As springtime approaches it’s once again time for Catholic colleges and universities to begin inviting pro-abortion speakers to give commencement addresses at graduation. Today’s violation of the norms that the US bishops laid out (i.e. Catholic institutions are not to give honors or speaking platforms for those who dissent from the Church’s doctrines on fundamental matters like abortion) comes from Marymount University in Arlington, Virginia, which is honoring Colin Powell. The former secretary of state and former chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff is well known as holding pro-abortion views. He’s also often mentioned as a potential presidential candidate. Now he’s receiving an honorary doctorate from Marymount.
How do they justify this action? Bishop Loverde, call your office!
Dom,
I am completely against Catholic Universities honoring pro-abortion politicians, however, Colin Powell has served as a military general and as Secretary of State. He has never cast a vote for a pro-abortion statute as a public official and as far as I can tell, he has never worked for pro-abortion public policy. He did not dissent from the president’s Mexico City policy on the funding of family planning programs though he was asked to do so by Democratic pro-abortion congressmen. He has not actively campaigned for pro-abortion candidates.(Unlike Rick Santorum who campaigned for Sen. Specter.—Would you object to Sen. Santorum as an honoree by a Catholic University?) As public officials go, this is probably a weak case for slamming a Catholic University for honoring him. Marymount is probably one of the more orthodox Universities in the area. Making to much of this borders on being too scrupulous.
Sorry but Powell’s pro-abortion views are well known. That he hasn’t actively campaigned on it is irrelevant. By honoring someone who is a well known pro-abortion politician, you are causing scandal to the faithful. I don’t think that’s being too scrupulous. I think it’s being consistent.
Otherwise, some people could complain that we only apply the rule when it’s a liberal Democrat who’s being honored.
Catholic Mom:
I thought I was going to disagree with you, but you have some great points. Not so sure now.
Also, Powell is not a Catholic. Isn’t it understandable that a non-Catholic would have some non-Catholic beliefs? Are Catholic institutions supposed to shun any non-Catholic speaker?
Santorum, and any other professed Catholic, however should be held to a different standard, IMO.
Dom,
I thought I would agree with you on this one, but it is all confused when one considers the Church’s current (post-conciliar) ecumenical frenzy. And, of course, the Church’s recent “opening” to the WCC, which houses every vector of scandelous behavior imaginable.
Does it makes sense that the Church (Vatican) can engage in dialogue with supporters of abortion, euthenasia, gay “everything”, theological heresies-o’-plenty, and a Catholic College can’t host a protestant (agnostic?) because at least one of his personal beliefs differs from Catholic teaching?
At the very least, it makes one think…hmmm…(index finger placed on chin).
I guess that is the point—we all need to think carefully. How do you define a pro-abortion politician? As far as I can tell, Powell’s pro-abortion label dates back to a speech made 10 years ago at the GOP convention. Are those still his views? I don’t know. His recent public life has been more neutral. I would never identify him as a public crusader for abortion. I am not even sure I would qualify him as a politician since he is not one of those currently mentioned as a candidate for anything. On the other hand, Senators and Representatives have very public actions(votes) that directly impact abortion policy. There is no question of their stand. Local elected officials have established abortion policies in their communities. I am just not sure Colin Powell’s record is stained enough to earn the pro-abortion politician label. As I said, as pro-life as Rick Santorum is, his campaigning for Arlen Specter certainly muddied the picture.
If the university were hosting a colloquy on foreign policy, that would be one thing. Instead, they are giving him an honorary degree, a distinction that at least implies agreement with him, and since he is a politician the implicit agreement is with his public stance.
Powell is a politican because he is still identified as a former Secretary of State and because he is seen as one. In this business, perception is reality.
If Powell has recanted his views on abortion, that would be great. But if he has not, especially if he has not done so in public, there is still danger of scandal since all anyone still remembers about his views is that he was pro-abortion.
Santorum was wrong too, mostly because his excuse was that the end justified the means.
Santorum supported Specter (I contributed to Pat Toomey’s campaign BTW) because they needed to ensure that the Republicans would maintain a majority in the Senate. Two Supreme Court justices later, the strategy seems to have worked (although it was touch and go for a bit and I am still no fan of Specter).
Lynne,
Romans 3:8
“And why not say (as we are slanderously reported and as some claim that we say), “Let us do evil that good may come”? Their condemnation is just.”
Your comment is very “ends-justifies-means”. It leads one (or at least it does ME) to think that I can actually “control” things. As if something I do, questionable though it may be, can actually accomplish God’s will if I’m just clever enough.
In the example you gave, who is to say that Alito and Roberts will do what YOU want them to do? Or what God wants them to do? Or what the consequences will be if they do? What about the thousands of other cause and affect dominoes that started falling as a result of Catholics supporting Specter over Toomey? I certainly don’t know, but that’s the point. Only God knows.
God gave us a play-book because we can’t unravel history’s (time’s) infinite complexity of cause and affect. Our part is to do what is right. The rest is up to Him. Your thinking, taken to it’s logical conclusion, has no conclusion. It is a sort of infinite crumb trail of “what if’s”. It’s more about physics than it is about politics. Time will tell (or God, in his own time), but long after you and I are (hopefully) in heaven.
I had a friend in high school that won a free car in a raffle. I remember envying him, internally complaining to God about how unlucky I was. About seven years later, my friend was killed by a drunk driver.
This experience taught me many lessons, and one of them is that how we view the world at any given moment is, AT BEST, a very blurry, incomplete snapshot. Any sense that we know *anything* is an illusion. All we REALLY have is God’s direction through scripture, tradition and Magisterial teaching. Anything beyond that is usually a sin of pride.
I am speaking of my own experience, and don’t mean to imply anything beyond that.