Posted on 06/17/2009 4:33:33 PM PDT by bdeaner
In the wake of the Notre Dame commencement scandal, Catholic college leaders representing some of the worst violators of the U.S. bishops’ 2004 ban on honoring public opponents of fundamental Catholic teachings are lobbying the bishops to withdraw their policy.
Yesterday the Association of Catholic Colleges and Universities (ACCU), which represents more than 200 Catholic institutions, released its summer 2009 newsletter, including a report on the ACCU’s board of directors meeting last week. The ACCU directors concluded “that it would be desirable for the [U.S. bishops] to withdraw” their 2004 policy, according to the newsletter.
The policy in question is found in the U.S. bishops’ 2004 statement “Catholics in Political Life,” which reads in part:
“The Catholic community and Catholic institutions should not honor those who act in defiance of our fundamental moral principles. They should not be given awards, honors or platforms which would suggest support for their actions.”
The bishops gather today in San Antonio, Texas, for their biannual meeting.
“Why is it so hard for Catholic college leaders to understand that a Catholic institution does great harm when it honors or gives speaking platforms to those who work against core Catholic values?” said Patrick J. Reilly, president of The Cardinal Newman Society.
“The more than 367,000 people who signed The Cardinal Newman Society’s online petition and the scores of American bishops who publicly criticized Notre Dame’s honor for pro-abortion President Barack Obama clearly recognize that such actions by Catholic colleges are scandalous.”
The ACCU leadership suggests moreover “that juridical expressions of bishops’ or universities’ responsibilities should be kept to a minimum” in order to maintain a good relationship between the bishops and educators.
Reilly surmised that, in other words, Catholic colleges and universities would prefer that there are no clear rules to govern their conduct. He also pointed out that the statement implies that the educators believe that the bishops, and not college leaders, are responsible for tensions arising from scandalous activities on Catholic campuses.
“Catholic colleges and universities would like all of the privileges of being Catholic, but none of the responsibilities of being high-profile witnesses for the fullness of the Catholic faith,” Reilly said.
Allowing for the possibility that the bishops might not agree to simply eliminate the 2004 ban, but might instead draft a new policy concerning Catholic honors and platforms, the ACCU’s directors proposed that the policy “should acknowledge more clearly the differing roles of campus authorities and bishops.” Reilly said that this phrase appears to be an attempt to get bishops to refrain from commenting on internal decisions at lay-controlled Catholic institutions.
In May, ACCU President Richard Yanikoski told the South Bend Tribune that he saw a “degree of ambiguity” in the bishops’ 2004 policy. He claimed that the Church’s canon lawyers disagree whether the policy applies to speakers or honorees who are not Catholic, regardless of whether those individuals oppose Catholic teaching. Several bishops strongly rejected that same argument when it was made by Notre Dame president Rev. John Jenkins, C.S.C., to defend his decision to honor President Obama.
In April, the leaders of the nation’s 28 Jesuit colleges and universities were put on record by Rev. Charles Currie, S.J., president of the Association of Jesuit Colleges and Universities, as supporting Notre Dame’s honor of President Obama. Father Currie also indicated to the National Catholic Reporter that lobbying of the bishops had already begun: “[We] have been talking to individual bishops to see if we can’t lower the volume and lessen the heat of the discussion.”
“It is sadly all too clear that the many secularized Catholic colleges and universities are more concerned with doing away with the rules than ending the scandals,” concluded Reilly.
“Lobbying the bishops to back off a perfectly reasonable policy would be a shameful action by the Catholic higher education establishment, and hardly an appropriate response to Notre Dame’s betrayal of the nation’s bishops and the university’s own Catholic mission.
“The lesson of the Notre Dame scandal is clear: even our leading Catholic universities have lost their way, and they need precisely the sort of clear direction from the bishops that the 2004 policy on Catholic honors and platforms represents.
“Only those who find nothing wrong with honoring pro-abortion leaders, hosting productions of the vile The Vagina Monologues, employing dissident theologians and snubbing the bishops would find it helpful to weaken or withdraw guidelines meant to safeguard the souls of Catholic college and university students.”
AMEN!! THE BISHOPS NEED TO TIGHTEN THE SCREWS!!!
Heavenly Father,
in these trying times
when the spirit of the age
threatens Christian values,
give our bishops holiness of life
and wisdom to direct and guide our Church
family so that we may grow in your love.
We ask this through Christ our Lord.
Amen.
Amen.
I disagree. The directions have been clear and are already understood. What is needed is consequences for disobedience. The bishops should be excommunicating individuals and removing the Catholic status of institutions.
While this newsletter was full of liberal tripe, I honestly can't see where it contained the language in question.
What it did say about the Board of Directors meeting was this:
ACCU’s Board of Directors met June 11-12 at the University of San Diego. Gratitude was expressed to Dr. Anthony Cernera, president of Sacred Heart University, whose term as ex officio member just concluded.
In response to a request from Bishop Thomas Curry, chair of the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops’ Committee on Catholic Education, the Board held a lengthy discussion concerning campus speaker policies. This conversation continued a dialogue started by Cardinal Theodore McCarrick, who informed bishops in 2006 that their document “Catholics in Political Life” warranted further clarification regarding its application to Catholic higher education.
The Board asked ACCU staff to draft a document portraying the nature of the student body entering Catholic colleges and the principles which guide Catholic higher education’s mission, programs, and processes. The document will be national in scope and also reflective of considerable differences among institutions. The document’s principal purpose is to shed light on the core educational challenges, opportunities, and contributions of Catholic higher education.
ACCU’s next Annual Meeting will be at the Mandarin Oriental Hotel, Washington, DC, January 30 to February 1, 2010.
While this may have been stated verbally during the meeting, as you can see it wasn't in the report. I think that LifeSite needs to provide a better reference for their claim...because right now it looks like a case of calumny.
“The bishops should be excommunicating individuals and removing the Catholic status of institutions.”
This political lunacy over Obama’s honorary degree and speech at ND has caused, or perhaps better said, has exposed for all the Christian world to see, the depths to which so many of the bishops of the Latin Church have sunk in their contempt for the canons of the One Church. Far, far more important would be to discipline the American bishops who violated the canons relating to diocesan boundaries and the anathemizing of heresiarchs like Martino of Pennsylvania.
Notwithstanding the simplistic fears of some Latins that the Latin Church will somehow collapse because of the words of an agnostic like Obama, all of you should be far more concerned that heresy is being preached by a hierarch inside your church. That, I assure, is far more dangerous than what went on at ND, the response to which lead to uncanonical acts and heresy.
I don't read your posts consistantly enough to have learned what your main themes are. Please tell me what heresy is being preached by the hierach.
“Please tell me what heresy is being preached by the hierach.”
The teaching by the heresiarch Martino that there is no matter, no theological position more important for Latins to embrace, than anti-abortionism. Of similar concern is the often repeated assertion that one cannot be a Roman Catholic and Not embrace the Latin Church’s position on abortion. Apparently anti-abortionism is dogmatic in the Latin Church and according to the heretic Martino, the number 1 dogma at that.
What is wrong with antiabortionist being dogma?
“Certainly one can embrace the antiabortion position without it being the number one dogma.”
Not according to the heretic Martino.
“What is wrong with antiabortionist being dogma?”
No ecumenical council has declared it thus. Dogma isn’t something which is just “made up”. It has to be infallibly declared and in the face of some heresy being taught within The Church. The only heresy being taught in The Church related to abortion is that of Martino.
Is abortion wrong?
"Therefore, by the authority which Christ conferred upon Peter and his Successors, in communion with the Bishops-who on various occasions have condemned abortion and who in the aforementioned consultation, albeit dispersed throughout the world, have shown unanimous agreement concerning this doctrine-I declare that direct abortion, that is, abortion willed as an end or as a means, always constitutes a grave moral disorder, since it is the deliberate killing of an innocent human being. This doctrine is based upon the natural law and upon the written Word of God, is transmitted by the Church's Tradition and taught by the ordinary and universal Magisterium." "No circumstance, no purpose, no law whatsoever can ever make licit an act which is intrinsically illicit, since it is contrary to the Law of God which is written in every human heart, knowable by reason itself, and proclaimed by the Church."
-Pope John Paul II, Encyclical, Evangelium Vitae, #62.
First, I am in favor of church discipline. It would be just fine with me to dispense discipline to the clegy as well as to the laity.
” First, I am in favor of church discipline. It would be just fine with me to dispense discipline to the clegy as well as to the laity.
1. What are the canons regarding diocesan boundaries to which you refer?
2. How were these canons violated?
3. Please name a few bishops who have violated these canons and explain the occation of the violation.”
We went through these during the hysteria surrounding the Obama/ND speech. There are multiple canons against diocesan boundary crossing. Every last one of the bishops who meddled in the affairs of the diocese of South Bend/Fort Wayne by shrieking about what was going down like a bunch of silly old sissies showed complete disrespect for the decision of the local Ordinary to deal with the matter as he did. Some, including a number of offending bishops since then attempting to justify their uncanonical actions, claimed they were only “supporting” Bishop John D’Arcy. Bishop D’Arcy was and is quite capable of handling his own diocese by virtue of his offikion. At least two of the offending hierarchs claimed that they didn’t know they were doing anything wrong, which, frankly, the hierarch they said that to didn’t believe. In fact, he hopes they were lying. If they weren’t their ignorance is inexcusable. My own opinion is that for the offending hierarchs, politics always trumps the canons and in any event, so far as they are concerned, ancient canons don’t apply to Latin Rite hierarchs here. Its that later sentiment which is the most dangerous, other than the heresy of Martinoism.
This declaration of +JPII is dogma??????????????????????? I hope you’re kidding. Rome can do better than this.
“Is abortion wrong?”
Of course it is. Your point?
Don’t forget banning gay marriage supporters too.
So that makes it dogma, like the Assumption or the Immaculate Conception?
Dear Bishops,
Keep these Catholic Colleges and Universities Catholic!
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.