more on commencement speakers

I think this discussion about the matter of honorary degree recipients and commencement speakers is valuable. (I agree that the general issue of speakers is very different. I don't know of anyone who objects to having President Obama (or a surrogate such as Doug Kmiec) appear at a Catholic school and debate Robby George on abortion or stem-cell issues.)   

But why does a school think it is a good idea to routinely honor the President or the Attorney General or a Supreme Court Justice? There are plenty of people who would be worthy recipients of honorary degrees. But not all of these recipients would have the same "value" for the school in terms of making a statement about its place in the world of higher education or in the broader society. I guess my view is that the school shouldn't be so worried about its secular prestige. It ought to be more concerned about honoring people whose words and actions warrant such honors. Individuals who have advanced policies that are inconsistent with the Church's moral teachings ought not to be the recipients of such honors. 

I don't think this has much to do with the whether the school is interested in engaging the culture or whether the school is completely pure (is Rick suggesting that the school ought to be or try to be "impure"?). Criticism of Notre Dame's decision doesn't amount to a return to the catacombs. I don't think it is necessary for a school to honor people such as President Obama to avoid that charge. (I don't understand Rick to be making that sort of sweeping charge because he too is criticizing Notre Dame's decision.) With regard to bestowing honors, Catholic schools ought to make decisions that build up the Church so that members of the Church can more effectively engage the culture. That means that the Catholic school ought not to view itself as somehow outside the Church.

Richard M.