Please freepmail me if you want on/off this list
Posted on 06/16/2010 8:28:54 AM PDT by markomalley
.- Incoming Catholic University of America (CUA) president John H. Garvey has defended the freedom of Catholic adoption agencies to refuse to place children with same-sex couples. However, he also holds that the Pledge of Allegiance is unconstitutional and may violate Vatican II’s Declaration on Religious Freedom.
Garvey, presently the Dean of Boston College Law School, made his comments on the Pledge in the Spring / Summer 2007 issue of BC Law Magazine. The issue featured a symposium on the late Fr. Robert Drinan, S.J., a Georgetown University law professor and Democratic U.S. Congressman.
In his essay on Drinan, Dean Garvey praised the priest’s dedication to religious freedom. Drinan suggested that asking schoolchildren to recite the Pledge of Allegiance, with its reference to “one nation under God,” might be inconsistent with the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution.
The priest also thought requiring recitation of the Pledge could violate the Second Vatican Council’s Declaration on Religious Freedom, Dignitatis Humanae, which according to Drinan “forbade any discrimination against those who are not persons of faith.”
Garvey said that his own work in law “has led me to share Fr. Drinan’s view in that regard.”
The phrase “under God” was officially added to the U.S. Pledge of Allegiance in the 1950s after a campaign initiated by the Knights of Columbus, the country’s largest Catholic fraternal charitable organization. The Knights have supported CUA for more than a century and have donated millions of dollars to the school.
The Knights have continued to defend the Pledge against constitutional challenges. Supreme Knight Carl A. Anderson, who sits on CUA’s Board of Trustees, reiterated this support in April in response to a federal court’s ruling that the Pledge did not violate the First Amendment.
For Anderson, the decision was “a victory for common sense” because “recitation of the Pledge is a patriotic exercise, not a religious prayer.” He lamented that the court system had seemed to be “almost allergic to public references to God.”
Defender of Catholic religious freedom
While Garvey’s opinion of the Pledge breaks from a view popular among U.S. Catholics, he has reportedly faced hurdles because of his faith. The Eagleionline, a student-run paper at Boston College Law School, says that Garvey’s nomination for the deanship of Notre Dame Law School was vetoed by “a vocal minority of faculty” because he was “too Catholic, too conservative, and too elitist.”
Soon after becoming dean at Boston College, he criticized the faculty for opposing the hiring of two faculty candidates he favored, saying they “will not hire a conservative or a Catholic.”
The incoming CUA president has also defended Catholic religious freedom against the growing burden of pro-homosexual laws.
When Catholic Charities of Massachusetts was forced to stop adoption services because state law required children to be placed with homosexual couples, Garvey published a March 14, 2006 essay in the Boston Globe objecting to the law.
“It seems surprising that the state would want to put the Catholic Church out of the adoption business,” Garvey wrote. “Corporal works of mercy are no less important to the life of the Church than its sacramental ministry.”
“Forbidding the Church to perform them is a serious blow to its religious liberty. Why would the government do that?” he continued, adding “Is our commitment to equality so strong that we are willing to put Catholic Charities out of business because it won't promote an agenda that it views as morally wrong? …extremism in the defense of equality can be a vice.”
As dean, Garvey also defended Boston College law professor Scott Fitzgibbon when he spoke out in favor of Maine’s Question 1, which restored the state’s definition of marriage as a union between a man and a woman.
In a 2009 campaign ad, Fitzgibbon predicted a “flood of lawsuits” if state recognition of same-sex “marriage” were not repealed. This drew criticism from homosexual activists as well as their allies among college faculty and staff.
Believer in the power of academic freedom
In response, Garvey issued a statement noting that some had been angered by the professor’s position and reiterating that Boston College does not discriminate on the basis of sexual orientation. He explained that the professor is “free to express his views,” noting that other professors have supported a view contrary to Fitzgibbons and are free to express that view publicly.
He did not refer to Catholic teaching or the Catholic identity of the school, but rather invoked “intellectual freedom,” an oft-mentioned ideal of his.
In a 2002 letter, Garvey tried to allay concern that Boston College’s Catholic identity will require “a certain orthodoxy,” claiming that “no school that regulates ideas can justly call itself a university.”
Garvey also expressed faith that free argument would resolve the questions surrounding the Terri Schiavo case in a 2005 dean’s column in BC Law Magazine. He said he was unsure what to think of the case, writing “as in abortion cases, the courts seem more eager to end life than the elected branches.” However, he also noted the argument that medical decision-making should be private.
He “heartily” endorsed John Stuart Mill’s argument about liberty of thought and discussion as a way forward.
In that same piece, he also described himself as someone “dead set against abortion.”
Commencement controversies
As dean, Garvey was criticized by the Cardinal Newman Society in 2007 when Boston College’s law school gave an honorary degree to Rep. Edward J. Markey, a pro-abortion Democrat from Massachusetts. The U.S. Catholic bishops have said Catholic institutions should not honor “those who act in defiance of our fundamental moral principles.”
In 2008 others criticized the college for inviting as commencement speaker then-Attorney General Michael Mukasey. Critics felt he was a symbol for torture practices like waterboarding.
Garvey debated whether to avoid such controversies in his column in the Spring / Summer 2008 edition of BC Law Magazine. Noting the disputes both over Mukasey and over pro-abortion speakers at Catholic schools, he said it was “a high price to pay” to stop inviting prominent people “because their actions are bound to upset one faction or another.”
Rather, he announced, Boston College had decided no longer to give medals or degrees at graduation “to make it easier to invite people of the stature of the Attorney General without having an annual disagreement to mar the day.”
Garvey succeeds Fr. David M. O’Connell as CUA president.
Vatican II is pastoral, not doctrinal, and can be ignored no matter which side of an issue one is on.
Just when my Alma Mater was making strides back to orthodoxy we get a Drinan disciple? Yikes.
The Pledge of Allegiance has long been a problematic thing, by itself, aside from the statement “One nation under God”. This is because the US constitution is about the government, federal and State, not about the people. As such it addresses only their natural rights in the face of government, not their responsibilities.
This means the practice of the Pledge comes from federal and State legislation, as well as Common Law judicial precedent. But these are constrained by the constitution.
In turn this creates a paradox. By government demanding a statement of patriotism, it goes against the negative case of the freedom of speech, that is, the freedom to not speak. Add to that the “One nation under God” statement, it not only demands a religious statement in the service of patriotism, but it demands it from both those who are not religious and those whose religions are in conflict with such declarations.
And needless to say, patriotism cannot be forced, especially on those who are not patriotic, and in fact despise patriotism both to the United States and to any nation. As much as it might be enjoyable to see them squirm, while refusing to salute the flag, or pretending to be patriotic for fear that the electorate will turn them out of office.
My alma mater also, for my first degree. Didn’t realize how liberal the place was until I graduated and went on to find friends who were outside that political spectrum. I felt so much more comfortable in my own skin after getting out of there.
I don't see how, especially since the Founders began this nation on the premise that we are endowed by our CREATOR with certain inalienable rights. When we Pledge Allegiance to our flag, it is to one that represents a nation that is founded "under God". And it is a nation that, in its Constitution, thus in its laws, guarantees the right of every citizen to worship, or not, as he or she pleases.
God has made me an American. And America has done more for the cause of Liberty and Goodness - which God supports - than any other nation in history. Thus I will honor such iconography as focuses me evermore to that ideal.
bumpus ad summum
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.