The Motley Monk
LOS ANGELES, July 14, 2015 (LifeSiteNews) – An undercover video released this morning shows a national leader of Planned Parenthood admitting that the abortion provider uses the illegal and highly controversial partial birth abortion procedure to sell intact fetal body parts.
The average asking price for fetal body parts? Between $30 and $100 per specimen.
Dr. Deborah Nucatola has been senior director of medical services at Planned Parenthood since February 2009, where she oversees medical practices at all Planned Parenthood affiliates nationwide. She has been employed by Planned Parenthood for more than a decade. She also performs abortions up to 24 weeks in Los Angeles.
In the video, she met with investigators posing as buyers from a human biologics company on July 25, 2014.
While casually sipping wine and eating salad, Dr. Nucatola revealed that she charges $30 to $100 per specimen, and that fetal livers are especially in demand – although “a lot of people want intact hearts these days,” and she has had requests for lungs and “lower extremities.”
Planned Parenthood affiliates “absolutely” want to offer such organs, she said.
Nucatola admitted that Planned Parenthood’s abortionists take great care not to appear to be profiteering off fetal body parts. She said, “They just want to do it in a way that is not perceived as, ‘The clinic is selling tissue. This clinic is making money off of this.’”
The issue is not merely PR – there is also the little matter of federal law. Trafficking in human body parts is a federal felony punishable by up to 10 years in prison and a fine of $500,000.
The method of abortion she describes, on video, also appears to violate federal law.
Dr. Nucatola said she has “a huddle at the beginning of the day” to determine what fetal body parts consumers are requesting, and which patients that day will have babies from which they will be able to harvest them. Then Planned Parenthood abortionists tailor the procedure to assure they do not destroy the organs, maximizing profitability.
“For that reason, most providers will do this case under ultrasound guidance, so they’ll know where they’re putting their forceps,” she said.
She revealed that, as abortionists are dismembering the child, they decide, “I’m not gonna crush that part. I’m gonna basically crush below, I’m gonna crush above, and I’m gonna see if I can get it all intact.”
In order to procure intact organs, she seemed to describe herself and others performing the illegal partial birth abortion method.
“Some people,” she said, taking another sip of wine, “will actually try to change the presentation so that it’s not vertex [head first],”she continues. “So, if you do it starting from the breech presentation [feet first]…often, the last step, you can evacuate an intact calvarium [the head] at the end.”
President George W. Bush signed a law outlawing partial birth abortion in 2003. It, too, is a federal felony punishable by two years in prison and a fine of $250,000.
But, Dr. Nucatola told the undercover investigators, there are ways around the law.
“The federal abortion ban is a law, and laws are up to interpretation,” she said. “So, if I say on day one that I don’t intend to do this, what ultimately happens doesn’t matter.”
“At the national office, we have a Litigation and Law Department which just really doesn’t want us to be the middle people for this issue right now,” she says. “But I will tell you that behind closed doors these conversations are happening with the affiliates.” (You can read a full transcript of the conversation here.)
In a separate video, the investigators meet with Planned Parenthood CEO Cecile Richards, saying that Dr. Nucatola has been incredibly helpful in their efforts to procure unborn babies’ body parts.
“Oh good,” Richards replies. “Great. She’s amazing.”
In addition to overseeing all medical practices at the abortion giant, Dr. Nucatola has frequently been a media spokeswoman promoting the organization’s political concerns.
The video was the fruit of a nearly three-year-long undercover investigation by theCenter for Medical Progress.
“Planned Parenthood’s criminal conspiracy to make money off of aborted baby parts reaches to the very highest levels of their organization,” said Project Lead David Daleiden. “Elected officials must listen to the public outcry for Planned Parenthood to be held accountable to the law and for our tax dollars to stop underwriting this barbaric abortion business.”
National pro-life leaders immediately called for a Congressional investigation. “This video provides a shocking reality check about the grisly, inhumane business model of Planned Parenthood,” said Dr. Charmaine Yoest, president and CEO of Americans United for Life (AUL). “Under Cecile Richards’ leadership, breast screenings are down, abortions are up and profits are up, as even the bodies of the unborn become something else for her to sell. We call for an immediate Congressional investigation into these alleged atrocities. And just as important, the time is now to defund Planned Parenthood. The American taxpayer should not be in business with such callous profiteers.”
Organizers are asking that this information be shared on Twitter with the hashtag #PPSellsBabyParts. They also request that everyone contact Congress and demand a full investigation.
Over at the Souix City Journal, State Senator Rick Bertrand (R-IA) has written an impassioned op-ed explaining why Catholics, especially those who are pro-life, need to stop supporting pro-death politicians.
Given the demographic data, Bertrand writes:
Abortion in this country will only be abolished through the legislative process, and that begins by Catholics electing representatives, an organization, that will aggressively pursue a pro-life agenda. Only then will a domino of judicial rulings pave the way back to the U.S. Supreme Court where this horrific tragedy started.
This is the reality. Can we Catholics handle the truth?
More to the point, Bertrand offers an opinion about what the data suggest for the nation’s Catholic bishops, priests, and deacons:
Any priest or member of our clergy who is voting with the Democratic Party is not leading by example, and simply living and preaching a lie. “Not domineering over those in your charge, but being examples to the flock.” (1 Peter 5:3)
“How do we Catholics end abortion?”, Bertrand asks. “By looking in the mirror.”
Kudos to State Senator Rick Bertrand for taking his faith into the public square and courageously stating what it requires of Catholics. Read his story here.
To read State Senator Bertrand’s op-ed, click on the following link:
To read The Motley Monk’s daily blog, Omnibus, click on the following link:
Many have rightly lauded Pope Francis’ encyclical concerning the environment, Laudato si. However, many of those doing so view the encyclical as a crucial document, not for its defense of life, family, and the impoverished but for its utility in furthering their environmentalist agenda.
For example, repeatedly mentioning the “environmental crisis””and stating “the symptoms of sickness evident in the soil, in the water, in the air, and in all forms of life” (¶ 2), Pope Francis provides environmentalists a motherlode of propaganda soundbites as well as rhetorical ammunition to make an appeal to papal authority in support of their agenda. Unfortunately, although this appeal represents the logical fallacy of “appeal to authority,” that won’t matter much.
The President of the Population Research Institute and the author of Population Control: Real Costs and Illusory Benefits, Steven Mosher, has carefully considered Laudato si and asks over at the New York Post: “Do the Pope and I live on the same planet?”
Answering his question, Mosher argues that the encyclical’s pessimistic tone neglects the much of the progress that’s already been achieved in caring for both the environment and the poor. He writes:
Many of its strong claims about the dire state of the world don’t take into account positive change reported even in UN documents, which themselves tend to magnify environmental and other global problems as a fundraising ploy.
In this regard, Mosher cites this discrepancy concerning the issues of: water (¶ 27-31); loss of biodiversity (¶ 32-42); decline in the quality of human life and the breakdown of society (¶ 43-47); and, global inequality (¶ 48-52). In sum:
…a dismal tone of environmental “apocalypse now” pervades the entire document, as when it breathlessly proclaims that: “Doomsday predictions can no longer be met with irony or distain. We may well be leaving to coming generations debris, desolation and filth….our contemporary lifestyle [is] unsustainable …” (¶ 161).
Mosher correctly argues that problem isn’t Pope Francis but the so-called environmental “experts” who were hand-selected by the head of the Pontifical Academy of Sciences, Archbishop Marcelo Sanchez Sorondo. One of those experts, Hans Joachim Schellnhuber, who assisted in drafting the encyclical, happens to be a member of the Club of Rome, a global think tank. In 1972, the group issued the now-discredited “The Limits to Growth” study which famously predicted the world would run out of “nonrenewable resources” in the 1980s and 1990s, and that environmental, economic, and societal collapse would follow.
“In selecting Schellnhuber,” Mosher asserts, “[Archbishop Sanchez Sorondo] might as well have turned the manuscript over to a fundraising copywriter for the Environmental Defense Fund.”
The truth concerning the scriptural injunction to cultivate, rule, and care for the environment is ill-served when ideology—in this case, the ideology of those who worship at the altar of environmentalism—and its propaganda are selected to provide the substantive foundation for the argument.
Where Laudato si promotes that truth, it’s a fine document for serious reflection and action. Where Laudato si veers from that truth, the encyclical can easily be hijacked by environmentalists and their propagandists.
To read Steven Mosher’s article in the New York Post, click on the following link:
To read The Motley Monk’s daily blog, Omnibus, click on the following link:
When it comes to the Anglican Communion, it’s not only possible to believe anything, it’s also possible to develop a high-church liturgy for everything.
Consider the text of an April 2015 motion proposed by the Diocese of Blackburn for review during the upcoming July 2015 General Synod of the Church of England. The text marks an individual’s gender transition, stating:
…to move on behalf of the Blackburn Diocesan Synod:
“That this Synod, recognising the need for transgender people to be welcomed and affirmed in their parish church, call on the House of Bishops to consider whether some nationally commended liturgical materials might be prepared to mark a person’s gender transition.
Studying the motion, one particularly astute commentor authored a collect for a welcoming/affirming ceremony. The commentor asks: “What will the collect look like?”
Here’s the text:
“Partially mighty God, who makes mistakes by placing female souls with male bodies and male souls with female bodies; we thank you for the gift of surgical techniques which can improve upon your justice. As we place our trust in the ‘social construct of gender fluidity’ rather than the waters of baptism, we claim the goodness of a new name for our transgender (brother/sister) and repent of our cisgender pride. Hail Cobra!”
The essence of humor is a kernel of truth that’s stretched beyond credulity.
This couldn’t possibly be what Pope Francis had in mind when he said “the Roman Catholic Church must be opening and welcoming to those outside of the faith,” is it?
To read the motion authored by the Diocese of Blackburn, click on the following link:
To read Pope Francis’ remarks about the Church being open and welcoming, click on the following link:
To read about the Rev. Megan Rohrer, click on the following link:
To read The Motley Monk’s daily blog, Omnibus, click on the following link:
“Inspired minds. Amazing possibilities.”
That’s the tagline for the Dominican University (River Forest, Illinois) website for this Dominican institution of higher education which advertises its mission using the following descriptor:
As a Sinsinawa Dominican-sponsored institution, Dominican University prepares students to pursue truth, to give compassionate service and to participate in the creation of a more just and humane world.
Notice the word “Catholic” by its absence in that descriptor.
Just what might that mission mean in actual practice?
Consider the “New Faces, New Voices, New Ways of Being Church” conference scheduled for October 24. The conference’s subtitle is noteworthy: “An exploration of the American Catholic Church going forward.”
The description of the conference is even more noteworthy:
[The National Catholic Reporters’ (NCR)] founders were journalists whose first priorities were holding authorities accountable and being a platform for a free, open discussion of ideas. Solidly founded in an American culture, NCR has been a chronicler of society and the Catholic Church for 50 years. Through this uniquely American and Catholic lens, the conference will explore what might be on the horizon for the American Catholic church.
Putting some flesh on those bones, conference speakers include:
- Maria Pilar Aquino: A Catholic feminist theologian who teaches liberation theology, is pro-abortion, and supports the ordination of women. “We feminist Catholic theologians profoundly disagree with the intractable position of official Roman Catholicism regarding reproductive rights and women’s human rights,” Aquino has said. Of the pontificate of St. John Paul II, Aquino noted that it exhibited “strong signs of theological intolerance and of rigidity in the exercise of power….[The] mode of Church promoted by John Paul II was widely characterized by authoritarianism, centralism, conservatism, imperialism, and by monoculturalism, and is consistent with the patterns of dominant male-centered Western European Christianity.” In her talk, Aquino will explore the contribution of the deep voices from the Global South to those processes.
- Reverend Bryan Massingale, STD: A priest of the Archdiocese of Milwaukee and professor at Marquette University, Father Massingale spoke at an event on Capitol Hill on behalf of Equally Blessed, a homosexual activist coalition which counts among its number Call To Action, DignityUSA, Fortunate Families, and New Ways Ministry. At the event, Massingale advocated “full equality” for homosexuals. Afterwards, Massingale was asked whether he agreed with the teaching found in the Catechism of the Catholic Church that “homosexual acts are contrary to the natural law” and “[under] no circumstances can they be approved,” Massingale evaded the question. In his talk, Father Massingale will explore how this moment challenges the Catholic faith community to face the “unresolved racism” in its own life, as well as the opportunities for more engaged social reflection and justice ministry.
- Jamie Manson: A National Catholic Reporter columnist, Manson covers the so-called “homosexual marriage” and and feminist ideology beat. A critic of Pope Francis for upholding the complementarity of the two genders, Manson accuses the Pope of denegrating both homosexuals and women. Defending legal recognition of so-called “homosexual marriage,” Manson has argued: “How sad that church leaders refuse to see that same-sex couples have as much potential to be visible signs of God’s ‘masterwork’ as heterosexual relationships.” She also calls Church leaders to “have the courage and humility to see that God can be as fully present in the relationships of same-sex couples as God can be in opposite-sex couples and that God can be as sacramentally present through the body of a woman priest as God can be sacramentally present in the body of a male priest.” In her presentation, Manson will explore some of the new models of church that have been emerging among marginalized faith communities and consider what forms of church may be meaningful and relevant to new generations of Catholics.
- Sister Joan Chittister, OSB: The “counter Mother Angelica” founder of Benetvision–an organization that promotes “contemporary spirituality” with the aim of awakening the “Divine Feminine” within each woman–Sr. Chittister is arguably most noted for her dissent against Church teachings concerning abortion (claiming it denies women a basic “freedom”) and female ordination as well as her critique of the Council of Trent, saying that it “plunged Catholicism into the Dark Ages.” Sr. Chittister will consider a way forward that is rooted in the prophetic message of the gospel which demands that we seek a new way of being church.
While the Dominican University website advertises that “All are welcome,” all of the invited speakers align themselves squarely with the NCR’s radical stance toward the Roman Catholic Church and whose shared desire is to shape the Church in their “American Catholic” image, as that’s defined by the contents of their lectures.
While those who are convening the event may “welcome” others to listen, they certainly aren’t welcome to speak. How open and inclusive of a diversity of thought! Tres catholique!
This conference isn’t an “academic” conference and, given topic’s parochial treatment, certainly won’t prepare any Dominican University students in attendance to pursue the truth.
“Inspired minds. Amazing possibilities.” That’s what it means to be Dominican University (with no mention of the word Catholic). And, all for only $40 per ticket (or $20 for students).
St. Thomas Aquinas must be scratching his head in disbelief.
To read the conference advertisement, click on the following link:
The National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) is tightening the noose as it ups the ante in recognizing the rights of adjunct faculty in private, religious colleges and universities to unionize. This decision could also be a first step in the long-term efforts of the National Education Association (NEA) and Service Employees International Union (SEIU) to achieve a much larger agenda: To unionize all full-time faculty teaching in religious institutions of higher education.
At issue is the NLRB’s contention that if these institutions are to remain nonunionized, they must provide evidence that individual faculty members in their teaching role are directly responsible for furthering the religious mission of these institutions, similar to how members of religious congregations did in the past.
The NLRB’s approach is especially disconcerting for academic administrators at the nation’s Catholic institutions of higher education because, in contrast to the past, the overwhelming number of faculty members in these institutions today are laypersons, some of whom are not Catholic and most of whom do not view themselves as contracted to further the religious mission of the institutions at which they teach.
Compounding the problem, academic administrators generally don’t require faculty members to demonstrate that they further their institutional missions. Like faculty, academic administrators believe that such a requirement is antithetical to academic freedom as well as to the espoused goal of being institutions that are characterized by inclusivity among faculty and, in this sense, diversity of thought. In short, that faculty be “catholic” and avoid what many administrators and faculty believe is the narrow parochialism of being “Catholic.”
That said, the NLRB is now treating these institutions in the same way it would treat public and secular universities and colleges.
In 2015, the NLRB remanded three cases concerning Catholic institutions of higher education to NLRB Regional Directors, delegating to them the authority to determine whether individual faculty members at those institutions actually perform religious functions. The NRLB’s litmus test for determining whether an institution has a “substantial religious character” to claim a religious exemption from the NLRB’s jurisdiction states:
…faculty members are required to integrate the institution’s religious tenets into coursework, serve as religious advisors to students, propagate those tenets, engage in religious training, or conform to the tenets in a manner specifically linked to their job duties.
Any 1 of the above 4 requirements is sufficient to exempt a Catholic institution of higher education from the NLRB’s jurisdiction. But, in several cases during recent years, the NLRB has found no substantial evidence to suggest this is the case.
For example, in its supplemental decision in the Seattle University case, the NLRB found:
There is no evidence in the record that faculty members are required to serve as religious advisors to students, propagate the tenets of the Society of Jesus, engage in religious training, or conform to the tenets of Catholicism in the course of their job duties. In short, a reasonable candidate for a contingent faculty position at Seattle University would not conclude that performance of their faculty responsibilities would require furtherance of a religious mission.
Just the other day, the Region 13 National Labor Relations Board decided that that adjuncts at Saint Xavier University (Chicago) (SXU) may count their union election votes. That effort was put on hold 4 years ago when SXU contested the NEA’s union drive, arguing that its Catholic identity put SXU beyond the NLRB’s jurisdiction.
However, when the NLRB remanded several similar adjunct union cases to its regional offices for further consideration in light of the Pacific Lutheran University decision, the new guidelines for evaluating similar cases were then used to re-evaluate the SXU case. SXU has 2 weeks to appeal is reviewing its options.
Then, just yesterday, non-tenure-track faculty at Siena College voted 102 to 32 to form a collective bargaining unit affiliated with SEIU.
In statement to the Times-Union, academic administrators said that as a Franciscan and Catholic institution, “we recognize and respect the dignity of work, the right of workers to organize and the need for all workers to make informed decisions.” The administrators are committed to “productive dialogue” with the bargaining unit.
According to Inside Higher Ed, a visiting assistant professor of history at Siena, Mara Drogan, said that she hoped the union would help set new standards for faculty pay, benefits, and working conditions across the Albany region and beyond.
While the rhetoric of being a “catholic” institution in whatever tradition may work with trustees, administrators, faculty, alumni/ae, prospective parents of students, and students, the handwriting is on the wall and is crystal clear. The NLRB doesn’t believe for a moment that the institutions in the cases that have been brought before it have demonstrated that they are sufficiently Catholic. Lawyers don’t care much for doublespeaque. For them, it’s all about “truth in advertising” or today’s buzzword “transparency.”
Cry “catholic” all they want, the NLRB isn’t buying the argument. It won’t be very long before the NEA and SEIU renew their efforts to unionize the full-time faculty teaching at the nation’s Catholic universities and colleges. Why? They aren’t “sufficiently” Catholic.
Why is the NLRB calling out these institutions and the nation’s bishops aren’t?
To read the NLRB’s Pacific Lutheran decision, click on the following link:
To read the NLRB’s supplemental decision in the Seattle University case, click on the following link:
To read the Inside Higher Ed article, click on the following link:
To read the Times Union article, click on the following link:
Over at Fr. Z’s blog, there’s a great photo album posted by the Canons Regular of St. John Cantius Parish (Archdiocese of Chicago). The photographs contained in the album were taken as rose petals descended from the church’s ceiling upon the congregation below.
As Fr. Z explains the ritual, it developed for the Solemnity of Pentecost in the Pantheon (now a minor basilica called S. Maria ad martyres). Rose petals are dropped through the circular oculus opening at the top of the dome, which is the widest in all of Rome. The petals descend upon the congregation below, reminding its members of the descent of the Holy Spirit like tongues of flame.
In the picture below, study carefully the faces of the little girl and boy.
Now study carefully the surprise, delight, and glee on the faces of the children in the church’s main aisle.
It’s obvious this ritual has struck a sense of awe and wonder into these young people, opening their consciouness if not their souls to the mystery surrounding the birth of the Church on Pentecost Sunday.
Over the past five-plus decades, how often has Rudolph Otto’s description of the “awe and wonder” (tremendum et facinans) that is experienced upon encountering the Holy been demonstrably visible on the faces and in the behavior of young congregants?
During those decades since the Second Vatican Council, have all of those guitar Masses, puppet Masses, and even those clown Masses struck young congregants with that sense of awe and wonder that’s evident in these photographs?
When it came to evangelizing young people through the Mass, the architect of the so-called “reformed” liturgy, Cardinal Annibale Bugnini, may have made the Mass more relevant by a worldly standard by appealing to the masses (pardon the pun).
But, he very well have thrown the baby away with the bathwater by a spiritual standard.
To read Fr. Z’s blog, click on the following link:
To view the photo album, click on the following link:
According to Vatican Insider, Cardinal Óscar Andrés Rodríguez Maradiaga of Honduras isn’t very much happy with climate change skeptics in the U.S.A. who have expressed their reservations concerning Pope Francis’ cozy relationship with those who worship at the altar of environmentalism over at the United Nations.
Cardinal Maradiaga is especially chagrined by those “movements in the United States” he apparently observed during a recent trip to the U.S.
In the Cardinal’s view, members of those movements have had the temerity to express their concern about this cozy relationship and its potential to influence the Pope’s upcoming encyclical letter concerning the environment. Those people are “absurd,” the Cardinal opined:
The ideology surrounding environmental issues is too tied to a capitalism that doesn’t want to stop ruining the environment because they don’t want to give up their profits: these criticisms make no sense! How can they criticise a text they do not even know?
Indeed, if there is climate change, it’s all due to greedy capitalists. Cardinal Maradiaga sounds like Nikita Khrushchev, Fidel Castro, and Che Guevara, all wrapped up into one, doesn’t he?
The Cardinal also apparently fashions himself to be a meteorologist and/or climate scientist. Last week at the Caritas International confab in Rome, Maradiaga challenged the debate swirling around the scientific basis for man-made climate change:
There is a big discussion about whether global warming is scientific or not, but speak to the taxi driver who drove me here today and he’ll tell you the temperature in Rome is not typical of spring; think of the Philippines where there were 21 typhoons this year and in California water is being rationed. This proves that the issue needs to be taken seriously. (italics added)
Perhaps Cardinal Maradiaga should meet the founder of The Weather Channel, John Coleman, to discuss the other point of view.
In 2014, Coleman was a featured speaker at the Ninth International Conference on Climate Change. Listen to Coleman’s presentation about how the global warming frenzy began:
Also, check out Coleman’s two documentaries debunking the global warming scare:
Of course, those who worship at the altar of environmentalism dismiss Coleman’s facts because their dogma posits the opposite.
Some good news (perhaps). Sandro Magister is reporting that the Pope’s encyclical has been drafted, but he has rejected that text and sent it back to be rewritten. Why? Pope Francis fears the head of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, Cardinal Ludwig Müller would “demolish” it.
Let’s hope so if the first draft reflects Cardinal Maradiaga’s “proof.”
To read the Vatican Insider article, click on the following link:
To read Sandro Magister’s article, click on the following link:
To read The Motley Monk’s daily blog, Omnibus, click on the following link:
Imagine the leaders of a Catholic high school having the audacity to bring in a speaker to inform the student body about the nature of the horrific violence being perpetrated against people in the Middle East, in general, and Christians and Assyrian Catholics, in particular.
Yet, according to some of parents, that’s what happened a couple of weeks back at Junipero Serra Catholic High School (JSCHS), a Catholic college prep school located in San Mateo, California.
As a Catholic school, JSCHS leadership believed it important to inform the student body about these atrocities against humanity, in general, and fellow Catholics, in particular. So, they invited Mrs. Juliana Taimoorazy to address students concerning the nature of the horrific violence being perpetrated against people in the Middle East.
Mrs. Taimoorazy’s narrative was particularly compelling because, being Assyrian, she is a member of one of the longest-living ethnic groups on Earth. For ISIS radicals, Assyrian Catholics are overt targets. Mrs. Taimoorazy related, among other things, that the Muslims will hold parents captive and then proceed to cook and eat their children in front of them. Taimoorazy has lost a couple of her own children as well as her grandparents to the Muslims. Some students found Mrs. Taimoorazy’s presentation compelling and motivating, having the effect of putting the fear of God in them.
Evidently, that description of “Muslims” didn’t set well with some parents of JSCHS students who are of Middle-Eastern descent and/or are Muslim. Hearing reports about the speaker’s narrative, some of those parents were outraged, claiming the speaker’s narrative negatively portrayed Muslims, in general, and negatively affected their families, in particular.
Events conspired to devolve to the point that JSCHS’s “Head of Faith Formation,” Patrick Reidy, felt impelled to reiterate to the JSCHS student body the following Monday
….that JSerra Catholic High School’s intention for Friday’s presentation was to raise awareness about the gruesome massacres occurring in the Middle East. In no way did the school intend to be political. Rather, we hoped that the JSerra community would become more acutely aware of the extremism that is brutalizing all of our brothers and sisters in the human family so that we can pray for them and assist them in creative and generous ways.
Reidy then sent an email to the parents of JSCHS students in which Reidy expressed his “heartfelt sorrow for the way recent events may have immediately affected your own family” noting that this “is deeply distressing for all of us here.” Reidy proceeded to blame Mrs. Taimoorazy for the brouhaha. He wrote:
Our speaker focused on the attacks against Christians and was not inclusive of the other peoples that have been terrorized by radical groups such as ISIS. Furthermore, she did not always distinguish clearly between radical Islamic groups and ordinary Muslims. This is a necessary distinction to make. (italics added)
Step back for a moment. Imagine Catholic parents of students enrolled in a Muslim school complaining that they’re offended that a Muslim speaker detailed the atrocities perpetrated upon Muslims by the Crusaders. Should those parents of Catholic students expect that the leadership of that Muslim school would apologize for not being “inclusive” enough of them and not carefully distinguishing between Crusaders and ordinary Catholics?
To ensure that Mrs. Taimoorazy’s message will be revised appropriately for JSCHS students, Reidy noted:
We have been following up in our Religion and History classes to make sure that our students know that there is a distinction. We also want to help them process the emotional content of these outrages, the irrationality of which can seem impossible to imagine.
Yes, indeed. JSCHS students need to “process” the “emotional content of these outrages.” But, apparently not from the perspective of what Christians and Catholics are being compelled to endure, but from what some JSCHS students interpreted Mrs. Tiamoorazy’s message to imply about them and their families as well as what some JSCHS students felt compelled to do to some of their fellow students.
To punctuate his message of contrition, Reidy closed his email, stating:
I hope that you know that JSerra welcomes all families of all religious beliefs and does not equate Islam with ISIS. Nor do we or will we at any time tolerate taunting, harassing, belittling or bullying of anyone based on their ethnicity or religious beliefs. As followers of Jesus Christ we find any such behavior inconsistent with the dignity of the human person and morally unacceptable.
What does “taunting, harassing, belittling or bullying” have to do with Mrs. Taimoorazy’s presentation in a Catholic school about what Christians and Catholics are enduring at the hands of Muslims (or, must it be said because people don’t already understand the distinction, radical Muslims)? If some JSCHS students left her presentation believing she was encouaging them to engage in thuggery, then those students should be dealt with as thugs should and ought to be dealt with.
But, to blame Mrs. Taimoorazy for their conduct and to apologize to the point of telling the JSCHS student body that she had been one-sided in her presentation?
That seems to be inclusion run awry.
What will be next? Apologizing to those who claim that Junipero Serra was a prejudiced, bigoted anti-Native American who thought they needed to be imprisoned and brainwashed if they were to be civilized?
To read The Motley Monk’s daily blog, Omnibus, click on the following link:
Over at Catholic Education Daily, Kimberly Scharfenberger has done a yeowoman’s job in culling together some data concerning the nation’s Catholic colleges and law schools:
- They boast 65 alumni who are members of the U.S. House of Representatives.
- That’s 15% of the House’s membership, twice the number of Catholic 4-year institutions of higher education in the United States.
Is that political clout something about which the Church should be proud?
Scharfenberger reports that 50%+ of these Catholic college alumni/ae—38 to be precise—have votes on abortion that “should mortify their alma maters.”
Pro-abortion organizations such as the National Abortion Rights Action League (NARAL) and Planned Parenthood have rated most of those 38 alumni/ae at 100%. In contrast, the National Right to Life Committee (NRLC) has rated many of them at 0% when the vote comes to significant life-related issues.
Here’s the roll call of those 38 members of the U.S. House of Representatives who were educated at Catholic institutions and have consistently voted in favor of abortion rights:
- Brad Ashford (NE)
- Brendan Boyle (PA)
- Mike Capuano (MA)
- David Cicilline(RI)
- Gerry Connolly (VA)
- John Delaney (MD)
- Rosa DeLauro (CN)
- Mark DeSaulnier (CA)
- Deborah Dingell (MI)
- Sam Farr (CA)
- Lois Frankel (FL)
- Steny Hoyer (MD)
- Jared Huffman (CA)
- Hakeem Jeffries (NY)
- Eddie Bernice Johnson(TX)
- Bill Keating (MA)
- Ann McLane Kuster (NH)
- Ted Lieu (CA)
- Zoe Lofgren (CA)
- Stephen Lynch (MA)
- Sean Patrick Maloney(NY)
- Betty McCollum (MN)
- Gwen Moore (WI)
- Jerrold Nadler (NY)
- Rick Nolan (MN)
- Bill Pascrell (NJ)
- Nancy Pelosi(CA)
- Mike Quigley (IL)
- Charles Rangel (NY)
- Kathleen Rice (NY)
- Bobby Scott(VA)
- Albio Sires (NJ)
- Adam Smith(WA)
- Chris Van Hollen (MD)
- Juan Vargas(CA)
- Filemon Vela, Jr.(TX)
- Pete Visclosky(IN)
- Peter Welch(VT)
Another interesting factoid: Of those 38, 27 attended Jesuit institutions. 11 of them—25%—attended Georgetown University.
Something about which the Church should be proud? No.
About which the Church should boast? No.
Something those institutions should honor? No.
But, why did those obviously bright women and men choose to attend Catholic institutions in the first place? It mustn’t have been to learn to think about important matters—like the law and significant life issues—as Catholics do, to paraphrase Blessed John Henry Newman in his Idea of the University and St. John Paul II in Ex Corde Ecclesiae. Or, for that matter, natural law.
No, it must’ve been the institution’s reputation, the prestige associated with the degree awarded, and other such worldly honors and accolades.
“By their fruits you will know them” (Matthew 7:16).
To read Kimberly Scharfenberger’s article, click on the following link:
Over at The Wanderer, James J. Kirkpatrick has written a defense of San Francisco’s Archbishop, Salvatore Cordileone, for injecting a so-called “morality clause” into the contract of archdiocesan teachers. Archbishop Cordileone has come under heavy fire from activists—including some self-identified “prominent” Catholics—who claim the clause would “create a repressive environment in which not only dissent, but any critical thought, robust exchange of ideas and genuine dialogue are discouraged and punishable by loss of livelihood.”
All Archbishop Cordileone apparently has required is that employees of San Francisco’s archdiocesan schools “conform their hearts, minds and consciences, as well as their public and private behavior, ever more closely to the truths taught by the Catholic Church.” These moral issues include “adultery, masturbation, fornication, the viewing of pornography and homosexual relations” as well as “the definition of marriage as the union of one man and one woman.”
Presumably, Kirkpatrick accurately assesses that
…this is not the understanding of the role of teachers of secular subjects in Catholic schools held by those protesting Archbishop Cordileone’s morality clause in San Francisco; they do not see the teachers of secular subjects as “ministers” of the Catholic faith.
Yes, the ideal is that “practical” Catholics (defined by Kirkpatrick as “loyal to…Church teaching”) should be teaching every course in the curriculum. It is also quite likely that those who protest the Archbishop’s mandate don’t hold that view.
The issue isn’t just who is teaching those courses, as the ideal is that every employee appreciates one’s ministerial role simply because the school is a Catholic school.
Why? Contrary to Mr. Kirkpatrick’s assessment, the subject taught in Catholic schools is not the various academic disciplines comprising the curriculum. No, the subject taught is each and every student enrolled in the school.
Those who work in Catholic schools are charged with forming what the Church calls an “integral person,” that is, a person whose mind, body, and soul are imbued with the truth as revealed by the Gospel as well as the truths unveiled by human arts and sciences.
In this sense, administrators, teachers, and staff members of a Catholic school aren’t just “professionals” but also are a community of adult “ministers” who collaborate in forming integral persons and, at a minimum, each according to one’s contractual responsibilities. If “practical” Catholics aren’t available, there are many “practical” non-Catholics and non-Christians who might very much desire to minister in this way to the students enrolled in Catholic schools. Certainly this is not the ideal, but preferable to a community of adults who are, at best, “Catholic In Name Only.”
But, Kirkpatrick veers away from the facts when he asks whether this ideal is a realistic possibility or even necessary, in every instance. Yes, as he notes,
It doesn’t make sense for a Catholic school to hire teachers of subjects such as those who are going to devote their classes to promulgating a worldview indistinguishable from what is taught at a “progressive” academy in Greenwich Village or Berkeley.
He then adds:
That is not the reason why Catholic parents send their children to Catholic schools.
Really? For decades, research findings have been rather consistent: Parents send their children to Catholic schools for a number of reasons. In general order of preference, these include: a strong academic reputation; a climate characterized by order and discipline; teachers who care; and, a sense of community that emphasizes generic, pan-Protestant values. Teaching and practicing the Catholic faith appears very low in the list of reasons (anywhere from 10th to 15th).
Reminiscing a bit about his five brothers and sisters, all of whom graduated from their parish elementary school in the late 1950s and 60s, Kirkpatrick notes:
…we could chose [sic] from literally dozens of Catholic high schools in New York City, run by many different orders of priests and religious brothers and sisters: Jesuits, Marists, Christian Brothers, Dominican Sisters, and the Congregation of the Sisters of St. Joseph, for starters. It was pretty much the same during the years I taught at a Catholic high school in the Bronx in the mid-1960s.
Once again, Kirkpatrick is accurate in that many people do “call those years the ‘golden age’ of Catholic education in the United States.” And perhaps they were. He is also accurate when assessing that
…there were very few laymen who taught with me who considered themselves “ministers” of the faith. In fact, not all practiced their faith. Not all were Catholics. More than a few dissented from the Church’s teachings on contraception, divorce and remarriage, and abortion.
But, Kirkpatrick may not be as accurate as he believes in his assessment that
All of them…would have accepted—some more compliantly than others—a requirement that they not use their classes to proselytize anti-Catholic views; all would accept the proposition that they serve as models of good behavior and solid citizenship in their role as teachers. All would agree that they had a responsibility to teach academically sound courses. (italics added)
Today, the sad fact is that many graduates of those Catholic schools Kirkpatrick laments having passed from the scene are not “practical” Catholics but hold dubious moral positions that align better with those of liberal Protestantism. Nancy Pelosi and Dick Durbin are but two examples of “prominent Catholics” who had nearly the same educational experience about which Mr. Kirkpatrick reminisces…all the way through Catholic college and graduate school.
In fact, the research once again is pretty clear that, beginning in the mid- to late- 1960s—as the transition to lay faculty started—those who have taught in Catholic schools have been eerily similar to the public at large in terms of their attitudes about Catholic moral teaching, in general, and the very matters Archbishop Cordileone has contractually mandated, in particular.
Apparently, those teachers weren’t quite as willing to comply with keeping their moral opinions to themselves. One outcome of this transition has evidenced scores on standardized tests of basic knowledge of the Catholic faith and its practices have for the most part demonstrated no significant difference between graduates of Catholic elementary and high schools and those who attended parish religious education programs.
Embarrassing but true.
In retrospect, that “Golden Age” about which Kirkpatrick reminisces may not have been so golden, after all. It may have been in some respects, but not quite as golden as Kirkpatrick implies.
Yes, it would be a tremendous boon to the Church if, as Kirkpatrick notes,
…the religion courses were sound, and the social studies and literature courses were supportive of Catholic values, and the Mass and the rosary were regular parts of the students’ lives, the school was solidly Catholic, worth every dollar in tuition payments.
In most locales. there simply aren’t a sufficient number of those “practical Catholic” parents whom Kirkpatrick identifies as “looking for a solidly Catholic environment for their children” for parishes to operate the kind of Catholic school he envisions.
Perhaps the more challenging and difficult truth that must be considered in light of the signs of the times is that, in face of the fact that many so-called “Catholic” schools are “Catholic in Name Only,” perhaps the Church should stop sponsoring educational institutions. After all, finding qualified personnel has been a perennial problem for Catholic schools. Paying a just wage to those who are qualified and willing to teach in Catholic schools has also been a perennial problem for Catholic schools. Building and funding those schools has been yet another perennial problem for Catholic schools.
The Church has an interest in the moral education of baptized children, not necessarily in building Catholic schools to do that. Parents possess a prior right to educate their children as they see fit and when it come to the moral education of Catholic children, the Church must figure out how best to support parents in what is their prior right.
Confronting a new age having different challenges may require discerning more effective ways to catechize children and young adults so that one day, they will be the kind of “practical” adult Catholics that all of us would hope they would be. After all, they’re going to be the Church’s future if it’s to be a Catholic Church.
To read James J. Kirkpatrick’s article in the Wanderer, click on the following link:
To read about the reaction to Archbishop Salvatore Cordileone’s mandate, click on the following link:
To read The Motley Monk’s daily blog, Omnibus, click on the following link:
My thesis is as simple as it is straightforward: The Roman Catholic Church should accept no federal dollars.
My response to the naysayers is equally simple and straightforward, per Amanda Hocking in My Blood Approves: “When you dance with the devil, the devil doesn’t change. The devil changes you.”
Consider the nation’s largest resettlement agency, the USCCB’s Migration and Refugee Services (MRS).
MRS estimates that between October 1, 2013, and September 30, 2014, ~90k young illegal immigrants crossed the border. To deal with the human needs associated with this influx, MRS had a budget of ~$71M (~$789/illegal immigrant).
However, 93% of that ~$71M—$66M–flowed into MRS from the federal government’s spigot. MRS argued that they needed this infusion of federal $$$s to assist the federal government to provide care for unaccompanied, young illegal immigrants.
Supporters of MRS ask: “Who could possibly disagree, except for heartless, anti-immigrant, xenophobes?” Then, too: “The federal government is pouring that money into a charitable, religious organization to provide much-needed services that the feds couldn’t possibly provide. You don’t want to expand the size and scope of government, do you?”
Sounds similar to subsidizing faith-based organizations, a central policy objective of the George W. Bush administration.
There’s one, very big problem, however. MRS must provide those services in ways that are consistent with Church teaching.
So, what’s going to happen when unaccompanied, young, illegal immigrant, females get pregnant? Those federal $$$s require that those females receive “reproductive care,” including contraception, emergency contraception, and abortion.
The USCCB rightly argues that such a requirement violates freedom of religion since contraception, emergency contraception, and abortion are against the Church teaching.
However, that argument may matter not one whit.
Why? The American Civil Liberties Union (ALCU) has filed a suit in a federal court “to order the federal government to release documents related to how groups that are awarded government funding contracts are restricting refugee and undocumented immigrant teenagers’ access to reproductive health services, including contraception and abortion.”
A senior staff attorney with the ACLU Reproductive Freedom Project, Brigitte Amiri, told Breitbart News, “Religious freedom does not include the right to take a government contract that requires providing access to health care, and then refuse to provide a teen who has been raped the health care she needs.”
So, it’s “deja vu all over again”:
- Remember when President Obama double crossed the USCCB after securing its blessing to get Obamacare passed? POTUS promised a religious exemption.
- Remember when, in July 2014, President Obama issued an executive order banning “all companies that receive a contract from the federal government from discriminating against their LGBT employees.” The USCCB called it “unprecedented and extreme.”
- And just today, the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission has found “reasonable cause” to rule that a Catholic prep school has unlawfully discriminated against a homosexual band director formerly in the school’s employ.
Get the picture? In baseball, the rule is “three strikes and y’er outta here!”
But, this isn’t baseball. It’s hardball politics, not ecclesiastical politics.
If MRS didn’t take the ~$66M in federal money, its budget would have been ~$5M. MRS would have been free to provide illegal immigrants programs and services in alignment with Church teaching. And, the federal government could use that money to deal with the rest.
But, the USCCB’s desire to expand programming and provide services to more and more illegal immigrants has required taking to the dance floor with the Devil. To keep those federal $$$s flowing into the MRS’ coffers, the USCCB claims that if MRS didn’t provide those services, then chaos would break out.
And that’s the USCCB’s problem?
To read the Breitbart News article, click on the following link:
To read The Motley Monk’s daily blog, Omnibus, click on the following link:
Watching last fall’s Extraordinary Synod on the Family from the sidelines, what was surprising was the level of rancor (and perhaps even acrimony) manifesting itself in the debate concerning, among other matters, the Church’s prohibition of divorced/remarried Catholics receiving Holy Communion.
Media reports characterized the division this way:
- The intelligent, sensitive, and pastoral “pro-Pope Francis” mercy faction (the theological liberals) were doing battle with the unintelligent, insensitive, and unpastoral “anti-Pope Francis” truth faction (the theological conservatives).
- The leader of the former faction, Cardinal Walter Kasper of Germany, provided the theoretical “Call to Arms” identifying his faction’s much-desired, if not much-anticipated changes to Church teaching. If Cardinal Kasper’s faction prevails, there will be changes to Church teaching. Read: A very good outcome!
- The leader of the latter faction, Cardinal Raymond Burke, published a chapter in the book, Remaining in the Truth of Christ, reiterating the significance of longstanding Church teaching for the world today. If Cardinal Burke’s faction prevails, there will be no change in Church teaching. Read: A very bad outcome!
That oversimplistic, pro-Kasper bifurcation of what transpired at the Extraordinary Synod distracts attention from what may really be in the offing, namely, the rise of neo-Lutherans who may cause a schism in the Church. Armed with very clever exegetical and political skills, this faction has already artfully devised a way to contort Jesus’ unambiguous teaching against both divorce and remarriage—read Remaining in the Truth of Christ to learn how—into a teaching that would allow for both divorce and remarriage. And the media is delighted.
Using divorced and remarried Catholics—who cannot receive Holy Communion—as public relations props in a strategy to stiffen opposition to Church teaching, the neo-Lutherans are, in reality, forcing Pope Francis to choose up sides in a theological battle. The outcome of that battle could end in schism:
- If the Pope sides with the neo-Lutherans, his important words about mercy will be translated into Church teaching, all will be well with the world, and the orthodox faction will have taken quite a drubbing. At least, that’s what the Kapserites would have everyone believe.
- If the Pope sides with the orthodox Burkites, well…er…ummm…there will be Hell to pay, as the Pope’s words about mercy will end up not being quite as generous as people have been led to believe and they will turn against Rome and the orthodox faction, emptying the pews even more. Again, at least, that’s what the neo-Lutherans would have everyone believe.
Apparently, the neo-Lutherans are as serious and as stubborn as was the Augustinian friar, Martin Luther, when in 1517 he posted his 95 theses on the door of the Wittenburg Castle Church. To wit: Consider the words of the President of the German Bishops’ Conference, Cardinal Reinhard Marx. Quoted in Die Tagespost (the original article having since been expunged from the website) stating:
We are not just a subsidiary of Rome. Each episcopal conference is responsible for the pastoral care in their culture and has to proclaim the Gospel in its own unique way. We cannot wait until a synod states something, as we have to carry out marriage and family ministry here.
Positioning himself squarely on the side of the mercy faction led by Cardinal Kasper, Cardinal Marx subsequently backtracked a bit, according to Vaticanista Andrea Gagliarducci.
Even so, the neo-Lutherans are on the march.
But, before concluding an investigation, the general rule is “Follow the money.”
Follow the money: It’s a well-known fact that church attendance in Germany (as in most Western, industrialized nations) is plummeting. What that means for the German bishops, in particular, is that income to their dioceses from the government—derived from a census of those who actually attend Mass—is way, way down.
What better way, then, to increase attendance at Mass in Germany? Extend mercy to the disaffected or alienated Catholics by changing Church teaching concerning divorce and remarriage. Then, all of those other disaffected and alienated Catholics can also be brought back to Mass by changing other Church teachings. However, that will take a bit of time. Right now, what’s imperative is to get one foot into the Porta Sancta at St. Peter’s Basilica, beginning with divorced and remarried Catholics.
All or none of that may have entered into Cardinal Kasper’s thought process or the German bishops’ discussions over which Cardinal Marx has presided.
Who’s to know? Only those who are privvy to such knowledge.
Even so, if one is to understand better what the neo-Lutherans may be up to, the facts cannot be dismissed out of hand.
Follow the money: Those coffers need to be replenished if the bishops are to be good stewards of the critical infrastructure and all the other blings in their possession. As has recently been exposed:
- The Archdiocese of Munich and Freising, led by Cardinal Reinhard Marx, has spent $150M on a new diocesan service center.
- Cardinal Marx’s residence was renovated at a cost of $9M, paid for by the state of Bavaria. That’s not quite the 31m euros Bishop Franz-Peter Tebartz-van Elst of Limburg spent to renovate his official residence, but $9M can go a long way to make a humble hermitage feel a bit more comfortable.
Follow the money: In his National Catholic Register article, Edward Pentin carefully lays out the critics’ argument that the German Bishops’ Conference has become more of a temporal than spiritual power.
Yes, follow the money.
Isn’t that what Martin Luther did when he initiated a schism that eventuated a Reformation?
To read about Cardinal Marx’s statement (as the original Die Tagespost article is no longer available online), click on the following link:
To read Andrea Gagliarducci’s assessment, click on the following link:
To read Edward Pentin’s articles, click on the following links:
To read The Motley Monk’s daily blog, Omnibus, click on the following link:
Contrary to the popular caricature that many politicians the mainstream media tout about evangelical Christians—likening them to knuckle-dragging, anti-science Neanderthals—a recent study, “Religious Understandings of Science,” found that ~70% of evangelical Christians believe that religion and science are not in conflict with one another. That is, they believe faith and reason are complementary.
The study, conducted by Rice University Professor of Sociology, Elaine Howard Ecklund, focused upon Christian evangelicals because they constitute approximately 26% of the nation’s population and frequently are depicted as the most hostile body of Christians toward science. About this focus, Ecklund stated:
We really wanted to determine if this claimwas based in any truth. Although many politicians and the media at large portray evangelicals as distrustful of science, we found that this is more myth than reality.
The professor’s findings:
- 38% of Americans view religion and science as complementary; 35% of Americans view science and religion as entirely independent.
- 48% of Christian evangelicals view science and religion as complementary; only 21% view them as entirely independent of one another.
- 15% of Americans and 14% of Christian evangelicals agree that modern science does more harm than good.
- 76% of scientists in the general U.S. population identify with a religious tradition.
- Jews (42%), Muslims, Buddhists and Hindus (52% as a group) and the nonreligious (47%) are more interested in new scientific discoveries than evangelicals (22%).
These findings are noteworthy for a couple of reasons.
First: More Christian evangelicals than the population at large believe religion and science are complementary.
Second: The data indicate that fewer Christian evangelicals than the population at large believe religion and science are entirely independent of each other.
Third: It is astounding to learn that 76% of the nation’s scientists identify with a religious tradition and only 24% don’t. If one was to believe media interviews and investigative reports covering matters associated with science, one would mistakenly conclude exactly the opposite was the case.
In sum: The data indicate that the popular caricature touted by politicians and the mainstream media has it backwards. It’s the nation’s population at large that those politicians and the mainstream media should be lampooning, not Christian evangelicals.
But, of course, they can’t do that. Look what happened to Jonathan Gruber. And he was telling the truth!
Or is it that the mainstream media won’t do that? Why so? It’s impossible to assign a motive, but one can surely speculate that doing so furthers a much-cherished agenda: To drive from the public sphere all religious talk and especially the critique faith has to offer as a remedy from a science that is practiced devoid of religion.
Thank goodness, it appears 75% of scientists won’t or don’t do that…despite what the politicians and mainstream media would have people think to the contray.
To read Professor Ecklund’s study, click on the following link:
To read The Motley Monk’s daily blog, Omnibus, click on the following link:
One of the first, unspoken rules of assuming the presidency of an institution of higher education is “Remake the board in your image.”
That rule contains a lot of wisdom. The president may have only had a slim majority to be elected. And, as the stormy petrels will surely be stirring up all sorts of challenges to one’s leadership from all sides, to garner a significant base of support and win re-election, the challenge confronting any first-term president is to ensure that trustworthy and erstwhile allies are appointed to seats on the board. That requires working very closely with the board’s membership committee and selecting candidates who share the president’s vision of what it means to be a university and here, a Catholic university.
In that regard, the President of the University of Notre Dame (UND), the Reverend John Jenkins, CSC, has done extremely well. Recently re-electing him to UND’s presidency, UND’s Board praised Fr. Jenkins’ “unfailing commitment to the University’s Catholic character.”
Juxtapose that effusive praise to a recently-published opinion piece concerning the morality of UND’s conduct under Fr. Jenkins’ leadership in extending spousal benefits to those recognized as married by civil law (e.g., health insurance and student housing to same-sex employees and students).
The authors of that opinion piece—Gerard V. Bradley, Professor of Law; John Finnis, Professor of Law and Legal Philosophy Emeritus in the University of Oxford and Professor of Law at UND; and, Daniel Philpott, Professor of Political Science and Peace Studies and Director of UND’s Center for Civil and Human Rights—concluded that the extension of those benefits by an institution like UND is “morally indefensible” and will have “far-reaching and very damaging” consequences.
How so? Citing the Catholic moral principle concerning cooperation with evil, they state:
Where homosexual unions have been legally recognized, one must refrain from any kind of formal cooperation in the application of such gravely unjust laws and, as far as possible, from material cooperation.
The benefits extension undeniably has the direct effect of encouraging same-sex couples to make or persist in an immoral commitment. It constitutes an endorsement of this commitment, promotes it with direct benefits, and cooperates in it in a way that, on widely used theological conceptions, constitutes formal cooperation with wrongdoing.
Since UND is not compelled by law to implement this policy, the authors observe that doing so constitutes “a morally corrupting scandal, needlessly given,” to persons tempted to enter into, or already in, a same-sex “marriage,” as well as to all others, who “can readily infer that the university actually does not regard any kind of sex acts between adults as grave matter.”
Their conclusion? UND’s policy “imperils the souls and the earthly fulfillment of those whom it has undertaken to support in a Christian life.”
In light of this policy, UND’s Board of Trustees’ ringing endorsement of Fr. Jenkins’ leadership provides an object lesson in what is mortally wrong with much of U.S. Catholic higher education today. Many, if not most of those who hold in “sacred trust” the institutional mission—the members of the board of trustees—apparently are not adequately prepared for the trust which they hold, as this evidences itself in the continuous, creeping secularization of the nation’s institutions of Catholic higher education since the 1960s and 1970s when most of those institutions were turned over to lay boards.
It was the presidents of those institutions who successfully built their boards of trustees in their image and likeness. This is how U.S. Catholic higher education came to the precarious state in which it finds itself today where its universities and colleges implement policies that might be acceptable in secular institutions, but not Catholic institutions.
All of this was quite conscious and deliberate, as those presidents sought to have their institutions emulate their secular peers while retaining a patina of Catholic to please the folks and donors that they’re still Catholic institutions of higher education.
And so it is today at UND. As the authors of that opinion piece note:
[Implementing this policy] violates the institution’s duty of love for same-sex couples, who will inevitably be confirmed and encouraged to continue in their wrongful commitment; it also violates the University’s duty of love for everyone in the campus community, many of whom will be misled about the meaning of marriage and the truth about sexual morality, as well as about how a Christian community rightly responds in love to persons living out a public commitment to an immoral relationship.
If that’s not enough, by “build[ing] into the bricks a norm that leads members of the community directly away from a life lived in friendship with Christ,” UND creates a “structure of sin” that “will be difficult to contain.” How so? It will be increasingly difficult to bar from academic administration those who live openly in immoral relationships.
Does this not present a proximate threat not only to the institution’s Catholic identity but also to the freedom in a Catholic university or college to uphold Catholic teaching?
Nearly two decades ago, a UND professor of history, George M. Marsden, narrated the same story as it pertained to Protestant higher education in the United States. Marsden wrote:
In the context of all these forces, we can understand the residual formal role left for religion in universities. Clearly, despite the presence of many religion departments and a few university divinity schools, religion has moved from near the center a century or so ago to far on the incidental periphery. Aside from voluntary student religious groups, religion in most universities is about as important as the baseball team. Not only has religion become peripheral, there is a definite bias against any perceptible religiously informed perspectives getting a hearing in university classrooms. Despite the claims of contemporary universities to stand above all for openness, tolerance, academic freedom, and equal rights, viewpoints based on discernibly religious concepts (for instance, that there is a created moral order or that divine truths might be revealed in a sacred Scripture), are often informally or explicitly excluded from classrooms.
To read the UND’s Board of Trustees’ letter, click on the following link:
To read the opinion piece concerning UND’s policy, click on the following link:
To read Marsden’s article, click on the following link:
The University of Scranton’s President, the Reverend Kevin P. Quinn, S.J., has announced plans to terminate the institution’s health insurance coverage of all abortions.
Since the 1990s, the University’s healthcare policy allowed for abortion in cases of rape, incest, and when the life of the mother was endangered by a pregnancy. This policy was implemented so as to comply with the limits of Commonwealth of Pennsylvania law for traditional insurance plans.
However, that was then and this is now.
In his letter to the campus, Fr. Quinn stated that the coverage of any abortion is inconsistent with the University’s Roman Catholic faith:
…the moral teaching of the Church on abortion is unequivocal. Circumstances, “however serious or tragic, can never justify the deliberate killing of an innocent human being,” and “[n]o one more absolutely innocent could be imagined” than the unborn child. (Evangelium Vitae, no. 58)
Why the dramatic change in policy?
The University of Scranton is now self-insured, meaning that “we can, and therefore must, offer insurance plans that are free of all abortion coverage,” according to Fr. Quinn.
Aware of the problems this change in healthcare policy will likely provoke–in particular, with the faculty union because the University’s contract with the union will need to be adjusted–Fr. Quinn wrote an eloquent, proactive defense:
…fidelity to our mission as a Catholic and Jesuit institution is the abiding theme of our history, regardless of the times and trials.
Remaining faithful to our identity as a Catholic institution calls us to serve the world in unique and inspiring ways. It has also, over the years, led the University to adapt its institutional practices to ensure harmony with the moral teachings of the Catholic Church….
Would that all of the presidents of the nation’s Catholic universities and colleges experienced a similar conversion or, at least, learned that it is possible to overcome their timidity, defend Church teaching at their institutions, and tred where angels fear!
Fr. Quinn’s defense of Church teaching raises substantive questions:
- Should not what is unique about a Catholic institution of higher education–its “value added”–be its role in integrating faith and reason, first, by propagating the Catholic faith and its values and, second, building upon that foundation? After all, shouldn’t one know what one is critiquing before critiquing it?
- Why ever would anyone pay tuition to attend a Catholic university or college in order to be strategically de-Catholicized? Aren’t there already enough officially secular-humanist institutions of public higher education available in the United States?
Kudos to Fr. Quinn and the University of Scranton! May his leadership inspire his colleagues in U.S. Catholic higher education to tred where they’d rather not…by becoming self-insured and, then, ending all abortion coverage as part of their healthcare policies.
To read Fr. Quinn’s letter, click on the following link:
The suspended Marquette University political science professor who asserted “Marquette…has again shown itself to be timid, overly bureaucratic and lacking any commitment to either its Catholic mission or free expression,” has received a 16-page letter from the Dean of Marquette’s Klinger School of Arts and Sciences, Richard Holz.
In his letter, Dean Holz notes that “Marquette University is commencing the process to revoke your tenure and to dismiss you from the faculty.” Why? Holz continues:
…your conduct clearly and substantially fails to meet the standards of personal and professional excellence that generally characterizes University faculties. As a result, your value to this academic institution is substantially impaired.
The brouhaha began last fall when the professor, John McAdams, posted an article in his blog, the “Marquette Warrior,” voicing his concern about the way the concept of social justice is communicated and typically understood at Marquette. McAdams noted how opposition to hot-button issues—like abortion and same-sex marriage—is not a part of the University’s version of social justice. “On the contrary, any opposition to gay marriage is called ‘homophobia,’” McAdams wrote.
Holz’s letter details the results of an investigation into the events leading McAdams to post that article and what transpired in the aftermath of his posting that article. Holz contends that McAdams’ conduct was not only unprofessional but that he also misled the public about what happened in a dispute between the graduate instructor and an undergraduate student that McAdams described in his article. Worse yet, McAdams published the graduate instructor’s name.
In a new post, McAdams responds to each charge, claiming that he is being punished for his free speech. McAdams also maintains that the problem isn’t him—he is simply defending an undergraduate’s views against gay marriage that are consistent with Roman Catholic teachings—but with those who are tolerant only of what is not Roman Catholic teaching. McAdams closes by noting:
Campus bureaucrats hate controversy, since it makes trouble for them. Thus the most “valuable” faculty members are the ones who avoid controversy, and especially avoid criticizing administrators.
In real universities, administrators understand (or more likely grudgingly accept) that faculty will say controversial things, will criticize them and each other, and that people will complain about it. They understand that putting up with the complaints is part of the job, and assuaging those who complain the loudest is not the best policy.
That sort of university is becoming rarer and rarer. Based on Holz’ actions, Marquette is certainly not such a place.
With what McAdams calls “excellent legal counsel,” he vows to fight Holz. McAdams states that he “most certainly will not go quietly.”
To read Professor McAdams’ post announcing his suspension, click on the following link:
To read Dean Holz’s letter to Professor McAdams, click on the following link:
To read Professor McAdams’ original post, click on the following link:
To read Professor McAdams’ latest post, click on the following link:
To read The Motley Monk’s daily blog, Omnibus, click on the following link: