To its credit, Boston College doesn’t allow an official student organization that promotes abortion. So when a group of pro-abortion students wanted campus space to hold an event featuring a Planned Parenthood official and three pro-abortion faculty members, the university said No. That’s when one of the faculty members lied to the administration to acquire the space under false pretenses. The Boston Globe calls it a “ruse.” Imagine if the situation had been reversed and it had been a pro-life group. Think it would still be a “ruse”?
So what will the consequences before the professor who lied? How will the university respond? And more importantly what is the university doing—beyond saying, it’s the rules we have to live with because of the big, bad Vatican—to change the minds of the pro-abortion students and faculty? The Globe engages in more intellectual dishonesty in portraying this as a clash between academic freedom and adherence to religious principle. There is no such thing as unrestricted academic freedom. Certain kinds of academic inquiry are out of bounds. Anti-Semitic or racists speakers would not be tolerated, so why should anyone tolerate pro-abortion speakers?
And let’s be honest, this isn’t about academics. It’s about advocacy and activism. This is about making sure abortion remains legal.
No one is forcing these kids to attend Boston College. If they don’t want to study in a Catholic environment, there are hundreds of public and private colleges that will accommodate them. In fact, I’d have more respect for them if they actually had to sacrifice anything for what they believe in. You know, like the pro-life kids at predominantly pro-abortion secular schools.
Technorati Tags: abortion, academic-freedom, Boston, Catholic, college
Let’s see—They have publicly rejected “thou shalt not lie” and “thou shalt not kill”. I wonder how they feel about the rest of the Ten Commandments? Perhaps they just see them as Ten Suggestions subject to the primacy of conscience.
If I was a parent, who just dropped more then 30k for my daughter to attend a Catholic College and found out she was advocating child murder I would be a little peeve’d. I so feel sorry for those girls, being explotive by the pro-choice movement, there is nothing empowering on a personal level about terminating your pregnancy.
Prayers for them to learn more about their bodies and fetal development. Maybe they can volunteer at some of the pro-life pregnancy shelters or post abortive grievance groups.
There is a new book by Kate O’Briene who writes in legnth inher book that the first feminist who fought for the right to vote, who openly pro-life. I wrote a post in my blog.
As an ex-liberal-socialist-democrat(Democrat only because the Socialist party didn’t have a chance at the polls), I will attest to the fact that LIBERALS LIE. Not just once in a while, but all the time.
REASON: They have to. No one would vote for a liberal/modernist (the “culture war” is really about modernism and “original temptation”, not political ideology, per se) if they were open about their vision for the world.
I know this from VERY personal experience.
About Boston College:
I heard a Catholic speaker once mention that his daughter had graduated from Stanford. He said that it had cost him $100,000 to send his daughter to hell.
My son developed a term: C.O.I.N.
It means: Catholic Only In Name.
Most “Catholic” colleges and universities are just that. Everyone knows the exceptions; Steubenville, Ave Maria, Christendom, TAC. That’s where I’d send my kids. At least for undergrad. Hopefully, by the time they hit grad school, they are more firm in their faith and able to withstand the un-christian currents of the “Catholic” university.
One man’s opinion.
And pray for Fr. Jenkins! (Notre Dame)
I think Fr. Carr (correct me Father if I’m wrong) was the first one I see point out that a university that calls itself Catholic and charges $20K…$30K per year hardly seems to be living to the Catholic ideal.
BC’s tuition, room and board, etc are (or will be next year) … $42,000.00 a year.
I am thankful we cannot afford to send our daughter there (even though my husband is from the Class of 81 and would love to see her go there).
Fr. Corapi had a great line at the men’s conference when he, quoting Fulton Sheen, said, “if you want your children to loose their faith send them to Catholic school. If you want them to defend the faith, send them to public school.”—Please correct me if I got the quote wrong.
Anyway, I think that unrestricted academic freedom is an ideal that Catholic schools ought to uphold. It’s good to question and have an atmosphere of academic freedom to discuss issues. It gives the opportunity for one to intellectually explore different thinking—turn the question over and approach the issue from multiple viewpoints.
The problem with the BC event is that the discussion excluded Church teaching and no that the topic was discussed. You can ask whether one can reconcile Catholicism and the entire culture of death but somebody should be in the room to say, “No, you can’t and here’s why…”. Even with that person in the room, Augustine says that argument from authority is the weakest form of argument.
My point is that Catholic schools should not seek to produce meek defenders of the faith nor should they promote “academic” discussions that deny the Church’s teachings.
So expel the students for lying, and fire the professor for lying.
Hey, good idea, seamole!
That is the first thing I’m going to do…I mean, as soon as Fr. William P. Leahy, SJ, steps aside, and I get hired as Boston College’s President.
John,
Augustine says that argument from authority is the weakest form of argument.
This is a bit misleading. Please clarify.
It was a bit of a joke but I got the quote wrong—it was Boethius and not Augustine.
In the Summa, (Prima Pars, Q1, A8 Whether Sacred Doctrine uses Arguments), Aquinas states in Objection 2 that argument is from either authority or reason. It’s unbefitting for Sacred Doctrine to argue from authority, “for according to Boethius, authority is the weakest ground of proof.” I always pictured Thomas having a laugh arguing from authority that authority is the weakest form of argument and that’s probably why they weren’t invited.
Now here’s where I got way too obscure. If you know the reference then you probably know how Aquinas answers the objection: argument from authority based on human reason is the weakest but argument based on divine revelation is the strongest. He goes on to say that human reason can be used to make clear the things that are put forth by doctrine. Thus the person arguing the Church’s position would have the strongest argument.
Thank you, John. I guess this old timer is loosing his sense of humor. You have responded to my satisfaction.
As regards human authority, yes it is the weakest argument since human authority can be in error. This is why reason, as Augstine notes, is not subservient to authority but a sound guide that puts authority in perspective.
I hope I am correct in this regard. Do correct me if I am off base.
Well, an argument from authority is not weak because human reason is flawed. A statement by an expert could be true. However, using a true statement in an argument is deficient because you’re essentially telling another that they should be convinced because of a third party’s reputation for expertise in a field.
You can even take the dimension of a third party out of the equation. Suppose Warren Buffet told you that a stock’s price will double. You ask, “why do you think that Warren?” He says, “because I’m Warren Buffet and I know these things.” Do you invest your life’s savings?
I wrote this two months ago. http://www.thebcobserver.com/(a2vm12jsyeobjo453pia2o45)/Article.aspx?ArticleID=822&IssueID=24
The administration went out of the way to tell the paper they liked it a lot. I thought that was a good sign.