Notre Dame "Honors" Fr. Hesburgh on Facebook

Check out the photo that Notre Dame chose to highlight on its Facebook page to "honor" former Notre Dame president Fr. Theodore Hesburgh on his birthday:

Highlighting perhaps the most prominent pro-abortion politician on Capitol Hill. Could you imagine Notre Dame posting a picture of Fr. Hesburgh with a segregationist? For that matter, could you imagine Fr. Hesburgh appearing at an event - even one in his own honor - if a prominent segregationist were in attendance?

The thing is that Notre Dame had plenty of other photos to choose from (see here), and decided to use this one.

Shameful.

Virginia Governor McDonnell Signs "Student Group Protection Act"

Bob McDonnell has done some bone-headed things over the last year-and-a-half to cost him FOREVER my once very outspoken devotion and support, but this outstanding action in support of religious liberty is NOT among them:

Gov. Bob McDonnell has signed legislation that prohibits public colleges from requiring student groups to adhere to so-called “all-comers” policies.

The Student Group Protection Act is designed to ensure freedom of association on campuses, said the bill’s sponsor, Sen. Mark D. Obenshain, R-Harrisonburg.

The new law gives religious or political student organizations at public institutions the right to define their doctrines. To the extent allowed by law, they also can limit membership to students committed to their missions.

The ACLU of Virginia and some student leaders had urged McDonnell to veto the bill, saying they feared it would allow groups to discriminate based on religion or sexual orientation.

However, the Family Foundation of Virginia praised McDonnell for signing what it called a common-sense measure that protects religious liberties.

The ACLU said the legislation was an effort to override a U.S. Supreme Court decision that upheld a university’s right to require student organizations to abide by nondiscrimination policies. The ruling came in a challenge by a conservative Christian group in California that excluded gay and lesbian students.

This would mean that my alma mater, the University of Virginia, itself once a litigant in one of the most important Supreme Court cases in the area of student organizations and the First Amendment freedoms of speech, association, and religion, will be unable to, for example, deny official status to campus organizations who limit their membership to those who follow a set of religious tenets.

Writing at The American Catholic, The Motley Monk contrasts this approach with that taken by certain Jesuit institutions of higher learning such as Gonzaga, Georgetown, and Fordham:

Wouldn’t it be ironic if secular universities officially recognize Knights of Columbus councils as student clubs while Catholic universities—like Gonzaga, Georgetown, and Fordham—don’t because administrators have determined that the organization is discriminatory and noninclusive?

The "Myth" of Persecution?

A couple of my friends over at The American Catholic - Don McClarey and Darwin - have some excellent posts about a recently released book by a professor of theology at Notre Dame (of course) that attempts to call into question the history of the Church's early persecution at the hands of the Roman Empire. Read them both here and here.

As I said in my comments at The American Catholic, this professor's motivation appears quite clear (and she pretty much confirms this in her promotion of the book):

If the Church and individual Christians suffer government and/or legal sanction because their beliefs and how they practice those beliefs are at odds with cultural “norms” – be those norms abortion-on-demand, the HHS mandate, or same-sex “marriage” – they are not REALLY being persecuted. In essence, the Church and individual Christians can either get on board with the agenda or not; but if they choose not to, they wouldn’t be able to legitimately cry “persecution” if the legal fallout is not to to their liking.

Moss’s motivation, as with the motivation of many on the religious left who are critical of the Church's teachings, is actually quite transparent: political ideology trumps religious dogma.

Georgetown Law Student: Georgetown Should Pay for Us to Have Sex Because We're Going Broke Buying Birth Control

Unreal:

At a hearing of the House Democratic Steering and Policy Committee yesterday, a single witness — Georgetown law student and “reproductive rights activist” Sandra Fluke — told sympathetic policy-makers that the administration’s so-called contraception mandate should stand … because her peers are going broke buying birth control.

“Forty percent of the female students at Georgetown Law reported to us that they struggled financially as a result of this policy (Georgetown student insurance not covering contraception),” Fluke reported.

It costs a female student $3,000 to have protected sex over the course of her three-year stint in law school, according to her calculations.

“Without insurance coverage, contraception, as you know, can cost a woman over $3,000 during law school,” Fluke told the hearing.

Craig Bannister at CNSNews.com did the math — and discovered that these co-eds, assuming they’re using the cheapest possible contraception, must be having unprotected sex about three times a day every day to incur that kind of expense. What Fluke is arguing, then, is that her fellow law students have a right to consequence-free sex whenever, wherever. Why, exactly, especially if it costs other people something? When I can’t pay for something, I do without it. Fortunately, in the case of contraception, women can make lifestyle choices that render it unnecessary...

[More]

Lady, if you want to be promiscuous to the tune of $3000 during your time at Georgetown Law School, that's your business. Knock yourself out. No one is going to stop you. Y'know, free will and all.

But to demand that the Catholic Church violate its teachings by providing you with the means for you to engage in your promiscuity is beyond arrogant. It's perverse.

This witness was called by "ardent, practicing Catholic", San Fran Nan the Theologian. Does she REALLY think testimony like this bolster's the Obama Administration's position on the HHS mandate? As one commenter at Hot Air put it:

Yes, PLEASE, trot out more privileged poster children like this. This is like an ad for our side.

Exactly.

New Cardinal Newman Society Blog: Campus Notes

Check out the new blog of the Cardinal Newman Society, Campus Notes.

Especially pay attention over the next several days to the blog's coverage of the Society's official pilgrimage to England for the Pope's beatification of Cardinal Newman: "Official U.S. Pilgrimage to Newman’s Beatification Kicks Off in 2 Days".

Did Notre Dame Retaliate Against Administrator Who Supported NDResponse During Dust-Up Over Obama Commencement Invite? [UPDATED]

It sure looks that way to me:

The decision by Father Tom Doyle, Notre Dame’s new Vice-President for Student Affairs to fire Bill Kirk from his position as Associate Vice-President for Residence Life has left many of us with an empty feeling. It has also put another dent in Notre Dame’s reputation as a family-friendly and compassionate employer. The decision was both unfair and imprudent. It was unfair, because, as a loyal employee of Notre Dame for almost 22 years—and one who had been placed repeatedly in positions where he took the brunt of public criticism for enforcing policies adopted by his superiors—he deserved better from those superiors than to be removed from office with no notice and with no public explanation for his removal. It was imprudent, because administrators of Bill Kirk’s talent, compassion and principled commitment to the good are rare. He loved Notre Dame and he loved and respected the students whose welfare he vigorously pursued.

In addition, his removal from office took place against the background of other events at Notre Dame that inevitably raised questions about its real motivation...

[...]

The larger role played by Bill Kirk and his family at Notre Dame and in the local community also raises questions about the wisdom—indeed, the fairness—of severing him from this community. Bill’s wife, Elizabeth, has played a very visible role on campus in recent years as the Associate Director of the Notre Dame Center for Ethics and Culture. She has also figured prominently in campus affairs as the faculty advisor for the Right to Life Club and the Identity Project. She has been one of a very few articulate and confident pro-life women on campus prepared to mentor young women seeking to take on the tricky balancing act of wife, mother and career. She has increasingly played a role nationally and internationally as a leading pro-life spokesperson and, together with her husband, has forged important links between Notre Dame and other organizations in the community. As official faculty advisor to the Right to Life Club, Elizabeth served as primary advisor to the student coalition formed in the spring of 2009 as “NDResponse” and served as a conduit for many, including junior, untenured faculty members, who were unwilling to get involved directly for fear of reprisal. Without compromising his administrative duties, Bill stood with the students of NDResponse at their rally on the South Quad on Commencement day. He was the only senior administrator at Notre Dame willing to do so. With the firing of Bill Kirk, Notre Dame will almost certainly also be deprived of Elizabeth’s talents.

At the time Bill took part in the NDResponse rally, many people commented on the courage it took for him to stand with his wife and other witnesses to this protest of Notre Dame’s decision to award President Obama an honorary degree. I personally discounted these worries, believing that the Notre Dame administration would admire him for his principled stand on a matter so close to the Catholic heart of Notre Dame, even if they disagreed with his particular action. The administration welcomed President Obama’s sharp dissent from and attack on central Catholic teaching on life. It seemed only reasonable that they would equally welcome dissent from university policy by such a loyal Catholic and member of the Notre Dame family as Bill Kirk—especially when his dissent was made in the name of the Catholic principles at Notre Dame’s heart and in the company of his bishop.

Perhaps, alas, there was reason for Bill Kirk to be worried about his participation in NDResponse after all. There is no doubt that the treatment of Bill Kirk this summer will have a chilling effect on the participation of other administrators, unprotected by the safety net of tenure, in the great debates about public policy and moral principle into which Notre Dame will be inevitably drawn. A number of other administrators have told me that in light of Bill Kirk’s treatment, they will in the future keep their heads down rather than dissent from the policies of the central administration...

[Read the whole thing]

My Comments:
Disgusting. Jeer, jeer for old Notre Shame.


UPDATE
The Corner at NRO gets in on the story: "Obama at Notre Dame: Golden Dome Bosses Serve a Cold Dish of Revenge"

... Kirk and his wife Elizabeth are prominent campus abortion foes (she was assistant director of one of the few institutes on campus that is avowedly pro-life and orthodox). Now their voices have been silenced, and by the same people who gnash their teeth and pluck their beards about living wages, unionization, fair treatment of employees, and the rest of the Catholic Left’s lobbying agenda. One can hear the college brass channeling Henry II: Will no one rid us of this troublesome pro-life Associate Vice-President for Residence Life?

Others commenting:

Prof. Francis Beckwith: "That's a cross, but it's not very holy: the dismissal of Notre Dame's Bill Kirk"

Carl Olson: "Ignominy at Notre Dame"

Twentieth Anniversary of Ex corde Ecclesiae

From the Cardinal Newman Society:

On the Solemnity of the Assumption, August 15, 2010, The Cardinal Newman Society (CNS) will commemorate the 20th anniversary of Pope John Paul II’s apostolic constitution on Catholic higher education, Ex corde Ecclesiae. CNS has written an extensive Timeline and Background of Ex corde Ecclesiae to mark the anniversary and shed light on the importance of this historic Church constitution.

“The requirements of Ex corde Ecclesiae are of continuing importance for Catholic colleges and universities in 2010,” said CNS President Patrick J. Reilly. “We are still in the midst of the educational crisis to which Ex corde responded 20 years ago, and we await full implementation of the constitution’s ‘norms’ in the U.S. In order to rediscover the Catholic identity of their colleges and universities, presidents and board members must revisit the vital message of this landmark document.”

Reilly continued, “A new generation of Catholic administrators, professors and students are already reaping the fruit of strong Catholic identity brought about by adherence to Ex corde. Catholic colleges and universities included in our Newman Guide to Choosing a Catholic College have worked to integrate the principles of Ex corde into every aspect of their institutions.”

“On this anniversary, CNS and its more than 20,000 members continue to pray that more Catholic university leaders will embrace Ex corde Ecclesiae and courageously stand up for Catholic teaching in a world that is so desperately searching for the Truth.”

On August 15, 1990, Pope John Paul II responded to the decades-long crisis in Catholic higher education by issuing the apostolic constitution Ex corde Ecclesiae. The document, which has the binding effect of Church law, was the first official Catholic Church document defining the essential relationship between Catholic institutions of higher education and the Church.

Inspired by the message of Ex corde Ecclesiae, Patrick J. Reilly and other recent Catholic college graduates founded The Cardinal Newman Society in 1993 to seek the faithful implementation of the apostolic constitution in the United States.Ex corde Ecclesiae’s guidelines include:

· the requirement for any official action of a Catholic university to be in harmony with its Catholic identity;

· the responsibility of all Catholic university professors and administrators to promote, or at least to respect, the institution’s Catholic identity;

· the need of all professors of Catholic theology to have a “mandate” from the local bishop to teach; and

· the requirement that Catholic professors should be in the majority at a Catholic university.

In 1999, the U.S. bishops approved clear guidelines to implement Ex corde. Since then, it is evident that most of Catholic higher education is still undergoing the crisis that Ex corde was issued to address.

CNS continues to report on the abuses of Catholic identity that take place across the United States every year. Recent examples such as Notre Dame’s bestowal of an honorary doctorate of law upon pro-abortion President Barack Obama, the increasing support for abortion and gay “marriage” among Catholic students, and the fact that nearly one in eight Catholics leave the Church by their graduation from Catholic colleges demonstrate that the “educational emergency,” in Pope Benedict XVI’s words, is still prevalent.

Two years ago, during his visit to the United States of America, Pope Benedict XVI convened a meeting of Catholic college and university presidents in Washington, D.C., where he echoed key themes of Ex corde on the importance of Catholic identity. The Holy Father told the Catholic presidents that the current “crisis of truth” is rooted in a “crisis of faith.”

In 2011, the U.S. bishops are scheduled to conduct a review of the implementation of Ex corde Ecclesiae over the past 10 years since their particular guidelines for American institutions went into effect. Details for this review have not yet been made public.

CNS narrates the story of Ex corde Ecclesiae and its implementation in the Timeline and Background of Ex corde Ecclesiae.

Does Catholic University's Choice for New President Represent a Step Backwards for Orthodoxy and Authentic Catholic Identity?

Catholic Culture has a profile of Catholic University's newly appointed President, John H. Garvey, current dean of Boston College Law School:

... Commenting on academic freedom and Catholic identity in a 2002 letter, Mr. Garvey wrote:

On several occasions I have heard people express concern that the Catholic identity of Boston College and the Law School will require a certain orthodoxy, or suppress unorthodox opinions, among its faculty and students. No school that regulates ideas can justly call itself a university. Indeed, it is precisely because we are committed to the search for truth in an atmosphere of academic freedom that the Law School can render a useful service to the Church and the cause of justice. It is natural that we should have a particular interest in the intersection of law and religion. (Though this is not our only focus.) But when people address that subject here they do not speak for (or against) the church hierarchy. They follow where their inquiries lead them.

In 2007, Mr. Garvey was criticized by the Cardinal Newman Society when the law school awarded an honorary degree to Rep. Edward J. Markey, an abortion proponent with a 100% 'pro-choice' voting record. “Congressman Ed Markey is one of the most distinguished graduates of Boston College Law School, whose career of public service reflects the very best values and traditions of the School,” said Mr. Garvey. “I don't believe Boston College has ever had a better friend in the United States Congress than Ed Markey.”

In awarding an honorary degree to Rep. Markey, Boston College Law School failed to heed the 2004 US bishops’ document “Catholics in Political Life,” which stated, “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.”

[...]

According to federal election records, Mr. Garvey made three donations to Massachusetts Senator John Kerry, whose support for abortion led 14 bishops to state during the 2004 presidential campaign that they would deny him Holy Communion. In June 2002, Mr. Garvey donated $250 to the Kerry Committee; in March 2003, he donated $1,000 to John Kerry for President, Inc.; and in April 2004, he donated $500 to John Kerry for President, Inc...

[More]

Whatever Mr. Garvey's past inclinations at BC might have been, Archbishop Allen H. Vigneron of Detroit, who chairs Catholic University's board of trustees and led the nine-month search, has made clear where he thinks the priorities of the university's new president should lie:

... Vigneron said the university board expects Garvey to continue [former president and newly appointed Bishop of Trenton, N.J., David M.] O'Connell's work to reclaim a Catholic identity for the Northeast Washington campus. O'Connell raised the share of students and faculty who self-identified as Catholics and hosted Pope Benedict XVI in a 2008 visit...

My Comments:
I suppose we'll just have to wait and see how that works out.

Ralph McInerny and the Tragedy of Notre Dame

George Weigel eulogizes Ralph McInerny (and the Notre Dame that no longer exists):

... Ralph McInerny was arguably the most distinguished scholar ever to work at Notre Dame. His scholarly publications outstrip those of other Notre Dame philosophers by orders of magnitude—and that’s before we get to his popular fiction, his magazine work, and his encouraging of generations of younger Catholic academics. Yet a university that does not hesitate to boast of its accomplishments as measured by the U.S. News and World Report ratings seemed curiously reticent about celebrating the life and accomplishments of Ralph McInerny. The university Web site posted a nicely written obituary three days after his death, but there was little sense in the university’s official recognition of its loss that a gigantic figure had left the scene.

One cannot help suspect that this has something to do with the fact that Ralph thought Notre Dame had gone off the rails in its dogged and relentlessly self-promoting attempts to measure itself against what it likes to term “peer schools,” such as Dartmouth and Yale. What Ralph understood, and what the man who brought him to Notre Dame, the legendary Father Theodore Hesburgh, has never seemed to understand, is that that’s the wrong plumb-line by which to measure a Catholic university’s accomplishment. Or indeed any university’s accomplishment, given the intellectual chaos, political correctness, decadence, and madcap trendiness that has afflicted those “peer schools” since the late Sixties.

Ralph McInerny knew, and could demonstrate with acute philosophical rigor, that there are truths built into the world and into us: truths we can know by exercising the arts of reason; truths that, known, lay certain moral obligations on us, personally and in our civic lives. With the rarest of exceptions, they don’t know that, and in fact they deny that, at the “peer schools” to which Notre Dame is addicted to comparing itself. And therein lay the tragedy of Notre Dame and Catholic institutions of higher education of a similar cast of mind, as Ralph saw it: they had sold their intellectual and moral birthright—the true excellence that comes from an immersion in the Great Tradition of western higher learning—for a mess of pottage.

I’ve long thought that all of this had something to do with the misreading of a 1955 essay by Father John Tracy Ellis, “American Catholics and the Intellectual Life,” which justifiably criticized the shabby condition of too much of Catholic higher education in the United States in those days. Father Hesburgh and others influenced by one reading of Ellis’s critique decided that the thing to do was for Notre Dame to become Harvard, so to speak. Ralph McInerny thought that this didn’t make much sense at a time when those “peer schools” were awash in pragmatism and utilitarianism. Rather, he believed (and I think this was the more accurate reading of Ellis) that Notre Dame and other premier Catholic universities should play to strength, emphasizing a demanding liberal arts education while bringing the best of the mid-20th century Catholic philosophical, theological and literary renaissance to bear in the U.S. Doing that, Catholic universities would model a form of higher learning that was truth-centered, character-building, and life-inspiring...

(Hat tip: Don McClarey)


Previous Pro Ecclesia posts on this subject:
Notre Shame Fails the "Catholic" Test Yet Again

Ralph McInerny (1929-2010) [UPDATED]

Prof. Freddoso's Introduction to What Happened to Notre Dame? - Part 2: Why the Catholic Faithful WERE Scandalized

Prof. Freddoso's Introduction to What Happened to Notre Dame? - Part 1: "Why I Was Not Scandalized"

What Happened to Notre Dame?

Notre Shame Fails the "Catholic" Test Yet Again

Preeminent Catholic legal scholar, Prof. Charles Rice, who writes a regular column that appears in the Notre Dame student newspaper, submits a column on the Church's teaching regarding homosexuality, and the editor of the student newspaper rejects it because it isn't in a "point-counterpoint format" that offers "an opposing or differing viewpoint":

That way, each “side,” [so] to speak, would have the opportunity to present relevant facts, evidence and analysis to define its position.

So, at America's flagship "Catholic" university, the Church's timeless Magisterial teachings represent merely one viewpoint that needs to be "balanced" by what? The secularist viewpoint? As The Curt Jester points out:

America Magazine tried that both sides format until their editor supposedly got sacked for it... This is just not an area where Catholics can have differing viewpoints and still be faithful to the Church.

But is anyone REALLY surprised by the fact that the Notre Dame student newspaper is taking such an approach? I mean, when the Church's timeless Magisterial teachings regarding abortion are treated by the University administration as something open for "dialogue", and the advocates of abortion on demand are honored with prominent speaking positions and honorary law degrees all in the name of "the exchange of ideas", it is no wonder that the students under their charge are left with the impression that the teachings of the Catholic Church are up for debate.

Do read The Curt Jester's entire piece on the exchange of letters between the still-wet-behind-the-ears editor-in-chief of a frickin' student newspaper and one of the world's preeminent scholars of the Natural Law and the Catholic legal tradition (to whom the clueless upstart refers as "Mr. Rice", as opposed to "Dr. Rice" or "Prof. Rice").

Also, be sure to read Prof. Rice's column, which The Curt Jester has reprinted in full, to see if you can spot the "certain language" with which the editor "was a bit concerned" and feared did not "len[d] itself to creating a productive discussion".


Previous Pro Ecclesia posts on this subject:
An Open Letter from Prof. Rice to Fr. Jenkins

Prof. Freddoso's Introduction to What Happened to Notre Dame? - Part 2: Why the Catholic Faithful WERE Scandalized

Prof. Freddoso's Introduction to What Happened to Notre Dame? - Part 1: "Why I Was Not Scandalized"

What Happened to Notre Dame?

Boston College Law School in Disarray Over Prof’s Defense of Marriage

The Cardinal Newman Society reports:

On September 15, 2009, StandForMarriageMaine.com released a television ad which featured Scott Fitzgibbon, a professor at Boston College Law School, arguing in defense of marriage between one man and one woman. He encouraged Maine voters to vote “yes” on an upcoming ballot referendum which aims to overturn state legislation which legalized homosexual “marriage” last May.

Complaints from fellow faculty members at Boston College soon began piling up. Merely one day after the ad aired, Boston College Law Dean John Garvey issued a letter to the BC law community, writing, “Several of you have contacted my office to express your anger at Scott’s actions, and it is hard for me to see any of our students, faculty, or staff offended or hurt by the words of others.”

Rather than praising Fitzgibbon’s public defense of a Catholic teaching, Dean Garvey wrote that Fitzgibbon’s “public statements represent his own opinions. . . and do not state any official position of Boston College Law School.” [ED.: Huh? These are NOT merely Prof. Fitzgibbon's "own opinions", but ARE, in fact, the "official position" of the Catholic Church of which Boston College purports to be a part.] Garvey defended Fitzgibbons’ participation in the advertisement but also seemed to welcome faculty opposition to Catholic teaching.”

We also have faculty members who hold a contrary view, which they too are free to express publicly,” he wrote. “Many have done so while referring to themselves as BC Law professors. One of them has publicly led the fight to oppose the Solomon Amendment on the grounds that it is an affront to gay and lesbian students and prospective members of the U.S. military. Others have taken controversial positions on such subjects as abortion, euthanasia, and the treatment of detainees.”

Three days after Fitzgibbon’s pro-traditional marriage ad aired, a group of 76 “Individual Faculty and Administrators at Boston College Law School”, including Dean Garvey, issued the following statement: “The undersigned members of the faculty and administration at Boston College Law School feel that it is important to reaffirm our belief in the equality of all of our students. We are proud of the fact that Boston College Law School was one of the first law schools in the country to include sexual orientation in its non-discrimination pledge, and we reaffirm our commitment to making our institution a welcome and safe place for all students, including LGBT students.”

(emphasis and editorial commentary)

Bishop of Memphis Implies 80 of His Brother Bishops - Including at Least 2 Cardinals - Are "Racist"

It is a shame to see how, even in the Church, the race card is played indiscriminately and without regard to the truth, but especially so when it comes from those in a position of authority who ought to know better:

... Some racism still exists, [Bishop J. Terry Steib of the Diocese of Memphis] said, and cited the recent furor in Catholic circles over the honorary degree awarded by Notre Dame University to Obama, who supports abortion on demand.

Other presidents have had disagreements with the positions of the Catholic Church, for example, in war policies and capital punishment, but have received honorary degrees without similar objection, he noted.

It is the subtle racism that still exists which contributes to the lack of priestly vocations among young black men because “it leads to a mistrust of the Church among young black men and women,” he said. “Let’s acknowledge that.” ...

I think it's best if I just keep my thoughts on this one to myself.


Previous Pro Ecclesia posts on this subject:
What the Left ... and Especially the Catholic Left ... Hope to Accomplish With the "Racism" Charge [UPDATED]

U.S. Bishops Praise Bishop D’Arcy in Wake of Notre Dame Scandal

American Papist Issues Challenge to Left-Leaning Catholics: "No More Claiming US Bishops Are 'Partisan' on Abortion"

Two Bishops Reflect on Obama at Notre Dame

Who's Really Playing a "Political Game" in the Notre Dame Imbroglio

Of "Neo-Caths" and "Sharia Catholicism"

Bishop D'Arcy Publicly Corrects President Jenkins' "Flawed Justification for His Actions" [UPDATED]

Notre Dame's President Jenkins: "We Are Tremendously Proud" to be Acting in Defiance of the US Catholic Bishops

Proof that the Group Calling Itself "Catholic Democrats" is More "Democrat" Than "Catholic" [UPDATED]

Evansville Bishop Won't Attend Pro-Life Banquet with GOP's Steele as Speaker

Bishop D'Arcy Speaks on Notre Dame and Obama; Bishop Will Not Attend Boycott Ceremony

An Open Letter from Prof. Rice to Fr. Jenkins

(Hat tip: Mr. H. at All Hands On Deck!)

Charles Rice, Notre Dame Professor of Law Emeritus and author of What Happened to Notre Dame?, has responded with an open letter to President Jenkins' announcement of a new pro-life initiative at Notre Dame.

Ignatius Insight has the full text of Prof. Rice's letter (excerpted here):

Open Letter to Rev. John I. Jenkins, C.S.C., President, University of Notre Dame

September 21, 2009


Rev. John I. Jenkins, C.S.C.
President
University of Notre Dame
Notre Dame, Indiana 46556

Dear Father Jenkins:

[...]

First, permit me to express my appreciation for the expressions of support for the pro-life cause in your September 16th “Letter concerning post-commencement initiatives.” I know, however, that in a matter as significant as this, you will appreciate and welcome a respectful but very candid expression of views. In my opinion, the positions you have taken are deficient in some respects.

In your Letter of Sept. 16th, you rightly praise the work of the Women’s Care Center (WCC) and of its superb leader, Ann Murphy Manion. I commend you on your statement that the WCC “and similar centers in other cities deserve the support of Notre Dame clubs and individuals.” Your praise of the WCC and similar efforts, however, overlooks a practical step that Notre Dame, as an institution, ought to take. That would be for you, on behalf of Notre Dame, to issue a standing invitation to the WCC to establish an office on the Notre Dame campus to serve students, faculty and staff if, in the judgment of the WCC, that would be desirable and effective. Such would give practical effect, right here at Notre Dame, to your words in support of the WCC and similar efforts.

Your Letter announced your formation of the Task Force on Supporting the Choice for Life. Rather than offer a detailed evaluation of my own, I note my agreement with the personal analysis of William Dempsey, ND ’52, President of the Sycamore Trust, calling attention to “the obviously deliberate exclusion from Task Force membership of anyone associated with the ND organizations that have been unashamedly and actively pro-life: the Center for Ethics & Culture and the ND Fund for the Protection of Human Life. Nor was the student representative chosen from the leadership of the student RTL organization or from anyone active in last year’s student alliance protesting the honoring of the President, ND Response. It is hard to resist the inference that this is as a move toward marginalizing the Center and the Fund, neither of which receives any University support the way it is…. [...] A project that deliberately excludes from participation those who have courageously manned organizations standing against the faculty attitude toward the pro-life cause ought to be regarded with suspicion.”

My main concern in this letter arises from your statement in your Letter that “Each year on January 22, the anniversary of the Supreme Court’s Roe v. Wade decision, the March for Life is held in Washington D.C. to call on the nation to defend the right to life. I plan to participate in that march. I invite other members of the Notre Dame Family to join me and I hope we can gather for a Mass for Life at that event.” I understand that Notre Dame students have invited you to participate with them in the March. The problem arises from an aftermath of Commencement. On this I refer back to Chief of Staff Shavers’ response to Professor Freddoso’s request that Notre Dame ask dismissal of the charges against those arrested. Dr. Shavers states that “these protesters were arrested for trespassing and not for expressing their pro-life position.” That is misleading. This is not an ordinary case of trespass to land such as would occur if a commuter walks across your lawn and flower bed as a short-cut to the train station. Notre Dame is ordinarily an open campus. Those 88 persons, 82 of whom are represented by Tom Dixon, ND ’84, ND Law School ’93, were arrested not because they were there, but because of who they were, why they were there and what they were saying. Other persons with pro-Obama signs were there but were not arrested and not disturbed. Serious legal and constitutional questions are involved, arising especially from the symbiotic relationship between the Notre Dame Security Police, who made the arrests, and the County Police. This letter is not a legal brief. Rather I merely note that it is disingenuous for Notre Dame to pretend that this is merely a routine trespass case.

The confusion is compounded by Dr. Shavers’ statement that “Under Indiana law, however, Notre Dame is not the complainant in these matters and so is not in any position to drop or dismiss the charges.” That sentence is half-true and half-false. Notre Dame is the complaining victim of the alleged trespass. Whether to dismiss the charges, of course, is for the prosecutor to decide.

[...]

Pre-trial diversion could change their status as convicted criminals. But it is only because of the actions of Notre Dame that they are treated by the law as criminals in the first place. Notre Dame continues to subject those defendants to the criminal process. If they entered pretrial diversion they would each have to pay hundreds of dollars in costs, which would amount in effect to a fine imposed on them, with the concurrence of Notre Dame, for praying. Most of the 88 are in straitened financial circumstances. The imposition on them of such a fine would be a serious hardship. Instead, Notre Dame ought to state publicly that it has no interest in seeing those prosecutions proceed in any form and that it requests the prosecutor to exercise his discretion to dismiss all those charges unconditionally. Given the prospect of 88 or so separate jury trials, probably not consolidated, in cases involving potentially serious legal and constitutional issues, such a request by Notre Dame would surely be appreciated by the taxpayers of St. Joseph County.

Those 88 defendants were on the other side of the campus, far removed from the site of the Commencement. They are subjected by Notre Dame to the criminal process because they came, as individuals, to Notre Dame to pray, peacefully and non-obstructively, on this ordinarily open campus, in petition and reparation, as a response to what they rightly saw as a facilitation by Notre Dame of various objectively evil policies and programs of Notre Dame’s honoree, President Obama. Those persons, whom Notre Dame has subjected to legal process as criminals, are neither statistics nor abstractions. Let me tell you about a few of them.

Fr. Norman Weslin, O.S., 79 years old and in very poor health, was handcuffed by Notre Dame Security Police as he sang “Immaculate Mary” on the campus sidewalk near the entrance. He asked them, “Why would you arrest a Catholic priest for trying to stop the killing of a baby?” The NSDP officers put him on a pallet and dragged him away to jail. St. Joseph County Police were also there. I urge you to watch the readily available videos of Fr. Weslin’s arrest. If you do, I will be surprised and disappointed if you are not personally and deeply ashamed.

Such treatment of such a priest may be the lowest point in the entire history of Notre Dame. You would profit from knowing Fr. Weslin. Notre Dame should give Fr. Weslin the Laetare Medal rather than throw him in jail. Norman Weslin, born to poor Finnish immigrants in upper Michigan, finished high school at age 17 and joined the Army. He converted from the Lutheran to the Catholic faith and married shortly after earning his commission. He became a paratrooper and rose to the rank of Lieutenant Colonel in the 82nd Airborne Division, obtaining his college degree enroute. After a distinguished career, he retired in 1968. As the legalization of abortion intensified, he and his wife, Mary Lou, became active pro-lifers in Colorado. In 1980, Mary Lou was killed by a drunk driver. Norman personally forgave the young driver. Norman Weslin was later ordained as a Catholic priest, worked with Mother Teresa in New York and devoted himself to the rescue of unborn children through nonviolent, prayerful direct action at abortuaries. In 1990 at Christmastime, I was privileged to defend Fr. Weslin and his Lambs of Christ when they were arrested at the abortuary in South Bend. One does not have to agree with the tactic of direct, non-violent action at abortuaries to have the utmost admiration, as I have, for Fr. Weslin and his associates. At Notre Dame, Fr. Weslin engaged in no obstruction or disruption. He merely sought to pray for the unborn on the ordinarily open campus of a professedly Catholic university. The theme of Notre Dame’s honoring of Obama was “dialogue.” It would have been better for you and the complicit Fellows and Trustees to dialogue with Fr. Weslin rather than lock him up as a criminal. You all could have learned something from him. His actions in defense of innocent life and the Faith have been and are heroic. Notre Dame’s treatment of Fr. Weslin is a despicable disgrace, the responsibility for which falls directly and personally upon yourself as the President of Notre Dame.

[...]

Please permit me to speak bluntly about your announced purpose to participate in the March for Life and to “invite other members of the Notre Dame Family to join me.” Notre Dame should have had an official presence at every March for Life since 1973. But until now it never has. Notre Dame students, with the encouragement of Campus Ministry, participate in the March but the University, as such, has not done so. To put it candidly, it would be a mockery for you to present yourself now at the March, even at the invitation of Notre Dame students, as a pro-life advocate while, in practical effect, you continue to be the jailer, as common criminals, of those persons who were authentic pro-life witnesses at Notre Dame. When the pictures of Fr. Weslin’s humiliation and arrest by your campus police was flashed around the world it did an incalculable damage to Notre Dame that can be partially undone only by your public and insistent request, as President of Notre Dame, that the charges be dropped. In my opinion your attachment to the March for Life, including your offering of a Mass for Life, could give scandal in the absence, at least, of such an insistent request to dismiss those charges. Your decision to present an official Notre Dame presence at the March could be beneficial, but not in the context of an unrelenting criminalization by Notre Dame of sincere and peaceful friends of Notre Dame whose offense was their desire to pray, on the campus, for the University and all concerned including yourself. If you appear at the March as the continuing criminalizer of those pro-life witnesses, you predictably will earn not approbation but scorn—a scorn which will surely be directed toward Notre Dame as well. As long as you pursue the criminalization of those pro-life witnesses, your newest pro-life statements will be regarded reasonably as a cosmetic covering of the institutional anatomy in the wake of the continuing backlash arising from your conferral of Notre Dame’s highest honor on the most relentlessly pro-abortion public official in the world. ...

[Read the whole thing]

(emphasis added)

My Comments:
Prof. Rice makes an EXCELLENT point.

If President Jenkins shows up at the March for Life in January as a Johnny-come-lately to the pro-life cause, having just prosecuted REAL pro-life witnesses, including a Catholic priest, for having prayed the Rosary on Notre Dame's campus in protest of the university's honoring a pro-abort politician, he will be treated with scorn and derision from the rest of the pro-life community at the March. I don't think there's any two ways about it; that's what WILL happen.

And such a scenario would lead to even more embarrasment and division for the Notre Dame community, as well as for the pro-life community.

President Jenkins, if he wishes to avoid such a confrontation, should heed the words of Prof. Rice and so many others in doing everything within his power to have those charges dropped against the Notre Dame 88.


UPDATE
My friend Don McClarey has more at The American Catholic:




Previous Pro Ecclesia posts on this subject:
Notre Dame's President Jenkins Announces Pro-Life Initiative; Will Also Attend March for Life [UPDATED]

Prof. Freddoso's Introduction to What Happened to Notre Dame? - Part 2: Why the Catholic Faithful WERE Scandalized

Prof. Freddoso's Introduction to What Happened to Notre Dame? - Part 1: "Why I Was Not Scandalized"

What Happened to Notre Dame?

Updates on President Jenkins' Pro-Life Initiatives Announcement

I have posted several updates to my initial post from yesterday regarding President Jenkins' announcement of the formation of a pro-life task force at Notre Dame, as well as his decsion to march in the upcoming March for Life next January.

Notre Dame's President Jenkins Announces Pro-Life Initiative; Will Also Attend March for Life [UPDATED]

Perhaps Notre Dame President John Jenkins has decided to finally get around to having Notre Dame put its money where its mouth is in regard to the university's alleged "commitment" to promoting the sanctity of life.

From the South Bend Tribune:

SOUTH BEND — In the aftermath of the controversial commencement visit by President Barack Obama, the University of Notre Dame's president plans to participate in the March for Life in January in Washington, D.C.

The Rev. John I. Jenkins, the university president, announced Wednesday in an e-mail to the campus community that he will participate in the Jan. 22 march. He encouraged others to join him.

A March for Life is held each January in the nation's capital on the anniversary of the Supreme Court's Roe v. Wade decision that legalized abortion.

"I plan to participate in that march. I invite other members of the Notre Dame family to join me and I hope we can gather for a Mass for Life at that event," Jenkins wrote in the e-mail.

***
Jenkins this month formed a campus Task Force on Supporting the Choice for Life. It will be co-chaired by Margaret Brinig, a law professor and associate dean at Notre Dame Law School, and John Cavadini, a theology professor, chair of the theology department and director of the university's Institute for Church Life.

Other task force members are: Mary Ellen Konieczny, an assistant professor of sociology; the Rev. William Lies, executive director of the Center for Social Concerns; the Rev. Mark Poorman, vice president for student affairs; Frances Shavers, chief of staff and special assistant to Notre Dame's president; Todd Woodward, associate vice president for marketing communications; and Notre Dame senior Kathleen Kelley.

Jenkins has charged the task force to consider and recommend ways that Notre Dame, informed by Catholic teaching, can support the sanctity of life.

Possibilities the task force has begun to discuss, Jenkins wrote, include fostering serious and specific discussion about a reasonable conscience clause; the most effective ways to support pregnant women, especially the most vulnerable; and the best policies for encouraging adoptions.

My Comments:
Good for President Jenkins. I mean that. Perhaps some good will accrue from Notre Dame's decision to honor the pro-abortion President Obama. Perhaps Notre Dame will take up the challenge issued by Bill McGurn and others earlier this year to be a "witness" for human life (see links at the bottom of this post).

And perhaps we'll actually get to see a commercial during halftime of a Notre Dame football game touting the university's newfound "commitment" to promoting the sanctity of life. For that possibility, however, I wouldn't hold my breath.

The American Papist has more on this story, including the text of President Jenkins' email announcement.

And here's the response of the Cardinal Newman Society to President Jenkins' announcement.


UPDATE
Also posted at First Thoughts.


UPDATE #2
More from LifeNews:

South Bend, IN (LifeNews.com) -- In apparent attempt to regain favor with pr-life Catholics upset that Notre Dame invited pro-abortion President Barack Obama to give its commencement address and gave him an honorary degree, university president John Jenkins says he will attend the 2010 March for Life.

Jenkins is also setting up a task force to promote the pro-life perspective on campus.

***
The Jenkins missive is already drawing a poor response from pro-life Catholics turned off by his actions during the Obama graduation scandal.

"Apparently the irony was lost on Jenkins that while he will be preparing to protest against Roe v. Wade, the actual Roe, Norma McCorvey, will be preparing for her criminal trial for protesting at Notre Dame after she was arrested under orders from Father Jenkins," notes pro-life advocate Robert Cox.

***
Tom Brejcha, president and chief counsel of Thomas More Society and a 1965 Notre Dame graduate, said he was very encouraged to read Father Jenkins' email.

"Every statement or signal we had received from Notre Dame officials since last May had been hostile at worst and at best seemingly indifferent toward those in the pro-life movement who felt that the university had turned away from the pro-life movement or, worse, rebuked it," he said.

"It remains to be seen whether Father Jenkins is prepared to follow up this announcement with another decisive, positive and concrete step in the right direction -- calling a halt to the ongoing prosecution of those arrested last May," he said.

Dropping the charges against the protesters would be a good start to finding some common ground. Besides, it is probably in Notre Dame's best interest to avoid making martyrs out of the 88, and certainly to avoid the additional bad publicity that would accrue to the university from the protesters' criminal trials.


UPDATE #4
Ed Morrissey: "Does Notre Dame teach irony?".


UPDATE #5
I think charity demands that those who are calling into question the sincerity and good faith of President Jenkins' pro-life initiatives - as well as his decision to take part in the March for Life - need to tone it down a little and give him the benefit of the doubt. The caution and skepticism is understandable, but let's remember that any recognition of the importance of the pro-life agenda is something of a victory.

Which is why I find myself in wholehearted agreement (as I usually do) with Notre Dame Professor of Law Rick Garnett, who writes at Mirror of Justice:

... As I have stated before, I do not believe that, on balance and all things considered, it was appropriate for Notre Dame to honor President Obama with a ceremonial degree or with the role of commencement speaker. (It is, obviously, appropriate for Notre Dame to engage in "dialogue" and "debate" with the President, and with anyone else.) And, I do not agree with Michael Sean Winters that it was "throw[ing a] canard" to worry that Notre Dame's decision to honor the President in this way "undercut the school’s commitment to the pro-life cause." No one who knows Fr. Jenkins doubts his own commitment to that cause, and to human dignity, but it is not unreasonable to think that Notre Dame's public, institutional activity and commitment on this front have sometimes been unven, and lagged behind where they should be.

In any event, I believe that those of us who opposed the invitation last year, and who very much want Notre Dame to be what she should be, and what the world needs her to be, should welcome Fr. Jenkins' announcement. Are the initiatives he described "enough"? No, but I assume that Fr. Jenkins does not regard them as "enough." Should their announcement end the discussion about whether Notre Dame's leaders are correct in (what seems to be) their understanding of academic freedom, the nature of a university, or the appropriate relationship between a Catholic University and the "institutional" Church? I don't think so.

Yes, Notre Dame needs to do more. The Administration and University leaders need to embrace and celebrate -- publicly and enthusiastically -- the work and witness of pro-life students and faculty, of programs like the Center for Ethics & Culture, of pro-life policies and proposals. It should never be possible for a reasonable observer to think that Notre Dame cares passionately about energy conservation but reservedly or half-heartedly about the need -- the moral imperative -- to use the law (and other policy tools) to protect unborn children.

All that said . . . this is a good thing. I'd like to see Notre Dame's pro-life critics -- that is, those of her critics who recognize her importance and who want her to be what she is called to be -- give Fr. Jenkins and this task force (full disclosure: Prof. Brinig, one of the co-chairs, is my friend) the benefit of assuming good faith, welcome and engage their work, and -- as needed -- charitably call on them to do more.

There is a picture, often celebrated at Notre Dame, hanging in the student center, of Fr. Hesburgh standing at Dr. King's side, hand-in-hand, calling for civil rights. I am indulging the hope that, before too long, there will be a similarly prominent picture displayed of Fr. Jenkins alongside Notre Dame's inspiring pro-life student group at the March for Life. Just a symbol? Merely a picture? Perhaps. But I think it would be one of those pictures that's worth a lot.

(emphasis added)

Amen.


UPDATE #6 (18 September)
Now to throw some cold water on this. I stand by my previous comments (and those of Prof. Garnett) that President Jenkins' initiative should be viewed as a positive development and that, rather than focusing on negativity towards Jenkins and Notre Dame, pro-lifers should embrace this effort.

However, I also believe that it is important to charitably point out - as Prof. Garnett suggests - where more can be done.

In that vein, I am linking to a very informative post at All Hands on Deck!, which provides the text of a letter from Bill Dempsey, Notre Dame Class of 1952, and President of the Sycamore Trust, in response to Fr. Jenkins:

... Certainly Fr. Jenkins's commitment to lead the ND contingent at the March for Life is praiseworthy. It seems to me that it is really the obligation of a priest/President of Notre Dame, but the depressing fact is that it has never been done before. Father Jenkins deserves thanks.

But that is a one-time affair. The rest is not heartening. The most troubling sign is the obviously deliberate exclusion from Task Force membership of anyone associated with the ND organizations that have been unashamedly and actively pro-life: the Center for Ethics & Culture and the ND Fund for the Protection of Human Life. Nor was the student representative chosen from the leadership of the student RTL organization or from anyone active in last year's student alliance protesting the honoring of the President, ND Response. It is hard to resist the inference that this is as a move toward marginalizing the Center and the Fund, neither of which receives any University support the way it is.

This is no reflection on those who have been appointed. Insofar as I know of them, they are worthy appointees, able and pro-life. But that does not erase the implication of the exclusion of all representatives of the existing centers of pro-life activities.

The next troublesome element is the specified agenda as it stands so far. Surely it is no accident, though it is to me surprising, that the listed subjects the committee is working on are identical with the agenda given in his speech by President Obama.

Here is what Obama proposed and Fr. Jenkins lists for study:

(1) Obama: "Let's make adoption more available." Jenkins: "the best policies for facilitating adoption."
(2) Obama: "a sensible conscience clause." Jenkins: "a reasonable conscience clause."
(3) Obama: "care and support for women who do carry their children to term." Jenkins: "the most effective ways to support pregnant women."

***
it is unsettling but instructive that this announcement comes a day after Fr. Jenkins's' annual address to the faculty in which he described his goals for the year, which included increasing female and minority faculty representation but not a word about the most crucial problem facing the university, the loss of Catholic identity through the failure to hire enough Catholics to restore the predominance required by the Mission Statement. This is a striking falling away from his wonderful inaugural address. The fact that ND did nothing to serve the pro-life cause until forced by the reaction to the Obama incident testifies to the fact that, without a predominance of committed Catholics on the faculty, any pro-life efforts launched under pressure will in time fade away. The risk, and surely it is real, is that this new initiative and the publicity ND is generating about it will deflect attention from the fundamental problem besetting Notre Dame.

***
But I return to where I began: A project that deliberately excludes from participation those who have courageously manned organizations standing against the prevailing faculty attitude toward the pro-life cause ought be regarded with suspicion.

(emphasis not mine)

I must say that I, too, noted the exclusion from the Task Force of the more important and established pro-life voices at Notre Dame, such as the Notre Dame Center for Ethics and Culture (whose website is linked in my sidebar). We're not talking about Operation Rescue here. The Center for Ethics and Culture is an organization that takes seriously all aspects of the Culture of Life - (dare I say?) they promote a "consistent ethic of life". Bypassing such established pro-life organizations that are already doing the work on campus is a somewhat troubling sign.

Still, I think the proper approach is to encourage President Jenkins to move his initiative forward by including such voices. I hope that will happen.


Previous Pro Ecclesia posts on this subject:
Notre Dame's Missing Witness [UPDATED]

Notre Dame Should Be a Witness for Human Life

The REAL Beneficiaries of Abortion (Hint: It Ain't Women Who Are the Ones Being "Liberated")

Prof. Gerard Bradley on "The Other Catholic Higher Education"

Gerard Bradley, professor of law at the University of Notre Dame, writes at National Review Online: "Since most Catholic colleges won’t do their job, bring the faith to secular schools."

Prof. Freddoso's Introduction to What Happened to Notre Dame? - Part 2: Why the Catholic Faithful WERE Scandalized

In the previous installment of my review of Prof. Charles Rice's new book What Happened to Notre Dame?, I covered the first portion of Prof. Alfred Freddoso's Introduction to the book, in which Prof. Freddoso discussed the reasons he was NOT scandalized by the university's decision to honor the pro-abortion President Obama.

In this installment, I will discuss Prof. Freddoso's explanation of why the Catholic faithful - at least those who were unfamiliar with the troubling trends at Our Lady's University that Prof. Freddoso so ably summarized - WERE scandalized by the honors Notre Dame bestowed upon one so out of step with the Church's teaching on the sanctity of life.

And part of what so scandalized the faithful is what the university's action announced to the world:

... what the action said is that while abortion and the mentality it cultivates are bad, they are not really all that bad - not bad enough, at least, to prevent one of the most reliable political promoters of abortion in the history of American politics from being honored by Our Lady's university... no one doubts that if the President's beliefs and actions had violated some important tenet of the left-wing political orthodoxy adhered to by most of the faculty members of the university, he would never have been invited or honored.

(emphasis in original)

Prof. Freddoso notes another key aspect that the controversy brought to the fore:

If you are an American Catholic, then the more central Catholic belief and practice are to your life, the more likely you were to be upset by Notre Dame's decision to honor President Obama... the more centered your life in on Jesus Christ and what Vatican II calls your "baptismal call to holiness," the more likely you were to disapprove of the university's decision . You would also be more likely to think of yourself as 'countercultural' in many ways or, to put a more positive slant on it, as part of what Pope John Paul II dubbed the "culture of life" ...

Notre Dame's "thinking Catholic" vision, however, is clearly at odds with this way of thinking:

The problem was that the university, still stuck in a "pre-JP2" mindset, was wholly out of touch with the new wave of serious Catholics, including a bunch of surprisingly outspoken bishops.

The roots of Notre Dame's "pre-JP2" mindset stem from what Prof. Freddoso refers to as "the four I's": impatience, infidelity, ingratiation, and impenitence.

But the really crucial factor was the infidelity, which effectively took the form of a gamble - made in the early 1970s in the wake of Vatican II and in the aftermath of the dissenting reaction to Pope Paul VI's encyclical Humanae Vitae - that some form of 'liberal' or 'progressive' Catholicism, freed from (or, to put it more neutrally, disengaged from) the philosophical and theological underpinnings of the past, would emerge as the 'serious' Catholicism of the future... the attitude of dissent from and disdain for the Vatican played a significant foundational role in shaping hiring policies, tenure decisions, key administrative appointments, curricular reform, and admissions strategies for the next thirty years.

Also crucial among "the four I's" in explaining Notre Dame's falling away has been the university's efforts

... to keep up with the Joneses amid what might fairly be called a culture of ingratiation. Policies were sometimes adopted for no other reason than that "this is the way they do it at Princeton (or Duke or Stanford or Vanderbilt, etc.)... The thought seems to have been that if only we imitate the others, they will accept us as a peer - and the hidden rider was always "despite our Catholicism"...

And while all this was going on, the trends within the Church itself were moving in the opposite direction ... John Paul II's "new springtime" had the true "serious" Catholics moving back toward fidelity to the Church's teaching authority and away from ingratiation with the culture, embracing, instead, a more countercultural mentality. As between the two competing visions, Prof. Freddoso notes which is bearing more fruit:

... as I looked around on May 17 at the crowd of mostly young students and young families who were in attendance at the alternative commencement rally on the south quad, I wondered aloud just who "yesterday's Catholics" were in 2009. Whose vision of the Church is leading to a dead end? And whose vision was instead inspiring young people to dedicate their lives to the Kingdom of God in opposition to the surrounding culture? Whose vision was turning out to be sterile and bourgeois? And whose vision was instead turning out to be fruitful? ... These are the young Catholics that the university has lost touch with...

Coming up next:
Prof. Freddoso's Introduction to What Happened to Notre Dame? - Part 3: What Now?


Previous Pro Ecclesia posts on this subject:
Prof. Freddoso's Introduction to What Happened to Notre Dame? - Part 1: "Why I Was Not Scandalized"

What Happened to Notre Dame?

Prof. Freddoso's Introduction to What Happened to Notre Dame? - Part 1: "Why I Was Not Scandalized"

In my preview the other day of Prof. Charles Rice's new book, What Happened to Notre Dame, the synopsis that I excerpted mentioned a Preface by Prof. Ralph McInerny and an Introduction by Prof. Alfred Freddoso. Either Prof. McInerny's Preface didn't make the final edits, or it is excluded for some reason from the review copies that were sent out, because it does not appear in the copy that I received. [UPDATE: Special thanks to Prof. Freddoso who emails to inform me that Prof. McInerny has been ill most of the summer and, therefore, was not up to writing the Preface. Prof. McInerny now appears to be well on his way to recovery.]

So, I'll start my review of What Happened to Notre Dame? with Prof. Freddoso's Introduction, which I will cover in 3 parts. The first of the 3 parts will deal with the reasons that Prof. Freddoso claims not to have been "scandalized" by Notre Dame's decision to award Pres. Obama an honorary law degree despite the President's abortion advocacy.

Freddoso asserts that he was not scandalized because, essentially, this is the sort of thing he has come to expect from Our Lady's University:

The reason I was not scandalized was that I had ... lived through the last thirty years of those historical trends that Charlie Rice ably identifies in this book: the university's steadily intensifying and often frustrated aspiration to be regarded as a major player on the American educational scene; the concomitant segregation of faith from reason; the deterioration of the core curriculum for undergraduates into a series of disjointed 'course distribution requirements' guided by no comprehensive conception of what an educated Catholic should know; the easy transition from a faculty dominated by 'progressive' Catholics to a faculty more and more dominated by people ignorant of the intellectual ramifications of the Catholic faith; the concomitant marginalization of faculty who professed allegiance to, or even admiration for, the present-day successors of the Apostles; and a succession of high-level administrators lacking in a philosophical vision of Catholic higher education and intent on diffusing throughout the university a pragmatic mentality at once both bureaucratic and corporate.

Freddoso argues that these trends have

put more and more strain on the relationship between the university and the Church it claimed to be serving and even to be 'doing the thinking for', to cite one astonishingly presumptuous catchphrase used by the university to promote itself.

Which brings Freddoso to conclude that, indeed, Notre Dame is NOT a Catholic university ... "i.e. an institution of higher learning where the Catholic faith pervades and enriches, and is itself enriched by, the intellectual life on campus."

A Public School in a Catholic Neighborhood
Rather, Freddoso uses the model of a public school in a Catholic neighborhood to describe the environment at Notre Dame, noting that when those associated with the university mistakenly proclaim it to be a Catholic university,

they assume without much thought that the Catholic character of the university is borne almost entirely by the 'neighborhood', i.e. by the university's sacramental life ... and by the sheer number of 'outdoor' and 'indoor' manifestations of Catholicism such as the statue of Our Lady atop the Golden Dome, Sacred Heart Basilica, the Grotto, the "Touchdown Jesus" mural, and scores of statues found all over the 'neighborhood'.

Freddoso contrasts the "neighborhood" part of the university with the "public school" part of Notre Dame:

The classroom or laboratory, by contrast, is a wholly different venue, despite the presence of crucifixes... This is where 'reason' resides on campus and where 'the mind is educated'; and it has little or nothing to do with Catholicism. (It is no accident that the newest science building on campus contains no noteworthy religious symbols in general, and no noteworhty Catholic symbols in particular. That's the way the science faculty wanted it.)

The professor laments that the

conviction that a Catholic student's intellectual life should be fully integrated with his or her Catholic beliefs and practices is very much a minority view.

Which brings us back to the reason for Prof. Freddoso's contention that he was not scandalized by the university's decision to honor the most pro-abortion President in history:

I have come to expect that the teachers and administrators of the public school will periodically decide to tweak the noses of the 'unenlightened' among their Catholic neighbors. That's just the way it often is with public schools in Catholic neighborhoods.

Coming up next:
Prof. Freddoso's Introduction to What Happended to Notre Dame? - Part 2: Why the Catholic Faithful WERE Scandalized.


Previous Pro Ecclesia posts on this subject:
What Happened to Notre Dame?

What Happened to Notre Dame?

That's the question a whole lot of people have been asking lately about the Fighting Irish football team. But this post isn't about college football (that post will come in the next day or two in preparation for that most glorious time of year, which begins this weekend).

Rather, this post is about a book authored by one of my heroes, Charles E. Rice, professor emeritus of Law at the University of Notre Dame Law School, titled What Happened to Notre Dame?

(St. Augustine's Press, 224 pages, paperbound, $15.00; ISBN-13: 978-1-58731-920-4; ISBN-10: 1-58731-920-9; publication date: September 2009).

I just received a review copy of the book in the mail today. I hope to read the book this week and post a review shortly thereafter. In the meantime, here is an excerpt from the publisher's synopsis:

... What Happened to Notre Dame? by Charles E. Rice, with a Preface by Ralph McInerny and Introduction by Alfred Freddoso – three of Notre Dame’s most distinguished scholars, who together have served the University 124 years – first recounts the details of Notre Dame’s honoring of President Obama. It then examines the succession of fall-back excuses offered by the Notre Dame President Rev. John I. Jenkins, C.S.C., and University publicists to justify Notre Dame’s defiance of the nation’s bishops and of Catholic teaching.

But Rice is not content with mere reportage. What Happened to Notre Dame? diagnoses the problem’s roots by first providing an overview of the Land O’Lakes Declaration, its inception and its aftermath, including the ways in which its false autonomy from the Church has led to an erosion of the Catholic identity of Notre Dame and other Catholic universities.

Then, it offers a cure. Christ, who is God, is the author of the divine law and the natural law. The book presents reasons why an acknowledged interpreter of these laws is necessary, and why that interpreter has to be the Pope exercising the
Magisterium, or teaching authority of the Church. And it shows why it is so important that we have such a moral interpreter for all citizens and not just for Catholics. The alternative is what Pope Benedict XVI calls the “dictatorship of relativism,” which the book analyzes. Even for those who do not share the Catholic faith, our reason leads us to conclude that the natural law is the only moral code that makes entire sense and points to the conclusion that the Vicar of Christ is uniquely suited to give authoritative interpretation to that law.

In the final chapter Rice shows why great good can come out of Notre Dame’s blunder in rendering its highest honors to such an implacable foe. Notre Dame got itself into such a mess because it attempted to be Catholic without the Church and
ended up defying the Church and disgracing itself. But good can result from the lesson here that roll-your-own morality is no more tenable than roll-your-own Catholicism.

Rice shows why what happened to Notre Dame is symptomatic of what’s happening in other Catholic colleges, indeed in colleges with non-Catholic religious affiliations. He shows how the abandonment of principle at the college level spills over tothe general culture, with devastating effect, as religious standards get pushed out of the public square. And, finally, he shows why people who have never seen the Golden Dome, never rooted for the Fighting Irish, and never graced a Catholic Church, also have a stake in what happened to Notre Dame...

I look forward to reading and reviewing What Happened to Notre Dame?


UPDATE
I note that my old friend Advocatus Militaris has a similar post from last Friday at Fumare.

U.S. Bishops Praise Bishop D’Arcy in Wake of Notre Dame Scandal

When my plane landed in San Antonio last Friday, I encountered several Catholic Bishops at the airport, which reminded me that the USCCB was holding its meeting in San Antonio last week.

Among the items the Bishops took up at the meeting was the matter of pro-abortion politicians speaking at Catholic universities (specifically, Notre Dame's decision to invite Pres. Obama to speak at its graduation and to award him an honorary law degree). Not surprisingly, the USCCB decided to engage in a little "partisan politics":

This makes it even harder for liberal Catholics to claim that the U.S. bishops who kept quiet about President Obama at Notre Dame represent a "silent majority" that's embarrassed by a minority of outspoken socially conservative bishops.

At its General Assembly in San Antonio last week, the U.S. Council of Catholic Bishops issued a statement applauding Bishop John D'Arcy—the Fort Wayne-South Bend, Ind., bishop whose diocese includes the University of Notre Dame—for how he handled the school's invitation to Obama to deliver its commencement speech last month.

After the invitation was made public, D'Arcy publicly blasted the university and boycotted Obama's appearance.

This bishops just released this statement of solidarity with D'Arcy:

The bishops of the United States express our appreciation and support for our brother bishop, the Most Reverend John D'Arcy. We affirm his pastoral concern for Notre Dame University, his solicitude for its Catholic identity, and his loving care for all those the Lord has given him to sanctify, to teach and to shepherd.

More from John Allen and from Whispers in the Loggia.


Previous Pro Ecclesia posts on this subject:
Catholic College Leaders Lobby Bishops to Withdraw 2004 Policy Banning Pro-Abortion Speakers [UPDATED]

American Papist Issues Challenge to Left-Leaning Catholics: "No More Claiming US Bishops Are 'Partisan' on Abortion"

Who's Really Playing a "Political Game" in the Notre Dame Imbroglio

Of "Neo-Caths" and "Sharia Catholicism"

Bishop D'Arcy Publicly Corrects President Jenkins' "Flawed Justification for His Actions" [UPDATED]

Notre Dame's President Jenkins: "We Are Tremendously Proud" to be Acting in Defiance of the US Catholic Bishops

Proof that the Group Calling Itself "Catholic Democrats" is More "Democrat" Than "Catholic" [UPDATED]

Evansville Bishop Won't Attend Pro-Life Banquet with GOP's Steele as Speaker

Bishop D'Arcy Speaks on Notre Dame and Obama; Bishop Will Not Attend Boycott Ceremony