Search Views


Browse Archives

Views

The Real Scandal at Notre Dame

May 19, 2009

Share This Story

FREE Daily News Alerts

Advertisement

While Trinity is thriving, we are part of a sector of American higher education that is increasingly under siege. The nation’s 245 Roman Catholic colleges and universities are heirs to more than a century of progressive efforts to win acceptance in the mainstream of the American academy. The hard and thoughtful work of numerous Catholic scholars and educational leaders in the middle of the 20th century modernized the governance, curricula and scholarly frameworks of our institutions. The previous great generation of Catholic academic and intellectual leaders --- including such luminaries as Jesuit Father John Courtney Murray, Monsignor John Tracy Ellis, former Notre Dame President Father Theodore Hesburgh, and Trinity’s own President Sister Margaret Claydon -- moved Catholic higher education out of the insular, parochial consequences of this nation’s 19th and early 20th century anti-Catholic, anti-intellectual propensities.

These great leaders of the Vatican II era developed a rich and extensive body of thought supporting the fundamental premise that our faith should not fear freedom, but rather, embrace it; that we must engage with our culture, not shun it; and that Catholic universities must have the same high intellectual standards as all universities, nurturing academic freedom as the bedrock of excellence in scholarship and teaching. The progressive influence of Catholic higher education in the last 50 years propelled lay Catholics into the mainstream of our nation’s social and political life, opening doors to places where once we were held in suspicion or even barred because of rampant religious discrimination.

Today, a half century of progress for Catholic higher education is at risk of slipping back into those insular, parochial pre-Vatican II days. On Sunday, on the campus of the University of Notre Dame, a drama unfolded that will affect the future of all Catholic colleges, and, indeed, will affect the place of Catholics in American life. As has been a tradition at the University of Notre Dame, the president of the United States spoke at the university’s commencement.

Notre Dame has invited many presidents in the past without fear or favor regarding their political positions. But the announcement of President Obama’s appearance triggered one of the angriest and most aggressively hostile efforts to block a commencement speaker ever endured by any American university. The fundamental issue is about the Church’s teachings on the right to life and the contrary policies of the Obama Administration. But there’s more to the Notre Dame case than the obvious clash between religious dogma and secular politics.

This is not about bishops exercising their rightful responsibilities to call Catholic institutions to fidelity to Church teachings. Nor is this about the right of individual Catholics to voice concerns about institutional actions. Disagreement and passionate argumentation are a normal part of university life, and religion sharpens the edges of any debate about university activities. For all Catholic universities, close and continuous dialogue with our bishops is an essential part of our stewardship of the Catholic intellectual tradition; Catholic college presidents frequently must exercise prudential judgment in making sure that the local bishop is not surprised by the appearance, if not the reality of dissent from Church teachings in university activities.

But something else is at work in the Notre Dame case.

The real scandal at Notre Dame today is not that the president of the United States spoke at commencement, albeit causing some controversy among Catholics. The real scandal is the misappropriation of sacred teachings for political ends. The real scandal is the spectacle of ostensibly Catholic mobs camping out at Notre Dame for the specific purpose of disrupting the commencement address of the nation’s first African American president. This ugly spectacle is an embarrassment to all Catholics. The face that Catholicism shows to our new president should be one marked with the sign of peace, not distorted in the snarl of hatred.

The religious vigilantism apparent in the Notre Dame controversy arises from organizations that have no official standing with the Church, but who are successful in gaining media coverage as if they were speaking for Catholicism. The media loves nothing more than a good Catholic versus Catholic fight, a self-destructive civil war that has no winners save the anti-Catholic underground that finds joy and vindication in watching Catholics strangle each other with litmus tests about fidelity. The self-appointed “watchdogs” of Catholic higher education also afflict Catholics in political life, acting as grand inquisitors who appear to want nothing more than to drive all Catholics away from public office. They have established themselves as uber-guardians of a belief system we can hardly recognize. Theirs is a narrow faith devoted almost exclusively to one issue. They defend the rights of the unborn but have no charity toward the living. They mock social justice as a liberal mythology.

Catholicism is not a one-issue faith. The social justice teachings that are central to our Church’s moral construction demand that we act in defense of the sacred dignity of all human life, from conception through salvation. Ours is a faith that demands peace and decries unjust war even as we demand that the unborn child have a right to live --- not mere life, but a life that can realize the full potential of the Creator’s divine plan as a matter of justice. Ours is a faith that is profoundly intolerant of racism and the exploitation of women, of poverty and the violence that economic injustice spawns. Ours is a faith that demands a more just sharing of the world’s resources, more pervasive global education to remediate the illiteracy that condemns children to repeat the cycles of poverty of prior generations. Ours is a faith that finds the use of torture for any reason an abhorrent offense against life. Ours is a faith that calls each member to take the option for the poor, to stand in solidarity with our brothers and sisters on this planet, to exercise the responsibilities of our citizenship fully, to honor the rights and dignity of workers, to be moral stewards of God’s creation --- all in the name of life. This is what it really means to be “pro-life.”

Catholicism is a faith of charity and hope, not hatred, bigotry, self-righteous condemnation. To be Catholic is to embrace the world in all of the remarkable diversity that is part of creation; to be a university is also to embrace the world in the fullness of its intellectual scope and in the endlessness of the human quest for knowledge, meaning and, ultimately, Truth. A Catholic university realizes that the differences of opinion that are the plain reality of human thought are not at all a danger to our faith, but rather, a manifestation of the freedom that God has given to every human being to think, to learn, to engage the quest for that Truth that can never be fully known in this life. Those who claim to know the Truth already claim a power that is God’s alone.

The terrible danger of the siege at Notre Dame, and the ugly specter of Catholic vigilantism’s efforts to intimidate Catholic academic leaders and politicians, is that Catholics will be driven back to the edges of American life, unable or unwilling to be elected to public office, as we once were, unable or unwilling to engage with our colleagues of other faith traditions in the difficult, bruising, uncomfortable yet utterly necessary debates about essential moral issues that contribute to the shape of our society.

The great opportunity in the Notre Dame controversy is the renewal of our commitment to the robust intellectual life of Catholic colleges and universities as the best possible means to ensure the vitality of our faith in public life. If we live the duality of our mission well, neither our freedom nor our faith will suffer harm, and both will be enlarged.

This is a mission that calls us to create campus communities that respect the human person; to minister to the spiritual as well as intellectual needs of these communities; to ensure that the teachings of the Church are fairly and accurately presented. Fidelity to those teachings does not require shunning all other forms of expression. We should make even greater use of the teachable moments when the clash of ideas reveals the need for better research and scholarship on the most critical issues we face, not just as Catholics but as citizens of a very complicated society. Catholic institutions of higher education should be contributing significantly more research and scholarship than we have thus far on those core issues where faith and politics collide: the right to life, economic and social justice, universal education, environmental destruction, equal justice, keeping the peace.

We live our mission as Catholic universities in the sunlight, not in caves; we teach and learn from the center of the culture, not on the margins. Evangelization’s best work occurs in uncharted territories among those who do not share our faith already. We engage every human being who is a child of God and part of his creation; and whether we agree or disagree with that person, every child of God belongs on our campuses. And when that child happens to be the president of the United States, so much the better for the fruitful opportunity to open new avenues of dialogue about the future breadth and depth and moral foundation and legal construction of that Good Society we so earnestly seek.

Here at Trinity, let us take from the controversy at Notre Dame a renewed commitment to give witness to the fullness of our faith tradition, not indulging the moral relativism of repressing faith for the sake of getting along, nor cowering in fear of the moral absolutists who would have us hear no voices but their own. As a Catholic college with a long and proud tradition of educating leaders for the public sector, with a mission commitment to action for social justice that comes to us from our founders, the Sisters of Notre Dame de Namur, we must not shy away from using our intellectual firepower to push the current debate away from the self-destructive precipice of Catholics set against Catholics. We must lead this debate toward the more life-giving mission in true Christian evangelization, teaching all nations the imperatives of justice and peace through which human life will, most assuredly, reap significantly greater protection than the current intractable arguments will ever achieve on their own.

Patricia McGuire is president of Trinity Washington University. This essay is adapted from the commencement address she delivered Sunday to the Trinity Class of 2009.

See all postings »
Advertisement
Advertisement

Matching Jobs

Comments on The Real Scandal at Notre Dame

  • Christian charity again a loser
  • Posted by Ollie , Professor on May 19, 2009 at 7:15am EDT
  • One again the Academy suffers at the hand of those who most demonstrate their fear of ideas that do not meld perfectly with their own. Outside organizations have again tried to usurp the beauty of the free interaction of diverse opinions. The beauty of the truth is its ability to thrive in the marketplace of ideas!

  • Posted by Paul Engel on May 19, 2009 at 7:45am EDT
  • Your article is ridiculous. If Catholics can't stand up for their beliefs the religion becomes useless; a mockery of a belief system which has survived ages of disbelef, persecution etc.

  • Don't do to others...
  • Posted by P.R. Kelvin at Thiel College on May 19, 2009 at 7:45am EDT
  • President McGuire's thoughtful commentary includes the unfortunately stereotypical comment, "the media loves nothing more than a good Catholic versus Catholic fight." Just as all Catholics are not alike, neither are all media. One network, particularly, has made its goal to attack the current administration, inflaming its viewers in any way it can. In this instance, Catholics are the fuel for its incendiary devices. Responsible media —of which there are many — really do report the truth.

  • The siege at Notre Dame???
  • Posted on May 19, 2009 at 8:30am EDT
  • What a vile piece of “hatred, bigotry, self-righteous condemnation” Patricia McGuire has written here. “The siege at Notre Dame” was a mostly peaceful demonstration against what a majority of Americans, Catholic and non-Catholic alike, consider to be an evil in our society. I have really started to dread reading Inside Higher Ed.

  • A Problem of Ideology?
  • Posted by Bradford Sample on May 19, 2009 at 8:45am EDT
  • I wonder if this would have been a problem for President McGuire if those protesting had been socially liberal Catholics -- I somehow doubt it very much. Is freedom of speech and principled opposition limited only to the left?

  • Open dialogue, just not with our own
  • Posted by IRVT , Associate Professor at Dartmouth College on May 19, 2009 at 8:45am EDT
  • Let Catholics have an open dialogue with those who don't believe the same things, just not with those loudmouths from our own faith community because they make us look bad.  We must hear what the President has to say about abortion so that the Church can evolve and be politically relevant in secular society, but let's not expect the President to return the favor because we know he is not going to budge on his views and beliefs, whatever he may claim they are this week or the next.  Let us emphasize the traditions of our faith that easily mesh with liberal progressive politics, but we should not focus too much on the teachings that proscribe against sin because that is just retrograde and not media friendly.

  • Debate is healthy
  • Posted by Bob on May 19, 2009 at 9:00am EDT
  • The article states: "Today, a half century of progress for Catholic higher education is at risk of slipping back into those insular, parochial pre-Vatican II days." I disagree totally. That is not the conclusion to be drawn from the Notre Dame commencement.

    True, the Catholic Hierarchy has become more conservative, just as the society as a whole has moved to the right, than they were in the 1960's. The rise of fundamentalisms, including the Christian variety, is a phenomenon to be explained in sociological terms, not in moral terms. Despite the society's fundamentalistic shifts, our universities, including Catholic universities, remain on the whole, "beacons as well as a crossroads," and oases of intellectual vibrancy and academic freedom. Attacks on academic freedom, under whatever pretexts they come, should be strongly resisted by university presidents. Notre Dame's President did precisely that, admirably.

    I am very pround of Notre Dame and its President for not submitting to the pressures of a few fanatics. While many other university presidents, public and private, routinely cave into political pressures and disinvite speakers to their campuses or fire their faculty to please polticians and lobbyists such as AIPAC, Fr. Jenkins stood his ground. Notre Dame remains a shining example of intellectual courage and academic freedom.

  • Good article but the issue is honoring, not speaking
  • Posted by stm60 , UConn on May 19, 2009 at 9:00am EDT
  • Dr. McGuire,

    I commend you on a well written and thought out piece. However, I believe you are missing a key point. The objection from the Catholics I know was to Notre Dame honoring President Obama, not to his speaking. While there are always protests when politicians speak on campus, I believe there would not have been this large, and deep a groundswell of unease among practicing Catholic if, as with Columbia University and Mahmoud Ahmadenejad, the President was brought in to speak on its campus but was not specifically honored. While Notre Dame has a long history of inviting sitting Presidents to speak, it was not always at graduation. (I was an undergraduate at Notre Dame when President Ford spoke on St. Patrick's Day.) A graduation speaker should represent values that are in harmony with what the university is seeking to impart. In short: Ms. McGuire is totally right in regards to the need to hear all sides, to discuss and to speak freely; she errs perhaps in thinking this freedom of discussion includes honoring the speaker.

    I believe that Dr. McGuire will agree that disagreeing actively with Church doctrine on sanctity of life issues like genecide and abortion is not comparable to disagreeing with Rome's stand on say, Priestly celebacy or homosexuality. Unlike her, I am pleased that so many Catholics were vocal in supporting something they believed in.

  • Let's get a grip, lady and gentlemen
  • Posted by Hegelvon on May 19, 2009 at 9:15am EDT
  • What am I missing? Protesters protested. The president spoke. The Dome still stands. The bishops still teach, as do the ND faculty, and both groups with freedom of expression. And while abortion remains a divisive issue—and one that for reasons large and small and worthy of an as-yet unwritten book, has come to claim an out of whack centrality in Catholic America's understanding of what it means to be Catholic—the events of Sunday seem to indicate that Notre Dame, Catholics, the president, and indeed the country can bear the friction engendered by movement. On to the next crisis that is sure to bring the sky down on our heads.

  • McGuire's Take on Notre Dame
  • Posted by Mike on May 19, 2009 at 9:30am EDT
  • Do you think Patty McGuire would have ever invited George Bush to speak at her school's commencement?

  • Christian charity...one more time
  • Posted by PiledHigher&Deeper , Ph.D. at European on May 19, 2009 at 10:00am EDT
  • Ollie, "Christian charity," I would assume, has many components, but it certainly would involve speaking out on behalf of those who cannot speak for themselves. Or, as it was seen during the civil rights movement, Christian charity might call one to suffer with those who were being oppressed; don't forget the involvement of those Christians who spoke out against the legalized racialism of Jim Crow. Now charity is keeping your mouth shut in the face of (what might very well be) a grave violation of human dignity...? I don't get it.

    And there's one more thing that keeps getting bandied about recklessly. Someone corrected me on this website awhile back, pointing out that the Catholic church took a position against the US involvement in Iraq AFTER George W. Bush had spoken at Notre Dame. Simple enough. But, in addition to that, the Catholic church has a rather extensive just war tradition; in other words, a nation can conceivably do right in going to war. There is no such justification for the deliberate killing of the innocent, which is what the Vatican believes is taking place in abortion.

  • Posted on May 19, 2009 at 10:00am EDT
  • After reading this adaptation of her commencement address, my only question is whether Dr. McGuire is being purposefully obtuse or is just simply obtuse. No one objects to students at Catholic universities and colleges participating in dialogue about contentious issues, including abortion, stem cell research, same-sex marriage, and the like. This is what universities—Catholic and otherwise—are called to do. The objection is to having a university that presumes to call itself a Catholic university giving an honorary law degree to a president who would, if he has his way, continue to support through his policies and judicial nominations the right of women to terminate the lives of their unborn children in perpetuity. Nothing in Catholic ethics or in Catholic jurisprudence supports this view. Given what for faithful Catholics is the extreme position of this president on the abortion issue, it is incumbent on American Catholics to have opposed the granting of an honorary degree. The actions by Notre Dame in honoring this president brings shame on the institution and, frankly, on the 2009 graduating class and other members of the student body that supported the granting of this honor. That the president of a Catholic college would offer these comments at a commencement address raises questions about the standards and values under which college presidents at Catholic colleges and universities are selected.

  • African American President?
  • Posted by Michael Swadener , Senior Machinist, Aerospace and Mechanical Engineering Dept at University of Notre Dame on May 19, 2009 at 10:15am EDT
  • I agree with University President McGuire in that we must not fear, but must engage other views. I like to say, " 'Shut up!' is not an argument." And that those who have the least to say, say it the loudest. I witnessed the hubbub near our campus, and was concerned about all the money spent on protests that were probably not changing anybody's views on any subject. How much of their money do these people spend actually helping women and children who are in dire straits? (By the way, I do not believe abortion is a solution to "dire straits") But it's not for me to ask them. I can account for my conscience only. My one criticism with Ms. McGuire's speech is her characterization of Barak Obama as "the nation's first African American President." All of a sudden it's about race. Get off it. It is not his defining characteristic, just the most obvious.

  • What the truth demands -- now
  • Posted by nnd on May 19, 2009 at 10:30am EDT
  • President McGuire has demonized the responsible Catholic and non-Catholic protest against one of the great evils of our time by smearing it with the brush of "religious vigilantism." No, President McGuire, there can be issues that require a strong and unequivocal voice. Notre Dame could have made a statement that clarifies, but it chose to muddy the waters on a radically important issue. Notre Dame was in the wrong, and thank God, some people are calling them on that. The bishops who have spoken out are not vigilantes, and those who follow them are also prophetic voices, using what rhetoric they can to wake us up. To say that they are merely serving political ends is an uncharitable and dismissive reduction.

    The best point of President Obama's speech was his invocation of the Golden Rule. I’m glad that people did not treat me as a "nobody" in my first few months of life in the womb. I think we can assume that most people feel the same way. Shouldn't we extend such behavior to every "body" in utero? Shouldn’t we ensure that we treat such vulnerable others as we were happy to have been treated? Shouldn't we start doing this right away?

  • dealing with controversy
  • Posted by random thoughts on May 19, 2009 at 11:45am EDT
  • I am not Catholic, but I am a person of religious conviction who has worked happily in a denominational educational institution. I believe that such schools need to remain accountable to the organizations that have started and supported them.

    One of the things that has saddened and puzzled me about this issue at Notre Dame and elsewhere is the way in which some bishops seem so intent on creating public confrontations with universities. A bishop in northeastern Pennsylvania has demanded (the word used in the media) evidence that Catholic colleges in his area document their adherence to church teachings. The schools have provided information. He has publicly declared that what they have provided is not sufficient. He has now (reportedly) declined to meet with the schools' representatives until they produce additional information. The schools seem baffled by the tone of this public campaign which seems bent on discrediting them. One wonders how a public confrontation supports the mission of Catholic higher education. And one wonders what became of the instruction in Matthew 18 to first go privately to your brother who has sinned.

  • Posted by dorothy on May 19, 2009 at 12:00pm EDT
  • First, I think it is clear what McGuire is complaining about: That the Catholic Church is increasing recognized inside and outside the faith community as a "one issue interest group." Political activists (with the assent of the Vatican and the bishops) have reduced the entire range of Catholic teaching to the imperative to criminalize abortion. Not, mind you, the imperative to do everything in our power to see that the unborn are protected. No, just make it illegal and our work will be done. President Obama has not signed on to that fight.

    Second, that narrow focus refuses to acknowledge the myriad of other ways that we as a society can abolish abortion by removing the demand: By taking better care of women and children, by showing more respect for families, and by giving pregnant women hope for the futures of themselves and their children. President Obama leads in that aspect of our battle.

    Looking at it this way, I'd say McGuire's statement was too mild.

  • Truth in Advertising at Notre Dame
  • Posted by Mark Adderley , Associate Professor of Humanities at Wyoming Catholic College on May 19, 2009 at 12:15pm EDT
  • It seems to me that the central problem regarding President Obama’s address at Notre Dame is not abortion, or Catholicity, but the right to have one’s views properly addressed. The modern mantra in conflict resolution is diversity—we have to hear everyone’s opinions, and then we are satisfied. When we have heard all points of view, we feel that there is no need to proceed further—to a resolution, for example. Hearing diverse opinions has become an end in itself, not a means to resolving and issue or taking action. President McGuire seems to feel that everything would be fine and settled, so long as everyone airs their views and is tolerant of one another. But this is really just another way of trying to postpone reaching a conclusion about a debate that has already raged for twenty-six years without any end being in sight. Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr., in his letter from Birmingham Jail, contested the statements of the white establishment on precisely this issue—that their appeals to defer a decision on segregation, and advice to him to be patient, was an attempt to shut him up so that he would leave them alone to continue upholding segregation without vocal opposition. The call to pro-life supporters not to uphold their own beliefs, or to do so tolerantly, or patiently, or quietly, is exactly the same sort of attempt to defer a decision on the issue. In other words, the call to tolerate all points of view is an oppression, just like segregation. It’s more subtle, but it’s still an oppression.

     

    The real issue at Notre Dame was not abortion; it was truth in advertising. Notre Dame trades on its Catholic identity, but, since Sunday, honours those who publicly oppose the teachings of the Catholic Church. That’s it. The villain is not President Obama, but President Jenkins, who should now, in all decency, publicly proclaim that Notre Dame is a secular, and not a Catholic college. Other colleges have taken this step. It’s time for President Jenkins to be honest.

  • Posted by Tildy on May 19, 2009 at 1:15pm EDT
  • President McGuire made several valid and constructive points. Pro-Life has become just another banner for haters who must identify a target for their hatred and their religion is their shield. I am against abortion and pro-choice because I am not willing to use the force of law to control the behavior of others. We need to address the demand and that's more difficult than yelling at those we disagree with. I've never heard President Obama say that he is pro-abortion .

  • Catholics or Americans?
  • Posted , Philosopher on May 19, 2009 at 1:45pm EDT
  • The Catholic protestors may scream black and blue that President Obama is a "baby killer" in the light of his acceptance of abortion rights, but in doing so they neglect the point that the President has an obligation to represent ALL Americans, of various faiths and of none. The President has no more business supporting legislation that draws a faith-based equivalence between a fertilized human egg and a baby than he does supporting legislation that would outlaw contraception, require attendance at church on Sundays, prohibit meat eating on Fridays, or require a particular treatment of the transubstantiated bread and wine of the Eucharist.
    If they wish to be relevant to the political discourse, the protestors would do well to remeber the important distinction between the roles of a political leader and a church leader.

  • O philosopher, think a little more!
  • Posted by nnd on May 19, 2009 at 3:30pm EDT
  • Come on, philosopher. A religious tradition's stand on an issue does not relegate that issue to the status of a sectarian concern. If so, "Thou shalt not murder" is off the table as a possible law for our country. There are transreligious dimensions of and arguments for religiously charged concerns. Should slavery have been maintained because religious groups used religiously-based sensibilities in arguing against it and the president should have been obliged to represent even slave-holding Americans? The protesters are not necessarily arguing for religiously inspired change, even if they themselves are religiously inspired. It is also a matter of ethical sensibility nourished by common sense, the Western tradition (respect for the individual), and the scientific fact that each unique human DNA in the womb is the start of a new human life that exists in full continuity with that being who gets its right to life acknowledged and protected by the Constitution. If the president should represent all Americans, why does that not also include those voiceless tiny Americans who are in their first few months of life?

  • Freedom of speech?
  • Posted by William on May 19, 2009 at 4:00pm EDT
  • Her article is another diatribe exposing the hypocrisy of academic freedom/freedom of speech by left wing extremists that demand academic freedom and freedom of speech as long as it is speech they agree with.

  • Posted by andy , asst prof at NIU on May 19, 2009 at 4:45pm EDT
  • It is so disconcerting to see people protest in the name of unborn life, yet those same folks have not stood up for the life that is here already. I suggest that you set up a protest that protects poor black and hispanic children in urban areas in America who do not have enough to eat, poor living conditions, substandard, if any, healthcare or dental care or vision care. Fight for the millions of children who die in Africa every year. I don't see these types of protests, from anyone, but it is more hypocritical for Catholics to only stand up for unborn lives but not other "living" lives.

  • andy, andy!
  • Posted by nnd on May 19, 2009 at 5:00pm EDT
  • Andy, see the page on Catholic Charities (http://www.catholiccharitiesusa.org/NetCommunity/Page.aspx?pid=1707). Also, it is not a good argument to say, "You probably are not doing a hundred other good things, so you should not try to fight this one evil either." We all have to make decisions about what are most inspired and able to do.

  • Who gets to protest
  • Posted by JFS , Vice President at ML on May 19, 2009 at 5:15pm EDT
  • Many people condemn the protestors. My question is - how many of you have participated in protests? Were you being mindless vigilantes? My problem with Obama is he talks about common ground. Ok, how about accepting life as beginning at conception. No, too radical, too narrow minded? Ok, how about life beginning in the third trimester. Again, is that too radical, no room for common ground? What about outside the womb? If Obama can vote against the Infant Born Alive act, there is no common ground with him and anyone not repelled by him voting against it.

    Obama didn't go to ND to have a dialogue or listen to pro-lifer. He went to get people to do what Pattie did. Write about the church having a wide range of social and life issues. He got people to say and think that abortion, even though the most important life issue, is only one of a host of other "more important issues." I'm pro-life; I supported the war and I'm against minimum wages. Does that mean I'm batting 33%? Someone who is a racist but for minimum wage and open immigration is batting 66%.

  • Posted by Peg on May 19, 2009 at 6:00pm EDT
  • It amazes me that those in the Higher Academia think those of us who stand up for the teaching of Jesus Christ are somehow misguided.

    I'm not sure why we had so many martyrs for Christ in the past and so many martyrs for Obama today.

    We are not talking about a problem with which Catholic traditions are better then others, pre Vatican versus post Vatican, we are talking about protecting a human being.

    Perhaps the part about "made in the image and likeness of God" is foreign to Patricia McGuire, but not to those of us who believe in the real Trinity, Father Son and Holy Spirit.

  • Notre Dame
  • Posted by Michael on May 19, 2009 at 6:00pm EDT
  • Academic Freedom is now defined by Patricia McGuire as meaning that protest is not allowed based upon the race of the speaker. The protesters at Notre Dame had every right under the US Constitution and any measure of academic freedom to protest Mr. Obama's reception of an honorary degree. The Commencement Address is the last lecture that students receive before leaving campus. Inviting a speaker whose views on a foundational topic are diametrically opposed to those of the institution shows students that the school's mission really did not matter. In effect it said, "All that stuff we told you for four years . . . just kidding!" If moral relativism is the best a university that claims a Catholic heritage and mission can muster, someone had better raise their voices in protest.

  • McGuire Should Reconsider Her Intolerance
  • Posted by carolinem on May 19, 2009 at 8:30pm EDT
  • McGuire's condescending, mean-spirited article would be denounced as religious bigotry were it aimed at any other religion.  Unlike the world of backward hicks she apparently believes those who disagree with her inhabit, Catholicism has produced a robust and freewheeling commentary and dialogue by those who disagree with some of its tenets.  Now that McGuire's narrow-minded liberalism has gained dominance and falls in line with the secular world, those who disagree with her are dismissed as ignorant outsiders.  Perhaps a course in diversity and tolerance would help McGuire come to terms with the fact that not everyone thinks the way she does and should not be dismissed merely because they disagree with her.  It must be flattering to know that the world at large accepts one's views, but religion does not advocate popularity but, instead, adherence to truth, a lesson McGuire obviously has not learned.

  • I Believe She Is On To Something Important
  • Posted by Pat Reis , Alumnus at University of Notre Dame on May 19, 2009 at 8:30pm EDT
  • I respect those who have ripped this piece and I understand why they see this writer as being "liberal". I do think there is an important aspect of this "controversy" that Ms. McGuire has touched on - that some (not all) Catholics who are passionate about Life issues, and especially those who "subscribe" to activists groups, have a nature to their attacks and protests which strikes me as a lot less Catholic than anything I ever learned from my Church. It is one thing to pray or peacefully protest as many if not most did on Sunday at Notre Dame. It is another to refer to Obama as the anti-Christ, a monster, to fantasize about his assassination, etc. (all were referenced by Catholics in protest email and letters I received on the Obama invite). It is one thing to say Father Jenkins is wrong, or that he should have consulted Bishop D'Arcy, but is another to threaten Notre Dame "or else!" if it did not fire him, or to refer to him as evil, and to Notre Dame as no longer fit to be called Catholic. I must have missed the Catholic lessons and teaching on sitting in judgment and condemning others. From the many protest correspondence I received from people calling themselves Catholics, I am concerned that the non-Catholics who run many of the activist Pro Life groups have poisened those Catholics who are part of their flock with a more hateful manner to fight the war on Life than anything even the most outspoken Bishops would ever endorse or condone. Regardless of your politics or your opinion regarding Obama speaking at Notre Dame, I would hope all Catholics would agree that kind of rhetoric has no basis in Catholic teaching.

  • Theological and Intellectual Dishonesty
  • Posted by Mark Press, Ph.D. , Chair, Department of Psychology at Touro College on May 19, 2009 at 8:30pm EDT
  • I am not a Catholic nor do I have particularly positive feelings about the Catholic Church, but hypocrisy and theological corruption are not traits one would want in the head of a Catholic College. Pretending to use intellectual discourse as a screen to honor someone who in the eyes of the Church is a murderer, or at least an accomplice to murder, reflects either gross stupidity or, more likely, a notion that the magisterium of the Church may be easily ignored. Obama is not simply upholding Roe v. Wade; he is, in fact, in favor of murdering live children as well and has voted for legislation to permit such. One would be hard pressed to believe that McGuire would defend the honoring of someone who has murdered children in Darfur but claimed that it was intellectually defensible. Her entire piece is essentially the kind of tripe one hears frequently from those who want to be part of a traditional faith but ignore its teachings.

  • Deeply Moved
  • Posted by David at Institute of American Indian Arts on May 19, 2009 at 8:30pm EDT
  • As a non-Catholic, non-Christian, I was deeply moved by Patricia McGuire's commencement address. It was eloquent, profoundly humane, rigorously argued and filled with Christian charity in the best old fashioned sense. Then, I read the angry, priggish, and blinkered comments of most of her detractors, which reminded me of why I am not a Christian.

  • "snarl of hatred" ? ? Hmmmm...
  • Posted on May 20, 2009 at 5:45am EDT
  • I'm not sure what coverage Ms. McGuire watched, but from what I saw, the only ones getting arrested were quietly praying, (at least one priest included); no snarling, no hatred, just a peaceful demonstration.

  • Nonsense
  • Posted by James Davidson on May 20, 2009 at 1:15pm EDT
  • President McGuire's essay is full of nonsense. Notre Dame University conferred an honorary doctorate of laws on the president of the United States, who happens to be the most prominent supporter of Roe v. Wade, the decision in which the Supreme Court made up the constitutional right to abortion. The Constitution says not one word about the right to an abortion. Roe is a decision that ranks with Dred Scott (opening slavery to the North), Plessy v. Ferguson (separate but equal), Lochner v. New York (child labor laws are unconstitutional), Buck v. Bell (forced sterilization is constitutional), and Korematsu v. United States (concentration camps for Japanese Americans are constitutional). As a former lecturer on constitutional law, the President is well aware that Roe makes a policy choice to legalize abortion and masquerades it as a constitutional right. As brilliant as he is, he knows a mule in horse harness is still a mule. Worse, he repeatedly opposed the bill in the Illinois Leglisature that would have required the abortionist to give aid and comfort to the baby that survived the abortion and was gasping for air and fighting to live. That is a barbarity of the first order. President Obama was elected fairly and squarely, he is our President, and we should pay him all the honor and respect his office commands. Yet a Catholic university, much less the most well-known Catholic university in America, has no business awarding a doctorate of laws to a lawyer, like the President, who defends and supports Roe v. Wade and the invented constitutional right to an abortion.

    As for President McGuire's arguments that a pro-life commitment requires more than opposition to abortion, all one can say is, Duh?? Of course it does, and who is she to say that we who fight for the lives of the unborn ignore the rest of the Gospels' commands? We all fall short of Christ's examples, which is why he went to the Cross, but the Catholics I know who are pro-life also help the poor, witness against oppression, and try to live Christ's teachings. For President McGuire to suggest otherwise is unbecoming of a university president. But here is why the Left makes such arguments: One cannot defend elective abortion and stay true to the Church's teachings. It is impossible. That is Notre Dame's scandal. In contrast, one can argue legitimately as a matter of public policy about many social issues, and remain true to the Church's teachings in private life. Here are two obvious examples: whether welfare hurts the poor more than it helps by creating generations of dependency; whether foreign aid hurts the poor in other countries by propping up corrupt who steal the aid and continue their oppression.

    Let's tell the truth: President Obama is the darling of the academic left. Fine, I also find many qualities to admire in the President. But on abortion he is dead wrong, and abortion is not just any issue for Catholics. You cannot be for abortion rights and remain Catholic. President McGuire and President Jenkins know that. It apparently does matter to them.