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

novak

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

Apr 07, 2009 09:33

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 ( Read more... )

ethical, family, theological notebook, academia, church and state, america, notre dame, political, john paul ii, catholicism

Comments 24

Authority seeker101 April 7 2009, 21:44:33 UTC

As for recognizing authority: Much of this may very well come to a "head," if and when (and it is very likely that it will) we have nationalized health insurance that covers abortions, and when doctors are denied conscience objections to performing them.

At some point, those bishops whom you casually dis, may in fact call for outright civil disobedience, all the time "recognizing the authority" of the govt to place them in jail.

It may very well be that option or the option of recognizing that the tenents of our faith have no place in the public square.

For, at some point, nuanced philosophical arguments give way to Christ's admonition that "he who is not with me is against me", and the Catholic belief that being with His Church is being with Him.

Re: Authority seeker101 April 10 2009, 17:08:55 UTC

Just so you know, when I was referring to "nuanced philosophical arguments," I was not referring to your post, but to all of those highly regarded Catholic professors that, during the last election, received much attention for their arguments about how it was o.k. to vote for a pro-abortion candidate. (Not that I believe that there truly could not be such circumstances that would justify it, but only that these arguments were not it. )

Peace.

Re: Authority novak April 11 2009, 23:00:41 UTC

Agreed. Again, this highlights the question when these apparent common goods we are recognizing as mitigating actually run out. This would be a mirror situation of what I fear is happening with this Notre Dame debate: if the American Left so forces this issue, it could be self-defeating for their own ultimate agenda.

Odds are, though, standing with Christ on this issue in a political way will not lead to any furthering of a Pro-Life ethic, but only our crucifixion.

(The comment has been removed)

novak April 11 2009, 23:16:50 UTC

No, I think that you rightly point out (by implication, at least) that the honour being given to Obama here is not a particularly religious one. He is not being given a bishopric. Or an honourary degree in Theology. The Doctor of Laws degree is pretty much an affirmation of "Hey, you're the President!" It's equivalent to the Doctorates of Divinity that have been awarded to priests when they are made a bishop: it really doesn't imply anything about the quality of what will come out of that person's mouth. It's a recognition of a certain level of achievement, and I think that we can say safely that merely becoming the President of the United States involves a certain achievement. I think that the greater problem being evidenced here is those who see nothing but demons on the political poles opposite to their own, regardless of what issue they can point to as being especially "Catholic," even a biggie like abortion ( ... )

anonymous April 10 2009, 16:22:33 UTC

As seeker101 mentioned, your presentation of the issue confuses the lines between politics and faith. The question at hand is the capacity in which Obama is coming to the university. Obama is not coming for a dialog nor is he coming to be touched by Notre Dame's teaching. He is coming to be honored at a particular point in his life and at a particular point in his administration ( ... )

novak April 11 2009, 23:24:35 UTC

And there is no diversity of opinion on the question of abortion here. There is a diversity of opinion on whether simply spurning the President because of his current thoughts on abortion has a greater chance of leading to conversation or conversion than an experience of him being treated with the dignity proper to his office and his own imaging of God.

I don't foresee gaining much long-term benefit from simply affirming what we already know to be our difference of opinion from the President, no matter how loudly or righteously we do so. I know that there's a great satisfaction that comes from taking a public stand in that way, but I don't think it is capable of having any persuasive effect. Notre Dame's invitation has, certainly in itself, very little chance of making the President reconsider his position. But I'm afraid that the proposal of simply drawing the "line in the sand" between him and us guarantees and reinforces his pro-abortion position. So what's so Pro-Life about that?

Strom Thurmond would have been okay in 57, right? anonymous April 17 2009, 00:50:27 UTC

The point is, commencement is a chance to send your students out into the world with a little boost from a new face that nevertheless represents the university (since in most cases speakers are brought in in order to be honored). This is never treated like a debate, nor is a chance to reach out in order to start a dialog.

The issue is the fact that Obama is the capstone of Notre Dame's graduating class. He is a radical promoter of this country's most easily identifiable and widespread intrinsic evil.

I can only assume that everybody who supports Notre Dame's invitation would be equally okay if Notre Dame had invited Strom Thurmond just immediately after he had attempted the filibuster of the 57 Civil Rights Act. This of course wouldn't be to honor the fact that he was a segregationist, but rather for heroism in WWII and the fact that he had made history as the only write-in candidate to win a senate seat. I wouldn't be okay with that. Wrong place and wrong time to send such a confusing message to your students.

bardcat April 12 2009, 01:13:42 UTC

Sorry to be overly simplistic with so many "profound" comments/insights here. I am glad the president was invited to speak at Notre Dame and I hope everybody listens to each other.

novak April 12 2009, 02:54:33 UTC

It's not a bad hope, and certainly to put "profound" in quotations with everything I've written can only be seen as proper! :-)

blistermoth April 12 2009, 01:35:10 UTC

I thought of this post when I read this Registar-Star article today, in particular this quote, "“The abortion issue, embryonic stem-cell research, let’s call them ‘life issues,’ ” he said. “These are first principles of the Catholic faith. ... On the life issues, the church is clear.”

I ask you because you're the only committed Catholic I "know": are life issues really "the first principles" of Catholicism or is this just the opinion of a small, but committed, group of Catholics?

novak April 12 2009, 03:10:35 UTC

Hrm. I'd say that this was another time to invoke the classic college answer of "yes and no."

I would say that the phrasing is a bit inexact here. The life issues would better be described as first principles of Catholic ethics. The first principles of the Catholic faith are outlined in the Nicene-Constantinopolitan Creed, a list of such "first principles" of the Christian faith that evolved over the course of the first 350 years of the Church, being put in this final form for public liturgy and use in 381.

This is a classic aspect of philosophy: ethics follows from metaphysics - you can't say what you ought to do until you know what it is you believe to be true about reality. Christian life issues (with attending ideas of universal human rights) are based upon the doctrine of Creation, which goes back into the Jewish origins of the Church. God created the universe, the universe and everything in it is good, and human beings are especially good, being in some way an image or icon of God. Reverence for life, the world, and ( ... )