I meant to post on this some time ago, but for a variety of reasons it kept getting put off. The upside is that now that the Notre Dame commencement ceremony has taken place, I can comment on things in their totality.
First, I want to be clear that I am very angry with the university for allowing President Obama the opportunity to speak at the commencement ceremony in addition to awarding him an honorary doctorate of law. That being said, I also want to express my displeasure and disappointment with some of the attacks leveled against the university. I think Matt of the Holy Whapping put it best:
For a lot of us, it was a bit like discovering our dear old mother had a drinking problem. Something must be done, but watching others gleefully taunting her was a bit hard to handle, as right as they might have been in the abstract to rebuke her. She is still someone’s mother, after all.
To be blunt, the name calling of the university (e.g. “Notre Shame”) is just downright juvenile. You might as well add “Nanner, nanner, nanner” and be done with it. It adds nothing constructive to the issue at hand.
In regards to the protests, I must commend the student groups, organized under ND Response, for their prayerful and constructive response to this decision by the university. I firmly believe that the primary response should be with the students. This is a matter of their university administration making a very poor decision. Furthermore, the students have the best information about what the atmosphere is on campus as well as how a university works. While outside groups wanting to protest is commendable, I believe the best they could have done is followed the students’ lead and joined with them rather than staging their own protests. Third party groups, while they may be well-meaning, can be woefully ignorant about the university and end up setting back the work the students have accomplished with the administration.
In the end, of course, the awarding of President Obama with an honorary doctorate of law is a gross violation of the 2004 USCCB document “Catholics in Political Life”. Aside from that, as Arizona State University said, what has the president done during his term in office to merit such an award? His term is just beginning. Unfortunately, what he has done is enact policies that are detrimental to the culture of life. These policies violate the Natural Law, and as such should automatically disqualify someone from receiving any legal award, especially one from a supposedly Catholic university where the Natural Law should still be recognized and upheld. A law is an ordinance of reason, and violations of the Natural Law are unreasonable.
The university tried to couch this decision by speaking of “dialogue” or “debate”. I have problems in using the word debate in reference to abortion. There is no debate on abortion — it is intrinsically evil. A debate implies that there are two different approaches to an issue, each one valid, and we are trying to decide which is best. We can debate the best way to reform the health care system, if at all. We can debate the best ways to help mothers care for their children. Regarding abortion though, even if the pro-abortion/pro-choice side makes what appears to be a more convincing argument in a “debate”, they are still wrong because abortion is intrinsically evil and contrary to the Natural Law, which is written on the heart of every person (even if they try will not admit it). Dialogue might be a better word to use, but even that can be misconstrued. I think these terminological concerns are particularly important in a society steeped in relativism where the prevalent idea is that I have my truth and you have your truth and never the twain shall meet. The goal about talking with the opposing side regarding abortion is to convert their hearts and help them see the truth that it is human beings that are being killed.
Obama in his speech at commencement, as Bishop Finn pointed out, ended any real hope for dialogue when he described the positions on abortion as “irreconcilable”. While he spoke about the opposing sides working together to try to decrease the number of unwanted pregnancies, his plan for that involves promotion of a contraceptive mentality. So long as contraception is practiced mainstream in this country there will always be a push for abortion because it is viewed as the “fail-safe” should the contraception inevitably fail.
In this whole Notre Dame fiasco, there has been much focus on the negative aspects of Notre Dame. I am telling you from experience that Notre Dame is not all bad. There is a yearly Eucharistic Procession at which 600+ people have been attending the past few years. There are something like 150 Masses that are said on campus each week. Campus Ministry is heading in the right direction. Right to Life is the largest student group on campus, and there are several hardcore Catholic groups on campus. There is daily adoration on weekdays, and numerous opportunities for Confession throughout the week. The Catholicism of Notre Dame is in her students. Granted, some students live what would be considered the stereotypical college student lifestyle, but there are many good Catholic students who are on fire for their faith. There are also many strong priests within the Congregation of Holy Cross. This is where the future of the Catholicism at Notre Dame lies. The University is not beyond redemption, and I firmly believe that this future redemption will come about through the grassroots witness of the Catholic students on campus. While all these good aspects do not excuse the bad, they show that Notre Dame is not as far gone as some other so-called “Catholic” schools in this country.
I have no regrets about attending Notre Dame for my graduate studies. If it had not been for my time at Notre Dame and the people that I met there, I highly doubt I would be in seminary right now. I think that is a great witness to the good that is still possible at Our Lady’s School.