He will receive an honorary degree because it is the custom, not as a blessing on any of his decisions.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
Dear. God. In. Heaven.<\/p>\n
A custom with meaning, or a custom without meaning?<\/p>\n
If without meaning, then by all means let Fr Jenkins open the ceremony with, \u201cWhat we are about to do is simply a custom without meaning. Let us proceed.\u201d<\/p>\n
If with meaning, then what does it mean?<\/p>\n
Re: said meaning, Fr Jenkins tells us that ND\u2019s proposed honors (incl. the honorary doctorate) do not signify (that is, mean) an endorsement of any evil policy of Obama\u2019s. Well, I\u2019m sure they don\u2019t\u2026 in Fr. Jenkins\u2019 mind. Otherwise, Fr. Jenkins would himself be in dissent from the Church\u2019s moral teaching.<\/p>\n
Both these gentlemen are displaying an obtuseness regarding the nature of a public symbol, that I am sure neither would display in other contexts. Fr Jenkins says, in effect, \u201cThis honorary doctorate means what I wish it to mean, neither more nor less\u201d (cf. Humpty Dumpty). Indeed, in Fr. Jenkins\u2019 little private world of symbols, this honorary degree may mean (or not mean) whatever he wills. But it is not up to him to determine the meaning of a public symbol, said meaning being\u2026 well, public. And the public is letting him know what it means.<\/p>\n
Therefore, it would be wrong (though tempting to some pessimistic souls) to say that public symbols are generally empty of meaning in our culture. On the contrary. Our elites employ such symbols with venal cynicism, precisely in order to trade on the public meaning they still retain. People like Woodward and Fr Jenkins are, we hope, not cynics. But they are myopic, and both the cynicism and the myopia are symptoms of our time.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
Just so.<\/p>\n
One of the curious things you hear people say about gestures and acts by religious figures is that \u201cthey are purely symbolic\u201d as though that translates to \u201cthey don\u2019t mean anything\u201d or \u201cthey count for nothing\u201d.<\/p>\n
The thing is: \u201cmeaning something\u201d is all a symbol *does*. A symbol that doesn\u2019t mean anything is not a symbol. And a religious system is, par excellence<\/em>, *nothing but* a complex symbol system. For a Catholic university to award a symbolic law degree on somebody whose philosophy is mortally opposed to the dignity of human life is, indeed, to say something very clearly\u2013none of it good about the Catholic university.<\/p>\n