Theological Notebook: Thoughts on the Controversy Re: President Obama's Invitation to Notre Dame

[novak]

Mom wrote and asked me about what I thought about all the controversy regarding President Obama's addressing the graduating seniors at the University of Notre Dame. I hadn't consciously articulated my thoughts until she asked, but now that I have, I thought that I would just copy it all down here. I would preface my comments by reassuring or

Comments

[seeker101]

For those opposing President Obama's appearance at Notre Dame, the assumption is that any perceived acceptance or honouring of Obama as President is tantamount to an endorsement of his position as a supporter of abortion. This is, of course, foolish. That argument, extended logically, would imply that any recognition of the authority of the government of the United States implies an endorsement of its current policies.

I do not see how that follows. Not at all. Recognizing authority and honoring the decisions that come from that authority are fundamentally different.

Also, I do not see what the Republican Party has to do with it.

Also, I do not see it as all or none. That is, in order to take up the abortion issue and to give it the priority the Church says it should have, I must somehow separate from the Union, or I am a hyprocrite. But, then, I suppose that that relates to the above cited premise which I reject.

Unfortuantely, I think that most folks, including Catholics (and I am not saying that you are in this camp), do not really accept the idea that abortion is the killing of innocent life. That is really what it all comes down to. For, if one did accept this, then abortion would be viewed as equal to the killing of any adult members of our society. Do you think that Obama would have been invited to Notre Dame if he advocated for that? That is, if he sent out assasins in the middle of the night to silence his political enemies, for example? I doubt it very much.

[novak]

Recognizing authority and honoring the decisions that come from that authority are fundamentally different.

That was, I thought, my actual point. This invitation amounts to such a recognition of authority and achievement, but has explicitly been distinguished from any "blank check" approval of all of this administrations policies, as has been the case with all previous Presidents recognized by the University.

I bring up the related issue of Republican Party politics simply because I have been watching the Party make a concerted effort over this last decade to absorb Catholics as a voting block in the same way that they did Evangelicals in the 1970s and 1980s. Therefore to look at this issue as though there are not a great many mitigating factors behind the motives of those aggravating this encounter seems to me to simply play into other agendas than truly Catholic ones. That is not to say that Catholics or Christians ought to avoid any statement or commitment that might be construed as plugging into someone else's politics - that's impossible, of course. But I think that there are a great many voices being raised here that were not being raised at the Bush appearance at Notre Dame. (And vice-versa.) The Church or the Pro-Life movement have no real profit in pushing this issue, other than self-satisfaction. But there's an awful lot of other political profit to be made in inflaming this meeting, and I'm not content to be used in that way.

Also, I do not see it as all or none.
...the idea that abortion is the killing of innocent life. That is really what it all comes down to.

So doesn't that make it "all or none?" Either abortion on demand is a genocidal industry or it is not. You're right in saying people (likely) wouldn't be so forgiving if the President was murdering adult members of society (not that this hasn't gone on all the time though the last century, once you have a good-enough reason to "sell" genocide).

But what I am saying is that you, too, accept that there are other mitigating goods in this equation: goods from being in the Union. Otherwise why do you "recognize authority" in such a government? There must be some goods here, or otherwise in the face of such killing of millions, why have we not risen up to overthrow this government? Our own government's principles, outlined in the Declaration, would support that. But both constitutionally and in terms of Christian ethics, we seem to find real reasons not to do so, to not take even the taking of innocent life that seriously, unless we simply haven't done so out of convenience, fear or laziness.

Does that make sense? As far as I can see, what I'm writing still follows from your presuppositions, it's just not something that people generally bother to say out loud or follow to its logical end. Thoughts?