Faith, Reason, and Abp. Tutu

My colleague Teresa Collett offers an additional response to Rick's questions regarding our statement about Archbishop Tutu:

This response represents only my views.  I have not asked for, nor received, comments from my colleagues regarding what follows. 

I appreciate the call to faithfulness that underlies your pointed questions regarding the letter signed by law faculty concerning the University's actions on Arbp. Tutu.  However, I believe that you have read the letter through the eyes of the secular academic, rather than through the eyes of a faithful son of the Church, which I know you to be.  Nowhere does the phrase "free speech" appear in the document.  The only reference to secular norms appears in the statement, "[w]e could easily cite secular academic norms as well, for in this case they harmonize with Catholic norms.

The paragraph you cite as creating concern that the signators to the letter have not given adequate thought to the necessity of refusing a platform to those who hold or express offensive views, is not, as you fear, an endorsement of the pernicious idea that a Catholic (or indeed a secular) university is obligated "to give a platform to all speakers, no matter how offensive their views or statements." Rather, I understand the paragraph, and letter as a whole, to affirm only the idea that the University is "to promote dialogue between faith and reason, so that it can be seen more profoundly how faith and reason bear harmonious witness to the unity of all truth." Ex Corde, para. 17 (emphasis in the original).

You write, "[within the letter is] the implicit claim that Tutu's 'comments on the Israeli-Palestinian comment [sic]' are not, objectively, offensive (and offensively false) enough to warrant his exclusion.  Am I right about this?  If someone believed that Tutu's suggestion of an instructive comparison between the Holocaust and Israel's efforts -- which may, of course, be criticized -- to defend herself from terrorists calling for her to be "wiped off the map" is horribly misguided, what guidance would my friends at St. Thomas offer about how that person should decide, as a general matter, how offensive is too offensive?"

In fact, the letter makes only two references to Arbp. views on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.  First we note that is the basis of the Administration's refusal to invite Arbp. Tutu to speak.  This is merely a statement of verifiable fact that implies nothing beyond it's explicit content.  Second, we note that the proposed invitation was not to address the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, but rather to speak on his experience in peacefully combating structural injustice.  Again, this is merely a statement of our understanding of the facts giving rise to the controversy.  It is consistent with the facts publicly available, although I concede that we may be mistaken since the faculty does not have access to the original correspondence regarding the nature of the invitation to be extended.  I am at a loss to see how these two statements give rise to "the implicit claim that Tutu's 'comments on the Israeli-Palestinian comment [sic]' are not, objectively, offensive (and offensively false) enough to warrant his exclusion."

If the faculty of St. Thomas were responding to the Administration's refusal to issue an invitation to the Archbishop to speak on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, I agree that we, both individually and as a faculty, would have to access the relative truth or falsehood of the views we expected him to express in in light of the teachings of the Christ and his Church. To the extent we believed Tutu's views to be false, we would required to either demand that he speak only in a forum with a formal response opposing his views by someone of equal stature, or that he not be invited to speak.  Cf. Ex Corde, para. 43 (a Catholic university is to be a "primary and privileged place for a fruitful dialogue between the Gospel and culture") emphasis in the original). 

However, these are not the facts confronting us.

We are responding to a decision by the University Administration to foreclose a presentation about peaceful means to respond to institutional injustice because the administration fears some members of the community will be "hurt or offended" by the collateral views of the proposed speaker. The issue in one close to the heart of the Church -- peaceful resistance to institutional injustice - and the speaker is in complete agreement that such resistance is our duty.  The administration's standard of "hurt or offended" has no warrant in scripture or Church teachings, and is, in my opinion, a corruption of Church teaching on scandal. 

As has been discussed on this blog before, scandal has both a secular and theological meaning. The secular meaning is the meaning of Christ when He asked His disciples whether they were scandalized by his teaching on the Eucharist. To hear Christ proclaim that salvation came through the eating of his flesh and the drinking of His blood truly must have tested the devotion of His followers, who understood themselves to be faithful Jews. John 6:22-71. Yet the scandal they undoubtedly felt--a sense of outrage or shock--is not the type of ;">scandal that Catholics or Catholic institutions must avoid. Christ was bound to proclaim the truth, regardless of the ability or willingness of His listeners to understand. Similarly, we are not excused from our obligations to obey God by the shock or offense taken by others.

The Catechism of the Catholic Church provides a clear explanation of the theological definition of scandal and our duty to avoid it.  Catechism 2284-87.  "Scandal is an attitude or behavior which leads another to do evil." Id. at 2284.  The prohibition of scandal derives from our duty to avoid giving offense to God and our duty, in justice, to avoid leading other into offending Him.

The Administration has not based its decision regarding Tutu on its obligation to avoid giving scandal.  They have not asserted, explicitly or implicitly, that they are declining to invite Arbp. Tutu because his speech will lead others into sin (an argument I explored in my earlier post). Nor does this appear to be a case of allowing public indignation to silence the teaching of the truth -- although it comes much closer to fitting into this category if we assume that Arbp. Tutu will speak only on the need for bearing personal burdens to advance the cause of racial justice.

You close your post with the following:

Given Tutu's regrettable failure to understand well, and speak clearly about, the immorality of abortion, do those who signed the statement think that a Catholic university that welcomed Tutu to speak about peace-making should -- given the celebrity, and near-saint, status he enjoys, particularly with students -- do something (anything?) to identify his unfortunate blind-spot on abortion?  To challenge him?  Should a Catholic university that welcomes (and celebrates, and honors) Tutu have any duty to use his presence as a kind of teaching moment?  (As, for example, Pres. Bollinger did at Columbia.) 

I believe Pres. Bollinger's conduct at Columbia was regrettable.  I do not agree that personal attacks are the proper way to challenge falsehood.  Having mistakenly decided to give the Iranian President a forum for asserting his false ideas (a decision quite different than the one at issue regarding the proposed Tutu presentation at St. Thomas), the only proper responses were to either provide a formal response opposing the false views by someone of equal stature or withdraw the invitation to speak.

The standard you suggest by your question is that no one who is in disagreement with any aspect of the Truth taught by the Catholic Church can be invited to speak, even on issues in which they are in complete agreement with the Church and from which their fame derives, at least without some denunciation of the speaker's incidental false views.  This is a standard that is not compelled by Ex Corde or the USCCB statement.  In my original posting several safeguards of the Truth were proposed.

Certainly we should know the focus of the Archbishop's remarks in advance, and refuse to offer a platform for the advocacy of intrinsic evils like abortion and genocide. We also should encourage the inclusion of prominent speakers who are sympathetic to the Church's teaching that abortion is a fundamental violation of human rights.  What we should not do is refuse to offer a platform to a speaker who is seeking to advocate the intrinsic good of a just peace, and has an incidental controversial opinion on a matter properly characterized as a prudential judgment regarding political matters.

I believe that these suggestions are more consistent with our mission to engage the culture with the Gospel, than conditioning presentations of views consistent with Church teaching upon a public examination and challenge to any views the speaker holds, which are contrary to Church teaching.  While the later may be appropriate in particular circumstances, it strikes me as both undesirable and unworkable as a general rule.

As a final note, I disagree with your characterization of the proposed speech by Tutu.  I would and have objected to any proposal that the Archbishop receive formal honors such as an award or honorary degree from this University.  This objection is for the very reason you suggest, we should not convey honors upon one who has publicly attempted to advance the evil of abortion.  This is a very different position from refusing to listen to the experiences of someone who has spent a large portion of his life combating institutionalized racism.