There is controversy in South Bend, Indiana, that has nothing to do with a missed pass interference call, and everything to do with freedom of thought, formation of conscience, strength of character, preservation of values, and proclamation of the faith.

The University of Notre Dame, in March, invited President Barack Obama to present its commencement address to graduating students May 17. The university is also awarding the new president an honorary doctorate in laws.

In response to the fact that President Obama has a history of supporting what some call a women's right to choose whether or not to abort her unborn child --- a position directly contrary to Catholic Church teaching --- Notre Dame's president, Holy Cross Father John Jenkins, noted that the university also hosted President George W. Bush at its 2001 commencement ceremony, the year after Bush, as governor of Texas, approved the execution of 40 prisoners found guilty of capital crimes.

The incident has stirred both vigorous protests and vigorous defense of Notre Dame and its decision-makers. It has aroused calls for condemnation and penalization, as well as calls for tolerance and compassion. It also led Mary Ann Glendon, the outgoing U.S. Ambassador to the Vatican, to refuse to accept Notre Dame's Laetare Medal, which would have been presented at the commencement.

There are several connected issues here:
---The action (honoring an individual with a public record of opposition to core Catholic teaching).
---The reaction (Catholics' response --- support, opposition, polarization, indifference).
---And the underlying principles that frame the action and reaction (the Catholic teaching, rooted in the Gospel and tradition, on the sacredness of life).

The action:
What is the purpose of presenting "honorary degrees," or similar kudos, at the college and university level? Do commencement speakers require such honors? What does it suggest to honor someone? How does a Catholic institution not commit error by honoring an individual whose views conflict with core principles of Catholic teaching?

"Doctor," in academia, suggests "teacher." If Notre Dame does not want to imply endorsement of President Obama's position on abortion, it should not present an honorary "teaching" award --- doctor of laws, no less --- to one who suggested that determining when a baby gets human rights was above his pay grade.

Academic institutions, Catholic entities included, have a right and an obligation to promote the critical discussion of controversial issues. As Catholics who believe in the goodness of God, we are blessed with free will, and doubly blessed that our country bestows freedom on us as American citizens. But as we learn (or should learn) early on, neither free will nor constitutional freedom is absolute, if we are persons and institutions of conscience with respect for our fellow human beings.

In Los Angeles, both Mount St. Mary's College and Loyola Marymount University have in recent years encountered sharp opposition when they honored individuals "of controversy" at commencement time --- in the Mount's case, Catholic Congresswomen Linda and Loretta Sanchez (both pro-choice), and in LMU's case, Catholic actor Mel Gibson (whose active involvement in supporting a fragmentized church that challenges the authority of the local bishop cannot be said to be "in communion with" the Church of Rome).

Catholic academic institutions, like Catholic newspapers, do not play by the exact same rules as their secular counterparts. Catholic institutions must not simply reflect but must promote, in word and deed, the faith in which they are rooted. It is one thing to invite those with whom one disagrees to speak; it is another to honor them.

And to politicize a commencement ceremony --- unintentionally or not, whether via the right or the left, the conservative or the liberal --- through the awarding of honors does disservice to the graduating students, who should always be the focus of this celebration.

The reaction:
There are, unfortunately, those who could be accurately (if not charitably) described as "wild-eyed" on both sides of this issue. There are many more, on both sides of this issue, who could be described as reasonable, thoughtful, spiritually-aware and fair-minded, and who also have either genuine problems with Notre Dame's decision, or genuine problems with the negative reaction to Notre Dame's decision.

Some have voiced concern that for Notre Dame to rescind its invitation to the President (as some have suggested, or demanded) would put a serious wrench into future U.S. Church-U.S. government relationships and efforts to achieve an array of goals on social justice issues --- issues which the Church and the Obama Administration are very much on the same page (areas of health care and immigration reform, for example).

Politics being politics, that is no small concern, and yet in matters of faith, there are principles that cannot be negotiated in the interest of achieving some sort of compromise --- we'll give on this issue, you give on that one, we'll all be happy, or at least happier. Mary Ann Glendon refused the Laetere Medal, in part, because she justifiably did not want to be regarded as some sort of "counterweight" to President Obama's recognition.

But it is also true that the U.S. bishops --- some of whom have expressed their deep displeasure with Notre Dame --- are still in the process of building moral credibility in this post-sex abuse scandal era. While our church and its leaders should not be guided in their decision-making process by matters of image (Jesus certainly wasn't worried about image when he spoke with the woman at the well, or visited the tax collector's home), neither can they willingly disengage themselves from the so-called secular world.

Nor can any of us who are Catholic. Our public declarations on matters of faith and morality must be expressed clearly, but they must also be expressed with the love and charity embodied by Christ. Our reactions to issues of controversy, therefore, can never be framed in either extreme, whether it be "Do what you want, it's O.K.," or "Do what we say, or else."

Our response must always emanate from Jesus' teaching: "Love one another."

The principles (and teaching):
All Catholics have an obligation to evangelize, to proclaim and to live our faith modeled after our Lord Jesus, who came to this world as both passionate teacher and compassionate healer.

Jesus, Scripture tells us, taught by word and deed, by living among and eating with any and all who would listen. That included the sinners, the strayers, the doubters, the naysayers, the rascals and all considered "outsiders" among the people of Jesus' time.

We are called to model the pastoral as well as the "professorial" Christ, to do more than tell everyone else what they're doing right or wrong. The Jesus of the Gospels --- who had his own opinions about those who would judge --- is a Jesus scorned and ridiculed by the so-called right-doers and right-thinkers of his time, those who proclaimed themselves knowledgeable of "the truth," those who helped deliver Jesus to the cross.

At its heart, the Obama/Notre Dame issue stems from our belief that life is sacred --- all life, not just the innocent life that is in the womb, but the not-so-innocent life outside the womb, even the unrepentantly guilty life in our prisons. It is, then, a call for us to renew our commitment to value life in the womb, but also to treat life outside the womb with equal love and respect.

Recall Jesus' words on the cross: "Father, forgive them," not "Father, throw the switch."

In conclusion:
"Catholics in Political Life," the 2004 statement of the U.S. Bishops, stated that Catholic institutions "should not honor those who act in defiance of our fundamental moral principles." That would seem to include President Obama and any individual who supports actions --- like abortion, euthanasia, embryonic stem-cell research and, yes, capital punishment --- that are opposed to recognizing, valuing and defending the sacredness of life. If, that is, we are indeed serious about the sacredness of life.

That does not mean we should not engage these individuals in dialogue, especially in these times when our youth struggle with an array of issues --- birth control, homosexuality and more --- that challenge them in their formative and young adult years. In our search for truth --- which is what theology entails --- we need to hear from others, and they need to hear from us, with clarity and conviction, in an atmosphere that is absent of malice and filled with respect, and with charity always in our hearts.

Ultimately, the Obama/Notre Dame issue presents this challenge to all of us: to proclaim the sacredness of human life, God's most precious creation, from conception to natural death; to nurture and respect human life, no matter its shape, size, color, heritage, politics, faith, guilt or innocence; and to love human life with all our heart, all our mind, all our strength.

We are challenged, ultimately and always, to follow Jesus.

QUESTIONS FOR REFLECTION:
---In what way are we, as Catholics who believe in the sancitity of life, called to respond to President Obama speaking at and being honored by the University of Notre Dame?

---How does our response bring new light to this issue in a way that builds the kingdom of God?

---How does our response strengthen our relationship with Jesus and with the people of God --- including those with whom we disagree?

---How am I challenged as an individual, through my response, to love one another more deeply?

---Mike Nelson