Always Distinguish(ed).

Fellow AI student, Jen, at Jen’s Journal has posted a commentary on the fiasco at Notre Dame. In the spirit of disputatio, I replied to her post, which should be read before my comments. I had not planned on commenting on this issue, as there is plenty of back-and-forth going on already, but Jen’s post inspired me to throw my lot in and make the distinctions I think are necessary in this case.

Here is a summary of points I think need to be distinguished (I go into more detail in my comments):

1) Preventing President Obama from speaking at Notre Dame is not about freedom of speech.

2) A University commencement speech is not the proper environment for a “disputatio” of any kind. There’s no time for sed contras or objections.

3) The president is not only going to speak at commencement, he is going to receive an honorary degree of Doctor of Law.

4) The USCCB stated some time ago as a body that Catholic institutions should not give honors to those who oppose the Church’s teachings.

5) President Obama is to receive an honorary doctorate in law, which is the very thing—U.S. Law—he is using to promote the destruction of unborn life.

6) This is not an all-or-nothing debate. It is not about ecumenism or bi-partisanism.

There are really only a couple of issues on the table here:

a) are the bishops to be obeyed in their 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?

This entry was posted on Saturday, May 2nd, 2009 at 10:01 pm and is filed under "culture wars", Notre Dame, catholic church, distinguishing, news. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.