Happier and headier days for Dr. Glendon. Days when politics and religion mixed very well for her career.Catholic World News has the story, and the text of Glendon’s letter to UND president Fr. John Jenkins:
Dear Father Jenkins,
When you informed me in December 2008 that I had been selected to receive Notre Dame’s Laetare Medal, I was profoundly moved. I treasure the memory of receiving an honorary degree from Notre Dame in 1996, and I have always felt honored that the commencement speech I gave that year was included in the anthology of Notre Dame’s most memorable commencement speeches. So I immediately began working on an acceptance speech that I hoped would be worthy of the occasion, of the honor of the medal, and of your students and faculty.
Last month, when you called to tell me that the commencement speech was to be given by President Obama, I mentioned to you that I would have to rewrite my speech. Over the ensuing weeks, the task that once seemed so delightful has been complicated by a number of factors.
First, as a longtime consultant to the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops, I could not help but be dismayed by the news that Notre Dame also planned to award the president an honorary degree. This, as you must know, was in disregard of the U.S. bishops’ express request of 2004 that Catholic institutions “should not honor those who act in defiance of our fundamental moral principles” and that such persons “should not be given awards, honors or platforms which would suggest support for their actions.” That request, which in no way seeks to control or interfere with an institution’s freedom to invite and engage in serious debate with whomever it wishes, seems to me so reasonable that I am at a loss to understand why a Catholic university should disrespect it.
Then I learned that “talking points” issued by Notre Dame in response to widespread criticism of its decision included two statements implying that my acceptance speech would somehow balance the event:
• “President Obama won’t be doing all the talking. Mary Ann Glendon, the former U.S. ambassador to the Vatican, will be speaking as the recipient of the Laetare Medal.”
• “We think having the president come to Notre Dame, see our graduates, meet our leaders, and hear a talk from Mary Ann Glendon is a good thing for the president and for the causes we care about.”
A commencement, however, is supposed to be a joyous day for the graduates and their families. It is not the right place, nor is a brief acceptance speech the right vehicle, for engagement with the very serious problems raised by Notre Dame’s decision—in disregard of the settled position of the U.S. bishops—to honor a prominent and uncompromising opponent of the Church’s position on issues involving fundamental principles of justice.
Finally, with recent news reports that other Catholic schools are similarly choosing to disregard the bishops’ guidelines, I am concerned that Notre Dame’s example could have an unfortunate ripple effect.
It is with great sadness, therefore, that I have concluded that I cannot accept the Laetare Medal or participate in the May 17 graduation ceremony.
In order to avoid the inevitable speculation about the reasons for my decision, I will release this letter to the press, but I do not plan to make any further comment on the matter at this time.
Yours Very Truly,
Mary Ann Glendon
Yours Very Truly,
Mary Ann Glendon
********************************************************
I wondered how long it would take Ambassador Glendon to bail on Notre Dame. In this letter she specifically cites Notre Dame talking points which regard her as some sort of balance for the dastardly deed of inviting President Obama, but those points were not raised initially by Notre Dame. The first place I read them was in a post by on America Magazine by Micheal Sean Winter on March 23. In this post he stated: "This crowd of conservatives does not own the Catholic Church. They certainly do not own Notre Dame. They are about to find out that they do not own Dr. Glendon either." It looks like they do own Dr. Glendon.
There's really not a great deal left to say about this situation. It saddens me that Dr. Glendon decided it was in her best interests to turn down the Laetare Medal. I see it is as a capitulation on her part to right wing political interests. She may have held out as long as she did hoping the heat would die down, but apparently she doesn't really understand the mentality of the people who were responsible for her own political successes. Perhaps it was pay back time.
In this letter she blames it specifically on Notre Dame's conferring an honorary degree in violation of the USCCB's 2004 letter which states that Catholic universities should not confer honors on those who are in direct defiance of Catholic moral principles. She does not mention that Notre Dame sought the advice of canon lawyers as to whether this letter pertained to non Catholics who are under no obligation to support Catholic moral doctrine. It seems these lawyers determined the letter did not apply to non Catholics. I guess it doesn't matter what canon lawyers think in the face of the opposition of less than 10% of the USCCB. This is a classic case of tyranny by a tiny minority over the much more vast silent majority. That's pretty much been the case in American Catholicism for the last decade. Catholicism may not be a democracy, but it's also not supposed to be a tyranny of the few over the many.
It looks to me that Dr. Glendon has decided it's better to be exploited by the right than give the perception of being exploited by the left. Which says it's not about Catholicism per se, it's about who you will let exploit you. If Dr. Glendon was operating out of personal conviction she would have turned down the Laetare Medal as soon as she heard Obama was to give the commencement address and receive an honorary degree. The fact it's taken her six weeks to come to this decision speaks more about concession to political interests than to her convictions.
It appears to me as if the Notre Dame brouhaha is all about posturing and politics. In the end not one unborn child is saved and that makes the whole thing repulsive. The backlash is coming.
There is one small fact that the bishops who are so vocal are overlooking in their "zeal" ... Biden is the vice president, and threatening to withhold communion if he does not "toe the line" amounts to nothing less than extortion by the bishops. I for one would love to see them arrested and convicted of extortion. Prison ministry (from the inside) would be a good place for bishops like Morlino, Chaput etal. They would fit right in with the rest of the general population.
ReplyDeleteAgain, you cannot keep saying that this is the minority. More bishops, "traditional" and mainstream, have spoken up about this than on almost any other recent issue. There is a real consensus. There is a huge student population against this from ND, and a large backlash from many other directions. You can argue against this but this is not a right wing minority. That is incorrect! Further, one may question her motivations but Mary Ann Glendon's letter to Fr. Jenkins is humble and well thought out. I'm not so sure why one should be angry about this letter today. More or less, you must admit that is an example of some respectful dialogue on her part, huh?
ReplyDeleteColleen,
ReplyDeleteYou're missing an important piece of information that gives this decision context... Namely, the developments (or collapse) of the dialogue between Fr. Jenkins and the local ordinary.
It's true that D'Arcy originally encouraged Mary Ann Glendon to continue with her plans to accept the award. But the situation developed after that.
I'm guessing you didn't see the letter the local bishop in South Bend, Bishop D'Arcy, released to all of the faithful on April 21, in which this series of events is detailed.
Some of the key passages:
"1. The meaning of the sentence in the USCCB document relative to Catholic institutions is clear. It places the responsibility on those institutions, and indeed, on the Catholic community itself.
“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.” — “Catholics in Political Life,” USCCB.
2. When there is a doubt concerning the meaning of a document of the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops, where does one find the authentic interpretation? A fundamental, canonical and theological principle states that it is found in the local bishop, who is the teacher and lawgiver in his diocese. — Canon 330, 375 §§ 1 & 2; 380; 381 § 1; 391 § 1; 392, & 394 §1.
3. I informed Father Jenkins that if there was any genuine questions or doubt about the meaning of the relevant sentence in the conference’s document, any competent canonist with knowledge of the tradition and love for Christ’s church had the responsibility to inform Father Jenkins of the fundamental principle that the diocesan bishop alone bears the responsibility to provide an authoritative interpretation.
4. I reminded Father Jenkins that he indicated that he consulted presidents of other Catholic universities, and at least indirectly, consulted other bishops, since he asked those presidents to share with him those judgments of their own bishops. However, he chose not to consult his own bishop who, as I made clear, is the teacher and lawgiver in his own diocese. I reminded Father Jenkins that I was not informed of the invitation until after it was accepted by the president. I mentioned again that it is at the heart of the diocesan bishop’s pastoral responsibility to teach as revealed in sacred Scripture and the tradition. (“Lumen Gentium,” 20; and “Christus Dominus,” 2.) I reminded him that it is also central to the university’s relationship to the church. (“Ex corde ecclesiae,” 27 & 28; Gen. Norm., Art. 5, §§ 1-3.)5. Another key point. In his letter to Bishop Olmsted and in the widespread publicity, which has taken place as the points in the letter have been made public, Father Jenkins declared the invitation to President Obama does not “suggest support” for his actions, because he has expressed and continues to express disagreement with him on issues surrounding protection of life. I wrote that the outpouring of hundreds of thousands who are shocked by the invitation clearly demonstrates, that this invitation has, in fact, scandalized many Catholics and other people of goodwill. In my office alone, there have been over 3,300 messages of shock, dismay and outrage, and they are still coming in. It seems that the action in itself speaks so loudly that people have not been able to hear the words of Father Jenkins, and indeed, the action has suggested approval to many.
In the publicity surrounding the points Father Jenkins has made, he also says he is “following the document of the bishops” by “laying a basis for engagement with the president on this issue.” I indicated that I, like many others, will await to see what the follow up is on this issue between Notre Dame and President Obama.
6. As I have said in a recent interview and which I have said to Father Jenkins, it would be one thing to bring the president here for a discussion on healthcare or immigration, and no person of goodwill could rightly oppose this. We have here, however, the granting of an honorary degree of law to someone whose activities both as president and previously, have been altogether supportive of laws against the dignity of the human person yet to be born.
In my letter, I have also asked Father Jenkins to correct, and if possible, withdraw the erroneous talking points, which appeared in the South Bend Tribune and in other media outlets across the country. The statements which Father Jenkins has made are simply wrong and give a flawed justification for his actions.
I consider it now settled — that the USCCB document, “Catholics in Public Life,” does indeed apply in this matter.
The failure to consult the local bishop who, whatever his unworthiness, is the teacher and lawgiver in the diocese, is a serious mistake. Proper consultation could have prevented an action, which has caused such painful division between Notre Dame and many bishops — and a large number of the faithful.
That division must be addressed through prayer and action, and I pledge to work with Father Jenkins and all at Notre Dame to heal the terrible breach, which has taken place between Notre Dame and the church. It cannot be allowed to continue. I ask all to pray that this healing will take place in a way that is substantial and true, and not illusory. Notre Dame and Father Jenkins must do their part if this healing is to take place. I will do my part."And how has Jenkins responded?
Apparently he also made light of Bishop D'Arcy's Thursday letter chiding him for not consulting the bishop ahead of time and for propogating incorrect statements on the USCCB document; he said that he didn't consult the bishop, but then again he doesn't consult him on most decisions regarding the university. (source)
In short, Jenkins does not feel obliged to abide by canon law or Ex Corde Ecclesiae on such matters. This is a second scandal, on top of the first, which I'm afraid too many U.S. Catholic colleges find themselves repeating.
And in terms of clearing up the ad hominem about this being a Republican vs. Democrat issue: If this is the case, why did a bishop recently refuse to attend a banquet at which Michael Steele -- a Republican -- was being honored?
Hey, as Roy and Dale used to say:
ReplyDeleteGood-bye
Good luck
and may the Good Lord take a likin' to you.
The world will not come to an end with her bowing out.
Jim McCrea
Has anyone bothered to ask "how many are shocked and outraged by the negative reaction to Obama's invitation?". I suspect that 3300 who are "outraged" by the invitation pales in comparison to the number who are and will be outraged by the catholic reaction against him.
ReplyDeleteThere will only be one outcome of this, that will public outrage against the catholic church. But then, perhaps that is what the bishops really want to create, a we vs them mentality that will, in their minds, elevate their power and status and bring them one step closer to their next promotion.
One other thought:
ReplyDeleteWe now have a president who is working to create world peace, world harmony, working to correct decades of legislation that created the economic mess that exists now, (a mess created by republicans supported by the USCCB) working to create a stable economy, working to provide for the higher good of the US people ... and we have a catholic leadership that is doing everything in its power to sabotage and undermine the president's efforts.
It doesnt take a rocket scientist to figure out the the real problem is not President Obama nor is it Fr. Jenkins.
This is simply a case where the bishops are grandstanding, acting as republican puppets in a vain attempt to elevate the status of the republican party. Once the true relationship between the USCCB and the republican party is revealed for eveyone to see, the rationale behind all of their actions will be very clear, and will turn the stomachs of even the most faithful in the laity.
Hey there Clayton. I am really not up to arguing, but just have a few things to comment on. This quote really stood out:
ReplyDelete"It seems that the action in itself speaks so loudly that people have not been able to hear the words of Father Jenkins, and indeed, the action has suggested approval to many.
So, because of these suggestions and not the facts, and not "able to hear" the different view that Fr. Jenkins has you have essentially conjured up a case against him legally via Canon Law?
If that is not injustice, tell me what is?
So now the President of the United States is not even worthy enough to come to a Catholic University by your standards. The standards of the Pro-life movement are myopic and narrow-minded approaches to reducing abortion. Obama is a good man and some are being taught in the Church to hate him and to hate Democrats, to hate gays, to hate women, to hate anyone who doesn't agree with them. If that is not tyranny, tell me what is?
I do not wish to argue with you. The Pro-life movement is becoming a poison for very hateful people who do not know how to love, how to engage others in conversation and they are willing to go to war against them in a totally fascist way, not much unlike the mirror of your cousins in Arab countries who are fundamentalist also to an extremely dangerous and unhealthy extreme.
I suggest you read more of the New Testament, listen to some music of Beethoven or Mozart and stop poisoning people with hatred for the President of the United States.
Thank you very much for listening.
No, butterfly, you don't want to argue. Or to consider another point of view, apparently.
ReplyDeleteDo you consider this "stirring up hatred against the President of the United States?
ReplyDelete(from a recent blog post of mine)
I suggest that you learn something about the person you're addressing before you caricature and dismiss them.
Who are you?
ReplyDeleteI don't have time to go to your blog. Whatever it is you wish to say, please say it here.
ReplyDeleteI'll keep this brief, butterfly, as you seem very pressed for time.
ReplyDeleteYour comments in italics. My responses in bold italic.
So, because of these suggestions and not the facts, and not "able to hear" the different view that Fr. Jenkins has you have essentially conjured up a case against him legally via Canon Law?
If that is not injustice, tell me what is?
You've conflated 2 things: the issue of scandal (which, by the way, has much to do with what is suggested by a person's action), and the fact that Fr. Jenkins has not paid attention to his canonical relationship with Bishop D'Arcy, his local ordinary. Bishop D'Arcy has a right to interpret a letter he helped to write, does he not? And I'm not conjuring up anything; I merely refer to the canonical arguments D'Arcy himself raised in his open letter of April 21.So now the President of the United States is not even worthy enough to come to a Catholic University by your standards. Not at all what I said or meant. I would love to see the President come to ND or another Catholic institution... if the context were an open intellectual debate, rather than merely a ceremony designed to honor him. The standards of the Pro-life movement are myopic and narrow-minded approaches to reducing abortion. If painting the pro-life movement with one broad stroke works for you, then it works for you. Obama is a good man (I never said otherwise) and some are being taught in the Church to hate him and to hate Democrats, to hate gays, to hate women, to hate anyone who doesn't agree with them. I can't answer for these anonymous haters, any more than you can answer for those who, in similar fashion, hate the Church and her teaching. If that is not tyranny, tell me what is?
I do not wish to argue with you. The Pro-life movement is becoming a poison for very hateful people who do not know how to love, how to engage others in conversation and they are willing to go to war against them in a totally fascist way, not much unlike the mirror of your cousins in Arab countries who are fundamentalist also to an extremely dangerous and unhealthy extreme. (my cousins? and they are not your cousins too? what sort of drive-by slander are you engaged in here? There is more than one brand of fundamentalism. You might possibly be a fundamentalist too, albeit in allegiance to different principles.)
I suggest you read more of the New Testament, listen to some music of Beethoven or Mozart and stop poisoning people with hatred for the President of the United States. Lots of assumptions here, based on no data at all. I encourage you to examine your own assumptions at least as critically as you examine those of others.
"It looks to me that Dr. Glendon has decided it's better to be exploited by the right than give the perception of being exploited by the left. Which says it's not about Catholicism per se, it's about who you will let exploit you."
ReplyDeleteExtremely well stated, Colleen. And sounds absolutely correct to me.
Clayton, if only you would just simplify your Catholic faith to "love thy neighbor as thyself” and contemplate on that very seriously. My telling you to read the New Testament and listen to Beethoven or Mozart was an honest and neighborly attempt to get you out of reasoning with Canon Law and out of the mindset of the reasoning of the pro-life movement, which is now exhibiting ghettoized thinking and tactics against their Catholic neighbors. It was an attempt to hopefully place your consciousness into another dimension of perspective and enlightenment. If you would do this or practice in a new way your faith in Jesus Christ and get all thoughts and presumptions out of your mind, you would perhaps hear the voice of the Holy Spirit, which would override that of Canon Law toward loving your neighbor as yourself.
ReplyDeleteBut you instead prefer the ghetto of a fundamentalist movement in the Church that we are witnessing being destructive and demeaning and Pharisaic towards fellow Catholics.
You said: "No, butterfly, you don't want to argue. Or to consider another point of view, apparently."
Clayton, you are being very presumptuous first of all to say that I have not or could not or would not or in any other way or time "consider another point of view." That is not only unfair but absolutely untrue and absurd.
You have come here to this blog to attack and not to hear another point of view. I am here to hear a different point of view. I prefer to keep open to the Holy Spirit. My reasoning always gives in to that which is higher than me. That is why I do not reason with Canon Law, and doubt very much that Jesus would either.
Let's face it Clayton, while you insist that I know who you are, you do not know who I am. And you really never will because you are too busy attacking me and not really listening.
Clayton, thanks for responding. You and I and apparently Fr Jenkins and Archbishop D'Arcy see this situation from different perspectives.
ReplyDeleteNotre Dame is not a diocesan college and I guess I don't see why D'Arcy should have that much influence in the comings and goings of the University. He may have an advisory capacity, but Notre Dame's board has all the accountability.
I agree that Jenkins should have given D'Arcy a heads up before the invitation was extended, but I don't think anybody really expected the media attention this has caused, except maybe, the Cardinal Newman Society.
I think the pro life movement needs to hear that many of us see the movement itself being manipulated by Republican activists for the sake of the Republican party and that we are tired of this issue being used the way it continues to be, especially in view of the fact the Republicans have accomplished squat with Roe V Wade.
There are other political strategies which do save unborn lives. I was greatly encouraged with Cardinal Rigali's support for the Pregnant Women's Bill and will write on that today.
American Catholicism has to rise above the political morass and start finding common ground. I think if Dr. Glendon had stayed the course that would have been one small step.
My biggest concern is that political operatives are purposefully trying to split Catholicism over abortion, gay marriage, and feminism in exactly the same way they have the Episcopalians, Methodists, Presbyterians, and Lutherans. They won't allow well meaning people to agree to disagree or find reasonable common ground.
That's not good for America and it's horrible for the Church.
Clayton, I like the rational you have on your blog banner. It's true, we do all have a vocation to a life with God---and there are many paths and many ways to find that relationship.
ReplyDeletebutterfly,
ReplyDeleteWhy do you assume a dialectic between canon law and the Holy Spirit? There is no necessary opposition between them. An incarnational faith takes shape in particulars, not in mere abstractions or platitudes.
I agree with you that love of God and neighbor is at the heart of the Gospel.
Your unwillingness to click a single link to visit my site indicated to me that you were not really interested in exploring where I'm coming from, beyond what can fit inside the comments box here.
If you had spent a minimum of five minutes on my website, I think you would have discovered that I'm not a fundamentalist. My name is a link to my Blogger profile, which links to my blog and website.
I actually do listen to classical music, and have a prayer life. (Why did you assume otherwise?)
I also spent several years serving writers, musicians, dancers and producers in Hollywood in an RCIA program, and never once made an appeal to canon law in those endeavors to communicate the faith.
How would I learn about you, since you have put no information about yourself -- not even your name -- in your Blogger profile?
Colleen,
ReplyDeleteI respect your concerns.
You wrote: American Catholicism has to rise above the political morass and start finding common ground. I think if Dr. Glendon had stayed the course that would have been one small step.Possibly. But there may be other ways to do so. I don't see why she should have to suffer being manipulated by Fr. Jenkins and the board at ND.
Clayton, I apologize for not going to your blog, but I had no energy last night and got little sleep and I am fundamentally exhausted today.
ReplyDeleteAs you know, it takes time to get to know others and people are multidimensional. I sincerely apologize if I misunderstood you and where you were coming from. It certainly seemed as if you were promoting Canon Law over and above the teachings of Jesus Christ which I definitely see as a tool being used against political adversaries and it is causing great division in the Church. Please let this rest for now and please don't argue with someone who is very tired.
As for more about me, you can hear my musical compositions at www.myspace.com/franschultz if you would like. I suggest Job's Lament to listen to first.
Clayton, I don't know that Notre Dame was manipulating Dr. Glendon. I never took it that way. I figured they were honoring her for her service as Ambassador to the Vatican, a well deserved honor, I might add.
ReplyDeleteMary Ann Glendon's daughter, Elizabeth Lev, has written a column entitled Why My Mother Turned Down Notre Dame's Laetare Medal.
ReplyDeleteWorth a read.