Notre Dame has invited President Obama to speak at its commencement this year. All things being equal, the appearance of a U.S. president at the commencement of a Catholic university would be a great coup. All things being equal, the honor would be greater still given the historical nature of the 2008 presidential campaign that resulted in the election of an African-American to the highest office in the land. And all things being equal, the appearance of an African-American president at the University of Notre Dame would serve as both a celebration and an affirmation of Catholic moral teaching on the inalienable dignity of the human person and the fundamental equality of each person before the law.
Unfortunately, no one who embraces Catholic moral teaching on the dignity of human life can celebrate Notre Dame's decision to invite President Obama to its commencement because of what it says about the university's commitment to its religious identity and to the central freedom on which all other human freedoms (including the rights of racial minorities) depend--the right to life. This is a president who has reversed the so-called Mexico City policy, which prevented federal funding for abortion advocacy abroad, that circumvented legislation designed to block federal funding of coercive abortions in China, and that increased funding for embryo-destructive stem cell research. This is an administration that promises to find common ground on hot button issues like abortion, but adopts extreme positions while mis-characterizing the stance of its opponents. Soon, it is also likely to be an administration that will oversee legal challenges to religious and conscience protections for Catholic individuals and institutions that resist an aggressive abortion rights agenda. No doubt, some of Notre Dame's alumni will be among those targeted by the administration's aggressive tactics.
Notre Dame's inability or refusal to see the writing on the wall is a mystery. The Cardinal Newman Society -- that dogged group seeking to expose the problems of university like Notre Dame -- and thus ultimately strengthen their religious identity, has initiated a petition drive to pressure the university to rescind its invitation.
Meanwhile, Joe Feuerherd at the National Catholic Reporters gives us a hint of the muddled thinking that led President Obama to be invited in the first place. Essentially, Feuerherd's column describes Patrick Reilly of the Cardinal Newman Society as an "ayatollah" -- a fundamentalist Catholic with a penchant for conservative politics. How does Feuerherd prove this charge? Well, you see, the Cardinal Newman Society didn't raise a fuss when President Bush spoke at a Catholic institution of higher learning, even though he disagreed with Catholic teaching on abortion (permitted in cases of rape and inscest) and embryonic stem cell research (allowed for research using preexisting stem cell lines). If Feuerherd truly believes there is little difference between Bush and Obama policies on abortion, he has only to review the back issues of any major U.S. newspaper since the inauguration.
Postscript: Here is Bill McGurn's take in the Wall Street Journal on the Notre Dame issue.
McGurn notes that Father John Jenkins, Notre Dame's president, in an interview with the university's student newspaper, The Observer, described the president's visit to the campus as a "catalyst for dialogue." The Associated Press also reported on the following statement by Father Jenkins:
"The invitation to President Obama to be our Commencement speaker should not be taken as condoning or endorsing his positions on specific issues regarding the protection of human life, including abortion and embryonic stem cell research."
McGurn doesn't buy Father Jenkins characterization of the invitation as a "catalyst for dialogue":
"Now, if the president were going to Notre Dame to engage in dialogue, that would be one thing. But Mr. Obama will not be going to Notre Dame to "dialogue." He will be going to help advance his agenda."
A former speech-writer for President George W.Bush, McGurn is certainly in the position to understand what American presidents, and other prominent U.S. politicians, hope to accomplish by giving speeches, and why they choose specific settings as a backdrop for their political rhetoric and advocacy. In his column in the Wall Street Journal, McGurn looks back at New York Governor Mario Cuomo's 1984 speech at Notre Dame that sought to establish intellectual and theological credibility for the "personally opposed, but" position of Irish-Catholic politicians like Edward Kennedy. Cuomo's speech underscored the sea change in Catholic thinking within the Democratic Party that ultimately doomed the pro-life agenda. Writes McGurn:
"In this party, Catholic leaders such as the Rev. Theodore Hesburgh, then president of Notre Dame, still enjoyed tremendous influence. Had they used that influence to try to arrest the Democrats' slide on life, things might have been very different today. Instead, they became classic enablers, treating abortion as an irritating issue that needed to be placed off to the side."
Now, after two decades of missed opportunities and conflicting signals, McGurn traces a pattern of "moral incoherence" in which Notre Dame has embraced both pro-choice and pro-life public figures, such as the pro-life Harvard Law professor and former U.S. ambassador to the Vatican, Mary Ann Glendon, who will be awarded the prestigious Laetare medal at the commencement.
"Yet time after time, Notre Dame has opted for the inner Cuomo. In this context, the decision to award this year's Laetare medal to Mary Ann Glendon, a woman of formidable talent and pro-life conviction, appears less a firm stand for life than a cynical PR move aimed at blunting the criticism they no doubt expected if Mr. Obama accepted their invitation to speak.
"In the end, the result is moral incoherence. It is an incoherence in which abortion-rights advocates have the most to gain, because it demoralizes those who support the cause of life while removing fears of even the slightest social sanction for those who do not. And it is an incoherence we see all across American Catholic life today."
Bishop John M. D'Arcy of Fort Wayne-South Bend clearly seeks to avoid the pitfall of moral incoherence: Underscoring his role as the primary teacher of faith and morals in the diocese that incorporates Notre Dame, D'Arcy announced that he had only learned of Obama's visit on March 20th, and would not attend Notre Dame's commencement this year:
"This will be the 25th Notre Dame graduation during my time as bishop. After much prayer, I have decided not to attend the graduation. I wish no disrespect to our president, I pray for him and wish him well. I have always revered the Office of the Presidency. But a bishop must teach the Catholic faith “in season and out of season,” and he teaches not only by his words — but by his actions.
"My decision is not an attack on anyone, but is in defense of the truth about human life."
At present, Notre Dame shows no sign of rethinking its decision, though Father Jenkins may be mulling over Bishop D'Arcy's comment that he had encouraged Mary Ann Glendon to still attend the commencement, at which she will receive her award, and use the time as a teaching opportunity.
Catholics critical of Notre Dame's decision are also taking advantage of this moment to signal their own judgment of Notre Dame's decision: As of March 25th, the Cardinal Newman Society"s petition condemning the university's action has over 80,000 signatures.
And in case anybody thinks Notre Dame students fully endorse Father Jenkin's position, a slew of student groups oppose the decision to invite Obama.
Update: Here's the latest news on the controversy from Inside Catholic. Deal Hudson reports that many more bishops, including the USCCB President Cardinal George have protested the university's decision to honor the president at its commencement.
Postscript: Interesting post by Joseph Bottom in First Things
Comments