The South Bend Tribune reports that 131 faculty of the University of Notre Dame have signed a letter calling on Fr. John Jenkins, the president of the university, to “issue a statement” that will “definitively distance Notre Dame” from remarks made in a homily by Bishop Daniel Jenky of Peoria, a member of the Congregation of the Holy Cross who sits on the Notre Dame Board of Fellows. And these faculty want Jenky either to “renounce” the remarks in his homily or resign from the board.
What is the grievous offense of Bishop Jenky? According to the faculty signatories, “he described President Obama as ‘seem(ing) intent on following a similar path’ to Hitler and Stalin.” It would indeed be an outrage if, as the faculty intimate, the bishop were suggesting that President Obama is “intent on” genocide, murdering millions, etc.
But what did Jenky actually say in his April 14 homily? Its full text is here. Let’s quote enough to get the full flavor of this strong meat:
Remember that in past history other governments have tried to force Christians to huddle and hide only within the confines of their churches like the first disciples locked up in the Upper Room.
In the late 19th century, Bismarck waged his “Kulturkampf,” a Culture War, against the Roman Catholic Church, closing down every Catholic school and hospital, convent and monastery in Imperial Germany.
Clemenceau, nicknamed “the priest eater,” tried the same thing in France in the first decade of the 20th Century.
Hitler and Stalin, at their better moments, would just barely tolerate some churches remaining open, but would not tolerate any competition with the state in education, social services, and health care.
In clear violation of our First Amendment rights, Barack Obama – with his radical, pro abortion and extreme secularist agenda, now seems intent on following a similar path.
So it turns out that the “similar path” Obama “seems intent on following,” according to Bishop Jenky, is one that Bismarck, Clemenceau–and Hitler and Stalin “at their better moments”–charted already. That is, the bending of churches and religious institutions to the political authority, and the occupation of an increasing proportion of civic space by the state, shouldering aside the churches.
The reductio ad Hitlerum is a real problem in modern political rhetoric. But in its classic form it is the unwarranted conclusion that a small tyranny portends real totalitarianism, genocide–the whole package of the Third Reich. Jenky is not guilty of that here, not remotely. He has an argument about parallels between Obama and past assailants of the Church. Those assailants include Hitler and Stalin even “at their better moments,” when their tyrannies were just beginning.
If the upset faculty of Notre Dame want to counter his argument with a better one, let them try. Instead they engage in ritual denunciation, bullying, and a petulant tantrum meant to mau-mau Father Jenkins and the bishop. They should go back to school. Better teachers than these would not accept their letter as representing a responsible contribution to public or academic debate.
April 26th, 2012 | 11:00 am
After taking a look at the list and the academic departments represented, I’m not at all surprised at the preponderance of English and Psychology professorss. However, I am quite surprised that there are so many Physics professors who signed the letter. Who knew that Physics was a bastion of Democratic support?? Another surprise — some the Program of Liberal Studies (Great Books) professors signed as well.
April 26th, 2012 | 11:43 am
Hitler and Stalin, at their better moments, would just barely tolerate some churches remaining open, but would not tolerate any competition with the state in education, social services, and health care.
In clear violation of our First Amendment rights, Barack Obama – with his radical, pro abortion and extreme secularist agenda, now seems intent on following a similar path.
Has there been any effort to replace religious schools by state schools? If someone is tempted to cite the Obama’s “extreme” position in Hosanna-Tabor, first I would point out that even if it had prevailed, it could scarcely be considered a prelude to something akin to the Nazi suppression of monasteries and religious schools! In making ludicrous comparisons between Obama and Hitler or Stalin, one has to remember that the whole structure of American government prevents our presidents from becoming anything like dictators. Hitler came to power in 1933 and died in 1945. Stalin was in office from 1922 to 1952. Obama may not get reelected this year, but even if he does, he is limited to another 4 years in power during which you can be sure there will be vigorous opposition to his every move from the Republican Party and checks on his power by the Supreme Court. Compare that reality to the rules of Hitler and Stalin.
Regarding social services in the United States, I note that Catholic Charities has a budget of almost $4 billion a year, of which $2 billion comes from the federal government. I don’t know how much comes from state and local governments, but it is considerable. Yes, there have been some issues over same-sex adoption, but the huge structure of Catholic Charities is not even remotely in danger of being abolished by the government, and of course there are thousands of other religious charities that are not going to be replaced by the federal government, either.
Regarding health care, even if ObamaCare is fully implemented, the government will not have taken over health care. People will still be insured largely by private insurers, visit doctors in business for themselves, and go to hospitals run by private organizations or charities. ObamaCare is far, far removed from being a medical system run by the state, where doctors are government employees and hospitals are run by the government. Even a single-payer system (like Medicare) still depends on doctors and hospitals who are not employed by the government.
Also, there is no “clear violation” of First Amendment rights. If Bishop Jenky is talking about the “contraceptive mandate,” it hasn’t even been written yet. HHS is still taking recommendations. It is hard to make a case that something is a “clear violation” of the First Amendment when you don’t even know precisely what is involved. And furthermore, there are good arguments that what we know of the “contraceptive mandate” would not be unconstitutional, particularly in light of Scalia’s opinion in Employment Division v Smith. That is why so many people are pinning their hopes on the court finding the “contraceptive mandate” violates the Religious Freedom Restoration Act rather than the First Amendment.
Bishop Jenky’s comments were inflammatory nonsense. Obama is not moving toward the federal government not tolerating “any competition with the state in education, social services, and health care.”
April 26th, 2012 | 12:24 pm
Apparently the Anti-Defamation League is prone to similar mistakes?
http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-501363_162-57417042/adl-wants-ill-bishops-apology-for-obama-comments/
April 26th, 2012 | 12:30 pm
Oh please–this defense is more embarrassing than the Bishop’s remarks. Unless he is astonishingly ill informed, Bishop’s Jenky’s intent had to have been entirely rhetorical–there’s nothing there aside from the the juxtaposition of “Obama” and “Hitler and Stalin.” This kind of nonsense itself makes no contribution to “academic or public debate”, never mind a “responsible” contribution.
April 26th, 2012 | 1:35 pm
@Tristian,
In spite of the direct quote, you only notice the two. What happened to Bismarck and Clemenceau? (Not to mention the French First Republic, the post-revolutionary Mexican government, the Spanish Republicans during the Civil War, and a host of others.) Hostility to religion’s effectiveness is long-standing in governments in power.
The problem, of course, is that Hitler, and more recently Stalin though that one is still disputed by some, has become a symbol for “evil”. So people use Hitler to mean “evil”. Unfortunately, that makes it difficult to discuss how he achieved what he did so we can continue to avoid it in first world countries.
So the question is, “How did the bishop use it?” I think it can be argued that he missed the PR point, but his meaning in context is understandable even for those who disagree with it. That leads to a second question, “Why do the professors react only to the PR point?” There you, Tristian, might be able to help us. Where did Bismarck and Clemenceau go?
@David, I think you are right about our system of checks and balances. I disagree that we shouldn’t confront an effort to remove one because there are so many others left.
April 26th, 2012 | 1:40 pm
It seems to me the faculty at Notre Dame have several valid points to make.
The most important point is that this sort of hysterical rhetoric is adolescent and unworthy of a high-ranking prelate. It brings discredit to the entire Church. By publicly denouncing and repudiating it, NDU would go some way towards regaining the right to be taken seriously in legitimate public discourse.
Moreover, the explicit attack on Obama would be problematic, even without this vulgar, overwrought tone. The tax exemption for religious entities rests on the requirement that they not engage in partisan politics. Identifying Obama’s political positions with historical positions which are almost universally condemned is partisan politics. If the dioceses begin losing their tax exemptions, it could cause difficulties for religious organizations like NDU as well.
Most importantly, the bishop’s utterances simply fail the decency test. Hitler’s and Stalin’s secularism was an operative part of a larger policy of using violations of human rights in order to achieve totalitarian control over people’s private lives and deprive them of freedom of thought.
Long before secular totalitarianism attempted to drive the churches from the “public square,” the churches were using the same techniques (e.g., murder, torture, brutality, propaganda) to drive secularism from the public square. This is a historical fact.
Whom are Hitler and Stalin more akin to? The thugocracy that burned Giordano Bruno, Jan Hus, and William Tyndale, imprisoned John Bunyan and Galileo and instituted laws allowing (encouraging?) the torture and murder of tens of thousands of “witches?” Or Barack Obama, whose goal is to provide universal health care to low-income people and fiscal stability to the health care system (and whose means are absolutely non-violent?)
Fanaticism never wants for supporters. Decency should be allowed to have its defenders too.
April 26th, 2012 | 3:17 pm
Mike Melendez, I think you answered your own question—Bismark and Clemenseau get obscured by Hitler and Stalin, as they will every time. To elaborate a bit on this I think it’s important to acknowledge that any substantive point the Bishop wanted to make about President Obama’s policies could have been made without invoking two of the most murderous tyrants in recent history, and indeed would have been much more clearly and plausibly. The distance between either Hitler or Stalin and Obama, the disanologies between their regimes and policies and our current political reality, are so vast and so obvious that invoking them obscures much, much more than it could ever illuminate. This would be true even if there were no rhetorical force to their invocation at all. Those who would call for responsible academic and political debate should join their opponents in expecting better from a Catholic Bishop.
April 26th, 2012 | 4:08 pm
Either the state exists for humanity or humanity exists for the state. Either humanity bestows and withdraws the state’s rights and its very right to exist, or the state pretends to have the authority to bestow and withdraw humanity’s God-given rights and its very right to exist.
When the state deifies itself and pretends the inalienable rights of humanity come from itself, it officially adjusts the hopelessly subjective meaning of legal “personhood” according to it whims, such that it excludes the segment of humanity that is the victim of contemporary bigotry. Its version of the meaning of personhood, since the concept is entirely subjective, can never be proven correct or incorrect, yet it does have the state’s official approval, so bigotry prevails.
This leads to situations where corporations can be legal persons while the biological humanity of the child in the womb does not merit it legal personhood, where the biological humanity of the Jews in Nazi Germany did not merit them legal personhood, and where the biological humanity of Blacks in the Old South did not merit them full legal personhood. The child in the womb is the victim of contemporary bigotry, just as were the Blacks of the Old South and the Jews of Nazi Germany.
Presidents who are as vehement and vocal as Obama in defending and promoting this inherently unjust situation are bound to be compared to leaders of other regimes who were hostile to theism, and were hostile when objection was made to the state’s claiming to be the source of rights theism insists do not come from the state. Get used to it, folks. It is only beginning and will continue until the natural, inalienable, God-given rights of all humanity are restored.
April 26th, 2012 | 9:58 pm
I think we all need to just step back from the ledge a bit. Or as my 17 year old son might say,”Take a chill pill.” The discourse in this country has become so poisoned with hyperbole,rage, and name calling. Saying that our country under Obama’s leadership is on a path similar to that of the Third Reich, or that the Republicans are “waging a war on women” are both ludicrous assertions that darken rather than enlighten debate. I also think that men and women in positions of leadership such as the bishop, have a unique responsibility to be measured and sensible in what they say. One can agree or disagree with various political positions from the left or right, and we do have some serious problems facing our nation and some very strong disagreement about what to do about them. But for goodness sake, we are not anywhere close to being an oppressive and cruel dictatorship, nor is the sky falling.But if we do not do a better job of talking to each other without resorting to harmful assertions and exaggerations, our ability to solve our problems and work out our differences will be forever damaged. I for one am counting on the inherent wisdom of the American people, and believe in the end,”cooler heads will prevail.”
April 26th, 2012 | 11:16 pm
Apparently Felalpton thinks using tired old “Enlightenment” cliches is a substitute for actual thought. And his so-called “historical facts” are really secularist ideology mascerading as such. Even predominantly secular historians of the Middle Ages now almost universally concede that the period hardly consisted of anywhere near “theocratic” rule. Indeed, the situation was mostly the reverse: in almost all countries through the entire medieval period the Church was constantly struggling to assert its independence vis-a-vis the secular powers, who were always trying to control and intimidate the Church to do its bidding. Moreover, Inquisitions had very limited juristictions and in many cases, such as in Spain, became a useful tool for the state to dominate the Church (though, shamefully, many clerics acquiesced in this). Even a casual student of the Middle Ages also knows that witch trials did not occur until the very end of the period – it was not even recognized as a crime in England until 1542 – and that they occured during the Reformation almost exclusively in lands where the political, social, and religious order were breaking down. Ironically, witch trials were the fewest where inquisitions were the strongest.
In short, the tale that left-wing secularists tell themselves – that today’s left-wing attacks on religious freedom are only “pay-back” for the past “oppressions” of the Church – is only a comforting (for them) fairy-tale.
April 26th, 2012 | 11:51 pm
Turf the lot of ‘em. They make my blood boil. What are they even doing in Our Lady’s University? They insult the lives and sacrifices of the men, women and religious who built the place – and terrifyingly – the Mother of Our Lord.
Why are we given these people as scourges?
April 27th, 2012 | 5:13 am
The statement of the Bishop is completely accurate. Under the vision of the Obama administration the Catholic Church, and all churches which oppose him, are to be restricted to conducting services and submitting themselves to government control in all other matters. The point that the Bishop was making is that this type of “religious freedom” was granted to some churches by both Hitler and Stalin, which is also completely accurate. Of course critics of this part of the Bishop’s speech conveniently overlook the references to Bismark and Clemenceau since those references make clear the point the Bishop was making and spoil the fake outrage of historically illiterate critics to the mention of Hitler and Stalin.
April 27th, 2012 | 6:29 pm
Just list the pre-war laws and actions and quotes of the Nazi’s towards the church, where’s Doino or Rychlak when you need them?
Things were whittled gradually, Hitler didn’t just one day say let’s kill the Jews, there were precedents. Liberty needs eternal vigilance , and this bishop is being vigilant.
But never fear, if David Nickol says things will be OK, then it will be OK. Jenky should have just played “nice”.
April 28th, 2012 | 9:52 am
Felapton wrote:
“The tax exemption for religious entities rests on the requirement that they not engage in partisan politics.”
Well, only since 1965 has that been a requirement, and the tax exemption for religious entities goes back much further than that; and I think that anyone so rash as to wish to prove that the reason for that tax exemption was to keep “religious entities” out of “partisan politics” will have a hard row to hoe.
I think that that 1965 requirement was a brazen attempt to muzzle the churches, especially as “partisan politics” and “religious doctrine” overlap in many ways. In 1962 the Catholic Archbishop of New Orleans excommunicated the Catholic politician Leander Perez for opposing the archdiocese’s decision to desegregate Catholic schools. Was that engaging in “partisan politics?” Today, I wish that Catholic bishops and archbishops had the moxie to excommunicate those “pro-choice” Catholics — I need not name them, for their name is legion — who occupy prominent elective and appointive political offices, and also clearly and explicitly instruct Catholics that it is contrary to the duty of any faithful Catholic to vote for such persons. If an attempt is made to strip the Church of its tax-exempt status, it should be followed all the way to the Supreme Court, on the argument that it is a fundamental aspect of the Faith of the Catholic Church that it has the authority and duty to instruct its faithful on all matters of faith and morals, and that “morals” don’t stop on the frontier of “politics.” And if it loses the case at that level, it should abandon its tax-exempt status, rather than to be muzzled by an immoral regime.
April 29th, 2012 | 12:27 pm
Hitler and Stalin, at their better moments, would just barely tolerate some churches remaining open, but would not tolerate any competition with the state in education, social services, and health care.
In clear violation of our First Amendment rights, Barack Obama – with his radical, pro abortion and extreme secularist agenda, now seems intent on following a similar path.
Has there been any effort to replace religious schools by state schools?
No, but there has been an effort to control religious schools – specifically, to strip religious entities as a group of their religious freedom re: sexual teachings (to mandate Unitarian Universalist beliefs on sexuality, gender, family, etc. as the required teachings for all children, regardless of whether the parents are UU or humanist).
How is that any different?
April 29th, 2012 | 5:59 pm
Hello David,
“Also, there is no “clear violation” of First Amendment rights. If Bishop Jenky is talking about the “contraceptive mandate,” it hasn’t even been written yet.”
Actually, it has. It went on the federal register officially in February – intact.
It’s true that President Obama has proposed a possible modification of that. But as you say, that modification has not been written,n or is there any guarantee that it will be. The rest of us might be rightly suspicious that the pressure to do so will be quite a lot less after he is re-elected.
Moreover, what the president has proposed really does not solve the problem of material (or formal) cooperation with evil for religious institutions, especially those that self-insure.
May 7th, 2012 | 5:00 pm
For those who want to support Bishop Daniel Jenky’s religious free speech rights, please encourage him and sign this petition http://tinyurl.com/supportjenky
Links
Blogs
Find Us
Contact