Solicitous Catholics committed to the defense of the unborn—those with no voice and no vote, have directed a maelstrom of criticism at the University of Notre Dame and in particular its implacable president, the Rev. John Jenkins, over the university’s decision to award President Obama with an honorary degree in May. Bishops have chimed in as well to vent their frustration. Bishop John D’Arcy, head of the Fort Wayne-South Bend diocese, voiced his disapproval with the university and indicated that he will not attend the Commencement ceremony, an unprecedented move in the history of Notre Dame. The bishop of Austin, Gregory Aymond, made his thoughts clear in a matter-of-fact style when he said, "In my opinion, it is very clear that in this case the University of Notre Dame does not live up to its Catholic identity in giving this award and their leadership needs our prayerful support.” Bishop Thomas Olmsted of Phoenix penned a terse obloquy to the president of Notre Dame, in which he called the decision a, "public act of disobedience to the Bishops of the United States." For his part, Fr. Jenkins has cocked a snook at all episcopal admonishments and forged ahead with his plans. Notre Dame’s line of defense takes shape in the form of three straw man talking points: First, the university traditionally invites presidents of both political parties to address the students, so why stop with the forty-fourth? Second, this decision shouldn’t be interpreted as an endorsement of President Obama’s views on abortion. Third, the event offers us the opportunity to “engage” the president on the important issues, especially those things about which we may disagree; an Obama-esque apologia if ever there was one, as we shall see later.
Regarding the first point: It is true that the university’s tradition calls for the cordial invitation of the nation’s chief executive to attend the Commencement ceremonies. Catholics know a thing or two about traditions. But what about Notre Dame’s higher loyalty to the Tradition of the Catholic Church? Why are Notre Dame and its president inescapably hidebound to a lesser form of tradition? Why relegate Tradition to sloppy seconds in favor of a polite but ultimately expendable custom? Surely Fr. Jenkins knows that the Tradition of the Church comes before the tradition of a university; if the former is sacrificed in the name of the latter, its significance is deflated and hypocrisy inevitably seeps through.
The second argument emanating from the enlightened apparatchiks of Notre Dame is probably the most flimsy and groundless of all. The United States Conference of Catholic Bishops, writing in 2004, issued the following unequivocal 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.” If, by honoring President Obama, Notre Dame isn’t guilty of taking part in exactly what the bishops warned against in their missive, I would be curious to see how the above statement would be interpreted by Fr. Jenkins and co.
The third argument offered by Fr. Jenkins, the line about not being afraid to engage those with whom we disagree, is most revelatory. Back on the campaign trail, then-candidate Obama articulated virtually the same point when he promised to hold high-level meetings with the leaders of Iran and North Korea, all in the name of fearless dialogue. Fr. Jenkins and President Obama apparently attended the same dated, 1960's School of Diplomacy. But both President Obama and Fr. Jenkins sorely miss the larger point. The question is not whether or not we should engage at all, or at some level. Of course we should. But at what level and on what stage should such meetings unfold? Before a public meeting or an awards ceremony take place (whether in the Oval Office or at a Commencement ceremony), certain pre-conditions must be guaranteed. In the political arena, during the '08 campaign, conservatives, and even Hillary Clinton, argued in favor of low-level talks between underlings. However, in the absence of concrete steps taken and pre-conditions met by the other side, the high office of the presidency must be carefully insulated from external manipulation and the machinations of propaganda. The Obama attitude toward global realities was, as Mrs. Clinton correctly painted it, hopelessly, even dangerously, naïve. How does this lesson in diplomacy relate to Notre Dame? Before the university reaches a modus vivendi with President Obama, he should first publicly renounce his views supporting abortion. This should be seen as a prerequisite. It is reckless and scandalous for the Catholic university to bestow a high honor on a man so conspicuously at odds with the most fundamental tenets of the Church’s teaching on the respect for life. Notre Dame’s logic, if it were to be applied consistently in the political realm, would advocate for the President of the United States to bestow the Medal of Freedom on any elected political leader, no matter how offensive his beliefs may be. And heck, as long as he’s in town, why not let him address a joint session of Congress, all in the name of dialogue and engagement.
There comes a time when shallow euphemisms and hollow excuses simply run their course, when the anodyne effects of circular rationalizations wear off, and truth stands alone under the glare of the spotlight. In the case of Notre Dame, it has become painfully obvious that the allure of prestige, the cult of personality and worldly honor have supplanted the timeless principles still held inviolate by the Catholic Church. These eternal principles, these pearls of great price, were held in high esteem long ago by those academic pioneers who forged the noble institution of Notre Dame.
No comments:
Post a Comment