Covering up the Real Rock at Georgetown

This news about President Obama's speech at Georgetown, reported by Catholic News Service, is causing a bit of a stir:

Georgetown University says it covered over the monogram “IHS”--symbolizing the name of Jesus Christ—because it was inscribed on a pediment on the stage where President Obama spoke at the university on Tuesday and the White House had asked Georgetown to cover up all signs and symbols there.
 
As of Wednesday afternoon, the “IHS” monogram that had previously adorned the stage at Georgetown’s Gaston Hall was still covered up--when the pediment where it had appeared was photographed by CNSNews.com.

“In coordinating the logistical arrangements for yesterday’s event, Georgetown honored the White House staff’s request to cover all of the Georgetown University signage and symbols behind Gaston Hall stage,” Julie Green Bataille, associate vice president for communications at Georgetown, told CNSNews.com.

More of the story, along with photos, are available on the CNS site.

Julia Dunn of The Washington Times' Belief Blog provides some helpful quotes:

Julie Bataille from the university's press office e-mailed me that the White House had asked that all university signage and symbols behind the stage in Gaston Hall be covered.

"The White House wanted a simple backdrop of flags and pipe and drape for the speech, consistent with what they've done for other policy speeches," she wrote. "Frankly, the pipe and drape wasn't high enough by itself to fully cover the IHS and cross above the GU seal and it seemed most respectful to have them covered so as not to be seen out of context."

<snip>

Not every Catholic institution would have caved to quite this extent. Victor Nakas, spokesman for Catholic University, e-mailed me to say several presidents have visited CUA and the most recent administration official to speak there was then-Vice President Dick Cheney.

"I can’t imagine, as the bishops’ university and the national university of the Catholic Church, that we would ever cover up our religious art or signage for any reason," Mr. Nakas wrote. "Our Catholic faith is integral to our identity as an institution of higher education.

But, of course, the prize for Obamaccommodation, goes to a usual suspect:

I called the Rev. Thomas Reese, a senior fellow at the Woodstock Institute at Georgetown University, who was at the speech, as to what he thought.

"It is more for camera quality than anything else," he surmised. "They don't want distractions that would make the eye wander. I don't think this is motivated by theology, but by communications strategy."

Students "were dying to get into the hall," he added. "There is this great enthusiasm for Obama especially among Catholic young people. The conservatives don't know how to deal with this. 

"The audience wanted to cheer and cheer this very professorial address. He played Professor Obama. He's a damn good professor but not even he could make economics a barnraiser."

And what, exactly, was being communicated? As Daniel Pulliam of the Get Religion blog points out, it was a message about economic policy based, in part, on a biblical metaphor—and not just any metaphor, but the metaphor of "The House Upon a Rock":

Most news stories I have surveyed on President Obama’s speech Tuesday on the economy (among other things) have mentioned his use of the biblical metaphor of the nation’s economy being built on a rock, but few have gone beyond the message’s surface. (See here, here, here, here, here, and here.) For starters, none of the stories I read mentioned that President George W. Bush used a lot of religious metaphors and was at times criticized for using such language.

Obama has used the Sermon on the Mount before in his political rhetoric, (namely to express his support for civil unions), but this is one of the first times that I remember where biblical passages have been used for an area outside the social issues:

Here is the pertinent part of the speech:

Now, there's a parable at the end of the Sermon on the Mount that tells the story of two men.  The first built his house on a pile of sand, and it was soon destroyed when a storm hit.  But the second is known as the wise man, for when "the rain descended, and the floods came, and the winds blew, and beat upon that house, it fell not:  for it was founded upon a rock.

It was founded upon a rock.  We cannot rebuild this economy on the same pile of sand.  We must build our house upon a rock.  We must lay a new foundation for growth and prosperity -- a foundation that will move us from an era of borrow and spend to one where we save and invest; where we consume less at home and send more exports abroad.

It's a foundation built upon five pillars that will grow our economy and make this new century another American century:  Number one, new rules for Wall Street that will reward drive and innovation, not reckless risk-taking -- (applause); number two, new investments in education that will make our workforce more skilled and competitive -- (applause); number three, new investments in renewable energy and technology that will create new jobs and new industries -- (applause); number four, new investments in health care that will cut costs for families and businesses; and number five, new savings in our federal budget that will bring down the debt for future generations.  (Applause.)
 
That's the new foundation we must build.  That's our house built upon a rock.  That must be our future -- and my administration's policies are designed to achieve that future.

It's worth looking at the larger context of the passage used, from Matthew 7:

"Not every one who says to me, 'Lord, Lord,' shall enter the kingdom of heaven, but he who does the will of my Father who is in heaven. On that day many will say to me, 'Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in your name, and cast out demons in your name, and do many mighty works in your name?' And then will I declare to them, 'I never knew you; depart from me, you evildoers.' "Every one then who hears these words of mine and does them will be like a wise man who built his house upon the rock; and the rain fell, and the floods came, and the winds blew and beat upon that house, but it did not fall, because it had been founded on the rock. And every one who hears these words of mine and does not do them will be like a foolish man who built his house upon the sand; and the rain fell, and the floods came, and the winds blew and beat against that house, and it fell; and great was the fall of it." And when Jesus finished these sayings, the crowds were astonished at his teaching, for he taught them as one who had authority, and not as their scribes. (Matt 7:21-29)

All of this, I think, is quite ripe with ironic, even surreal, qualities: The President of the United States goes to the oldest Catholic university in the U.S., has the university cover up the monogram of the name of Jesus Christ, then gives a speech in which he prominently uses (or misuses) a biblical passage about the necessity of building one's house on Christ and His teachings in making his case for "the new [economic] foundation we must build" in the United States. And then a prominent Jesuit crows about the "great enthusiasm ... especially among Catholic young people" for a man who appears to be purposefully subverting the words of Scripture for his political ends. Audacity, indeed.

All of which begs a simple question: upon what, exactly, is Georgetown built? And who, exactly, does it serve? And for what end?

Comments

[Jackson]

I'd like to hear what Fr. Schall has to say about this.

Is Obama an antiChrist? See what Michael O'Brien said about this:

http://www.lifesitenews.com/ldn/2008/nov/081103a.html

[Benighted]

>>> It's a foundation built upon five pillars that will grow our economy and make this new century another American century..."

"Five pillars"? It's nice to know Pres. Obama hasn't forgotten the Muslim schooling he got during his stay in Indonesia.

[achilles]

Jackson, I was wondering the same thing. What would the lucid Fr. Schall say about this. It never ceases to amaze me, the lengths we will go to honor our flawed intellects and allow ourselves such weak rationalizations.

[Evan]

I'm all for reading the scriptures correctly and in context, but I can't help but think that a parable could maybe, possibly, perhaps be used to make an innocent social point without the Good Lord getting so very upset about it. In any case, the five pillars he outlines are perfectly good social practices and I think one would be hard-pressed to explain how they especially contradict the Sermon on the Mount that preceded this parable. He's making an economic point with a parable told for the sake of Christian doctrine. Rather minute as far as offenses go, especially given the fact that he's not claiming to replace the meaning of Christ's point, and that his point doesn't really contradict it on the level of morality.

C'mon people. Tempest in a teapot here. The covering of the IHS is rather unfortunate, I'd admit. But again, I doubt the Good Lord cares too much about how much ad space he receives in a posh university auditorium.

Your critiques of Obama's abortion policies are more pertinent, and less a waste of time, I think.

[Carl E. Olson]

If, Benighted, the use of "five pillars" denotes either Islamic schooling or an attempt to cleverly sneak in some Muslim thought, than what to do with Fr. Robert Spitzer's book, Five Pillars of the Spiritual Life?

Evan: Believe it or not, I don't completely disagree with you. ;-) There is, of course, a history of political leaders using Scripture is somewhat creative or loose ways. Fair enough. But there appears (to me at least) to be a fairly obvious pattern of Pres. Obama seeing just how far he can push it with Catholics, especially evident in the numerous pro-abortion Catholics he continues to nominate for major administrative positions. He can't be blamed, of course, for Notre Dame inviting him to speak there and receive an honorary degree; that's on ND. But covering up the "IHS" and the cross, supposedly to "have them covered so as not to be seen out of context" rings hollow when he then uses part of the Gospel of Matthew out of context!

Secondly, the main focus of my criticism, as my final paragraph indicates, is Georgetown. But there are some who would simply sigh and say, "Well, Georgetown ceased being Catholic a long time ago." How can anyone really disagree with them?

[Benighted]

>>> If, Benighted, the use of "five pillars" denotes either Islamic schooling or an attempt to cleverly sneak in some Muslim thought, than what to do with Fr. Robert Spitzer's book, Five Pillars of the Spiritual Life? <<<

If Father Spitzer were a convert from Islam, or perhaps had attended a school where the muslim religion was taught whilst a child, then I would be taken aback by his choice of words, too.

I think it more probable that Pres. Obama (or his speechwriter) is bowing to Muslim (specifically Sunni) belief than that he is trying to flatter Father Spitzer or the Georgetown Jesuits.

[Robin L. in TX]

Personally, I want to know how the President could speak of moving us away from borrow and spend without being struck by lightning...

[Ed Peters]

Georgetown has become its own continuing parody.

[Dan]

It seems that for Thomas Reese a Democratic President can do no wrong and a Pope can do no right.

Thomas Reese then on leaders who are professorial: “I think at heart the problem is that Benedict thinks like a German professor. There is no question about his academic brilliance, but academics do not necessarily make good managers or leaders. As pope, he is the leader of a 1.1 billion member organization.” From Thomas Reese article entitled “Pope Benedict’s Professor Problem.”

Thomas Reese now on leaders who are professorial: “The audience wanted to cheer and cheer this very professorial address. He played Professor Obama. He's a damn good professor but not even he could make economics a barnraiser."

[Nick Chui]

I wonder if Obama visits a mosque or a Buddhist temple, would he request the people to please cover up your religious symbols or would he demonstrate that he is sensitive to the "deeply held religious beliefs of these faith communities?"

[Gerald E. Nora, Georgetown Coll. '73, Law '78]

Starting with then-Republican Chairman Rogers Morton in 1965, I have seen speeches in Gaston Hall by many speakers, including Ted Kennedy, Barry Goldwater and Norman Mailer. I have seen many Gaston Hall speeches since that era which were re-broadcast on cable or news reports.

It is specious to suggest that the "IHS" pediment would be visible, never mind distracting, in any conventional photographs or videos.

This President, his handlers, or overly-sycophantic volunteers in Georgetown's PR Department wanted to eliminate the slightest possibility that any photograph showed the initials of Jesus above the President's head. A devout Catholic might find this a good idea.

Two additional points:

First, try a thought experiment. What is easier to imagine, a Georgetown Jesuit covering up Jesus' initials to please a president, or the same Jesuit omitting the "SJ" after his own name as an exercise in humility?

Second, we are missing a deeper issue. Georgetown, Marquette, St. Louis, and other universities have long been advertising "Jesuit" as a brand name meaning "clever" and "smart." This is a long-running campaign that obscures the root word for "Jesuit." The word is becoming "all things to all men and women" except "faithful companion of Jesus." If there was anything new at Georgetown, it was that Georgetown was explicitly doing what it has been implicitly doing for years: covering up the name of Jesus.

One would think that "IHS" is an embarrassing relative who was convicted of some infamous crime.

[Manuel G. Daugherty Razetto]

Ignoring the tacit intention of the president , re: covering the IHS on the wall, is either naivete or plain ignorance. Nothing this president does, is without a reason. I find Evans'comments quite disappointing.
I also envision the five pillars more a request for applause (he got five didn't he?), as well as an opportunity to further his progressive list we all know.
He wants new investment on Education , aiming for more skilled and competitive teachers. More money than what is today waisted in defective management of the American Educational System?
He wants more investment in Health care, but what he really desires is Socialized Medicine, which is a failure in Canada, the U.K. and even in Sweden.
He also wants New Savings in our Federal Budget. Who is he kidding? The debt the president has incurred in such a short time makes his statement a true joke.
Returning to his request for the covering of the most revered symbol of Christ, is an affront. It trascends basic norms of civility and reaches levels of total disregard for the oldest catholic University.