It seems that every May brings with it some controversy over the selection of the commencement speaker at one or more Catholic universities. This year, Cardinal Sean O’Malley announced that he could not attend the commencement ceremony at Boston College because Ireland’s Prime Minister, Enda Kenny, was selected to receive an honorary degree and to deliver the commencement address. Cardinal O’Malley objected to Mr. Kenny’s support for limited legalized abortion in Ireland. The lower house of the Irish Parliament is considering legislation that would allow abortion in cases where the mother’s life is in danger. Mr. Kenny supports the legislation.
Nearly all of the controversies about commencement speakers at Catholic colleges and universities revolve around abortion. As Cardinal O’Malley noted in his public comments about his decision to boycott BC’s commencement, “Because the Gospel of Life is the centerpiece of the Church’s social doctrine and because we consider abortion a crime against humanity, the Catholic Bishops of the United States have asked that Catholic institutions not honor government officials or politicians who promote abortion with their laws and policies.”
But abortion was not the issue this year at St. John’s University in New York (where I am a faculty member). Our commencement speaker was Hon. Peter King, who represents New York’s Second Congressional District in the House of Representatives. Congressman King is pro-life. You may recognize his name because he serves on the Homeland Security Committee in the House and chairs its Subcommittee on Counter-Terrorism and Intelligence. He often makes an appearance in the media whenever the topic is terrorism. He drew a lot of attention for holding Congressional hearings on the radicalization of Islam in the United States, and for suggesting publicly that over 80% of Mosques in the United States are controlled by radical Imams.
Not surprisingly, Muslim students and faculty at St. John’s were outraged by the selection of Rep. King. An online petition was circulated asking the university to withdraw King’s invitation. Many non-Muslim students and faculty also signed the protest petition; in total, several hundred people signed. But the university’s administration refused to change course, claiming that Rep. King had been chosen because of his tireless work for all New Yorkers after Superstorm Sandy. Rep. King (a Republican) did in fact take a very strong and vocal stand against GOP leaders who had blocked and delayed funding for Sandy-related relief efforts. King was part of a coalition of local lawmakers who eventually prevailed in securing federal funding for relief and rebuilding efforts.
When it became clear that King would be the speaker, faculty members (myself included) were faced with a moral dilemma. Should we boycott the commencement ceremony? Should we walk out when King was granted his degree or when he approached the podium to speak? Should we refuse to sit on the stage with Rep. King (at St. John’s the “stage party” is composed of honorees, the President, Provost, Deans, and a long list of administrators whose title usually begins with “Vice President of”; some faculty sit at the back of the stage behind the “stage party”; the remaining faculty sit on the lawn with students and families. Some faculty members suggested we should all sit on the lawn as a sign of protest)?
I think it was a mistake to award Rep. King an honorary degree, I object very strongly to his misrepresentation of Muslims, and I disagree with him on nearly every political issue. Nevertheless, I decided to attend Commencement as usual – and to sit on the stage. Why?
I think that commencement is primarily about the graduating students. Rep. King probably could not have cared less whether I—or any faculty at all—showed up at Commencement, but I hope that the students would have cared. I wanted to honor their accomplishments and to be present for them. In short, I concluded that presence and absence is not univocal when it comes to events such as this one. Would my presence necessarily be an endorsement of everything that takes place? No. Would my absence necessarily convey the meaning that “I disapprove of this honorary degree, and I stand with Muslim students!” Again, no. It could also convey the meaning, “I don’t really care about students or commencement; I’d prefer to be at home reading a book rather than sitting on a stage for 150 minutes on a rainy Sunday morning.”
As I was sitting on that stage for those 150 minutes, I had what seemed like forever to think more about what it means to award an honorary degree to Rep. Peter King or anyone else for that matter. When we honor someone or ask them to address us at commencement, are we saying that they are perfect or that we agree with everything they have ever said and done? Obviously not. There aren’t enough saints to go around on Commencement Day. So then is it possible for a university to honor someone for a particular accomplishment while overlooking other actions that are unquestionably contrary to the university’s values (especially its Catholic values)? I think so, but I must admit I’m not 100% sure.
Rep. King gave a decent speech at commencement. He spoke of the importance of working across party lines – especially to help our neighbors after disaster strikes (as we did after Superstorm Sandy). He spoke of the enduring importance of service. He offered no apology for the false and malicious things he has said about Muslims in the past, but he did acknowledge the controversy saying that he thought that a mark of our country’s greatness is our ability to coexist with people who disagree strongly with us. It was a speech worth applauding.
I think that an important thing to realize is that no one could have left that ceremony thinking “St. John’s honored that man because of the hateful things he said about Muslims.” If that is true, why would we think that awarding a degree to Enda Kenny is likely to be interpreted as an endorsement of his position on abortion rights? Rep. King was wrong to stir up religious animosity and hatred toward Muslims with false claims. But that doesn’t mean he has never done anything good or worth honoring. Politicians who favor unrestricted abortion on demand are promoting a policy that is morally wrong, but that doesn’t mean that they have never done anything good or worth honoring. We need to make a distinction between honoring someone for work that is morally objectionable and contrary to our institutional Catholic identity, and honoring someone for work that is fully consistent with our mission and identity despite the fact that they may have done other things to which we strongly object. The former would be wrong, but the latter might sometimes be right.
Honestly I think that St. John’s University and Boston College should have done better in their choice of commencement speakers this year. However, both of these cases should help us to see the ambiguity involved in honoring any person, and to recognize that resolution of these matters is not as clear and easy some people think.
Chris, thanks for this. I certainly agree with you that both universities could have (and should have) chosen better. But I want to raise two simple questions (one in two parts), in hopes that you and others might help me think them through. The questions are simple, but the answers are not! (1) (a) Is abortion (or perhaps life issues more broadly) in a different category? (b) Or are there other ways to distinguish certain issues? and (2) Are bishops in a different category?
“Catholics in Political Life” makes it clear that Catholic institutions should not honor politicians “who act in defiance of our fundamental moral principles.” The protection of the life of vulnerable innocents seems to me to line up in the crosshairs of many of our most fundamental principles. In other words, in abortion, the obligation to defend life, to defend the innocent, to defend the vulnerable all come together very strongly. Now, I’m not defending King here, or SJU’s choice of him. I can certainly think of ways to describe his actions as problematic in light of fundamental Catholic moral principles (falsehood of claims, racial/credal discrimination). But for me at least, he seems more underinformed, imprudent and even thoughtless than *defiant*. Perhaps what I am calling his “underinforming” may appropriately be laid at the feet of the bishops (to some extent), who tend to sound the notes on abortion pretty consistently and perhaps miss opportunities to challenge other Catholic politicians. So, to return to my question: is abortion, either by its nature or by the clear teaching of the bishops, in a position that is more fundamental than other issues? Do some issues (war, torture, euthanasia) come closer than others (racism, economic policies)? Why?
To the second question: although I could relate strongly to your reflections on being a faculty member sitting through a talk you object to, I found myself thinking that the calculus must be different for a bishop. As faculty members, we are there not primarily as representatives of the Church, but as the body that has trained and tested these graduates. As much as we don’t feel like it sometimes, we are the institution conferring the degree. I can certainly imagine a speaker so objectionable that I would feel myself unable to attend in good conscience. But for me, that would be a personal decision. Short of that, one finds ways (as you describe) to change the choice, to express dissatisfaction with it.
When a bishop judges that a Catholic college is violating the principles in “Catholics in Political Life” by honoring a politician who violates fundamental moral teaching, what is he to do? Certainly “business as usual” isn’t appropriate, nor is making some sort of scene that would mar the ceremony. Perhaps he could communicate publicly but separately that he disapproves of the choice. But I think that, unless the college offers him some sort of platform or other means to communicate a nuanced account of his presence, the bishop HAS to refuse to share the stage with an inappropriate honoree. Though this is obviously a judgment on that person, it should never primarily be seen that way. Rather, it is primarily a judgment on the school who bestows the honor. It seems to me that a bishop might (much more so than the rest of us) need to make the judgment that, as representative of the Church, he must not be present as it would imply his consent with the honors. I wonder what others think.
Great post, Chris. I can’t help thinking that every time we protest speakers, we engage is a refusal to “eat with sinners” that directly contradicts Jesus’ radical practice. I do see that awarding honorary degrees is a different kind of act, but protest over these issues ultimately seems counter-productive. I’d be in favor of dropping the honorary degrees altogether. I’ve read that many universities are moving toward commencement speakers who won’t alienate anyone (or say anything substantial?) and announcing them as late as possible to avoid protest. Is this what we want? I can’t think so.
Julie, your statement reminds me: We have never had commencement speakers (aside from the president of the uni, and maybe the rector (I don’t remember), to my knowledge. I was surprised the first year I went to UD’s commencement; I don’t think they did it out of a desire to avoid controversy (at least not from what I understand). I must say I rather like it – It’s not clear to me whose good commencement speakers are for, since the more obvious celebration is that of the graduates, but it is often the commencement speakers that get the attention.
Chris,
If O’Malley’s concern is that “the Catholic Bishops of the United States have asked that Catholic institutions not honor government officials or politicians who promote abortion with their laws and policies,” what about government officials who promote unjust wars? As far as I know, Cardinal O’Malley was present at BC’s commencement when Condoleeza Rice was the Commencement speaker, over the protests of many faculty members who objected to her role as one of the architects of the Iraq war and therefore responsible for many deaths… I find it frustrating when abortion is singled out as a “life issue” and unjust war is not.
But I agree with what you are saying here – and Julie, too. It may not make good sense to apply litmus tests to commencement speakers.
Aren’t these controversies a basic symptom of the ongoing debate over what constitutes the Catholic identity of a university?
Chris– Thank you for this excellent post on this timely topic. It is telling that our examples tend to have to do with political figures and their policies. It raises the larger question of what it means for universities to award honorary degrees to active political figures with scant academic credentials. What exactly is the purpose of these honorary degrees? I am fortunate that my own commencements featured figures who were being honored for accomplishments that made sense in a university context. Or one year recently the Mount had Ken Hackett of CRS as its speaker, someone’s whose specific vocational accomplishments speak clearly to our mission. While I would not want to rule out political achievements, one might consider honorary degrees only for figures who have retired from active service…. or only for figures who are sufficiently “magenta”… but then I saw that Benedictine in Atcheson had Paul Ryan, and there was faculty protest (and a president who unfortunately talked of “non-negotiables”). Again, I think we have lost sight of the purpose of what we are doing.
Thanks very much for these comments. David, I think you are quite right that it’s telling that these problems tend to revolve around politicians. Why do you think that is the case? Is it because they must often make compromises? Is it because they often stand in as symbols for a broad policy or ideology rather than being seen merely as individuals? Honestly, I’m not sure. You are probably right that it would be prudent to select speakers and honorees who are noted for their educational and humanitarian accomplishments instead of politicians.
Laurie, I agree completely!
Julie, thanks for your comments. Interesting connection to practices of table fellowship. I wouldn’t want to see only bland speakers either, although I think that’s often what even some of the more controversial speakers turn out to be.
Dana, great questions! I don’t think that I will be able to answer them adequately but let me at least offer a brief response. 1. I agree completely that an Archbishop’s presence as well as his decision about whether he should attend are quite different from a faculty member’s situation. The faculty members’ decision is much more private, but I thought it was still worth writing about. You’re quite right that an Archbishop is there to represent the Church. However, I do not think that necessarily clears things up. Part of my point was that I do not think that people would become confused about where the church stands and whether it approves of abortion because Cardinal O’Malley was present when Enda Kenny was awarded an honorary degree. I also wanted to ask whether a person might be honored despite an erroneous position on abortion (i.e., we need to think critically about “Catholics in Political Life” not just apply it). I might add that I’m not sure I agree with you that O’Malley’s presence would imply his consent with the honors, but that’s worth thinking about some more. Indeed, that is part of what I wanted to try to figure out myself.
2. Your point that the Archbishop’s boycott is much more a judgment against the university than the individual was quite helpful. Thanks!
3. You are quite right that the issue of abortion brings together respect for life and defense of the vulnerable and innocent and as such is very important , but I’m not sure that puts it in a category all by itself. You’re asking an important question that I don’t think can be answered in “comments”. I think that Laurie Johnston raises important questions about whether abortion is in a class by itself.
4. I believe you are letting Peter King off too easily. We aren’t just talking about some ill-informed person making ignorant comments. “Poor Peter King; he didn’t know better” can’t possibly describe this situation. At best we are talking about culpable ignorance. We should also keep in mind that he used his authority to hold Congressional hearings on the alleged dangers of the growth of radical Islam in the U.S. And yet there was Bishop DiMarzio (Bishop of Brooklyn/Queens) sitting right next to King. It seems to me that is at least as likely to cause “scandal” than O’Malley sitting near a guy who is in favor of legislation that would allow abortion to save a woman’s life. No one is wondering about where the church really stands on abortion, but they may be less certain about the church’s view of Islam and the local church’s attitudes toward its Muslim neighbors.
Hi everyone,
I wanted to speak to Dana’s question about abortion being more fundamental than other issues such as racism or economic policies. The Bishops clearly mobilize more frequently and more aggressively around abortion. Ryan Massingale in Racial Justice and the Catholic Church compared the US Church’s work on abortion and even social and economic justice to race issues and asked what if the Church had worked as hard on race after Brothers and Sisters to us as it has on other issues. I wonder if the thinking on the Bishop’s end is that abortion, theoretically, is a more direct, linear and easy to understand threat to innocent life, whereas they might not see racism as such an immediate threat. Although, thinking of the kaleidoscope of ways so many lives on all ends of the socioeconomic and racial spectrum could have been impacted by a sustained teaching on racial justice, I think it it’s hard to justify that call.
I think Chris’ further comment and the comment by Mr. Ott raise some helpful further questions.
1. I think Chris is onto an important point about scandal. The Church’s teaching on abortion is well-known, and bishops hold the teaching strongly and unanimously. On the other hand, Church teaching about economics, gun control, immigrants, other religions – even race! even war! – is both less well-known and is less emphasized in pastoral practice. The analogy on racism is nicely drawn by Bryan Massingale. Isn’t there MORE possibility for scandal and confusion among the faithful when honoring someone whose views are problematic on these issues?
2. I suppose the flipside of this (if we dismiss the faulty logic involved in identifying “non-negotiables”) is the issue of gravity – and this is perhaps heightened even further in a case like the Irish PM, where he is actively involved in moving the law in a pro-choice direction. Obviously there is no mechanical method for “weighing” gravity on these issues, but I am willing to admit that abortion might be seen as particularly grave. To compare, I am loathe to defend Paul Ryan, but I do think he is not intentionally out to injure the poor or even to suggest some kind of radical “abolition of a safety net” – in other words, I think he is wrong, but “being wrong” can admit of degrees, and so honoring an out-and-out racist or out-and-out social darwinian would be more grave.
3. I think Chris’ question about “why politicians” speaks in part to the unfortunate turn to politicization in Catholicism, and perhaps even in the broader culture (e.g. writers who speak about “the big sort” of the nation into red and blue enclaves). But I also think the tendency to focus in on abortion, and neglect other areas, is a kind of cost-free example. If the Church were to take its stands on economics, or racism, or immigration, with the same level of seriousness in practice, I think it would demand quite uncomfortable action on the part of Church institutions and lay Catholics. (I think the Church may be beginning to do this on immigration, to its credit) For a lot of people, you can be against abortion and not have to change your life one bit. I don’t at all mean to demean the admirable and heroic actions of those in Birthright, those who adopt, those who support crisis pregnancy centers, etc. These are all great. I just mean that, for too many, one can be “prophetic” on abortion and not pay any personal cost.
Jana,
I like the idea of speakers from the university. At Harvard, students competed to give five minute speeches on some small slice of college life. Four were chosen, and then prepped. Those speeches were excellent. Much better than invited non-controversial types.