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

[weaklingrecords]

Well said.

[novak]

Thanks! And thanks for posting that Hesburgh bit the other day: that got me thinking about this a little more explicitly.

[daysprings]

Thanks for writing all of this out - I had wondered if you'd address the issue in your journal, and am grateful you did.

To be quite honest, I was all ready to put President Obama's appearance at Notre Dame in the same category as gay marriage (Things that Catholics Want Me to Care About that, Sadly, I Do Not). I felt as if it wasn't my battle, either, having no connection to the university - I don't feel at all invested in Notre Dame's 'identity,' Catholic or American or anything else; I don't think Obama speaking at Notre Dame says anything much about American Catholicism individually or Roman Catholicism generally. I know I'd feel honored if the President spoke at my alma mater, but then, Hopkins is a totally secular school, so the Catholic issue doesn't apply...

But I'm glad to read your perspective here, though I don't have a dog in this fight. Of all the blog entries I've seen about this issue, yours was the only one I watched for and read in its entirety. :)

[novak]

Huh. Had I only known you were waiting on me, I wouldn't have spent the last several days dancing to my favourite 80s tunes while singing into a hairbrush.

[daysprings]

Hey, that sounds like a good use of your time, too. Depending on the '80s tunes, of course.

[canonjohn]

Excellent, thoroughly thought out commentary. I - for what its worth - agree with your line of thought. And I don't believe that bullying tactics, however righteous would serve the good of the Church.
John

[novak]

Yes, the style betrays something in the substance, and the conduct of this has betrayed too much.

[mushfromnewsies]

I don't know that I find much to object to about Notre Dame simply inviting Obama to speak at commencement. I'm more disappointed at their giving him an honorary law degree, but then I don't understand this kind of exchange of fake honors that goes around at the university level. Maybe it's just an objection to/my misunderstanding of that whole honorary system, but considering his political record as a lawmaker, and his legal record re: abortion specifically, I'm not surprised people find that an especial affront. I'd rather see this kind of kerfuffle and open protest, prayer vigils, etc. if/when the FOCA and other legislation comes to the floor, though

[novak]

Yes, Courtney, you rightly point to the granting of the honour as the key point in this, beyond just addressing the graduates. A number of people and sources have pointed to a 2004 directive by the U.S. bishops (including many self-described "traditional" Catholic sources who have no qualms about ignoring the U.S. bishops when it suits their purposes, I was amused to see) that specifically warned against the giving of academic honours to those with blatant conflicts with Catholic teaching, exactly for the sake of avoiding an endorsement of such positions. Given the explicit nature of what Fr. Jenkins has stated is being lauded in President Obama's rise, and where the Church and the University stand in opposition to the President, I don't think there can be any reasonable confusion on this

[mushfromnewsies]

In no way was anything I've said, or anything the Notre Dame administration has done to this point, been able to be construed as "silence" on the question of abortion.

Well, I just meant in general -- I agree that the whole tone of the conflict surrounding abortion needs to change at some fundamental level, on both sides, but translating that desire into our specific actions as each "event" or challenge comes our way, requires our paying a lot of attention. Certainly there is the risk that, by leaning too far back, especially in regards to specific legislation, much ground will be lost, perhaps indefinitely. It's a risk I'm willing to take, but carefully.

As far as this particular incident goes, I agree that this time at the beginning of Obama's administration is an important window. But I guess I'm confused as to how this event (without all this controversy) could open up dialogue. I don't know what really goes on at the social-connections level, during these kinds of high-profile appearances, but Obama isn't giving a lecture, or

[novak]

Sorry about the delay in getting back to you: I was a bit fuzzy the last few days with a sore throat and I didn't want to be equally fuzzy in reading what you had written. I think you're right in highlighting the very indeterminacy of this encounter, particularly so early in a presidential administration. A few thoughts:

... to see intelligent, faithful pro-life Catholics publicly invite Obama to an open debate about the issue...

I don't know that debate is the correct term for this encounter, nor whether that would yet be a constructive format for such an encounter. If anything, debate as such means defending a position, and such an invitation to President Obama would be instructing him to not reconsider his position.

Do you think that Obama will take the Catholic position more seriously, or open up new relationships with pro-life Catholics or Christians because of his visit?I am certain that simply snubbing him, posing over a line we draw in the sand, or making abortion the sole issue right off the bat would do nothing but

[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

[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 -