What does it mean to be a Catholic…

Over the past several days, a number of distinguished MOJ contributors provided an abundance of presentations on various topics that share a common denominator: Catholic identity. These postings have addressed diverse issues including: speakers invited to educational institutions that claim a Catholic identity; public officials who identify themselves as Catholics; and the development of legal theory that professes a Catholic character and nature. Our discussions on this site frequently raise facets of this general and important question, what does it mean to be Catholic, in other contexts. I will have to delay addressing this core issue today (what does it mean to be a Catholic…) since I would like to contribute to the rich discussion that has preceded me during the past week.

Since we are in the midst of commencement speakers’ season, it may be useful to address this subject first. I would like to think that administrators, faculty, students (graduates), and families who are most involved with either inviting or hearing a commencement speaker at an educational institutions that uses the moniker Catholic also consider themselves to be disciples of Jesus Christ. I would also like to think that most of them would consider themselves faithful sons and daughters of the Church. I realize that I cannot expect that all persons associated with commencement speaker activities at Catholic campuses would identify with these categories of personal identity, but surely there is nothing wrong to think that a strong, large percentage of them do. If my thinking has some meritorious foundation, then I can rightly conclude that persons who are Catholic hold, cherish, and follow the Churches teachings—some of which are very clear and others which are less clear as previous contributors have noted.

There is something in our human nature—perhaps it is an understandable sense of pride—that leads us to believe that we would like to attend a commencement event in which some famous person is asked to speak. This inclination would lead us to invite or want to invite holders of important public office (Presidents, governors, legislators, judges) or other individuals who are well known because they are major sports figures, entertainers, or leaders of industry or the learned professions. In some cases, these famous persons may have publicized views on issues that intersect moral questions on which the Church’s teachings are clear; in other instances, the views of some of these celebrities may be undisclosed especially if their fame is based on something that does not require them to disclose their own take on these issues. However, even famous sports figures and entertainers have had the occasion to volunteer their personal perspectives on issues such as abortion, matters involving sexual mores, and medical science. A good example of this would be the recent event in which Ms. Sheryl Crow was asked to perform at the charity event for the benefit of the Cardinal Glennon Children’s Hospital in

St. Louis

which served as the catalyst for Archbishop Burke’s resignation from the board involved with the sponsorship of this occasion.

Regardless of whether the celebrity holds public office or not, Catholics should ask the question what would justify inviting a speaker whose views on any, some, or all of these moral issues are not in accord with the Church’s teachings to a commencement at which he or she is to be honored with a degree honoris causa or some other award, such as a medal or distinguished citation of merit? The scrutiny of this individual also needs to consider the strong likelihood that the speaker will probably be viewed as a “success”—a model for the audience, but especially the graduates, to emulate. The matter at issue thus goes beyond endorsement of this person and his or her views. I do not think that Catholics and Catholic institutions can turn a blind eye to the dissident views of such would-be invitees without some further examination of why this person should be honored and emulated.

In the context of public officials, there may be some justification for inviting those whose views do not precisely mirror all Catholic teaching if they are the kind of office holders addressed by Pope John Paul II in Evangelium Vitae who realize that they cannot simply undo or negate the element of public policy that offends the teachings of the Church but nonetheless pursue courses of action that will minimize the impact and the evil consequences that would otherwise result from the general policy that they cannot overturn. However, when the office holder’s public record demonstrates an ongoing conflict with Catholic teaching, the justification for any invitation to be honored evaporates. Of course, there would be other individuals, not holders of public office, who have devoted a large part of their professional lives to challenging the Church’s position of moral issues. The example of Kate Michelman was presented earlier by Michael Perry. I would add to this nonexclusive list Frances Kissling and Daniel Maguire. Inviting them to a Catholic campus for an honor at commencement or other event would be a cause of scandal. Why? First of all, the invitation would confuse many of the faithful who might be led to believe, as a result of the invitation, that a school that is a prominent element of the Catholic community is holding this person up as an individual meriting accolade and emulation.

The suggestion of inviting the celebrity to be a part of a debate has been examined by other MOJ contributors this past week. In some contexts this invitation may enable the dissident to be invited to the Catholic event without serving as a cause of scandal IF the Church’s view is responsibly presented by other speakers during the debate. Taking account of the practical problems raised by other MOJ contributors that the debate format may not be possible in some particular instances, it might be possible to have a lecture series in which a dissident may be invited if the series were to present speakers whose views and presentations accord with Church teachings. Having presented this alternative, I must hasten to add that this, for me, would not justify any invitation to Ms. Michelman, Ms. Kissling, Professor Maguire or other anti-Catholic advocates to the campus. Their views can be responsibly examined and critiqued in the context of alternative campus activities in which their published positions are explored by students, faculty, and other members of the academic community. Hence, there is no need to give this kind of dissident voice a platform on a Catholic campus to present their anti-Catholic rhetoric. The life and work of Larry Flynt could have been explored at

Georgetown

without

Georgetown

giving Larry Flynt a personal platform to present his distasteful and sensational presentation. His presence at

Georgetown

was not required for reasons of academic freedom or, for that matter, and other justification.

Some MOJ contributors have discussed their concerns over commencement speakers such as Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice at

Boston

College

and President George W. Bush at

St. Vincent

’s College. Fair enough. But if there is justification for raising concerns about these individuals, there should also be parallel unease about past invitations to Rep. Nancy Pelosi and President Bill Clinton who have been commencement speakers at

Georgetown

. I would further add that while she was not a commencement speaker at

Boston

College

but was the inaugural speaker who launched the BC Center for Human Rights and International Justice, Ms. Mary Robinson’s invitation presented parallel unease for many Catholics.

There is nothing in Catholic teaching that would preclude a responsible and objective examination of the views of even the most diehard anti-Catholic on a Catholic campus. But it is quite another matter to argue that commencement and other podiums must remain widely open. The ability to examine on Catholic campuses even the strongest positions opposed to Catholic teachings remains intact. But having to provide a platforms and honors to these advocates is quite another matter.    RJA sj