As most people probably know, there has been much controversy lately regarding Notre Dame’s decision to invite President Obama as this year’s commencement speaker. While I haven’t been following the story intensely, I’ve gathered from the headlines that there have been protests and public statements from people on both sides of the issue. In addition, the former US Ambassador to the Vatican, Mary Ann Glendon, has declined to accept the college’s prestigious Laetare Medal for service to the Church and society because of the college’s decision regarding Obama.
Though on a much smaller scale, this type of situation regarding a campus speaker whose views are opposed to that of the Catholic Church recently occured at my alma mater Providence College, as well. As one of my friends pointed out, the Whispers in the Loggia blog posted an entry yesterday about this issue. It seems that a student group had invited former Congressman Tom Tancredo, a proponent of aggressive controls on immigration, to speak on campus, but the college decided at the last minute that the former congressman would not be allowed to speak due to his beliefs on immigration which are directly opposed to the teachings of the Catholic Church and the Bishop of Providence. Tancredo has publicly spoken out against the Pope on this issue, but he is not himself a Catholic, at least not any more.
These two cases are but a few examples of the types of situations that have been arising all across the country as Catholic institutions grapple with the issue of free speech and the importance of upholding Catholic doctrine. For what it’s worth, I’d like to offer my personal take on the issue:
That a Catholic school finds it important to publicly uphold a Catholic teaching is commendable and reassuring. If we can’t count on Catholic institutions to promote Catholic teaching, then who can we count on? That being said, I wonder if preventing speakers with views contrary to those of the Catholic church – particularly if those speakers are not themselves Catholic – is the proper way to do this. Because if we prevent one person from speaking at a college due to their views, where do we draw the line? Should we not only reject the voice of the politician but also that of the actor who stars in a morally questionable movie or believes in a faith opposed to the Catholic faith? Should we refuse to hire non-Catholic professors at Catholic universities? Can we not sponsor interfaith dialogue events? Should we only care about views on moral issues or are doctrinal issues important as well?
Ultimately, it seems to me that there must be some way for Catholic schools to both be open to the views of those who are opposed to the Church while also making it it clear that the school and Catholic teaching does not agree with views of that speaker. What ever happened to the Dominican tradition of disputatio? Can’t we support free speech while also promoting Catholic Truth?
In the spirit of “disputatio”,
a few distinctions:
1) Preventing President Obama from speaking at Notre Dame is not an impingement on his freedom of speech by any means or measure. Notre Dame is a private university, it is not the public square. He is the President of the United States, he has plenty of platforms of his own. This is not, fundamentally, a matter of free speech, and I think one does the bishops a disservice by painting it that way. No one is trying to silence the President, his rights would not be taken away.
1a) Corollary to this, President Obama was invited by the university. It is not as if, by virtue of his office, he is expected to give the commencement speech at ND’s graduation. Thus, saying that he would be “prevented” from speaking at the University’s Commencement is a misnomer. He should not have been invited to speak at this event, under the circumstances, in the first place.
2) A University commencement speech is not the proper environment for a “disputatio” of any kind. Is there a question and answer session afterward? When exactly does the “discussion” begin? When do you get to make “objections”? In the line for shrimp at the co-ed mixer the night before? The commencement speaker at a university is given a considerable amount of time to impart whatever kind of information he wants to the graduating class and whoever may happen to listen, all under the auspices of his words being appreciated and supported by the university. There’s no rebuttal. There’s not even a “sed contra”. When is the follow-up?
3) But, content of the speech aside, he is receiving an honorary degree of Doctor of Law from the most prestigious Catholic university in the country. This is the one in which really there’s no argument to be had: the bishops were clear in their statement some years ago that Catholic institutions should give NO MORE HONORS to those who oppose the Church’s teachings. The president of Notre Dame, whether he did it knowingly or not, has openly disregarded this request.
4) I would hope that no one would be opposed to having President Obama come and speak to an audience at the university and to engage the student body and faculty in a real debate or discussion about the issues in which he disagrees with the Church—or even other issues. But it is important to recognize and to admit that a commencement exercise is not, by any means, a legitimate place for a “dialogue” to take place. It is also important to recognize and admit, again as mentioned before, the president is receiving an honorary doctorate in law from Notre Dame—a law degree, the very thing—U.S. Law—he is using to promote the destruction of unborn life. What is that saying? Really? How would one feel, for instance, if Aquinas Institute gave an honorary Masters in Theology degree to Bishop Williamson, or even the preacher of the year award?
5) I know it’s more enticing to say we are shutting ourselves off from the world, insulating the Church, so on, and as good Dominicans in the spirit of that dialogue that St. Dominic would certainly have supported, we should “dialogue” with the President… but I think it’s important to realize what has already been achieved under this banner of “dialogue”. The President got a lot of votes with his unifying-speak before the election when he promised to listen to us and all those who oppose him. But, did that stop him from overturning the Mexico City Policy? One can listen to someone, one can even dialogue with them, and still completely ignore them.
6) This is not an all-or-nothing debate. By rescinding the invitation to the President, ND would not be giving a green light to firing by the scores all the professors who are not Catholic, or even Christian, nor would they be shutting down the lines of communication in ecumenism.
There are really only a couple of issues on the table here:
a) are the bishops to be obeyed in the moratorium on honors to those who oppose the Church’s moral teachings?
b) what is the proper setting for a dialogue between the Church, its supporters, and those who oppose it?
Jen,
Peace and greetings. I happened across your blog thanks to Bro. Thomas. We went to undergrad together.
Yo,
Interesting thoughts. I have my own post on the issue here. I will try to come back reply to you more specifically sometime soon. Specifically, check out the first comment to my post and let me know your thoughts.
Hope all is well.
Paxh
Here is a link to an editorial from The Catholic Messenger – the diocesan newspaper of the Davenport (Iowa) diocese – that I think is very well-balanced. The author offers suggestions on what Notre Dame University could have done differently that would have been more palatable to the overall Catholic community, but more importantly he points out what a university, even a Catholic university, is supposed to be about. He even references our own beloved St. Thomas Aquinas in the editorial.
Check it out: http://www.catholicmessenger.org/articles/2009/05/06/opinion/editorials/doc49f86e1e25e9c775751029.txt