|
TODAY'S TOPIC:
Notre Dame ou Notre President?
by
Natalia J. Garland
Print Version
|
It is that time of year again: when graduation ceremonies and
commencement speeches blossom in America's schools. It is a
once-in-a-lifetime occasion for graduates. The ceremonies finalize
years of study and achievement as the diplomas are handed over.
Graduates hope for a commencement speaker who will validate and
inspire them, and not bore them with trite advice and bad jokes.
Perhaps this desire for an especially memorable day was what
prompted many students at the University of Notre Dame to listen to
a commencement speech delivered by President Obama.
Obama accepted two
invitations to speak to the college graduates of 2009: one from
Arizona State University and the other from the University of
Notre Dame. Arizona State has a large Hispanic student body, and
Notre Dame (which means Our Lady in French) is a Roman
Catholic institution. Notre Dame also gave Obama an honorary
degree, and this became a source of controversy.
Why would Obama
speak at a Catholic university and address the topic of
abortion--especially since he is pro-choice and made the funding of
abortions one of his priorities after his presidential
inauguration? Why would a Catholic university bestow a prestigious
degree on a pro-choice president--especially since respect for
life, both born and unborn, is fundamental to Catholic values? The
purpose of this essay is not to argue for or against abortion, but
to discuss what could be interpreted as inconsistency or hypocrisy
within the University's adherence to its own faith.
Also, it is not the
purpose of this essay to discuss freedom of speech or the need for
academic discourse. Today's focus will be more on the areas of
faith and personality, and the decisions revolving around adherence
to religious values and simultaneous attraction to famous
personalities. In other words, did the University's faculty and
students make a choice between Our Lady and President Obama? That
is to say, a choice regarding whether to honor one or the other?
Is it possible, within Catholic values, to officially honor Obama
without dishonoring Our Lady?
Was it an act of
sheer insolence when Obama, who has shown strong support of
abortion, spoke to Catholics about abortion and on the grounds of a
Catholic university so obviously contained within the embrace of
Our Lady? What would prompt a man, a leader, to do so? Perhaps we
could learn from the psychoanalyst, Erich Fromm (1900-1980), who
offered some psycho-political insight in his writings about other
political eras. He wrote the following in 1973.
|
Among political
leaders a high degree of narcissism is very frequent; it may be
considered an occupational illness--or asset--especially among
those who owe their power to their influence over mass audiences.
If the leader is convinced of his extraordinary gifts and of his
mission, it will be easier to convince the large audiences who are
attracted by men who appear to be so absolutely certain. But the
narcissistic leader does not use his narcissistic charisma only
as a means for political success; he needs success and applause
for the sake of his own mental equilibrium. The idea of his
greatness and infalibility is essentially based on his narcissistic
grandiosity, not on his real achievements as a human being. And
yet he cannot do without the narcissistic inflation because his
human core--conviction, conscience, love, and faith--is not very
developed. Extremely narcissistic persons are often almost forced
to become famous, since otherwise they might become depressed and
insane. But it takes much talent--and appropriate
opportunities--to influence others to such a degree that their
applause validates these narcissistic dreams. Even when such
people succeed, they are driven to seek further success, since for
them failure carries the danger of collapse. Popular success is,
as it were, their self-therapy against depression and madness. In
fighting for their aims, they are really fighting for their
sanity.
[End of quote.]
|
Would the situation
have been different if the University had invited some other
pro-abortion speaker? For example, what if they had invited
former Republican presidential candidate Rudy Giuliani? Do Fromm's
words describe Giuliani (or Obama)? There seem to be significant
contrasts between Obama and Giuliani. The former has no
outstanding accomplishments: he got his education, worked, and got
elected to public offices. The latter, however, has a proven
record of accomplishment: as mayor, he reformed New York City and
he managed that city (practically, financially, emotionally), when
a portion of it was attacked and demolished by terrorists and
approximately 3,000 people were killed.
Giulaini was also
pro-abortion and he was a blatant adulterer (he was divorced and
then married to his girlfriend before running for president). He
was an imperfect man. Nonetheless, he did not seem to exhibit the
level of narcissism as described by Fromm. Giuliani lost the
Republican presidential nomination in 2008, and this was probably
partly due to his pro-abortion views and to the way in which he
conducted his personal life.
If Giulani had been
honored at Notre Dame, a negative reaction to his views and a
questioning of the University's judgment would have also been
understandable and in order. It is not that perfection is expected
of Obama, or total agreement with all of his policies all of the
time. The controversy rests in what appeared to be Obama's
temerity to share his irreverent views (irreverent according to
Catholic values) before Our Lady, the inappropriate leniency
toward him by the University faculty, and the submissive acceptance
(in the name of academic discourse) of this situation by the
majority of students and their parents.
It was a matter of
living according to one's faith. What is the Catholic teaching?
How should a Catholic react? How does one witness for the Roman
Catholic Church when a fundamental teaching--respect for life--is
challenged? Should Catholic students have sacrificed the
graduation ceremony? Should greater numbers of students have
opted to attend the alternate ceremony which was organized by a
handful of boycotting students?
Perhaps the majority
just wanted to enjoy a much-deserved graduation ceremony with their
friends and family. Some parents probably worked hard to save
enough money to send their child to Notre Dame. It may have seemed
unfair to have this once-in-a-lifetime day taken away from them.
Why did the University put these students and parents in this
unnecessary and conflicted situation?
There is another
possible underlying dynamic among faculty, students, and parents:
they voted for Obama. They were not single-issue voters. Perhaps,
despite their disagreement with Obama's views on abortion, they
felt he was the most qualified presidential candidate and so they
voted for him. The abortion issue was something which they were
willing to let rest on their conscience (as was probably also true
of some Giuliani supporters).
Digging deeper into
possible dynamics, some faculty and students might have secretly
objected to the Catholic teachings on abortion. So, they
rationalized the honoring of Obama by defending the high ground of
academic discourse. Any serious Catholic would likely have been
stunned and scandalized by Notre Dame's decision to honor Obama.
However, even after four years of immersion in a religious
institution, many Notre Dame students apparently were not appalled
by the faculty's decision.
Let us turn again to
Erich Fromm, this time in an attempt to understand a type of group
behavior.
|
Those whose
narcissism refers to their group rather than to themselves as
individuals are as sensitive as the individual narcissist, and
they react with rage to any wound, real or imaginary, inflicted
upon their group. If anything, they react more intensely and
certainly more consciously. An individual, unless he is mentally
sick, may have at least some doubts about his personal narcissistic
image. The member of the group has none, since his narcissism is
shared by the majority. In case of conflict between groups that
challenge each other's collective narcissism, this very challenge
arouses intense hostility in each of them. The narcissistic image
of one's own group is raised to its highest point, while the
devaluation of the opposing group sinks to the lowest. One's own
group becomes a defender of human dignity, decency, morality, and
right. Devilish qualities are ascribed to the other group; it is
treacherous, ruthless, cruel, and basically inhuman. The violation
of one of the symbols of group narcissism--such as the flag, or the
person of the emperor, the president, or an ambassador--is reacted
to with such intense fury and aggression by the people that they
are even willing to support their leaders in war.
[End of
quote.]
|
Fromm's words are
applicable to extreme situations and personality characteristics.
However, with some tweaking, the above passage could also be
adapted to other collective units: perhaps a graduating class.
Approval of Obama was shared by the majority. The
highest point was so-called academic discourse (or
participation in a graduation ceremony associated with a famous
person). The symbol was the University (prestigious rather
than religious) as the place and sponsor of such discourse. This
highest point and this symbol were regarded as more
important than, or somehow compatible with, Catholic teachings and
the symbol of Our Lady (a saint, a figure of holiness and
obedience).
Assuming that the
Notre Dame faculty and the students' parents were more mature
than the students, why was there not more objection or guidance
from the older generation? The faculty was entrusted, and the
University was paid tuition monies, to teach and to prepare the
students for a successful and meaningful life. Was there not
enough satisfaction in this task? Were the faculty and parents
looking for a peculiar interconnection with Obama? In
conclusion, let us borrow some final words from Fromm about a type
of interconnection.
|
Most persons are
not aware of their own narcissism, but only of those of its
manifestations which do not overtly reveal it. Thus, for instance,
they will feel an inordinate admiration for their parents or for
their children, and they have no difficulty in expressing these
feelings because such behavior is usually judged positively as
filial piety, parental affection, or loyalty; but if they were to
express their feelings about their own person, such as "I am
the most wonderful person in the world," "I am better
than anyone else," etc., they would be suspected not only of
being extraordinarily vain, but perhaps even of not being quite
sane. On the other hand, if a person has achieved something that
finds recognition in the field of art, science, sports, business,
or politics, his narcissistic attitude appears not only to be
realistic and rational, but is also constantly fed by the
admiration of others. In these cases he can give full rein to his
narcissism because it has been socially sanctioned and confirmed.
In present-day Western society there is a peculiar interconnection
between the narcissism of the celebrity and the needs of the
public. The latter wants to be in touch with famous people because
the life of the average person is empty and boring. The mass media
live from selling fame, and thus everybody is satisfied: the
narcissistic performer, the public, and the fame
merchants.
[End of quote.]
|
If the majority
was attracted to a peculiar interconnection, then it must be
questioned if the majority failed at the opportunity to strengthen
Catholicism in America and to defend the pro-life stance--something
which cannot be compromised by Catholics. Those who boycotted the
official graduation ceremony were given very little news coverage.
It must be a matter of concern for the Church if the majority of
Notre Dame students culminated their Catholic education in an
academic or political interconnection with Obama, rather than in
direct witness to their Church. Should this be regarded as a lapse
of faith and subject to some sort of intervention? If indeed a
lapse of faith was exhibited by the majority, then the Catholic
Church should be truly alarmed.
There must have been
many other potential speakers from which to choose--some who would
have reinforced, through expertise and experience, the graduates'
faith as well as their academic achievements. If Notre Dame wanted
discourse with a pro-abortion speaker, then perhaps they should
have extended an invitation to Rudy Giuliani. After all, he is a
Catholic.
[NOTE: None of the
comments or quotations in this essay are intended to carry official
diagnostic value. It is not the author's intention to denigrate
the sincerity, integrity, or motives of the individuals involved in
the Notre Dame graduation ceremony. This essay was an attempt to
uncover possible decision-making dynamics: for the purpose of
understanding an event, from the perspective of Roman Catholic
values, and with use of the Erich Fromm quotations for the
organization of ideas. This essay is subject to error.]
(Written 06/01/09: bibliography available.)
Until we meet
again....... .......stay sane.
|
