Search News


Browse Archives

News

The Battle to Control Catholic Commencements

April 28, 2009

Share This Story

FREE Daily News Alerts

Advertisement

What might have been a coup at many colleges was, at the University of Notre Dame, cause for scandal: “It has come to our attention that the University of Notre Dame will honor President Barack Obama as its commencement speaker on May 17," begins an online petition circulated by the Cardinal Newman Society, which, as of Monday afternoon, counted more than 336,000 signatures. “It is an outrage and a scandal that ‘Our Lady’s University,’ one of the premier Catholic universities in the United States, would bestow such an honor on President Obama given his clear support for policies and laws that directly contradict fundamental Catholic teachings on life and marriage.”

The announcement on Obama was made more than a month ago but the controversy continues unabated. On Monday, Mary Ann Glendon, a Harvard University law professor and former U.S. ambassador to the Vatican, who was to receive a medal during Notre Dame's commencement ceremony, declined the honor. In an explanation, she writes that she took issue with the idea that "my acceptance speech would somehow balance the event. ... A commencement, however, is supposed to be a joyous day for the graduates and their families. It is not the right place, nor is a brief acceptance speech the right vehicle, for engagement with the very serious problems raised by Notre Dame's decision -- in disregard of the settled position of the U.S. bishops -- to honor a prominent and uncompromising opponent of the Church's position on issues involving fundamental principles of justice." (Newsweek has published the full letter.)

Notre Dame, which will grant an honorary doctor of laws degree to Obama, has a tradition of hosting U.S. presidents as commencement speakers -- six total, including both Bush presidents. "The invitation to President Obama to be our Commencement speaker should not be taken as condoning or endorsing his positions on specific issues regarding the protection of human life, including abortion and embryonic stem cell research," Notre Dame's president, the Rev. John I. Jenkins, says in a statement.

Nonetheless, the selection has been taken as such. This controversy that won't quit has been fueled in part by pressure from outside groups like the Cardinal Newman Society, which serves as a self-appointed watchdog of sorts when it comes to colleges’ Roman Catholic identities. But it's also been fueled by a steady stream of statements of opposition from U.S. bishops -- who, under the 1990 Vatican document Ex Corde Eccelesiae, "should be seen not as external agents but as participants in the life of the Catholic University." The Cardinal Newman Society counts more than 40 bishops who have stated opposition.

In a letter to Notre Dame’s president, for instance, the Most Rev. Daniel M. Buechlein, Archbishop of Indianapolis writes: “There isn’t a single reason that would justify Catholic sponsorship of the president of our country, who is blatantly opposed to the Catholic Church’s doctrine on abortion and embryonic stem-cell research. You dishonor the reputation of the University of Notre Dame and, in effect, abdicate your prestigious reputation among Catholic universities everywhere.”

“Your actions and that of the Board of Trustees of Notre Dame do real harm to the mission of Catholic education in this country and further splinters [sic] Catholic witness in the public square,” the Most Rev. Samuel J. Aquila, the Bishop of Fargo, writes.

Meanwhile, the bishop for the diocese that includes Notre Dame, the Most Rev. John M. D’Arcy, has said he will skip the ceremony. On Tuesday, he issued a public statement challenging Notre Dame’s interpretation of a 2004 United States Conference of Catholic Bishops statement that stands at the heart of this controversy. A bullet point in “Catholics in Political Life” reads: “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.”

Notre Dame’s president, Father Jenkins, argued in a letter to his board that the statement did not apply to this matter because the document was understood to refer only to Catholics in political life; Obama is not Catholic. The South Bend Tribune quoted Father Jenkins' letter as saying: "This interpretation was supported by canon lawyers we consulted, who advised us that, by definition, only Catholics who implicitly recognize the authority of Church teaching can act in 'defiance' of it."

Bishop D’Arcy responded that the meaning of the document is clear, that it does in fact apply, and furthermore suggested that he should have been consulted on the question -- as he was not. "The failure to consult the local bishop who, whatever his unworthiness, is the teacher and lawgiver in the diocese, is a serious mistake," he writes. "Proper consultation could have prevented an action, which has caused such painful division between Notre Dame and many bishops — and a large number of the faithful."

New Orleans Archbishop Alfred Clifton Hughes cited that same 2004 document Thursday in a letter indicating he would not attend Xavier University of Louisiana's commencement ceremony for its choice of speaker, the Democratic strategist Donna Brazile. "I recognize that Ms. Brazile is a Catholic Louisiana native who has worked effectively in service to the poor and African Americans in particular. However, her public statements on the abortion issue are not in keeping with Catholic moral teaching," he writes.

In one other related mini-controversy, the Washington Post on Friday reported a flap at Georgetown University. Washington D.C.'s archbishop, the Most Rev. Donald W. Wuerl, expressed concern over Georgetown serving as host for an award ceremony honoring Vice President Joe Biden, a Catholic (in this case, the Post notes, a nonprofit organization, Legal Momentum, bestowed the honor, not the university itself).

A lack of clarity about the implications of that 2004 document -- and specifically that one bullet point about awards, honors and platforms -- continues to plague Catholic college presidents, says Richard A. Yanikoski, president of the Association of Catholic Colleges and Universities. “You have individuals who take that one bullet outside of the context of its original document, which was titled "Catholics in Political Life," and assume that it applies equally to everyone, everywhere, if they somehow are defiant of Catholic moral teaching. Well, there are a couple of difficulties with that and I don’t assume the difficulty is bad faith on the part of anybody who makes that or some other interpretation. It simply was a poorly written document to begin with" -- released in the context of the 2004 political season, when a pro-choice Catholic Democrat, John Kerry, was running for president.

Yanikoski adds, too, that there has not been consistency in how the document is applied. “There have been other presidents who have spoken at the University of Notre Dame and at other Catholic universities who have been equally opposed to other moral teachings of the Catholic church [aside from issues surrounding abortion] and yet were never criticized by the bishops in terms of them speaking at the commencement." (To take just one example, George W. Bush was a staunch supporter of the death penalty; he spoke about the role of faith-based organizations in fighting poverty at Notre Dame's commencement in 2001.)

“I am not surprised that some bishops have taken a strong and even public stand as they have,” Yanikoski says. "I’m not surprised that far more bishops have used the discretion to remain silent on this point. The matter will not go away in the weeks or years to come. This is a very high-profile case and we probably won’t see another like it for some time but the issue is still there and it’s there largely for three reasons: 1) the language from the 2004 document is still unsatisfactory; it does not provide adequate guidance to bishops or presidents. 2) Organizations, particularly the Cardinal Newman Society, in effect make their living on these moments. This is how they raise money and gain support. ...The third reason is that there is an inherent tension between the teaching authority of the bishop and the universities’ larger exploration of points of view for educational purposes.”

“Where does academic freedom of the campus bump up against church authority?” Yanikoski asks. “What constitutes an honor versus an award versus a platform? Those were the three words in the 2004 document. Are we talking about only Catholics or all people? Are we talking only about politicians or all people? None of those things were clear in the 2004 document. I have to believe that we’re not going to just continue to let this thing sit in a difficult place without some further effort to bring clarity to it as it applies to Catholic colleges and universities.”

Meanwhile, the controversy at Notre Dame boils on. “It’s the outside groups, I think, that are feeding the fire,” says Spencer Howard, a senior and co-president of the College Democrats. On Thursday, the College Democrats and 23 other student groups delivered a letter to President Jenkins supporting the decision to host Obama.

“I think they’re trying to use a school with the name and reputation of Notre Dame has to make a political statement. I think it’s frustrating a lot of the seniors here because they just want to spend graduation day with their friends and family,” Howard says.

“I have plenty of friends who on at least that issue [abortion] don’t agree but at the end of the day they say, it’s the president. ...How many people get the president to come to their school for anything?”

“Personally for me, I hear a lot of division on this and a lot of unhappiness or uneasiness that the university administration chose someone so controversial for an event that’s supposed to be unifying,” says Edward Yap, a junior and spokesman for ND Response, a coalition of 11 student groups that organized to protest the choice of Obama. “We want to reaffirm the Catholic church’s position on this issue and really show average citizens and Catholics around the country and the world that while the preeminent Catholic university in the land might be straying, Catholics at the university are not.”

Yap adds: "We appreciate the attention that other groups are bringing to this issue but I know from my perspective and the perspectives of other students, this really is an internal matter.”

See all postings »
Advertisement
Advertisement

Matching Jobs

Comments on The Battle to Control Catholic Commencements

  • The key word is "should"
  • Posted by Dat Nguyen on April 28, 2009 at 5:00am EDT
  • I am neither Catholic nor a supporter of the Democratic run government.

    However, in the statement, "“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." you highlighted 'not honor' to draw emphasis those words, but the keyword to that statement is 'should'.

    If you look up the definition of the word should, past tense of shall, you will find that the word does not mean compliance; and leaves the meaning to interpretations. If you are really serious about this then change the wordings to "will not honor" and "will not given", then there will be no questions.

     

    v/r

    DTN

  • Notre Dame Commencement
  • Posted by D Thomas on April 28, 2009 at 5:00am EDT
  • It is extremely unfortunate, however, NOT surprising that Catholic bishops would be so upset regarding Notre Dame's invitation to President Obama.

    What these men are unwilling to understand is that the Lord gave us free will and the intelligence to form our own opinions and beliefs. He did not want us to follow Him blindly, He wanted us to choose Him on our own. These men obviously believe ALL people, not just members of the Catholic Church, should bow down to their interpretations of His word, They must think more highly of themselves than they think of our Lord. Sad, very sad.

    Congratulations to Notre Dame University for continuing the tradition of honoring United States Presidents, for NOT giving in to the demands of a few tortured souls who cannot see past their own self-importance.

  • Withdraw all support
  • Posted by Ricky Bennett , None at Bellevue University on April 28, 2009 at 6:00am EDT
  • A Catholic institution that is unwilling to strictly follow Catholic doctrine should no longer be allowed to be called a Catholic institution. Any support that the Catholic church provides should be withdrawn. Let's not try to be politically correct. Let there be consequences to their actions.

  • The Bishops and Notre Dame
  • Posted by Seamus Fitzsimmons at University of San Francisco on April 28, 2009 at 7:00am EDT
  • To what extent the government should regulate or be involved in abortion decisions speaks to a political judgement rather then a moral one. At great risk to our pluralistic democracy certain bishops have seen fit to impose thier political judgements on American Catholics. It doesn't stop there. In a misapplication of Roman jurisprudence upon Anglo-Saxon, in the California marriage debates, the Roman Catholic hierarchy has imposed it doctrine onto the constitution, without due regard for the those of different beliefs. I hope the president can speak to a view of tolerance in much the same way President Kennedy Address to the Greater Houston Ministerial Association during in his election campaign, which he stated, "I believe in an America ...where no religious body seeks to impose its will directly or indirectly upon the general populace or the public acts of its officials, and where religious liberty is so indivisible that an act against one church is treated as an act against all.

  • forced to be Catholic?
  • Posted by PiledHigher&Deeper , PhD on April 28, 2009 at 7:45am EDT
  • What I find interesting in Seamus Fitzsimmons's comment is his presupposition that abortion is a "political" issue and not a "moral" one. What political position--be it universal suffrage, emancipation of slaves and serfs, gun control, etc.--is not grounded in some "higher" MORAL principle? On this issue (i.e., abortion), many are trying to make politics a kind of closed, self-governing system, unfettered from and irresponsible to any higher (moral or ethical) authoriy. Since when did American politics attempt to operate so groundlessly? Even a deist like Jefferson knew that our politic doctrines hold water only in as much as they are derived from some higher authority ("the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God"). If there is no outside authority, there is no derivation.

    But perhaps more to the point...no body is forcing anyone or any instituion to identify as a Roman Catholic. The Inquisition is over. So if (non-Catholic) folks don't like the positions of the Catholic church, so be it, but telling them to change their position is like a Soviet apologist trying to convince a dyed-in-the-wool capitalist to give his property up to the state. One cannot be persuaded unless one changes camps, and no party--as far as I can tell--is being forced against its will to identify itself as Catholic here. And no Catholic need give in to the proselytizing non-Catholic's browbeating and sermonizing.

  • A Giant Step Backwards
  • Posted by Diogenes on April 28, 2009 at 8:15am EDT
  • I am old enough to remember the rousing anti-Catholic sentiment expressed by the much tamer Republican noise machine when John Kennedy campaigned for President. "Catholics are a 5th column in America, disloyal to democracy, ever ready to impose their medieval religion on a free nation!" and "Kennedy cannot be trusted as a Catholic to rule an independent and free America. He will impose his Papal oppression on our nation and force us to bow to Rome!" And American Catholics, my mother among them, rallied to prove these criticisms and accusations dead wrong.

    Now will these old fears arise again? Are American right wing Catholics loyal to the Pope and his laws and disloyal to our elected President? Do they intend to impose the Pope's will over will of the American people? Is President Obama president over only part of the United States and not President of the United States territory owned by the Catholic Church? This partisan disrespect is again led by the right wing religious machine that is silent on torture, the sexual abuse of thousands of young children by its own priests, and a war founded on lies in Iraq that killed hundreds of thousands of civilians and displaced millions more, but shout out loud when it politically suits them. Now it sems that right wing Catholics are doing everything in their power to prove these old accusations right!

    Where was your voice when Bush spoke at your campus: a man condemned by the Pope for going to war in Iraq? A war based on lies, justfied by torture, and costing hundreds of thousands of lives? Hypocrites! You seem to have forgotten the words of Christ himself, "Judge not, that you not be judged!" When your religion condemns and insults the elected President of our country, your open yourself to the scrutiny of every failure of your own faith! And you revive one of America's oldest religious fears. Do the right thing. Apologize to President Obama. Stop the hate. Prove yourselves to America again.

  • Torture good, stem cell research bad
  • Posted by mythbuster on April 28, 2009 at 8:45am EDT
  • Can someone please explain that to me?

  • Attack on the Academy
  • Posted by Ollie on April 28, 2009 at 8:45am EDT
  • One cannot help but be concerned about individuals who cannot, for religious or political reasons accept the Academy as a place for the exchange of ideas free from suppression, religious, political, or otherwise. It is a lasting blight on the faith, religious or otherwise, that is fully blind to ideas other than its own.

    The beauty of the truth is its ability to survive in the competition of the marketplace of ideas!

  • Catholics should be counter-cultural
  • Posted by PiledHigher&Deeper , PhD on April 28, 2009 at 9:00am EDT
  • Diogenes makes a good point: the Catholics should have been more outspoken against the inhumanities committed during the last presidency. But there is a not-so-subtle difference between the two--that is, the war in Iraq and abortion. The Catholic church has never supported abortion. Wars can be justified (the Vatican happens to believe that this one--or at least the way this one has unfolded--is not). There can be no justification for the killing of innocents. Yes, innocents can (and almost always are) killed during wars; there is no denying that tragedy. But those deaths, unless war crimes are committed (or unless the enemy uses civilians as "armor"), are unintentional. If they are deliberate, the soldiers and those giving orders should be held accountable. But notice how quickly the moral begins to creep back into the political. And we are right back to the question at hand, Obama's support and advancement of abortion (the deliberate taking of life).

    Yes, the Catholics at Notre Dame should have done more when Bush was there, but these distinctions are important and must be made accurately.

  • Dusty and ...
  • Posted by Buddy on April 28, 2009 at 9:00am EDT
  • Let's stop blaming the Catholics for following the tenents of their faith and acting like ...Catholics.

    Perhaps, it is the folks who are in denial about the nature of a "religious university" who constantly need the wake up call.

    No, the religious college is NOT the same as the public college!!!

    Let us stop pretending that concepts like "Tolerence" and "Academic Freedom" are the same at both types of institutions. They are not!

    The elephant is always in the room at a religious school. The fact that the pachyderm may not have woken up, stretched and rolled over in some time, is not a reason to behave as though it will not.

  • Learn some history Diogenes
  • Posted by skeptic on April 28, 2009 at 9:00am EDT
  • Bush appeared at Notre Dame on May 20, 2001.

    Military campaign in Iraq began March 20, 2003.

    So unless the Pope has a magic time machine and made his comments about the Iraq war before 9/11, come up with another canard.

  • Reasonable
  • Posted by Colin on April 28, 2009 at 9:30am EDT
  • To me it seems that President Jenkins argument is perfectly reasonable. How can the 2004 document apply to non-Catholics, when such people by their very self-designation as non-Catholics are "in defiance of Church teachings"? President Obama has consistently gone out of his way to be respectful to those of differing opinions and beliefs than himself. Cannot the Church extend him the same courtesy, and simply agree to disagree? After all, it seems there was no problem with George W. Bush (another non-Catholic) speaking at Notre Dame's commencement, despite his unapologetic views on torture and the death penalty.

  • Catholic hypocrisy?
  • Posted by Catholic American on April 28, 2009 at 9:45am EDT
  • Another quick history lesson for PiledHigh and Diogenes--and recent history at that! It is beyond belief that you can even make the argument that Catholics were not as outraged by the sins of the Bush Administration as they are of Obama's pro-life views since the Catholic vote went for Obama in 2008. You are confusing the actions of conservative Catholic organizations with the response of the rank-and-file to many of President Bush's policies, especially in the areas of foreign policy and prisoner interrogation. And please, Diogenes, do not stoop as low as to insist that Catholics prove their loyalty to America. That is about as inane as Republicans calling anti-war demonstrators "America haters."

  • No Need for a Time Machine
  • Posted by Bear on April 28, 2009 at 9:45am EDT
  • The proper analogy is not President Bush's war but his stand on the death penalty. When he spoke at Notre Dame, he already had a record of strong support for the death penalty. Isn't the death penalty deliberate killing and isn't it condemned by the Catholic Church as strongly as abortion? Therein lies the hypocrisy of the bishops and the Cardinal Neumann Society - they did not criticize Notre Dame for inviting a death penalty supporter to campus but are feeding the controversy over the invitation to President Obama. My understanding is that a life is a life be it that of an innocent or not. Or did I miss something in Jesus' teachings?

  • This is a private issue among Catholics.
  • Posted by Christine on April 28, 2009 at 9:45am EDT
  • Notre Dame, Xavier, and Georgetown are PRIVATE, Catholic institutions. They have a right, and some would argue a responsibility, to uphold Church teachings, and indeed, to promulgate them to the faithful. Their stakeholders expect it, as is evidenced by the withholding of donations and the call for the removal of Notre Dame's president. No one is forcing Catholic teaching on the rest of the country. This is a private issue among Catholics. The bishops should take a stand to reinforce teachings and so-called ambiguities. That is their role. There are no ambiguities on this doctrine regardless of what Joe Biden, Nancy Pelosi, and anyone else who wants to parse the meaning of words may try to state.
    If you don't agree with Catholic doctrine, don't attend a Catholic university. This would apply to any religious-affiliated institution. We still have freedom of religion in this country (at least for now). The President should be respected, but Catholic univerisities should stand on their teachings and values, not cover up the Jesuit symbol for Jesus as Georgetown did when the President visited (at the administration's request).
    We are allowed to have differing beliefs in this country, and should respect them amongst each other. THAT is the meaning of academic freedom and the development of critical thinking skills; not moving everyone to think in one way.

  • Ridiculous!
  • Posted on April 28, 2009 at 9:45am EDT
  • Does anyone else find irony in these religous authorities taking issue with Obama over choice when both Bush presidents spoke at Notre Dame commencements while waging wars on foreign countries, killing innocent citizens and torturing captives? Is there not a verse about let those without sin cast the first stone?

  • No politics here.
  • Posted by Shifting Winds on April 28, 2009 at 10:15am EDT
  • Is everyone equally outraged about this story under "Quick Takes"?
    Providence College has denied student groups permission to have Tom Tancredo, a former member of Congress who is an outspoken proponent of tough enforcement of immigration laws, speak on campus, .........The spokeswoman also said that Tancredo's views conflicted with those of the Roman Catholic Church, with which the college is affiliated.
    There was no proposal to honor the guy and yet the school refuses to even let him speak! I guess the church has made its views clear --- Obama good, Tancredo bad.

  • Cause for Celebration
  • Posted by jeffrey ladd , member bd. of regents at loras college on April 28, 2009 at 11:30am EDT
  • The fact that President Jenkins and the canon scholars he contacted to support his interpretation of the encyclical, Ex Corde Ecclesiae, have resorted to the same stype of parsing we have come to associate with Bill Clinton is at least an indication that the leadership of Notre Dame wants to remain a Catholic university. Maybe there is some hope for it. Nevertheless. it is hard to believe that anyone asociated with canon law could conclude that Notre Dame's decision was consistent with the intent of the encyclical and do so with a straight face.

  • Oops ... Did I Get The Wrong Article?
  • Posted by Frizbane Manley on April 28, 2009 at 11:45am EDT
  • Write an article about something the Modern Language Association did ... or all of those funny pontifications by the Assessment and Accountability gurus ... or the Critical Thinking gurus ... or something about student loans ... or the SAT ... or, U.S. News and World Report’s collegiate rankings ... or maybe Notre Dame’s commencement speaker ... or, God forbid, Ward Churchill or some other professor who was once well-regarded (i.e., moved up through the academic ranks with nary a second glance) but came into conflict with an intellectually- and managerially-challenged administrator ... and interested InsideHigherEd readers will come out of the woodwork in order to participate. But mention science and the clicks of keyboards sending readers on to the next article or essay are deafening.

    So I’ll try to add a little interest to this short article by politicizing it.

    Every time something related to science crosses my mind – and that’s fairly often – I thank God – more specifically, I thank Hermes – that Barack Obama is our president, not one of those Republican idiots (Sam Brownback, Mike Huckabee, and Tom Tancredo) who raised his hand when asked “I’m curious, is there anyone on the stage who does not believe in evolution?” I’m even pleased the ever-resilient, John McCain -- a believer (in evolution) who apparently felt compelled to condition his belief in science by adding, “I also believe when I hike the Grand Canyon and see a sunset, that the hand of God is there also” – isn’t working in the Oval Office this morning. Whew!

    I must admit that I cringe every time I recall Huckabee’s response in the third Republican debate, “It is interesting that that question [about evolution] would even be asked of someone running for president. I’m not trying to write the curriculum for an eighth grade science book.” I often imagine being the principal of a middle school and asking science teacher Obama to write a detailed syllabus for our eighth grade science course for next fall. I’m virtually certain it would be on my desk the following Monday morning, and I’m confident that, after a glance, I would be good-to-go with it.

    I’m thrilled that President Obama is as concerned as he is with science research ... and I can hardly wait to see how his administration influences K-12 and collegiate mathematics and science education. In that respect, I have only one accountability and assessment objective. As it is today (from PEW Research and Gallop Polling) ...

    61% of American adults (approximately 150 million of us and including Mike Huckabee) either do not believe in evolution or are not sure about it.

    44% of American adults (approximately 108 million of us and including Sarah Palin) believe the earth is approximately 6,000 years old.

    52% of American adults (approximately 128 million of us and including Sarah Palin) believe early man and dinosaurs coexisted on the Earth.

    31 % of American adults (approximately 76 million of us) believe there is a scientific basis for astrology.

    65% of American adults (approximately 160 million of us and including Mike Huckabee and Sarah Palin) believe creationism should be taught alongside evolution in the public schools.

    I hope it will be a measurable objective of the Obama administration to halve those percentages within the next eight years. I know, I know, I really should be bent out of shape about Notre Dame inviting the President to speak – and awarding him an honorary degree on top of that – but you must understand it was very difficult for me to read that “other article” and the comments and keep a straight face. I mean the Catholic Church ... cut me some slack.

    Truth be known, the only reason I ever pay attention to the pronouncements of Cardinal Newman Society is that they invariably add a little humor to my day and provide fuel for an occasional e-mail message to a few of my friends. It’s those numbers above that have me bent out of shape.

  • Posted by Curious Catholic on April 28, 2009 at 12:00pm EDT
  • I was raised a very devout Catholic but my Mother, a wise woman beyond her years, taught me to place my faith in God NOT the man (priest). Here is where I question the protest against a historical president who by his personal actions, i.e. working in his community or through evidence of his family values, exemplify good Christian values. Having toured the campus recently and in speaking with many students who are upset with the treatment of President Obama and more importantly hearing their own pro-choice stance, I can't help but wonder why the Bishop has such a difficult time having Obama "visit" the University when the University clearly enrolls students who are pro-choice and more importantly, grant them a degree!! But then they pay tuition. In the end is it about the money? Perhaps - as the University is clearly not compassionate about assisting undocumented students as other universities do, even Catholic ones, in following church doctrine to help those in need. Hmmmmm - interesting.

  • it's a uh, Catholic university actually
  • Posted by elizabeth on April 28, 2009 at 12:00pm EDT
  • For goodness sake, don't comment unless you understand the issue at hand! The ignorance that abounds here is just astounding. I suppose I shouldn't be surprised given the anti-Catholic sentiment that pervades academia INCLUDING at ND.

    NO ONE is opposed to discussion in general ... this has nothing to do with discussion. THE HONOR that we are opposed to bestowing on our President is that of an honorary law degree "given his clear support for policies and laws that directly contradict fundamental Catholic teachings on life and marriage." 

    Yes, the horror of an American Catholic University acting like a Catholic institution!  

  • Invitation to the President
  • Posted by Peter Hutton , Head of School at Beaver Country Day School on April 28, 2009 at 12:00pm EDT
  • When Notre Dame invited President Bush to speak were they implying that the president and the church were in agreement over the death penalty? The university was right in honoroing President and they are right to honor President Obama.

  • Educated Stupidity
  • Posted by narrowminded , Psychology at Western Kentucky University on April 28, 2009 at 1:45pm EDT
  • I agree completely with Christine.  I am not Catholic but I consider myself to be a religious person.  What this issue is really about is the hatred many people in this country have for organized religion.  Tolerance is promoted, but only when it is something these anti-Christians agree with.  It really does no good to argue with these so called  "open-minded" people.  Their mind is so open that anything they don't agree with just passes on through.

  • Posted by mjq on April 28, 2009 at 1:45pm EDT
  • It is a Catholic college. Why not behave like Catholics? They don't even approve of birth control. The Pope went to Africa and spoke against condoms. Who reads newspapers? Don't you know this? He is the head of the Church! He is ENTITLED to do this. If a person does not agree, he or she is free to disagree and belong to some other church whose tenets that person agrees with.

    But the Catholics are not obligated to pretend to offer equal opportunity for all beliefs--only a fair representation of theirs.

    Also, at Notre Dame, they like to win, so, I guess they invite "winners" to speak. Thus, whoever wins the presidential elections is at the top of the list. It seems inconsistent to me. If I were a Catholic Notre Dame graduate this year, I would be disappointed, but getting the Prez is a winning attraction, I suppose, even if he does agree with lots of non-Catholic ideas including late term abortions.

  • Posted by mdiehl on April 28, 2009 at 1:45pm EDT
  • " . . . an American Catholic University acting like a Catholic institution!" That would also include instructing its students on the rest of Catholic teaching, including social teaching and respect for human life, and policies that support the sustenance of human life? A living wage? Clean air and water for all? Emotionally and financially supporting an unwed pregnant woman?

  • Catholic Universities and Honorary Degrees
  • Posted by Zelma , None at None on April 28, 2009 at 1:45pm EDT
  • As a retired professor who taught at a Catholic university for over three decades, I am dismayed at the new political atmosphere that is being imposed on such institutions by forces outside academia.  In all my years, I never felt any pressure to modify my teaching to follow Catholic dogma, even though I was not a Catholic and taught potentially controversial material.  I always insisted that one enjoyed more academic freedom at a Catholic university than at a public university.  Sadly, I do not believe that this is still the case.

  • Posted by curious catholic on April 28, 2009 at 1:45pm EDT
  • Wow Elizabeth - don't comment?? How Catholic or Christian is that? Moreover how American is that - don't we have free speech somewhere in the Constitution? So to understand your message, because obviously YOU are RIGHT - it is alright to speak if you are opposed to honoring the President but you are not allowed to speak if you want to honor a man who has worked for people in their most difficult times, who loves his family and wants to bring people together to create change for ALL of us? Hmmmmm

  • Sold Out
  • Posted by Warbucks on April 28, 2009 at 2:00pm EDT
  • In response to "Curious Cathoic" - many Catholic Universities have long since forgotten their founding roots to educate Catholic students. Big universities (and those with "big" goals) sold out years ago.

    Universities have become big business and YES, often times decisions are made because of MONEY. You can pay, you can stay mentality.

    Roughly forty five percent of accepted students are "favors" and the remaining remnants of accepted applicants are deemed worthy due to puffed up SAT scores. Forget character, forget faith, forget trying to do the right thing..it's become a numbers game.

     

    God Help Us!!

  • Sigh ...
  • Posted by Elizabeth on April 28, 2009 at 2:30pm EDT
  • I'm not sure how it is "not Catholic" or "not American" for me to say in frustration that people should refrain from blasting out comments when they don't even fully understand the argument. Holding one's tongue and listening until one has had time to fully understand the issue and then thoughtfully commenting is a very underrated virtue. It is one that I encourage in my university classrooms every day where I instruct and model for students how to listen, to be respectful, and to think critically. Of course, the internet does not encourage this kind of virtuous practice and in fact, encourages just the opposite.

    The furor over honoring the President with an honorary degree is just the tip of the proverbial iceberg of an issue of papal authority within the American Catholic Church that have been simmering for a while now. I don't have time to get into the intricacies of the debate. Suffice to say, faithful Catholics, that is, those who do their best to live the moral teachings of the Church--without picking and choosing which moral teachings they accept and which they do not--are appalled that our most prestigious American Catholic university would award an honorary degree to a President who, perhaps more strongly than any President ever, supports policies and legislation that threaten the smallest humans, yet unborn, who cannot speak for themselves. Treating humans, however small or no matter what stage of development, or cognitive ability, as expendable, is unconscionable. As to other issues of social justice, the Holy Father has quite famously been dubbed the "green Pope" by the mainstream media, for his teachings on right stewardship of the environment. As to supplying help to unwed mothers and their children, that is done through numerous Catholic charities as well as the tireless work of many good Catholics that goes unreported in the mainstream media. However, none of these other tangential issues have any place in a discussion of why Catholics are outraged at the President being given an honorary degree from ND. It's always interesting that when the issue of protecting unborn children comes up, people want to immediately bring up other issues (death penalty, war, etc.) as if to say "AHA! An inconsistency in the moral teachings of the church!! Therefore unborn humans do not deserve the same dignity and respect that the rest of us deserve!" Sounds pretty ridiculous, doesn't it?

  • Let's Internationalize The Discussion
  • Posted by Tim Lacy on April 28, 2009 at 2:30pm EDT
  • The second half of something I wrote elsewhere applies here: http://us-intellectual-history.blogspot.com/2009/04/free-speech-and-academic-freedom-on.html.

    So, with regard to recent history from abroad, what do American bishops and Catholic conservatives say to points 1a, 1b, and 2 in the link? - TL

  • lack of critical thinking
  • Posted by Christine on April 28, 2009 at 2:53pm EDT
  • DIOGENES - the Pope spoke at length and remorsefully on the sex abuse scandals during his visit to the United States. He has not been silent. A very sad time for the Church and its people, but he has not been silent.
    CURIOUS CATHOLIC - elizabeth's quote is "...don't comment unless you understand the issue at hand!" She did not say don't comment at all.
    Many of the comments on this post are off on an Anti-Catholic, political tangent, showing a real lack of knowledge and understanding of the issues. This is not a good discussion of why many American Catholics disagree with the President being given an HONORARY DEGREE from Notre Dame. That is the issue. This is a Catholic Church-bashing session. There would never be snide discussion like this about other religions.
    How disappointing from those who claim to uphold free thought. Free thought apparently means only ONE TYPE of free thought - no room for differences.

  • Posted by Tim Lacy on April 28, 2009 at 4:00pm EDT
  • Dear Christine: Please look at the comment I made just above yours. After you read the embedded points from John Thavis at the CNS blog, please reply on the issue of honors. Why should American politicians be treated any differently by American Catholic universities when prominent non pro-life politicians from abroad are honored in Rome? - TL

  • I Think This Starts With The Blessed Mother Booters
  • Posted by Frizbane Manley on April 28, 2009 at 4:30pm EDT
  • As it happens, the purple bag luncheon on Tuesdays here at the Manley Institute is called Root Cause Day ... and we always focus our attention on determining the root cause – symptoms are verboten -- of the most pressing academic problem of the day. Today we could not identify a single pressing problem facing the academic world, but luckily Professor Dumbledore had his laptop with him and shared with everyone this IHE report of the impending crisis at Notre Dame.

    Dore read the article and comments to us, and, as usual, we had the root cause explanation of all of this blah, blah, blah in no time flat. The root cause of this awful tragedy is that there are too many colleges and universities trying to maximize their importance by “awarding” honorary degrees and too many strange people massaging their egos and celebrating their self-importance by accepting them. In the scheme of things, these awards are unnecessary, unimportant, and meaningless.

    It turns out that no one present at the luncheon today had an honorary degree (several had offers but responded by expressing their regrets), so Dore went to his office, came back a huge box of soccer trophies his kids had “won” over the years without ever actually winning a championship, and, with much fanfare, gave one to each of us. I can tell you the exhilaration at the table could not be cut with The Sword of Pomposity. You should try it.

  • Posted by Catholic academic on April 28, 2009 at 4:30pm EDT
  • When did the Catholic Church become Johnny One Note? It used to be about community and social justice. Now, it seems the Catholic Church only takes on our elected leaders over abortion. Notre Dame should be proud to have the president speak by virtue of his office, and the graduating students should be pleased that they have the priviledge of an historic commencement address.

  • Posted by Christine on April 28, 2009 at 5:00pm EDT
  • Tim,

    Your weblink is very thought-provoking. I would think that Sarkozy's honor would be questionable as well. I wonder how Catholics in Rome responded to it. But remember that European Catholic countries tend to be less conservative in these issues than Americans.
    That being said, as human beings who make up the Church, we (and our leaders) are fallible and should always be striving to forgive and be the people that we are called to become. It is still right - and the right - of concerned American Catholics and Bishops to express their displeasure over Obama's honorary degree from Notre Dame. Two wrongs don't make a right...

  • hmmm...
  • Posted by gold on April 28, 2009 at 5:00pm EDT
  • I've never met an "anti-Catholic" but we sure hear from a lot of Catholics who are anti-everyone else. There are hundreds of schools that would welcome Obama and cherish the experience. He should speak to one of those many deserving audiences.

  • A Force for Good or Ignorance in the World?
  • Posted by Vivienne , Sociology Department at UNC-Chapel Hill on April 28, 2009 at 6:00pm EDT
  • The Catholic Church, when it lives up to Jesus' word, has been one of the greatest forces for good-- education and social justice-- the world has ever seen. When it retreats into ignorance, its power for damage can also be significant. If the Catholic Church and Catholic universities want to be relevant, they need to work to feed, educate and provide health care to the children of the world, as they have in the past.
    Also, many of these bishops are acting very prideful-- not Christlike. If you care so much for children, where were you during the sex scandal? Didn't feel like taking that problem on, eh? Abortion is a easy issue to use to split the Church- but who does that serve in the end?
    The Church is shrinking and sadly will continue to do so, as long as this foolishness continues.

  • oh my ...
  • Posted by Elizabeth on April 28, 2009 at 6:00pm EDT
  • gold said: "I've never met an "anti-Catholic" but we sure hear from a lot of Catholics who are anti-everyone else. There are hundreds of schools that would welcome Obama and cherish the experience. He should speak to one of those many deserving audiences."

    Wow. I just don't even know where to begin. Why would anyone so uninformed about the debate feel compelled to post their two cents worth? I don't engage in much internet debate, so maybe I'm just being naive about the level of discourse that is normative for this type of forum. Who on earth is talking about being "anti-everyone" or "anti-anyone" for that matter? In fact, faithful Catholics are the very ones attempting to protect the dignity of ALL humans from conception to natural death, so how is that being anti anyone?

    Let me repeat this for those who don't choose to understand or for some reason can't seem to comprehend why this is an issue to faithful Catholics regarding one of our most prestigious and treasured universities, Notre Dame (as in "Our Lady" aka the Blessed Virgin, the Mother of God, the Mother of us all): we are appalled that Father Jenkins has been disobedient and apparently chosen prestige and what he thought would be the continuing flow of donor dollars ... having apparently underestimated the revival of the Catholic faithful in this country ... over the authority and moral teachings of the Catholic Church by allowing an honorary degree to be awarded to President Obama, given his support for policies and legislation that not only disrespects, but leads to the death of innocent life.

    And, by the way, the distractions don't work, this is not about war or the death penalty or the environment or poverty or other issues of social justice, we can have another discussion some other time about the Church's teaching on those matters (not to mention the charitable works of faithful Catholics in those areas), this is about the killing of some very vulnerable humans, embryos who, like infants and other vulnerable peoples, cannot survive on their own and need someone to speak for them because they have no voices to speak for themselves. Nor are we "one-note Johnnies" rather, those of us who have been given the grace to endure the persecution that inevitably rains down when you try to protect the unborn, well, we do so. It's not easy, it's not fun or cool in most circles (most certainly not in academia), but there are those of us who believe in the dignity of ALL humans, whether or not those humans can speak for themselves, and we will continue to sound that note as loudly as we can.

  • Posted by Unemployed Academic on April 28, 2009 at 8:15pm EDT
  • Yet again, the retrograde monarchists in the Catholic community come pouring out of their bunkers to give Catholics the world over a bad name. First, the pope and other bishops cannot negate free will or the sensus fidelium. They may pronounce a position as prominent and learned figures in the community, but it is the responsibility of each individual to act in accord with his or her conscience. Neither the conservative bishops nor their unquestioning followers define the whole Church -- much to their evident chagrin. There is room for disagreement with members of the hierarchy on this issue. Second, conservative Catholics ought to stop trying to purify the laws of the nation and concentrate on policies that make abortion as infrequent as possible. Their rabid focus on the legality of abortion actually works to the detriment of this goal. Third, Obama's support for preserving the legality of abortion is not the same as promoting abortions. His policies, while rather conservative, do much more than most conservative politicians' policies (especially, that monster Bush's) to reduce the number of abortions.

  • keep PREACHING it Frizbane Manley!
  • Posted by PiledHigher&Deeper , PhD on April 29, 2009 at 4:15am EDT
  • At least Frizbane was right in identifying John McCain as a "believer" in evolution. (For the record, I too believe in it.) But this conviction that science will save us is just that--a CONVICTION. (And, also for the record, it is a conviction held firmly in the face of overwhelming evidence to the opposite. Think Chernobyl, the Gulf of Mexico Dead Zone, the hole in the ozone, etc., etc.--all arguably the consequence of "scientific" advancements.) But all of this "sound science" is answerable to something, isn't it? I mean, what if we could prove, using "sound" scientific methods, that knocking off old folks in the nursing home would make life more comfortable for the living? Would that be justification for doing so, or would there be further questions? (By the way, I don't see how this is NOT going to be happening soon; the last two generations were told by their parents that their lives were "choices"; soon those same generations will be telling their aged parents the same thing.)

    But, Frizbane Manley, you certainly do write with conviction--the same fundamentalist conviction of, say, a George Whitefield or a Jerry Falwell!

  • what a fictive self might say
  • Posted by Plagiarizer , wandering reader at European on April 29, 2009 at 4:15am EDT
  • From Cormac McCarthy's book _No Country for Old Men_:

    "Here a year or two back me and Loretta went to a conference in Corpus Christi and I got set next to this woman, she was the wife of somebody or other. And she kept talking about the right wing this and the right wing that. I ain’t even sure what she meant by it. The people I know are mostly just common people. Common as dirt, as the sayin goes. I told her that and she looked at me funny. She thought I was sayin somethin bad about em, but of course that’s a high compliment in my part of the world. She kept on, kept on. Finally told me, said: I don’t like the way this country is headed. I want my granddaughter to be able to have an abortion. And I said well mam I don’t think you got any worries about the way the country is headed. The way I see it goin I don’t have much doubt but what she’ll be able to have an abortion. I’m going to say that not only will she be able to have an abortion, she’ll be able to have you put to sleep. Which pretty much ended the conversation."

  • Religious Ponzi schemes
  • Posted by dakotadoc on April 29, 2009 at 2:15pm EDT
  • The saddest thing about this entire issue is how completely out of touch the Catholic church is with their own parishioners. How many Catholics would immediately take their teenage daughters to Planned Parenthood for an unwanted pregnancy (Out of State, of course)? How many Catholics are whole-heartedly in favor of stem cell research?? And for heavens sake, how many Catholic women take oral contraceptives, which have a bi-modal method of action that usually prevents ovulation but sometimes does not, BUT WILL THEN PREVENT THE IMPLANTATION OF A FERTILIZED OVUM???

    The Catholic Church's constitutuency is really quite small, probably half or less the number they believe it is, which makes Them seem like one of the most amazing Ponzi Schemes of all time.

  • Response to PiledHigher&Deeper, PhD
  • Posted by Frizbane Manley on April 30, 2009 at 5:15am EDT
  • What a weird letter you wrote.

    First, I congratulate you for “believing in evolution.” That’s quite a feat inasmuch as it puts you in a class with 99.85% of all American earth and life scientists who believe all empirical evidence supports the validity of Darwin’s theory.

    http://www.religioustolerance.org/ev_proof.htm

    Good for you!

    Second, I have absolutely no idea where you ever got the idea I said or implied “science will save us” ... let alone have a “conviction” that that is the case. It certainly wasn’t in anything I have ever written period, let alone have written in InsideHigherEd. It’s not even something I happen to believe ... even if I could ascertain what you mean by “save us.”.

    Third, your belief that studying and supporting science had anything to do with the Chernobyl disaster, the Gulf of Mexico Dead Zone, or the hole in the ozone layer is weird beyond belief ... and makes me wonder if you have the slightest idea what scientific endeavor is all about. I’m surprised you didn’t mention Hiroshima and Nagasaki.

    Fourth, your analogy about the scientific method, killing old people, and the good life for those who are left behind is waaaaay weird. How do you dream up stuff like that? And what bearing does it have on anything? Maybe your mother forced you to watch too many DuPont commercials when you were a kid ... you know, “Better things for better living ... through chemistry” But that’s just my wild guess for the purpose of trying to make sense out of nonsense.

    P.S. While I am not a scientist, I am really hooked on studying it ... and three of my favorite avocations are reading and studying biology, physics, and astronomy. Think about it ... there’s hardly anything more exciting than learning and knowing, and, for me, learning as much as I can about creation and existence is just a Hell of a lot of fun.

    Oh yes, and while I’m at it, here are three more percentages I hope President Obama’s science education initiatives will halve during the next eight years ...

    20% of American adults (approximately 49 million of us) believe the Sun revolves around the Earth.

    47% of American adults (approximately 116 million of us) do not know how long it takes the Earth to revolve around the Sun.

    80% of American adults (approximately 197 million of us) believe the government is hiding evidence of the existence of space aliens.

    P.P.S. I suppose it’s too much to hope that science will have any impact on ...

    68% of American adults (approximately 167 million of us) believe the Devil exists.

    Man, there’s a lot of weirdness going around!

  • Notre Dame and the Controversy of Commencement
  • Posted by Jeffrey L. Gray , Vice President for Student Affairs at Fordham University on May 16, 2009 at 4:00pm EDT
  • Notre Dame and the Controversy of Commencement

     

    By Jeffrey L. Gray

     

    I've seen, heard and read a lot about the Notre Dame Commencement controversy. I read a fairly thoughtful article the other morning by a professor of law at Notre Dame, in which he asserted that the controversy was not about what was said at Catholic universities, but what was said by them. Nice piece, by a thoughtful person who believes that Obama should be allowed to speak, but should not be honored by a Catholic University. He makes a good point. I'm not sure I believe that most see it this way though. Most of the fringe groups would be going after them either way (I've dealt with many of the same before, and the worst offenders can be very parochial in their thinking).

    Universities, especially the elite private, liberal arts institutions, always seem like such serene places. Gothic, ivy, beautiful flower beds and flowering trees and shrubs, students strolling the campus, reading under trees, faculty lecturing students out on the lawns. Beneath it all, however, they are cauldrons of constant debate, disagreement and controversy. By their very nature, they are places where people question every single issue, from mundane operational matters to the great questions of life.

    The really great Universities find themselves, almost by design and with purposeful intent, at the crossroads of controversy, weekly if not daily. This is as it should be. The great Catholic Universities occupy a special place at the crossroads of life, explaining the Church to the world and the world to the Church. Those who occupy leadership roles at these institutions have to develop thick skin and a certain comfort level with the inevitable fire that they will take from both sides, especially on significant cultural and social issues. They then have to steer their way through the controversies with conviction, objectivity and an ability to filter out the noise from the fringe groups.

    In the course of this past semester, we had student groups extend invitations to Norman Finkelstein, the exiled DePaul University professor who became infamous for his pro-Palestinian, anti-Israel views as well as his tenure dispute with DePaul, and Newt Gingrich, who needs no introduction. One invitation was extended by one of our progressive justice groups, the other by our young Republicans. The only common denominator in both cases was outcry and protest, from many different internal and external groups, with most claiming that the invitations should not have been extended, and asking for them to be rescinded. While many made veiled attempts to disguise the true nature of their complaint, in most cases the concerns seemed to come down to ideology and the content of the speech. This opposition came in many cases from individuals and groups who claimed to be ardent first amendment absolutists, a role that seems to be easier to occupy when the subject matter falls gently on their ears of course. I attended both lectures, and found them interesting, for different reasons, which is not to say that I agree with the different viewpoints that were expressed. More importantly, I did not walk away with the impression that they were events that we should not have allowed.

    I don't know John Jenkins at all, but I do know that he and my President correspond often these days, and that our President and many of the other Jesuit Presidents have been supportive. Of course, the Jesuits and their lieutenants are not known to be shy and retiring types, obedient in their blind adherence to dogma. On the contrary, the Jesuits are very bright, very restless agents of change, who find themselves, almost by design, at the crossroads of the most controversial issues of our times. It's where they thrive, and it makes for an interesting professional life for those of us who are fortunate enough to sit at their right hand. Regardless of one's position on Father Jenkins, his decision or the controversy that envelopes Notre Dame, he has done what any University President would have and should have done under similar circumstances, including any one who runs a Catholic University. Who would turn down the President of the United States if he wanted to deliver a commencement address on your campus (or receive an honorary degree from you), and what fallout would doing so create? He made the only correct (and graceful) choice he could make, and even if others think it's been a mistake, there is no way he could have pulled back after the fact. Those calling for his resignation do not understand the complexities of the issue, and those threatening to withhold their donations should hang onto their money. College Presidents cannot be beholden or held hostage to donors on issues of this nature.

    If higher education is about the business of wisdom and learning, and by extension the kind of critical thinking and provocative inquiry that prepares our students to wrestle with the controversial issues of our times, it seems John Jenkins has done exactly what he should have done, for his students and his University. In so doing, he has placed Notre Dame in an enviable position: in the national spot light, at center stage, during prime time, the Commencement season, with all eyes on them. It's what great Universities do, including great Catholic Universities. Good for Notre Dame.

     

    Jeffrey L. Gray is the vice president for student affairs at Fordham University.

     

    ###

  • Bad Catholics -- Back in Your Cage Before I Kill You!!
  • Posted by Jacob on May 19, 2009 at 6:45am EDT
  • So Diogenes point is that it's a "giant step backwards" for Catholics to express their deeply held beliefs?

    We should just shut our unpopular little mouths up before the bad old Protestants and their post-Protestant children force us back into our cages???