Father THOMAS REESE (Senior Fellow, Woodstock Theological Center, Georgetown University): I don’t think it’s a scandal. Universities should be places where we have discussion, debate, where people of different views come together to argue, and when the bishops get involved in trying to censure people, ban speakers ”” I think it’s not helpful.
Archbishop BURKE: This is a Catholic institution which is bound by ”” its title is Catholic, its identity is Catholic ”” to uphold the moral law, and that’s the source of the scandal.
As Father Reese well knows, a ceremony granting an honorary degree, and a commencement speech don’t constitute a a discussion, debate, or argument.
In fact, the debate is occurring now. However, Fr. Reese and his friends aren’t controlling it, which may be the source of his pique.
Oh I love playing spot the Jesuit. Words Matter is correct the question is not the intellectual vitality of the University but the message sent by giving an honorary degree to someone who opposes Catholic teaching.
Does this mean that Catholic colleges shouldn’t give honorary degrees to non-Catholics, who reject Catholic teachings on e.g. Papal Infallibility, the Immaculate Conception, or the Assumption of the BVM? Or–what an interesting idea–that they shouldn’t give honorary degrees to people who reject the Catholic Church’s opposition to capital punishment or the Catholic Church’s social teachings?
The granting of an honorary degree may not constitute a discussion, debate or argument but it symbolizes the university’s commitment to engaging in discussion, debate and argument, and the Catholic Church’s continuing intellectual vitality.
the message sent by giving an honorary degree to someone who opposes Catholic teaching.
What about the enormous amount of accredited degrees they give to individuals who oppose Catholic teaching. The argument is silly.
#3, #4
Disagrees with Catholic [i]moral[/i] teaching. But then again you are both being disingenuous….
RE: “What about the enormous amount of accredited degrees they give to individuals who oppose Catholic teaching.”
Um. But those are [i]earned[/i] . . . you know . . . by doing everything required of the student by the teachers. Like earning a paycheck.
No doubt about it, the school authorities are making a political and moral statement by their conferring an unearned degree as an [i]honor[/i] on a man who advocates and supports killing unborn babies.
They certainly have the power to do that.
And others are responding to that political and moral statement by making political and moral statements of their own, thank God. Hopefully they’ll use what power they have as well.
I see. So it’s the moral teaching that matters–the theology is negotiable and, I suspect, of interest to conservatives like you only insofar as it supports your moral agenda.
#7’s logic ignores the fact that Catholic bishops have issued recent and very strong teachings on the subject of abortion, insisting that Catholic schools should not honor pro-abortion politicians, and that politicians who act to extend or defend abortion are in a state of sin. Obama is not Catholic, but he is strongly pro-abortion and has acted since becoming President to extend abortion. The giving of an honorary degree to him honors what the Church has declared to be evil.
From #6:
There, fixed it for you. I think you may have forgotten then-State Senator Obama’s four votes against the Born Alive Infant Protection Act, which required medical care for those babies born alive due to failed abortions. He saw the abortion as the required end, no matter by what means necessary.
(IL)Logic(al)guru –
Of course, doctrinal truth matters. The Immaculate Conception is true, or not, and there is meaning to one’s acceptance or rejection of that doctrine. However, moral truths have temporal consequences for all humanity: unborn babies are being murdered under the protection of the the United States constitution, a situation promoted by the current president of the United States.
the theology is negotiable and, I suspect, of interest to conservatives like you only insofar as it supports your moral agenda
Speculating on the motives of those with whom you disagree is usually understood to indicate a weak argument.
Sarah and Katherine
So your argument is that as long as you earn a degree from a Catholic university which earns them the right to oppose Catholic moral, theological or other doctrine? So it then is OK that the university certifies these students with no moral requirements? If that’s the case, then why does the university care about the moral positions of those they honor? It’s their job to turn out anti-Catholic atheists, but their moral responsibility to honor good Catholics? Earned or honorary, the degrees confer no moral value on the recipient and do not judge the recipients moral character. Want proof? Just ask Notre Dame-they have already done it.
Speculating about one’s opponents’ motives is fine so long as one doesn’t claim that unsuitable motives per se render an argument unsound. That would be the genetic fallacy–and I didn’t commit that.
I find it remarkable that most religious conservatives I’ve run into have so little interest in theology as such. In most discussions I read, what seems to be of primary interest to them are moral agendas and a vision of what a good society should be like. So conservative Evangelicals will happily affiliate with conservative Catholics and Orthodox Jews and anyone else who shares their moral vision, and their interest in exercising social control. Lets not worry about peripheral issues like the real presence doctrine or for that matter the divinity of Christ.
Ironically, this is the reductivist line on relation as morality tinged with emotion: what matters is the moral agenda–metaphysics is negotiable, if not dispensable. The difference between the religious liberals and conservatives who are duking it out seems to be largely one of which moral agenda they support.
The “earned” argument was Sarah’s, not mine. However, anyone who completes the required course work satisfactorily earns a degree. So far as I know Notre Dame does not require its students to be Catholics.
An honorary degree honors someone for something he has not earned at the school, but for accomplishments elsewhere. It is not Sarah and I who have said that pro-abortion politicians should not be honored at Catholic schools. It is Catholic bishops who have said so.
#12, many conservatives who post here regularly care intensely about theology. If you think not, you haven’t read some of the posts and comments dealing with theological topics. But what’s wrong with supporting people with whom we are not in complete agreement on an issue which is important (the murders of the innocent) on which we do agree?
Further, at least one of the commenters above is, in fact, Roman Catholic.
RE: “So your argument is that as long as you earn a degree from a Catholic university which earns them the right to oppose Catholic moral, theological or other doctrine? So it then is OK that the university certifies these students with no moral requirements? If that’s the case, then why does the university care about the moral positions of those they honor? It’s their job to turn out anti-Catholic atheists, but their moral responsibility to honor good Catholics?”
An atypically incoherent line of “reasoning.”
RE: “So your argument is that as long as you earn a degree from a Catholic university which earns them the right to oppose Catholic moral, theological or other doctrine?”
Nope — merely pointing out that it does no good to point out that Notre Dame gives earned degrees to non-Catholics. Earned degrees and honorary degress are, in fact, different.
RE: “So it then is OK that the university certifies these students with no moral requirements? If that’s the case, then why does the university care about the moral positions of those they honor?”
No connection between the two sentences. An earned degree is not really an “honor.” An honorary degree is — by definition — an “honor.”
As Katherine said — why should a Roman Catholic university make a political and moral statement by giving an honorary degree to a person who happily supports killing babies in the womb — and lo, even babies who’ve managed to make it out of the womb.
That would be the genetic fallacy–and I didn’t commit that.
No, your argument was in the realm of ad hominen, in that you are making assumptions about us without evidence: “conservatives like you“. It doesn’t help your case that, as Katherine notes, you are addressing people who manifestly do care about doctrine.
The argument is fundamentally unsound that evangelicals and Catholics working together on moral issues don’t care about theology. Of course, we care; that our political action is based on a shared moral vision doesn’t negate our theological differences. Certainly many Catholics don’t care about theology -a generation of poor catechesis has seen to that. Some evangelicals don’t care about doctrine, either. But serious Catholics and serious evangelicals do care. In fact, if you look at groups such as Catholics and Evangelicals Together, you get a flavor of what’s really out there.
http://www.leaderu.com/ect/ectmenu.html
In any case, the subject of this thread was Fr. Reese’s absurb and dishonest statement. It would be a shame to lose sight of that in a welter of abortion-related arguments or silliness about earned degrees.
at least one of the commenters above is, in fact, Roman Catholic.
If memory serves, Paula Loughlin and Conor are RC. With me, that makes three. I don’t know about Branford.
[i]A man walked up to a Franciscan and Jesuit and asked, “How many novenas must you say to get a Mercedes Benz?”
The Franciscan asked, “What’s a Mercedes Benz?”
The Jesuit asked, “What’s a novena?”[/i]
Not helpful to the discussion but Paula’s “spot the Jesuit” reminded me of this old joke.
Words Matter, I am a now Roman Catholic (as of this past Easter Vigil) coming from a cradle Episcopalian background – so my theology is probably suspect since I still have a lot to learn!
Branford –
I’m 22 years a Catholic last Monday and learning daily. Once in awhile, I think I see a glimmer of what it’s about, but then I decide I’m just fooling myself.
🙂
Welcome home.
It is not Sarah and I who have said that pro-abortion politicians should not be honored at Catholic schools. It is Catholic bishops who have said so.
And it is not Catholic bishops who run the school.
why should a Roman Catholic university make a political and moral statement by giving an honorary degree to a person who happily supports killing babies in the womb—and lo, even babies who’ve managed to make it out of the womb.
Because it is nominally a Roman Catholic school. There is no requirement that students be RC and, as far as I Know, there is no requirement that teachers be RC. They are not beholden to Bishops or the Magisterium. It is simply wrong to hold them to a fictitious standard.
Wrong Brian all Catholics are beholden to the Bishops and the Magesterium on matters of faith and morals. If this was only an academic matter you would hear some objection but not the very firm and clear objections from so many Bishops and faithful Catholics. It is not even only a doctrinal matter. Though if denying the Immaculate Conception did result in the death of millions of preborn children it I can see it becoming focused on doctrine alone.
This is about universal moral teachings of the Catholic Church. Which are not only restricted to Catholics but since they have their orgins in natural law as well as theology are regarded as a wrong no matter the faith of those who practice them. Now obviously the Catholic Church does not have any disciplinary authority over non Catholics and I would not want her to. But she does have the authority over how Catholics engage the culture in these matters. And that includes giving approval to a pro abortion politician even if he or she is not Catholic.
This is because such an action creates scandal for the faithful and such scandal is fertile ground for sin. Sin which can lead to the loss of salvation. And the protection of souls is what the Church is charged with. And when they err in such a charge (as with the sexual abuse crisis) the damage they do is very, very serious. They have to put it bluntly surrendered to the enemy and let loose the lion amongst the sheep. But in this case the Church has decided to confront the Lion and beat him back from the flock. And I for one rejoice that the Bishops are doing the right thing.
I will leave with this one thought. If Notre Dame decided to honor Kervorkian would you be so quick to defend their actions?
Wrong Brian all Catholics are beholden to the Bishops and the Magesterium on matters of faith and morals. If this was only an academic matter you would hear some objection but not the very firm and clear objections from so many Bishops and faithful Catholics.
In this paragraph you refer to all Catholics and then faithful Catholics. So you at least recognize the distinction. I would argue that those who are entirely faithful to the teachings of the Catholic Church total less than 20% of all Catholics and less than 5% of US Catholics. It is naive to believe that “all Catholics are beholden to the Bishops and the Magesterium on matters of faith and morals.” The reality is far different.
But in this case the Church has decided to confront the Lion and beat him back from the flock. And I for one rejoice that the Bishops are doing the right thing.
A strongly worded statement that resulted in…wait for it…absolutely nothing. Good confrontation-except the lion ate them whole and received positive PR. They affected no change and altered nothing. And the reason this is so is because, as I have stated above, they have no authority at Notre Dame-a Catholic school in name only.
I will leave with this one thought. If Notre Dame decided to honor Kervorkian would you be so quick to defend their actions?
Absolutely. 100%. And I am radically pro-life, so that should tell you how ridiculous this argument is.
I make the distinction because for too many Catholics being Catholic is a matter of culture only not of obedience to the Church’s teachings. So though someone or an institution may carry the label Catholic it is a rather malleable one. But all Catholics if they want to be truly Catholic and not just CINO are under the authority of the Bishops and the Magesterium in matters of faith and morals.
There is I believe understanding that in cases of honest ignorance the proper handling of a person in error is one of proper and patient education. So some people may be held blameless even when they support practices contrary to Church teaching. But once that ignorance is no longer an excuse they have no defense for rebelling against the clear teaching of the Church and causing scandal.
And I agree (though I do not have any percentages) that there is a distinction between Catholics and CINO’s and nothing shows this divide as clearly as the last election and incidents such as the President receiving an honorium(sp) at Notre Dame. But the fact remains that Notre Dame did not claim their invite was justified because they were Catholic in name only. Instead they bastardized Catholic teaching to defend their invite.
Which to me is far worse. I would have been less dismayed at a good old bronx cheer by Notre Dame, declaring that they only had Catholic in their name because they were so dang sentimental but gosh no one hear really believed that stuff. Than at their attempts to twist the clear and consistent teachings about abortion and to the Bishops’ statement on giving out honorary degrees by Catholic universities. All done in order to give authenticity to their Catholic identity.
And I am glad that you are pro life. I think that is an essential agreement that people from which all sides of the political spectrum should let all their actions and beliefs develop.
PS. Perhaps I should have said “this is an agreement from which all sides of the political spectrum should let all their actions and beliefs about our culture and our place in it develop.”
If every member of the Catholic Church in America eschews her doctrines, that doesn’t say a thing about their truth. Public opinion is what it is, but faithfulness, not success in the eyes of the world, is the real measure.