Daley's confusion

In this op-ed, "An uneasy mix of religion and politics," Bill Daley criticizes Cardinal George for criticizing Notre Dame's decision to honor President Obama with the commencement address and a ceremonial degree.  In the process, he reveals, and promotes, deep confusion about the nature of Cardinal George's objection.

As MOJ readers know, I believe that Notre Dame should not, at this time, given all the givens, have chosen to honor President Obama in this way.  But, I think we can, for purposes of evaluating Daley's op-ed, put aside the ultimate question of the merits of this choice. 

Daley, like many others, proceeds from the mistaken premise that the debate about the invitation is about whether or not a Catholic university should "hear from" leaders who hold unsound views or promote unjust policies.  But, this is not the issue.  Of course Catholic universities should engage, debate, explore, "dialogue", question, challenge, etc.  There might well be some, somewhere, who think that Notre Dame's Catholic character should preclude lecture by, or debate featuring, the President, but I certainly do not think that.  Nor does Cardinal George.  This is not a debate --  contra Daley -- about an "invitation to speak". It is about a decision to honor, and about what that decision suggests (whether or not that suggestion is specifically intended). 

Even worse, then descends into, well, nonsense by suggesting that the Cardinal's criticism threatens (it has, in fact, nothing to do with) the separation of church and state.  Cardinal George is speaking to Notre Dame, about what Notre Dame -- as a Catholic university -- should do.

That idea is what distinguished the fledgling United States from the many countries with state religions. It still distinguishes us from much of the world. No matter how certain we are that our church is the one true path to salvation, we can never cross the line and believe that it is our God-given right and duty to force our beliefs on others. Otherwise, we are no different than the forces of religious fanaticism and terror that we are fighting today.

Good grief.  The suggestion that, by urging a Catholic university to think more clearly about the implications of that character for that university's own decisions and practices, a Catholic bishop is pushing us toward a "state religion," or "forc[ing] . . . beliefs on others" is unworthy of someone of Daley's achievements.  In fact -- and this seems true whether or not one supports President Obama's policies, agrees with him, or thinks Notre Dame should honor him -- the more serious threat to church-state separation, properly understood, is the suggestion, from one with Mr. Daley's connections to political power, that Catholic bishops act wrongly -- act un-American -- when they tell Catholic universities how better to be Catholic.