Earning An Honorary Degree

Congratulations to President Barack Obama for receiving an honorary law degree on Sunday from the University of Notre Dame. I don't think anyone can argue that he didn't earn this degree. The controversy and level of protest leading up to the conferral of the degree did not make this an easy event. The cries to rescind the invitation to speak were loud, although every poll I've seen indicated that most people, including Catholics approved of the President speaking at Notre Dame. The President himself commented that it was not so easy to get these honorary degrees, referring to the fact that he was not given one by Arizona State University where he had spoken earlier. Who knew that an honorary degree could be so difficult to receive?

I have already written about this controversy earlier in a blog dated March30, 2009. Yet I felt compelled to comment again specifically to suggest that one thing that is too often missing from this debate is respect. The reason that even as a believing Catholic I find much of the pro-life movement so difficult to accept is its lack of respect for anyone who disagrees with it. The President talks about common ground and not demonizing the other side. Yet many activists in the right to life movement can't get beyond the notion that because abortion is wrong, those who don't agree with us are bad people. The fact that a President Obama has a closer position to Catholic teaching on far more issues than George Bush means nothing, because no issue exists other than abortion.

Common ground is a difficult concept, because abortion is considered intrinsically evil and anyone who doesn't see that is guilty of bad faith. Yet why is it that so many people do not see it? The Church says it bases its moral position on abortion on natural law. This sounds good, but natural law represents only one philosophical position which is not seen in the same way by a lot of other good people. President Obama and others are being held to an understanding of natural law which they don't adhere to. The fact is people of good will do differ on the morality of abortion and that makes a difference in a pluralistic society.

Finally, the morality of abortion is not the major issue here. The issue is about the role of government in imposing morality as understood by some religious and other groups on all of its citizens. Most of this debate boils down to people in the right to life movement saying abortion is wrong and the government should outlaw it. On the other side, those who are called pro choice are saying that they do not believe it is up to the government to mandate the abortion position. In this country it is inappropriate to make laws based on the position of a religious group. When some Church leaders want to go even further and deny communion to Catholic politicians for not adopting the Church's political agenda they are attempting to force politicians to accept that political agenda, not their religious teaching on abortion.

Ultimately, the abortion debate is not about abortion. The latest Gallup poll suggests that 51% of Americans now call themselves pro-life. What the poll doesn't tell you, is what do people mean by pro-life. Perhaps they mean that they don't think abortion is a good thing. They would like to see fewer and fewer abortions. They would like to see less and less need for abortion, by addressing poverty and other conditions that might contribute to abortion. I believe this is the position of President Obama as I understand it.

The truth is no one is really pro abortion. If mutual respect could be achieved on both sides of the debate meaningful compromises could be reached on issues such as late term abortions and the viability of the fetus outside the womb, based on current science. A law banning late term abortions, for example, could have been reached a number of years ago that would have banned nearly all late term abortions. Yet sometimes it seems there may be a greater desire to maintain the issue rather than to reduce abortions. A willingness to insert a clause that would allow protecting the health of the mother in a late term abortion could have sealed the deal.

The principal argument left for debate is whether or not government should be in the business of making the abortion decision for its citizens. I repeat, that is not a decision the Church can make, at least not in this country. It is a decision that belongs in the political sphere. The religious community should stick to moral persuasion in making its case. In every instance, it should be done by recognizing the legitimacy of differing points of view, and treating all debate participants with respect. Maybe we should all pray that President Obana, even after his ordeal at Notre Dame, may be able to provide the leadership that can actually lead to some common ground on this contentious issue.