Political, TV commentator Mark Shields argues by inviting President Obama to Notre Dame and bestowing an honorary award on him, they are honoring him as President, and not for any of his views.
"Notre Dame is honoring Barack Obama as president of the United States and as a major political leader, not as a champion of legalized abortion. Obama did not campaign in 2008 on the issue of abortion. When questioned, he answered directly that he was pro-choice."
Let play some Madlibs on this absurd comment to show you how ridiculous Shield’s line of thinking is:
"Yeshiva University is honoring Yasser Arafat as head of the Palestine Liberation Organization and as a major political leader, not as a champion of Israel’s destruction. Arafat did not campaign in 1969 on the issue of Israel’s destruction. When questioned, he answered directly that he was anti-Israeli."
Do you think a statement like this would ever be made by Mark Shields in this situation? How do you think the press would handle Yasser Arafat, who had extreme, contrary views against the core principles of Yeshiva, being invited to Yeshiva? Would they being dishing the garbage they are now against the Catholic Bishops? How long do you think the President of Yeshiva would be around if he made the ignorant blunder that Fr. Jenkins made? Would anyone dare defend the President of Yeshiva if the Jewish community demanded him to rescind the invitation, or have the University President step down? The answers are as obvious as telling.
In this theoretical situation, I would completely expect, and support, Yeshiva rescinding their invitation to Arafat on the basis that he represents a philosophy completely at odds of their core principles.