Religion & Law

If you're not depressed enough by Michael's report on universities' embrace of porn as suitable student entertainment, try reading the reader comments to the Chicago Tribune's coverage of Cardinal George's criticism of Notre Dame's decision to invite President Obama to speak at commencement and receive an honorary degree.  Or check out the Minneapolis Star-Tribune's headline for an article on Archbishop Nienstedt's letter criticizing the invitation: "Archbishop flays Obama as anti-Catholic."  Nice.  This entire episode has, in my view, underscored two important lessons:

1) It is very difficult to have an intra-Church conversation about a matter as high-profile as this, and the concerns communicated from bishops to Notre Dame's president do not necessarily translate easily into the broader public forum.  To most Americans (including many Catholics), it is far from obvious why the U.S. President should not be a welcome guest at a college commencement.  When the broader public is listening in on the conversation, the conversation needs to be geared toward educating the public as well.  (A related question: is "causing embarrassment" really the best way to describe the problem caused by the invitation?  I thought that the problem is more about "causing confusion.")

2) The tragedy of the priest sex abuse scandal continues to extend forward, far beyond the devastating direct impact on the victims themselves, as we recognize the extent to which the abuse, and the bishops' facilitation of that abuse, has compromised the Church's witness in our society.