LifeSiteNews.com reports that the University of Notre Dame has provided the following statement from university president the Rev. John I. Jenkins, C.S.C., to members of the Board of Trustees, regarding the controversy with President Obama.
In June 2004, the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops issued a statement, “Catholics in Political Life.” A number of people have quoted this document with regard to Notre Dame’s invitation to President Obama to be its Commencement Speaker and receive an honorary degree. Our interpretation of this document is different from the one that has been imposed by those criticizing us, and I wanted to explain our understanding.
Many of those critics doing the imposition are members of the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops!
The 2004 document was clearly adopted by the Bishops as provisional. As the document says, “[h]aving received an extensive report from the Task Force on Catholic Bishops and Catholic Politicians, and looking forward to the full report, we highlight several points from the interim report that suggest some directions for our efforts….” Nevertheless, despite its provisional character, this document has been used by all the people at Notre Dame who recommend speakers for commencement or others for honorary degrees since its publication.
First off, just because it was not intended to be the final report does not mean that it was provisional. Second, the statement was the only one adopted by the Conference during the course of the Task Force’s Life (it has since been disbanded). In 2006 remarks to the USCCB, Cardinal McCarrick, chair of the Task Force, said, “[W]e believe our earlier Task Force report and our common statement on Catholics in Political Life, overwhelmingly adopted in Denver, taken together with the Doctrinal Note and the statements, Living the Gospel of Life and Faithful Citizenship, offer the best framework for the future.” At the end of that June 06 meeting, the Task Force disbanded without any further statements adopted by the Conference. In other words, even though at the time Catholics in Political Life was intended to serve as guidance primarily for the 2004 election until the Task Force completed its work in 2006, it worked out so well over those two years that the Task Force did not feel the need to offer another statement for the whole Conference to adopt.
Because the title of the document is “Catholics in Political Life”, we understood this to refer to honoring Catholics whose actions are not in accord with our moral principles.
Fr. Jenkins is using the title to refer to the wrong actor. It is the CATHOLIC INSTITUTION that is acting as CATHOLICS IN POLITICAL LIFE when it chooses to confer an award on a public figure, whether or not that public figure is personally Catholic. By conferring an award on a politician, the Catholic Institution enters the public square and acts as Catholics in political life.
Second, we have to focus on the text. It is a general rule of statutory interpretation that the title is not part of the text of the law. See Wis. Stat. 990.001(6).
This interpretation was supported by canon lawyers we consulted…
Catholics in Political Life is not a matter of canon law. Now, the USCCB can pass binding canon law when acting pursuant to an instruction from the Holy See (see canon 455). However, such legislation follows a particular form, including promulgation, principles, and particular norms (see, for instance, the implementing norms for Ex Corde Ecclesiae). Catholics in Political Life is not canon law – it is a teaching document. The specific two sentences at issue here are a policy, a rule, but they are not legislation. Thus, to interpret them by reference to canon law is a stretch.
This interpretation was supported by canon lawyers we consulted, who advised us that, by definition, only Catholics who implicitly recognize the authority of Church teaching can act in “defiance” of it.
First off, “defy” or “defiance” are not used at all in the Code of Canon Law. Second, defy/defiance is only used once in the Catechism (2148): “Blasphemy is directly opposed to the second commandment. It consists in uttering against God – inwardly or outwardly – words of hatred, reproach, or defiance.” Now, clearly an atheist can blaspheme God with words of defiance. (For these thoughts, HT: PH).
Second, Catholics in Political Life does not say “those who act in defiance of Catholic Church teaching.” It says “those who act in defiance of our fundamental moral principles.” The sanctity of life and marriage as moral principles are open to everyone who uses science and reason to think through the issues. Everyone, Catholics and non-Catholics, can act in defiance of the natural law.
Moreover, fellow university presidents have told me that their bishops have told them that in fact it is only Catholic politicians who are referred to in this document.
My first response is straight textualism. The subjective intent of some people who voted for the policy does not matter – what matters is the text that the entire Conference approved. And the text contains no such limitation. It could have said “Catholic institutions should not honor Catholic politicians who act in defiance of our fundamental moral principles,” but it didn’t – it used the far broader “those.”
My second response is that clearly many of those who voted for the policy did not have that intention (that it only apply to Catholic politicians). First there are the numerous bishops who have cited the CPL policy in reference to the Notre Dame situation, which obviously involves a non-Catholic politician. Second, as I have documented elsewhere, Fr. Jenkins could have looked at the use of CPL nationwide from 2004 to 2008, during which time numerous bishops objected to events featuring non-Catholic pro-abortion public figures (most recently, when Cardinal Egan objected to Fordham’s award to Justice Breyer, who is Jewish).
Third, rather than relying on second-hand reports, Fr. Jenkins could have gone to his own local bishop, as Ex Corde and numerous other documents direct. Bishop D’Arcy was a member of the Conference throughout the time period when the Task Force was underway, and so he should have direct knowledge of the Conference’s action. Moreover, it is his interpretation of the words that are most important, because he is charged by ECE and canon law with care of ND. However, Fr. Jenkins did not consult with Bishop D’Arcy, and only informed him of the decision hours before it was released to the press.
In addition, regardless of how one interprets the first sentence, the second is also important. It reads: “They should not be given awards, honors or platforms which would suggest support for their actions. [My italics]” In every statement I have made about the invitation of President Obama and in every statement I will make, I express our disagreement with him on issues surrounding the protection of life, such as abortion and embryonic stem cell research. If we repeatedly and clearly state that we do not support the President on these issues, we cannot be understood to “suggest support”.
I agree that the second sentence is also important. And I am glad that Fr. Jenkins points out his disagreement with the President on life issues. However, this does not mean that the platform does not “suggest support” for his actions, because we need to consider the scandal (in the theological sense) caused among the faithful and the community. Plus, the worry is not that people start to look at the Catholic Church and say, “Hey, they’re pro-abortion, they’re honoring Obama.” Rather, the scandal is that being pro-abortion is no big deal. The award says, “Eh, he’s wrong on pro-abortion, but so what.”
Finally, the document states that “we need to do more to persuade all people that human life is precious and human dignity must be defended. This requires more effective dialogue and engagement with all public officials….” However misguided some might consider our actions, it is in the spirit of providing a basis for dialogue that we invited President Obama.
Dialogue requires, well, dialogue, which Wiki defines as “a conversation between two or more people.” But there’s no conversation here, no dialogue : the President gives a commencement address, and then receives an honorary doctorate.
This scandal at Notre Dame is regrettable in numerous ways. But let us hope that at least one good thing emerges from it: from today forward, no university president may profess ignorance of Catholics in Political Life. Fr. Jenkins may have looked at CPL in good faith, consulted canon lawyers about it, thought about it, and came to a good faith but wrong conclusion about it. No more. The 30 bishops who have spoken out, including the president of the USCCB, have made it quite clear: CPL applies to Catholic and non-Catholic public figures alike.
Last 5 posts by Daniel- Tom Barrett's Savings Plan - June 8th, 2010
- C.J. Abrahamson on J. Stevens - April 11th, 2010
- Why always Bill Bablitch? - March 24th, 2010
- Suhr on Nixon on Health Care - February 23rd, 2010
- Did the USCCB Foresee Dead People? - February 8th, 2010
“Second, we have to focus on the text. It is a general rule of statutory interpretation that the title is not part of the text of the law. See Wis. Stat. 990.001(6).”
Just because I couldn’t resist:
Although the title of statute is not part of law, the title may help in resolving statutory ambiguities. Pulsfus Poultry Farms, Inc. v. Town of Leeds, 149 Wis.2d 797, 440 N.W.2d 329, (1989).
Conceptionally, there is a difference between “pro-abortion” and “pro-choice.” And that’s the problem I have with the Catholic Church’s position.
Pro-choice allows an individual, with their own free will, to have an abortion. A pro-choice politician doesn’t force anyone to have an abortion, that politician merely removes criminal liability from that choice. But if we are going say that “defiance of our fundamental moral principles” means failing to take proactive and legislative measures to protect the sanctuity of life, by logical necessity we are left with a very broad interpretation. For example, smoking kills. Are we therefore failing to protect the sanctity of life if we don’t
believe it should be criminalized? What about alcohol? At somepoint, we must be cease to be our brother’s keepers and be judged on our own actions.
And yet where was the outrage from the Catholic community when Bush spoke at Notre Dame in 2001? He was was a pro-death penalty Governor. He personally could have protected the sanctity of life by picking up the phone and stopping executions, yet Texas led the nation in executions while he was Governor. But the Catholic Church condemn him. Perhaps the sanctity of life is a bit more politically pliable than we would like to believe.
Super Id: You seem like a reasonably intelligent person, so I must assume that your illogical and completely ridiculous equation of alcohol and tobacco use with abortion was clouded by your bias against the church. Yes, the abuse of alcohol and tobacco CAN cause death; but the occasional and moderate use of either is rarely fatal — otherwise the morality rate for visiting a bar would be astronomical. However, abortion will always result in the death of a human person. That is why abortion should be criminalized while the use of alcohol and tobacco may remain a matter of choice on the part of an adult person. To make a comparison between these issues is just silly.
As to your additional query about Pres. Bush’s visit to Notre Dame, you would do well to read the point-by-point responses submitted by various pro-life organizations both on and off the university’s campus: I don’t have the time to paste any links, but I’m sure you can google them. As for my response, I can only say that abortion is the world’s greatest threat to innocent life. Its enormity cannot be equalled by that of capital punishment. Moreover, the gusto with which Obama has pursued (and plans to pursue) his pro-Abortion policies makes him a much more dangerous person to the sanctity of human life than Bush and his advocacy of the death penalty ever was. (As an added note, I was amongst those who objected to Bush’s visit to the university.)
Prof S.,
My comparison was ridiculous, but it was not illogical. Nor was it clouded by bias. In fact, it was an example of the reductio ad absurdum approach frequently used Aquinas.
My underlying point was that the Catholic Church’s position of opposing the individuals that fail to protect the sanctity of life has no logical stopping point.
You distinguish my example on the basis of what is certain and what is possible. However, I don’t believe that is a valid logical distinction.
You are correct that not all people that are exposed to alcohol or tobacco will die from use of those products. But is it not a certainty that some individuals will die because of tobacco and and alcohol? So the same argument could be made that a politician that is pro-choice with respect to tobacco and alcohol is also failing to protect the sanctity of life.
Let’s make the analogy more palatable and track back up a few steps on the slippery logical slope that the Church’s position has put us on. If, as you suggest, that the distinction should be located at the point of certainty versus possibility of loss of life, then the Church’s reaction should be the same to all individuals who could have prevented the certain loss of life. But the reactions to those circumstances are not consistent.
For example, the Church publicly condemn war. Although innocent civilians die, the Church has never instructed bishops to withhold communion to politicians who voted in favor of the war. Similarly, the Church made pleas to nations to get involved with Darfur. Although 400,000 innocent men, women, and children perished, there was never any religious consequences for the individuals who opposed interaction.
Thus, I believe that it is a fair conclusion that the Church’s position, at a minimum, is logically inconsistent. However, that conclusion is not surprising when a position is supported by politics instead of logic. Then again, hasn’t the sanctity of life always been subject to politics?