More on Speakers

I noted that in Richard's cogently-put argument for a Catholic school refusing to have as commencement speaker a noted figure who is pro-abortion-rights, the only alternative Richard suggested to recognize such a person's contributions to the pursuit of truth was to pit them in a debate against someone else (Cuomo vs. Hyde, Singer vs. George, Sobrino vs. Pope).  If this is the only alternative, schools would forego every such speaker who was unwilling or too costly to go into a debate format (a significant restriction, even if one argues it's worth bearing).  RIchard also puts these people into debates over the very issue at which they're at odds with the official Church teachings (Singer on infanticide, Sobrino on liberation theology).  He doesn't mention a situation like a conference keynote address or a stand-alone lecture on a non-abortion topic where the speaker is in sync with (even quite admirable to) the Church, and is not a general honoree (although the featuring itself involves a kind of honoring).  E.g., Al Gore keynoting a conference or lecturing separately on global warming (see Zenit, May 12, 2007, for the Vatican's view on the moral seriousness of this problem, and stipulate for argument's sake that Gore's position on it is generally quite admirable).  RIchard's not mentioning this situation as an alternative makes me wonder if he or others see it as no different than the commencement speaker or award recipient.

A related question, as 2008 approaches, is whether there is an objection to inviting a pro-abortion-rights officeholder or candidate in the relevant jurisdiction in his/her status as the officeholder/candidate (given appropriately equal visits by other candidates), not as an honoree.

I raise these questions because we've had discussions of them at St. Thomas.

Tom