Religion & Law

At his new-ish "Distinctly Catholic" blog, Michael Sean Winters is collecting and posting a series of interviews and posts on Ex Corde Ecclesiae.  In this one, Michael writes, with respect to the debate about the University of Notre Dame's decision to confer an honorary degree on President Obama:

 First of all, Obama is not a Catholic, and different rules can and should apply to how we consider the honoring of Catholics and non-Catholics. I do not hold him accountable for understanding Catholic Social Teaching. Secondly, there are many politicians who may or may not be morally opposed to abortion but think that the coercive power of law is not the appropriate tool for preventing the incidence of abortion. This position can easily go too far as well, falling into the lame ?I am personally opposed, but?? position held by many pro-choice Democrats. Nonetheless, as Bishop Tobin demonstrated so convincingly on ?Hardball,? deciding how to determine what civil penalties to attach to abortion is not such an easy task. . . .

My own views on the Obama-degree dust-up are familiar (if not yet tiresome) to regular MOJ readers.  And, to be clear, there are other things in Winters's post with which I agree entirely.  But, with respect to this paragraph, two quick thoughts:  First, and in response to his "secondly", he is right that there are such politicians, but I do not think that President Obama is not one of them.  He really believes, I think, that the right to abortion is fundamental, legally and morally.  But, let's put this point aside, for the moment.  With respect to the "first" point:  I don't see why it should matter, when thinking about the decision by Notre Dame to give President Obama an honorary degree, whether or not the President is Catholic.  The question, as I see it, is whether the conferring of an honorary degree on X by a Catholic university "says" something about what that university deems honorable that a Catholic university ought not to say.  As I put it elsewhere:

The question on the table is not whether Notre Dame should hear from the president but whether Notre Dame should honor the president. A Catholic university can and should engage all comers, but in order to be true to itself ? to have integrity ? it should hesitate before honoring those who use their talents or power to bring about grave injustice. The university is, and must remain, a bustling marketplace of ideas; at the same time, it also has a voice of its own. We say a lot about who we are and what we stand for through what we love and what we choose to honor. The controversy at Notre Dame is not about what should be said at Catholic universities, but about what should be said by a Catholic university. . . .

Anyway, check in tomorrow at "Distinctly Catholic" for the thoughts of Fr. Robert Imbelli, whose posts at Commonweal's blog are familiar to and appreciated by all of us.