Catholic University in Pa. Nixes Ellen Goodman Speech

  • Thread starter Thread starter _Abyssinia
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
A

_Abyssinia

Guest
A Catholic university in central Pennsylvania has canceled a speech by Pulitzer Prize-winning columnist Ellen Goodman because she supports abortion rights.

The Pittsburgh Post-Gazette (bit.ly/oXNpeo) says the syndicated columnist was scheduled to speak at St. Francis University in Loretto on Oct. 12. The university rescinded the invitation after the Cardinal Newman Society, a lay watchdog group that monitors how colleges adhere to church teaching, objected to her appearance earlier this month.

Goodman was to lecture on civility in public discourse and told the newspaper for a story Wednesday of her “disappointment at having my plea for civility returned with a pie in the face.”

Provost Wayne Powel says the school typically screens speakers but says there “was a broken process in this case.”

cnsnews.com/news/article/catholic-university-pa-nixes-ellen-goodman-speech
 
How refreshing that a Catholic University realizes its mistake and does the right thing! Yeah!
 
Glad to hear they stood up for life 🙂 Much better then giving her an honorary degree…
 
Good for them – now I pray that Marxism, gay rights, and syncretism would be rooted out of the sociology department at Madonna U. Blessed Mother, please pray for Madonna U.
 
In Franciscan fairness to all Catholic colleges and universities, it must be mentioned that Franciscans usually own their colleges and universities. Most Catholic colleges and universities are not owned by the religious associated with them. The religious are employed by the the university. However, the university is owned by a lay corporation and run by a Board of Trustees.

Many religious communities started to sell their schools when they stated to expand their science departments, such as adding medical schools and other advanced sciences. The religious could no longer afford to operate the schools. The only way to save them from closing was to turn them over to lay corporations.

Franciscans don’t run medical schools or advanced science schools. Most Franciscan colleges and universities are schools of Arts and Sciences, what used to be called schools of Liberal Arts.

Most, not all, Franciscan schools are owned and operated by the various Franciscan obediences under a papal charter to operate. The friars have the final word over the school. Even when there is a Board, which is common, the friars have the controlling number of votes and the chancellor is always a friar.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF 🙂
 
I find it hard to be affected to appeals referring to the righteousness of the legal system. We have a legal system currently in place that has no concept of what the law says. The legal system is being formed by individual justices acting on whatever whim they desire.

NO. There is no since in looking to the legal system for morality. Nor should we look to the actions of a secular society.

I reiterate a previous clip of mine. A secular society only responds to money. I cite the following from California.

Eight members of the 23-member California Commission on the Fair Administration of Justice study titled “Report and Recommendations on the Administration of the Death Penalty in California,” signed a June 30, 2008 supplement indicating their personal objections to the death penalty. The following if from that report…

"The resources that go into a death penalty case are enormous. The pursuit of execution adds millions at each phase of the process, from trial, to appeal, and habeas proceedings. For example, a death penalty trial costs counties at least $1.1 million more than a conventional murder trial. The state spends at least an additional $117 million a year on capital punishment, about half of it on prison expenses that exceed the usual costs of housing inmates and the rest on arguing and judging death penalty appeals.

I think it is time to quit bashing what clearly is the law and quit the Capital Punishment process and being too costly and showing no tangible benefits.
John Devaney
 
It’s kind of strange to see my alma mater the center of a controversy like this. I went there for four years and nothing of any real significance happened while I was there. Although I do remember going to see Fr. Bourgeois of the Maryknolls speak about the School of the Americas and his work to get it closed.

Chads
 
I prepared my statement concerning the Florida death penalty. For that I am sorry.

However, looking at it again, it does relate to the US University systems. For me, I am concerned with the morality espoused by some of our more famous Catholic Universities. Money is the grease that makes these institutions go. Where that money comes from, “ain’t nobody’s business.”

Pornography generates 57 billion dollars per year. Marijuana generates 37 billion per year. Consider that 20 billion dollars have been spent on abortions since Roe vs Wade.

It is tough for a famous university, which must have the money to live or else they will die to avoid any concentration of funds of those magnitudes.

Case in point, Georgetown removed the Crucifixes from the classrooms rather than offend the oil money students for the middle east.

Money talks and really goes a long way.
 
I am playing devil’s advocate here. I really wish to understand the issue I am going to bring up. I am not interested in arguing or name calling.

It seems that when someone who is considered “orthodox” makes some sort of error, like Fr Corapi, or the SSPX, that there are people who rise to their defense and point out that while they may be in error on one issue that they are not in error on others.

So what is wrong with having someone speak on a topic, such as “civility in public discourse” when they may be in error on some other topic. Having them speak on a different topic than they are in error on can not be seen as an endorsement of their error, or can it?

If it can then how can one defend others who stray from the Church in one area yet say that what they have produced that is not in error is still good? Would not buying anything that Fr Corapi put out in the past be an endorsement of his error of today?
 
ByzCath said:
I am playing devil’s advocate here. I really wish to understand the issue I am going to bring up. I am not interested in arguing or name calling.

It seems that when someone who is considered “orthodox” makes some sort of error, like Fr Corapi, or the SSPX, that there are people who rise to their defense and point out that while they may be in error on one issue that they are not in error on others.

So what is wrong with having someone speak on a topic, such as “civility in public discourse” when they may be in error on some other topic. Having them speak on a different topic than they are in error on can not be seen as an endorsement of their error, or can it?

If it can then how can one defend others who stray from the Church in one area yet say that what they have produced that is not in error is still good? Would not buying anything that Fr Corapi put out in the past be an endorsement of his error of today?
Click to expand...
Hmmm, it appears that this question of mine has been a thread killer.

The lack of participation speaks volumes to the question asked.
 
ByzCath said:
I am playing devil’s advocate here. I really wish to understand the issue I am going to bring up. I am not interested in arguing or name calling.

It seems that when someone who is considered “orthodox” makes some sort of error, like Fr Corapi, or the SSPX, that there are people who rise to their defense and point out that while they may be in error on one issue that they are not in error on others.

So what is wrong with having someone speak on a topic, such as “civility in public discourse” when they may be in error on some other topic. Having them speak on a different topic than they are in error on can not be seen as an endorsement of their error, or can it?

If it can then how can one defend others who stray from the Church in one area yet say that what they have produced that is not in error is still good? Would not buying anything that Fr Corapi put out in the past be an endorsement of his error of today?
Click to expand...
Just got to read this, and I must say you have a point. If she promised not to speak of her pro-death views, then that wouldn’t be very relevant to the talk she was supposed to give. I still aplaude the university for sticking up for what they think is right, but with your words in mind, I’m not sure if her pro-death views were really important in this instance…
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top