Rick's Op-ed and Dialogue in the Catholic Community

I was happy to see Michael Sean Winters link to Rick’s op-ed over at America Magazine’s group blog In All Things.  In response to Rick’s comments MSW said the following:

 

Readers will know where I stand on the controversy surrounding the University of Notre Dame's decision to award President Obama an honorary degree next Sunday at their commencement. But, I have to tip my hat to Rick Garnett, a law professor at Notre Dame, who takes the opposite position in today’s USAToday but does so thoughtfully and intelligently. This does not surprise if you are familiar with Garnett's writing. But, his calm, reasoned argument, which could have found its way into Dr. Glendon's speech if she had not decided to absent herself from the ceremonies, will not be the face of the opposition to Notre Dame's decision next Sunday. Randall Terry will garner all the media attention. That is a shame for Notre Dame, a shame for the pro-life movement, and a shame for the Church.   

 

In response to this, I posted the following comment on the America blog which I am happy to share with MOJ readers (hopefully free of the formatting errors over there).  I particulary took exception to some of MSW's prior remarks about Mary Ann Glendon.

 

I think that overall, the criticisms of Notre Dame's decision to honor President Obama have been more along the lines of Prof. Rick Garnett's thoughtful editorial than the shrill accusations of Randall Terry (which, while likely well-intentioned, are more prone to alienate than to persuade).  Instead, it has served the interests of those who support Notre Dame's decision to mischaracterize all opposition as being more like the latter than the former.  Thus, your acknowledgement of the quality of Prof. Garnett's remarks is certainly welcome.  At the same time, what has been missing in all of this controversy is anything like a point-by-point response to (as you put it) the “calm, reasoned argument[s]” put forth by Garnett and others.

 

Moreover, your suggestion that Prof. Mary Ann Glendon could have delivered remarks similar to Prof. Garnett's is surprising, to say the least, given your prior characterization of her decision (here) not to share the stage with President Obama as demonstrating a false sense of "moral responsibility," as showing all the sincerity of "a sincere Republican" whose affiliation with the Bush administration meant that she endorsed the intrinsic evil of torture such that "it is rich to hear her lecturing about moral outrage."  Of course, you can cite to no source which shows that Prof. Glendon endorses or has endorsed torture for the simple reason that she has never advocated that position.  What you could do is point to many sources in which President Obama has endorsed the intrinsic evil of abortion, as a matter of both personal and political morality.

 

Further, Prof. Glendon is not the Republican stooge you suggest, indeed, I don't believe that Prof. Glendon is a Republican at all.  She was invited to serve in a Republican administration, but, let's face it, no such invitation was forthcoming from the Clinton administration nor will any be forthcoming from the Obama administration for the simple reason that the views she holds and so eloquently defends – and indeed, the kind of feminism she embodies – are anathema to those who hold power in the Democratic Party.  (I say this as a disaffected Democrat, disaffected precisely because of the Party's doctrinaire approach to the "choice" issue).  Prof. Glendon's decision to decline the Laetare Medal had nothing to do with some supposed sense of moral purity that would be offended if she were to share the stage with the President.  As I think her letter to Father Jenkins made clear, her decision was based on a desire not to be manipulated – not to serve as political cover for the serious miscalculations in judgment for which Jenkins and the University are responsible.

 

The absence of manipulation and a forthright engagement with the arguments put forth by those who respect the President but oppose the University's decision to honor him are necessary if the Catholic community is to enjoy the benefits of genuine dialogue on this matter.