Fr. Reese's flawed arguments for Pres. Obama at Notre Dame

In a post on the Washington Post's "On Faith" blog, Fr. Thomas J. Reese states that it is "absurd" for anyone to object to "President Obama speaking at Notre Dame University" (quick side note: as I've learned, it is actually "University of Notre Dame") based on a reading of the 2004 USCCB statement, "Catholics In Public Life."

Is it really so absurd? After all, as most readers surely know by now, the document states:

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.

Fr. Reese gives five reasons why he believes "having Obama as a commencement speaker and giving him an honorary degree does not violate" that statement. But, first, it might be helpful to read what the 2004 document states by way of detailing what the Church's "fundamental moral principles" are when it comes to abortion. "Catholics In Public Life" states:

It is the teaching of the Catholic Church from the very beginning, founded on her understanding of her Lord’s own witness to the sacredness of human life, that the killing of an unborn child is always intrinsically evil and can never be justified. If those who perform an abortion and those who cooperate willingly in the action are fully aware of the objective evil of what they do, they are guilty of grave sin and thereby separate themselves from God’s grace. This is the constant and received teaching of the Church. It is, as well, the conviction of many other people of good will.

To make such intrinsically evil actions legal is itself wrong. This is the point most recently highlighted in official Catholic teaching. The legal system as such can be said to cooperate in evil when it fails to protect the lives of those who have no protection except the law. In the United States of America, abortion on demand has been made a constitutional right by a decision of the Supreme Court. Failing to protect the lives of innocent and defenseless members of the human race is to sin against justice. Those who formulate law therefore have an obligation in conscience to work toward correcting morally defective laws, lest they be guilty of cooperating in evil and in sinning against the common good.

Note that this is not written just for Catholics; all men are called to recognize the objective value of human life and to defend the unborn from being killed in the womb. Notice also that those who "formulate law" have an obligation to correct laws that support and protect the killing of unborn children, and that those who fail to do so, or who themselves write or support such laws, are "guilty of cooperating in evil and in sinning against the common good."

Here, then, are Fr. Reese's five arguments why Obama does not violate these fundamental moral principles, along with my responses:

1. In his personal life, Obama has never acted in defiance of the fundamental moral principle that abortion is wrong.

This is problematic since the issue at hand really isn't about the President's "personal life." No person of good will should try to read Obama's heart and mind when it comes to this or any other issue; the real question is his public actions and words. Likewise, how does Fr. Reese know for certain that " Obama has never acted in defiance of the fundamental moral principle that abortion is wrong" in his personal life? This is simply begging the question, and it fails to carry much, if any, weight.

2. Publicly, Obama has never spoken out against the fundamental moral principle that abortion is wrong.

First, I'm not aware of Obama ever saying publicly that abortion is wrong. On the contrary, he has made it known that he is a devoted supporter, as a politician and public leader, of a woman's "right to choose" abortion. His public record of support for abortion (or, as he sometimes calls it, "reproductive justice"), has been well-documented. As a Senator he opposed bills preventing partial-birth abortion and opposed legislation protecting born-alive failed abortions. Reese's language here is rather misleading, as he tries to narrowly define what Obama has not done ("never spoken out against the fundamental moral principle that abortion is wrong"), whereas the document in question, as we've seen, clearly points to a broader moral arena, which includes actions such as formulating law that protects the unborn and working to correct morally defective laws. Considering Obama's public record and his perfect ratings with Planned Parenthood and NARAL, it's hard to see how anyone could say he has actively stood for the fundamental moral principle that abortion is wrong. Which is, it seems obvious, why Fr. Reese formulates his point as he does, which is essentially a case of the straw man fallacy.

3. He supports legal restrictions on third trimester abortions with a health-of-the-mother exemption.

Even if he does (and I'm not sure whether or not he really does), how does this mitigate his consistent public record of supporting abortion, even to the point of saying, in a July 2007 speech to a Planned Parenthood group, "I put Roe at the center of my lesson plan on reproductive freedom when I taught Constitutional Law. Not simply as a case about privacy but as part of the broader struggle for women’s equality. Steve and Pam will tell you that we fought together in the Illinois State Senate against restrictive choice legislation—laws just like the federal abortion laws, the federal abortion bans that are cropping up. I’ve stood up for the freedom of choice in the United States Senate and I stand by my votes against the confirmation of Judge Roberts and Samuel Alito..."? This is like saying, "I oppose those who wish to own three slaves; two should be the limit," and then claiming to be anti-slavery. This is a variation on the red herring fallacy.

4. Although he does not believe that other abortions can be made illegal, he supports programs to reduce the number of abortions.

Once again (for the millionth time, at least), the vague argument is made by a Catholic that Obama "supports programs to reduce the number of abortions." But it's not clear at all that the programs in question actually reduce abortion rates. Secondly, many of the pieces of legislation supported or sponsored by Obama and said to be aimed at reducing abortions are heavily reliant upon contraceptives as a means of reducing abortion. This is, I fear, just another red herring.

5.Notre Dame is not honoring Obama because of his views on abortion but because he is President of the United States, as has been made clear by the Rev. John Jenkins, Notre Dame's president.

Which suggests, as many have noted, that the invitation by Notre Dame is not rooted in a clear sense of Catholic identity and purpose, but in a desire for public stature and prestige. Respect for the office of the President of the United States is one thing, but the honorary doctor of laws degree is not being given simply to an office; it is being conferred upon a specific man who holds specific beliefs about essential matters relating to law, order, goodness, conscience, and life, that are in conflict with the fundamental moral principles of the Catholic Church and, it should follow, a Catholic university. This point has been made very well by Mark Brumley:

Fr. Jenkins' comment would make sense if abortion were not such a fundamental violation of human rights, such a fundamental contravention of the purpose of government, such a grave and widespread attack on the most vulnerable of human beings, and Barrack Obama were not so prominent a supporter of the proabortion rights position. By inviting him and honoring him, ND is simply saying that the right to life for unborn children and the evil of a million legal abortions every year are not that important. It is as simple as that. And by adopting that stance, ND shows that either it does not understand Catholic social teaching or it doesn't care about it on a crucial, massively significant issue.

People sometimes wonder how some Catholics (and other Christians) could have been lulled into collaborating with Nazi persecution of Jews. They should simply ask themselves how some Catholics (and other Christians) today wind up honoring proabortion rights politicians. I understand the element of caterrng to human opinion that comes with the excitement of the President of the United States coming to ND. But of course ND is supposed to be about honoring God, not human opinion.

It is a disgrace that a university named in honor of the Mother of God is honoring a man who aggressively supports state-sponsored killing of innocent human beings in their mothers' wombs. Even if, per impossible, Mr. Obama were complelely ignorant of when life beings, ND's administration, by identifying itself with Catholicism, is not allowed to be ignorant. Yet it chooses to honor Mr. Obama.

Fr. Reese's argument here strikes me as a case of special pleading. However, he is not finished:

Canon law aside, people need to recognize that Catholic universities have to be places where freedom of speech and discussion is recognized and valued. Not to allow a diversity of speakers on campus is to put Catholic universities into a ghetto.

This is another shining (well, tarnished, I suppose) example of a straw man argument, if only because it is obvious that this vaunted "freedom of speech and discussion" has limits, in fact, and does not extend, for example, to Holocaust deniers, neo-Nazis, racists, and so forth. Put another way, "freedom of speech and discussion" are not, in the end, a good enough basis for the identity of Catholic universities. Pope John Paul II, in Ex Corde Ecclesiae, provided some helpful guidance:

4. It is the honour and responsibility of a Catholic University to consecrate itself without reserve to the cause of truth. This is its way of serving at one and the same time both the dignity of man and the good of the Church, which has "an intimate conviction that truth is (its) real ally ... and that knowledge and reason are sure ministers to faith". Without in any way neglecting the acquisition of useful knowledge, a Catholic University is distinguished by its free search for the whole truth about nature, man and God. The present age is in urgent need of this kind of disinterested service, namely of proclaiming the meaning of truth, that fundamental value without which freedom, justice and human dignity are extinguished. By means of a kind of universal humanism a Catholic University is completely dedicated to the research of all aspects of truth in their essential connection with the supreme Truth, who is God. It does this without fear but rather with enthusiasm, dedicating itself to every path of knowledge, aware of being preceded by him who is "the Way, the Truth, and the Life"(8), the Logos, whose Spirit of intelligence and love enables the human person with his or her own intelligence to find the ultimate reality of which he is the source and end and who alone is capable of giving fully that Wisdom without which the future of the world would be in danger.

21. A Catholic University pursues its objectives through its formation of an authentic human community animated by the spirit of Christ. The source of its unity springs from a common dedication to the truth, a common vision of the dignity of the human person and, ultimately, the person and message of Christ which gives the Institution its distinctive character. As a result of this inspiration, the community is animated by a spirit of freedom and charity; it is characterized by mutual respect, sincere dialogue, and protection of the rights of individuals.

Authentic freedom of speech, discussion, and dialogue, then, must be rooted in a belief in objective truth and in the One who is Truth, as well as in "the dignity of the human person" and the protection of the rights of all, including the most vulnerable. Abortion, however, is a "crime against human life" (Catechism of the Catholic Church, 2322), and is "gravely contrary to the moral law" (CCC, 2271). Therefore, discussion of abortion and related matters, while certainly appropriate and even necessary at a Catholic university, does not take place in a moral vacuum, or without moral parameters and guidelines—just as any discussion of rape, slavery, racism, or other evil demands proper moral assessment and judgment.

Finally, there seems to be a convenient inconsistency in Fr. Reese's appeal for "diversity," for didn't he earlier say that "Notre Dame is not honoring Obama because of his views on abortion," and yet he concludes his piece by stating, "If Catholic universities are afraid to have people on campus who challenge our views, then we are not training students to listen and think critically"? So, on one hand Notre Dame is said to be exempt from being held accountable for inviting a pro-abortion politician since Obama's positions on life issues is not, Fr. Reese insists, the issue at all ("Notre Dame is not honoring Obama because of his views on abortion..."), while on the other hand he insists that it would be some sort of offense against diversity and dialogue if Notre Dame didn't allow someone such as Obama to give a commencement address and receive an honorary degree who holds views—and here he is obviously speaking about abortion—that are contrary to those of the Catholic Church ("Not to allow a diversity of speakers on campus is to put Catholic universities into a ghetto.").

Once again, this is another case of begging the question. True freedom, the Catechism reminds us, is not found in reserving judgment or demanding equal status for all beliefs and opinions: "The more one does what is good, the freer one becomes. There is no true freedom except in the service of what is good and just. The choice to disobey and do evil is an abuse of freedom and leads to 'the slavery of sin.'" (par. 1733).The absurdity, I fear, is found in Fr. Reese's unconvincing apologia, not in the stance of those opposing the decision made by Notre Dame.

Comments

[Marguerite]

Perhaps the young woman who survived the botched partial-birth abortion should hand out the honorary degree to President Obortion. Her presence would speak louder than those disingenuous arguments to justify Obama's presence at a Catholic university.

[Dan Deeny]

Carl, Thank you for this article on poor Fr. Reese S.J.. He is bringing back the problem of jesuitical thinking, a mode of thought characterized by "dissembling and equivocating in a manner once associated with Jesuits." (Concise Oxford Dictionary)
Discussing with Jesuits is a tough problem, Carl. But you did a good job. Now, maybe the bishops can do a few things.

[Ed Peters]

Good stuff, Carl.

[docbach]

Most of those I know have regarded ND as a mere near secular university that had strayed from its original solid roots. Compared to other secular universities it is highly regarded but never as a "bulwark" of true Catholic Faith. It's why universities like the University of Stuebenville and such have risen up in the last generation or two. www.worshipJesus.US

[Bob Schiavoni]

These are sad times. One can expect the secularist hordes, lead by the likes of Obama, to attack the Church but this fifth column is of grave concern on a salvific, moral, theological and social level. I do believe that Father Jenkins' decision has crossed over from the prudential aspects of his job into disobedience, if not worse, of Church teachings. And his disobedience begets yet more as evidenced in the musings of Father Reese. And, even more sadly, it begets more disobedience by many young students not just at ND but in other Catholic colleges.

[Jim Schneider]

A clear distinction should be made between the commencement speech and the honorary degree. I see neither how asking Obama to give the commencement speech honors his flawed views, nor how it gives him a platform which seems to condone those views, even if I grant that he is well known for being pro-abortion rights. His selection does not necessarily stem from a diminished appreciation of the significance of abortion. Rather it might highlight the significance of abortion by making this selection a national issue. Notre Dame has effectively said, "Here is our choice; now let's talk about it." That discussion, the one we are having now, will only lead people, especially Catholics, closer to the truth.

The University's first obligation is to its students. It must provide them the highest quality, Catholic education possible to give them the tools to be leaders in this world, a world whose views are antagonistic to theirs. The commencement speaker honors the graduates, not vice versa. If the students are unprepared to deal with Obama at graduation, I fear they never will be. Obama may not end up furthering Notre Dame's clearly catholic mission, but he will not hinder it, either.

It is a false dichotomy to say: either Notre Dame is looking for prestige or pursuing its Catholic mission. Perhaps ND is honoring its students by having the leader of the free world speak at their graduation. They are important enough to gain his respect and honor. Obama is type of person Notre Dame is preparing its students to work with and against. He is what we battle. For the class of 2009, that battle has already started. Each student at Notre Dame is now forced to decide how much weight to give this fundamental issue.

If Notre Dame has a direct duty to those outside its campus, its choice has only clarified the Catholic position by highlighting the Church's staunch opposition to abortion. Notre Dame obviously disagrees with you on the best way of ending abortion is. Perhaps Notre Dame believes that working with the President is the best way to get concessions from him that will save lives. Refusing to listen to his message is sure only to make him refuse to listen to ours.

The end is clear: ending abortion by making it illegal. How we make it illegal is far from clear. Were it otherwise, we would not be having this debate. The bishops' opinion is of course to be given great weight, but it is not dispositive. Catholics can in good conscience differ on how to make abortion as illegal as possible.

That said, he should receive no honorary degree from any Catholic institution (even though ND always honors its speakers in that way). I can see no way of justifying this additional act which is calculated expressly to honor him for legal views so flawed on this fundamental issue.

[Carl E. Olson]

Obama is type of person Notre Dame is preparing its students to work with and against. He is what we battle.

So ND should, therefore, honor him and praise him and make him a focal point of the graduation ceremony? That's a hard one to make sense of...

[Jim Schneider]

Your comment assumes that having him speak is honoring him. Rather, I argue that he by virtue of his office is a honor to the graduates. Last year's speaker, Cardinal McCarrick, was hardly the focal point of the ceremony. If Obama is the focal point, it will be because of the controversy.

[Telemachus]

I'm shocked by the naivete of some posters here. Being asked to speak at ANY engagement is a gesture of honor. Simply explain it away with "Oh well, he's the president, innit he?" if you want, but that doesn't justify entertaining the words of a crypto-communist abortion-fanatic like the Magnificent O at a nominally Catholic educational institution. Not only is he un-worthy of a podium anywhere, but he currently lacks of no channel through which to communicate his ideas: the man has every sycophant in media, entertainment, and government fawning over his every utterance.

Whatever. Notre Dame University is now just more dead-wood to be cut away from the Church, and probably has been for a long time. Like many other large nominally-Catholic universities, it is ruled by cowards and parasites, and I don't believe that anybody within the Church heirarchy has the will to take on cleaning it up. Maybe we can endow another more worthy university with the name of Our Lady in the distant future. In the meantime, I hope no Church wealth is going towards supporting it.

[Jim Schneider]

I'll assume in 'Telemachus's" post that the ad hominem attacks are there for the same reason it states its conclusions as arguments: a dearth of persuasive arguments.
That Notre Dame chooses to be Catholic differently than how ultra-trads would prefer does not make Notre Dame any less Catholic. Universities exist, as far as I can tell, for the exchange of ideas. Why fear that exchange? Until we reach the Truth, the free flow of ideas brings us us closer to the truth. Perhaps the University of Notre Dame should apologize for that pursuit, since it's results might be uncomfortable for some or all of us.

[Markus Goebel]

Thanks much Carl - the needed response!

What a nightmare some Jesuits and Jesuit Universities become to the Catholic church, and what an embarrassment, first of all to themselves.

Poor St. Ignatius - as the Ad maiorem Dei gloriam cannot be recognized any longer, could you please intervene to get some of your outspoken and foolish brethren seeking to promote earthly agendas back on track? Much appreciated.

God bless the Jesuits that know and life a truly Jesuit life!

[Carl E. Olson]

Universities exist, as far as I can tell, for the exchange of ideas.

And exactly what "ideas" are being "exchanged" in having Pres. Obama come give a commencement speech and receive an honorary degree?

Until we reach the Truth, the free flow of ideas brings us us closer to the truth.

Again, what "free flow of ideas" are we talking about? In what way, specifically, does the Church need to be brought closer to the truth when it comes to her teachings about life, human dignity, and abortion? What does Obama have to offer? Frankly, I've yet to hear or read ONE thing by the man about ANY topic that is of interest, never mind of intellectual, political, or spiritual heft. His speeches are beyond vapid; he seems incapable to talking or thinking without a safety net. I'm open to being shown otherwise, but his track record hasn't been good so far.

There seems to be an unfounded assumption that there will, in fact, be an "exchange," as though the President will seriously consider the Church's teachings on abortion and the reasons for them. Yet that would have to assume at least two things: that someone will actually have the guts to share those teachings with him, and that he would even entertain those ideas. Call me cynical, but both are very long shots. Regardless, your line of thought about the nature of a Catholic university is addressed well, I think, in the quotes I gave above from John Paul II.

Perhaps the University of Notre Dame should apologize for that pursuit, since it's results might be uncomfortable for some or all of us.

Well, that simply smacks of rank condescension and arrogance. Sad.

[Mary H.]

The more I read, the angrier I become.
The country has already seen all of the ability & knowledge that Obama brings to the national table. And in the 60 days he's been in office, his action agenda AGAINST life has been stunning. Where did we see - even once - a concession on Obama's part in favor of life? He has had "Catholic" advisors (isn't Caveny from Notre Dame?). He's included "Catholics" in his Cabinet. What progress was made in their engagement of the man?

Mr. Schneider's idea of an "exchange of ideas" is ludicrous, given that a commencement speech is pretty much 1-way communication, unless you count applause as a response. One doesn't have to be an "ultra-trad" to recognize that Obama is playing Catholics for his own purposes.

[Jim Schneider]

And exactly what "ideas" are being "exchanged" in having Pres. Obama come give a commencement speech and receive an honorary degree?

The whole point of my original post was to distinguish between the speech and the degree, the former being OK, the latter not.

Obama's invitation to ND creates a relationship between the university and Obama that Notre Dame can utilize to speak the Church's clear message on abortion and other issues. Instead of shunning him as the modern Hitler, Notre Dame might think working with him is the best way to effect positive change, and that the commencement speech establishes a relationship with a president who has at least outwardly expressed desire to work with the Church.

In what way, specifically, does the Church need to be brought closer to the truth when it comes to her teachings about life, human dignity, and abortion?

I nowhere suggested the Church's position on these issues needs to be brought closer to the truth. However, the Church has no position on how to best achieve the end it teaches we need to pursue (She does have positions on how not to achieve it). How do we end abortion? How do we encourage respect for life? These are questions with no easy solution. We are free to discuss how to achieve those ends. Working with Obama may be more effective for the next four years than turning our backs on him and letting him run wild.

The free flow of ideas also includes the debate that the selection has created. Notre Dame has created a lively debate among Catholics about how to attack the abortion issue. It has also helped to inform the general public of the Church's position, because traditional Catholics have taken up the cause and made it a national issue.

John Paul II's thoughts are inapposite to mine but maybe I was not clear enough in my first post. I do not question the truth(es) that the Catholic Church has reached and neither does Notre Dame. Instead, I question whether you are right about how to end abortion and increase respect for human dignity. I think having Obama speak at Notre Dame will increase awareness about the Catholic Church's position. It will also establish a relationship with Obama that may prove useful in preventing him from destroying more life than he would otherwise. Perhaps you know Fr. Jenkins and Notre Dame better than I, but I think Notre Dame will use that relationship to achieve good.

Obama's not going to say anything of substance at commencement. I agree. Nor is he going to talk about abortion at all. He is a mediocre choice. However, I disagree that he is an evil choice, that somehow Notre Dame is dissenting from the Catholic Church by selecting him. It has chosen a different path to end abortion and work for justice. Whether it will work is up for debate. Whether it's Catholic should not be.

The charge of arrogance and condescension seems ironic to me. But perhaps I was unclear in my previous posts. If so, I apologize. Notre Dame's approach might turn out to be the one that helps end abortion, which would make some here uncomfortable since they would be wrong. And if working with people like Obama is effective, then we'd have to do it more often, which would probably be uncomfortable for us all.

[Bruce Barker]

Mr. Schneider, on one level I can agree. There are no evil ideas which ND or any university should not discuss, in order to determine their philosophical foundations and how cultures come to wrongly accept them. Abortion should be so discussed, along with racism, Nazism and other personal and social evils.

However, the expositors of those evil ideas should not be given a platform to represent them. This only furthers the notion that it is possible to compromise with evil. Even though the President will not speak about abortion, as St. Francis taught his disciples, the unspoken witness of one's life speaks louder than one's words. The witness of President Obama's life is that of one of the most dedicated political facilitators of abortion, an "abominable crime" in the words of the Second Vatican Council. In the words of one of Mr. Obama’s predecessors on a different battlefield, “The world will little note, nor long remember what we say here, but it can never forget what they did here.” Yes, indeed Mr. Lincoln.

[Luis Howard for the Howard Family]

JMJ

God bless you, Mr Olson. I have always thought that people like Reese, SJ, need to be knocked around as you have done when they spout foolish lib/lefty nonsense.

Keep up the good work.

[Luis Howard for the Howard Family]

JMJ

Be honest, all of you: Obama is arrogant, stubborn and ruthless, not qualities which lend themselves to any serious dialog. He has shown these qualities abundantly, all the while smiling and looking Americans in the eye telling them that he will make everything alright. There is no question that he is playing Jenkins like a fiddle--he is very eager for the respectability that he can point to later while lying to us about his efforts to reduce abortion.

[Manuel G. Daugherty Razetto]

One can hardly imagine a more lucid retort than the one given by Carl Olson to the sophistic Fr. Reese s.j., but on this matter, the opinion of Fr James V. Schall s.j. is an interesting take about the N.D. president's invitation to Obama (with the ominous corollarium of a Honoris Causa doctorate promised to the new president).
Fr. Schall places himself above the issue though a bit light for a man of Academia speaking about Academia on a matter of great consequence.
Fr. Schall states " I could only laugh" while saying that Obama gets the perfect forum for his infamous projects. If, as Fr Schall announces, the president has supporters at the N.D. Faculty and many of them as well as eligible students voted for him we can easily deduce that the most reputable Catholic University in the US, being a "friendly genteel soil" for the man who has proven so quickly how anti-catholic he can be, we must then accept Notre Dame as a House of Incongruity. The product of an inveterate polarization of ideologies; sickness within our Church.