Thanks for this! I have been surprised to see so many conservatives (especially Cathlolics) rushing to his defense as if he said nothing wrong at all. When I listened to it, the things that jumped out to me were not his encouragement that women could be mothers and don’t have to have careers to be happy, but his condemnation of NFP and seeming endorsement of the TLM as the best way (and that’s a charitable take) to worship God. I missed the Kenneth Copeland-esque recommendation of following tradition as a gateway to worldly success.
I've admittedly found it a bit of a stumbling block. I'm a revert (some 20 years ago) and one fo the things that I found so much joy/comfort in was a)the intellectual tradition and the fact that the church really CARED about having cogent, consistent beliefs and taking the implications of how we say things VERY seriously and b)the recognition of nuance and that the church was not a monolith. Much is left to discernment, we all have our own path, and that also applied to women - be it the virgin martyrs, consecrated sisters, nuns who educated girls, working women saints, stay at home motherhood as a sanctifying vocation, etc - the 'feminine genius' could be expressed anywhere (and should be).
So it has been maddening to me to see how willing people are to just ignore that because some guy said a bunch of stuff that felt validating (and 'owned the libs') and who cares if it hurts women (or Jews, or the immunosuppressed, or whatever else) or is just flat out wrong? Subtext and critical thinking is for suckers! And if you point it out, you're just 'attacking'. I've been seeing a lot of 'the enemy of my enemy is my friend' mentality in the church lately and it drives me nuts. Plus a lot of it borrows from evangelicalism which is NOT Catholic. Okay, rant off!
I'm truly not saying this to discourage women from being stay at home mothers if they realize that's what they want. I almost discerned that path myself, despite academic accomplishments. (I didn't, but it was a serious consideration.) The fact that I have to even add that disclaimer is part of what ticks me off.
Thank you Holly for a well-considered critique of Mr. Butker's speech, especially from a Catholic perspective. I'm not sufficiently qualified to get into the Church specifics within your essay, but I would like to object to a couple of points and then offer an outsider's broader perspective on his speech.
First, you claim that he is engaged in "ad hominem" attacks on certain Catholic clergy, and that he is not being sufficiently respectful with his criticisms. I don't agree. Mr Butker never names any of the clergy and his critique is limited to the performance of their duties, not their personal character. As for his lack of respect, I can think of far worse and less respectful ways that he could have voiced his concerns, and I have to think that the Church would loathe giving the impression that they were repressing criticism from within the flock.
Second, with regard to "worldly success", it would seem that this is a rather broad and very much personally defined concept. Of course it could refer to material wealth and a collection of impressive titles, but it could also very well refer to a career path that the graduate finds personally rewarding and fulfilling for other reasons. "Worldly" here might simply mean: As opposed to the spiritual, non material aspects of personal growth.
Finally, Mr. Butker's speech stands in sharp contrast to the usual boiler plate graduation speeches where graduates are exhorted to "change the world" and can "be whatever they want to be", with little to no consideration given to obligations to the community and the necessary and healthy role of tradition in people's lives. If nothing else, the speech upsets the apple cart and gets people talking about marriage, family and faith, which is a good thing. In our increasingly secular society with, marriage and birth rates in free fall, we need more strong men like Harrison Butker to stand up and tell the truth.
Thanks very much for these comments. I think you're right on the precise definition of ad hominem attacks. I continue to disagree with you on the larger question of criticism of the clergy. I am a fan of fierce criticism when it is called for, but I feel strongly that it must be disciplined--and it must be disciplined by love. (As I noted very briefly, I think this is the heart of the Christian faith.) Among other considerations, it seems crystal clear to me that a commencement speech is neither the time nor the place. Finally, I agree with you completely that this speech avoids the same old bromides, but... I am not inclined for that reason, to give it a pass on its other faults. Again, I am grateful for your feedback.
Points well taken Holly. I think my level of concern about the alarming downward trends in society predispose me to be more forgiving of the speech's faults. The overriding message to men, imploring them to take a more active role in support of family and community needs to be heard, no matter how imperfectly, clearly and often.
If I may interject two other points that may hopefully provide some additional perspective (and I offer them in the interest of empathy. I am glad to see your own perspective on what you felt the message to men was):
1)I generally agree with you about not wanting to suppress criticism of the clergy, especially when they fail in their responsibilities. (Woe to the shepherds of Israel and all that). That said I agree with Holly here that a commencement speech (addressed to the graduates) is NOT the place. Also, more troubling, and not really touched on, is that part of those criticisms veered into covid related talking points that essentially criticized clergy for taking safety precautions (despite their being precedence for such a thing during times of plague). Now we can certainly argue in good faith about how far precautions should be taken and comfort levels and risk tolerance and all that (especially early on when we just didn't know all the specifics about how the disease worked), but to accuse them of fear/weakness when many priests/bishops were trying to balance safety of the vulnerable among us but STILL serve their flock (ours found creative ways and worked really hard) just leaves a hugely bad taste in my mouth. Especially when considering some of the nastier behavior that was witnessed - people purposefully going maskless in areas designated for those who needed a mask, shaming people for being 'weak', etc. It's still something I am trying to come to terms with. I really saw a lot of behavior that felt like it was more about proving they were right, or strong, or brave, or wouldn't let anybody tell them what to do, than it was about humility/obedience and protecting those at risk.
2)Regarding the message to men (and women) - I would posit that it might be easier for you to overlook the faults because most of the faults do not actually impact you. But as a woman (a working professional who uses NFP), I am more predisposed to be suspicious of those faults because the propagation of those errors DOES directly impact how I am viewed and treated. And, being somewhat familiar with the more traditional/TLM circles Butker seems to be promoting, I can say it's not always as idyllic as it seems - especially when it comes to the suspicion he cast on things like NFP and how that impacts women's physical/mental health when they are made to feel like they simply can't space their kids for reasons other than literal homelessness.
I am in full agreement with you about the importance of building a family centered society, one that values parenthood over material success (our work is in service to our ultimate vocations), that doesn't look down on those who choose a domestic path, recognizes their real contributions to society, and especially implores fathers to be involved too. However, it should not be at the cost of discouraging women from also following (if applicable) their own calls to shape their community and culture outside of the home. I'm not sure if by 'outsider' you mean you aren't Catholic, but both St. John Paul II and St. Edith Stein have written about the importance of working women/mothers in all aspects of society, the need for some women to reach outside of the domestic sphere, and there's nothing diabolical in cherishing those aspirations - as long as they are recognized to be in service of the family.
(I am not Jewish, but I imagine a Jewish person would also be much less loth to overlook him being so invested in talking about the Jews killing Christ, which has been used to justify cruelty.)
I hope that helps explain some of the concern. There are some kernels of truth there, but just too much taint for me to justify being able to 'support' it as I believe it does have the potential to do harm and twist the practice of the faith. I was like him once, as a fresh revert, interested in traditionalism, etc, but thankfully was surrounded by people who helped knock some sense into me (and humility). I worry he (and that whole culture) will grow increasingly rigid and continue to make unjust impositions that the Church does not impose.
Thank you for your thoughtful response, Lila. You are correct in that I am not a Catholic, so I want to be careful so as not to offend anyone or embarrass myself. First, I agree with your perspective on NFP. Within the sanctity of marriage, a couple should be able to decide for themselves how to space their
children. I can't believe that NFP and the larger imperative to "be fruitful and multiply" doesn't grant that latitude. It is abhorrent to me to imagine a husband imposing his will on his wife and not allow her input on child spacing.
With regard to women in the workplace, I read the transcript of the speech very carefully, and can't conclude that Butker feels that this should in any way be prohibited. He seems to simply want to persuade women that any satisfaction gained in the workplace does not compare to the profundity of bringing new life into the world within marriage. I think he could very well agree that it is perfectly reasonable for women to pursue both if they so choose. It is not as if men don't do the same as well. An involved father is also splitting his time between career and family, albeit without the tremendous physical reality of pregnancy and childbirth. This also touches on the "diabolical lies" that he refers to. My guess is that he is talking about the message from second wave feminism that a woman can choose career over family and gain just as much meaning in life from that. I've heard and read of too many women, upon reaching middle age, lament that choice and feel a painful gap in their lives, so I tend to agree with him on that.
Briefly, I just want to comment on his reference to who killed Jesus being spoken about in some university settings. In reading the transcript it seems clear to me that he raises this strictly in reference to the repressive nature of speech codes and cancel culture in the academy, not to stir up old animosities toward Jews or to specifically blame them for the death of Christ.
Finally, Covid. I side with Mr. Butker on this one. He references parishioners who were denied access to the sacraments because the priests were being overly cautious about Covid. Contrast this with his example of the priest who ministered to lepers for eleven years, or with Mother Theresa who dedicated her life to working with the sick and poor of Calcutta, or with the chaplains ministering to the dying soldiers on Normandy Beach. These are all examples of courage, and we must all ask if our leaders are leading us toward a courageous way of life, or toward a cautious way of life. As both Churchill and Maya Angelou said, courage is the one virtue that enables all of the others. I worry that a society that values caution above courage produces citizens that lack the ability to seek and speak truth, and to resist tyranny in all its forms, including supposed experts who mandate that healthy people wear masks, stay home and not attend church, despite having no scientific basis to support such. You say that there is precedent for this from the times of the plague, but I would say that it is unprecedented to tell healthy people not to go about their lives even while protecting the vulnerable. Sweden has shown us that shutdowns did nothing to limit covid mortality and indeed, that all-cause mortality has been lower in Sweden than any other comparable country since the pandemic subsided, because Swedes kept their doctor appointments and avoided the health risks of isolation and loneliness. I believe that, in time, it will become even more apparent that these shutdowns were perhaps one of the worst self-imposed mistakes in human history.
So those clergy who defied the authorities and held services throughout are being shown to be the courageous people that they are, and provided a living example that a cautious life is usually not a full life.
One last word on courage. This is not a virtue that most are born with. It must be modeled, encouraged and cultivated, and men in particular are very aware of how important it is for their self-respect to behave courageously. I can't imagine the woman who wants to be married to a man who asks her to go downstairs to investigate that strange noise in the middle of the night, or who doesn't act decisively when she and her children need protection. Harrison Butker understands this and wants to lead us in that direction. I disagree that this speech was inappropriate for a college graduation at a Catholic university. It is at just this time, when these young adults are leaving the cocoon of the academy that they need to hear this message.
Regarding covid (and courage). There's a lot I could say here. My thoughts are also specific to that period of time BEFORE vaccines and treatments were widely available and when hospitals were full to capacity. And when we still didn't know *exactly* what the best way to handle this was but were still trying *in good faith* to find the appropriate balance.
The tldr here is basically that I share the opposite concern as you, and I fear what happens when we have a culture that values courage over caution, and that is not balanced by prudence and compassion. To me it just leads to pride and a lot of ugliness. BOTH are abundantly needed. I think we just disagree on where that line lies!
My ire is not at you :)
I have a bachelor's and masters degree in microbiology, lab/research experience, work in a health care adjacent industry (I am NOT a health care worker but work closely with health care systems), and have family who are direct health care workers. I also am close with medically fragile people and have seen first hand how it impacted them, including some who could no longer attend church even AFTER things opened because people refused to respect their boundaries or sometimes even hurled insults at them. THAT is what kept them from the Sacraments. I have "healthy" friends who now have permanent damage from long-covid, and also a neighbor who died because he was high risk, trying to be cautious, and then was forced to go to an event (through work) where people refused to mask despite his requests. He caught covid at that event and died shortly after.
So, frankly, it's hard for me to respect those priests, because part of the reason people feel empowered to do things like spit on people wearing masks, scream at them, breathe/cough in their face, refuse to mask because 'it's my right', mock them, call them demonic sinners, and all the rest, is because people like those priests empowered them to do so and feel morally right and superior. It is a wound I am still healing from, and that I have yet to forgive the church for.
I suppose we see courage differently. What you describe as courage I see as recklessness, and a fierce individualism that ignores any obligation to the vulnerable. I saw a lot of cruelty, malice and mocking in the name of "courage", and a lot of 'might makes right' and ableism too. It's easy to have "courage" when you are a healthy, low risk individual, but the church does not belong to only them.
The examples of St. Mother Teresa and St. Damien of Molokai are only somewhat analogous here. In both cases, THEY went to the sick (and in St. Damien's case, quarantined himself) to actively minister to them. They took on that burden to go to them where they were. They did not encourage people to then go amongst others potentially spreading disease, or to spit in the face (sometimes literally) of those trying to protect themselves or their vulnerable loved ones.
Public health is a real thing, and hospital resources are a finite thing. This is not tyranny, and it's insulting to these dedicated scientists to call them "supposed experts". There is scientific basis for isolation preventing the spread of disease, as well as for *properly fitted* masks to reduce the spread of droplets (even if we can't totally eliminate it). Courage isn't always about doing what you want to do with bluster, but sometimes dong the quiet, less glamorous, onerous thing. Healthy people can catch disease (and become not-healthy)...and they can spread it. So it's within both logic and compassion that we would make that sacrifice even if we don't 'have to' in order to prevent others from getting sick, because we recognizes others are more important than ourselves.
And there IS precedent, even in the church, of restricting the actions of healthy people. During the plague 1576 in Milan and in Rome in 1656, the bishops closed churches, instituted quarantines, practiced distancing, etc. St. Charles Borromeo is a GREAT example of a 'plague saint'. He was a cardinal who did go and minister during the plague (during quarantine) but also was very strict about distancing and sanitation protocols for himself and those that worked with him. THAT is how you courageously serve the flock during something like that, not by stuffing your churches full of people, encouraging dissent and bragging about how "brave" you are because you're not afraid of "a cold" and insulting those that have to take precautions, or insinuating that their salvation is at risk.
And our priests did do similarly; even when we couldn't have Mass they did find ways to minister, within the safety protocols. I strongly dislike the trend to characterize these people as acting from 'fear' and 'cowardice' and 'weakness' instead of recognizing love and self sacrifice. Christianity has always been a religion of 'weakness', in some ways. I am a fan of prudence and compassion as virtues. In my experience, in this twisted culture we live in, without those courage is usually just a mask placed on recklessness or selfishness or an excuse to exalt strength/power/individualism. That said - that is WHY we have the 4 cardinal virtues . They are supposed to be in balance - Prudence, Temperance, Fortitude (courage) and Justice.
Obviously, Prudence in excess can become fear/anxiety or cowardice (or its own form of pride/control) and I recognize that is MY particular temptation. I am not saying every single precaution was right on. Priests should have been allowed to give last rites, I'm very much in favor of that. If churches were closed, then so should movie theaters or restaurants. We could have been less strict about school closures given certain outcomes/studies in that regard and I do think hospitals could have been better about which kinds of procedures were still allowed. It took us awhile to figure out which types of masks worked best and how that should be implemented. I still believe many of those decisions were made in good faith and the shut downs absolutely saved lives. It doesn't mean there weren't real consequences or negative aspects (there's really no great outcome in a plague) that we aren't still working through as a society, but if we had just kept going on as normal, people would have died in much higher numbers and good luck getting to your doctor appointments then. My father had a health emergency this past winter and couldn't get in to a bed because of a covid surge filling up the ICU. And this is now that it's 'over'.
That's all I'm saying - not that we can't differ on the logistics of disease mitigation/public health, or admit that mistakes were made. But when people come at it already saying all public health experts are "supposed" and tyrannical, that doesn't feel like a good faith discussion. And I just saw too much gross behavior to feel like I could really 'trust' the people who were arguing in favor of lowering restrictions because it really felt like they were just mad about being told what to do and then wanted to justify it after the fact. Obviously I am bringing my own baggage into it, it's hard for me to see the other than the worst motives either. Maybe otherwise I'd be more okay with saying 'some bishops chose to keep churches open, some chose to close and minister in other ways'. Both could be prudent/courageous choices depending on the circumstance/demographic.
As for your other examples, there are scenarios where decisive action is needed, or more 'obvious' displays of physical courage. These are areas that maybe are more (generally) suited to men's particular strengths. (Feminist though I am I don't deny I'm physically weaker than my husband!). But a pandemic is not one of them...I used to be a microbiologist, you can't punch a microbe. And that's where that balance of the cardinal virtues comes in - prudence is determining the right thing AND the right action. Courage is what gives you the strength to do it even in the face of challenges. But the challenges are not always the obvious one. Sometimes it may in fact be the challenge of quarantine.
For a commencement - instead I would say he should have given an example of courage (like St. Charles Borromeo or St. Damian) instead of just castigating bishops/priests who were still trying to do the right thing. Or if he wants to call out bishops, call out bishops that are lax on sex abuse ;)
A lot to unpack there Lila. I really appreciate your time spent. As I mentioned before I learn quite a bit from your responses. Of course I don't condone recklessness and value prudence alongside courage. I have no disagreement with the Cardinal virtues. You say though that many more people would have died without the shutdowns, but this doesn't square with the data from Sweden which didn't go along with the shutdown rationale. I'm curious as to how you respond to that?
The data also show that the people who succumbed to Covid had an average of seven co-morbidities. This statistic helps to emphasize how important it was to protect the vulnerable which I always supported. But we can always cite anecdotal evidence to counter the generality, however public policy must prioritize statistical generalities, not the outliers, in order to serve the majority as much as possible.
You denigrate my characterization of experts as "supposed" but there is a long list of flip flops and "noble lies" told to the public, as well as assertions made by public health officials that were unsupported by
scientific evidence. Have you read the Cochrane Report on masks, which showed their lack of efficacy? The Great Barrington Declaration was disparaged by these same officials when it was courageously
published early on, but now has been shown to have been both prescient and prudent.
One last comment on courage. I concur with the sentiment that it enables all of the other virtues, which include humility, prudence and disgression. But courage by itself doesn't guarantee these other virtues. Anyone who seeks to humiliate or denigrate others as weak when they feel courageous is acting in bad faith and falling far short of the Christian ideal.
Regarding the first point - since you're not Catholic, you may not be as familiar with some of the different 'sub-cultures' within Catholic culture. I have some experience with the TLM-type communities (which Butker appears to be a part of) and I can tell you they absolutely do want to prevent women from working. Up to and including declaring it a 'mortal sin' in some cases (and even telling them their husbands should just taken on second or third jobs), and also just generally through pressure and ostracization of women that do so.
So that may color how I interpreted some of his rhetoric and some of the things between the lines, but I did feel the way he phrased some of it was a little bit of a 'wink' that kind of paid lip service to the idea of women having careers, but heavily implies that no "authentically Catholic" woman would actually CHOOSE such a thing. Like, I personally felt the 'diabolical lies' part was specifically inserted there to create the connection and raise that suspicion in any woman who might be daring to cherish career aspirations. I'm also familiar with women who grew up in these environments and regret not being able to further their education/goals (and in some worst case scenarios, were trapped in abusive relationships or left destitute when their husbands abandoned them after pressuring them to be dependent on them). I know he didn't outright say it, but being familiar with some of the other attitudes in those circles, he didn't really...NOT say it either, if that makes sense. Again - this may be due to my own perspective from what I've encountered.
All that said I completely agree with you about the necessary balance of workplace ambition and family, for both men and women. I have a career I am quite fulfilled by. My husband is a SAHD. When I was pregnant I was strongly considering leaving my job and staying home because at the time I had a very high stress job (which I overall enjoyed) and knew I couldn't concentrate well on both. My husband and I were both committed to doing what we could to live a lifestyle that allowed a single income family. Several things changed in between my getting pregnant and coming back from my maternity leave, and so we ended up in a switched position! I am all about building a family centered society and reminding women (and men) that it is not a waste of who they are (or even their educations) to stay home to raise their children. I know tons of awesome stay at home moms who bring those gifts to bear every day even if it's not in a job they get 'paid' for. (Very silly to act like those are the only jobs worth doing!) We should interrogate a society that tells us we HAVE to have two incomes or HAVE to work (even if you don't want to) or that treats domestic work as 'lesser'. (I recognize though that right now, sometimes though two incomes really are necessary even without chasing extravagance.). But on the flip side we need to make space for women who do have gifts that go beyond the "domestic sphere", as St. Edith Stein says, as long as the domestic sphere is being maintained.
But I really love that we are talking about fathers in this situation as well, as their role should not just be 'getting a paycheck' or chasing a workaholic life. In fact, they should be also helping out with family life at home, which is a part of why women who work often feel burned out, I think. Even when both work, studies show women still do the vast bulk of domestic labor. Each family needs to figure out the division of labor that works for them, period, without acting like one is preferable or more 'holy' or 'authentically Catholic'.
I guess I would just add that plenty of men also regret working too much (Cat's in the Cradle, anyone?) and there are women who regret staying at home. Not because they don't love their kids, but they just recognize it wasn't the best for them, and some of us (myself included) just aren't wired for SAHM life. So balance is needed but it's never as simple as one gender or the other, and we should at least get the chance to make those decisions (and mistakes).
(As a total aside if you are interested in the history of feminism and a Christian perspective, I always love to plug Abigail Favale's On The Genesis of Gender which goes into this topic and how feminism became what it is now (especially in light of current gender ideology). She's Catholic although I do think a lot of it is accessible regardless. But I'm also gonna plug for 'feminism' in general because I hate seeing it cast as the generic boogeyman - feminism as a movement is what has ultimately given me the right to vote, to have a credit card, own property, go to college, and to have it generally be recognized that assault, rape, and domestic violence should have consequences. There are in fact there are lots of examples even in the early Christian faith that give women the dignity they are due., but societally, we just weren't there yet. This absolutely does not mean I don't grieve what the feminism movement has come to be nowadays. I would still rather live in today's world than the 1950s.)
Regarding the Jewish thing: I'll just say that I don't entirely disagree about speech (although I don't totally agree either - SOMETIMES cancel culture is just accountability coming knocking), but like I said...it's an ODD thing to focus on. Like, I would have understood if he had maybe said something about gender ideology or whatever else but...it just seemed to be an odd thing to care about being able to say. And it worries me. (There's also some history of anti-Semitism in very traditional communities...so again...a bit between the lines there.)
The enjoyment is mutual Lila. You raise excellent points that make me pause. Your Catholic perspective on TLM is new information for me. I'd like to think that Mr Butker is not part of that regrettable subculture but I'd need more information to know. I totally agree that each couple is different and should have the freedom to make their own choices in these matters. I do think that it is helpful to pay attention to generalities though, and generally speaking I
are we allowed to say that women are naturally more skilled and well suited to nurture the very young, and in general the bond between newborn and mother should be given time to form without significant interruption? This is what I come up against when I think about mothers going back to work: What is the effect on young children and eventually on society when this bond is interrupted prematurely? Is it preposterous to ask wether the current epidemic of teen mental illness and suicide is one of the consequences of this seachange?
I don't know the answers to these questions but I have my suspicions and I think it's fair to ask them.
You've almost completely misrepresented Butker's speech in your article. I read your article first and then I listened to the speech. You take much of that he says out of context. You're attacking a straw man. For anyone who hasn't listened to Butker's speech, listen to it first before you judge it.
"O God, I thank you that I am not like the rest of humanity—lacking in humility, in profound moral error, anti-Semitic, irreverent, gossiping, ad hominem-throwing, poison-dispensing, and misogynistic, or even like this NFL kicker."
This whole saga is just a repeat of a never ending cycle of lies by weak, insecure, and arrogant men. Nothing new and not worth anyone’s time. My husband thinks he is jealous of his teammates girlfriend!
Thanks for this! I have been surprised to see so many conservatives (especially Cathlolics) rushing to his defense as if he said nothing wrong at all. When I listened to it, the things that jumped out to me were not his encouragement that women could be mothers and don’t have to have careers to be happy, but his condemnation of NFP and seeming endorsement of the TLM as the best way (and that’s a charitable take) to worship God. I missed the Kenneth Copeland-esque recommendation of following tradition as a gateway to worldly success.
Surprised more Catholics didn’t notice that!
I've admittedly found it a bit of a stumbling block. I'm a revert (some 20 years ago) and one fo the things that I found so much joy/comfort in was a)the intellectual tradition and the fact that the church really CARED about having cogent, consistent beliefs and taking the implications of how we say things VERY seriously and b)the recognition of nuance and that the church was not a monolith. Much is left to discernment, we all have our own path, and that also applied to women - be it the virgin martyrs, consecrated sisters, nuns who educated girls, working women saints, stay at home motherhood as a sanctifying vocation, etc - the 'feminine genius' could be expressed anywhere (and should be).
So it has been maddening to me to see how willing people are to just ignore that because some guy said a bunch of stuff that felt validating (and 'owned the libs') and who cares if it hurts women (or Jews, or the immunosuppressed, or whatever else) or is just flat out wrong? Subtext and critical thinking is for suckers! And if you point it out, you're just 'attacking'. I've been seeing a lot of 'the enemy of my enemy is my friend' mentality in the church lately and it drives me nuts. Plus a lot of it borrows from evangelicalism which is NOT Catholic. Okay, rant off!
I'm truly not saying this to discourage women from being stay at home mothers if they realize that's what they want. I almost discerned that path myself, despite academic accomplishments. (I didn't, but it was a serious consideration.) The fact that I have to even add that disclaimer is part of what ticks me off.
Thank you Holly for a well-considered critique of Mr. Butker's speech, especially from a Catholic perspective. I'm not sufficiently qualified to get into the Church specifics within your essay, but I would like to object to a couple of points and then offer an outsider's broader perspective on his speech.
First, you claim that he is engaged in "ad hominem" attacks on certain Catholic clergy, and that he is not being sufficiently respectful with his criticisms. I don't agree. Mr Butker never names any of the clergy and his critique is limited to the performance of their duties, not their personal character. As for his lack of respect, I can think of far worse and less respectful ways that he could have voiced his concerns, and I have to think that the Church would loathe giving the impression that they were repressing criticism from within the flock.
Second, with regard to "worldly success", it would seem that this is a rather broad and very much personally defined concept. Of course it could refer to material wealth and a collection of impressive titles, but it could also very well refer to a career path that the graduate finds personally rewarding and fulfilling for other reasons. "Worldly" here might simply mean: As opposed to the spiritual, non material aspects of personal growth.
Finally, Mr. Butker's speech stands in sharp contrast to the usual boiler plate graduation speeches where graduates are exhorted to "change the world" and can "be whatever they want to be", with little to no consideration given to obligations to the community and the necessary and healthy role of tradition in people's lives. If nothing else, the speech upsets the apple cart and gets people talking about marriage, family and faith, which is a good thing. In our increasingly secular society with, marriage and birth rates in free fall, we need more strong men like Harrison Butker to stand up and tell the truth.
Thanks very much for these comments. I think you're right on the precise definition of ad hominem attacks. I continue to disagree with you on the larger question of criticism of the clergy. I am a fan of fierce criticism when it is called for, but I feel strongly that it must be disciplined--and it must be disciplined by love. (As I noted very briefly, I think this is the heart of the Christian faith.) Among other considerations, it seems crystal clear to me that a commencement speech is neither the time nor the place. Finally, I agree with you completely that this speech avoids the same old bromides, but... I am not inclined for that reason, to give it a pass on its other faults. Again, I am grateful for your feedback.
Points well taken Holly. I think my level of concern about the alarming downward trends in society predispose me to be more forgiving of the speech's faults. The overriding message to men, imploring them to take a more active role in support of family and community needs to be heard, no matter how imperfectly, clearly and often.
Thank you for a civil debate!
If I may interject two other points that may hopefully provide some additional perspective (and I offer them in the interest of empathy. I am glad to see your own perspective on what you felt the message to men was):
1)I generally agree with you about not wanting to suppress criticism of the clergy, especially when they fail in their responsibilities. (Woe to the shepherds of Israel and all that). That said I agree with Holly here that a commencement speech (addressed to the graduates) is NOT the place. Also, more troubling, and not really touched on, is that part of those criticisms veered into covid related talking points that essentially criticized clergy for taking safety precautions (despite their being precedence for such a thing during times of plague). Now we can certainly argue in good faith about how far precautions should be taken and comfort levels and risk tolerance and all that (especially early on when we just didn't know all the specifics about how the disease worked), but to accuse them of fear/weakness when many priests/bishops were trying to balance safety of the vulnerable among us but STILL serve their flock (ours found creative ways and worked really hard) just leaves a hugely bad taste in my mouth. Especially when considering some of the nastier behavior that was witnessed - people purposefully going maskless in areas designated for those who needed a mask, shaming people for being 'weak', etc. It's still something I am trying to come to terms with. I really saw a lot of behavior that felt like it was more about proving they were right, or strong, or brave, or wouldn't let anybody tell them what to do, than it was about humility/obedience and protecting those at risk.
2)Regarding the message to men (and women) - I would posit that it might be easier for you to overlook the faults because most of the faults do not actually impact you. But as a woman (a working professional who uses NFP), I am more predisposed to be suspicious of those faults because the propagation of those errors DOES directly impact how I am viewed and treated. And, being somewhat familiar with the more traditional/TLM circles Butker seems to be promoting, I can say it's not always as idyllic as it seems - especially when it comes to the suspicion he cast on things like NFP and how that impacts women's physical/mental health when they are made to feel like they simply can't space their kids for reasons other than literal homelessness.
I am in full agreement with you about the importance of building a family centered society, one that values parenthood over material success (our work is in service to our ultimate vocations), that doesn't look down on those who choose a domestic path, recognizes their real contributions to society, and especially implores fathers to be involved too. However, it should not be at the cost of discouraging women from also following (if applicable) their own calls to shape their community and culture outside of the home. I'm not sure if by 'outsider' you mean you aren't Catholic, but both St. John Paul II and St. Edith Stein have written about the importance of working women/mothers in all aspects of society, the need for some women to reach outside of the domestic sphere, and there's nothing diabolical in cherishing those aspirations - as long as they are recognized to be in service of the family.
(I am not Jewish, but I imagine a Jewish person would also be much less loth to overlook him being so invested in talking about the Jews killing Christ, which has been used to justify cruelty.)
I hope that helps explain some of the concern. There are some kernels of truth there, but just too much taint for me to justify being able to 'support' it as I believe it does have the potential to do harm and twist the practice of the faith. I was like him once, as a fresh revert, interested in traditionalism, etc, but thankfully was surrounded by people who helped knock some sense into me (and humility). I worry he (and that whole culture) will grow increasingly rigid and continue to make unjust impositions that the Church does not impose.
Thanks for all your thoughts, Lila. I agree with your last paragraph completely.
Thank you for your thoughtful response, Lila. You are correct in that I am not a Catholic, so I want to be careful so as not to offend anyone or embarrass myself. First, I agree with your perspective on NFP. Within the sanctity of marriage, a couple should be able to decide for themselves how to space their
children. I can't believe that NFP and the larger imperative to "be fruitful and multiply" doesn't grant that latitude. It is abhorrent to me to imagine a husband imposing his will on his wife and not allow her input on child spacing.
With regard to women in the workplace, I read the transcript of the speech very carefully, and can't conclude that Butker feels that this should in any way be prohibited. He seems to simply want to persuade women that any satisfaction gained in the workplace does not compare to the profundity of bringing new life into the world within marriage. I think he could very well agree that it is perfectly reasonable for women to pursue both if they so choose. It is not as if men don't do the same as well. An involved father is also splitting his time between career and family, albeit without the tremendous physical reality of pregnancy and childbirth. This also touches on the "diabolical lies" that he refers to. My guess is that he is talking about the message from second wave feminism that a woman can choose career over family and gain just as much meaning in life from that. I've heard and read of too many women, upon reaching middle age, lament that choice and feel a painful gap in their lives, so I tend to agree with him on that.
Briefly, I just want to comment on his reference to who killed Jesus being spoken about in some university settings. In reading the transcript it seems clear to me that he raises this strictly in reference to the repressive nature of speech codes and cancel culture in the academy, not to stir up old animosities toward Jews or to specifically blame them for the death of Christ.
Finally, Covid. I side with Mr. Butker on this one. He references parishioners who were denied access to the sacraments because the priests were being overly cautious about Covid. Contrast this with his example of the priest who ministered to lepers for eleven years, or with Mother Theresa who dedicated her life to working with the sick and poor of Calcutta, or with the chaplains ministering to the dying soldiers on Normandy Beach. These are all examples of courage, and we must all ask if our leaders are leading us toward a courageous way of life, or toward a cautious way of life. As both Churchill and Maya Angelou said, courage is the one virtue that enables all of the others. I worry that a society that values caution above courage produces citizens that lack the ability to seek and speak truth, and to resist tyranny in all its forms, including supposed experts who mandate that healthy people wear masks, stay home and not attend church, despite having no scientific basis to support such. You say that there is precedent for this from the times of the plague, but I would say that it is unprecedented to tell healthy people not to go about their lives even while protecting the vulnerable. Sweden has shown us that shutdowns did nothing to limit covid mortality and indeed, that all-cause mortality has been lower in Sweden than any other comparable country since the pandemic subsided, because Swedes kept their doctor appointments and avoided the health risks of isolation and loneliness. I believe that, in time, it will become even more apparent that these shutdowns were perhaps one of the worst self-imposed mistakes in human history.
So those clergy who defied the authorities and held services throughout are being shown to be the courageous people that they are, and provided a living example that a cautious life is usually not a full life.
One last word on courage. This is not a virtue that most are born with. It must be modeled, encouraged and cultivated, and men in particular are very aware of how important it is for their self-respect to behave courageously. I can't imagine the woman who wants to be married to a man who asks her to go downstairs to investigate that strange noise in the middle of the night, or who doesn't act decisively when she and her children need protection. Harrison Butker understands this and wants to lead us in that direction. I disagree that this speech was inappropriate for a college graduation at a Catholic university. It is at just this time, when these young adults are leaving the cocoon of the academy that they need to hear this message.
Regarding covid (and courage). There's a lot I could say here. My thoughts are also specific to that period of time BEFORE vaccines and treatments were widely available and when hospitals were full to capacity. And when we still didn't know *exactly* what the best way to handle this was but were still trying *in good faith* to find the appropriate balance.
The tldr here is basically that I share the opposite concern as you, and I fear what happens when we have a culture that values courage over caution, and that is not balanced by prudence and compassion. To me it just leads to pride and a lot of ugliness. BOTH are abundantly needed. I think we just disagree on where that line lies!
My ire is not at you :)
I have a bachelor's and masters degree in microbiology, lab/research experience, work in a health care adjacent industry (I am NOT a health care worker but work closely with health care systems), and have family who are direct health care workers. I also am close with medically fragile people and have seen first hand how it impacted them, including some who could no longer attend church even AFTER things opened because people refused to respect their boundaries or sometimes even hurled insults at them. THAT is what kept them from the Sacraments. I have "healthy" friends who now have permanent damage from long-covid, and also a neighbor who died because he was high risk, trying to be cautious, and then was forced to go to an event (through work) where people refused to mask despite his requests. He caught covid at that event and died shortly after.
So, frankly, it's hard for me to respect those priests, because part of the reason people feel empowered to do things like spit on people wearing masks, scream at them, breathe/cough in their face, refuse to mask because 'it's my right', mock them, call them demonic sinners, and all the rest, is because people like those priests empowered them to do so and feel morally right and superior. It is a wound I am still healing from, and that I have yet to forgive the church for.
I suppose we see courage differently. What you describe as courage I see as recklessness, and a fierce individualism that ignores any obligation to the vulnerable. I saw a lot of cruelty, malice and mocking in the name of "courage", and a lot of 'might makes right' and ableism too. It's easy to have "courage" when you are a healthy, low risk individual, but the church does not belong to only them.
The examples of St. Mother Teresa and St. Damien of Molokai are only somewhat analogous here. In both cases, THEY went to the sick (and in St. Damien's case, quarantined himself) to actively minister to them. They took on that burden to go to them where they were. They did not encourage people to then go amongst others potentially spreading disease, or to spit in the face (sometimes literally) of those trying to protect themselves or their vulnerable loved ones.
Public health is a real thing, and hospital resources are a finite thing. This is not tyranny, and it's insulting to these dedicated scientists to call them "supposed experts". There is scientific basis for isolation preventing the spread of disease, as well as for *properly fitted* masks to reduce the spread of droplets (even if we can't totally eliminate it). Courage isn't always about doing what you want to do with bluster, but sometimes dong the quiet, less glamorous, onerous thing. Healthy people can catch disease (and become not-healthy)...and they can spread it. So it's within both logic and compassion that we would make that sacrifice even if we don't 'have to' in order to prevent others from getting sick, because we recognizes others are more important than ourselves.
And there IS precedent, even in the church, of restricting the actions of healthy people. During the plague 1576 in Milan and in Rome in 1656, the bishops closed churches, instituted quarantines, practiced distancing, etc. St. Charles Borromeo is a GREAT example of a 'plague saint'. He was a cardinal who did go and minister during the plague (during quarantine) but also was very strict about distancing and sanitation protocols for himself and those that worked with him. THAT is how you courageously serve the flock during something like that, not by stuffing your churches full of people, encouraging dissent and bragging about how "brave" you are because you're not afraid of "a cold" and insulting those that have to take precautions, or insinuating that their salvation is at risk.
And our priests did do similarly; even when we couldn't have Mass they did find ways to minister, within the safety protocols. I strongly dislike the trend to characterize these people as acting from 'fear' and 'cowardice' and 'weakness' instead of recognizing love and self sacrifice. Christianity has always been a religion of 'weakness', in some ways. I am a fan of prudence and compassion as virtues. In my experience, in this twisted culture we live in, without those courage is usually just a mask placed on recklessness or selfishness or an excuse to exalt strength/power/individualism. That said - that is WHY we have the 4 cardinal virtues . They are supposed to be in balance - Prudence, Temperance, Fortitude (courage) and Justice.
Obviously, Prudence in excess can become fear/anxiety or cowardice (or its own form of pride/control) and I recognize that is MY particular temptation. I am not saying every single precaution was right on. Priests should have been allowed to give last rites, I'm very much in favor of that. If churches were closed, then so should movie theaters or restaurants. We could have been less strict about school closures given certain outcomes/studies in that regard and I do think hospitals could have been better about which kinds of procedures were still allowed. It took us awhile to figure out which types of masks worked best and how that should be implemented. I still believe many of those decisions were made in good faith and the shut downs absolutely saved lives. It doesn't mean there weren't real consequences or negative aspects (there's really no great outcome in a plague) that we aren't still working through as a society, but if we had just kept going on as normal, people would have died in much higher numbers and good luck getting to your doctor appointments then. My father had a health emergency this past winter and couldn't get in to a bed because of a covid surge filling up the ICU. And this is now that it's 'over'.
That's all I'm saying - not that we can't differ on the logistics of disease mitigation/public health, or admit that mistakes were made. But when people come at it already saying all public health experts are "supposed" and tyrannical, that doesn't feel like a good faith discussion. And I just saw too much gross behavior to feel like I could really 'trust' the people who were arguing in favor of lowering restrictions because it really felt like they were just mad about being told what to do and then wanted to justify it after the fact. Obviously I am bringing my own baggage into it, it's hard for me to see the other than the worst motives either. Maybe otherwise I'd be more okay with saying 'some bishops chose to keep churches open, some chose to close and minister in other ways'. Both could be prudent/courageous choices depending on the circumstance/demographic.
As for your other examples, there are scenarios where decisive action is needed, or more 'obvious' displays of physical courage. These are areas that maybe are more (generally) suited to men's particular strengths. (Feminist though I am I don't deny I'm physically weaker than my husband!). But a pandemic is not one of them...I used to be a microbiologist, you can't punch a microbe. And that's where that balance of the cardinal virtues comes in - prudence is determining the right thing AND the right action. Courage is what gives you the strength to do it even in the face of challenges. But the challenges are not always the obvious one. Sometimes it may in fact be the challenge of quarantine.
For a commencement - instead I would say he should have given an example of courage (like St. Charles Borromeo or St. Damian) instead of just castigating bishops/priests who were still trying to do the right thing. Or if he wants to call out bishops, call out bishops that are lax on sex abuse ;)
A lot to unpack there Lila. I really appreciate your time spent. As I mentioned before I learn quite a bit from your responses. Of course I don't condone recklessness and value prudence alongside courage. I have no disagreement with the Cardinal virtues. You say though that many more people would have died without the shutdowns, but this doesn't square with the data from Sweden which didn't go along with the shutdown rationale. I'm curious as to how you respond to that?
The data also show that the people who succumbed to Covid had an average of seven co-morbidities. This statistic helps to emphasize how important it was to protect the vulnerable which I always supported. But we can always cite anecdotal evidence to counter the generality, however public policy must prioritize statistical generalities, not the outliers, in order to serve the majority as much as possible.
You denigrate my characterization of experts as "supposed" but there is a long list of flip flops and "noble lies" told to the public, as well as assertions made by public health officials that were unsupported by
scientific evidence. Have you read the Cochrane Report on masks, which showed their lack of efficacy? The Great Barrington Declaration was disparaged by these same officials when it was courageously
published early on, but now has been shown to have been both prescient and prudent.
One last comment on courage. I concur with the sentiment that it enables all of the other virtues, which include humility, prudence and disgression. But courage by itself doesn't guarantee these other virtues. Anyone who seeks to humiliate or denigrate others as weak when they feel courageous is acting in bad faith and falling far short of the Christian ideal.
Enjoying the discussison!
Regarding the first point - since you're not Catholic, you may not be as familiar with some of the different 'sub-cultures' within Catholic culture. I have some experience with the TLM-type communities (which Butker appears to be a part of) and I can tell you they absolutely do want to prevent women from working. Up to and including declaring it a 'mortal sin' in some cases (and even telling them their husbands should just taken on second or third jobs), and also just generally through pressure and ostracization of women that do so.
So that may color how I interpreted some of his rhetoric and some of the things between the lines, but I did feel the way he phrased some of it was a little bit of a 'wink' that kind of paid lip service to the idea of women having careers, but heavily implies that no "authentically Catholic" woman would actually CHOOSE such a thing. Like, I personally felt the 'diabolical lies' part was specifically inserted there to create the connection and raise that suspicion in any woman who might be daring to cherish career aspirations. I'm also familiar with women who grew up in these environments and regret not being able to further their education/goals (and in some worst case scenarios, were trapped in abusive relationships or left destitute when their husbands abandoned them after pressuring them to be dependent on them). I know he didn't outright say it, but being familiar with some of the other attitudes in those circles, he didn't really...NOT say it either, if that makes sense. Again - this may be due to my own perspective from what I've encountered.
All that said I completely agree with you about the necessary balance of workplace ambition and family, for both men and women. I have a career I am quite fulfilled by. My husband is a SAHD. When I was pregnant I was strongly considering leaving my job and staying home because at the time I had a very high stress job (which I overall enjoyed) and knew I couldn't concentrate well on both. My husband and I were both committed to doing what we could to live a lifestyle that allowed a single income family. Several things changed in between my getting pregnant and coming back from my maternity leave, and so we ended up in a switched position! I am all about building a family centered society and reminding women (and men) that it is not a waste of who they are (or even their educations) to stay home to raise their children. I know tons of awesome stay at home moms who bring those gifts to bear every day even if it's not in a job they get 'paid' for. (Very silly to act like those are the only jobs worth doing!) We should interrogate a society that tells us we HAVE to have two incomes or HAVE to work (even if you don't want to) or that treats domestic work as 'lesser'. (I recognize though that right now, sometimes though two incomes really are necessary even without chasing extravagance.). But on the flip side we need to make space for women who do have gifts that go beyond the "domestic sphere", as St. Edith Stein says, as long as the domestic sphere is being maintained.
But I really love that we are talking about fathers in this situation as well, as their role should not just be 'getting a paycheck' or chasing a workaholic life. In fact, they should be also helping out with family life at home, which is a part of why women who work often feel burned out, I think. Even when both work, studies show women still do the vast bulk of domestic labor. Each family needs to figure out the division of labor that works for them, period, without acting like one is preferable or more 'holy' or 'authentically Catholic'.
I guess I would just add that plenty of men also regret working too much (Cat's in the Cradle, anyone?) and there are women who regret staying at home. Not because they don't love their kids, but they just recognize it wasn't the best for them, and some of us (myself included) just aren't wired for SAHM life. So balance is needed but it's never as simple as one gender or the other, and we should at least get the chance to make those decisions (and mistakes).
(As a total aside if you are interested in the history of feminism and a Christian perspective, I always love to plug Abigail Favale's On The Genesis of Gender which goes into this topic and how feminism became what it is now (especially in light of current gender ideology). She's Catholic although I do think a lot of it is accessible regardless. But I'm also gonna plug for 'feminism' in general because I hate seeing it cast as the generic boogeyman - feminism as a movement is what has ultimately given me the right to vote, to have a credit card, own property, go to college, and to have it generally be recognized that assault, rape, and domestic violence should have consequences. There are in fact there are lots of examples even in the early Christian faith that give women the dignity they are due., but societally, we just weren't there yet. This absolutely does not mean I don't grieve what the feminism movement has come to be nowadays. I would still rather live in today's world than the 1950s.)
Regarding the Jewish thing: I'll just say that I don't entirely disagree about speech (although I don't totally agree either - SOMETIMES cancel culture is just accountability coming knocking), but like I said...it's an ODD thing to focus on. Like, I would have understood if he had maybe said something about gender ideology or whatever else but...it just seemed to be an odd thing to care about being able to say. And it worries me. (There's also some history of anti-Semitism in very traditional communities...so again...a bit between the lines there.)
As for covid that will be a second comment :D
The enjoyment is mutual Lila. You raise excellent points that make me pause. Your Catholic perspective on TLM is new information for me. I'd like to think that Mr Butker is not part of that regrettable subculture but I'd need more information to know. I totally agree that each couple is different and should have the freedom to make their own choices in these matters. I do think that it is helpful to pay attention to generalities though, and generally speaking I
are we allowed to say that women are naturally more skilled and well suited to nurture the very young, and in general the bond between newborn and mother should be given time to form without significant interruption? This is what I come up against when I think about mothers going back to work: What is the effect on young children and eventually on society when this bond is interrupted prematurely? Is it preposterous to ask wether the current epidemic of teen mental illness and suicide is one of the consequences of this seachange?
I don't know the answers to these questions but I have my suspicions and I think it's fair to ask them.
You've almost completely misrepresented Butker's speech in your article. I read your article first and then I listened to the speech. You take much of that he says out of context. You're attacking a straw man. For anyone who hasn't listened to Butker's speech, listen to it first before you judge it.
Thanks for this reminder of the importance of turning to the speech itself. Full text here: https://www.forbes.com/sites/jamesfarrell/2024/05/15/heres-harrison-butkers-controversial-commencement-speech-in-full/?sh=5a3f27377937
"O God, I thank you that I am not like the rest of humanity—lacking in humility, in profound moral error, anti-Semitic, irreverent, gossiping, ad hominem-throwing, poison-dispensing, and misogynistic, or even like this NFL kicker."
This whole saga is just a repeat of a never ending cycle of lies by weak, insecure, and arrogant men. Nothing new and not worth anyone’s time. My husband thinks he is jealous of his teammates girlfriend!