Civility in Substance, and in Name

Elizabeth Kirk (here) takes issue with Notre Dame’s decision to award to its Laetare Medal to Joe Biden and John Boehner, and with Michael Sean Winter’s defense of the same (here).

As Kirk notes, Notre Dame’s president, Rev. John Jenkins, C.S.C., has in the past bemoaned the loss of civility in public discourse and the unwillingness of many Americans to actually engage one another in argument.  For this kind of dialogue to take place, civility is an indispensable pre-condition.

In a press release announcing the award, Father Jenkins noted the "toxic political environment" in which we live "where poisonous invective and partisan gamesmanship pass for political leadership."  In honoring these men, he said that Notre Dame was “not endorsing the policy positions of either [Biden or Boehner], but celebrating two lives dedicated to keeping our democratic institutions working for the common good through dialogue focused on the issues and responsible compromise.”

Kirk rightly questions what kind of contribution to civil dialogue Joe Biden has actually made given the fact that he led the vociferous charge against the nominations of Robert Bork and Clarence Thomas – a move (one might add) that in part accounts for the highly partisan nature of the current fight over Justice Scalia’s now vacant seat.

More importantly, she points out how the decision to award the medal to Biden violates the USCCB’s statement Catholics in Political Life in which the bishops specifically teach that “[t]he 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.”

The problem in awarding the Laetare Medal to Joe Biden is that since the mid-1980s Biden has been a consistent champion of the abortion license created by the Court in Roe v. Wade.  He has also been a proponent of same-sex marriage and stem cell research destructive of human embryos, while his support for freedom of religion (as opposed to a miserly freedom of worship) has been dubious at best.

For these reasons, Kevin Rhodes, bishop of the Diocese of Fort Wayne-South Bend, has openly criticized Notre Dame for its decision to honor Biden (here).  It remains to be seen whether Donald Cardinal Wuerl, Archbishop of Washington, D.C., the University’s commencement speaker, will attend the festivities.

As Kirk notes, Winters (quite predictably) tries to discredit both the bishops’ statement and anyone who would criticize Notre Dame’s decision to bestow the medal on Biden by engaging in the very kind of incivility that Jenkins bemoans.

It is perhaps an unwanted conclusion for some (but nevertheless a fact) that there are certain positions on certain issues – such as support for the abortion license – that are simply outside the Catholic pale. While universities (secular and religious) and other public fora should foster genuine engagement on these matters, a Catholic university like Notre Dame should avoid honoring those who seek to advance positions that are inimical to its identity.  Notre Dame’s attempt to honor one Catholic politician who supports the legal murder of unborn human life and one Catholic politician who opposes the same under the gloss of support for “civility” cannot help but convey the idea that, for Catholics, the issue isn’t really all that important, and even if it were, supporting abortion is perfectly acceptable so long as one does it with the proper sense of demeanor.

What Winters says is true: "[T]here is more to know about a candidate or government official than their position on abortion."  But when a Catholic university knows that he or she supports the legal killing of unborn human beings, it knows enough not to publicly honor that person, even if one might privately admire that individual for other reasons.

Kirk’s whole article is worth reading, but especially her conclusion:

Civility unhinged from its connection with preserving an order (a “civilization”) that allows other higher goods to flourish devolves into a self-righteous tool of political correctness wielded to eliminate disagreement.  We should argue with our opponents because to do so pays them the honor of thinking that they have an argument to engage and because it assumes that there is a truth that we both desire to seek.  Not addressing the real arguments of one's opponents is a hallmark of the lack of civility. To reduce civil public discourse to a thin façade of sentimental politeness suggests that disagreement itself—no matter how civilly presented—is ill-mannered, unfriendly, and unreasonable.  A claim for civility in this sense is merely a bludgeon – albeit sometimes an elegant one – to silence one’s opponents.