Pro-Life Movement wins a big one in Omaha!

[opdsgt]

Thought you all might be interested in what’s been transpiring at a “Catholic” university in Omaha.

This is my blog, the last several posts deal with it.

defendusinbattle.org/

Pax Christi,

Jeff Baker
Passionately Catholic after 40 years of Agnosticism

 

[Dale_M]

The blog (and this thread) seems to be about the cancellation of author Anne Lamott’s speaking engagement at Creighton University.

I am not sure I could call it a big victory for the pro-life movement. But I suppose it is a victory, of a sorts. But I wonder if better couldn’t have come from it.

Ms. Lamott writes essays from her life experiences. She has a hard won faith. And she had an abortion, early in her life, for which she has feelings of sadness.

I wonder if the university couldn’t have convinced her to speak on the subject of abortion, faith, God, life, right and wrong. And have her contrast her views with that of the Church (she isn’t Catholic).

It might have been thought-provoking and faith-deepening. I am kind of sad that the students of Creighton Univ. are missing out on what could have been an enriching experience.

Edit:
The Washington Post article mentions that her last book describes helping a friend commit suicide. I haven’t read her last book, so I can’t comment on what she says, but obviously euthanasia is wrong.

 

[StephanieC]

But she defends her pro-abortion stance here, dated Feb.10, 2006, and her pro-euthanasia piece (sorry, can’t access the LA Times link) is dated June 23, 2006.

I think she’s got a tremendous talent as a writer and I said so in my email to the director & the presidend of Creighton U and to the Archbishop of the diocese.

Unfortunately, she HOLDS (not “held” and repented) a pro-abortion, pro-euthansia viewpoint. That doesn’t negate her talent; it just takes her out of the pool of candidates for speakers at a Catholic institution.

 

[SoCalRC]

Unfortunately, she HOLDS (not “held” and repented) a pro-abortion, pro-euthansia viewpoint. That doesn’t negate her talent; it just takes her out of the pool of candidates for speakers at a Catholic institution.

I’ve always thought this was counter productive. Better to expose Catholic students to aspects of the secular world while they are in a supportive environment where it can be directly countered.

I think it boils down to how much confidence we have in our own faith. If it is a weak candle that must be locked away and sternly disciplined, fine, insulate our youth as much as possible.

But, if it is a blinding light they are supposed to carry into a dark world, they need to be prepared. After all, if one’s faith is not strong enough to risk hearing alternte viewpoints in a controlled environment, how will it possibly stand up to real challenge?

Just my thought.

 

[Ani_Ibi]

SoCalRC:

I’ve always thought this was counter productive.

In Canada, at least, that is the sorry state we are reduced to given the dreadful condition of Catholic education in this country.

Ex Corde Ecclesiae has yet to be implemented. When it is then we can expose our students to speakers such as the one mentioned in the OP. Our students will be equipped to engage the Culture of Death in dialogue.

As it stands now, our students are ill-equipped. They are lost. And they only defence is to ban Culture of Death events.

 

[jman507]

She’s still coming to Omaha. Instead of being sanction by Creighton at the Joslyn art museum, it’ll be at the Holland Performing Arts Center, maybe a mile away. At least her lecture won’t have the seeming “Catholic seal of approval.”

 

[Gamera]

But she defends her pro-abortion stance here, dated Feb.10, 2006 …

Here’s an excerpt from this link:

“Plus I am so confused about why we are still having to argue with patriarchal sentimentality about teeny weenie so-called babies — some microscopic, some no bigger than the sea monkeys we used to send away for.”

In her words, “I am so confused.” Why was an anti-life propagandist ever considered to speak at a Catholic university?

 

[urban-hermit]

I’ve always thought this was counter productive. Better to expose Catholic students to aspects of the secular world while they are in a supportive environment where it can be directly countered.

They can be (and inevitably will or already have been) exposed to unsound aspects of the secular world in the supportive environment of a Catholic college. This can be done without giving the pulpit to somebody who believes that aborting a baby or killing one’s self is something as blithely simple as a “choice”.

I think it boils down to how much confidence we have in our own faith. If it is a weak candle that must be locked away and sternly disciplined, fine, insulate our youth as much as possible.

I agree that is what it boils down to, but we have to keep in mind that college students are actually quite impressionable, and a successful author such as this is accomplished with presenting themselves and their ideas and as such is the superior of those to whom she is speaking in terms of experience and education. If you want to instill a strong faith in somebody it must be nurtured. Many college students do not have a strong faith background, but would like to have one. It’s unwise to expose a newly sprouted oak tree 2 inches tall to 100-mile-per-hour winds, right? In time, that oak tree will be able to withstand the wind, but only when they are ready.

But, if it is a blinding light they are supposed to carry into a dark world, they need to be prepared. After all, if one’s faith is not strong enough to risk hearing alternte viewpoints in a controlled environment, how will it possibly stand up to real challenge?

The key point there is “ALTERNATE VIEWPOINTS”. When you give the podium to somebody who is “pro-choice”, they have the floor, they are the featured speaker, presumably there to teach us something. If the format were different, say Fr Frank Pavone or Father Corapi or somebody of equal stature to the pro-choice person on the other side of the debate on the same stage, I’d be all for it because the pro-choice position would collapse for the lie that it is under that kind of comparison.

Our faith really IS a blinding light. But there is deception and there is ignorance and there are people who are very accomplished and intelligent who sincerely believe very evil things. This is what we are up against.

I am glad they cancelled the speaking engagement and would be gladder still if the person who invited this speaker were disciplined or fired.

 

[urban-hermit]

I wonder if the university couldn’t have convinced her to speak on the subject of abortion, faith, God, life, right and wrong. And have her contrast her views with that of the Church (she isn’t Catholic).

It might have been thought-provoking and faith-deepening. I am kind of sad that the students of Creighton Univ. are missing out on what could have been an enriching experience.

Edit:
The Washington Post article mentions that her last book describes helping a friend commit suicide. I haven’t read her last book, so I can’t comment on what she says, but obviously euthanasia is wrong.

Yes, obviously euthanasia is wrong. And obviously the university environment is for TEACHING. The likelihood of this planned event being thought-provoking and faith-deepening in any good sense is low. The likelihood of it being confusing and damaging to those who are still learning and may well have an immature faith is high.

I’m sorry but I think the idea of Ms. Lamott being “convinced” to lecture about her beliefs on God, abortion, right and wrong and then giving a fair unbiased comparison to Catholic beliefs is very naive and silly. This is a person who has made it their profession to speak about their belief in the “choices” of abortion and killing yourself, and has apparently done so to commercial success. Putting her on a stage in a university setting sends the message “this is a valid point of view, worthy of consideration.”

We all know how much university tuition costs, right? What parent who spends that kind of money for Catholic education wants to be shafted by having part of that money go to a speaker who will be pitching their ideas to their college kids?

Sorry to be so critical but I strongly disagree with you on this.

 

[holly_potter]

This was in the news a lot, and personally, I’m glad Creighton decided not to have Anne Lamott, and I’m glad she’s still speaking elsewhere. I will not be attending it, however.

Catholic universities should definitely promote learning, and one way of comprehensively understanding a subject is to view it from different pov. In this case, Lamott’s speech wasn’t going to be balanced by a pro-life speaker, therefore giving her some sort of “approval” of her views.

Unfortunately, the news implies that Creighton is closed-minded, having to cancel Lamott’s speech. It would have been better if they never had chosen her in the first place.

Oh, well, what’s done is done. Now, time will only tell if Creighton has learned anything from it.