Speeches and Honors at Catholic Universities

[ Note: I apologize in advance for the length of this, but there is much to say. I hope the length will not discourage you from stating your thoughts]

In 2004, the USCCB released a document entitled Catholics in Political Life , in which they taught "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."

When Notre Dame announced the President Obama would be their commencement speaker this year and would receive an honorary law degree, my reaction was similar to Policratus'. I stated that I believe dialogue is important. We must not demonize or alienate ourselves from our interlocutors, especially those in positions of power and those who want the same results as we do - in this case, a reduction in abortions - simply because their means of achieving said reduction differs, albeit drastically and egregiously, from our means. However, I stated that I thought that Notre Dame was going too far in honoring Obama. I could not recall Jesus honoring "sinners." At the time I did not have the bishops' statement quoted above in mind. However, it now seems an accurate reflection of my intuitions.

Upon expressing my thoughts to a few wise and trusted Catholic friends, I was advised that Jesus certainly honored sinners. He honored Zaccheus the tax collector with His presence. The whole Jewish/Middle Eastern culture was based upon "honor." Pilch apparently exemplifies this well. I was told that Jesus does honor the Pharisees for what they teach, but not how they act. Can we not honor Obama's achievements while challenging his problematic views? If we wish to change the culture we must dialogue with the culture. We must be in the world but not of it. We must hate the sin and love the sinner. We cannot simply blackball all pro-choice politicians from Catholic institutions. This is what I was told. I saw much truth in it. But I was not comfortable, not at peace with it.

Since then my own Archbishop Hughes has weighed in on the Obama-ND situation. He writes:

We cannot compromise our Church's clear and unflagging opposition to abortion and embryonic stem cell research by providing honors and a platform for those who deny the humanity and dignity of the most frail creature in our midst.... I respect the President of the United States. I pray for him. As Catholics we need to enter into civil debate with him on the fundamental issues on which we disagree. We work with him on those issues with which we agree. But we do not supply a platform or grant an honor to someone who not only is so wrong on such a fundamental issue but is aggressively pursuing policies which exclude the human rights of the unborn.

Shortly thereafter Xavier University's plans to honor Donna Brazile at their commencement became public. She is the first African American to have directed a presidential campaign, is Catholic, and has done much for the rights and respect of African Americans. She is also pro-choice and has stated as much publicly. Hughes chose to write to the president of XULA as well as to boycott their commencement, which he usually attends. To Dr. Francis, President of XULA, Hughes writes :

I recognize that Ms. Brazile is a Catholic Louisiana native who has worked effectively in service to the poor and African Americans in particular. However, her public statements on the abortion issue are not in keeping with Catholic moral teaching. She has supported President Obama’s decision to reverse the Mexico City policy allowing federal funds to organizations that provide abortions overseas by saying that this policy will “save lives.” She has also relativized the importance of the fundamental life issues on national television suggesting that there are more important things for the American people to discuss than abortion. She has supported and worked for the election of candidates who support contraceptive practices and abortion on the basis that this stance is pro-woman.

Additionally Hughes released the following statement entitled Recognition of Public Figures by Catholic Institutions , apparently in response to ...shall we say "social-justice" Catholics. In it he explains:

We recognize that abortion and embryonic stem cell research are not the only “life issues” of concern for the Catholic Church. Some point out that capital
punishment is also rejected by the Catholic Church and suggest that a proponent of it should be denied similar recognition.
It is important to distinguish an absolute moral principle from one that is subject to different applications according to varying conditions or circumstances. Direct abortion is always wrong, no matter what the circumstances. Capital punishment is accepted in the Church as one way in which innocent life can be protected. Over the years, as viable alternatives such as life imprisonment without the possibility of parole, have become more possible, the need for recourse to this has become
less necessary. This is what has led the Pope and Bishops to recommend that as a society we move away from it. It is not in itself wrong, if the crime is heinous, people are threatened and there is no alternative available.

Meanwhile, Fr. Louis Arceneaux, c.m. of Pax Christi has written a letter to Archbishop Hughes for apparent inconsistencies. I cannot find a link to the letter, which was emailed to me, therefore I shall post it in its entirety. It is not too long.

Dear Archbishop Hughes:
I am writing you regarding your decisions and public declarations regarding President Obama and Donna Brazile, receiving honorary degrees at Catholic universities. Let me be clear. I am as opposed to abortion as you are. I long for the day when few, if any, women and men choose to have abortions. Where you and I disagree is our approach to getting there.
For example, I do not think that your publicly stating that you will not attend Xavier’s graduation because someone who is being given an honorary degree and will speak at the graduation is pro-choice is going to help the cause of reducing and eliminating abortion. In my opinion, all you are doing is giving people who agree with your approach a reason to boast. You are also antagonizing many other people who might be open to dialogueabout ways to reduce abortions in the country. Did you read what Sarah Comiskey gave as an explanation for the reason President Obama was allowed to attend and speak at the Al Smith dinner in New York? She is quoted as saying “They are recognized as candidates, but not honored.” Do you not agree that this is yet another example of a distinction without a difference, so often used as an explanation, that most people will not find helpful?
I think that there are ways that you and other American bishops would better promote your goals. Why could you not have spoken positively about all the good that President Obama has done already and all the Catholic social values he shares with us and urge him to speak out more often on his specific proposals to reduce the number of abortions in the country since we are opposed to any abortions. You could have taken the same approach with Donna Brazile. I think that kind of approach will be more helpful in reducing the number of abortions than blanket statements against universities and politicians. There can be and ought to be a different way to deal with this issue in the political arena than the way we deal with it in Catholic schools and churches.
I also think you and other Catholic bishops would get a more positive response and greater respect if you spoke out more consistently for the human life and dignity of all persons. These distinctions that are made about “just wars” and the permissibility of the death penalty do not help the full pro-life cause of our Church. When I speak of pro-life in retreats and parish missions, I make it clear that we need to be for the life and dignity of every human being from conception to death. I have been criticized by a minority for that stand, and yet I truly believe it is the position we ought to take as true followers of Jesus Christ, despite the distinctions that Catholic theology has made over the years. Wouldn’t you agree that Jesus Christ would not support war the way it is waged today, not with bows and arrows, but with bombs that destroy innocent men, women and children. Don’t you also think that He would not support the death penalty when we can incarcerate criminals for life, without parole, if they are found guilty of heinous crimes? And yet, so many so-called “pro-life” Catholics and evangelicals hold that Jesus Christ would support modern warfare and the death penalty, including the governor of Louisiana, whom you will honor by your presence at the Loyola University graduation.
My point is that the narrow “pro-life” focus on the unborn is probably detrimental to the very cause of reducing and eliminating abortions and that we are not doing a very good job of helping Catholics to be truly pro-life from conception to the grave.
As we used to say in the seminary, those are my thoughts on the subject. I would be happy to have a fuller discussion with you on these thoughts.
Sincerely yours in St. Vincent DePaul,
Louis Arceneaux, c.m.

So, locally, Archbishop Hughes is boycotting Xavier's graduation because the university is inviting and honoring a Catholic who wholeheartedly supports and advocates for the Democratic Party Platform on abortion and ESCR, which are contrary to Catholic teachings. On the other hand, he is apparently not boycotting Loyola's graduation, although it is inviting and honoring Bobby Jindal, a Catholic and the Governor of Louisiana who has advocated for and signed legislation enacting the death penalty or chemical castration for child rapists. The Archbishop has, rightly I think, exhibited the difference between abortion/ESCR and captial punishment. However, in my understanding, there is no acceptable prudential reason which Jindal can cite in defense of his stance. That abortion and ESCR are intrinsically evil tells us that they can never be justified. Similarly, capital punishment cannot be justified in our circumstances, even if it is not intrinsically evil. Therefore, it is not clear to me why Archbishop Hughes must boycott Brazile but not Jindal. Certainly more are killed through abortion and ESCR than capital punishment, but if we are to propose a consistent ethic of life to this culture of death, can we afford to compromise?

The issue has been further complicated by Mary Ann Glendon , who is currently the first female President of the Roman Catholic Church's official Pontifical Academy of Social Sciences, and is has been nominated for Notre Dame's prestigious Laetare Medal. Despite being counseled by some of the US bishops, including Notre Dame's own Bishop D'Arcy who has not at all approved of Obama's invitation, to accept the award and attend the graduation, she has decided to reject the award and abstain from attending. This seems to be a complex and divisive issue as is evidenced by reading the comments on the previously linked post.

Several questions arise from all this, which I think are preliminary to any sound judgment on the matters as hand. I ask for your insight and discussion on these preliminary questions.

1. What is the role of Catholic universities in dialoging with and forming the culture?
2. How can we properly bear witness to a culture of life, which presupposes a consistent ethic of life, without being consistent?
3. What is the role of scandal in this? Would American Catholics be scandalized by Obama's presence at ND? By the Bishops' presence at the commencement? By Hughes' presence at Xavier? Should Catholics be more scandalized than are likely to be by Jindal's presence at Loyola? Why was Obama's presence and honor at Xavier in 2007 not worthy of Hughes' boycott? Did he slip under the radar? Was Senator Obama somehow less important then than Brazile is now?
4. How are we to dialogue with the culture while being in the world, without compromising ourselves or our own institutions, without being of the world? On the personal level this is difficult enough; how can we do it on the institutional level when so many of our Catholic institutions are becoming more and more secular and less Catholic?

Whose Church?

Those of you not from the New Orleans area may not have heard, but there has been some serious drama in the Archdiocese of New Orleans lately.

In April of 08, Archbishop Hughes unveiled a plan to close some parishes and consolidate others in order to help the Archdiocese cope with millions of dollars in losses from Hurricance Katrina, fewer parishioners post-Katrina, and an aging and shinking clergy.

From the start people were not shy about expressing their unhappiness with the changes.

After churches which had been scheduled for closure (and consolidation with other parishes) were closed in October, parishioners immediately moved to occupy the churches in what they called vigils, although media coverage and parishioners interviewed made it seem more like a prolonged protest.

More than two months later the churches were still being illegally occupied by former parishioners, who had barred the doors closed and refused to allow representatives of the Archdiocese into the church.

As a result, police were eventually sent to the churches to clear out the trespassers. The Archdiocese had this to say about the incident (quote lengthy, but I felt obligated to post the whole thing, since no one in the media was) :

Around 10 am this morning, representatives of the Archdiocese of New Orleans entered the occupied buildings at both the former Our Lady of Good Counsel on Louisiana Ave. and the former St. Henry on General Pershing in Uptown New Orleans. They were accompanied by members of the New Orleans Police Department at the request of the Archbishop. The occupants were first asked to leave the buildings voluntarily. Then they were told that if they did not leave on their own, they would receive a summons and if they would not leave at that point would then be arrested.

It was necessary for the police to break-in to Our Lady of Good Counsel because those inside refused entrance to either archdiocesan representatives or the police. Two occupants at Our Lady of Good Counsel received a summons and two were formally arrested. At St. Henry Church, the occupants allowed representatives and police to enter. Only one parishioner received a summons. There were no arrests. In both instances, the buildings were then secured.

It has always been the intention of the archdiocese to bring these vigils to a peaceful conclusion. This forced closure involving the NOPD is the result of the actions of protestors at the former parishes. This decision was made reluctantly after exploring every possible alternative, including multiple attempts to persuade the people to leave the building on their own. These initiatives are unfortunate but made necessary now to ensure the safety of the people and security of the buildings.

As already reported, attempts were made at both the former Our Lady of Good Counsel and the former St. Henry buildings early morning on Saturday, January 3, 2009 to peacefully bring these occupations peacefully to a close. At St. Henry, those keeping vigil refused to leave despite multiple requests. At Our Lady of Good Counsel, the occupant left allowing officials first to search the building and then to move to secure the building. It was discovered later that day that protestors had regained access to the former church building and bolts placed in doors had been removed.

On Monday, January 5, 2009, archdiocesan representatives attempted to make a routine inspection at Our Lady of Good Counsel and were denied access to the buildings. Protestors refused archdiocesan personnel entry and barricaded the doors preventing entry. At the former church building at St. Henry, archdiocesan representatives entered for their inspections, but later that afternoon, it was discovered that occupants there had locked the doors to the church building to prevent entry to anyone beyond those allowed in from the inside. These actions forced the difficult decision to bring these occupations to a close to be made

It is our hope that the Catholic community may now heal and move forward together. Our prayers are withl those experiencing anger and sadness at losing their home parishes. We pray that they may find peace and a spiritual home in their new parish. As we begin the new year, we must all work to center our faith on the Eucharist and to move forward as one community in Christ.

My thoughts on the fiasco...

I am in no position to judge the prudence or correctness of Archbishop Hughes' decisions on which churches to close, which to merge, etc. Many of the parishioners of St. Henry's and Our Lady of Good Counsel did not give the Archbishop the benefit of the doubt. For months we have heard TV interviews, people on radio call-in shows, etc. condemning the decisions and actions of the Archbishop for unjustly or unfairly closing down "my church."

This is another example of Catholics being more American than Catholic. These people have been infected by individualism. Hello! We are "Catholic." The word means "universal." This is not your church. This is the Church of Jesus Christ. Archbishop Hughes is a successor of the apostles and the rightful authority over the property you claim to be "your church." You don't have to agree with his decision, but with a little humility and obedience, you should be able to respectfully submit to it.

Sigh. Sorry for the rant.


Edit: I should add that I am saddened that arrests were made, although no charges were pressed, but I am frustrated at the attitudes I've seen over the past few months.

Kudos Supreme Court; Shame, shame Jindal - Death Penalty for Rapists

In June, the U.S. Supreme Court, in a 5-4 decision, said that imposing the death penalty in child rape cases violates the Constitution's ban on cruel and unusual punishment.

Around the same time, Louisiana's "Catholic" governor, Bobby Jindal, signed Louisiana bill, SB 144 into law. "It gives the court the option of castration on a first conviction of aggravated rape, forcible rape, second degree sexual battery, aggravated incest, molestation of a juvenile when the victim is under the age of 13, or an aggravated crime against nature. Castration is required on a second conviction of the listed crimes."

Recently, Jindal and Louisiana (and the Bush administration) challenged the Supreme Court decision and ask the SC to revisit their ruling. The Supreme Court declined to change their opinion, amending it only slightly to account for a military law. In response, Jindal fired back:

“The Supreme Court was dead wrong in their ruling," Governor Bobby Jindal said. "It is disappointing that they did not take this opportunity to move quickly to rehear this case and examine their legally improper and absurd decision to remove death as a penalty for the horrific crime of raping a child. The fact that they based their ruling on their own perception of a ‘national trend’ against the death penalty is outrageous and harms the credibility of the entire Court. We will continue to work to evaluate ways to amend our statute to maintain death as a penalty for the incredibly brutal crime of raping a child.”

Our bishops have been calling for an end to the death penalty for 20 years. Jindal response and actions are not acceptable for a Catholic. (For more on these read USCCB link or this from Archbishop Chaput.)

I voted for Jindal, and depending on his opponent would consider voting for him again, but this is very disheartening. I understand why abortion is considered a "bigger" issue. I understand why it gets more attention. I don't have a problem with that. Nevertheless, Jindal's blatant slamming of Church teaching on Catholic punishment is very problematic, in ways similar to Biden's and Pelosi's stance on abortion.

Will Archbishop Hughes or Bishop Muench make a statement? I'm not even sure one should be made (publicly), but it is frustrating to see Catholics (of both political parties) consistently showing they are more American or Republican or Democrat than they are Catholic.

Shame on you Bobby Jindal

Being a Faithful Catholic in America: Part III – Racism

[This is part III of a series I began here. Part II is here]

We have briefly considered the universal call to holiness, to which we should all, by virtue of our Baptism, respond with an honest effort to be saints. We have spoken of the consistent life ethic which reminds us of the inherent and irrevocable dignity of every person and serves of the foundation of all moral issues; now we can proceed to consider some of those issues that the US Bishops have spoken of as being problematic.

In its Forming Consciences for Faithful Citizenship, the USCCB lists racism as intrinsically evil, something that can never be supported. In this reflection I shall follow the lead of our shepherd, Archbishop Hughes, in his recent document, Made in the Image and Likeness of God: a Pastoral Letter on Racial Harmony. Archbishop Hughes indicates that, although the term “racism” generally draws forth wide ranging emotions and is often avoided in conversation, the Church has not hesitated to define it “as both a personal sin and a social disorder rooted in the belief that one race is superior to another.” Furthermore, the Catechism of the Catholic Church explains that "every form of social or cultural discrimination of fundamental personal rights on the grounds of sex, race, color, social conditions, language or religion must be curbed and eradicated as incompatible with God's design."

Based on the Church’s characterization of racism as both a personal and a social problem, Archbishop Hughes adds that when it occurs on the personal level it generally takes the form of slurs, unprovoked fear, unfair stereotypes, etc., while institutional racism takes place in educational systems, judicial systems, and our housing and living situations. I think we are all on some level aware of these problems, even if we are much more comfortable ignoring them and forgetting about our own participation in them than confronting them. However, it is not enough for us to know in our heads that racism is wrong and what it looks like, we must understand why it is wrong and, if we are to take Christ’s call to holiness seriously, we must work to eradicate it from our own lives and to help those who are victims of it. Let us therefore consider in more depth the Church’s teaching on the issue.

The Word of God in Sacred Scripture teaches us that God created all humanity, male and female, equal and “very good.” Due to the sin of our first parents, Adam and Eve, all humanity, white, black, yellow, red, brown, etc., have fallen into a state of separation from God, which we daily live out in our selfishness and sinfulness. But, just as through one man, Adam, all of us inherit Original Sin, so through one man, Jesus Christ, all of us, brown, red, yellow, black, white, etc., have been redeemed and offered the gift of salvation. Christ does not differentiate by color, sex, age, wealth, health, etc. We are created in the image and likeness of God, and therefore we are all very good. As people who are part of the Body of Christ through our Baptism, we are called to be His hands and feet, which means we are called to be color blind, to love all other members of the Body of Christ and the Body of Adam (all humans including non-Christians) equally and without reservation. That is what Jesus would do.

Certainly, no serious political candidate supports racism or overtly racist policies. But I think we need to dig a little beneath the surface, especially given the appalling history of racism in the United States (Archbishop Hughes calls it our nation’s Original Sin!), where up until a few decades ago it was considered the norm for blacks to be treated as inferior. For what was once overt (obvious) in political and social discourse still lurks in the background, but remains covert (hidden), only rearing its ugly head occasionally– think of the Jena 6 scandal. This all begs an important question: if racism is real, but not overt, does this make it any less evil? Does this diminish our responsibility as Christians? I think not.

In fact, I think most (if not all) of us can see undercurrents of racism active at different times and situations in our schools, jobs, and relationships with others. We tend to be more fearful around black men than white men. Why is that? The implication is that we believe that people who are black are more violent than people who are white. This is scientifically and morally false. We tend to assume, again generally speaking, that people who are black are less intelligent than people who are white. Again, this is patently false. It is true, however, that nutrition, family environment, parental expectations, and perceived safety play large roles in academic achievement. Because of the Original Sin of our nation, people who are black also tend to have a lower socio-economic status. Therefore, people who are black tend to come from families who are less able to provide good nutrition (this is especially relevant during pregnancy), stable family situation (parents are more likely to be forced to work long hours to support the family), and safe environment (poor neighborhoods breed desperation which leads to crime).

Many people also claim prison statistics -- based on percentages of the national population, people who are black are more likely to be criminals and to be on death row -- to support their belief that people who are black are more violent, criminal, even more evil than people who are white (although we would never say it this way). However, the statistics are very misleading, and such a belief is again absolutely untrue and offensive to our God who loved each one of us into creation. Regarding the statistics, we first must not reduce the issue to merely an issue of skin color. Human behavior does not change based on skin color, but it does change based on poverty and living conditions.

“Ironically, one of the few areas of racial equality in the United States is drugs. Americans who are black and Americans who are white use them at essentially the same rate. The shocking disparities come in enforcement—from arrests, to charges being filed, to convictions, to length of sentences—where African American males go to prison at far higher rates for the same crimes than everyone else. We know this from systematic studies as well as the many examples of white conservative politicians whose own drug crimes, or those of their kids, result in no prison time, the same crimes that send thousands of young, poor, black males to prison for shockingly long sentences (see the Bishop’s “three Rs” statement on criminal justice for more on systematic injustice in sentencing generally). On the death penalty, even different rates of violent crime don’t explain differences. Just among those who commit murder, African Americans murders are far more likely to get the death sentence than white murders. The even greater disparity, however, is in the race of the victim—murdering a white person is many times more likely to get you the death penalty than murdering a black person. “ (from a comment by David Cochron on the blog Vox-Nova)

The point is twofold: 1) Most of our preconceived notions which denigrate people of races are often false and are misguided by overly simplified views of complex situations. 2) Jesus Christ demands that we move beyond the implied racism of our society. Regardless of race all persons are children of God and, as Christians, we are called to love all persons as ourselves. We are called to stand up for the dignity and rights of those who are subject to discrimination and prejudice. Again, it is what Jesus would do and it is what we, as Christians are called to do as we strive to live as saints.

Being a Faithful Catholic in America: Part I - Introduction

I am writing this in response to a call given by Archbishop Hughes, our shepherd and a successor of the Apostles, at a conference I recently attended. What follows is a reflection meant to help each of us examine and form our consciences to better enable us to live our lives as faithful Christian Catholics in America, specifically in preparation for the upcoming elections. I do not claim to have complete knowledge or understanding of the truth, but I do claim to be repeating what the Church teaches and demands of us as members of the Body of the Christ.

In his homily at the opening Mass for the 2008 Hoffinger Conference, Archbishop Hughes spoke of the universal call to holiness. He, as our shepherd, wants to remind each one of us that we are all, every single one of us, called to be a saint. Holiness is not reserved for a chosen few. God loves us unconditionally and wants us to respond to His gift of self with our own limitless gift of love for He who is Love. We all need to honestly strive to rid ourselves of our sinful tendencies, prejudices and preconceived notions, and to work toward sainthood.

This requires, among other things, that we learn to identify ourselves first and foremost as Catholics, as members of the Church which is the Bride of Christ and which is guided “in spirit and in truth” by the Holy Spirit. We must pray for the humility to submit ourselves to the wisdom and prudence of the Church’s teachings. We should not ignore or belittle the wisdom of the Holy Spirit speaking through the Church in favor of the beliefs or standards or our nation, our political party, our school, or ourselves. We are not primarily Republican or Democrat, American or New Orleanian. We are Catholic, which means we are members of the body of Christ along with millions of other people from all over the world. Our primary love and allegiance belongs to Jesus Christ, our Savior and King
The Archbishop of Denver, who was also at the conference, put it this way,

“Catholic is a word that has real meaning. We don’t control or invent that meaning as individuals. We inherit it from the gospel and the experience of the Church over the centuries. We can choose to be something else, but if we choose to call ourselves Catholic, then that word has consequences for what we believe and how we act. We can’t truthfully claim to be Catholic and then act as though we’re not. Being a Catholic is a bit like being married. We have a relationship with the Church and with Jesus Christ that’s similar to being a spouse. If a man says he loves his wife, his wife will want to see the evidence in his love and fidelity. The same applies to our relationship with God. If we say we’re Catholic, we need to show that by our love for the Church and our fidelity to what she teaches and believes. Otherwise we’re just fooling ourselves, because God certainly won’t be fooled.” (http://www.firstthings.com/onthesquare/?p=953)

As Christians we should be the leaven which raises the morality and holiness of our community, indeed of our country, to higher levels of holiness. However, if we examine American society we cannot noticeably see the good witness of Christians in our culture. Instead of being witnesses to the Truth of Christ as the apostles were, we have tended to blend in with the rest of our society which can NOT rightly be called good or virtuous. Because of our Catholic identity and our universal call to holiness we must always inform and examine our consciences on the issues in our country and never settle for the opinions of the authorities in our preferred political parties or talk shows.

In light of this, the successors of the Apostles, our American Bishops write the following, “There are some things we must never do, as individuals or as a society, because they are always incompatible with love of God and neighbor. Such actions are so deeply flawed that they are always opposed to the authentic good of persons. These are called “intrinsically evil” actions” (http://www.usccb.org/bishops/FCStatement.pdf). The bishops include the followings actions in this category: abortion, euthanasia, human cloning, embryonic stem cell research, genocide, torture, racism, unjust war and unjust immigration laws.

In the following days and weeks I shall attempt to offer reflections on some of these issues in order to better educate myself, and all of us, on them and to challenge to submit to the wisdom and guidance of Mother Church. I invite you all to participate in these reflections by sharing your thoughts in the comment boxes.

Part II: Consistent Life Ethic
PartIII: Racism
Part IV: Immigration