Tuesday, March 19, AD 2024 2:49am

Jesuitical 14: Fordham, Coulter and Singer

 

Part 14 of my ongoing survey of the follies of many modern day Jesuits.  Fordham President Joseph McShane, SJ, knows who his real enemy is.  Today Fordham is hosting the well known proponent of euthanasia and abortion Peter Singer at a conference charmingly entitled:  “Conference with Peter Singer: Christians and Other Animals: Moving the Conversation Forward.”  Singer is fine according to McShane, but he bitterly criticized the College Republicans recently at Fordham for sponsoring a speech by Ann Coulter.  Robert Shibley, at Professor William Jacobson’s magnicent blog College Insurrection, gives us the juicy details:

Fordham University is in a bit of a bind.

After loudly proclaiming his “disgust” with the “hate speech” of conservative pundit Ann Coulter in an email to all students, in the process slamming the Fordham College Republicans—his own students—as immature bigots who lack character, Fordham President Joseph McShane, S.J., is now faced with defending his administration’s invitation to philosopher and infanticide advocate Peter Singer to participate in a panel on “animal ethics.”

This puts Fordham in a tough spot.

Father McShane could have allowed the marketplace of ideas to function on its campus without engaging in an electronic temper tantrum. (To his credit, he did not ban Coulter from campus, although the College Republicans clearly saw which way the wind was blowing and canceled the event themselves—here’s one student’s reaction to that.) But he didn’t, and now Fordham is stuck trying to justify McShane’s statement.

In response to an email from a College Insurrection reader provided to us, Bob Howe, Senior Director of Communications at Fordham, penned the following response, attempting to explain why having Peter Singer advocating his positions on campus is totally different from having Ann Coulter advocate her positions:

Go here to read the rest.  I have never had any love for Ann Coulter.  I view her as a shameless self-promoter who has used conservatism as a path to fame and riches for Ann Coulter.  I regard her arguments as usually big on volume and almost nil on substance.  However, only someone who is deeply wedded to the left side of the political spectrum at a purportedly Catholic university could view Coulter as unacceptable as a speaker and Peter Singer, who is an outspoken advocate of the Culture of Death, as peachy-keen.  The fact that the College Republicans backed down on inviting Coulter in the face of the attack by McShane helps explain how the election was lost this year.  No fortitude, no victory.

0 0 votes
Article Rating
13 Comments
Oldest
Newest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
T. Shaw
T. Shaw
Friday, November 16, AD 2012 5:41am

What is it: double standard, hypocrisy, or stupidity?

To quote that famed American cultural icon, Bart Simpson, “I’m insulted!”

Infanticide, sodomy, etc. are promoted.

Freedom, personal responsibility, free markets, etc. are censored.

Anyhow, the grads will be lucky to get part-time work at “Bed, Bath and Beyond.”

Paul D.
Paul D.
Friday, November 16, AD 2012 10:22am

Not being a canon scholar I’d like to know if a school can be stripped of its Catholic name? What protections are there against anyone just calling themselves Catholic regardless of the reality?

icefalcon
icefalcon
Friday, November 16, AD 2012 2:41pm

Peter Singer also sees nothing wrong with bestiality.

icefalcon
icefalcon
Friday, November 16, AD 2012 2:43pm

Paul D, i totally agree with you. The word “Catholic” should be legally protected so that entities like Notre Dame that honor pro-abortion public figures will be forced to stop capitalizing on Catholic identity.

Pinky
Pinky
Friday, November 16, AD 2012 2:47pm

I know that this is one of those stories I’m supposed to get really angry about, but I can’t. First of all, the name given is wrong. Drop the “Conference with Peter Singer” part. That’s significant because he’s one of four panelists (another of whom is an editor of First Things). The topic is the Christian view of animal rights, not infanticide. I personally wouldn’t walk across the street to attend that discussion, but I don’t see anything necessarily wrong with it.

Mike Petrik
Mike Petrik
Friday, November 16, AD 2012 3:00pm

I don’t disagree, Pinky, at least not passionately so. Yet Singer’s views are so odious that it is hard to just set them aside. If he were a white supremacist would we do that?

Clinton
Clinton
Friday, November 16, AD 2012 7:28pm

“The fact that the College Republicans backed down on inviting Coulter in the
face of the attack by McShane helps explain how the election was lost this year.
No fortitude, no victory.”

According to the statement released by the College Republicans and signed by
the President, VP, Treasurer and Secretary, the Fordham CR had already decided
to drop Ms. Coulter before Fr. McShane’s 15 minute hate was emailed:

“We made this choice freely before Fr. McShane’s email was sent out and we
became aware of his feelings– had the President simply reached out to us
before releasing his statement, he would have learned that the event was being
cancelled”. — Fordham College Republicans

Folding like a bunch of cheap tents– it’ll be a wonder if Fordham’s College
Republicans will ever be able to get a prospective speaker to return their
phone calls again. If they are a fair gauge of the caliber of the future leaders
of the Republican party, we need to get used to losing elections. No fortitude,
no victory, indeed.

T. Shaw
T. Shaw
Friday, November 16, AD 2012 8:31pm

Coincidently, last evening on the LIRR, I was reading my freshman Ancient History text. One innovation in Sparta the institution of a council to usurp Spartan fathers’ right to decide whether an infant should die.

Fordham, You’re promoting ancient, pagan barbarism, Baby. (No pun intended.)

trackback
Saturday, November 17, AD 2012 12:11am

[…] Fordham, Coulter and Singer – Donald R. McClarey, The American Catholic […]

Still Catholic
Still Catholic
Sunday, November 18, AD 2012 7:10am

What is happening to Catholic education? Fordham can’t stand to have an advocate for free speech yet has no problem with one whose views are totally opposed to anything the Catholic church stands for? Georgetown covers crucifixes so as not to offend a president who says he’s a Christian and welcomes him even though he is a proponent of allowing abortion survivors to die? Notre Dame – I can’t even read anything about them any more. Breaks my heart.

I am most disappointed in the young republicans. Invite or don’t invite as you will but once invited, stand by your invitation.

Taylor
Taylor
Monday, November 19, AD 2012 9:15pm

It’s a lot different than one, Vince Lombardi went to Fordham and was in their blocks of granite. And people wonder about the “Catholic vote” ?? when we have things like this going on?? Thank goodness, St. Thomas St. Paul seems to keep to Catholic values, I’ve heard different about St. Catherine’s there but can’t be sure.

Richard Cancemi
Richard Cancemi
Tuesday, November 20, AD 2012 9:42am

Richard Cancemi
November 18, 2012 at 8:47 am · Reply

John Collingnon, in his comment, refers to the Jesuits as a sect. This is not true; they are a Religious Order called “The Society of Jesus, hence the SJ after there names. They were founded by St. Ignatious of Loyola whose mission he vowed was to defend the Faith. In addition to the vows of Poverty, Chastity and Obedience, all those who joined him took a fourth vow to be Protectors of the Faith and the Pope. They were the intellectuals of the Church’s teachings and hence were also teachers in Universities. Their schools were well respected.

During the Protestant Reformation in England they were hunted down and killed savagely because of their defense of Catholic Doctrine. As Protestantism spread throughout Europe, so too were other Religious Orders and Catholics in general. The Jesuits, in particular, were feared because of their superior intellectual abilities.

Somewhere along their life span of the Order, some Jesuits seemed to have lost their way and had and have become revolutionary radicals. They turned their back to the Church. They were even infiltrated by Communists during Russia’s subversive reign. Many seemed to have embraced Marxist Socialism as part of their thinking and have lost their way. No all, but many.

Father McShane appears to be among the lost, radical Jesuits supporting Secularism over Religiosity. He is certainly not representative of Catholicism nor is he representative of the original mission of his Jesuit Order. However far too many Jesuits have “lost their way”. Perhaps their intellectual training has a produced in them a hubris that dissolves the humility that is urged in their training.

Jesuits have been known as “trouble-making revolutionaries” for a long time but those (and there are far too many) are not representatives of Catholicism. They embrace the “injustice” inherent in Marxist Socialism and lose sight of “true justice for all”. “Social Justice” is a Socialist term which they embrace. It means taking (stealing) from some to give to others. It is not to be confused with Christian Charity which is voluntary.

Father McShane needs to take time out and meditate on his Catholicism and the mission of his Order. His support of the anti-religious ideas of the secularist Peter Singer are inexcusable as a Jesuit and Catholic. He, himself, should make use of the Confessional, if he can get beyond his own personal hubris, and seek absolution for his sinful support of heresy. At the very least, he should be ashamed of himself!

But please, do not equate Fr. McShane and others like him with Catholic beliefs.

I, personally would not send my children to a Jesuit School because they can’t be trusted to be objective.

(There is an interesting book called:”The Jesuits”, written by a former Jesuit, which is very enlightening.)

Discover more from The American Catholic

Subscribe now to keep reading and get access to the full archive.

Continue reading

Scroll to Top