In response to Richard, sticking with the scenario of honors rather than an invitation speak or debate, more questions: let's add in the complexity of one person holding different stances on a variety of issues, some deeply attuned with Catholic identity, and others not; and let's assume that the school's intention is to highlight those aspects of the person's work which are in accord with Catholic identity. For example, say that a particular speaker is being honored for a strong anti-abortion record, but also has a muddy record on torture policy. Should the muddy record on torture, even if it was marginal to their work, preclude the honor? Does it matter what role or office this person holds (politician, judge, community leader, academic)? Does it matter what kind of sway the person holds over public opinion (which could contribute to the analysis of "scandal")? Are there some contexts in which honors might serve as partial endorsements, without necessarily claiming that the person's entire life or system of thought should be set forth as exemplary?
Tuesday, March 24, 2009
More on Models of Engagement
Bishop D'arcy's statement
Available here. As one would expect, given the author, the statement is gracious, but also clear.
My decision [not to attend graduation] is not an attack on anyone, but is in defense of the truth about human life.
I have in mind also the statement of the U.S. Catholic Bishops in 2004. “The Catholic community and Catholic institutions should not honor those who act in defiance of our fundamental moral principles. They should not be given awards, honors or platforms which would suggest support for their actions.” Indeed, the measure of any Catholic institution is not only what it stands for, but also what it will not stand for.
I have spoken with Professor Mary Ann Glendon, who is to receive the Laetare Medal. I have known her for many years and hold her in high esteem. We are both teachers, but in different ways. I have encouraged her to accept this award and take the opportunity such an award gives her to teach.
Even as I continue to ponder in prayer these events, which many have found shocking, so must Notre Dame. Indeed, as a Catholic University, Notre Dame must ask itself, if by this decision it has chosen prestige over truth.
comment on models
Just a quick comment on Amy's post. I do think that dialogue is a good thing and so I think it entirely appropriate to have Peter Singer at a Catholic university to debate euthanasia or infanticide or to publish works by him in its law review. I don't think, however, that decisions to award an honorary degree are the occasions to affirm a school's commitment to dialogue. I don't think honoring someone such as Peter Singer (and I realize that Amy didn't suggest him) would be perceived as an invitation to dialogue. It would likely be perceived as an endorsement of his work or if not an endorsement then at least an indication that his views (although in tension with the views of the Church) are not sufficiently troublesome to preclude him from being honored.
Richard M.
Commencement Speakers: Models of Engagement with the Culture
I wonder if there are at least two (and perhaps more) different models (or emphases) at work in our conversation about commencement speakers:
1. Emphasize clarity (“purity”) so as to minimize confusion and engage the culture from a position of strong identity
2. Emphasize dialogue with difference so as to engage the culture from a stance of openness to exchange and growth in mutual understanding
I think that both of these approaches have distinct strengths and weaknesses; and both can find strong grounding in the CST tradition. My question is whether within the expanse of Catholic education in the United States we might want to encourage a variety of models engagement (perhaps with a baseline and a ceiling, but with quite a bit of room for difference) with the culture. Rick, do you agree?
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.
Monday, March 23, 2009
More on commencement speakers / response to Rob
So, I believe that the University of Notre Dame should not, at this time, honor President Obama with a ceremonial degree and the commencement-speaker role. To say this, by the way, is not to endorse the tiresome anti-Notre Dame "great hate" screeds that are circulating around the web, from people who long ago gave up on Notre Dame in any event. As I've said many times, Notre Dame matters, and it is precisely because it still *is* meaningfully Catholic that its mistakes are disappointing. It's easy for [insert name here] Completely Pure Catholic College to avoid dilemmas (and mistakes) like Notre Dame's, because no one cares about that College.
Rob asks if there is a "bright line" principle that yields the results (a) it was fine for Notre Dame to honor President Bush in 2001 and (b) Notre Dame should not honor President Obama, in the same way, in 2009. In my view, "probably not." That is, I have no objection to hosting (indeed, I agree with Fr. John Jenkins that it is, generally speaking, a good thing to host) Presidents -- including Presidents with imperfect records and unsound views -- at Catholic universities. Certainly, it would be fine for Notre Dame to invite President Obama to give an address -- as opposed to commencement, with an honorary degree -- at Notre Dame.
Its a question of degree, it seems to me. The "Bush in 2001" / "Obama in 2009" comparison -- with all due respect -- seems quite weak. That Bush failed to block some executions while Texas governor is not the same thing, and just isn't as bad, as what Obama has done, and will do, on the abortion and embryo-destruction fronts. After all, at the time, Bush's signature policies were education reform and the faith-based initiative. (By the way, does anyone think that, had Vice-President Cheney been elected in 2008, that he would have been invited to give the 2009 commencement at Notre Dame?)
But, to be clear -- I am not ruling out the possibility that Notre Dame could invite President Obama to speak at graduation. But not now, not so soon after his insultingly bad statement regarding embryo-destructive research (in which he brushed aside moral philosophy as "politics"). There are, I am happy to admit, things about his election and achievements that a Catholic university can celebrate. No doubt. But now? There is no way to avoid the impression, given the recent stem-cell and abortion-related decisions, that Notre Dame is un-bothered by these deeply unjust actions.
And, just as bad, in my view, is the fact that the wonderful awarding of the Laetare to a real hero of the Church -- Mary Ann Glendon -- is now cast in a strange "balance / both sides" kind of light. (I do not believe that is how it was intended.)
Again, though: I am quite put off by the "Christendom College is the only way to go! Notre Dame sux! No real Catholics go to Notre Dame" crowd's reaction to all this. If you decided long ago that the future of the Church is the catacombs, and that the future and mission of Notre Dame is not worth contributing to, then why is Notre Dame's (mistaken) decision here something even worth your notice?
UPDATE: More, in a similar vein, from me here.
Bush vs. Obama as commencement speaker
I've received a few responses to my questions about Bush's appropriateness as Notre Dame commencement speaker. One reader comments:
My short answer . . . is that neither Bush (in 2001) nor Obama should have been given honorary law degrees from Notre Dame. That said, I'm no utilitarian, but it seems to me that the death toll from Bush's actions as Governor of Texas (the only metric for a fair comparison to the present situation) and as Commander in Chief of the US military is orders of magnitude less than the millions of embryos who will be created, instrumentalized, and killed with taxpayer funding because of President Obama's actions. And there will be not even the palest appearance of due process for these innocent human beings. And their deaths will be celebrated as a great good. Obama means to promote and maximize their deaths -- that's the whole point of the federal funding. That degree of intention strikes me as worse than Bush's apparently very bad role in administering the death penalty in Texas. I'm not sure that the "orders of magnitude" argument should be the focus of the inquiry for honoring public officials. If the United States Conference of Catholic Bisops articulates the standard as "defiance of fundamental moral principles," they're not really looking at it through a utilitarian lens, are they? It's about the message the invitation conveys, and the message depends on the speaker's deliberate and continuing denial of a fundamental moral truth. Maybe electing Obama is worse than electing Bush on utilitarian grounds (though I'm not ready to concede that), but it doesn't really make sense to deem it acceptable to honor Bush, but not Obama, based on a quantitative comparison of the harms facilitated by Bush's denial of a fundamental moral truth versus Obama's denial of a fundamental moral truth. Another reader, Daniel Suhr, writes: You end [your post] by asking whether "[a]bortion stands alone as a disqualifier?" In short, along with gay marriage, yes. He has written a paper explaining his answer, Lessons for Law School Deans Regarding Catholics in Political Life. You may download the paper here.
Is Bush an appropriate commencement speaker for Notre Dame?
I do not envy the administrators who have to choose commencement speakers at Catholic colleges and universities, and I do not have any bright-line rules in mind for navigating these issues, so please take these questions as sincere and snark-free: Given George W. Bush's record on the death penalty as Governor of Texas, should Notre Dame have invited him to be the commencement speaker in 2001? And now given what we know about his record on torture as President, should Notre Dame invite him to be commencement speaker in 2009? If Bush is fine, but Obama is not, how exactly do you articulate the difference in terms of appearing to support those who "act in defiance of our fundamental moral principles?" Abortion stands alone as a disqualifier? Some other explanation?
Harvard's Dr. Green on the Pope, Aids, and Condoms in Africa
Dr. Edward Green, Director of of the AIDS Prevention Research Project at the Harvard School of Public Health said, in a interview published today, "I am a liberal on social issues and it's difficult to admit, but the Pope is indeed right. The best evidence we have shows that condoms do not work as an intervention intended to reduce HIV infection rates in Africa." Green went on to say, "[w]hat we see in fact is an association between greater condom use and higher infection rates."
Last week, the New York Times wrote a scathing editorial stating that the Pope "deserves no credence when he distorts scientific finding about the value of condoms in slowing the spread of the AIDS virus." The Times continues: "There is no evidence that condom use is aggravating the epidemic and considerable evidence that condoms, though no panacea, can be helpful in many circumstances."
Who is distorting the scientific facts? And, toward what ends?
Sunday, March 22, 2009
Benedict in Africa: Women's Rights
| ||||
|
Recent Posts
Categories
Monthly Archive
StatCounter
PageViews
Since February 19, 2008
