By Helen M. Alvaré
WASHINGTON, D.C., APRIL 9, 2009 (Zenit.org).- Supporters of Notre Dame University's
decision to honor Barack Obama at its commencement employ elevated and
even aspirational language in their attempt to characterize the meaning
of the event. They invoke the language of "engagement" and "common
ground" and "dialogue." But no matter their intentions or even
their hopes, the very contents and structures of their argumentation
ultimately denigrate the Catholic "brand" of speaking in the public
square.
This "brand" involves relying upon empirically supportable assertions
and rational argumentation, and respecting one's listeners. But the
arguments deployed by supporters of Notre Dame's decision do not
exhibit these qualities. If Catholics are persuaded to adopt or accept
them, our "brand" will be diluted and the Church will be a less
effective advocate on all issues and in every arena where it operates.
This should concern all Catholics who toil in public arenas -- before
legal bodies, academic critics, the media, or the public generally --
no matter what issues are on the table.
Cast in their best light, the arguments made by supporters of Notre
Dame's decision to offer Barack Obama an honorary Doctor of Laws degree
are as follows (most are drawn from the interview given by Notre Dame's
president, Father John Jenkins, to the campus newspaper): first, Notre
Dame commencements have regularly been visited by presidents of both
political parties. This obviously confers prestige upon Notre Dame in
the eyes of some. As Father Jenkins expresses it, the president
"honors" the university by his willingness to come to campus. Also,
according to Father Jenkins, the president deserves to be honored
because he is an "inspiring leader" who is addressing our nation's
present challenges with "intelligence, courage and honesty." He
also deserves to be honored as the first African American president
who, by his race and his words, merits the title of "healer" of
historic racial wounds.
Finally, according to Father Jenkins, it is precisely "because" Notre
Dame "care[s] so much about the "critical issue of the protection of
life" that "we invited" President Obama. Honoring him could be the
"basis of an engagement" with Obama, a "catalyst for dialogue," and the
occasion of future opportunities "to persuade" him or, if not to
persuade, at least to show respect for" and "listen to" Obama.
Conversely, Jenkins seems to claim that failing to invite and honor
people like Barack Obama would be to "shun" them. This would harm
efforts at persuasion.
There is another argument one could make in favor of inviting President
Obama to the Notre Dame campus, which is likely in the minds of some
Catholics, and is likely more persuasive than those arguments put
forward by Father Jenkins. It might even do a better job of preserving
the Catholic Church's reputation for speaking truthfully about
controvertible matters in a pluralistic environment. It is this:
President Obama talks often about things that the Catholic Church has
long cared about: more widely available health care, the end of nuclear
threats, a cleaner environment, and more help for the working poor. It
is not surprising that some people, Catholics included, who have long
toiled on these issues, should be happy to hear a U.S. president take
up these causes as his own, even if there is no guarantee that any of
his particular approaches will work. But such an argument is still not
up to the task of justifying the bestowal of an honor upon President
Obama. This is because there has never been a U.S. president -- or any
nationally known politician for that matter -- whose personal opinions
and actions regarding unborn and newborn life have been so literally
"inhumane," so remorseless and even so irrational. To persons already
holding the pro-life view, there is little need to rehearse these
opinions and actions, but others will want to know to what I am
referring here. An abbreviated summary will have to do.
During his time in the Illinois legislature, Barack Obama acted
personally to ensure that that legislature would not pass a law banning
the killing of disabled newborn children, born alive following botched
abortions. In connection with his tenure as a U.S. Senator, he
distributed fundraising circulars to raise money on the grounds of his
support for continuing the practice of partial-birth abortions (a
technique involving partially delivering live infants outside the
bodies of their mothers, save for their heads, which are then stabbed
and suctioned, before being fully delivered, now dead). As a candidate
for president, he promised that one of his first legislative acts would
be the passage of a law (the Freedom of Choice Act) to remove all
existing regulations from the practice of abortion in the United
States. On the anniversary of Roe v. Wade, and as against the tens of
thousands of pro-life marchers gathered in the January cold of
Washington, D.C., he issued a public statement supporting the decision
that overturned every state's decision to shield the unborn from being
killed. He later issued several executive orders releasing hundreds of
millions of federal dollars for abortion groups operating overseas, and
for researchers killing human embryos. In the context of the latter
order, he both excoriated defenders of embryonic life as ideological
and political versus "scientific," and claimed the mantle of morality,
and scientific purity for himself. He also claimed support for his
decision based upon a national "consensus" and his "faith," but failed
to give evidence of the former claim, or to confront the facial
irrationality of the latter claim. Despite excoriating his opponents as
anti-scientific, he himself refused to acknowledge the scientific data
confirming the humanity of the embryo, or the emerging scientific
consensus that adult stem cells offer a superior therapeutic and moral
alternative to embryonic stem cells. President Obama furthermore is
readying the federal government to strip conscience protections from
doctors and hospitals morally opposed to performing abortions. And he
has literally filled the White House and powerful federal agencies with
lawyers from the nation's foremost extremist abortion-advocacy groups,
the groups that have bitterly opposed every effort of the Catholic
Church, both here and overseas, to protect the lives of the unborn and
their mothers from abortion.
Believe it or not, the list actually goes on. But enough has been said
to help even those who might initially defend Obama's appearance at
Notre Dame to understand its significance. As indicated above, however,
I am not criticizing Notre Dame, or Father Jenkins' remarks in
particular, simply for failing to comprehend the enormity of the threat
President Obama poses to respect for vulnerable human life. I am not
simply lamenting Notre Dame's willingness to trample upon the
sensibilities of hundreds of thousands of ordinary Catholics who have
worked nearly four decades in support of human life, or even the
willingness to exacerbate a kind of "class divide" between actively
pro-life Catholics and the intellectual class of Catholics who attend
and run prestigious universities. I am, most of all, writing to caution
those who, speaking as Catholics, would deploy irrational and
condescending arguments in the public square on any issue. For the
stature of Catholics in the public square is fragile at best, despite
the brilliance of our best-known public intellectuals such as Professor
Robbie George of Princeton or Mary Ann Glendon of Harvard. Our stances
on sexual morality, on respect for life, and on marriage, are
increasingly out of favor with elites. The effects of the sex-abuse
crisis in the Church linger. Our enormous contributions in the
health care, charitable and educational arenas are underreported. If we
are to continue to be welcomed at the table where public policies are
debated and crafted, we cannot appear to have "descended" below our
usual "brand" of argumentation. Reason and truth make up this brand.
But the arguments deployed by defenders of Obama's visit to Notre Dame
betray the brand. Commencement ceremonies and the granting of honorary
doctorates are not occasions for persuasion, dialogue and engagement on
controvertible issues, as Father Jenkins claims. Having received
honorary doctorates at several universities (and even though I am
infinitely lower on the food chain than the President of the United
States) I can tell you that they are nothing but occasions for fulsome
praise, protocol and pleasant conversation. The "message" received by
all -- the one honored and all of the onlookers -- is that the honoree
somehow embodies the values of the institution granting the degree, and
the aspirations of the graduates. This is common knowledge.
As for Father Jenkins' statement that Notre Dame honors Obama precisely
"because" Notre Dame cares so much about "the critical issue of the
protection of life" -- this statement hardly merits commentary. It is
worthy of a desperate politician or an advertising agency, but not a
Catholic institution that cares to represent itself to listeners as
reliably truthful and rational. The message actually sent by Notre
Dame's honoring President Obama, is that the decision makers at Notre
Dame -- and perhaps the many Catholics they represent -- do not believe
that the right of vulnerable persons not to be killed is as important
an issue as centuries of Catholic teaching have made it out to be. The
further message is that Catholic sources are willing to use irrational
and condescending argumentation, if that's what it takes to preserve
our own interests or to prevent "embarrassment" in a difficult
situation.
All Catholics who wish to be welcomed into public debates on any issue
in the future -- not just abortion -- ought to be dismayed at how Notre
Dame's attempted justification of the Obama invitation has denigrated
our reputation, our "brand" for speaking truthfully and rationally,
even to power.
* * *
Helen Alvaré is a senior fellow in law for the Culture of Life
Foundation, and an associate professor of law at the George Mason
University School of Law in Arlington, Virginia. In 2008, Benedict XVI
named Professor Alvaré a consultor to the Pontifical Council for
the Laity.
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |