Notre Dame Commencement 2009

The news today has focused on Notre Dame's commencement, at which President Obama spoke. A contentious decision by the University Administration, the announcement over a month ago sparked angry reactions from many American Catholics, protests on campus, and a storm of analysis (mostly speculation, as is the way with such things) regarding what the Catholic Church really believes on abortion and what Notre Dame's own position should be. The University "stuck to it's guns" and went ahead with the invitation, and cited many good reasons for bringing the president, however pro-choice he might be, to campus--many of which I agree with. I think there's no question that the president brings with him the dignity of the office. I think it is important for a Catholic University to engage in dialogue with public figures regarding issues of mutual concern. I think it is Notre Dame's role to "lead the way" by remaining visible and vehement in considering Catholic values publicly. I think, however, this particular situation involving our current president is different.

First of all, when you invite someone to speak at commencement, you are giving them a "bully pulpit." That is not dialogue, and does little to invite discussion--a forum is a much more seemly academic setting for a dialogue. Second of all, commencement speakers are usually chosen because they embody or represent values that the institution wishes to instill (or have instilled) in the graduates. Choosing a consistently pro-choice, pro-stem-cell-research politician implies somehow that those positions ("values") are reconcilable with Church teaching, or more specifically that you can hold that perspective and be perfectly in accord with the school and--by extension--the Church. Third of all, awarding a Juris Doctor (even honorary) indicates the awarding institution has somehow decided that the recipient is capable and prepared ethically to interpret law, which considering the Church's strong position on the illegality and horror of the current "holocaust" of abortions is clearly not the case with Obama.

Some have argued that abortion (or stem-cell research) should not be "the issue." I disagree. With the recent work on the Theology of the Body and the developing "spousal" imagery inherent in our understanding of Church-Laity relationships and self-Christ relationships, I think it is becoming more clear that the idea of the sanctity of life stands nearly equal with the gift of free will and the mysterious nature of Christ and the Trinity as a foundation of our Faith. In fact, respect for the sanctity of life has its roots in Christ's famous commandments "Love your neighbor as yourself" and "Love your neighbor as I have loved you," and is the subsequent foundation of all Catholic moral teaching--and the fountainhead of Catholic social teaching (on which President Obama and the Church indeed have much in common) As such, it is more important than social teaching or personal morals. This is why the Church teaches that abortion is the worst of sins and incurs automatic (latae sententiae) excommunication, a state which remains until the abortion is confessed and reparation is made to God in the form of penance.  So I think it is "the" issue. There is no person so helpless and so in need of charity as an infant; how much more so for the unborn infant.

This whole focus on the unborn infant is distasteful to some in our society, who argue that concern for the mother should also enter into an abortion decision. I sympathize with this perspective. A mother may be in physical danger from childbirth, bearing the fruit of rape, or unable to support a child, or simply unwilling to continue the pregnancy. On the far extreme of this side are those who regard abortion as a "health care choice" of a woman, a decision protected by her essential freedom (as if the fetus is merely an extension of her body which she could decide to have removed). I think there is a legitimate concern that anti-abortion legislation would take some control from women over their own bodies: they would be forced to deal with the consequences of sexual activity and possibly guard a life they didn't intend to create. Indeed, women unable or unwilling to handle the responsibility of rearing a child deserve our charity and support (and certainly not the kind of cruel social stigma that often attaches to pregnancies outside of a marriage). But my sympathy for women in this regard is limited, for in this country the selective service also takes control from young men over their bodies, and at any moment may expose them to the violent and painful death promised by war, or torture at the hands of our nation's enemies, or disfigurement. Furthermore, I think in both cases I think society has the right to protect all its citizens, either at the expense of women by disallowing their murder in the womb, or at the expense of men by using their bodies to provide for national defense.

Whatever your view on abortion or stem-cell research, however (and President Obama readily admitted there were two legitimate and probably irreconcilable sides to the issue), as a Catholic you must acknowledge that the Church brooks no compromise on this issue. According to the Magisterium, abortion is never allowed: not if the mother's life is in danger, not if the child is the progeny of a sex crime, not if the child is going to be mentally disabled, not ever. There are no ifs, ands, or buts. Catholics must abide by this teaching and understand it if they are to be "In Communion" with the Church. And such teaching does not allow for useful dialogue, since there is no compromise a Catholic apologist can make, nothing they can "give" to a pro-choice advocate in discussion. So while it is well that this issue remains in the public arena (both for Catholics and others), and it certainly does when a pro-choice politician speaks at the commencement of a Catholic University, it undermines the official position of the Church on it's sanctity of life teaching to honor that politician with a degree and a "bully pulpit." It implies that holding views on the sanctity of life heterodox to Church teaching is allowed. That is poor instruction and poor leadership. I expected better from Notre Dame.

Hate and Christianity in America

Six weeks ago I was filled with the anticipatory excitement of returning home. Six long months I'd traveled the (mostly) trackless skies over the Western Pacific, laboring to take a squadron of 12 old, expensive aircraft and nearly 200 people from north to south, in rain, snow, and unbearable heat, to learn, demonstrate and practice our considerable warfighting capacity. Actually, I wasn't responsible for all that, but I did participate, and it was a lot of work. It was both easier and harder, actually, that it all took place away from family and loved ones. The work was easier, of course, because there were few distractions. Well, I'm not doing anything Saturday, so I guess I can go in and study. It was harder also, however, because of the deep loneliness that set in in the down hours, when the squadron rested and the holidays slipped slowly by. And all six months my anticipation built for my return: a chance to enjoy the pleasures of San Diego, to enjoy the company of friends and family, and to have some time for hobbies and such like (I thought about learning how to surf). It was all sunlight and happiness, to my fantasies. What a different world it actually is back at home.

The recession hit when we were deployed, so we heard a lot about it. We didn't see much, for all US Servicemembers deployed overseas are employed, but we watched as the news anchors and commentators waxed poetic about the economic doom upon us. President Obama was elected when we were deployed, and we watched the jubilant news coverage and the partially media-fostered and quite spiteful relief that President Bush was out of office. And I don't know what we all expected to see in regards to these events, but I think I vaguely expected an optimistic America with a lot of closed stores and low prices.

Unfortunately, my distractions from work and the aforementioned pleasures of San Diego are bitter and acrimonious debate between ideologically-driving news talk shows. They also include actual hate towards congressmen, journalists, and others who question the quite questionable solutions offered by congress and the new administration toward the economic downturn and the continuing conflicts overseas. Recently, trivially, a Miss America contestant confessed to believing that marriage should be only between a man and a woman, and cruel attacks and indignant defenses followed. Even more recently, a student at a Christian school was threatened with suspension for breaking school rules against certain kinds of dancing and music after he declared his intent to take his public-school girlfriend to her Prom. Rhetorically I ask, whence all this hate? and when did we collectively lose both our perspective and our backbone?

On the issue of same-sex marriage, I will practically and reasonably point out that believing marriage is excluded to a union between a man and a woman is hardly an unpopular view. Noted luminaries like our current, liberal President and Secretary of State, along with a majority of California voters (to judge first by the passed referendum to define marriage as between a man and a woman, followed by the passed proposition to change the state constitution to so define marriage), hold that view. That doesn't make it right, however, for our democracy protects the hypothetical minority from the hypothetically harmful tyranny of the majority. But reserving marriage to heterosexual couples hardly qualifies as "harmful" or "tyrannous." Gay couples are not put in jail. They are not prevented from being together. Under "Civil Union" laws they are even mostly afforded the same preferential tax treatment as married couples, despite their offering society no natural way to procreate.

But the poor Miss America contestant has been quite persecuted for her view, though it was expressed in as inoffensive manner as possible. She has been vilified, called a "homophobe" and a bigot, excoriated in network broadcasts. Semi-nude photographs taken when she was younger were leaked to the public in an apparent attempt to take from her the "Miss California" crown. This is is spiteful. This is hateful. She makes a handy target, sure--being beautiful, her and her travails are titillating. Misogynists everywhere can insinuate that she's a whore and call her a hypocrite. It only makes it better that she's a self-professed evangelical Christian. Everybody likes to call those people hypocrites.

Which brings me to the little renegade who wants to take his girlfriend to the forbidden Prom. Call me old-fashioned, but the rules are the rules. They are not illegal rules because (as is the case with disallowing same-sex marriage) they are not hurting anyone. There is no right to listen to rock'n'roll, nor to attend prom, nor even to marry (if it comes to that). For the latter, you have to obtain a license. And back in the bad old days before sex, drugs, or rock'n'roll, the marriage license was there to prevent people from marrying minors, or family members, or marrying without proper preparation. What an infringement upon freedom! Of course, we all give up a little freedom for a functioning society--we can't drive however we want, for one thing (you have to get a government license to do that, too), nor can we take stuff without paying for it. But I digress. Because after all, the young man in question attends the Christian School, and while he is still enrolled there he is subject to their rules. End of discussion. Yet instead of holding that young man responsible for his obligations, and telling him to either conform to the rules and not bother us any more, or leave his school and not bother us any more, the entire media is decrying indignantly the abusive Christian school that would prevent this boy from attending the Prom. They're an easy target because, again, they are Christian. Like the Miss America contestant. Like me.

One thing that has become evident in these disparate discussions is the amount of judgment occurring. Journalists and interviewees snicker at the backwards Christians and their wrong-headed views, or else call them bigots and dividers. How dare, the collective culture asks, how dare these other people oppose our zeitgeist? How dare, the question follows, how dare they judge me or my lifestyle? Well the thing is, really, that unless "they" are Anne Coulter or Bill O'Reilly, often they are not judging anyone. They are stating their values. And perhaps their disagreement with a certain piece of legislation. And they are probably content to let their statement stand, because if they are really a Christian, then they believe that as part of our creation God endowed humanity with Freedom (the capital f is no accident). Furthermore (if they are really Christian), they also believe that they are not perfect and need Christ to redeem them. So while it might be reprehensible that they, oh, I don't know, posed semi-nude for photographs, or something like that, it doesn't make them a hypocrite. It just means they are in more need of God's grace, and it ought to make them more humble. I simply don't understand why Christianity is the subject of so much contempt and hatred.

Yet whether or not you think Christianity a good or bad thing, if you live in this country you should at least acknowledge that it belongs. One of our rights is the freedom of religion, defined as the government's absolute limitation from "prohibiting the free exercise thereof." And nobody can deny that conservatives--including the Miss America contestant and the authorities at that Christian school--are Americans like all the rest, and their opinion counts. And while there is no governmental "thought police" (freedom of speech still exists, thank God), the vociferous entities which have so inappropriately attacked their fellow citizens through the media (conservative, Christian, liberal, or gay) ought to have some decency and respect and stop their thought vigilante-ism. For though they certainly have the right to say whatever they want, often what they say is cruel and useless, by which I mean it doesn't contribute much to our culture, our society, or our nation.