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 universal criticism 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.
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 you guys ever take issue with that!
Let’s start with the least serious of the complaints. Many NewMajority 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 photo 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 that 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.
17 responses so far
1 ktward // Apr 30, 2009 at 3:06 pm
Make no mistake, I am pro-choice: no body of legislators has the right to dictate my personal choices. The fact that I do not believe I could personally have an abortion is irrelevant.
That said, it is precisely your kind of thoughtful insight into this controversial issue that reminds me that people of otherwise good conscience may disagree on issues of import, devoid of the demonization so ubiquitous between Left and Right.
Thank you, genuinely, for your open-minded discourse.
2 ktward // Apr 30, 2009 at 3:20 pm
Make no mistake, I am pro-choice: no body of legislators has the right to dictate my personal choices. The fact that I do not believe I could personally have an abortion is irrelevant.
That said, it is precisely your kind of thoughtful insight into this controversial issue that reminds me that people of otherwise good conscience may disagree on issues of import, devoid of the demonization so ubiquitous between Left and Right.
Thank you, genuinely, for your open-minded discourse.
3 sinz54 // Apr 30, 2009 at 5:36 pm
Ms. Crittenden sez: “We should–we must–be willing to share a platform with our elected President.”
We should be willing to share *some* platforms with President Obama. We should not demand to share every platform with President Obama, in ways which would end up hurting others.
If (for some bizarre reason) President Obama invited me and my family to celebrate Thanksgiving with his family, I wouldn’t interrupt the meal to tell Obama (in front of his wife and children) that I believe he’s acting like an apologetic wimp in front of the whole world–even though that’s what I believe. Because IT WOULD NOT BE APPROPRIATE in that venue. I would hold my tongue and celebrate Thanksgiving with them.
Nor would I want to tell Obama such a thing in front of hundreds of students and their families at a Commencement–because it would establish me as boorish and uncaring. The Commencement ceremony isn’t for you or me. It isn’t even for Obama. It’s for the students who worked hard to earn it. And I’m sure *they* wouldn’t want it to become a downer, debating grim and divisive issues of public policy in front of them.
There are plenty of appropriate forums to take on Obama (or his spokespersons): the news channels, press conferences, and Congress, just to name a few.
BTW: The Left used to do that sort of thing with President Bush: Crashing all kinds of forums to make totally inappropriate comments. That’s boorish, impolite, ill-mannered behavior. We conservatives should know better. We believe in social order, not trashing it.
4 Egli Ha // Apr 30, 2009 at 8:07 pm
President Obama is being way too deferential to the Catholic hierarchy. He should remember, the majority of American Catholics supported him IN SPITE OF ALMOST-EXPLICIT INSTRUCTIONS FROM THEIR PRIESTS TO VOTE REPUBLICAN. He should stand with the Catholic voters, AGAINST the Church.
Step one: Direct the Attorney General to issue an arrest warrent for Cardinal Bernard Law on charges of accessory to child-molestation by priests.
The Vatican and the American Catholic hierarchy will get the message.
5 danoand // Apr 30, 2009 at 8:37 pm
Ms. Crittendon,
With all due respect you still don’t get it. And I disagree with you, your friend did not state it best. This is not Catholic ‘inside baseball’ or mere church politics. THE issue is that Notre Dame, the premier Catholic university in the country, has willfully abdicated one of the core principals of the Church and rejected the explicit direction of U.S. bishops in exchange for a glorified pr event. The loser here is not the President or Ms. Glendon, it is Notre Dame – it’s identity wounded by a self inflicted blow.
Ms. Glendon’s invitation and subsequent decline is a side issue. Her public rejection was a direct result of her public invitation and bumbling pr effort to provide intellectual cover for the university administration. Ms. Glendon is actually acting on her principles. Unfortunately, your friend is correct on the state of the country’s Catholic universities (one of I which I attended), their identities are slowly crumbling.
But there is a larger lesson here for Conservatives in the coming months and years ahead. The Left is an uncompromising opponent of Conservative ideals, ideals which made this country great. The Administration wants to “remake” this country and it will strive mightily to fight this war of ideas on their terms. At the commencement the President comes out the winner no matter what, fawning press coverage of the President’s speech, tribute to his magnanimousness reaching out to anti abortion foes, and oh yea a little something how there is division within the Catholic ranks… and oh by the way did I mention voted for the President in large numbers. Tell me, do you think the Administration would invite Ms. Glendon to make a speech of her choosing at the White House? The first step to fighting this battle of ideas is to pick battles wisely and not fight on the adversary’s terms. It appears Notre Dame is losing its principles, we Conservatives better make sure we can hold ours.
6 PiltdownMan // Apr 30, 2009 at 9:36 pm
If this woman prefers not to accept this piece of tin or share a stage with a politician, what concern is it of yours? The reason the divorce rate in this country is so high is that woman have all turned into insufferable busy-bodies with no concept of boundaries whatsoever. You don’t have to control the world. If a university ever gives you an award then you can feel free to accept it or not. In the meantime, mind your own business.
7 Churl // May 1, 2009 at 4:49 am
Is it ever – ever – possible for a social or religious conservative to take any sort of stand for his or her principles without second guessing and criticism from the contributors to newmajority.com?
8 Bulldoglover100 // May 1, 2009 at 6:31 am
Glendons action were classic “If I don’t get my way I will take my toys and go home”. Nothing more. Someone needs to tell her that the door neednt hit her on her behind and that people like her? Are a dime a dozen.
Seperation between church and state MUST be maintained and for those who don’t get that? They need to take some history courses.
As for her taking a stand? Really? At a graduation??? ITS ABOUT THE KIDS not some speakers choice of religion!!!! Good gosh no wonder we are losing all over the country!
9 sinz54 // May 1, 2009 at 6:39 am
Bulldoglover100: That was my point too, though Ms. Glendon dismissed it.
This venue isn’t for making political speeches to be televised on Fox News and impressing the rest of the country. The primary purpose of this venue is to honor the STUDENTS who worked so hard to earn their degrees.
I recall that during the Bush Administration, some Hollywood types invited to speak at some Commencements made totally inappropriate comments about Bush, or Schwarzenegger. They would also inject totally inappropriate political speeches during the Academy Awards ceremonies. At the time, we conservatives chafed under this politicization of non-political events.
Let’s practice what we preach, and not do the same thing ourselves to a liberal President.
10 ktward // May 1, 2009 at 11:38 am
Churl:
You’ve a legitimate point, except that it’s likely true that many big ‘C’ commenters here are not Social Conservatives.
Case in point: you’re unwittingly allying yourself to commenters such as PiltdownMan, who disturbingly believes:
“The reason the divorce rate in this country is so high is that woman have all turned into insufferable busy-bodies with no concept of boundaries whatsoever.”
Social Conservatism is a slippery slope and often at odds with the aims of Fiscal/Small Gov Conservatives.
It is this self-destructive ideological split within the Republican Party that continues to marginalize it.
11 midcon // May 1, 2009 at 12:14 pm
I find it extremely interesting (I used to find it annoying, but I got over that), that those against abortion, have no qualms about capital punishment or war or other justifiable taking of lives. Imagine, if you will, the same situation but replacing “abortion” with “execution.” Would the conversation be the same? Would Glendon’s response be the same? The Catholic Church is at least consistent in their stance on both abortion and execution. I often wonder what the acceptable modifiers are to “Thou shalt not kill” and who decides what the exceptions are?
12 ktward // May 1, 2009 at 12:55 pm
midcon:
You illustrate nicely the contradictions Social Conservatives find themselves defending. Unsuccessfully.
That said, there are Christian orgs which take a less myopic ‘Womb to Tomb’ position: http://www.sojo.net is a good place to start.
13 jgilesphx // May 2, 2009 at 10:35 am
A few flaws, in my opinion:
1. If you want to compare the reaction to the Obama invite and the invite to GWB, then compare Catholic teaching on abortion and the death penalty. My non-Catholic friends tend to treat Catholic social teaching like fantasy baseball. There is difference on these issues. (In addition, in this instance, the President assumed office and immediately enacted several anti-life measures, including his duplicitous and deceptive statement on embryonic stem cells.)
2. Additionally, I’ve seen many non-Catholics basically appropriate this very Catholic issue for their own purposes. I know this isn’t meant maliciously. But politics has to take a back seat at times. Glendon should respond in a way that is consistent politically? Wrong. The higher allegiance is to Catholic teaching, and not to the current whims of the political class.
3. See the 2004 USCCB document, “Catholics in Political Life.” To quote: “The Catholic community and Catholic institutions should not honor those who act in defiance of our fundamental moral principles. They should not be given awards, honors or platforms which would suggest support for their actions. “
Again, Prof. Glendon was forced into the position of remaining silent as a Catholic university award the most anti-life politician in our history, or of frontally assaulting his views. If the event were to be a debate or panel, I have no doubt she would have participated. But as she stated clearly, the event was intended to honor the graduates.
Not everything is a political moment.
14 darleenclick // May 2, 2009 at 10:52 am
midcon
I’m a reluctant pro-choicer but I have to say you are being morally obtuse to suggest there is any kind of equivalency between abortion and capital punishment. Do you really think that nascent (and innocent) human life is the same as a convicted mass-murderer?
Those so-called “conservatives” that desperately want to be Democrat-lite in order to “win elections” (won’t happen) have allowed the Left to frame every debate. Glendon won’t allow Notre Dame to use her as a beard just as Andrew McCarthy turned down the White House to be a prop on a so-called “Roundtable on Terrorism”.
President Obama is my President and I don’t dispute his election or legitimacy (and it is a particularly Leftist-style tactic to tar those opposed to Obama’s policies with the tiny, insignificant nutz who are obsessing about his birth certificate). But that doesn’t mean I cannot oppose his Hugo Chavez-style attempts at shoving statism down our throats.
15 JC720 // May 2, 2009 at 2:13 pm
Ms Crittenden,
Having read and re-read Mary Ann Glendon’s letter, I find I must first of all disagree with your interpretation of her words, specifically where you state “Glendons 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 cannot find anything in her letter that supports such an interpretation. She disagrees with his position on abortion and agrees with the position of the U.S. Bishops. You think she is “dissing” him by stating that he is “prominent” (is he not?) and “an uncompromising opponent of the Church’s position…” (again..is he not?)
How does not agreeing with the president translate into believing he is not her president or the president of Catholics?
Secondly, you state that in declining the award and the invitation to accept it, Glendon is “disengaging.”
I also disagree with that. She chooses not to politicize a commencement because it is not the right venue for YOUR version of engagement. However, by declining she shows leadership in affirming her support and obedience to the U.S. Bishops and refuses to compromise her beliefs that their position should be honored, especially by Catholic institutions such as Notre Dame.
Refusal to compromise your beliefs, especially if it may cause you personal loss, and a willingness to publicly state those reasons and take the flak from people such as yourself IS engagement, Ms. Crittenden. The most powerful kind of engagement–that of example over words.
I applaud what you term her “disengagement,” because to me her actions speak more powerfully than any words she may have spoken at a podium.
My conclusion is that she’s not wrong…you are.
16 BigM // May 2, 2009 at 8:14 pm
I am not a Catholic, but I must say, I’m bemused by what seems to be, for some Catholics, the utter dominance of this ONE issue. Would a Catholic scholar refuse to participate in an occasion honoring a president who approved of the death penalty? The war in Iraq? Why not?
Those who compare honoring Obama with honoring Arafat prove Ms. Crittenden’s point for her. To them, then, the President of the United States is basically no different than a murderous terrorist. Well, that’s one opinion, I guess, and certainly not an opinion different from the left’s judgment of George W. Bush. But if you’re really prepared to judge any president in favor of liberal abortion laws as no worse than a terrorist, then you better be prepared to be marginalized – to be considered part of the fringe.
17 jgilesphx // May 5, 2009 at 6:53 pm
BigM,
Dominance of the abortion issue? The one that kills — legally — over 1 million per year? Not a secondary effect, and without due process — just killed.
Again, Catholic teaching on war, the death penalty, and abortion is different.
You must log in to post a comment.