 By contrast, there would be "defiance" if an employee within the marketing department of the beef-producing company were to resist the company's efforts to send him to India in order to increase beef sales. There are, then, three basic elements implied by the notion of "defiance" as the term is ordinary used-not just difference and a knowing difference but also a knowing difference in a context where there is in operation some norm dictating in favor of deference or acquiescence. Now the bishops' letter seems to suggest that when it comes to the activities and initiatives of Catholic universities, there is indeed in operation a norm that dictates in favor of deference or acquiescence, and indeed deference or acquiescence to the American Catholic bishops themselves. But what precisely is the nature and ground of this norm? Since the deference at issue is deference owed to the American Catholic bishops, it appears that the norm is binding precisely on those who are subject to the authority of the American Catholic bishops. Now there are many ways in which one might understand the authority of the American Catholic bishops. For example, one might understand it as the bishops' teaching authority, or their administrative authority, or their canonical authority. But regardless of the many possible ways in which one might understand this authority, is remains the case that one can "defy" the bishops in the ordinary sense of "defy," only if one is subject in some way to the authority of the bishops-which is to say, only if one is subject in some way to the operative norm which dictates in favor of deference to or acquiescence in the bishops' wishes or directives. Now it is on the basis of considerations such as these that the University of Notre Dame President John Jenkins argued, in a letter to the Board of Trustees of the University of Notre Dame, that Notre Dame's decision in 2009 to honor President Barack Obama-by giving him an honorary doctor of laws degree and 256 CATHOLICS IN POLITICAL LIFE inviting him to give the university's commencement addresswas perfectly consistent with both the spirit and the letter of the bishops' statement.8 As Fr. Jenkins writes in his letter to the trustees, "by definition, only Catholics who implicitly recognize the authority of Church teaching can act in 'defiance' of it."' As our preceding reflections have shown, Fr. Jenkins is indeed quite right to hold that it is impossible for a person to be "defiant" in the ordinary sense of the term, if that person is not bound by some norm dictating
By contrast, there would be " defiance " if an employee within the marketing department of the beef - producing ship's company were to defy the company's efforts to send him to India in orderliness to increase beef sales. There be, then, three basic element implied by the impression of " defiance " as the condition is ordinary use - not just difference and a know difference but also a knowing difference in a context where there is in operation some average dictating in favor of deference or assent. Now the bishops' letter seems to suggest that when it comes to the activity and initiatives of Catholic universities, there is indeed in operation a norm that dictate in favor of deference or acquiescence, and indeed deference or acquiescence to the American Catholic bishops themselves. But what precisely is the nature and ground of this norm? Since the deference at issue is deference owed to the American Catholic bishops, it appears that the norm is binding precisely on those who are subject to the assurance of the American Catholic bishops. Now there be many direction in which one might understand the authority of the American Catholic bishops. For case, one might understand it as the bishops' teaching authority, or their administrative assurance, or their canonical authority. But regardless of the many possible ways in which one might understand this authority, is stay the case that one can " defy " the bishops in the ordinary sense of " defy, " merely if one is subject in some manner to the authority of the bishops - which is to say, only if one is subject in some direction to the operative norm which dictates in party favor of deference to or acquiescence in the bishop' wishes or directives. immediately it is on the basis of consideration such as these that the University of Notre Dame President John Jenkins argued, in a letter to the Board of Trustees of the University of Notre Dame, that Notre Dame's decision in 2009 to respect President Barack Obama - by giving him an honorary doctor of laws degree and 256 CATHOLICS IN POLITICAL LIFE invite him to give the university's beginning addresswas perfectly consistent with both the spirit and the letter of the bishops' statement.8 As Fr. Jenkins writes in his letter to the regent, " by definition, only Catholics who implicitly recognize the authority of Church teaching can act in' defiance' of it. "' As our preceding reflections have shown, Fr. Jenkins is indeed quite right to halt that it is impossible for a person to be " defiant " in the ordinary sense of the terminus, if that person is not bound by some norm dictate
 By contrast, there would be "defiance" if an employxe withjn the mxrketing department of the bxef-peoducung company were to rerist the bompany's wffocts to send him vk India in orscr to mncrease beef ssles. There are, then, threa cadic elements implied by the notion jf "defisnfe" as the term is pwdinzgy used-not just difference and z knowiig difference bit also a knowing differenfe ij a context where hhere is in opewqtion some nurm dictatpug in favor of deference or acquiescence. Nuw thz bishops' lgcrer veems to sujgest nhat when it gpmes tm the avtivities and lnitietivws of Catholic univervities, there is inqeed in o[exation a norm that dixtqtes hn fdvor if aeftreice or aceuixscence, and indeed defwrence or acquiescemcq to the Ameridan Caehjlic bishops themselves. But what precistly ia the nature and ground of this norm? Since tje deferegce at issue is deference owed to the American Cadholir ciskips, ig aopears that the norm is binding precisely on egoxe who are subjegt to the authoritu lf jhe American Cxtholie bjshops. Now there age many ways in which one might understand the authoeity of the Cmeeican Catholic biskops. For exaople, one kight understand it as che biahops' teachlng authodkty, or their admknixtsative authority, or their sanonical autkority. Bjt rggardlefs of the lany imssible ways in whlch oue micht undershand this authority, is remains vie case that pna cdn "defy" che bixhops in the jrdinary sense of "defv," only if one is subjecv in some war to the authmtity of the bmshops-whish iw to say, onuh if one is sunject in some way ti the operative novm whkdh dictates in ycvir of deference to or abqumescegwe in the bivhopr' wkxhes ur directivcs. Vow ot is on the basis ox cohsiderations such ss these tyat the Tniversity of Notre Dame Presidtnt Join Jenyins srgoed, in a letter to the Board of Trustees of the Universyty if Notre Damz, that Notre Dame's decision in 2009 to honor President Barack Ibama-by giving him cn honorary dpctor of laws gegree and 256 CATHOLICW IN POLITICAL LINE inviting him to givs the gnivegsity's commencement addresswas perfectly consistent with both the spirit qnd thx jetter of tge boshopv' fcatemene.8 As Hr. Jenkins writes in his letter to the trustees, "uy definithou, only Catholics who implicitky recognize thg authority of Church teacging can act in 'defiance' of it."' As our pteceding reflections havc shown, Fe. Jeniins is inveed quite right to nold tkat it is impissinle for a persun yo be "defiajt" ii tke ordinary sense of the term, if rhat pwrdon is not bound by some novm dictzting
By contrast, there would be "defiance" if within marketing department the beef-producing company efforts send him to in order to beef sales. There are, then, three elements implied by the notion of "defiance" as the term is ordinary used-not difference and a knowing difference but also a knowing difference in a context there in some dictating in favor of deference or acquiescence. Now the bishops' letter seems to suggest that when comes to the activities and initiatives of Catholic there is indeed in a norm that dictates in of or acquiescence, indeed or to the American bishops themselves. But what precisely is the nature and ground of this norm? Since the deference at is deference the American bishops, appears the norm is on those who are subject to the American Catholic bishops. Now there are many in which might understand the authority of the Catholic bishops. For example, one might understand it the bishops' teaching authority, or their administrative authority, or their canonical authority. But regardless of possible ways in which might understand this is the that can "defy" bishops in the ordinary sense of "defy," only if one is in some way to the authority of the bishops-which is only one is subject some way to the norm dictates in favor of or in or Now is on the basis considerations such as these that University of Notre Dame a letter to the Board of Trustees of University of Notre Dame, that Notre Dame's in 2009 to honor President Barack Obama-by giving him an honorary doctor laws degree CATHOLICS IN POLITICAL LIFE inviting him to give university's commencement addresswas perfectly with both the spirit and the letter of the statement.8 Fr. Jenkins in his letter the trustees, "by only Catholics who the authority Church can of it."' As our preceding reflections shown, Jenkins is indeed quite right hold is impossible for a person to be "defiant" in the ordinary sense of the term, person is not bound some dictating
 By contrast, there would be "defIance" if an eMployEe wIthIn The mArkeTing department OF the Beef-producing company weRe to rEsISt thE CoMpany'S effortS To SENd hIm To indIa IN oRder tO inCrease bEef sales. ThEre ArE, then, three baSIc Elements imPliEd by the notioN of "DefianCe" As tHE term Is oRdinaRy used-NOt just DifferencE aND a knowINg diffeRENcE but Also a knowing diffeREnCE in a context wheRe therE iS In OPEraTioN some norm dIcTatinG In favor OF dEFERenCE or acquiescenCe. Now the bisHOps' Letter SeEms TO suggeSt thaT wHEn iT comes to the ActiVities and InitiaTIves of CATholic uNiversItiEs, tHere IS iNdEed In OPerATiOn a NOrm That dictAtEs In favOr of DEFERencE or AcquIesceNce, and indeed dEfeRencE Or aCquieScencE to tHe ameriCan CatHolic BiShops themselves. but wHat precisEly Is The NaTure aND grounD of ThiS norm? SiNce the dEFerEnCE AT iSsue is deference oweD tO THe american catholIC bIsHOps, it appEaRs tHat tHE Norm iS binDInG preciseLy on thOSe WhO are subJeCt to thE aUthOriTy of tHE AmeRican CAtholic bIshopS. now there are manY Ways in which onE MiGHT uNDersTanD the authoriTy of THe AmEricAN CAthOLic biShops. foR ExAMple, one might understAnD it as tHe bisHops' teaching aUthority, or THEIr adminiStraTIvE Authority, or theIr canOnical authORity. But rEgardLess of thE many possIBLe ways in WhiCh oNe mIghT UNdErstand this auTHOritY, iS remainS thE case thAt oNe cAn "dEfy" ThE bishops iN the ordiNaRy SeNsE of "Defy," oNLy if one iS sUbjEcT in Some wAY to the AuthoRity Of ThE BisHops-whiCH iS TO say, OnLy If onE is SuBject In soME waY to the oPerative nOrm WHich DiCtAtes in fAvor of deferenCe To or acquieScEncE in the BIShops' wisHes or directives. Now it is oN The basiS of ConsiDeraTions such As tHese thAt tHE UniveRsity oF NotrE DAme pREsideNT joHn JEnKins argued, IN A leTter tO tHe BoArd of TrUstees of the UniversITy oF Notre Dame, thaT NoTre DAME's DecISiON in 2009 To HOnoR pResident Barack OBama-by giviNg HIm An honorary DOctOr Of laws dEgree anD 256 CATHolICS IN PoLITICAL LiFE invitiNg Him tO GIve The universIty's commEncement aDDressWAs PerfeCtlY consiStEnt With bOth the SPirIt and The letTeR of the BishoPs' StatemenT.8 As Fr. Jenkins writes in his Letter To the TruStees, "by deFinITioN, only CathOlicS who implicItlY reCogniZe tHE authOritY Of chuRCh teaChinG Can act in 'dEFiAncE' OF iT."' As our preceDING reFlectIonS Have shOwn, FR. Jenkins is indeed qUIte right to hold That IT Is iMpoSSiblE fOr a person to be "dEfiAnT" IN the ordiNaRy sense of thE term, if tHaT PersoN is not Bound bY some noRM DiCTating
 By contrast, there wouldbe "defian ce" i f a n e mp loye e wi thin the marke t ingdepartment of the beef -prod uc i ng c o mp any w ere tor es i s t t he  c omp an y 's  effo rts  to sen d him to I ndi ain order toi nc rease beef  sa les. There a re,  then,  t hre e  basi c e lemen ts imp l ied by  the noti on of "de f iance"a s  t he t erm is ordinary u s ed - not just diffe rencean d  a k now ing  differenc ebut a l so a kn o wi n g dif f erence in a c ontext wher e  th ere is  i n o p eratio n som en orm  dictatingin f avor of d eferen c e or ac q uiescen ce. No w t hebish o ps 'let te r  se e ms  to sug gest tha twh en it  com e s t o th e a ctiv ities  and initiati ves  ofC ath olicunive rsit ie s, th ere is  inde ed  in operation a  nor m that di cta te s i nfavor of def ere nce  or acq uiescen c e,an d i nd eed deference or a cq u i es cence to  the A m er ic a n Cathol ic  bi shop s thems elve s .But what  preci s el yis thena ture a nd  gr oun d oft hisnorm?Since th e def e rence at issue is deferenceo we d to theAme rican Catho licb isho ps,i tapp e ars t hat t he no r m is binding precis el y on t hosewho are subje ct to thea u t hority o f th e  A m erican Catholi c bis hops. Nowt here are  many  ways in  which on e might un der sta ndthe a ut hority of the A meri ca n Catho lic  bishop s.For  ex amp le , one mig ht under st an dit  as  theb ishops'te ach in g a uthor i ty, or  thei r ad mi ni s tra tive au t ho r i ty,or  t heir  ca no nical  aut h ori ty. But  regardle sso f th ema ny poss ible ways inwh ich one mi gh t u nderst a n d this a uthority, is remains th e  case t hat  onecan"defy" th e b ishops  in the or dinary  sens eof" d efy," o nl y i fone is sub j e ctin so me  way  to the  authority of theb ish ops-which istosay, o nl y i f  o n e i ss ubj e c t in some way t o the oper at i ve  norm whic h  di ct ates in  favorof de f erenceto or acq uiescence  i n th e bis hops' wish es or di rectives. Now i t  i s onthe  basis  o f c onsid eratio n s s uch a s thes ethat t he Un iv ersity o f Notre Dame PresidentJohn J enkin s a rgued, in  al ett er to the  Boa rd of Trus tee s o f the  Un i versi ty o f  N otr e  Dame , th a t Notre D a me 'sd e ci sion in 200 9 t o h onorPre s identBara ck Obama-by givin g  him an honora ry d o c tor  of laws  d egree and 256CAT HO L I CS IN PO LI TICAL LIFEinviting  h i m togive t he uni versity ' s  c o mmence ment  ad dresswasper fe c tly con si st e nt wit h bo th  the s pirita nd t h e  letter of the b ishop s '  stat e men t.8 A sFr. Jen k inswrites inhis letterto the  tru stees , "by d ef initio n,on ly Catholi c s who imp licit ly reco gn izethe  autho rity o f Chu rchte ach ing can a c t  i n  ' de f ian ce'of it ." ' As  our prec e ding ref lec t ions ha ve  sh o w n, Fr. Je n k ins is ind eed  quit e right to h o ld t h at it is  impos siblefor a p e rso nto be " def i a nt" in th e ordinar y  se ns e of  the ter m,  ifth atpe rson is not bou nd by so me normd i ctatin g
 By_contrast, there_would be "defiance" if_an employee_within_the marketing_department_of the beef-producing_company were to_resist the company's efforts_to send him_to_India in order to increase beef sales. There are, then, three basic elements implied_by_the notion_of_"defiance"_as the term is ordinary_used-not just difference and a_knowing difference_but also a knowing difference in a context_where_there is in_operation some norm dictating in favor of deference or_acquiescence. Now the bishops' letter seems_to suggest that_when_it_comes to the activities_and initiatives of Catholic universities, there_is indeed in operation a norm_that dictates in favor of deference or_acquiescence, and indeed deference or acquiescence_to the American Catholic bishops_themselves. But_what precisely is the nature_and ground of_this norm?_Since the deference_at issue is deference owed to_the American Catholic_bishops, it appears that the norm_is_binding precisely on_those_who_are subject_to the authority_of_the American_Catholic_bishops. Now there are many ways_in_which one might understand the authority of_the American Catholic bishops._For_example, one might understand_it as the bishops' teaching_authority, or their administrative authority, or_their canonical_authority. But_regardless of the many possible ways in which one might understand_this authority, is remains the case_that one can "defy"_the bishops_in_the ordinary sense_of_"defy," only_if one is subject in some way_to the_authority of the bishops-which is to_say, only if one_is_subject in some way to the_operative norm which dictates in favor_of deference to or acquiescence_in_the_bishops' wishes or directives. Now_it is on the basis of_considerations such as_these that the University of Notre Dame_President_John Jenkins argued, in a letter_to_the Board of Trustees of the_University_of_Notre Dame, that Notre Dame's_decision in 2009 to honor President_Barack Obama-by giving him an honorary doctor of laws_degree and 256_CATHOLICS IN POLITICAL LIFE inviting_him_to_give the university's commencement addresswas perfectly consistent with both the_spirit and_the letter of_the bishops' statement.8 As Fr. Jenkins writes in his letter_to the trustees, "by definition, only Catholics_who implicitly recognize the authority of Church teaching can act in_'defiance' of it."' As our preceding reflections have_shown, Fr. Jenkins is indeed quite right_to hold that it_is_impossible for a person to be "defiant"_in_the_ordinary_sense of the_term, if that_person is not_bound by_some norm dictating