Imagine you have been invested with the power to choose a major university’s next commencement speaker. You can choose anyone you want — business leaders, political officials, talented artists — everything is on the table. By what criteria would you make your decision? Would you choose a speaker in line with the values according to which the school was founded or would you simply choose the biggest name out there? If at our own University, for example, would you pursue someone who adamantly opposes the freedoms of expression and religion espoused by our illustrious founder, or would you seek someone who embodies the liberties he promoted? The University of Notre Dame faced this predicament and went the wrong way with it. The Roman Catholic Church has long been the most stalwart defender of Christian social values; it has been a bastion around which pro-life, socially conservative forces can rally. In inviting President Obama to serve as its commencement speaker, Notre Dame dilutes the message that its mother church proclaims, demonstrating disregard for the principles so highly valued by many Catholics.
Our President’s pro-choice record is long and distinguished. I have written about this elsewhere, so I will only touch on it briefly here. As a senator, he received the highest possible rating from NARAL, a strongly pro-choice group. Since becoming President, Obama has taken active measures to remove anti-abortion regulations put in place by the previous administration. He has lifted a ban on providing funds to international organizations that advocate or provide abortions. He intends to reverse a rule put in place by the Bush administration protecting health care workers from being forced to conduct abortions. He has also overturned a Bush administration ban on the use of embryos in stem cell research. Quite the track record for his first 100 days in office. Some might argue that Notre Dame’s invitation to President George W. Bush to speak in 2001 was as misguided as their invitation to Obama; Bush supports the death penalty, which the Church opposes. Bush’s support for the death penalty, however, pales in comparison to Obama’s pro-choice record.
Indeed, Obama has already drawn heat from the Church for these moves. In a report by Foxnews.com, one Vatican official stated “Among the many good things that he could have done, Barack Obama instead chose the worst.” Other Catholics have joined in, and exhibit a fear that Obama’s pro-choice policies will continually conflict with the Church. Though 53 percent of Catholics voted for Obama in November, an even more lengthy list of pro-abortion acts will likely not improve his popularity among them.
Some have argued that Catholic pro-life doctrine is no longer relevant to present-day college students, and that the relatively greater significance of issues like the economy argues in favor of the invitation of Obama. I would argue that this in fact provides a stronger argument against the proffered invitation to Obama. The significance of religious doctrine is that it does not kowtow to cultural relevance. Religious doctrine represents truth, and truth is permanent. When religious doctrine ceases to be relevant, this does not mean that it has ceased to be truth. Modern Christianity struggles mightily with this issue. Because many aspects of Christian doctrine can be confrontational or command morality that runs contrary to that held by the public, it is tempting to back away from controversial aspects of the faith, to minimize their importance in order to not alienate the people who do not subscribe to their tenets. The Church should not fall prey to this. Rather than suborning religious doctrine to the popular climate, the Church needs to reinforce and reinvigorate its arguments. The Church’s anti-abortion stance is a defense of human life; therefore it is of vital importance that they not cede ground to those who choose not to see it as an issue. Inviting a speaker with a resume as staunchly pro-choice as Obama’s shows a preference for temporal relevance over permanent truth.
A religious university has a responsibility that transcends that of a secular university. They have the responsibility to uphold the religious well-being of their students in addition to their academic success. On the Notre Dame Web site, their president is quoted as saying that Notre Dame had a “distinctive mission to be a Catholic university, inspired and guided by a great spiritual position.” The religious responsibilities of the university come into conflict with its actions when it brings in a speaker whose views counter one of the most well-known stances of the Church. Much as our own University would not likely bring in a speaker with overtly authoritarian views in direct opposition to the principles of liberty embraced by Jefferson, a Catholic university should not flout the beliefs of Catholics worldwide in order to make itself culturally relevant.
Robby Colby’s column appears Thursdays in The Cavalier Daily. He can be reached at r.colby@cavalierdaily.com.
Read More
PATEL: Personal development courses support students beyond the gradebook
By Heer Patel | 5 days agoThe University must rethink its approach to education beyond traditional major-specific requirements and mandate personal development courses.
EDITORIAL: Commercialization threatens U.Va.’s educational mission
By Editorial Board | 5 days agoAfter all, measuring the University’s worth in terms of accrued capital, operational efficiency and numerical rankings molds this space into just another cookie-cutter institution.
YOUNIS: Why every U.Va. student should say yes to English
By Ayat Younis | January 9, 2025Every student at the University, regardless of their primary field of study, can professionally and academically benefit from engaging with the English department.
