Elizabeth Lev: "Why My Mother Turned down Notre Dame's Laetare Medal"

Posted today on the Politics Daily site:

Professor Glendon was to have been honored for not only for her scholarship, but for her second career, her pro-bono work -- ranging from the civil rights movement of the 1960s to the great civil rights issues of the present day -- namely, the defense of human life from conception to natural death. Her concerns range from the aging and dying population to the unborn to the well-being and dignity of every life, regardless of race, religion, or economic status. Her outstanding work in this field has earned her the respect of the most brilliant minds of the international community, regardless of whether they agree with her position. So again, to see her merely as "strongly anti-abortion" instead of as a tireless defender of the dignity of life, is to reveal not only a lack of understanding of the subject's work, but also the writer's real interest in this question.

Furthermore, during his first 100 days in office, President Obama has worked tirelessly to undermine Professor Glendon's lifetime of work; he is funding abortion out of the bailout package and planning to suppress the protection of conscience for health care workers.

Your notion that her "training in diplomacy" might somehow ease this situation does not take into account that she has a five-minute acceptance speech and he will have a lengthy commencement speech. There is no "engaging" here. Diplomacy generally teaches that if you have a rapier and your opponent has a missile launcher, try not to engage.

Read the entire piece. Lev wrote her piece in response to a snarky column by Kaitlynn Riely, a Notre Dame student, who wrote:

But Glendon has been trained in diplomacy. Shouldn't being in the same place and engaging someone of an opposing view be right up her alley? Wouldn't the better decision be to use her platform -- or at least her proximity -- to persuade Obama to change his views?

Her diplomatic style seems to be less suited for U.S.-Vatican relations and more for U.S.-Cuba relations.

You might think Riely would appreciate that, first, Glendon was following her conscience, which is generally accepted within the halls of the ivory tower as the most sacred arbiter of moral authority, and, second, she—a lone woman—was standing up against a powerful, established social institution. If a pro-abortion feminist had done something similar, she would be praised from the top of The New York Times to the bottom of "CBS Evening News." Glendon did indeed speak truth to power (and did so with exceptional grace and erudition), but far too many people will write her off as some sort of "anti-choice" zealot rather than acknowledging her as the woman of principle she is.

Comments

[Deacon Harold]

Notre Dame is the first college to have a confirmed case of swine flu. Wrath of God, anyone . . . ? ;-)

[Ed Mechmann]

Can I quibble with one point from the otherwise good article?

She says, "The Laetare Medal is the highest honor conferred on Catholics in the United States." Excuse me, but when was that decided upon, and by whom? How many Catholics even heard of the medal before all this flap broke out? It's an honor, to be sure, but it's given by a university in Indiana, not by the Church. What elevated it to be the "highest honor conferred on Catholics in the United States"?

I would have thought that one of the Papal Orders of Chivalry would out-rank a medal from "a midwestern college" (as Fr. Rutler calls NDU).

[dim bulb]

When did college commencements become debate forums?

[Glendon deserves Papal Honour]

Following on from Mr Mechamm's post wouldn't it be a gracious gesture if the Vatican were to bestow on Ambassador Glendon its highest possible honour? I am sure it was sad for the Ambassador to have to reject the honour but isn't it wonderful she had the intelligence integrity and courage to stand for Christ's Truth when the University President failed to do so.I could understand an invitation to the President to come as an observer or guest but to award an honorary Law degree to someone who is bringing in laws to strip away any remaining legislative protection for the unborn is absurd and wrong.

[Dan Deeny]

Amb. Glendon is one of the few women in her age group to go against the current. Many women, perhaps most, in her age group have supported two dangerous ideas: 1. A mother has the option of killing her child while still in her womb; 2. Women in America have suffered unjustly merely for being women.
Amb. Glendon has certainly opposed the first idea. Has she also opposed the second?
Can anyone comment?