Notre Dame Update: Commencement Demonstration Details, etc.

Lots has been happening, of course.

First, NDResponse.com has released their impressive list of activities for the commencement demostration.

Also, Patrick O'Hannigan in American Spectator defends Mary Ann Glendon from her detractors.

Meanwhile, Max Bonilla of FUS shows how Catholic institutions ought to go about selecting their honorees.

Finally, I just want to note a disturbing trend that has cropped-up. Apparently, the usual suspects are trying to claim that the Vatican is actually taking Notre Dame's side in this dispute, based solely upon that L'Osservatore Romano article (which we've taken a look at here, for instance).

Predictably, a Wapo op-ed makes this claim, Thomas Reese, SJ does the same (in an absurd manner - see Fr. Z's devestating vetting), and even John Allen plays into this stream. He at least should know better.

I don't have the time at present to re-tread this ground. If some commentors want to take a L'Osservatore Romano editorial against 70 of their own bishops, that's their business. But I can tell you if situations were reversed, and I were trotting-out an L'OR editorial as support for my position, when 100% of speaking bishops held the contrary to my position, they wouldn't even bother to answer my arguments, so I won't.

At the same time, let me be clear: I'm not trying to take a rhetorical short-cut here ... I actually think the substance of the argument - apart from the witness of authorities - still comes down against the prudence of Notre Dame's decision. But at a certain point, I can only point to some obvious realities (like the witness of the bishops, Mary Ann Glendon's refusal etc.) and forward folks to my archives on this issue for more background, and then take up my position on the sidelines to see what will happen next. The guest is, after all, on his way.

update - Amy Welborn:

"What if L'Osservatore Romano had run an editorial slamming Obama? What if word had come from, I don't know, the Curial office dealing with Catholic education that Notre Dame had made a mistake in honoring Obama?

Would [WaPo op-ed writer mentione above] Dionne and those who agree with him [like Fr. Thomas Reese, SJ alsomentioned above] then declare the Notre Dame invitation and honor to be a mistake because..."the Vatican" said it was?I'm going to guess no.

I'd guess the talking points would be a bit different if the wind were to blow in that direction. It would be all about Curial blindness to the American landscape, to the subtleties of the Church-state relationship in the United States...and so on."

"...Back to the [L'OR] paper - Austin Ruse provides a useful critique of the editorial, explaining how the writer gets some important facts wrong about the Obama-administration embryonic research proposal. This is key. If the editorial is based on faulty understandings and premises, the value of it is diminished. It doesn't matter where it was published and it doesn't matter if the Pope himself had written it."

Amy is trying to clarify the various levels of authority we have speaking about Notre Dame. Here's my take:

Contra Notre Dame, 100% of the bishops who have spoken publicly on the matter (at current count, 70).

"Pro" Notre Dame, a few liberal-leaning pundits referencing a L'OR editorial that gets most the facts wrong.

So, as I've said, whether we want to take a short-cut or the long road, it gets us to the same judgement about Notre Dame's decision. I'm prepared to examine the results of this decision, but let's be clear about the faults of the decision which brought us to where we are: a bad place that could have been avoided.