Yes I Get It -- But Glendon is Still Wrong

After posting my blog about Mary Ann Glendon yesterday, I was going to wade into the comment section, knife in teeth, to defend myself against the criticism from conservative readers that quickly went up. But then I began to receive emails from my Catholic friends who, more gently and privately, took me to task for my views. So I've decided to post a more extended reply to these critics.

As readers of my last piece know, I took issue with Glendon's decision to turn down the prestigious Laetare medal from Notre Dame University because the college had also invited President Obama to give the commencement address and bestow him with an honorary degree. Glendon would have received the award at the same graduation ceremony, and also have been expected to give a speech.

In an impassioned and obviously painful letter for Glendon to write, she told the university's president, Rev. John Jenkins, that she could not in conscience accept the award nor attend the ceremony because:

as a longtime consultant to the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops, I could not help but be dismayed by the news that Notre Dame also planned to award the president an honorary degree. This, as you must know, was in disregard of the U.S. bishops' express request of 2004 that Catholic institutions "should not honor those who act in defiance of our fundamental moral principles" and that such persons "should not be given awards, honors or platforms which would suggest support for their actions." That request, which in no way seeks to control or interfere with an institution's freedom to invite and engage in serious debate with whomever it wishes, seems to me so reasonable that I am at a loss to understand why a Catholic university should disrespect it.

You can read the full text of Glendon's letter here.

As I stated at the beginning of my last blog, I'm a longtime admirer of Glendon. I'm also not a Catholic, so I did not wish to enter into the internal religious politics of Glendon's decision. My dismay stemmed from what amounted to her very public decision not to share a podium with the President of the United States,

[f]or whom many Catholics and non-Catholics alike voted. Glendon's words suggest that Obama may be president but he is not HER President, or the Catholics' president -- a highly divisive and anti-democratic sentiment.

I also said:

Here we have yet another example of religious conservatives opting out of engagement with the larger political culture, even that within their own church. Even if you view President Obama's stance on abortion -- which this is about -- as wrong, or even appalling, wouldn't you want to take this opportunity to address the President directly -- or as the old saying goes, "Speak truth to power?"

Whoa! Did a lot of my fellow conservatives ever take issue with that!

Let's start with the least serious of the complaints. Many commenters argued that a commencement ceremony is no time to start up with politics--echoing the same point that Glendon had made in her letter to the university:

A commencement... is supposed to be a joyous day for the graduates and their families. It is not the right place, nor is a brief acceptance speech the right vehicle, for engagement with the very serious problems raised by Notre Dame's decision -- in disregard of the settled position of the U.S. bishops -- to honor a prominent and uncompromising opponent of the Church's position on issues involving fundamental principles of justice.

Maybe I have more faith in Glendon than the commenters -- and even than Glendon herself -- that she could have made a stirring, eloquent and respectful speech before the most powerful political figure in the land, without dragging it into the mud. When, if not at a commencement address, do we have the opportunity to restate, in soaring language, the larger values and beliefs that a degree from a religious university represents? And how often do we have the chance for a sitting president -- especially one whom we feel opposes these values and beliefs -- to hear our words directly?

The more serious criticism was best stated in the private emails I received from my Catholic friends (and from whom I've received permission to excerpt). One wrote,

Prof. Glendon's decision doesn't have much to do with sharing a podium with Obama; it has to do with rejecting Notre Dame. This is internal Catholic baseball.

Notre Dame invited Obama -- a popular president with wide Catholic support to be sure, but also one who aggressively pushed through policy changes profoundly anathema to Catholic doctrine. The invitation because it was made by a Catholic school is a matter of scandal to lots of Catholics -- including a number of bishops, not least the bishop of South Bend. So it's a big deal, and another chapter in the "are 'Catholic' universities Catholic?" war that's been going on for twenty years. (So far the answer is: some, but not many.) The bishop decided to break with tradition and not attend. Prof. Glendon is following suit, with the additional rationale of not wanting to be "honored" but really used as a Crossfire style "and from the right..." prop.

If they'd both been honored by the University of Indiana, I'd bet my house she'd have accepted and done exactly as you counsel. But it's Notre Dame, and that's the difference and the point of her walking out. The wider politics of left-right, Democrat-Republican, don't apply here. This is a bout between, well, to paraphrase, the Catholic wing of the Catholic Church and the secularizing "social justice," "spirit of Vatican II," "Church of the future" wing.

Pax tecum!

To which I'd reply: When does internal Catholic baseball become a political spectator sport?

Answer: When a prominent Catholic figure publicly rejects sharing a podium with the President of the United States -- and in the rejection, further disses this democratically elected leader by calling him "a prominent and uncompromising opponent of the Church's position on issues involving fundamental principles of justice."

My argument is not that Glendon, the U.S. bishops, or even the Pope have to countenance or ignore President Obama's stance on abortion, as one of my other friends suggested:

Ok, imagine that a venerated American Jewish institution decided to give an honorary degree to an implacable foe of Israel --(Just imagine that. Remember how upset you were, seeing Yassir Arafat's picture on the wall of [my daughter's] Jewish school)-- and you will have an inkling into the pain Notre Dame's decision has caused many Catholics, by inviting Barack Obama to receive an honorary degree.

This is not about refusing to recognize Obama as president, it's about the intense distress that many Catholics feel that a venerated American Catholic institution has chosen to give an honorary degree to an implacable public supporter of abortion.

Oh man, dear Catholic friends, we conservative Jews have to put up with this all the time -- and quite often these "implacable foes of Israel" are Jews themselves ! (Exhibit A, the photo of Arafat posted in my child's parochial school. To be fair to the teacher who put it up, it was a picture of the historic "peace deal" handshake at the White House between then-President Bill Clinton and the notorious late terrorist... and thus one I might grumble about but could not in conscience ask the teacher to remove.) And although I vowed not to enter into the Catholic politics of the Glendon affair, I did ask myself before writing the piece the very question my friend raises: How would I feel if a prominent Yeshiva was to award an honorary degree to a president who had expressed anti-Israel views? Angry? For sure. But offered the chance to share the podium? I'd jump at it! But then I am known to be a scrappy person.

And so was the feisty, articulate Mary Ann Glendon I remember from the trenches of the great feminist wars of the late 1990s. Back then, it seemed as if the entire culture believed that babies should be put in institutional daycare at birth, that all mothers should be condemned to a 40-hour work week, and that abortion should be available up to and including the last week of gestation. There were other issues, of course. And conservatives at that time didn't hold the national microphone. We had to fight our political battles hill by hill. Universities -- even, and often, religious ones! -- habitually handed out awards to public figures who made us gag. But the only way to counter this was, again, through engagement--not disengagement, which is what Glendon is practicing now, and what religious conservatives in general are practicing now, at their own peril.

It's simply impossible to confine the debate about Glendon's decision only to religious politics. And frankly, I'm surprised that Glendon expressed surprise at the university's decision "a month ago" to invite President Obama to the commencement and receive the honorary degree.

Notre Dame has customarily invited newly elected Presidents to speak at its graduation ceremonies, regardless of their political affiliation. It hosted Jimmy Carter in 1977; Reagan in 1981; and George W. Bush in 2001. (The exceptions are George Bush, Sr., who spoke in his last year of office, 1992, and Bill Clinton, who is notably absent from the list. I contacted the university to ask why: Did it have anything to do with Clinton's views on abortion? Notre Dame spokesman Dennis Brown said it was not the university's policy to comment or speculate upon reasons why people are not chosen to be recipients of an honorary degree -- but he allowed that the fact the university chose Obama this year "would indicate that the reason for that is no.") And let's not forget, Notre Dame invited the younger Bush despite the former Texas governor's well known, happy-triggered record on executions in his state -- another form of killing the Church frowns upon. Were there boycotts then?

I deeply sympathize with my Catholic friends' abhorrence of Obama's abortion stance; and more dispiritingly, what it represents for the future of Roe v Wade at the Supreme Court.

But also remember that Catholics themselves voted 54% for Obama in the last election, versus 45% for McCain (according to national exit polls*). And according to the most recent Gallup poll, Catholics are as equally divided on abortion and stem-cell research as non-Catholics: 40% of Catholics find abortion morally acceptable (vs. 41% of non-Catholics); 63% of Catholics find stem cell research morally acceptable as well (vs. 62% of non-Catholics). So Glendon perhaps should have also addressed her protest to the 41-63% of students in the audience who presumably disagree with their Church's stance on these issues, as well as the majority of the student body who voted for Obama -- especially the African-Americans, who understandably might by thrilled to graduate in the presence of the first black president in American history.

Nor has the pro-life movement shrunk from using President Obama as a positive example for its cause, as it did in this famous ad (which was rejected by NBC and CNN).

But here's the bottom line: I fear our side is becoming like the leftists we used to mock. We refuse to recognize the American president as our president. And we reduce our politics to a single issue, showing no tolerance or desire for engagement with our opponents, including those who dissent within our own ranks.

In the coming four years, all conservatives will have cause to oppose and fight the Obama administration on many, many fronts. But let's not imitate the past eight years of political opposition. We are better than that. And we should -- we must -- be willing to share a platform with our elected president.

*My thanks to Karlyn Bowman at AEI for these statistics: the exit poll data comes from the National Exit Pool, conducted by five networks and the AP.

This post appeared originally on NewMajority.com.

Get HuffPost Politics On Facebook and Twitter!

Comments

[FightingTheRight]

This is a bout between, well, to paraphrase, the Catholic wing of the Catholic Church and the secularizing "social justice,"

This is not the secularizing of "social justice"

This is the secularizing of the Christianity.

Jesus did not die on the cross to save lives.

All of the so-called Christians, including Catholics, who believe in God's will, apparently do not believe that it can be God's will that some fetuses are not meant to survive.

If people who call themselves Christians, including Catholics, truly believe it is God's will that every life, including that of a fetus, should be saved, then they should be flooding the CPR classes, medical schools and nursing programs.

No to mention, dieting and exercising.

[angharad76]

When did the Roman Catholic Church decide to define itself solely by policies of anti-abortionism and treating women like dirt? (I don't mention the pedophilia because that wasn't a choice so much as a lack of one.)

It's almost shameful now to admit that I was baptized in the Roman Catholic Church.

Until the Church embraces modernity and stops acting like a regressive medieval monster, it will continue to dwindle in membership and will continue to become increasingly irrelevant in global culture.

[Querent]

Hard to see how it could become less relevant. Perhaps by making a living saint such as John Paul II Pope again, instead of a Vatican functionary, the Catholic Church could regain some of its lost credibility, but I doubt it. The Catholic Church is so far out there that it sometimes seems that it wants to transform itself into an anti-abortion organization. Well, no institution is immune to obsolescence.

[uncleentropy]

"I fear our side is becoming like the leftist we used to mock."

Well, if you used to "mock" them then you never were highminded opposition to begin with, were you?

Please, spare me the "moral high ground" sentiment; it is incredibly disingenuous. As conservatives, you are not better than pouting and personal attacks...­..you are that.

[Karl Jonas]

are catholic universities institutions of higher education, or indoctrination factories? if a catholic university cannot invite the President of the United States to give a commencement address, for crying out loud, then the catholic church should get out of the higher education field altogether.

universities are not supposed to stifle opinion or discussion in any manor.

[Querent]

Right. But stifling opinion or discussion is certainly major part of the history of the Catholic church.

[TryToBeFlexible]

How many angels can dance on the head of a pin?

[DangerousDave]

As many as required.

[acmeaviator]

I think that you are trying to make this personal, and apparently painful decision into something that it is not. This IS about internal Catholic baseball - the kind that only gets the level of attention that it does because its a Catholic institution. As you pointed out "Oh man, dear Catholic friends, we conservative Jews have to put up with this all the time -- " - and how often is it frontpage, multi-blogged news? For whatever reason the media loves it some Catholic contention. I am Catholic and feel strongly that the Church needs to stop hyper-focusing on abortion and take a broader view of the numerous issues confronting the faithful today. However, in this case I think that your friend is exactly right in saying
"This is not about refusing to recognize Obama as president, it's about the intense distress that many Catholics feel that a venerated American Catholic institution has chosen to give an honorary degree to an implacable public supporter of abortion."
Its not the President that is being fought over here, or even the degree. It is an external example of the deeply divided Catholic Church in the US.

[pwallace]

wait a minute.... don't Catholics also oppose the death penalty? Or is life only sacred until the moment of birth? Explain to me how George W. Bush, who has executed more people that all other governors combined, started an unnecessary war that cost hundreds of thousands of lives and left thousands to fend for themselves in the aftermath of a hurricane, is considered "pro-life" enough to get an invite.

[mh01]

Can we stay on topic here. the question is abortion. Lets discuss whether or not abortion is or is not morally wrong. Then we can take the other issues you cite one by one, on their own merits.

I'm so tired of this diversionary tactic to avoid a hard look at abortion, on its own.

What we are talking about is the question of whether or not it is morally acceptable to terminate the life of a developing, pre-born, human life.

Once we have done that, we can talk about the death penatly, and war, and hurricanes all you want.

[drkazmd65]

I don't think that what pwallace types is an attempt to change the subject.

The subject is - selective viewing of 'right to life' issues by a subset of Catholics relative to another subset of Catholics.

If - and I state if - a pre-viable fetus (not baby) is a living, human being in the full sense of that meaning prior to it's being born and taking it's first breaths. And because of that it deserves to be treated as an other living, breathing human being,....

Then how is is possible that the Church can take a different stance regarding any other living, breathing, viable human being?

The death penalty and abortion (or not) are two sides of the same coin. The Bishops can't have it both ways. Neither can the Evangelical fundamentalists. To be against one and for the other is hypocracy at its height.

*Full disclosure - I am a baptized, confirmed, and Church-married former Catholic who has since left the church for, in part, this hypocracy and who is now a practicing Wiccan*

[Springbirdgirl]

I believe pwallace's response is on topic. The premise used by Catholics is abortion is murder (killing of a fetus). Lives are taken in war and via the death penalty. These are things prior presidents supported. The double standard is obvious and disappointing.

[OpalSky42]

If it is accepted that life begins at conception, then with it's adamant refusal to accept any forms of birth control, the Church itself is to blame for a number of abortions. Before Roe V Wade women had them, but too often they were unsafe and left the woman dead or too badly damaged to have children later. The Church must accept that birth control is a viable option to prevent abortion, or change their position on the morality of abortion.

[LiarLiarIraqsOnFire]

A human is a human is a human.

BTW, 40% of all fertilized eggs - pre-born humans to you - pass through the reproductive system without attaching to the uterus effectively aborting it, that makes G-d the most prolific abortionist in history.

[bluerthanblue15]

Given your statements here, is there supposed to be a presumed agreement with the catholic church once that "hard look at abortion" is examined?

If so, I fear there will be many, many who will be confounded and disappointed as the church continually centers its attention on abortion, and abortion only.

Indeed, that was profoundly evident on the church's part during this past election.

Power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely ... Lord Acton