Catholic cardinal publicly blasts Georgetown University president for Sebelius invite defense

posted at 11:21 am on May 16, 2012 by Ed Morrissey

The news earlier this month that Georgetown University had invited HHS Secretary Kathleen Sebelius to deliver a commencement speech resulted in an eruption of criticism for the school’s president, John J. DeGioia.  The church has bitterly criticized the HHS mandate that would force Catholic institutions to fund contraception, sterilization, and abortifacients that violate the tenets of Catholic doctrine, and the invitation of the author of that mandate offended many of those who oppose the imposition of the mandate.  DeGioia tried to defend his decision on Monday by claiming that the invitation was offered before the HHS mandate was announced, and that Georgetown wants to be open to dissenting opinions on issues such as contraception:

In early January, an invitation was extended to Secretary Sebelius and she accepted.  In the weeks that followed, elements of the legislation, specifically terms covering contraception, dominated our public discourse and impacted our Georgetown community very directly.

In different contexts over the past three months, including a March 14 “Statement on Religious Freedom and HHS Mandate,” the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops expressed strong opposition to the position put forward by the Obama Administration.  Some have interpreted the invitation of Secretary Sebelius as a challenge to the USCCB.  It was not. The invitation to Secretary Sebelius occurred prior to the January 20th announcement by the Obama Administration of the modified healthcare regulations.

The Secretary’s presence on our campus should not be viewed as an endorsement of her views.  As a Catholic and Jesuit University, Georgetown disassociates itself from any positions that are in conflict with traditional church teachings.

We are a university, committed to the free exchange of ideas. We are a community that draws inspiration from a religious tradition that provides us with an intellectual, moral, and spiritual foundation.  By engaging these values we become the University we are meant to be.

That explanation provoked a stronger response — and this time from the very top of the Catholic hierarchy in the region.  Donald Cardinal Wuerl, archbishop to the Washington DC archdiocese, slammed DeGioia for missing the point:

The already-boiling debate about Georgetown University’s decision to invite Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius to speak during graduation hit the highest levels of Catholic Washington on Tuesday, with the region’s archbishop slamming the school’s president for the “shocking” invitation and saying the real issue was being distorted. …

On Tuesday, the archdiocese of Washington, led by Cardinal Donald Wuerl, criticized Georgetown President John J. DeGioia for remarks he issued a day earlier — apparently to address the controversy — saying DeGioia had mischaracterized the issue as being about birth control. As the region’s top Catholic official, Wuerl is responsible for making sure Catholic institutions, including Georgetown, follow church teachings.

DeGioia “does not address the real issue for concern — the selection of a featured speaker whose actions as a public official present the most direct challenge to religious liberty in recent history,” reads the statement from the archdiocese, which covers the District and suburban Maryland. …

“Contrary to what is indicated in the Georgetown University President’s statement, the fundamental issue with the HHS mandate is not about contraception,” the archdiocese’s statement read.

Indeed.  No one in the church is proposing that the US criminalize the use of contraceptives.  To my knowledge, the church hasn’t even pushed for an end to Title X funding for contraception through Medicaid.  The USCCB certainly hasn’t opposed ObamaCare, at least not until now; they have been pushing for universal health-care coverage for almost a century, and supported Obama’s health-insurance overhaul.

The objection in this case is the use of that authority to determine what constitutes religious expression.  The HHS mandate, at least so far, arrogates to itself the authority to define religious expression as limited to what happens in a church, temple, or synagogue.  The efforts of faith communities in schools, charities, and ironically health-care facilities have been defined as unrelated to religious expression and therefore open to regulation and mandates by the federal government.  That’s the issue that the bishops are fighting, and Kathleen Sebelius is one of the principal authors of that arrogant policy.

In fact, according to Sebelius, this part of DeGioia’s statement wouldn’t be true at all: “As a Catholic and Jesuit University…” Sebelius and the Obama administration consider it a secular institution that is just run by Catholics, and therefore subject to government mandates.

If DeGioia hasn’t figured out that much, one has to wonder whether he has the insight necessary to lead a Catholic institution.  It sounds as though Cardinal Wuerl might be thinking the same thing — and he has the authority to fix that problem, if necessary.  By going public, the odds of an intervention from the archdiocese on this invitation have gone up considerably.


Related Posts:

Breaking on Hot Air

Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

Trackbacks/Pings

Trackback URL

Comments

Comment pages: 1 2

The real issue here is why any Catholic person is shocked by what a Catholic University and a Democrat administration would do. Catholics have ovted for this for generations.

oldroy on May 16, 2012 at 11:24 AM

ovted = voted.

oldroy on May 16, 2012 at 11:25 AM

“If you lay with dogs you will get fleas”

I love how these groups that support different liberal policies just like AARP get all butthurt when they discover the tyranny of all governments.

MORONS

jdsbengaltiger on May 16, 2012 at 11:27 AM

Then there is Sebelius’ support of George Tiller back in Kansas…..

2nd Ammendment Mother on May 16, 2012 at 11:27 AM

Rome need to get a grip on the Heresy that is in many American supposed “Catholic” institutions. Such as Georgetown and Notre Dame.

Inviting someone like Obama to speak at Notre Dame, then covering up Christian religious symbols should be UNTHINKABLE. As would be inviting someone like Sebilius. And a student like Sandra Fluke should be in Church counseling sessions (or face expulsion) rather than on her back having sex hundreds of times per week.

wildcat72 on May 16, 2012 at 11:28 AM

Hey, Cardinal Talk-Talk: do something about this. Punish Georgetown for continued disobedience to your church’s professed doctrine, or else lie back & think of England.

OhioCoastie on May 16, 2012 at 11:28 AM

DeGioia tried to defend his decision on Monday by claiming that the invitation was offered before the HHS mandate was announced

Doesn’t this schmuck realize this woman was also good buddies with the deceased late-term baby butcher, George Tiller? Of course he does. This guy should be fired.

The Count on May 16, 2012 at 11:28 AM

MY OX, MY OX! Its been gored.

Obama care was great when it was only imposing on non-catholic rights.

traye on May 16, 2012 at 11:28 AM

Biting the hand that feeds it. Funny thing is that it works both ways in this case. They feed each other and now they’re biting each other.

Both sides come out diminished.

ButterflyDragon on May 16, 2012 at 11:29 AM

The Cardinal doth protest too much.

Their road to hell (O’Care) was paved with good intentions.

CorporatePiggy on May 16, 2012 at 11:30 AM

If DeGioia hasn’t figured out that much, one has to wonder whether he has the insight necessary to lead a Catholic institution.

Marxists have infiltrated the institutions of learning pretending to be whatever the majority of each community is for a hundred years, the catholic Church is no exception. Control the educational institutes and you control the political ideology of a nation.

SWalker on May 16, 2012 at 11:31 AM

The real issue here is why any Catholic person is shocked by what a Catholic University and a Democrat administration would do. Catholics have ovted for this for generations.

oldroy on May 16, 2012 at 11:24 AM

I’m not shocked at all. Georgetown is a Jesuit institution and Jesuits are to the left of Hugo Chavez. Catholics are trending left wing and will continue to do so despite the heath care bill (which they supported) and the contraception kerfuffle.
There are many traditional hold outs, but for anyone that has attended Mass lately will know The Church is primarily focused on their brand of “social justice.” They fully support OWS as well.

oceansidecon on May 16, 2012 at 11:32 AM

In fact, according to Sebelius, this part of DeGioia’s statement wouldn’t be true at all: “As a Catholic and Jesuit University…” Sebelius and the Obama administration consider it a secular institution that is just run by Catholics, and therefore subject to government mandates.

Obama and Sebelius wouldn’t be far wrong. Jesuits are the most liberal faction of the Catholic church. Many believe that Jesuits have done great damage to the tenents and traditions of the Catholic faith. If you google Jesuit, you will find at Jesuit.org an introduction that reads:

http://www.jesuit.org/

Gateway to information on Jesuits in the United States, Ignatian spirituality, and social justice advocacy

KickandSwimMom on May 16, 2012 at 11:33 AM

….hey Cardinal….THE CHICKENS HAVE COME HOME TO ROOST!

KOOLAID2 on May 16, 2012 at 11:33 AM

Remove DeGioia immediately and see what king of Catholic institution Georgetown really is. See what really has happened to this college. The professors are mostly liberal! Fire him and see what happens. Start defending the Catholic Church as is your duty!

frizzbee on May 16, 2012 at 11:33 AM

The people who run these places are not Catholics. They are liberal statists. That is their true religion.

GardenGnome on May 16, 2012 at 11:34 AM

If DeGioia hasn’t figured out that much, one has to wonder whether he has the insight necessary to lead a Catholic institution. It sounds as though Cardinal Wuerl might be thinking the same thing — and he has the authority to fix that problem, if necessary. By going public, the odds of an intervention from the archdiocese on this invitation have gone up considerably.

I wonder how much DeGioia makes a year at Georgetown? Can the Catholic church sue him for breach of contract in administering his duties for non compliance of the administration of a Catholic institution?

Dr Evil on May 16, 2012 at 11:37 AM

Well obama invited himself to speak at barnard – and they had to disinvite another speaker who was scheduled. So maybe they can disinvite sebelius.

Bambi on May 16, 2012 at 11:38 AM

It’s about time the Catholic leadership realized playing with the Devil is just that. He’s going to want his due at some point. God bless them for standing firm against the “useful idiots”in their own ranks. All churches and faiths must stand firm and protect the 1st Amendment ’cause the Devil government won’t.

cartooner on May 16, 2012 at 11:38 AM

Let’s put one myth to bed here. While it is true that the Catholic Church has held a position on universal health care coverage for many years, when the USCCB reviewed the Obamacare bill as it was written, the did NOT endorse it. When Obama promised that the vague “conscience clause” wording would come in an Executive Order following passage of the health care bill, it was more of an enticement to wavering Dems like Bart Stupak than it was to the Catholic Church. Stupak fell for it, the Catholic Church did not, and never endorsed Obamacare.

Trafalgar on May 16, 2012 at 11:39 AM

Georgetown University – JESUIT & CATHOLIC IDENTITY

Dr Evil on May 16, 2012 at 11:39 AM

As other Catholics have said many times and in many ways on these threads: What the hell were these men in red thinking when they were all for giving our government the power to execute a massive and forced redistribution of wealth, instead of preaching the conversion of hearts (their job) from which charity flows? Did they really think that any other result would come from such madness other than corruption and oppression?

KOOLAID2 hits the nail right on the head.

Ed Snyder on May 16, 2012 at 11:40 AM

DeGioia tried to defend his decision on Monday by claiming that the invitation was offered before the HHS mandate was announced, and that Georgetown wants to be open to dissenting opinions on issues such as contraception:

This is what happens when you put in a lay person in charge of the institution and not a Jesuit priest!

The Archdiocese weighing in and making public statements is extremely unusual.

Happy Nomad on May 16, 2012 at 11:41 AM

DeGioia tried to defend his decision on Monday by claiming that the invitation was offered before the HHS mandate was announced

So what ?
Why was the invitation NOT taken back AFTER the abortion mandate was announced ?
Did the moron sign a contract with HHS ?

and that Georgetown wants to be open to dissenting opinions on issues such as contraception

Really ?
So will be giving the dissenting commencement address ?

burrata on May 16, 2012 at 11:41 AM

And Universities like Georgetown have fought very hard to remain free of their local Bishop’s control. Originally it was so they could qualify for federal funds (gee where have I heard that before) but later it was so they could teach non-orthodox theology (which is really the only area of education the local Bishop might want some say in) among other things. Marymount Manhattan College in NY is one of the few formerly Catholic Institutions that has been formaly stripped of its Catholic recognition/identity by the local bishop.

Iblis on May 16, 2012 at 11:41 AM

Stupak fell for it, the Catholic Church did not, and never endorsed Obamacare.

Trafalgar on May 16, 2012 at 11:39 AM

But the majority of Catholics will fall in line on election day and vote Democrat. And the majority of the clergy will support the Democrats, some outright, some with a wink and a nod.

oldroy on May 16, 2012 at 11:41 AM

I’m thinking the Cardinal’s comments were a warning and a suggestion to DeGioia.

He can’t be so stupid as to think his invitation to Sibelius doesn’t confer a certain degree of approval and legitimacy on the woman and the her policies. That fact suggests he is going forward because he intends to confer that approval and legitimacy.

Unless the invitation is withdrawn by DeGioia directly, the Cardinal should step in and remove him, and the new acting president of Georgetown can withdraw it.

In the meantime, perhaps the Church ought to pay a bit more attention to what is actually going on and being taught at places like Georgetown and Notre Dame. Notre Dame is just down the road, and I can tell you some of those people, faculty and administration, are simply not recognizable as Catholics.

novaculus on May 16, 2012 at 11:41 AM

Don’t know about DeGioia, but that Obama-sucking POS Jenkins at Notre Dame should be defrocked. He received his ordination under false pretenses and never intended to be a Catholic, let alone a Catholic priest.

swinia sutki on May 16, 2012 at 11:42 AM

and that Georgetown wants to be open to dissenting opinions on issues such as contraception

Really ?
So WHO will be giving the dissenting commencement address ?

burrata on May 16, 2012 at 11:43 AM

From wikipedia:

Sebelius was born and raised in a Roman Catholic family in Cincinnati, Ohio

I can understand inviting a speaker with whom you disagree, free speech and listening to the other side and all. My question is, is she still a Catholic and if so does she still get communion? Seems like she’s trying to assert authority over the bishops.

rbj on May 16, 2012 at 11:43 AM

The USCCB certainly hasn’t opposed ObamaCare, at least not until now; they have been pushing for universal health-care coverage for almost a century, and supported Obama’s health-insurance overhaul.

Which raises serious moral questions…the Church historically holds the principle of subsidiarity to be the guide for these types of social issues, whereby the lowest social level possible must be allowed to assume responsibility, while the higher levels mustn’t interfere with the rights of the lower to manage their own affairs. Obamacare, with its mandates and he IRS as police over abortion, and the unanswered question of those death panels, certainly doesn’t qualify as meeting that criterion.
John Paul II castigated the “Welfare State” as evil in one of his encyclicals.
Perhaps if the USCCB were to focus upon its Christ-given mission of the salvation of souls and leave the political social justice issues to a well catechized flock…?
But then, catechesis is secondary, in spite of the fact that 50+% of the Catholics under their moral guidance have seen fit to vote for the most pro-abortion president (even infanticide is not about his value system) Perhaps, if they hadn’t given all that money donated for the poor to ACORN….?

Don L on May 16, 2012 at 11:44 AM

But the majority of Catholics will fall in line on election day and vote Democrat. And the majority of the clergy will support the Democrats, some outright, some with a wink and a nod.

oldroy on May 16, 2012 at 11:41 AM

I keep hearing this and can only speak for my own parish, but our priests and the parishoners seem united in their stance against Obama’s assault on religious freedom. Our pastor has delivered some stinging words in church about this assault and is met with total agreement. This Catholic will not be voting Democrat on election day or any other time, and I have the feeling that very few of my fellow parishoners will be either.

Trafalgar on May 16, 2012 at 11:46 AM

Hey, Cardinal Talk-Talk: do something about this. Punish Georgetown for continued disobedience to your church’s professed doctrine, or else lie back & think of England.

OhioCoastie on May 16, 2012 at 11:28 AM

Well said. Words are cheap and in Obama’s Orwellian world, words have no meaning. A little less talk and a little more action.

rhombus on May 16, 2012 at 11:47 AM

Hell, I might as well wade right in. Looks like the Catholics are a tad bit two faced.

Long haired country boy on May 16, 2012 at 11:48 AM

I can understand inviting a speaker with whom you disagree, free speech and listening to the other side and all. My question is, is she still a Catholic and if so does she still get communion? Seems like she’s trying to assert authority over the bishops.

rbj on May 16, 2012 at 11:43 AM

Sebelius is an excommunicated Catholic, whether she knows it or not, based on her continued political support of abortion. My understanding is that she no longer goes to Mass.

Trafalgar on May 16, 2012 at 11:49 AM

Does anyone even remember that the majority of Catholics voted Republican in 2010?

steebo77 on May 16, 2012 at 11:49 AM

…and that Georgetown wants to be open to dissenting opinions on issues such as contraception

It makes one wonder if these high-level educated Catholic leader never noticed that Christ didn’t allow Satan equal time at the “Sermon on the Mount” But, being open to evil is far more important to them, under the guise of academic superiority in the hierarchy of values.

Don L on May 16, 2012 at 11:50 AM

I have a friend who visited Georgetown as part of a college search. His son remarked, “Dad, it’s almost like thay are ashamed to be Catholic.”

The son ended up at Boston College.

bw222 on May 16, 2012 at 11:50 AM

Let’s put one myth to bed here. While it is true that the Catholic Church has held a position on universal health care coverage for many years, when the USCCB reviewed the Obamacare bill as it was written, the did NOT endorse it. When Obama promised that the vague “conscience clause” wording would come in an Executive Order following passage of the health care bill, it was more of an enticement to wavering Dems like Bart Stupak than it was to the Catholic Church. Stupak fell for it, the Catholic Church did not, and never endorsed Obamacare.

Trafalgar on May 16, 2012 at 11:39 AM

Sure, but when a large institution argues for decades for massive government bureaucracy with the caveat that they get to escape it’s clutches and that empowered bureaucracy turns on that institution it’s not hard to make the case that they are reaping what they sowed.

That having been said though – hopefully this will be a turning point in the Catholic Church’s push for the federal government to take over the charity business.

gwelf on May 16, 2012 at 11:52 AM

DeGioia is a thick-headed idiot. He should have withdrawn the invitation as soon as Her Majesty of Health Care decreed her rulings.

As for ‘open debate’ – BULL! That implies that someone will change their mind, presented with a logically argument in favor of a specific position. I’m unaware that the Church, like Barry, would be “flexible” on this issue. Therefore the idea of ‘debate’ is bunk!

GarandFan on May 16, 2012 at 11:52 AM

This problem could easily be remedied…action speak louder than words.

d1carter on May 16, 2012 at 11:53 AM

Does anyone even remember that the majority of Catholics voted Republican in 2010?

steebo77 on May 16, 2012 at 11:49 AM

It doesn’t fit the “Catholics are socialists” meme.

2008 – Catholic vote: 55% Dem, 42% Rep
2010 – Catholic vote: 54% Rep, 44% Dem

Trafalgar on May 16, 2012 at 11:54 AM

I can understand inviting a speaker with whom you disagree, free speech and listening to the other side and all.

rbj on May 16, 2012 at 11:43 AM

So invite her to a debate. Graduation speeches really are supposed to be about the graduating class and not making sure dissenting views are heard. It is an honor to be a graduation speaker. Georgetown should not be honoring the woman who declared war on religious institutions.

Happy Nomad on May 16, 2012 at 11:54 AM

Rome need to get a grip on the Heresy that is in many American supposed “Catholic” institutions. Such as Georgetown and Notre Dame.

Inviting someone like Obama to speak at Notre Dame, then covering up Christian religious symbols should be UNTHINKABLE. As would be inviting someone like Sebilius. And a student like Sandra Fluke should be in Church counseling sessions (or face expulsion) rather than on her back having sex hundreds of times per week.

wildcat72 on May 16, 2012 at 11:28 AM

I don’t think Obama early ’09 and Sebelius early ’12 are in the same league, mostly because of the ambiguity of Obama’s administration in the earliest stages opposed to the, shall we say, resolved nature of his current regime.

Back then, Obama was ostensibly working toward some good (though vague) goals. In addition, he was a freshly-minted president and there was some hope to believe he might be moderate on many issues. Results were obviously quite different but at least there’s a somewhat feasible explanation for that decision.

Sebelius, on the other hand, has always (or for a darn long time) been a raging advocate of abortion. In addition, she’s running Obamacare and has already violated freedom of conscience provisions.

Regardless, Georgetown has shown that any claim it has to Catholicism is pretense at best with this choice. Disappointing but not surprising.

Aquarian on May 16, 2012 at 11:57 AM

It sounds as though Cardinal Wuerl might be thinking the same thing — and he has the authority to fix that problem, if necessary. By going public, the odds of an intervention from the archdiocese on this invitation have gone up considerably.

Does the Cardinal have authority over a Jesuit institution? While he certainly has influence, a Cardinal’s authority is usually over diocesan organizations rather than individual orders.

dedalus on May 16, 2012 at 11:58 AM

Well said. Words are cheap and in Obama’s Orwellian world, words have no meaning. A little less talk and a little more action.

rhombus on May 16, 2012 at 11:47 AM

Are you kidding? This is the closest Donald Wuerl has been to growing a pair since they first put a mitre on his head. If it’s a question of action, at least he’s out of the starting gate.

manwithblackhat on May 16, 2012 at 11:58 AM

If DeGioia hasn’t figured out that much, one has to wonder whether he has the insight necessary to lead a Catholic institution. It sounds as though Cardinal Wuerl might be thinking the same thing — and he has the authority to fix that problem, if necessary. By going public, the odds of an intervention from the archdiocese on this invitation have gone up considerably.

Ed, I’m pretty sure that Cardinal Wuerl has no authority to do anything at Georgetown University. Georgetown is a Jesuit university and is not at all under the authority of the local diocese or arch-diocese. The Cardinal is the head of the local archdiocese and has authority over his local diocesan priests and parishes. I don’t believe the Cardinal has any control over the Jesuit priests or Jesuit institutions that may happen to be in his diocese.

If memory serves, Georgetown is in the Jesuit Baltimore Province. The authority that may have any authority over Georgetown would be the Jesuit provencial Superior for the Baltimore Province.

Also, I would think the primary authority over the Georgetown President would be the University’s board of trustees.

Full disclosure: I am product of 20 years of Catholic education (8 of those years by Jesuits). Therefore the sometimes Byzantine turf fights between Jesuits and the local diocese are familiar to my ear.

New_Jersey_Buckeye on May 16, 2012 at 11:58 AM

The simple fact is that today 95% of Catholic colleges and universities are no different than state colleges (except for tuition costs). My college, University of Detroit-Mercy, was recently rated as the second “least Catholic” college in the U.S. (behind DePaul).

I sent both my kids to state universities.

bw222 on May 16, 2012 at 12:00 PM

I keep hearing this and can only speak for my own parish, but our priests and the parishoners seem united in their stance against Obama’s assault on religious freedom. Our pastor has delivered some stinging words in church about this assault and is met with total agreement. This Catholic will not be voting Democrat on election day or any other time, and I have the feeling that very few of my fellow parishoners will be either.

Trafalgar on May 16, 2012 at 11:46 AM

I hope you are right, and I hope this has woken many people up. But color me sceptical. For the Church to awake on a religious freedom issue and to have been absent for a couple of generations on funding planned parenthood…..well just color me sceptical.

I mean what’s more important? Being forced to fund contraceptives, or forced to fund abortions?

oldroy on May 16, 2012 at 12:00 PM

Marxists have infiltrated the institutions of learning pretending to be whatever the majority of each community is for a hundred years, the catholic Church is no exception. Control the educational institutes and you control the political ideology of a nation.

SWalker on May 16, 2012 at 11:31 AM

^^This. Anyone who has school-aged children, and a brain, can see the proof of this statement, daily. Exactly the reason I yanked my kids out of public school.

Shiny_Tiara on May 16, 2012 at 12:00 PM

It doesn’t fit the “Catholics are socialists” meme.

2008 – Catholic vote: 55% Dem, 42% Rep
2010 – Catholic vote: 54% Rep, 44% Dem

Trafalgar on May 16, 2012 at 11:54 AM

Are people claiming that Catholic’s in general are socialists? I more often see the argument that prominent Democrat “Catholics” are socialists, that “Catholics” in the news media are socialists and that the Church itself pushed many big-government solutions.

gwelf on May 16, 2012 at 12:02 PM

As a Catholic (Redemptorist, thank God!) I apologize for the Jesuits. Whoever said above that the Church was incredibly liberal and had been infilitrated by, among others, Marxists, progressives, the Green crowd, social justice types, etc., was exactly right.

Whenever I hear a pracyer at the Offertory for “Our fragile planet,” I cringe. Also, community organizing groups like IAF are openly working to divide the Church. It’s an open secret.

But back to Georgetown. What can you say? They’re Jesuits. Also, isn’t that where that Fluke chick was from? Is she going to be greeting Sebelius (who I thought was excommunicated–isn’t there a doctrine that says that if you are in absolute opposition to Church teachings you are automatically excommunicated?)

Herald of Woe on May 16, 2012 at 12:02 PM

DeGioia cares not a whit about the substance of the religious freedom debate, only for the opportunity to be at the forefront of the academy’s assault on liberty. He invited Sibelius precisely because she is anti-Catholic, and not despite that fact. He agrees with her, and with the administration generally.

Let there be no confusion here: Georgetown is at a turning point in it’s history. On which side of this debate about liberty are the board and the institution going to stand?

And how far is the church prepared to go in reining in the renegades at Georgetown, assuming the board does nothing? The status quo is intolerable.

MTF on May 16, 2012 at 12:03 PM

2010 – Catholic vote: 54% Rep, 44% Dem

Trafalgar on May 16, 2012 at 11:54 AM

Where did this number come from? Not disputing it, just wondering….

oldroy on May 16, 2012 at 12:04 PM

First they came for the Jews….

cane_loader on May 16, 2012 at 12:04 PM

Catholic universities are under no obligation to invite Satan to speak at their ceremonies.

Ever.

Akzed on May 16, 2012 at 12:05 PM

One other thing. The Church has to get straight with the Law. Obviously, there was the priest-sex scandal. As that works itself out, and going forward: if the Church wants to stand on strong ground when it asserts its First Amendment rights, its support for illegal immigration weakens its position. You can’t be outraged that your rights are being violated at the same time that you openly support illegal conduct.

The Church needs to separate sentiment from principle, and get straight with the Law.

Herald of Woe on May 16, 2012 at 12:06 PM

GarandFan on May 16, 2012 at 11:52 AM

Sebelius turned herself into a pariah with her pro abortion – late term abortion stance. Why on earth would any Catholic institution invite someone to speak that the Catholic Church has told not to take communion, because of her advocacy of abortions on demand.

Tiller performed at least 60,000 abortions, and he funded her campaigns. Sebelius has literally taken blood money. DeGioia thinks this is all about secular politics, and contraception? DeGioia thinks he’s more powerful than the Holy Roman Church? Good luck with that, I think he’s out numbered.

According to the Census of the 2012 Annuario Pontificio (Pontifical Yearbook), the number of Roman Catholics of the world is about 1.196 billion at the end of 2010 (At the end of 2009, it was about 1.181 billion).

Dr Evil on May 16, 2012 at 12:07 PM

Since when did the excuse of “being open to dissenting opinions” take prominence over having someone who represents the colleges values and ideals? Especially at commencement.

We get enough of that tripe every day in the classroom from liberal professors that don’t even share the same values and largely represent the church of liberalism.

I am a little sick of the fallacy from people like DeGioia who use these opportunities to promote personal beliefs using weak strawman arguments like “equal time for dissenters”.

It seems to me the “dissenters” have stormed the ramparts and occupied the college green.

Marcus Traianus on May 16, 2012 at 12:07 PM

What business does the federal government have telling a religious institution how to run its medical-insurance program?

If employees/students don’t like it, they can attend/work for another university.

Last time I looked, no one was rounded up at gunpoint and told that they must attend/work for Georgetown University.

The feds don’t have a leg to stand on.

cane_loader on May 16, 2012 at 12:07 PM

I hope you are right, and I hope this has woken many people up. But color me sceptical. For the Church to awake on a religious freedom issue and to have been absent for a couple of generations on funding planned parenthood…..well just color me sceptical.

oldroy on May 16, 2012 at 12:00 PM

My concern is defining what exactly is a “Catholic voter”. I think if we were able to break them down into “Church-going Catholic voters” and “Voters who identify as Catholic because they were born Catholic but never go to church”, you’d see that church-going Catholics are very strongly conservative on religious freedom, abortion, and contraception. The other group has no clue what the Church’s position is on anything.

Trafalgar on May 16, 2012 at 12:08 PM

0bama must be insane to think that attacking the Catholic Church head on will not lose him more votes than he gains from pro-choice militants.

Americans don’t take kindly to be dictated to.

(Cf. the Stamp Act, Prohibition, Townshend Act, etc.)

cane_loader on May 16, 2012 at 12:08 PM

Since when did the excuse of “being open to dissenting opinions” take prominence over having someone who represents the colleges values and ideals? Especially at commencement.
Marcus Traianus on May 16, 2012 at 12:07 PM

This is multi-culturalism in a nut-shell.

A short version is: You don’t agree with me? Shut up.

gwelf on May 16, 2012 at 12:11 PM

The other group has no clue what the Church’s position is on anything.

Trafalgar on May 16, 2012 at 12:08 PM

What is your guess on total percentage of both groups that make it to the polls?

oldroy on May 16, 2012 at 12:12 PM

CNN‘s 2010 exit polling had Catholics supporting Republicans 54%-44%.

The New York Times showed Republicans up among Catholic voters 55%-45%.

steebo77 on May 16, 2012 at 12:13 PM

And another thing. Here is a side note.

Good parochial primary and secondary schools that offer traditional education and values are growing.

Colleges that were traditionally Catholic or Christian keep trying to distance themselves from that heritage.

I visited no more than three with my family and they all fell off the list due to the gratuitous efforts they made to play down or in some cases belittle and dismiss that heritage. I was not alone. There were other folks on the tours that were offended by that tact.

So- everything that built your prestigious, successful heritage can now somehow be…dismissed? What kind of idiots do you think we are?

Such places will not get a dime of mt money.

Marcus Traianus on May 16, 2012 at 12:13 PM

2010 – Catholic vote: 54% Rep, 44% Dem

Trafalgar on May 16, 2012 at 11:54 AM

Where did this number come from? Not disputing it, just wondering….

oldroy on May 16, 2012 at 12:04 PM

Those numbers came from Pew. CNN had 55% of Catholics voting Republican in 2010, and AP had the number as high as 58%.

Trafalgar on May 16, 2012 at 12:13 PM

Those numbers came from Pew. CNN had 55% of Catholics voting Republican in 2010, and AP had the number as high as 58%.

Trafalgar on May 16, 2012 at 12:13 PM

Very surprised. I’m in New Mexico. I’ll try to find some numbers for our state for the past few elections. My best guess is that isn’t any where near 30% Republican here.

oldroy on May 16, 2012 at 12:17 PM

What is your guess on total percentage of both groups that make it to the polls?

oldroy on May 16, 2012 at 12:12 PM

Based on not much more than my own hunch, I’d say that church-going Catholics are much more likely to vote, as are practicing members of most religious organizations. I’d guess that the “Not really a Catholic” votes about as much as the typical demographic for their area. They care as much about politics as they do their faith.

Trafalgar on May 16, 2012 at 12:17 PM

AP had it 54%-44% among Catholics and 59%-39% among white Catholics.

steebo77 on May 16, 2012 at 12:19 PM

CNN‘s 2010 exit polling had Catholics supporting Republicans 54%-44%.

The New York Times showed Republicans up among Catholic voters 55%-45%.

steebo77 on May 16, 2012 at 12:13 PM

Was the New York Times Poll, before or after Obama came out for same sex marriage, and the repeal of DOMA?

Dr Evil on May 16, 2012 at 12:19 PM

Very surprised. I’m in New Mexico. I’ll try to find some numbers for our state for the past few elections. My best guess is that isn’t any where near 30% Republican here.

oldroy on May 16, 2012 at 12:17 PM

I think that the numbers show that the Catholic vote numbers slewed Republican along with the rest of the country in 2010, demonstrating that the Catholic vote is not monolithically Democrat.

Trafalgar on May 16, 2012 at 12:19 PM

From Pew, based on CNN data:

Among all Catholic voters, 54% voted for Republican congressional candidates in 2010, up 12 points compared with 2008. Among white Catholics, nearly six-in-ten (59%) voted Republican in 2010, compared with 39% who voted Democratic. By comparison, 52% of white Catholics voted for Republican congressional candidates in 2008, and 49% voted Republican in 2006.

steebo77 on May 16, 2012 at 12:21 PM

Was the New York Times Poll, before or after Obama came out for same sex marriage, and the repeal of DOMA?

Dr Evil on May 16, 2012 at 12:19 PM

These numbers were taken the day after the 2010 election and reflect actual votes. Nothing to do with a poll and nothing to do with Obama’s recent epiphany. I think you will see Catholic votes slewing even further toward the Republicans in light of Obama’s embrace of the destruction of marriage.

Trafalgar on May 16, 2012 at 12:21 PM

Was the New York Times Poll, before or after Obama came out for same sex marriage, and the repeal of DOMA?

Dr Evil on May 16, 2012 at 12:19 PM

It was also 2010 exit polling.

steebo77 on May 16, 2012 at 12:22 PM

steebo77 on May 16, 2012 at 12:13 PM

I see it was the mid term elections results. I wonder what Obama is polling at among Catholic voters now?

Dr Evil on May 16, 2012 at 12:22 PM

He won roughly three out of four Latino Catholics in New Mexico and Nevada, according to exit polls.

According to this link – additional interesting info relevant to topic also here: ‘Obama and the Catholic swing state vote’

oldroy on May 16, 2012 at 12:23 PM

I see it was the mid term elections results. I wonder what Obama is polling at among Catholic voters now?

Dr Evil on May 16, 2012 at 12:22 PM

Given his attacks on freedom of religion, and specifically Catholic beliefs, coupled with his embrace of sodomy and the destruction of marriage, I’d say is in a very, very deep hole with practicing Catholics.

Trafalgar on May 16, 2012 at 12:25 PM

Link Fixed.

Grrrr…Sorry…

oldroy on May 16, 2012 at 12:28 PM

As a graduate of Georgetown University, I am sad to report that its claim to be a Catholic school is a spurious one. Despite requests from the student body, the school refuses to have crucifixes in the classrooms, lest they offend the non-Catholic students who chose to attend a (nominally) Catholic school. That they have a lay President for the first time in its over 200 year history is another indication that they have been stepping away from the church for some time.

What’s the difference between a Jesuit and a Protestant? A Protestant knows that he not Catholic.

Selkirk on May 16, 2012 at 12:28 PM

The real issue here is why any Catholic person is shocked by what a Catholic University and a Democrat administration would do. Catholics have voted for this for generations.

oldroy on May 16, 2012 at 11:24 AM

As a Catholic conservative myself, I can understand why other Catholics might vote Democratic. Their position on immigration is far more charitable and good-encompassing than that of the Republicans on my side. Ditto for the death penalty, to which the Church is inalterably opposed.

As for why Catholics might favor policies which require insurers to provide contraceptives and abortifacients and even, in some states, abortions — well, I can only posit that said position comes from an uninformed conscience — and, in the case of some people like Nancy Pelosi or Kathleen Sebelius, an informed conscience which has decided to sin.

I would have expected Georgetown to have learned from Notre Dame’s experience, and to have not gone there, so to speak. But they have, and it’s time for everyone, including Catholics, to push back.

unclesmrgol on May 16, 2012 at 12:29 PM

What’s the difference between a Jesuit and a Protestant? A Protestant knows that he not Catholic.

Selkirk on May 16, 2012 at 12:28 PM

“I don’t care who you are, that right there is funny.” – Larry TCG

oldroy on May 16, 2012 at 12:32 PM

unclesmrgol on May 16, 2012 at 12:29 PM

I was listening to Father Jonathan Morris on the O’Reilly Factor on this very topic, he was against her speaking at Georgetown. For some reason of all the video from that night and there is no video for his interview on May 10th. I looked for it. Bill O’Reilly – a Catholic said to Father Morris, that Rome was going to have to get involved, and Father Morris stated, that the Church wanted things like this handled locally. It’s not going to work this time, they are bent on thumbing their nose at the Catholic clergy hierarchy. They are displaying an unprecedented amount of willfulness given their vows.

What are the vows that Jesuits take? What is the fourth vow? Poverty, Chastity and Obedience. The fourth vow is of obedience to the Pope with regard to mission

Dr Evil on May 16, 2012 at 12:43 PM

As a graduate of Georgetown University, I am sad to report that its claim to be a Catholic school is a spurious one. Despite requests from the student body, the school refuses to have crucifixes in the classrooms, lest they offend the non-Catholic students who chose to attend a (nominally) Catholic school. That they have a lay President for the first time in its over 200 year history is another indication that they have been stepping away from the church for some time.

What’s the difference between a Jesuit and a Protestant? A Protestant knows that he not Catholic.

Selkirk on May 16, 2012 at 12:28 PM

Selkirk, how long since you graduated? Crucifixes (Crucifi?) were reinstalled in classrooms in 1998. See this article from The Hoya. I remember hearing something about this “controversy” during my time at The Tombs.. I mean Georgetown.

New_Jersey_Buckeye on May 16, 2012 at 12:49 PM

Georgetown wants to be open to dissenting opinions on issues such as contraception

Ok, so if that is the case, how about Sarah Palin or Rush Limbaugh? I don’t think they REALLY want “dissenting opinions” unless those opinions are from the political left.

crosspatch on May 16, 2012 at 12:56 PM

Does the Cardinal have authority over a Jesuit institution? While he certainly has influence, a Cardinal’s authority is usually over diocesan organizations rather than individual orders.

dedalus on May 16, 2012 at 11:58 AM

That’s right. Jesuits’ hierarchy is usually separate from the local bishop’s control. As a missionary order they were founded with the intention of being sent wherever the Pope felt the need for them was greatest.
The head of the order is the Superior General residing in Rome. Then the order is divided into geographical provinces run by a Provincial Superior. They are often “loaned” to the local diocese to aid in pastoral missions.

Iblis on May 16, 2012 at 12:58 PM

So after decades of allowing the clergy to support every liberal expansion of government, the Catholic church is suddenly shocked to find one of its leading institutions inviting a pro-abortionist to speak to its graduating class and their parents. As a conservative who is a former Catholic – pass the popcorn.

Over50 on May 16, 2012 at 1:04 PM

Hey Catholic church, it is high time to grab these people by the scruffs of their necks and give them the boot. Start with pelosi. Then you need to reign your left leaning flock in that voted for president yahoo and lay down the low, of course in love but lay it down because liberalism has perverted the church

crosshugger on May 16, 2012 at 1:06 PM

I think the Catholic Church, like many ex-liberals, has just been mugged by reality.

Iblis on May 16, 2012 at 1:09 PM

Like Notre Dame, Georgetown is Catholic in name only. To think otherwise is to live in a fantasy world.

Jaibones on May 16, 2012 at 1:09 PM

What is it with these twice a year Catholic university presidents? Notre Dame invites the obamanation and Georgetown invites Kathleen the abortionist. Don’t let Georgetown University president fool you. Georgetown is one of the most liberal of universities and very repressive of consrtvative speech. Check F.I.R.E. Of course the plossi and biden have already demonstrated that “good Catholics” can lie out their wazoos for political purposes, and the Church will do nothing about it. In fact, if the university president wanted to really make a Catholic statement, he would have lously and publically disinvited her at the time of her policy announcement.

Old Country Boy on May 16, 2012 at 1:09 PM

This requirement is not anti-religion. The “religion of peace” is exempt. Of course, it’s not really germane since they are much too busy blowing up infidels and themselves to worry about minor details such as hospitals and healthcare.

acyl72 on May 16, 2012 at 1:12 PM

That’s right. Jesuits’ hierarchy is usually separate from the local bishop’s control. As a missionary order they were founded with the intention of being sent wherever the Pope felt the need for them was greatest.
The head of the order is the Superior General residing in Rome. Then the order is divided into geographical provinces run by a Provincial Superior. They are often “loaned” to the local diocese to aid in pastoral missions.

Iblis on May 16, 2012 at 12:58 PM

Regardless, Cardinal Wuerl, as the Catholic “ordinary”, or Bishop of DC, has the authority to strip Georgetown of its Catholic identity. He should do that, instead of just blasting them. Georgetown has been Catholic in name only for some time, and doing this would make sense.

Ward Cleaver on May 16, 2012 at 1:13 PM

this is the second time for something like this with Georgetown. Last time was when Barry came to speak and they covered the cross behind him. Georgetown should lose it’s support from the church.

huskerthom on May 16, 2012 at 1:15 PM

Like Notre Dame, Georgetown is Catholic in name only. To think otherwise is to live in a fantasy world.

Jaibones on May 16, 2012 at 1:09 PM

Absolutely. I’d never send any of my kids to either of those schools. I’d send them to Franciscan University in Steubenville, Christendom College, or Ave Maria University.

I know a guy who was in the Seabees in the South Pacific in WWII, and then graduated from Notre Dame in ’49 on the GI Bill. He hasn’t given them a dime in years, and he’s told them why, in response to fundraising letters they’ve sent him.

Ward Cleaver on May 16, 2012 at 1:18 PM

this is the second time for something like this with Georgetown. Last time was when Barry came to speak and they covered the cross behind him. Georgetown should lose it’s support from the church.

huskerthom on May 16, 2012 at 1:15 PM

That was at Notre Dame.

Ward Cleaver on May 16, 2012 at 1:19 PM

That was at Notre Dame.

Ward Cleaver on May 16, 2012 at 1:19 PM

No, that was Georgetown.

steebo77 on May 16, 2012 at 1:20 PM

University releases finances, list of highest earners at Georgetown University. Guess who makes the 2nd highest salary at Georgetown?

John J. DeGioia, President: $911,918 (+0.03%)

1 per-center straight up LOL!

Dr Evil on May 16, 2012 at 1:21 PM

This is a new defense, a new spin. Last week it was Georgetown’s claim that this wasn’t a honor, and that her speech wasn’t a commencement address, even though she would be speaking, and then graduates would walk across the stage and receive their diplomas.

Ward Cleaver on May 16, 2012 at 1:22 PM

No, that was Georgetown.

steebo77 on May 16, 2012 at 1:20 PM

You’re right, but he also did that at Notre Dame, and received an honorary degree.

Ward Cleaver on May 16, 2012 at 1:24 PM

Comment pages: 1 2