A Critical Moment

March 30, 2009

Barack Obama, Notre Dame and the future of the U.S. church

At critical moments in life it is important to take stock. The demand from many Catholic bishops and lay leaders that the University of Notre Dame rescind its invitation to President Obama to deliver the 2009 commencement address is surely a critical moment in the relationship between the Catholic Church in the United States and the wider American society. Before battle lines harden further on this issue, we should take time-out to ask some hard and penetrating questions. These are some of the questions that occur to me.

1. What if the president is forced to back out of his appearance at Notre Dame either because he withdraws or the university withdraws its invitation? If this happens, will that further the pro-life effort in our country? If the president is forced to withdraw, will that increase cooperation between the Catholic Church and the Administration, or will it create mounting tensions and deepening hostility? If the president is forced to withdraw, will that bring about fewer abortions in the United States? Will his withdrawal under such pressure lead more people to support pro-life efforts?

2. If the president is forced to withdraw, how will it impact the image of the church? Will it enhance the mission of the church? Will it create a more positive attitude toward the Catholic Church?

3. If the president is forced to withdraw, how will that fact be used? Will it be used to link the church with racist and other extremist elements in our country? Will the banishment of the first African-American president from Catholic university campuses be seen as grossly insensitive to the heritage of racial hatred which has burdened our country for far too long? Will it be used to paint the bishops as supporters of one political party over another? Will this action be seen as proof that the bishops of the United States do not sincerely seek dialogue on major policy questions, but only acquiescence?

These questions are not negligible. Cardinal James Gibbons, when he received the "Red Hat," in a memorable sermon at the church of Santa Maria in Trastevere, strongly praised the tremendous benefit that came to the church in our country because of the separation of church and state. During our more than two hundred years of history, the American bishops have until very recently steadfastly held to the position of making judgments about policy but never judgments about persons in the political arena. One reason for this position was that the episcopate recognized that the greater good of the mission of the church would be served in this way.

Taking account of what serves the greater good of the mission of the church is not opportunism. It is what Catholic tradition calls prudence. The saints have used various words for this cardinal virtue: discretion, discernment, practical wisdom. The great teacher of discernment, St. Ignatius Loyola, points out in this context the serious evil of the temptation of the good. Not everything that seems good is in fact good. Weighing, discernment and discretion are necessary even in things that seem on the face of it to be good. There is always the twin issue of the objective itself and the means of achieving it. One may be good, the other not.

We American Catholics are grateful for the benefits of the separation of church and state. But that separation is not the separation of church and society--the state is not society. The church has a proper role in society and a constitutionally guaranteed freedom of religion. It is the right and the grave obligation of bishops to speak about the moral dimensions of public issues.

Even so, we must step back and consider the limitations--prudential, moral and political--on the role of bishops in public issues. In doing so we need to consider the longstanding policy of the American episcopate in this matter. We must weigh very seriously the consequences if the American bishops are seen as the agents of the public embarrassment of the newly elected president by forcing him to withdraw from an appearance at a distinguished Catholic university. The bishops and the president serve the same citizens of the same country. It is in the interests of both the church and the nation if both work together in civility, honesty and friendship for the common good, even where there are grave divisions, as there are on abortion.

But it does not improve the likelihood of making progress on this and other issues of common concern if we adopt the clenched fist approach. The president has given ample evidence that he is a man of good will, of keen intelligence, desirous of listening and capable of weighing seriously other views. The Directory for the Pastoral Ministry of Bishops, citing Augustine, points out that “ Certain situations cannot be resolved with asperity or hardness” and goes on to say “(B)ecause his daily pastoral concerns give the Bishop greater scope for personal decision-making, his scope for error is also greater, however good his intentions: this thought should encourage him to remain open to dialog with others, always ready to learn, to seek and accept the advice of others.”

Most Rev. John R. Quinn is archbishop emeritus of San Francisco, Calif.

Comments

Separation of Church and State is not the issue here. Nor is extending a hand of kindness and respect to sinners. The issue is that if you don't stand for pricipal you will fall for anything. What Preisdent Jenkins has demonstrated is what many American Catholics have long suspected. Catholic Universities have embraced secularism to a degree that makes actual Secular Universities dismissal of religion pale by comparison. Our progressive Catholic clergy have melded the Marist idiom that religion is the opiate of the masses with the doctrine of separation of Church and State to the degree that it is now unseemly for Catholics to object to indoctrination of ND graduates by the darling of the Pro-Abortion claque, Champion of Black Liberation Theology, and a leader in the Sol Alinsky school of community organizing. I guess the ten suggestions as incorporated into situation ethics, now rules. Morals are for the unenlightened. Situation Ethics is the way, in other words in any given situation what ever advances our interests is ethical and of course admirable and pragmatic.

The leaders of the Catholic Church lost credibility with the election of Obama with so many Catholics voting for him. One example is my cousin, who is a Catholic nun, who told me she was voting for Obama because a good economy reduces abortions. I cannot imagine one person who is either pro-life or pro-abortion to be persuaded to change their view if this invitation is rescinded. I do, however imagine a lot of Catholics leaving the church as I did a long time ago.

Your eminence, "they will not be judged by the color of their skin but by the content of their character" To inject race into a matter of character is itself inflammatory. Only an unjust racist would infer that Notre Dame's stand is a matter of race. Such a one may be popular, but we can only pray for them since they have already shut their heart in hatred. The matter, sir, is simple principle. Having speculated how the Church will be perceived we can look to history to see. First, it is people of principle that are historically honored - Winston Churchill v Neville Chamberlain. History is filled, and the Church is filled with heroes of principle (name a saint), not with persons vacillating on public opinion. The Church has held and does hold that life is sacred. The Church has held and does hold that life begins at conception. What possible dialog is there after that? One either accepts the teaching or not. Once they accept the teaching, they have a choice - stand on principle or not. How will the Church be perceived? When in the course of Christ's Life or the history of the Church did the public's opinion change principles? His Holiness has chastised American Catholic politicians for their abortion stances. What does it say about the Church's principles when a Catholic University promotes someone that stands event further from those the Pope himself has chastised? The court of public opinion is ever more hostile to the Church. That is a fact. However, there are three issues here. One, will the Church be divided on a matter of Principle decided by the Pope himself? Two, will the vacillating nature of Notre Dame be seen as what it is - power and pomp - over principle and Godliness? Three, will the person - aggrieved, in crisis of conscience be comforted by the stand of the Church or succumb to sin by it? It would be far better sir, for the Church to be vilified by the press for its stand on principle than for one abortion to take place because of its failure.

Nevill Chamberlain was also prudent. See where it got him. Why is it always Cathjolics who have to be prident?

Is Quinn a priest or a politician? read the article..He is a politician.Is he a leader or does he float with the tide? He floats. Does he stand up for church doctrine or give way to liberal media thought? Does he follow in Christ's footsteps and go against the crowd or cower with the politically correct speeches? In the movie "High Noon" the sheriff goes to the church to seek help. The "town leaders" tell him to to do a politically correct thing , "don't stand for what is right. . Leave town instead". I feel that is what the ArchBishop is doing. Bye

Quinn wants to rationalize,and there should be no rationalization like this in the morals of the Catholic Church. The offer should be rescinded by Notre Dame if the Catholic Church has any balls, but alas I am afraid that the leaders are simply cowsrds when it comes to confronting Obama. Quinh should spend his time making sure that Pelosi does not receive communion since she is in his arch diocese.

The drivel in this article is yet another example of what got us into this trouble in the first place. The Archbishop, and the rest of the spineless, mush-mouthed bishops like him, fails to recognize that we faithful see (and think) right through this garbage. Please don't think that just because you rattle off a hundred questions, we're not going to take the time to answer them. Answers to section 1: Who cares? There is objective value in righteous witness in the world. We are obliged to witness to the Truth, whether or not we can predict a particular (desired) outcome. Section 2: Again, who cares? Anyone, who would impugn the entire Church over this issue, is not going to look favorably upon us, no matter what we do. Personally, I'd follow the lead of someone who acts on principle, before I'd follow some wet noodle that knows nothing but compromise. Section 3: You're kidding, right? Maybe I'm misunderstanding, but it seems that you are saying that, just because he's the first black president, he can go wherever he wants, say whatever he wants, do whatever he wants, and we just have to sit and watch, because someone might disregard our real reasons and call us racist. That's just foolish. Anyone can call me anything, oftentimes saying more about the other person than about me. "It is in the interests of both the church and the nation if both work together in civility, honesty and friendship for the common good..." Working with this president cannot promote the "common good" because he promotes the death of children. Whatever good might be done will be 'un-common'. Many will not have survived to reap the benefits of whatever progress made. It is disingenuous to write that "he is a man of good will" knowing what he stands for. He is a man of will, but to use "good" insults Him, who is Good. And by the way, 'church' is a building. 'Church' refers to that which was established by Jesus Christ for the salvation of souls. Thanks to Almighty God for the retirement of bishops.

The first duty of the Catholic Church is to teach the truth whether, as St. Paul says, it is in season or out of season. I, personally, don't see much difference between Obama and Hitler. He advances the slaughter of the most innocent of life and the Bishop proposes accomodation with him. Oh heavens, we should be worried about our public image. This is very simply put - war. We cannot serve both mammon and God. As Jesus Christ states in Matthew 10:34 "Do not think that I came to bring peace on the earth; I did not come to bring peace, but a sword." A few Chesterton quotes: “There are an infinite number of ways to fall, but there is only one way to stand.” "Fallacies do not cease to be fallacies because they become fashions." “Be careful not to be so open-minded that your brains fall out.” “I want a church that moves the world not one that moves with it” “Take away the supernatural and what remains is the unnatural”

"The president has given ample evidence that he is a man of good will, of keen intelligence, desirous of listening and capable of weighing seriously other views." I don't doubt the President's intelligence. However, his commentary when authorizing destructive embryonic stem cell research was larded with contempt for the other side. An elegantly-delivered contempt, but contempt nonetheless. Rhetorical head-patting aside, there is nothing in the man's record demonstrating that he regards pro-lifers as anything except opponents to be thwarted and marginalized. Which no doubt explains a certain segment of his current popularity in Catholic circles.

Once again, a Bishop who wants to rationalize. The teachings of the Church are not on the market for manipulation. They are what they are; you either accept them or reject them. If a President of a Catholic University decides to reject those principles, then, it be fitting then, that they remove the word Catholic from their identity. As an alumnus of many years back, I am told that the student body voted overwhemingly for Obama What does that say about the University in its communication and teaching of Catholic social teachings. I would dare to say if a final exam was given to the student body on the Catechism of the Catholic Church, more than likely over half would fail and the other half would be in the C and D range. .that goes the same for our University of Georgetown and Fordham. We have to stop the rationalizing and apologizing for what we teach in the Catholic Church. We need Bishops like Archbishop Chaput who have no fear in telling it like it is. Why should a Bishop fear for speaking the truth of the Church. Let's stop the nonsense!

It seems too late to un-invite President Obama as ND has already "opened that door" by inviting George Bush. How do you differentiate between taking the life of an un-born child in the womb of an American woman and that of an unsuspecting child or mother in Iraq? I applaud Fr. jenkins for being open to the possibility that an invitation such as this could lead to a relationship in which open and honest dialog could take place regarding the sanctity of all life. That would be a much truer perspective of "pro-life," not just the narrow singular position of abortion.

I agree with Bishop Quinn that to uninvite, at this point in time, Mr. Obama would do more harm than good. However, Bishop Quinn's lenghty piece would have more instructional if he had at least commented on the prudence of the Notre Dame folks to invite the president in the first place.

Interesting questions from the Archbishop but like others before me said, he seems to be not addressing the main point. Should someone who supports abortion in both his rhetoric, legislative acts and appointments be given an honorary degree and platform in a "Catholic" institution? This is an obvious no. Should this invitation be rescinded? Yes, of course. However, this would take moral courage from someone who apparently doesn't think there is anything wrong with the invitation. Will this provide a stamp of approval for other pro-aborts and anti-family politicians to be invited to give commencement speeches? Most likely, however many of those are already doing it anyway. How will this further scandalize the students at Notre Dame? Only God knows but we will know somewhat by the fruit it produces. How will this scandalize those looking in from the outside who may be marginally Catholic and further seperate them from Holy Mother Church? How is this a dialogue? Answer is same as above. BTW, a one-sided speech is not a dialogue. One should be honest enough to separate the color of one's skin from the moral stands that a person has taken. The president's moral stands are clear. Notre Dame's invite is clearly wrong.

Of course, the Bishop's words are thoughtful, serious and helpful. It is unfortunate that the same cannot be said for the decision made by Fr. Jenkins. It does seem it would be difficult at this point to rescind the invitation, but I believe many, many Rosaries will need to be prayed in reparation for this insufferable act.

Fair enough questions, but here's another one: If the President is NOT disinvited, do you think it's more or less likely other universities and lip-service Catholic institutions will follow suit in blatantly disobeying the eminently prudent directive of the US Bishops' Conference that those who support principles antithetical to the Church's — as Obama does about life and has proven since January — should not receive honors, awards or platforms? The scandalous behavior on the part of those who pretend to know better than the bishops will only worsen.

when one looks at the landscape of the USCCB, where is there the wisdom, the sense of proportion, the CAtholicity that we see emanating from the pen of Archbishop Quinn? The present USCCB is just a shadow of that same group of bishops from the 1980's Meanwhile, we see the Catholic Church in the US tearing itself into shreds What is such a tragic spectacle doing to the mission of the church? where is the leadership to cut through this mess?

In my opinion, the Archbishop has skirted the central issue. The central issue is whether ND was right or wrong in bestowing this honor upon the President. Archbishop Quinn does not answer that question. The issue as to whether ND should rescind or retract the honor is a separate question

This is the most sane and measured writing about this issue I have found. Brilliant.

The arguments posed as questions in this commentary are deeply disappointing, primarily because they obfuscates the key question posed by the Notre Dame invitation and honorary degree: Does the Church stand for the protection of all human beings, even the tiniest among us, or does it value "cooperation" on lesser issues above the lives of our unborn brothers and sisters? His Excellency's use of the word "cooperation" is striking, in so far as it is used in defense of what many of the faithful believe is the "co-opting" of what was once perceived to be a great Catholic university. The President's record of cooperation with the Church on advancing protection of all human lives is striking. He has authorized federal funding for the deliberate creation of embryonic children, who are to be used for research then killed. He has expanded the funding of international "family planning" to include abortion as a form of family planning. He has directed officials in the State Department to create an international "right to abortion" in the agreements developed at the United Nations. He seeks to withdraw federal regulations protecting healthcare workers and institutions against unconscionable demands that they participate in the destruction of human lives. It is difficult to image a record of less cooperation in his short term of office. We are cautioned that concerns about public image of the Church should dictate, if not support, at least silence about the message Notre Dame conveys to its students and all observers regarding what the Church values. Such silence, however, would convey our acquiesance in the idea that this President's record is one to be honored -- that his accomplishments as President in other areas outweigh the death sentence imposed on the unborn by his policies. I beg to differ on the evidence presented by President Obama's record. Finally, and this is the most disturbing argument of all, we are told that to express outrage with the scandal caused by Notre Dame's actions can be seen as evidence of racial bigotry. Catholics who take seriously the teaching of the Church on the primacy of the right to life deserve better than this from one who is charged with the protection of souls. This is not a question of separation of Church and State, although those are certainly present in the government's attempt to force Catholic doctors and hospitals to provide abortions. This is a question of what the Church holds up to its own as worthy of honor and emulation. The America is gravely mistaken in his analysis and his commentary.

Retired Archbishop John R. Quinn has brought a razor mind to a difficult situation. I believe it is good that we are having a dialogue about Catholic identity. On the other hand Cardinal Francis George sees the situation more in black and white terms, lacking Bishop Quinn's understanding of the complexity of the situation. One calls us to reason and think, the other calls us to obey. Which I wonder promotes the mission of the Church, authority or reason. It is good that Catholics have finally begin to talk about their identity in relationship to the Church's mission. Joe Murray Rainbow Sash Movement

I guess Archbishop Quinn would never have wanted to embarras Hitler if Quinn had lived at that period of time. Sometimes, Archbishop, we must do the right thing. Also did you protest when the Democratic Party refused to invite your brother Archbishop Chaput to the Democratic City which was in Denver?

Comments

Pages

Recent Articles