Who knew Catholic Priests could be so bigoted.
“We write as priests of the Congregation of Holy Cross and as proud graduates of the University of Notre Dame to voice our objection to the University’s decision to honor President Barack Obama by inviting him to deliver this year’s Commencement address and by conferring on him an honorary Doctor of Laws degree,” the priests’ letter begins. […]
They also cited the U.S. bishops’ instructions that Catholic institutions should not honor those who act in defiance of “fundamental moral principles.”
Gosh, where were these guys when Ronald Reagan, a divorced man, and supporter of death squads in Central America, spoke at Notre Dame? Isn’t that a fundamental violation of their moral principles too? JFK a known philanderer and adulterer, who had sent troops to Vietnam, was given Notre Dame’s highest honor, but hey, I’m sure he wasn’t objectionable. Abortion wasn’t an issue back then.
It seems these folks only object to pro-choice speakers at Catholic Universities. Because supporting the right of each woman to choose whether to have an abortion, to allow her that make the decision about a private and fundamental moral issue which effects her life and immortal soul (if you believe in souls) is the only violation of the Catholic Church’s moral principles that really counts. Still I wonder where these priests were when a self declared protestant President who used torture and waged an unjust and immoral war gave the commencement address in 2007 at St Vincent’s College, a Catholic institution.
Did they sign a highly publicized letter back at that time objecting to honoring President Bush by allowing him to give the commencement address at St. Vincent’s College? Hadn’t he acted in defiance of the Catholic Church’s moral principles (and not just by expressing his opinion)? Did they object when the Pope granted Bush an audience because for the Pope to be seen honoring a man whose actions defied the Church’s moral principles would defile the Papacy? Well, not that I can find, though I did locate this defense of the selection of Bush as a Commencement speaker in 2007 by the President of St. Vincent College:
Inviting an individual to speak on campus is not an endorsement of his or her policies or politics. I understand that during his presidency in the 1960s Mr. Brennan invited Herbert Aptheker, a leader of the Communist Party USA, to speak on campus. Was the college endorsing Mr. Aptheker’s policies and politics? Why the double standard?
Hmmm. Yes. Why the double standard, indeed?
Isn’t it amazing how strong those “fundamental moral principals” become when it comes to politics?
It’s all over the local news here, and almost completely one sided. The student body overwhelmingly supports Obama being there, the media not so much.
I think you’re dead on, but it should also be said that this also follows the Pope’s recent and very specific instructions not to support pro-Choice politicians and that those who are also Catholic will be excommunicated (!) – so there isn’t the wiggle room there may have been in those historical cases. I gather it’s because they are somehow complicit in a mass-murder that the Pope imagines would just go away or something if made illegal.
Remember back when it was illegal and there were no abortions? Let’s go back to that.
Infallibility? Protecting the innocent by making less innocents? Wha?
Sorry, one minor criticism. The stories about JFK as a philanderer were circulated after the fact by characters who were part of the CIA’s propaganda network, this after both Kennedy brothers were murdered. The presumption was that Americans were questioning the official version of the JFK assassination and one way to dull the curiosity was to make JFK look to be morally despicable. There is a well-documented essay on this subject in THE ASSASSINATIONS, edited by our own Lisa Pease. If you are too young to have been around back then the book is an excellent way to begin understanding the government by gunplay that happened back then.
Can Catholic priests be bigoted? Sure, but the Catholic priests today are not the same Catholic priests from back in the early sixties who were not exposed to the relentless anti-JFK propaganda that stretched out from the 70s on.
My point has nothing to do with your point. Just using JFK as an example is based on false assumptions.
Moral consistency has never been the hallmark of any major religion in this country. That is a large part of why I have no personal interest in much of anything our major religious institutions have to offer.
Situational morality is, and always has been, the norm.
Why anyone would find that surprising is……..well, surprising.
Mr. Steven D,
Thank you for continually hammering their swords of hypocrisy, into plowshares of truth.