Former PCBE Member Tells University of Notre Dame to Take a Flying Leap
Former President's Council on Bioethics member and Harvard Law Professor, Mary Ann Glendon, has told the University of Notre Dame to take the honor it wished to bestow upon her and kindly have it back. Why? Evidently, she doesn't think that President Obama shares the same notions of social justice as the she and the Roman Catholic Church.
Glendon, a "prominent Roman Catholic conservative", as described by the Chronicle of Higher Education, was chosen by Leon Kass to serve on the first Bush bioethics council back in 2001. Now, it would appear she is breaking Catholic hearts around the world by telling one of their most beloved universities that Laetare Medal, which was to be awarded to her at commencement, isn't going to be hers simply because President Obama is going to be awarded an honorary degree as well at the same ceremony. Appalled that such a man would be gracing the same stage as she, Glendon will have no part of it.
Never mind that she served on a presidential bioethics commission for a president that condoned torture of detained prisoners or that the very same president launched us into two wars causing thousands of lives to be lost without justification (hardly promoting Catholic values). For a Roman Catholic who staunchly supports the preservation of life, it would seem to be at odds with the president she served--and it seems difficult to see what she could possibly object to in the first 100 days of the Obama presidency, aside from pure partisanship.
Glendon, however, appears to believe that she and the Catholic Church do not see eye to eye with President Obama on another important view--justice. From a letter she wrote, she says: "to honor a prominent and uncompromising opponent of the church's position on issues involving fundamental principles of justice." Really, Professor Glendon? In what way does President Obama differ from Roman Catholics on principles of justice? Do you mean social justice? In that he supports giving access to healthcare for all Americans? Or perhaps ensuring that all people, regardless of the color of their skin, can go to quality public or private schools? Or shoring up the economy so jobs stay in this country so that everyone is on a fair playing field?
Or perhaps you mean some other notion of justice, Professor Glendon?
Aside from the admonition from American bishops that "not honor those who act in defiance of our fundamental moral principles"--which can only mean one thing really in Obama's case--being pro-choice, I am struggling to see what other core principles President Obama, a Christian and deeply religious man, fundamentally is in defiance of in Roman Catholicism.
I'm befuddled as the University of Notre Dame leaders are. I can find no sense in this argument at all.
Summer Johnson, PhD
contribute a comment
Your contributions to the conversation are very much appreciated. We do have a few simple guidelines, though. Be civil. Stay on topic. We reserve the right to remove comments that violate the aforementioned guidelines. One more thing: comments are moderated, so it may take a little while for your comment to be posted. Thanks.
comments
I don't think it's so much that Obama's pro-choice but that he is so radically pro-choice. While I don't know for sure what Mary Ann Glendon meant by 'principles of justice,' I think being so radically pro-choice is unquestionably a violation of justice. Within a Catholic moral framework, taking innocent human life does not reflect that individual's human dignity and certainly would be unjust. From a secular viewpoint that may not violate justice, but that's not the world where this debate is taking place.
I also think there's a HUGE difference between allowing Obama a forum for debate on issues as an instance of academic freedom, and honoring him with a degree. I bet Glendon would love to be a part of the former, but not the latter. Glendon has done well in excusing herself from the commencement and thus making the graduation day about the graduates rather than the pro-life debate, which ND's talking points make it out to be.
At the very least it's not the case that Glendon is appalled to grace the same stage as Obama. Ad hominem attacks like that aren't good for anybody. And as for her previous actions and the promotion of Catholic values, I don't really think you're in a position to make that kind of judgment Dr. Johnson, unless you have some knowledge of Catholic moral theology of which I'm not aware.
Read Glendon's letter here http://www.firstthings.com/blog/2009/04/27/declining-notre-dame-a-letter-from-mary-ann-glendon/
- by jrmbg on Apr 28, 2009 at 5:05 PM | link
Hi there,
Actually, I don't think that the leaders of Notre Dame are befuddled at all. Their official ethos is clearly inconsistent with a pro-choice philosophy, but the cachet of playing host to the President apparently outweighed this consideration. Obama's pro-choice decisions in his first 100 days stunned pro-life Catholics, including Glendon no doubt, although they were hardly unexpected. So then Notre Dame had the bright idea of using Glendon's presence to justify its controversial choice. She was being manipulated to justify the university's plans.
I am sure that Notre Dame understands her decision perfectly. What if Penn gave Jack Kevorkian (or Dick Cheney?) an honorary doctorate and tried to stifle the ensuing uproar by giving another doctorate to, say, Art Caplan?
You do have a point about the Iraq War and the torture business, though.
- by Michael Cook on Apr 29, 2009 at 1:35 AM | link
In case you have not heard, President Obama supports all forms of abortion, including partial-birth abortion. (His singular legislative achievement in the Illinois General Assembly was to kill the Illinois Born Alive Infant Protection Act, which was designed to protect children who survive attempted abortions.) Obama also stands against conscience protection for pharmacists and health care professionals who do not wish to participate in procedures of "choice." Yes, Obama does stand up for various principles of social justice which are consistent with the Catholic faith, but his stand on human life issues is problematic for those who follow the Church's fundamental teachings on the dignity of human life. No about of moral equivalence concerning prior administrations can obviate these facts.
Good for Glendon! She is a courageous witness to her faith and has wisely chosen truth over prestige.
- by Thomas Smith on Apr 29, 2009 at 2:08 PM | link
I think you will be less befuddled if you contemplate how the correct construal of every principle of justice depends upon the correct construal of the right to life and the equal protection of the laws in respect of that life. Once you are dead, healthcare and education are kind of off limits for you. They matter only to those more fortunate than you in not being dead. For an intellectual exploration of what can happen to a society as fuddled as ours on this fundamental point, see John Paul II, Evangelium vitae, p 18 and surrounding.
- by Kirk Kanzelberger on Apr 29, 2009 at 6:16 PM | link
Some information that should be brought to Summer Johnson's attention: first, the Laetare Medal is the highest honor Notre Dame can give, and Glenden did not make this choice easily. Second, Notre Dame used her name as a balance to the President's honor to try to appease angry alums and contributors without consulting Ms. Glendon. The University doesn't speak for Ms. Glendon, and that played a role in her decision.
President Obama and the Catholic Church do agree on healthcare access for Americans, however the direction to achieve that goal highly differs.
Regarding war, the Catholic Church teaches that war should be avoided at all costs, but does give a definition of a "just" war. President Bush's war on Iraq was a "strike first" operation to thwart a threat that now appears not to have existed. However evil Saddam was, and though the U.N. failed to make Saddam follow their guidelines, this was not a "just" war. The primary war against the Taliban and al Qaeda does fall under that definition.
Where Ms. Glendon and the American bishops are at odds with the President is his stance on abortion and his voting record on life issues. This is not a partisan issue, it is a moral one. Yes, thousands have died in the wars, but nearly one fifth of all conceptions in the U.S. end in abortion. That's 1.3 million every year, with over 93% done for convenience. The President is a supporter of the Freedom of Choice Act (heck, he helped write it!) which by its name is a lie. It destroys freedom, a patient's right to know regarding medical procedures, and parental rights.
In regards to Obama being a deeply religious Christian, only God knows what's in his heart or what he understands of being a Christian is, but since his philosophy contrasts so much from the Holy See, it is understandable why the Church is upset with this theological gaffe from an apparent Catholic University.
Other points: regarding quality of schools, the Obama Administration sat on a report regarding school vouchers in D.C. while a committee voted on whether to continue the program in late March. The program was cut, based on the argument that the voucher program wasn't working. In early April, the report showed there was an improvement in the education at the D.C schools. Vouchers fly in the face of the National Education Association, big Obama endorsers, so it had to go.
In regards to the economy, Obama forced Congress to vote on a stimulus bill without giving them a chance to read it. This new law has put a debt on our grand children's future, and has cut the throats of many small businesses. I know. I just got downsized.
Randal Worzalla, PO'd
- by Randal Worzalla on Apr 30, 2009 at 1:38 AM | link
Just because Glendon served on President Bush's bioethics council doesn't mean she agreed with his ethically questionable, if not immoral, positions on torture or war in Iraq. I bet if Obama was replaced with George W. Bush in this situation, she would still think twice about receiving the Laetare Medal from Notre Dame. It's simplistic to assume everyone fits into two possible camps in politics or morality.
- by Anna Morys, medical student on May 6, 2009 at 11:11 PM | link