I think there are a range of cases here. We mentioned this a bit last Spring with regard to Condoleezza Rice. The opposition to her focused on her position on the war. I mentioned that critics might also have cited her mildly pro-choice views. I think one could argue that since her views on abortion had not been a part of her public responsibilities that it would be appropriate not to disqualify her on these grounds alone. I guess one could think about other cases when the speaker's identification with (and role in implementing) a position that is in conflict with Church teaching might be more or less clear. People seem to agree that it would not be appropriate to honor someone such as Kate Michelman even if she were being honored for her work on a worthy cause (e.g., breast cancer awareness). Other cases might be tougher. What about honoring (by inviting the person to give a conference keynote speech) the head of the ACLU who would speak on free speech. The connection of the ACLU with the abortion rights perspective would in my mind make this choice inadvisable. I suppose it's better to look at concrete examples because I am not sure that I've thought about this enough to know whether it is possible to come up with a set of principles in advance.

With regard to candidates, I don't have a problem with debates or with something close to a debate (a series of talks by candidates). There may be some risks with this though because I think candidates sometimes use their Catholic identity when it is clear they don't share the Church's moral beliefs. So, a Catholic candidate for Governor might emphasize her role as a Eucharistic minister at her parish or feature in her campaign literature a talk she gave to a local Catholic high school. I don't think a Catholic institution ought to be wary about being used by the politician.

Maybe, as Father Araujo suggests, Catholic schools shouldn't be so eager to have the "benefits" of having speakers in lofty positions (presidents, governors, etc.).

Richard M.