Are we to assume that Catholicism and free expression of ideas at a Catholic University in a democratic country are incompatible?In a similar vein, "ndgrad08" wrote:
What more can you ask for than for your children to gain a well-rounded education, instilled with moral values and a desire to see positive change in the world (social activism, justice, etc.), and to graduate as independent thinkers with a blank slate on which they can make their own decisions on faith, life and politics?Both are common questions, yet both illustrate a fundamental misunderstanding about what the Catholic Church teaches concerning the nature of truth and of freedom, and the relationship between the two. All humans are made in the image and likeness of God. The purpose of a Catholic education is not to create “blank slates”--which literally would entail erasing the image and likeness of God from our souls--but to help young men and women to grow in their likeness to Christ. And they do that by pursuing the truth.
Doesn't the pursuit of truth, however, require the "free expression of ideas"? No--in fact, it often requires the very opposite. Freedom of expression is only of value when what is being expressed is true. Indeed, it is only in truth that we find true freedom.
As the Catechism of the Catholic Church notes (para. 1733):
The more one does what is good, the freer one becomes. There is no true freedom except in the service of what is good and just.
That is why, as the Catechism notes a few paragraphs later (para. 1740):
The exercise of freedom does not imply a right to say or do everything. . . . By deviating from the moral law man violates his own freedom, becomes imprisoned within himself, disrupts neighborly fellowship, and rebels against divine truth.
In other words, the free expression of error is not "the pursuit of truth."
The good news is that, as the Catechism notes (para. 2467), "Man tends by nature toward the truth." Even in our fallen state, with all of our desires that pull us away from the truth, we still have a yearning in our souls for the truth--a yearning that come from the fact that we are made in the image and likeness of God. And that nature carries with it certain responsibilities:
[Man] is obliged to honor and bear witness to [the truth]: "It is in accordance with their dignity that all men, because they are persons . . . are both impelled by their nature and bound by a moral obligation to seek the truth, especially religious truth. They are also bound to adhere to the truth once they come to know it and direct their whole lives in accordance with the demands of truth."
The purpose of a Catholic university is to aid us in the seeking of truth, and to increase our adherence to it once we find it. Any "freedom of expression" that pulls us away from the truth, or that convinces us that we do not need to adhere to the truth or to live our lives in accordance with it, is not only not a good thing; it is a moral evil.
And that, sadly, is where things stand today with the University of Notre Dame. Even if President Obama makes no mention (however oblique) of abortion or related life issues in his commencement address, the fact that everyone knows where he stands will lead some to think that his errors are acceptable--or, at least, that they are morally equivalent to the truths that the Catholic Church teaches.
The purpose of a Catholic university is to lead students to the truth of Christ, not to confirm them in the errors of this world. "Freedom of expression" and "independent thinking" have no value except in the pursuit of truth.
If you have a question that you would like to have featured in our "Reader Questions" series, send me an e-mail at catholicism.guide@about.com. Be sure to put "QUESTION" in the subject line, and please note whether you'd like me to address it privately or on the Catholicism blog.
Scott,
This statement at the end of your post caught my eye, “(e)ven if President Obama makes no mention (however oblique) of abortion or related life issues in his commencement address, the fact that everyone knows where he stands will lead some to think that his errors are acceptable–or, at least, that they are morally equivalent to the truths that the Catholic Church teaches.”
This appears to be a statement that if the audience is assembled under the guidance of officials of the Catholic Church, then President Obama’s position on abortion and related life issues raises a barrier which precludes the possibility of his speaking on any topic whatsoever. It appears to mean that President Obama’s error on life issues is so grave that he can have nothing of value to say to a Catholic audience on any topic because someone, somewhere, might think, “well the Church (or university, or conference, or parish) had him speak, and he talked about X, so his position on abortion must be OK with the Church, even though he didn’t mention abortion.”
Is it possible for an error to be so grave that anything someone says propagates the error? Of course, with President Obama delivering the commencement address at ND, it is difficult to imagine him saying anything of substance which would be impossible for someone, somewhere to connect to life issues, and then to his error on abortion. Maybe he’ll stick to stories about butterflies finding their bliss along the road less traveled by?
I think one of the key issues here is not just Obama’s beliefs and position, but as Bishop D’Arcy points out, his actions. The invitation was issued shortly after Obama signed the legislation to expand embryonic stem cell research. So, it’s not just a question of honoring someone who does not hold Catholic beliefs- it’s a question of honoring someone who has publicly and powerfully acted outside the range of Catholic acceptable behavior.
Our Glorious Father gave us free will. We are imperfect and can only strive through our individual trials and tribulations to become what He wishes for us to be with all His Wonderful Grace-Filled Heart. Judge not, lest ye be judged.
It is not our Father’s wish that we judge our brothers and sisters, but that we learn from one another and love one another as He loves each and every one of us. An often difficult task to be sure. When our free will takes us on paths that stray from His wishes, He still loves us. He could easily make us do His will, but he does not.. He allows us to find our own way to Him, to Truth, To LOVE.
I thank Him that we are not all alike. It saddens my heart when his children; my brothers and sisters; are ugly to one another. That any of God’s children are unwilling or unable to show honor and respect to The President of the United States of America,..for any reason, is unconscionable or at the very least incredibly immature, shameful, and petty . It’s saddening that they actually think they are honorable spokespeople for the Catholic Church, much less representatives of Jesus’ Sacred Heart. Then again, even the Sanhedrin, and Pharisees thought a bit too highly of themselves.
Their energy would have been better spent thinking up a creative non-confrontational presentation for The President in support of their pro-live views. That should have been a no-brainer for a group of our Nation’s bright young “adults” who are being educated at one of this country’s most highly honored and respected schools; (whether we as Americans support its Catholic views or not).
Without judging anyone and with due respect, may I mention that Christ corrected with love, but He still corrected. The commandment states, “Thou shall not kill.” We people with our human thinking have come up with a varied assortment of reasons to amend that commandment, as if we know more than God. Who deserves our respect and obedience more, the president or God? Who, in the end, will we answer to? Yes, it is only a college graduation. But the honor being given to the president is another nail in the Cross. The Gospels make certain Catholic beliefs very clear, yet our actions imply that we think Christ was kidding. The life of St. Therese of Lisieux shows that even the smallest action performed in Christ’s name makes a difference. What Notre Dame is doing in honoring the president will also make a difference, but it is hardly an honor to Catholic belief.
As the nuns used to say…’love the sinner not their sin’
I would not care if Mr Obama spoke at a public university but Notre Dme has an obligation to uphold the standards of the Catholic faith.
It is interesting when “Judge not, lest ye be judged” is used as a reason to accept and allow all sorts of sin and horror in Our Lord’s name.
I see it so often.
We should allow pornography, we should allow sodomy, we should allow murder, etc., all because not to do so would be breaking Our Lord’s command not to judge.
The people who promote this view take the words of Our Lord out of context and just ignore everything else He taught.
He gave us free will to use to choose the right, to choose the good, to choose to love Him. Accepting and promoting sin is none of those.
It is quite easy to show honour and respect for the President of the United States or any other leader of a country, without placing them in a position that suggests that you condone or support their errors.
Obama’s errors are grievous.
The President of the United States is not God’s anointed one or something. He is a man who is accountable to God for his actions, both as an individual and as the leader of a country.
God has given us free will and allowed us to find Him, but he has given us the ways and means to find Him. He has given us directions, guides and rules. It is by following those directions and obeying those rules that we find Him, all Truth and all Love.
It is not love to allow, support or promote the murder of millions of innocent people. To honour a person who does support or promote the murder of millions is simply not acceptable. It is not freedom of speech, rather it is freedom of sin which is the opposite of what Our Lord taught.
Funny, a man like Bishop Richard Williamson gets publicly savaged for suggesting that some facts of the World War II holocaust are inaccurate and many want to deny him his right to freedom of speech.
A man like Barack Obama is supports and promotes murder, he must already have the blood of many innocents on his hands and is going to add untold millions more over the next few years, and yet we are supposed to honour the man and protect his ‘right’ to spread his errors in the name of freedom of speech.
You should try reading a book from the nineteenth or early twentieth century called ‘Liberalism is a Sin’.
What should be clear is that the definition of ‘free’ according to popular lexicon is coming to blows with the immovable object of irrefutable truth. If adherence to the principle. of truth leads to a greater freedom then to choose another path means error and in this case it would mean that a Catholic institution, Notre Dame could materially provide a platform for President Obama’s abysmal undeclared war on the Catholic Church and our Lord Jesus Christ.
If 60% of Roman Catholics do not see the error in voting for him, it is not the spirit of love to compound that error by blithley obliterating the fact for the sake of a definition of freedom.
It perhaps would further the discussion by defining heresy. Just saying is all. Gee.
World history proves by analogy that human nature tends to gravitate to the greater power of the statism in reverse proportion to social moral decline. President Obama’s actions for the moral evil of abortion, embryonic stem cell research and Mexico City, continues this history lesson of statism by ramming support for it on the people by fiat (there are never votes for these things, they could never have accomplished anything democratically.) The people can comply by choosing to do nothing and thereby avoid the confrontation of evil of abortion, which no doubt many will, but in so doing they will support so many more moral outrages because this one issue is pinnacle and paramount in importance. The Catholic church has said so very clearly and to attest that that is not understood at this stage is tantamount to a public refutation of being a catholic, but another fact is becoming clear to quite a few ‘independant thinkers’ that President Obama is bankrupt of quite a bit substantialy comparable to what he promised while this is a red meat issue (pun definately intended) for his constituents. To be complicit in it passively leads to our own demise and a surrender of freedom through the principle of non-contendre. By allowing a moral evil to persist, you allow all other evils when the consequence of inaction becomes moral decline, then power inclines toward the State and by extention to tyranny.
I think Romans 16:17 speaks to both the “judge not…” topic as well as the main issue of how Christian institutions should go about their relationships with those who oppose Christ’s teachings. “I urge you, brothers, to watch out for those who create dissensions and obstacles, in opposition to the teaching that you learned; avoid them.”
We are commanded to respect authority – yes. But this command is only to the extent that is owed to the authority given to a person by God.
Further, not to long after Christ teaches us not to judge with arrogance or malice. He tells us to “Beware of false prophets, who come to you in sheep’s clothing, but underneath are ravenous wolves. By their fruits you will know them.” (Matt 7:15). I do not know what lies within President Obama’s heart; nor will I make any attempt to speculate, but I know that he has clearly moved in areas that show a disrespect for early human life in the name of keeping idealogy out of science.
“[In banning funding of embryonic stem cell research] rather than furthering discovery, our government has forced…a false choice between sound science and moral values…As a person of faith, I believe we are called to care for each other and work to ease human suffering. I believe we have been given the capacity and will to pursue this research – and the humanity and conscience to do so responsibly.”
That starts to sound a little like a verbal sheep disguise.
Thanks for your blog and for the forum to discuss these issues!