From Fred Freddoso

Dear Friends,

I wish that the graduation controversy would go away, but there are powerful forces out there that insist on giving self-serving interpretations of what happened last spring. And especially with Ralph McInerny still warm in his grave, I can't in good conscience let this sort of shameful and shoddy thinking pass without notice. The latest culprit is Richard Yanikoski, the president of the Association of Catholic Colleges and Universities. In a Catholic News Service article on a recent meeting of the association (click here for the whole article as reprinted by Today's Catholic -- the article is on page 4), Yanikoski claims that the Notre Dame "situation" provided the "first national flashpoint" for a "whole lot of people" to "comment specifically on President Obama ..... at the expense of the commencement at Notre Dame." In other words, the whole protest was a partisan political attack on President Obama and Notre Dame was, as it were, the innocent victim that happened to be in the line of fire.

Well, what follows is a letter to the editor of Today's Catholic giving, shall we say, an alternative interpretation of the events of last spring. I don't know whether or not the letter will be printed, but I wanted to share it with you in any case.

(The letter referred to below of Theresa Thomas is on the previous post)

By the way, if you do check out the article by clicking on the above link, make sure also to check out Theresa Thomas's column on page 16. (Actually, here's a direct link to her column.) Somehow I doubt whether many presidents of Catholic colleges and universities understand people like Theresa.

Fred

Richard A. Yanikoski, president of the Association of Catholic Colleges and Universities, persists in the comfortable myth that the Notre Dame commencement brouhaha was mainly a partisan political reaction against President Obama. Apparently, Catholics, unlike other American citizens, had not had the opportunity to say anything about the President until he was honored by Notre Dame. “So, in a way,” Yanikoski is quoted as saying, “the situation that arose at Notre Dame created the first national flash point for a whole lot of people who wanted to comment specifically on Barack Obama to do that at the expense of the commencement at Notre Dame” (Today's Catholic, Feb. 7, 2010).

What Yanikoski and his friends either fail or refuse to see is that the commencement protest was directed at Notre Dame and not at the President. It was not President Obama who was being tepid in his commitments or ambiguous about what he stood for or would fight for. It was not President Obama who was speaking out of both sides of his mouth regarding the protection of innocent unborn life. It was not President Obama who was sycophantically hankering after the respect of his secular peers.

The protest arose not from any partisan political agenda, but from the depths of the Catholic Faith as the expression of a genuine sensus fidelium. And it was aimed at the infidelity and hypocrisy of some powerful (in the worldly sense) Catholics who were expected to know better.

If Yanikoski's sentiments are any indication, it appears that this expectation is still awaiting fulfillment.

Alfred J. Freddoso

Oesterle Professor of Thomistic Studies

University of Notre Dame

* * * * * * *

From “Today’s Catholic” Fort Wayne,” Ind. February 7, 2010, p. 4.

Richard A. Yanikoski, president

of the Association of Catholic

Colleges and Universities, said one

lesson learned in 2009 is to keep

frustration about political outcomes

in its proper forum.

Internal Revenue Service

restrictions bar tax-exempt organizations,

including churches, from

speaking publicly about candidates

in a campaign, though they can

talk about issues, he explained.

“So, in a way,” he said, “the situation

that arose at Notre Dame

created the first national flash point

for a whole lot of people who

wanted to comment specifically on

Barack Obama to do that at the

expense of the commencement at

Notre Dame.”