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.
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?
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.
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 isnot, 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?
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?
Women say
pope's words undercut by discrimination they see inside
church
By John L.
Allen Jr. Pope Benedict XVI delivered a strong plea for women's rights
during the next-to-last day of his first trip to Africa, insisting that
discrimination against women "forms no part of God's plan." Several African
women, however, said the pope's message is undercut by what they see as a
pattern of discrimination inside the church itself.
As Michael guessed, I was sorry to hear that ND is going to go along with the President's effort to distract Catholics and others from his abortion, embryo-destruction, and school choice errors with (what I am sure will be) an irenic, entertaining, God- soaked commencement speech. As I always tell those Catholics who insist that ND has "sold out", ND is one of the few institutions that actually matters, for the Church and the world. Which is why its inability, or unwillingness, to decline to cooperate with the President's propaganda effort is so disappointing. It strikes me as reflecting not institutional maturity, or an entirely appropriate desire to engage the world, but a defensive lack of confidence.
But, there is good news. It is announced that this year's Laetare Medal recipient is Mary Ann Glendon.
I was waiting for Rick to comment on this story but I guess I'll jump in. As an alumnus of Notre Dame, I don't think I can adequately express my opposition to Notre Dame's decision to honor President Obama. The decisions to award honorary degrees and to invite commencement speakers are important statements that define an institution. Given President Obama's actions in his first few months in office with regard to the life issues, it is hard to imagine a Catholic university honoring him in this way. The decision creates confusion about Church teaching. If it is acceptable for Notre Dame (the leading Catholic university in the country) to honor someone who has taken the actions President Obama has taken on the life issues, then lots of people will be confused about what the Church teaches on the life issues. Even if they are not confused, they will (wrongly) think that the Church teaching on abortion (and other life issues) must not be terribly important.
It is to be hoped that the University will rescind these decisions, although I am not terribly optimistic that that will happen.
[I assume my friend Rick Garnett signed off on this.]
Chronicle of Higher Education (Online)
March 20, 2009
Obama to Speak at 3 College Commencements
Washington — President Obama will speak at three college commencements
this spring, the White House announced today, according to the Associated Press.
Mr. Obama will deliver commencement addresses at Arizona State University on May
13, the University of Notre Dame on May 17, and the U.S. Naval Academy on May
22. It’s customary for the president to speak to graduating seniors at one of
the four service academies each year. —Andrew Mytelka
President Obama has apologized for his quip on “The Tonight Show” on NBC Thursday comparing his modest bowling skills to those of athletes who have disabilities.
Chatting with Jay Leno, the president said he had been practicing at
the White House bowling alley and rolled a 129. “It was like the
Special Olympics or something,” Mr. Obama said, perhaps also recalling
his inept attempt at bowling in Altoona, Pa., during the presidential
campaign.
The president called the chairman of the Special Olympics, Tim
Shriver, from Air Force One on his way back to Washington. “He
apologized in a way I think was very moving,” Mr. Shriver said on ABC’s “Good Morning America” on Friday. Mr. Shriver said the president sounded “very sincere” in voicing his desire not to add to anyone’s pain.
“Words hurt, words do matter,” added Mr. Shriver, son of the Special
Olympics’ founder, Eunice Kennedy Shriver, a sister of President John
F. Kennedy, and R. Sargent Shriver, the first director of the Peace
Corps.
The White House clearly recognized the presidential slip at once,
since Mr. Obama called Mr. Shriver even before the taped interview was
broadcast. “The President made an offhand remark making fun of his own
bowling that was in no way intended to disparage the Special Olympics,”
the deputy press secretary, Bill Burton, told reporters on Air Force
One. “He thinks that the Special Olympics are a wonderful program that
gives an opportunity to shine to people with disabilities from around
the world.”
