Punishing Father Spitzer's Good Deeds (Shea; NC Register)

[stumbler]

by MARK SHEA

Jesuit Father Robert Spitzer has been a champion of human life throughout his priestly career.

June 02, 2005 / Jesuit Father Robert Spitzer has been a champion of human life throughout his priestly career.

Since he was appointed president of Gonzaga University in 1998, Father Spitzer, who is one of the most active, articulate and aggressive proponents of Catholic teaching on the value and sanctity of human life, has continued to make a positive national and international impact on the struggle to protect the life of every human being from conception to natural death.

Father Frank Pavone, the National Director of Priests for Life, has said of him, “[H]e is fully committed to the pro-life cause. In his priesthood, as well as in his position at the helm of Gonzaga University, he has advanced the Gospel of Life and the teachings of the Church on every moral issue. Both in his teachings as well as in his administrative decisions, he has been consistent and faithful, and deserves the esteem of everyone in the Church and in the wider pro-life movement. I am proud to call him both a colleague and a friend.”

So it is particularly strange to see pro-abortion faculty and students at Gonzaga Law School, a few thin-skinned pro-life students, and one columnist make common cause in an attempt to casually destroy the reputation this man whose only crime is his failure to be omnipotent.

The Spark A year and a half ago, two Gonzaga University law students wanted to start a pro-life club.

Gonzaga already has a recognized, campus-wide pro-life group, but these two students wanted to form a second one at the university’s law school. Unfortunately, in contradiction of the Student Bar Association’s published guidelines, which require open participation by any student in any law school club, these two students wouldn’t allow non-Christian pro-life law students to hold leadership positions.

So they were denied funding in keeping with Student Bar Association policy. This set off a year and a half of public attacks by . . . .

---

Full article

 

[GenXSurvivor]

I have no problem with defending Fr. Spitzer’s record, or criticizing his obnoxious critics, but this article goes further–it says that the policy in question is not discriminatory against Christians. That point is unnecessary and inaccurate. If Gonzaga law students wanted to found a Catholic Answers chapter, they would have every right to require that the officers of the group be Catholic. Every group gets to require, as common sense dictates, that its officers accept the group’s mission statement–all except the religious groups, because their mission statements are statements of faith, so the school says they are “discriminating” based on religion. The “equal treatment” of Christian groups mean nothing if the anti-Christians can just show up at a meeting, outnumber the Christians 3 to 1, and elect themselves. In the secular context, even the anti-Christian Supreme Court recognized this in the Boy Scouts case. And Gonzaga itself requires that its president be a Catholic and a Jesuit. Saying that Fr. Spitzer is doing the best he can is one thing; defending the disenfranchisement of Christians at a Catholic school is quite another. GXS

 

[Les_Richardson]

stumbler:

…So they were denied funding in keeping with Student Bar Association policy…

That’s really the heart of the matter isn’t it? Without funding, would they be allowed to run the group as they wish?

 

[John_Higgins]

I’m delighted that someone chooses to speak up for Father Spitzer. I sent him an e-mail right after I read Mr. Adams’ slam article. I’m not much of a fan of the Register, but they’re right on this time.

John

 

[GenXSurvivor]

Les Richardson:

That’s really the heart of the matter isn’t it? Without funding, would they be allowed to run the group as they wish?

Yes, because no other student group is forced to choose between freedom and official recognition; all the others get funding without sacrificing their identity. And now the excuse that Fr. Spitzer has used in defense of the policy–that pro-life groups shouldn’t be Christian-only–has been shown to be bogus, because the Christian Legal Society (a large, nationally respected ecumenical organization run by a Catholic) was sent to the back of the Gonzaga bus as well:

thefire.org/index.php/article/158.html

GXS

 

[Les_Richardson]

GenXSurvivor:

Yes, because no other student group is forced to choose between freedom and official recognition; all the others get funding without sacrificing their identity. And now the excuse that Fr. Spitzer has used in defense of the policy–that pro-life groups shouldn’t be Christian-only–has been shown to be bogus, because the Christian Legal Society (a large, nationally respected ecumenical organization run by a Catholic) was sent to the back of the Gonzaga bus as well:

thefire.org/index.php/article/158.html

GXS

I understand your point. As a casual observer in this discussion I don’t pretend to know the ins and outs. On the face of it I’m inclined to want to give Fr. Spitzer the benefit of the doubt, but I know that sometimes bending over backwards for “fairness” creates more problems than if one practices some judicious discrimination, in this case for the group in question. Lord knows, in many institutions, the anti-life, anti-Christian forces get the privileged place.
My point about the money is that, regardless of what source it comes from there are always conditions. In this case, the Pro-Life group intrinsically could not accept the conditions. Perhaps it is a special case.

 

[GenXSurvivor]

Les Richardson:

My point about the money is that, regardless of what source it comes from there are always conditions. In this case, the Pro-Life group intrinsically could not accept the conditions. Perhaps it is a special case.

Correct. Usually, the institution attaching the discriminatory conditions is beyond our influence, like the federal government. Here the institution is a Catholic school run by a pro-life president, hence the uproar.

I also distinguish between the Christian pro-life group and just the Christian group. Both groups have been denied recognition. The latter is a better example of how the policy is indefensible. Fr. Spitzer may be defensible, but the policy is not, and that is where Shea’s article goes astray.

GXS

 

[Philip_P]

Funny how a few years changes your perspective. While I was a student at GU Fr. Spitzer often seemed arbitrary and unfair, as administration pretty much always appears to students (and to be honest, I still think he could have handled student relations with a bit more tact, but that’s neither here nor there, especially if you didn’t attend GU). Funny, then to find myself in complete agreement with this NCR article. Go Spitzer!