...to give the commencement address this year and it's created a bit of a mini-controversy. Some in the ND community think it's a mistake to confer an honorary degree on someone with his views on abortion and stem cell research. If you had asked me my opinion on the subject, up until today I would have given you an answer much like the one Frankie "Five Angels"
Pentangeli gave in "The Godfather, Part II" when asked a question about Michael Corleone: "...Yeah, sure, whatever." After all, it's an internal issue.
But this morning Pat Buchanan wrote a piece about it that has me thinking. In it he says:
Pope Benedict has yet to be heard from. But on his visit to the United States, he declared that any appeal to academic freedom "to justify positions that contradict the faith and teaching of the church would obstruct or even betray the university's identity and mission."So the faith and teaching of the church supersedes academic freedom? Is this what
Notre Dame stands for? There's more:
Chris Carrington, a political science major, regards the opposition to Obama's appearance as un-Catholic: "To not allow someone here because of their beliefs would seem a little hypocritical and contradictory to what the mission of the university and church should be." The obtuse Carrington has stumbled on the relevant question: Is Notre Dame still a repository, teacher and exemplar of eternal truths about God and Man, right and wrong, whose mission is to convey and defend those truths in a hostile world?
Or has Notre Dame joined the secularists in their endless scavenger hunt to seek and find truth in the marketplace of ideas?
Funny, I thought the
purpose of education was the pursuit of truth in the marketplace of ideas. Now, I know that Pat Buchanan doesn't speak for the University of
Notre Dame, but he does raise an uncomfortable question about Catholic education. And that is, how far are they willing to go to allow for a free and open debate? Are there some things that are simply not up for discussion? It reminds me of a story that Tim
Russert used to tell about his Jesuit high school. When Time magazine came out with its famous cover story in the sixties, "Is God Dead?" he said that unlike the teachers at other Catholic schools, his teacher/priest said, "Let's discuss this." They were all very self-congratulatory, but what I'd like to ask
Russert (who definitely is dead), is how many minds were changed by that discussion? Did anyone leave that classroom with a different opinion about God? I'll bet not. And that's the problem with religion and religious schools. They start with the answers and work their way backwards, rather than start with questions and work forward to conclusions. That's also the difference between faith and reason. And that, not whether or not Obama speaks at graduation, is the real
dilemma facing
Notre Dame and other religious schools.
5 comments:
I just think it's funny that ND regards itself so highly that it sees it's rejection of one of the most influential political figures of our time as having any consequence whatsoever. If I'm on Obama's PR team my response is: "Pff. Fine. On to the uncountable number of institutions that would be happy to hear from a intelligent, articulate individual who stands at the center of a fascinating moment in American history."
The reason that Obama and other presidents have spoken at Notre Dame is that it's the highest profile Catholic school in America and therefore a great way to reach the largest denomination (voting group) in America. If ND doesn't want him he could speak at Fordham in New York or DePaul in Chicago. I understand those are large cities with lots of Catholics. ND has already ceded the Best Catholic Football Team in America title to Boston College. Do they really want the president to select another Catholic school to deliver their commencement address?
Are catholics really the largest voting group in America? Are voting groups even divided by religion all that often any more? The blocks I kept hearing about were young people, African Americans, "Nascar Dads", "Soccer Moms", Latinos, Low Income voters, etc.
I agree that no matter where Obama ends up it will raise the profile of that school just through the sheer force of the media storm that it will create.
As someone not raised in the Mid-West or in Catholic schools, I guess I just continue to be baffled by the deference paid to ND and which ND appears to think it deserves so unequivocally.
And they say the Ivys are arrogant!
I'm pretty sure that Catholics are the largest denomination in the U. S. ahead of Southern Baptists. Although they don't necessarily vote as a bloc, they often vote for the winner (Obama in 2008 and Bush in 2004) and so can't be ignored. They also make up the typical Reagan Democrat profile and can be pivotal in elections.
As far as the whole ND thing, that's a subject for another posting.
I guess there are any number of ways that you can dissect any number of groups. You might think that African Americans are a lock for the Democrats but then comes Michael Steele and I think Charles Barkely has traditionally been a Republican. I'm sure Jordan is. Obviously they would be the exception to the rule in this election, but that just supports the idea that people have multiple allegiances and vote the way they do by weighing how candidates prioritize those allegiances.
As for ND, fair enough. I'm sure it's a great school. I guess I just don't have the context for understanding how this region views them and how they seem to view themselves. They certainly are not the first institution of any stripe to view itself in high regard.
Post a Comment