Georgetown University invites Kathleen Sebelius to speak at commencement

[CaptFun]

Who’s going to throw out the first unborn baby?

 

[bobtater]

You can’t excommunicate someone unless they commit an excommunicable offense. None of these things are strong enough causes for excommunication. Any bishop who attempts to do so will find the pope unwilling to uphold the excommunication. To excommunicate you have to violate one of the seven laws in Canon Law that carry an excommunication or you have to offend the bishop or the pope directly. These are not offenses against the bishop or the pope. They are certainly inappropriate positions that Catholics should never take, but not enough to put them outside of the institutional Church. We have to be careful not to use excommunication as a punishment. It was never meant to be a punishment. It was always meant to be a medicine for the benefit of the person. According the Catholic theology they have not ceased to be members of the Mystical Body. They are not apostates.

The Church rarely subscribes to public excommunication, because of the glee that it triggers in some people. That does just as much harm to the soul as the actions of these individuals.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, FFV

Some excommunications, however, are automatic (effective at the moment the act is committed) and without the intervention of the Church. Catholics are automatically excommunicated for committing these offenses: One of the reasons is Heresy: The obstinate post-baptismal denial of some truth, which must be believed with divine and Catholic faith. So I submit Brother wouldn’t Some of or pro abortion politicians be guilty of the sin of heresy??

 

[Crescentinus]

YES! Deacon Burke Sivers is from Portland I believe. I saw him on EWTN and was so impressed!

I think the point is that there are SO MANY wonderful faithful Catholics who could inspire the graduates, why did they pick this horrible woman, particularly at this time of such contention and frankly when she was exposed as a completely ignoramus about the Constitution she swore to uphold. The woman is an embarrassment. She is hardly a good example for the graduates to follow
LIsa

Indeed, he is awesome.
Another suggestion would be Father Robert Barron.

The idiocy of Sebelius makes me sick.

 

[Follower]

Many have expressed the view that this development is not surprising; that, while disappointing, it’s par for the course and it’s what we’ve come to expect from Georgetown. In fact, however, this represents an escalation, and a dramatic one. It constitutes a transition – a “graduation” if you will – from merely dissenting from the Church, to participating in actually persecuting the Church. Why? Because Secretary Sebelius’s HHS mandate in fact constitutes persecution of those within the Church (admittedly, and sadly, a minority) that actually, and with full conviction of conscience, believe in and adhere to the Church’s teachings on abortion, sterilization and contraception, and that choose to live their lives in fidelity and witness thereto. The media has virtually ignored the fact, but there are at least 10 lawsuits (and counting) now pending in federal courts around the country challenging the HHS mandate as a violation of the First Amendment and of the Religious Freedom Restoration Act (a federal statute). The plaintiffs in the various lawsuits include Ave Maria University, EWTN, Belmont Abbey College, Priests for Life, and two practicing-Catholic owned businesses (one in Denver and one in St. Louis) – but also include 8 state attorneys general and at least three evangelical christian colleges (Colorado Christian University, Geneva College and Louisiana College). The publicly available papers filed in those lawsuits are astonishing: the arguments made by the plaintiffs are overwhelmingly supported by detailed factual allegations and citations to binding case law precedent – while the administration, to date, has not even attempted to defend on the merits but has instead tried to get the suits dismissed or postponed on “ripeness” grounds – using arguments that have already been resoundingly rejected by the Courts (such as, “we have promised that we might change the rule at some unspecified point in the future, therefore the plaintiff’s case can’t be heard now” or “this rule doesn’t go into effect for another year or more - therefore the plaintiff can’t be heard now”). The media is chock full of misinformation about the whole controversy, uncritically repeating as “fact” White House talking points that are, in truth, materially misleading or downright false. Any objective person who reads the attached brief from the Denver case can only come away with the conviction that the HHS mandate is an unconstitutional and illegal persecution of believing, practicing Catholics.

By inviting the public official who issued this very mandate to speak at graduation, a substantial majority of Georgetown’s faculty and administration is saying it condones her persecution of practicing Catholics. Thus, Georgetown no longer merely disagrees with practicing Catholics on matters of sexual morality and protection of nascent human life; it now joins in persecuting them by condoning that persecution. This is not old news. This is a new development, and a dramatic one. One can only hope those at Georgetown responsible for inviting Sebelius to speak at graduation were misinformed and that, if presented with the facts, would change course. Is it too late to hope for, to ask, that all those dissenting Georgetown faculty members and administrators to simply take a step back, and say, “Whoa, wait a minute. I’m on board with dissenting, but I’m not on board with persecuting”?

The brief in support of a practicing-Catholic owned business in Colorado’s motion for a preliminary injunction against the HHS mandate is attached.

Fact-check the administration’s HHS Mandate talking points here:
becketfund.org/fact-checking-the-white-house-false-claims-about-the-hhs-mandate/

 

[SusansChoice]

You may sign the petition to stop this at:

georgetownscandal.com/

 

[dfp42]

When exactly is this taking place?

 

[GraceSofia]

When exactly is this taking place?

Kathleen Sebelius
Georgetown Public Policy Institute Tropaia
Friday, May 18, Leavey Center Ballroom, 11 a.m.

Sebelius was sworn in as the 21st secretary of the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) in 2009. Since taking office, she has led efforts to improve America’s health and enhance the delivery of human services to some of the nation’s most vulnerable populations, including young children, those with disabilities and the elderly. As part of the historic Affordable Care Act, she is implementing reforms she says have ended many of the insurance industry’s most discriminatory practices and will help 34 million uninsured Americans get health coverage. She is also working with doctors, nurses, hospital leaders, employers and patients to implement policies aimed at slowing the growth of health care costs. Sebelius served as governor of Kansas from 2003 until her cabinet appointment and was named one of America’s Top Five Governors by Time magazine.

From georgetown.edu/news/commencement-2012-to-feature-wide-range-of-speakers.html

 

[LisaA]

From georgetown.edu/news/commencement-2012-to-feature-wide-range-of-speakers.html

GOOD HEAVENS! Is that what they call spin? Obamacare is a nightmare. The HHS Mandate is a travesty. Sebelius was a huge proponent of the most horrible form of abortion, killing unborn full term babies before they emerged from the womb. She’s suspected in covering up a Planned Parenthood scandal.

I think some people live in alternate universe. The spiel on Sebelius would have done an Orwell novel proud
Lisa

 

[_Abyssinia]

Why hasn’t Cardinal Wuerl denounced Sebelius’s invitation?

USSCB said in 2004: 'Catholic Institutions" to not give honors or platforms to ‘those who act in defiance of our fundamental moral principles.’

 

[jwinch2]

Why hasn’t Cardinal Wuerl denounced Sebelius’s invitation?

USSCB said in 2004: 'Catholic Institutions" to not give honors or platforms to ‘those who act in defiance of our fundamental moral principles.’

If Cardinal Wuerl is not comfortable (his words) preventing a politician who openly supports abortion from receiving Holy Communion, there is no way he is stepping into this one publicly. I suppose it is possible that he is working behind the scenes to get it changed.

 

[gus]

I wonder what the Cardinal response would have been if they invited Russ Limbaugh. Just a thought

 

[Crescentinus]

I wonder what the Cardinal response would have been if they invited Russ Limbaugh. Just a thought

I’m guessing outrage. PLENTY of outrage at the mere thought of inviting Rush Limbaugh.

 

[Marauder]

Why hasn’t Cardinal Wuerl denounced Sebelius’s invitation?

Actually the Cardinal has indirectly just done that. The Archdiocese newspaper, has just published the following:

Catholic Standard link

Articles in the Catholic Standard are always run through the Cardinal’s office before publishing.

Here is a commentary from a priest in the Archdiocese on the Archdiocese’s web page. Another location where things wouldn’t appear without the Cardinal’s backing.

Archdiocese of DC web page

I wonder what the Cardinal response would have been if they invited Russ Limbaugh. Just a thought

Let us support our Bishops instead of armchair quarterbacking them.

 

[jwinch2]

Actually the Cardinal has indirectly just done that. The Archdiocese newspaper, has just published the following:

Catholic Standard link

Indirectly, at best. Vetting an article like that through his office is not even remotely the same thing as the Cardinal making a personal statement.

Let us support our Bishops instead of armchair quarterbacking them.

You are certainly right in that throwing out hypothetical cases such as ‘what would they do if Rush Limbaugh was invited…’ is a waste of time. However, this particular Bishop also has a long history of not speaking out regarding Catholic politicians who do not live their faith in the public sector. He has publicly stated that he will not deny Holy Communion to Catholic politicians who persist in open support of abortion via their policies and actions because such confrontation makes him ‘uncomfortable’. In his recent address where new Cardinals were created, Pope Benedict reminded us all why Cardinals wear red.

…to be witness to the Gospel to the point of sacrificing their own life: this is the meaning of the red color in their clothes.

I will gladly support our Bishops when they do the right thing. I will however, not blindly support them when they do not. I’m sorry to be so blunt, but someone who is not willing to make themselves uncomfortable does not seem to equal what our Holy Father is saying.

Don’t get me wrong, Cardinal Wuerl has done many fine things for the Church and the Faith but defense of the Holy Eucharist has been one issue where he has repeatedly let the pitch go by without taking a swing. The current situation at Georgetown does not involve Holy Communion thankfully and I can only hope that in absence of his public statement, he is working behind the scenes to address it.

 

[Marauder]

Indirectly, at best. Vetting an article like that through his office is not even remotely the same thing as the Cardinal making a personal statement.

He has not yet made a PUBLIC statement on this yet but is indirectly addressing it through multiple channels. If you read the second link you would have seen: “The Vicar General of the Archdiocese of Washington, Bishop Barry Knestout forwarded the following editorial from the Catholic Standard, the official newspaper of the Archdiocese. He asked the we priests share it in any way we deem appropriate with the people of the Archdiocese. In this matter.”

This sounds very much like the Archdiocese taking a “stand” without overstepping boundaries.

but defense of the Holy Eucharist has been one issue where he has repeatedly let the pitch go by without taking a swing.

I personally do not think you are giving him a fair shake. The Cardinal on many occasion has been personified as a teaching Bishop more then a authoritarian Bishop. What I mean by this is that in most of his posts he always takes the role of teaching more then using the whip as punishment. Different Bishops have had different opinions on how to deal with these situations. The Cardinal’s basic opinion seems to be that pastors, Bishops, etc. role should be to tell these people that they should not be presenting themselves for communion if they persist in these areas, but the confrontation should not be happening at the communion rail except in cases where it is overtly political (i.e. Rainbow sash movement.) It is on the soul of the communicant if they are receiving unjustly. That is his opinion, and me as a lay person without a theology or canon law degree I will let him rule in conjunction with the Pope without questioning his position by throwing out lines like “I wonder if Rush Limbaugh …” The Bishops need our prayers and support, they don’t need infighting, or people attacking them over things like this.

 

[MotoCatholic]

As I said in an earlier post, I did a surprising amount of research into the origin of problems at Notre Dame after my daughter was interested in attending. I had a few influencial people basically telling me that “there’s no way you can send your Catholic daughter to Notre Dame.” So I did some homework.

To me, Notre Dame suffers from the slow but deliberate problem of removing itself from the oversight and magisterium of the Catholic Church. It has gone from a Catholic University trying to live and grow in a secular acedemic world, to a virtually-secular university wondering what it should do with its Catholic past - and leaving most of the students wondering “what’s with these Priests and Nuns walking around?” This may be an overstatement, but once a Catholic university officially divorces itself from the adminstrative control of the Church (which ND did), “it’s all over but the shouting.” It’s now not only “of this world,” it’s making decisions primarily based on secular/academic criteria. It desparately wants to compete with, indeed to be, a Harvard, or Princeton, or Yale. The majority (I think?) of the faculty are not Catholic. The majority, or close to it, of the administartive structure are not Catholic. What in the H%#! should be expected when this is the reality of the power structure at ND (and I suspect Georgetown, too).

Maybe I’m naive, but at least at ND there’s some very positive changes taking place from the ground up. There are people, starting with devoutly Catholic students, standing up for truth and for the Church. Maybe things like this fiasco at Georgetown will ultimately work to fuel the same transformation?

 

[_Abyssinia]

**Bishop Morlino Criticizes Georgetown Invitation to HHS Secretary Sebelius **

Bishop Robert Morlino of Madison, Wis., sharply criticized Georgetown University’s decision to invite Health and Human Services Kathleen Sebelius to speak at a ceremony during commencement weekend.

The bishop said those involved in Catholic education should be “witnesses and not just teachers

,” and he warned that Georgetown’s actions are “teaching the people by what we do the opposite of what we say.”

He told Raymond Arroyo on EWTN’s The World Over in a May 10 broadcast that if he were president of the school, he “would never have moved in a direction like that.”

…

In a 2004 document entitled “Catholics in Political Life,” the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops stated that “Catholic institutions should not honor those who act in defiance of our fundamental moral principles. They should not be given awards, honors or platforms which would suggest support for their actions.”

…

Bishop Morlino said that Catholic educators “have to get involved and act in accord with what we teach.”

“I’m afraid too many of them have strayed from that direction,” he cautioned.

He pointed to Pope Benedict’s recent address to a group of U.S. bishops gathered at the Vatican, explaining that the education of young Catholics in the faith is “the most urgent internal challenge” facing the Catholic Church in America.

Bishop Morlino said, “I embrace that wholeheartedly.”

ncregister.com/daily-news/bishop-morlino-criticizes-georgetown-invitation-to-hhs-secretary-sebelius

 

[jwinch2]

Georgetown Defends Sebelius Invite as Church Leaders Lose Patience

ncregister.com/daily-news/georgetown-defends-sebelius-invite-as-church-leaders-lose-patience

 

[jwinch2]

thecatholicthing.org/columns/2012/what-is-an-qhonoraryq-award.html

A Jesuit Father speaks out.
James V. Schall:

Each year, controversy arises about the honorary awards that universities give to individuals judged worthy to receive them on the basis of a criterion of excellence. Scenes of students or faculty sitting with backs to invited speakers abound. Yet no one can logically “honor” himself. It is something for others to do. The failure to honor what is worthy usually falls into the category of envy.

Essential to an award of honor is that it need not be granted. The award transcends justice. It is not a duty but an overflow. We might sympathize with the man who runs last in the 100-meter dash, but we give the medal to the winner. Honors have the connotation of an accomplishment that is worthy of praise.

The problem with honors arises when someone is worthy in one category of life but not in another. We may try to keep these things separate. A good artist may be a very dissolute person in other respects. This situation makes it delicate to distinguish between the reward and the life of the artist.

I bring these things up in the context of the invitation of the HHS Secretary, Kathleen Sebelius, to one of the many graduation ceremonies here at Georgetown. We are assured that hers is not an invitation to give a “formal” commencement address. We have some twenty or thirty different ceremonies, most of which have their own speaker or ceremony. This array includes colleges, institutes, programs, professional and graduate schools, no one knows what all.

The invitation to Mrs. Sebelius is pictured by the university publicity office as one of rather minor significance, in the Public Policy Institute. I am sure this comes as news to the HHS secretary. It is an honors program, an awards ceremony, not a graduation. What difference this makes is not exactly clear. Fine distinctions abound. In any case, an address is to be delivered.

Now, no one is naïve enough to think that more attention will be paid to some other speaker this year than to the HHS secretary. It is a perfect public relations or newsworthy set-up. A bureaucrat, speaking at a Catholic university, has proposed, in effect, shutting down most Catholic charitable and educational organizations unless they agree to support programs that are contrary to reason and faith.

She speaks presumably in support of her position, a position specifically rejected by the nation’s bishops as contrary to our tradition of liberty and religious autonomy. It’s man bites dog. No reporter worth his salt would miss it. “FEDERAL OFFICIAL DEFINES RELIGION IN HONORARY ADDRESS.” We can see it now.

Georgetown admires her.

The rule of thumb in these matters is: “Tell me who you honor and I will tell you what you are.” Honors do not have to be given. They mean nothing unless they are freely given. When given, they signify agreement, distinction.

A university might well invite to its halls someone to lecture who denies everything the university stands for. But this invitation would not be offered as an “honor.” Both the speaker and the audience would know the conflicting nature of the address. There might be debate, questioning, and controversy. But neither the listeners nor the speaker would think that anyone was being honored except in the sense that the invited representative really knew the matter at controversy.

An honor does not come from the side of the honoree. The latter is surprised and pleased to learn that his deeds or works have been recognized by some institution. To receive such an invitation is taken as recognition of one’s accomplishment or worth. No one invites his enemy to be honored for so skillfully undermining one’s own status or stature. One must assume that whoever invited the person to be honored found grounds for agreement or praise.

No one honors those who undermine the fundamentals of civilization. The foundation of our civilization is the Socratic “It is never right to do wrong.” In effect, this doing wrong is what the government through the HHS secretary is asking us to do.

One can hardly blame the person being honored for thinking the he is worthy of the honor to be conferred. He may be modest about it, but he knows that the award was designed to acknowledge or approve or praise his unique accomplishment. Moreover, he only accepts the honor if he thinks it is sincerely given by those who are worthy judges of excellence and worthiness.

An institution awards the HHS secretary high honors because it admires her. She has every right to think that such an offer comes to her in this spirit. If her views are radically disagreed with, she would expect not to be invited.

Tell me who you honor and I will tell you what you are.

 

[Prof_K]

As I said in an earlier post, I did a surprising amount of research into the origin of problems at Notre Dame after my daughter was interested in attending. I had a few influencial people basically telling me that “there’s no way you can send your Catholic daughter to Notre Dame.” So I did some homework.

To me, Notre Dame suffers from the slow but deliberate problem of removing itself from the oversight and magisterium of the Catholic Church. …

You make a number of excellent points. There is a spectrum of Catholic schools on one end are the true Orthodox schools. These are the gold standard within in the Newman Guide Schools, particularly Franciscan University and Ave Maria. In the middle are those most recent Newman Guide Schools. On the far end are the Jesuit schools, like Georgetown, which have consciously expunged any Catholic Schools. As explained to me by a colleague at Notre Dame, ND sees itself as "representing the full gamut of Catholic thought. What they mean by that is essentially is that unlike Jesuit Schools they want and seek to have some Orthodoxy on campus. But unlike the Newman guide schools, they seek to balance this with equal balance for more liberal (read heretical) perspectives. This is better, but still a conscious challenge to the Magisterium.