Catholic news of late has been dominated by the controversy surrounding President Obama being scheduled as the University of Notre Dame’s 2009 commencement speaker. The Catholic Right has begun a massive protest campaign, using strong language to condemn the university’s invitation to President Obama. This rhetoric is worth looking at more closely because it goes to the heart of American public discourse on both Catholic identity and abortion. In short, the Catholic Right invokes master narratives of “good vs. evil” to legitimate a particular, narrow idea of Catholic identity that focuses on abortion criminalization as the only litmus test for authentic Catholic faith. This has detrimental effects on public discourse and, ultimately, public policy. It is also bad for the Catholic Church.
The Boston Globe notes how, shortly after the White House’s March 20 announcement that the President would be speaking at Notre Dame’s commencement, a protest website had already been launched. As of this writing, the web petition claimed more than 100,000 signatures against President Obama as Notre Dame’s commencement speaker. The website, launched by the ultra-conservative Cardinal Newman Society, calls it “an outrage and a scandal” for Notre Dame to have President Obama as commencement speaker, whom it accuses of “the most anti-life actions of any American president.” In the end, the petition “call[s] on [Notre Dame president Fr. John Jenkins] to uphold the sacred mission of [his] Catholic university.”
With this language, the Cardinal Newman Society is making a strong assertion about the meaning of Catholic identity and how Catholics should interact with politicians with whom they have disagreements. Honoring President Obama, the petition organizers tell us, compromises the “sacred mission” of being a Catholic university. For this ultra-conservative group’s founder, Patrick Reilly, to have the President on a Catholic campus violates Catholic identity because of the President’s views on the criminalization of abortion, regardless of President Obama’s alignment on many other issues of Catholic Social Teaching. The underlying rationale of this petition is far more explicit in a rallying cry from anti-abortion group Operation Rescue.
In a March 24 communiqué to members titled “Our Lady of Guadalupe conquered Human Sacrifice. Notre Dame now Honors it,” Operation Rescue founder Randall Terry outlines why members must be prepared for “battle” and “war” against “Catholic treachery.” Terry tells members that, “If Obama speaks at Notre Dame, it will be akin to the political and cultural rape of true Catholicity in America.” He goes on to ask, “Who is Worse: Obama or Herod? You decide.” With language like “rape,” “treachery,” and “Herod” (not to mention “human sacrifice”), Terry clearly paints President Obama – and the Notre Dame administration for inviting him – as the worst sort of evil. (Terry has also launched a website, which similarly shows the aforementioned rhetoric at work.)
This language demonstrates a powerful master narrative of good vs. evil at work in the Catholic pro-life movement more broadly. The concept of master narrative (Lyotard 1979; Lindemann Nelson 2001), used in rhetorical and literary theory, explains how knowledge is legitimated in societies. In contrast to rationalist assumptions that knowledge is validated purely by reason, narrative theory shows us that certain underlying narratives and metaphors are at work in even the strictest logic. In this case, by invoking familiar, heroic cultural models, and inviting the reader or listener to perceive him or herself in the role of hero and warrior for good, the above arguments acquire great persuasive power. They appeal, Aristotle would tell us, to our pathos – our emotions. Who doesn’t want to be the knight standing for the downtrodden against an unjust power? Who wants to back Herod, or human sacrifice? And isn’t it just a simple matter of either being a “real” Catholic, standing up for the Church’s teachings – or of being “flabby and fearful” (in the words of Randall Terry), selling out to calls for dialogue and civility?
The value in understanding the rhetoric at work in the Notre Dame controversy is not limited to one commencement address; this situation points to a larger cultural issue, both in the Catholic Church and in American society. Right now, the good vs. evil master narrative reifies a narrow notion of Catholic identity, while at the same time the Church’s rhetorical association with the narrative legitimates the Right’s extremism. The detriments to civil discourse and the kinds of public policies that emerge from it are obvious. I would suggest that there are also serious detriments to the Catholic Church itself, and particularly to those looking to it for spiritual nourishment. When dissent from the master narrative is to be aligned with the forces of evil, it is impossible for constructive dialogue and for the progress thus enabled – whether in the Church or society at large.
NOTE: On March 26, Catholics United and Faithful America jointly launched a counter-petition, called “We Support Notre Dame.” On April 3, Catholic Democrats launched a “Statement of Support For Notre Dame and Its President, And For Catholic Educational Excellence.” Hilde Lindemann Nelson (2001) would call these part of a counterstory to the Right’s master narrative.
Wonderful article! Thank goodness there are Catholics holding the line against the far, far right!
Posted by Jack & Julie Riester | March 27, 2009, 8:39 amI really don’t understand why you refer to the far right. To be a true Catholic means you support all the teachings of the Church of Jesus Christ, you obey the Pope and the Magisterium. You are either with the Church or not. If can’t accept the whole truth, then move on. There are so many other religions you can join.
Posted by Melissa Smith | March 28, 2009, 6:14 pmI did not get to go to Catholic schools, so it was not until took classes for my teaching degree at a Christian college that I learned the true origins of the anti-slavery movement in our country. It was not until I read the 1st person articles and speeches by the leaders of the abolistionist movement did I understand it was entirely a Christian movement.
Posted by Ray J Tuleya | March 29, 2009, 2:22 amI’m a Catholic Democrat and I had no idea I was an “ultra-conservative.” It is an objective scientific fact that human life begins at conception and that the “choice” of abortion masks the deliberate killing of over 42 million unborn children worldwide in 365 days and this has been going on for nearly three decades with the expansion of abortion access increasing in third world countries.
It is not “conservative” to think that abortion rhetoric is junk. I’m not just Catholic, I’m African American, and if anyone were to argue that outlawing slavery would not do away with slavery and we should rather seek to leave slavery legal and only reduce the number of slaves, I would think them intellectually disabled. Martin Luther King, Jr. protested the “white moderates” in his Letter From A Birmingham Jail, saying that their wanting to wait on the culture to change and that the rights of people inherent in their nature is contingent on democratic approval and political expediency is nonsense.
The fact is Planned Parenthood whom is the leading contributor to the Democratic Party, of which, Obama is now the leader. Planned Parenthood was founded by Margaret Sanger who was an unequivocal white supremacist who supported the “Negro Project” of exterminating blacks and other minorities with abortion and contraception. Today, in fact, 1 and 2 black pregnancies end in abortions. To this very day, Planned Parenthood can be found in minority neighborhoods and the African American population is on the decline. While the “pro-black” Democratic Party is supporting them, which undermines any attempt they may have to help minority groups out of poverty.
Abortion is a for-profit industry and therefore, they make money by the number of abortions performed. Why on earth would they want the number to go down? Clearly, Democratic rhetoric is just pandering to your instinct of unity. Otherwise, Obama would support federal funding for pregnancy crisis centers; he doesn’t. Otherwise, Obama would think that parents should have some involvement if their daughters decide to have abortion; he doesn’t. Otherwise, Obama would think that women should have a right to know about human life development and psychological as well as physical health risks before receiving an abortion; he doesn’t.
So, here is the point of disagreement between the two sides of this debate. Those of us who did not support the candidacy of President Obama went along this line of reasoning: if Adolf Hitler were running for office, we would not look at his social and economic policies — and by the way, Germany was the first country in the world to have universal health care — and support him based on that, cringe at his support of the Final Solution of the Jews and say, “I don’t want to be a single issue voter.” We would not live in the 19th century and vote for the pro-slavery candidate based on our commitment of not being a “single-issue voter.” Why? Not all issues are fundamentally equal and as a Democrat, I can credibly say I do not support the war in Iraq, or much of what the Bush Administration has done. I do support universal health care and more funding for public education; however, these policies are subject to much debate and the final legislation will ultimately be decided after much editing and revisions and compromises are made. With life-issues, we do not have such liberty to make compromise; it is life or death.
The bottom line is that if a racist were to receive this honor from a Catholic University, those of you in support of Obama would be passionately screaming and yelling. But when the speaker is a man who supports the public-funded, obligatory for doctors (i.e. rolling back conscience clauses for health care providers), legal, massive-scaled killing of unborn children, it is suddenly a non-issue.
Besides, do you really think this is the only means toward dialogue? Why is any sort of opposition to this “ultra-conservative?” Do you really think the Gospel truth preached by the Roman Catholic Church is really wholly and entirely consonant with the Democratic Platform? It isn’t.
What we all need to do is be Catholics and not so much Catholics only when it is convenient to our political ideology. That is the real ideology here. I implore you to think critically what this invitation is really saying. It seems to me that the most fundamental issue is that of life itself and no other life issue carries with it the very definition of life — of who we will and will not include our definition of the human community and who needs our protection. That is what is at stake here and we should not honor someone who has a 100% NARAL rating.
Posted by Eric Brown | March 30, 2009, 6:20 pmMr. Brown
Thank you. This is not a political or racial issue but a moral one. Its about standing up for the unborn human children that dont have a voice. What President Obama endorses with FOCA only erodes further the moral fiber this country was founded upon. Inviting him for a debate on the issue at a catholic university would be great but to extend a speaking invitation for commencement, knowing that he endorses abortion AND partial birth abortion (murder) is unexcuseable. Being catholic means accepting all the teachings of the church, anything less is protestantism.
Posted by Mark | April 7, 2009, 9:20 pmFinally, a forum that addresses some critical thinking skills in the discourse surrounding this concern.
As an Intellectual Freedom Advocate who happens to be a practicing African American Catholic, I support Notre Dame’s acceptance of President Obama as the Commencement Speaker for the Class of 2009.
Why? He is the President of the United States.
I would have supported both President Bushs’, Reagan,etc. even if I vehemently oppose their policies and stances on so many differing issues.
Secondly, his election and now leadership is a breath of fresh air in American politics. He inspires people in this country from the disenfranchised in the urban and rural communities of this country. His life is a testament to that old notion, that the American Dream is possible in spite of and despite the isms’ that exist even in 2009.
As an African American Catholic, as a human being, life is full of contradictions. It stares us in the face continually. Our morality on family, faith, how we are and in service to our neighbors, how we are in society at large; the threat of being contradictory is always present.
I look forward to attending the Commencement exercises with my family member who is graduating with the pride and promise that tomorrow is another day to be better than we are today. President Obama is intelligent,forthright, and committed to being of service to Americans and the world and I believe the graduating class will look forward to his inspirational and thought-provoking speech at the ceremony in May.
Posted by LadyLibrarian | April 3, 2009, 3:57 pmIt speaks volumes that the Terry, the ringleader of the campaign to pressure Notre Dame into dissing the president, is the very man who has already helped bring almost as much disgrace to the Catholic Church in the United States as did the sexual abuse scandal. I cannot count the number of people who have told me over the years that their impression of the American Catholic Church was strongly influenced by the radical violence at abortion clinics engineered by this lunatic and his faithful soldiers. On top of his complete lack of moral compass, he’s also a scofflaw. I don’t know how the case finally turned out, but I recall vividly his losing a civil lawsuit, being ordered by a court to pay damages and compensation to the plaintiffs and then turning around and declaring bankruptcy so he could evade his legal obligation. Wow! The more I learn about the fanatical, one-issue terrorists who try to impose their will by force on the rest of the country in the name of God and Catholicism, the more I believe those folks are the quintessential “Cafeteria Catholics.”
Posted by Mark Clark | April 3, 2009, 4:24 pmKudos to Eric Brown (Reply #4) for articulating so well the essential points involved with this hot-button issue. It is worth copying and re-reading as well as circulating to others such as “Lady Librarian” or others who simply think that because Obama has been elected President that we should blindly follow his harmful ways.
Yes, like Pied Pipers, there are millions who
swoon when he uses the Telepromter, but it’s more importantto realize how vital it is that human life — at all stages — be defended.
And, to Mark Clark, I say that Randall Terry has reformed and repented tho he does still believe in an active response and not a passive acceptance of the fact that millions of innocent babies are killed yearly by the likes of those who support Planned Parenthood’s evil doings.
I urge all readers of this website to tell their friends about this excellent source of dialogue.
Posted by John Daly | April 10, 2009, 8:42 amCatholics for Obama are truly ostriches with their heads buried. Obama is a rabid, pro-abortion for the whole world president;End the War President? Not gonna happen for a minimum of 2 years (in fact,it’s escalating…uh-oh);Health-care for all? Bush took huge steps to move the U.S. to Nationalized health care (Prescription Drug Plan, Increases to Medicare/Medicaid, and oh yeah the increase in s-chip for kids that all you smokers are paying for)You could say Bush laid the groundwork for it. Unify the country? You have a mental disorder if you believe 300 million unique individuals can all of a sudden develop a unified core under the guise of “the common good”. Unify the world? Repeat previous answer, change 300 million to 6 billion. It’s time for a revolution in America – God Save the Constitution!!
Posted by Donna Norris | April 14, 2009, 2:29 pm