AmericanPapist Comments
Today the same thing didn't happen when Obama spoke at a Jesuit University.
http://www.catholicnewsagency.co...new.php?
n=11445
Oh boy, God bless him for standing up to the mark. But this sounds like a potential Rome University all over again.
Just excommunicate the university president if this is really an important issue, Archbishop Gomez or put the university under interdict. If not, quit your huffing and puffing. This handwringing approach is really getting old. Tom
TJM is right on the money. If listening to Mrs. Clinton is a sin worthy of excommunication, act on it. Otherwise, don't tell others whom they can have a guests in their house.
My letter to the Archdiocese:
Dear Deacon Rodgers --
I think the Archdiocese has not done anything to advance the Catholic faith by its recent attempt to ban Mrs. Clinton from speaking on the campus of an independent Catholic university. The bishops and their representatives at the USSCB meet regularly with various senators including Mrs. Clinton. The suggestion that it is okay for the bishops to hear from her but not the lay faithful (and those persons not part of our faith community but associated with St. Mary's) indicates a very low opinion of the laity. I appreciate the opportunity to hear from any and all of the presidential candidates and others in public life. Since there are a lot more of us lay faithful than bishops, we need a large space to do so. I think I am capable of listening to her and others without being drawn into sin. If Archbishop Gomez thinks this is difficult, I suggest he first start with himself and his brother bishops and stop interacting with such senators and others in public life. If he thinks we lay folks are feeble minded types who don't have the same ability as the bishops, I think he insults the lay faithful.
Katherine, it kind of reminds me of the old Index of Forbidden Books. Clerics could read them but not us. Tom
Archbishop Gomez is not attempting to contravene Mrs. Clinton's rights to free speech. Clearly that effort would be futile.
What he is worried about, however, is that her invitation to speak at a Catholic institution would cause scandal to the faithful (for instance, by proposing that her positions are in harmony with Church teaching and witness), and undermine the effectiveness of the Catholic institution's witness to the world.
To put it another way more bluntly, why should clinton be able to further her anti-life campaign on the Catholic dime?
Simple answer, she shouldn't.
I think that many of you just don't get it. The Archbishop isn't telling you who to vote for. He isn't telling you not to talk to or contact politicians or to go to listen to them.
He is saying that it is scandal to offer the appearance of support for such an issue as abortion, which many politicians offer as a "right". He is also saying it is scandal for a university to call itself Catholic and then ignore the clear teachings of the leaders of the Church - the Bishops - in such matters.
It has nothing to do with an authoritarian abuse of power.
Some posters seem to be engaging in an attempt to justify themselves to their consciences.
Do not be concerned about Sen. Obama speaking at a Jesuit college; After all, it is not Catholic.
"Some posters seem to be engaging in an attempt to justify themselves to their consciences."
Though I shouldn't presume to speake for them, I like how how posters like Katherine and TJM who are so secure in their faith in the Church's teachings that they're not afraid of being misled by someone who doesn't support them are labeled as pro-choice when there's absolutely no evidence to suggest it. Unless they've said things on other threads that I didn't catch.
"Do not be concerned about Sen. Obama speaking at a Jesuit college; After all, it is not Catholic."
What makes you say that?
I have a few questions here.
Why does opening the campus to political candidates give "scandal?"
Is it, as some have said here, that there is a danger that some will take away the impression that the University is endorsing the views of the speaker?
What if the University makes clear that the speaker does not speak for the University, and that the University actually disagrees with the speaker on some point or points?
Would it be permissible for the University to host a debate between two speakers on opposite sides of an issue such as abortion?
Why is it that I have a hunch that katherine and TJM would object to an invitation extended to David Duke.
And katherine, your house/guest analogy is pretty lame. Unless of course you think bishops have no right to tell Catholics how they should act in their own houses.
Mike -
The house in question is not the bishop's, it is the university's.
There is no scandal. The appearance at the university is not an endorsement of a candidate. Another candidate gave a speech at the University of Wisconsin, yet no one suggested the State of Wisconsin was supporting that candidate.
The University rightfully ignored a man who has confused the roles of pastor of the faithful and ward-heeler.
Crimes against the civil law within a citizen's house are still matters-of-concern for the police and the courts. Crimes against the laws of the Church, within the "house" of a college are still matters of concern for the bishops.
James is absolutely right of course.
In March 1962, Archbishop Joseph Rummel of New Orleans announced that all Catholic schools in the archdiocese would be integrated starting that fall. Rummel, who condemned racial segregation as a sin in 1956, found that his plan met organized resistance among Catholic parents. The opposition was led by Leander Perez, the president of the Plaquemines Parish council and one of the most powerful political bosses in the state; Jackson Ricau, the executive director of the South Louisiana Citizens Council, which opposed all integration efforts; and B.J. "Una" Gaillot, the president of Save Our Nation, an organization that asserted that the Bible mandated racial segregation.
On March 31, 1962, the archbishop sent letters to Messrs. Perez and Ricau and Mrs. Gaillot warning that if they continued to oppose his efforts "through word or deed," he would excommunicate them. On April 16, Rummel carried out his threat and announced the excommunication of all three.
Katherine, if you do a little research you'll find the schools in question included non-diocesan Catholic schools. A bishop's responsibilities and canonical powers extends to non-diocesan Catholic institutions. In fact, I believe that under canon law (Ed should correct me if I'm wrong) no Catholic institution can even operate in a diocese without the permission of the bishop. Now, civil law may or may not respect this canonical relationship, but excommunication is the ultimate trump card. It seems perfectly prudent for a bishop to play other cards before or instead of playing his trump card.
And finally, your comparison to a state university is inapt. State schools are governmental creatures and as such have much more limited discretion with respect to who to invite or not. In contrast, there is no First Amendment impediment to Catholic schools exercising discretion. Accordingly, the faithful have the right to assume that a Catholic insititution's decision to provide a person a platform for their views is made deliberately and that it carries implications. For example, absent very unusual circumstances, David Duke should not be invited to speak at a Catholic college, precisely because it not only risks advancing a cause that is inimical to Catholic teaching but also inadvertantly impresses an impramatur whether or not intended.
Now that all said, I agree that Mrs. Clinton is not the same as Duke insomuch as she is generally not associated with a single odious point of view. Accordingly, one might argue that the bishop is being disproportionate in his expressions of concern, but the principle that you assert -- which is essentially that this is none of his business -- is just plain mistaken.
Dear Mike --
I don't need to do "a little research" regarding a part of history I was very involved in. I am a former officer of the National Catholic Conference for Interracial Justice. I was around at the time of the Rummel incident. Earning the ire of many conservative Catholics, Archbishop Rummel spoke out strongly in defense of racial de-segregation. He was a great man.
He also was a good canonist. He made it quite clear that Messrs. Perez and Ricau and Mrs. Gaillot did not risk excommunication by supporting segregation in principle or by civil law pertaining to public facilities, even though the Archbishop forcefully disagreed with them. The excommunication threat came about because they tried to use the civil law to force the Catholic Church not to integrate it schools.
The better Louisiana example would be a bishop who made similar statements about a Louisiana Catholic college allowing its students hear from a politician with regrettable views on some life issues while later meeting himself with the same politician at the Episcopal Residence (with a joint press conference following) to discuss their response to the Katrina disaster. More of we must protect the simple lay folk from interacting with those only us bishops are sophisticated enough to interact with.
Katherine,
Congratulations on your important efforts at NCCIJ.
But tell, me. Don't you think the bishop would be in line to express dismay if St. Mary's invited David Duke to speak? Wouldn't it be only prudent for him to publicly make clear that he was not consulted and disagrees with the decision? And wouldn't it also be prudent for the bishop to meet with Duke regarding issues related to a local disaster if he is an elected official?
The problem with your concern about the laity is that the Catholic laity are in fact terribly catechized as a whole, as is evidenced by statistic after statistic which demonstrate that American Catholics are more American than Catholic. In my personal experience, efforts by good priests and bishops to remedy that scandal are sabatoged by lay "experts" with their own political agendas who make convenient claims concerning the need to respect the laity bla bla bla.
I am familiar with one parish that had a DRE who persisted in refusing to teach those parts of the catechism with which he disagreed. When the pastor eventually released him, many parishioners left the parish because he was such a popular guy. Yet another example of lay wisdom.
Just this morning I was reading Brophy's new anthology of great Catholic books, wherein he repeated characterizes abortion as a difficult issue under Catholic moral theology. The problem is, it's not. Brophy, a disciple of Curren, McBrien at al, is no doubt one of those many lay folk who have the intellectual formation and fortitude to withstand the assertions of immoral advocations of public speakers at Catholic schools, but the fact is that he apparently believes that abortion represents a difficult moral question from a Catholic point of view. This kind of nonsense is everywhere, and a bishop is right to do his best to make sure that Church teaching leaves no wiggle room when none should be there.
And finally, you miss the point of my prior post. Archbishop Rummell's program was to force integration of Catholic schools, even non-archdiocesan ones. You would seem to think that these schools were not his house or something like that.
Katherine, Mike--
If I may: it seems you two are talking past each other.
Mike is making a principled argument, Katherine is making a pragmatic argument.
It seems that Mike understands Katherine's position and disagrees with it, whereas Katherine doesn't understand Mike's position.
Katherine: Should a politician be permitted to speak on a Catholic campus, if s/he supports racist policies? Or perhaps a politician who supports the genocide in Darfur?
IF you answer yes (a legitimate answer), you're subscribing to a view that says there should be minimal speech restrictions on a Catholic campus.
IF you answer no, it seems you might be placing personal preference for a certain view AHEAD OF a principled stand.
Of course, if I'm wrong, please correct me :)
Thanks, LCB. I think you are perhaps mostly correct, especially regarding us talking past each other. But I'm not sure about the principle/pragmatic part.
FWIW, I think my principle is grounded in the form of pragmatism known as prudentialism. In other words, I think the Bishop is absolutely within his right to criticize a Catholic institution in his diocese for making a decision that has the potential of either advancing something inimical to Church teaching or confusing the faithful.
OTOH, Katherine seems to be saying that such criticisms are inappropriate because they are outside his domain (i.e., house). On this I disagree. And I suspect that Katherine herself is uncomfortable with her principle which is why she has not responded to the Duke hypotheticals. In any case, I think canon law supports my understanding of a bishop's authority.
Even if Katherine abandons or disavows the principle I see her as advancing, we would probably disagree prudentially. Having recently seen my son graduate from a catholic (formerly Catholic) college in Chicago that has an active pro-choice group and no pro-life group on campus (at least until recently), I am uncomfortable with the notion that bishops should passively stand by as Catholic colleges provide forums for those who advocate abortion, which is by far the greatest moral scourge of our era. But I do acknowledge that reasonable persons who accord proper weight to this issue could still conclude that the benefits of providing such forae outweigh the costs.
"IF you answer yes (a legitimate answer), you're subscribing to a view that says there should be minimal speech restrictions on a Catholic campus."
I've always been a believer of free speech, no matter the location in this country. (In fact, though I support McCain, I think McCain-Feingold was a bad law.) I support the right to burn the American flag, and I even support the right of Fred Phelps to protest the funerals of fallen soldiers. But I think at a university, be it secular or religious, free speech and the free exchange of ideas is crucial so that an individual knows what the other side is proposing and then, if the person doesn't agree, go out into the world and knock it down. This isn't some Orwellian world where you think one thing only and dissenting thoughts get into serious trouble. You can't have a debate without two sides, and I for one am confident that the views of the Church can win the debate. Stifling it, though, isn't going to do any good. People who hold contrarian views are going to exist, and if we don't know what they say influences those views, then how do we rebut them? It just makes sense to me that the Church says "Bring on what you've got because we've got reason on our side." My confidence in Church teachings being superior apparently isn't shared by a whole lot of others.
Nathan,
I think that the issue has less to do with confidence in Church teachings than the importance of communicating those teachings with clarity and consistency. Catholic colleges, in general, are composed of poorly catechised young adults. To suggest that they appreciate the gravity and rationale of Catholic teaching regarding abortion is belied by the number of them who believe they can be pro-choice and good Catholics. This is as wrongheaded as the view that one can be a racial bigot and a good Catholic, but for whatever reason the former has currency among the educated while the latter does not.
It is important to appreciate that while free speech is an important value, especially in the context of a university, it is neither the only important value nor the highest.
There really is no such thing as an "independent Catholic college." Either a college is Catholic, or it is not. If it is Catholic, it is under the pastoral care of the Church - in the same way that any Catholic institution is.
The good bishop is not telling Catholics "don't listen to Hillary", so the comparison to the Index librorum prohibitorum is a ridiculous statement to make. The question is - should we, as Catholics, provide a platform for those who disagree with fundamental Church teachings, to broadcast their views?
If it were in the context of a dialogue or debate, where, say, Janet Smith were given space on the podium to challenge and question Senator Clinton on her views on abortion, I would say yes, that might have educational value. Still, I'm not the bishop and not entrusted with making that call.
The Church has to protect her voice in the larger culture, and not squander her platform needlessly. Providing pro-abortion politicians a microphone and auditorium, enables them to produce campaign ads featuring "Hillary Clinton, speaking at St. Mary's University said..." That mislead people as to the Church's teaching and her dedication to protecting the unborn. The bishop was right to protest, and yes, further canonical consequences should follow for those who flagrantly ignore his pastoral and judicial oversight.
In this particular problem, I think we have less of an issue with the catechization of the lay faithful as with the limited knowledge of some members of the episcopate as to the duties of citizenship in a free society. You have offered David Duke as an example a number of times. But despite your low opinion of the lay faithful, I would believe that issue solves itself, in that in the present time far too few members of the university community have any interest in hearing from him and fewer still think hearing his views adds anything to an understanding of the civic dialogue of our nation. The purpose of having an exchange with Senator Clinton is that she is a significant part of the civic dialogue now taking place in our nation. Mr. Duke is not.
Are you asking is it objectively inappropriate to allow someone holding David Duke’s views to speak on a Catholic campus? I’m afraid the views he holds were likely held by the vast majority of campus speakers at least up until WWII, not only by civic leaders but by bishops and archbishops including some of which have buildings, scholarships and lectures named for them at Catholic colleges without a word of objection by those now criticizing Mrs. Clinton’s exchange with the student body. Can you explain this silence?
As to your point about Archbishop Rummell, his action was in opposition to civil laws that would prohibit the de-segregation of Catholic schools, something he moved very slowly in doing. At the time, I certainly was among those liberal Catholics who believed he should have moved quicker while never doubting that this was a tremendous difficulty for him.
"There really is no such thing as an 'independent Catholic college.'"
I can guarantee you that if I had gone to the exchange with Senator Clinton and sliped and fell through the negligence of the host, the Archbishop would not be accepting responsibility for my ailments.
Katherine,
Few problems solve themselves. Most require hard work by people who are commissioned to do that work or otherwise decide to do it. It is possible that in 15 years there will be no appetite to bring in HRC as a speaker, so what? How does that inform us as to the right answer today any more than what the right answer would have been for Duke 15 years ago? Racism is a stubborn problem, and it appears that abortion may be at least as stubborn, especially among the educated -- many of whom eagerly denounce bigotry while they support the right to kill the unborn.
You refer to an "exchange" with Senator Clinton. This is an important fact that I may have failed to appreciate. Consistent with Tim's post above, if HRC is invited to exchange her views with a qualified opponent, then I agree that Nathan's values may be served as Catholic teaching has an opportunity to be heard. Is this the case?
For the life of me I do not see how the moral blindness or shortcomings of our predecessors have any relevance. That goes for our contemporaries too.
And your info re Arch. Rummell is interesting but also completely irrelevant to my point.
And finally, the fact that liability for civil neglegence is determined under civil law does not alter the fact that the authority and responsibility of a bishop to act in the case at issue is determined under canon law.
Katherine,
What religious order did you leave in the 1970s?
The bottom line is that the bishop's thoughts have been heard and given appropriate consideration by the university. Nothing in canon law gives a bishop the right to ban Mrs. Clinton from speaking at an independent Catholic university, mostly because it is a false premise that her speaking (never touching on the issue of abortion) is a statement by the university endorsing the act of abotion.
Thomas --
I've never been part of a vowed community (other than my marriage vows). I'm the mother of five children, two of whom have been ordained to the priesthood. The other three have given me numerous grandchildren and now a great grandchild. My late husband converted to the Catholic faith when he was in law school. Like a number of other Catholics in our circle, he decided to take a job in a steel plant to be a witness to the Catholic faith there. I followed and worked in the plant also. We helped organize the union and he was the leader of the Association of Catholic Trade Unionists. We were involved in the famous battle for Local 601 in East Pittsburgh where we worked with Msgr. Charles Owen Rice to chase out the Communists and elect a Catholic backed slate of officers for the union. This was the occasion I got into a fist fight with a Communist girl (she started it; I ended it).
With the children getting older, I convinced my husband to take a job with the union in Washington as a lawyer. We moved to one of the few integrated neighborhoods and I became active in the effort to end segregation in Catholics churches, schools and hospitals. Once Cardinal O'Boyle responded favorably to our request, I became active with my fellow Catholics in de-segregating the rest of society. Of course, as a Catholic fighting for the dignity of factory workers and Black people, I put up with a lot of uncharitable comments from conservative Catholics.
So that's my background. Life as a nun is not part of it. Fighting racism and the Commies is.
Katherine, you've had quite a remarkable life! I love to hear from someone who not only can "talk the talk" but has actually "walked the walk." Tom
Agreed, a rich and important life. You have my admiration.
It doesn't sound very "feminist" but all I did is follow my husband. He was a wonderful man and a good Catholic.
A lucky one too, apparently.
What do your two priest-sons think about your constant excuse making for dissent and liturgical abuse?
Why is that your business?
Why is anything anyone's business here?
I fail to see why asking questions of a person who frequently, and of her own free will, posts about Catholic matters as a self-professed Catholic is suddenly off limits.
Not that my reasons are any of your business, apparently.
I just found it a rude question to ask, that's all. I can only imagine Father Scalia's reaction if a parishioner came up to him and demanded to know why his Dad doesn't think his Catholicism has any place in his decision-making process as a Supreme Court justice.
That's a bit of a flawed analogy.
But that aside, it's not as if Katherine is some poor, unsuspecting visitor who has never engaged in controversial disscusions on this and other sites.
I'm pretty sure she's used to being challenged and can take care of herself.
leaving aside the ad hominems and back to the original issue - being a "Catholic institution" is a much larger thing than "the bishop pays the insurance bill."
Being a Catholic institution means having a part to play in the larger work of the Church - evangelizing, feeding the poor, proclaiming liberty to captives, witnessing Christ to the world. All of this done under the guidance of a Shepherd - ultimately Christ, but visibly the hierarchical leadership of the Church.
There's no indication that Bishop Gomez tried to "ban" Hillary Clinton from speaking, but he lamented that he was left out of the decision-making process (something that he, as the chief shepherd of the diocese has a right to expect). He does not think it appropriate (nor do I, if truth be told) to have Catholic institutions provide unchallenged platforms for those diametrically opposed to dogmatic teachings of the Church.
For the courage to speak out, Bishop Gomez deserves a hardy "Hear, hear!"
Tim,
Thank you for restoring civility to the discussion. Under canon law, the university is an autonomous "juridical person". The primary discernment in this matter was the university's.
Stil, don't accept that it is a sin to hear Mrs. Clinton speak.
Katherine, it's true that the university is a separate juridic person in the law, but so are parishes, convents, hospitals. The notion of juridic personality does not remove an institution from the shepherding care of the Church.
It's also true that the University was the one to make the determination - and I don't see anything in Bishop Gomez' letter saying that he disagrees with that. What he says is that he wishes he would have been involved in the decision-making process. And as chief shepherd of the diocese, he has the right to that expectation. It would be a funny shepherd who lacked concern about where the sheep were wandering or what they were eating.
There's also no indication that Bishop Gomez said that it was a sin to listen to Mrs. Clinton. That would be an absurd statement for a bishop to make.
What he does say - perfectly commendable for a bishop to say - is "Our Catholic institutions must promote the clear understanding of our deep moral convictions on an issue like abortion, an act that the Church calls an 'unspeakable crime' and a non-negotiable issue."
I can't see where anyone could find fault with that. If the University is truly interested in maintaining it's identity as a Catholic institution, it real should behave like one, and that means consulting with the bishop on important issues, and remaining attentive to it's task of spreading the Gospel truth.
Tim --
I think your restatement of the situation is actually helpful in calming down some of the tension on this matter. Certainly one can read Archbishop's Gomez's actions as more moderate and understanding than some of his supporters make it out to be.
If we can understand that there is no issue of sin in allowing Mrs. Clinton to speak and that the university makes the ultimate decision as to who speaks, yes, there is nothing wrong with Archbishop Gomez expressing a desire that he had been consulted with(nor nothing wrong with tha alumni, faculty or other parts of the university community asking to be consulted).
I think we can narrow our point of disagreement to the fact I (and I presume the university) would maintain that Mrs. Clinton's exchange at the university did not in any objective sense mean that the univerity did not have "a clear understanding of our deep moral convictions on an issue like abortion."
Katherine, I think I can agree with you on that. I truly don't think that the University invited Mrs. Clinton to speak because they somehow agreed with her position on abortion. I suspect they took that position into consideration and decided that having a national politician come to speak at the university would be beneficial to the university's stature and reputation, and would be part of a larger dialogue, etc....
Here's where they should have included the bishop in the decision-making process though. As chief shepherd of the diocese he should have insight into the "big picture". He would have been able to tell them, for example, that many people would interpret their invitation as a down playing of their support for the pro life cause. Then (and maybe I am being a bit too naive here) they could have chosen either to not invite her, invite her as part of a debate with a strong pro life politician or academic, or invite her and make clear in the presentation or press kit or venue that St. Mary's University, as a Catholic University, embraces the fullness of the Church's teaching, including that on the sanctity of human life from conception to natural death.
Tim --
I appreciate your thoughts and certainly think there is wisdom in that. I would particularly see the merit in the last option you mention (which I am not sure was not done by the University on its own initiative). Another option would be a simple statement that while it is objectively true at a speech on campus does not constitute University endorsement of views the speaker holds, particularly views not mentioned in the speech, the University has received reports that their are persons with that misimpression. For their sake, the University wishes to restate that speaking on campus is not such an endorsement.
I think there are two more factors here that are lesser but still significant. One is that the Archbishop mentioned his response was in reaction to calls he received. Indications are that the calls were not from the lay faithful of the diocese but an orchestrated campaign by the Cardinal Newman Society and others. I don't think we have any hard evidence their truly as confusion among the faithful of the diocese. Second, as the Archbishop said, he issued his statement in response to the calls. Mrs. Clinton's address at St. Mary's was widely reported in the papers prior to that. I assume the Archbishop reads the newspaper. Its seems at best unclear that learning of her address alone was enough to prompt a statement. It would seem it was the Newman Society’s lobbying campaign.
Second, it actually was not the university that invited her. St. Mary's enrolls both Catholic and non-Catholic students. These students are allowed and encouraged to form students clubs of a religious, devotional, social, culture, civic, intellectual or professional nature. One of those clubs invited her. The university allows these clubs to use university facilities for their meetings.
Maybe the University President should have handed the phone to the student club president and said, "Here, the bishop wants to talk to you. It's between the two of you and I'm getting out of the middle."
Rally with Michelle Obama in Villanova
Villanova University Athletics Jake Nevin Fieldhouse
800 East Lancaster Avenue
Villanova, PA
Thursday, March 13, 2008
Doors open: 5:00 p.m.
The event is free and open to the public. Tickets are not required.
Please rsvp to: http://pa.barackobama.com/villanova
Space is limited, and admission is first-come, first-served.
For security reasons, do not bring bags.
Commenting by HaloScan
