Kathleen Sebelius To Speak At Georgetown

[Tab'le De'Bah-Rye]

[quote name='Skinzo' timestamp='1336730395' post='2429711']
Just read the petition first Tab, it's OK. I'm not an alien but my Mom was but that's only because she was from Canada.

S.
[/quote]

no you may trick me, "have a sniff of the coagulated milk yo" than whack i cop one in the nose

[Annie12]

[quote name='Ice_nine' timestamp='1336724644' post='2429700']
Personally, I have a really big problem with unjust wars and torture. I'm anti-abortion because I believe every life is precious and deserves to be protected. Even if the people are poor/Muslim/Arabic/ or unborn. I'm also generally against interventionism. I think its arrogant of us to try to police the world (under the pretensions that we're "fighting evil" and not protecting our own interests).

Basically I find it unacceptable to spill innocent blood, both born and unborn. Both are abhorrent in their own ways, and I refuse to under-emphasize civilian casualties in a reaction to counterbalance for the slaughter of unborn life. Neither are acceptable. Do people get that? I think a lot of people here do, which is nice. I've chatted with fundies before and their unconcern about civilian deaths can be staggering.
[/quote]
I totally agree!!!!

[4588686]

[quote name='Papist' timestamp='1336579823' post='2429123']
Bush? Really? When logic and reason is not with you, just whip out the Bush card.
[/quote]


Yeah. Bush. Really. My point isn't that Bush was particularly evil. It is that Bush also did deeply "anti-life" activities yet I don't see any sort of protest here when republicans speak. The impression I get here is that so long as you make a few token anti-abortion gestures you can do any thing you like and the religious right will accept you.

[4588686]

[quote name='PadrePioOfPietrelcino' timestamp='1336580739' post='2429124']
What "mass campaign of genocide and ethnic cleansing" did President Bush support? [/QUOTE]

I didn't say 'support' I said 'speak' I am referring the massive ethnic cleansing that occurred in Iraq following President Bush' decision to invade Iraq on deceitful pretenses.

[QUOTE] Of course I assume you will ignore that President Clinton allowed Darfur to erupt and remained silent on that issue far too long allowing it embed itself as a massive destabilizing event for Sudan and the entire Horn of Africa...The truth unfortunately is that just about every President I can think of has done things or allowed things to happen which should have been opposed... [/QUOTE]

I really don't think that's the same thing. I'd say the same thing about Bush in relation to the killing occurring in Darfur during his administration. Clinton did far worse in allowing the killing in Bosnia to continue and in bombing the only pharmaceutical manufacturing plan in the Sudan as an empty gesture to attempt to give the impression that he was tough on Al-Queda.

The point is that while you can say 'yeah, both sides have their anti-life issues' I only see the protests and petitions coming when it's a democrat. A lot of innocent people are dead because of President Bush's decision to invade Iraq for no beaver dam good reason. Yet I don't see people here (The Franciscan Friars of the Renewal sent a very brave letter warning about the toll that would befall poor Iraqis if we invaded) labeling him or the individuals in his administration as 'anti-life' Nor do I see concern about the immense amount of torture that occurred under his administration. Want to sent some Pushtu farmer to Morocco to have electroids hooked up to his genitals but retain your good standing with the religious right? No problem, just claim to be opposed to the legality of abortion!

Edited May 12, 2012 by Hasan

[4588686]

I don't think that Bush was or is an evil man. I think he just succumbed to the pressure following 9/11. I'd probably have done the same thing were I in his position. My point isn't to condemn Bush. It's that there is an immense political double standing occurring here under the guise of piety.

[Papist]

[quote name='Hasan' timestamp='1336790876' post='2429952']
Yeah. Bush. Really. My point isn't that Bush was particularly evil. It is that Bush also did deeply "anti-life" activities yet I don't see any sort of protest here when republicans speak. The impression I get here is that so long as you make a few token anti-abortion gestures you can do any thing you like and the religious right will accept you.
[/quote]

You should think about refraining from doing impressions.

[CatherineM]

"...the world isn't split into good people and Death Eaters,"

[Ice_nine]

[quote name='Hasan' timestamp='1336791409' post='2429955']
The point is that while you can say 'yeah, both sides have their anti-life issues' I only see the protests and petitions coming when it's a democrat. A lot of innocent people are dead because of President Bush's decision to invade Iraq for no beaver dam good reason. Yet I don't see people here (The Franciscan Friars of the Renewal sent a very brave letter warning about the toll that would befall poor Iraqis if we invaded) labeling him or the individuals in his administration as 'anti-life' Nor do I see concern about the immense amount of torture that occurred under his administration. Want to sent some Pushtu farmer to Morocco to have electroids hooked up to his genitals but retain your good standing with the religious right? No problem, just claim to be opposed to the legality of abortion!
[/quote]

Yes Hassan that's an issue, but I think PM isn't as double-standardy as most places on the internets. Maybe I've just hung out with the fundies to much and banged my head against too many desks from trying to reason with them.

So you're calling out hypocrisy. I get it. I'm curious about the percentage of Catholics tho, that comprise the "religious right," as that bloc seems to endorse a protestant/evangelical worldview. I'm not ecumenical enough I guess to align myself with said group, and I wonder if a significant number of Catholics do either (especially with all the nominal-Catholics who vote along a liberal line).

Your criticisms are duly-noted, but who exactly are you calling out? All Catholics? All Christians? The people on PM? Republicans?

[qfnol31]

Cardinal Dolan's commencement address was good. He took the opportunity to praise CUA for its fidelity.

[qfnol31]

Msgr. Pope has a great blogpost (as always) on this issue:

http://blog.adw.org/2012/05/archdiocese-of-washington-speaks-out-over-choice-of-kathleen-sibelius-as-speaker-at-georgetown-university/

A bit of context about the first line of his post. When something comes from Bishop Knestout, it's got the direct backing of Cardinal Wuerl. Bishop Knestout is our Vicar General and fits into the Cardinal's preferred modus operandi.

[quote][color=#000000][font=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif][size=3]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.[/size][/font][/color][color=#000000][font=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif][size=3]
Many of you write me and ask when and if the Archdiocese will speak out on this or that matter. In this matter, I am able to report that it has. And frankly the editorial pull no punches, as you will see. The original text is below in [i][b]bold black italics[/b][/i]. My comments are in [color=#FF0000]plain red text[/color]. The original article is here:[url="http://www.cathstan.org/main.asp?SectionID=2&SubSectionID=2&ArticleID=5142"]Cathstan.org[/url] and a PDF of it is here:[url="http://blog.adw.org/wp-content/uploads/CS-Editorial-Georgetown-Univ-05-10-12-web.pdf"]Disappointed but Not Surprised[/url][/size][/font][/color][color=#000000][font=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif][size=3]
[b][i]Late last Friday, Georgetown University announced that U.S. Secretary of Health and Human Services Kathleen Sebelius is the featured speaker for an awards ceremony at the University’s Public Policy Institute. This news is a disappointment but not a surprise.[/i][/b][/size][/font][/color][color=#000000][font=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif][size=3]
[b][i]As is well known, Secretary Sebelius is the architect of the “HHS mandate”, now federal law, which requires all employers — including religious institutions — to provide health insurance coverage of abortion-inducing drugs, sterilization and contraceptives for its employees and redefines religious ministry to exclude Catholic social services, hospitals and universities if they serve or employ non-Catholics. Given her position, it is disappointing that she would be the person that Georgetown University would choose to honor.[/i][/b][/size][/font][/color][color=#000000][font=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif][size=3]
[b][i]Founded in 1789 by John Carroll, a Jesuit priest, Georgetown University has, historically speaking, religious roots. So, too, do Harvard, Princeton and Brown. Over time, though, as has happened with these Ivy League institutions, Georgetown has undergone a secularization, due in no small part to the fact that much of its leadership and faculty find their inspiration in sources other than the Gospel and Catholic teaching. Many are quite clear that they reflect the values of the secular culture of our age. Thus the selection of Secretary Sebelius for special recognition, while disappointing, is not surprising.[/i][/b][/size][/font][/color][color=#000000][font=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif][size=3]
[color=#FF0000]Pay close attention to this paragraph. The editorial, while not using canonical language, in effect sets forth the view that Georgetown has largely become a secular University, along the line of Harvard, Yale [i]et al[/i]. It goes even further, stating that the primary source of inspiration at Georgetown is not the Gospel or Catholic teaching, but instead, is other unnamed sources.[/color][/size][/font][/color][color=#000000][font=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif][size=3]
[color=#FF0000]To be clear, there are surely some very fine teachers and students on campus. I know at least several who are striving to maintain some semblance of Catholic identity there. It remains true that Mass is still offered on campus, but that is true of Secular universities as well.[/color][/size][/font][/color][color=#000000][font=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif][size=3]
[color=#FF0000]So, what is Catholic about Georgetown? Very little, it would seem by the editorial’s assessment. This assessment, I know, many of you will share, in the wake of one discouragement after another emanating from the campus of Georgetown[/color].[/size][/font][/color][color=#000000][font=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif][size=3]
[i][b]Blessed John Paul II, in his 1990 apostolic constitution on Catholic Universities, Ex Corde Ecclesiae, invites Catholic universities into a relationship of faith and excellence. He calls them to share in the Church’s task of bringing the Gospel and Christian values into the culture of our day.[/b][/i][/size][/font][/color][color=#000000][font=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif][size=3]
[i][b]He reminds us that a Catholic university is “a living institutional witness to Christ and his message, so vitally important in cultures marked by secularism… Moreover, all the basic academic activities of a Catholic University are connected with and in harmony with the evangelizing mission of the Church,” among them, “dialogue with culture that makes the faith better understood” (ECE I: B.4.49).[/b][/i][/size][/font][/color][color=#000000][font=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif][size=3]
[color=#FF0000]Basic Catholic Mission stuff here. Sadly Georgetown and many other Catholic Universities are not clear on “Job 1.”[/color][/size][/font][/color][color=#000000][font=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif][size=3]
[b][i]One can only wonder how the selection of Secretary Sebelius for such a prominent role as a featured speaker can be reconciled with the stated Catholic mission and identity of Georgetown University. Secretary Sebelius’ vision on what constitutes faith-based institutions presents the most direct challenge to religious freedom in recent histor[/i][/b]y.[/size][/font][/color][color=#000000][font=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif][size=3]
[color=#FF0000]Yes, I wonder if Georgetown and others who think like this, have any idea where intrusive government will end? It does not take a prophet to see that if the Federal Government can intrude on a matter like this (Catholic sexual and life teachings) which many at Georgetown sniff at, that the same Government will be back with more demands.[/color][/size][/font][/color][color=#000000][font=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif][size=3]
[color=#FF0000]And these demands, the faculty and administration at Georgetown may be less sanguine about. Who is to say and more conservative administration could not demand that Georgetown teach, facilitate, and fund abstinence based programs as part of a healthcare mandate, or perhaps that they require all students and employees to contribute to and pay for a pro-life crisis pregnancy center to help bring babies to term, and that they fund an adoption agency on campus to encourage single moms to adopt their children to intact families. What if all this was in a future health care mandate that sought to preserve and foster the lives of infants and Georgetown was required to pay for all this?[/color][/size][/font][/color][color=#000000][font=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif][size=3]
[color=#FF0000]I doubt Georgetown faculty and staff would be so sanguine about this, and say, “Well of course Government knows best, and if Government calls this women, infant and children’s healthcare, who are we to say no?” No, I rather doubt Georgetown would be inviting the HHS Secretary from a conservative administration proposing this. If they did, the protests would be so thick, that he or she couldn’t even get on campus.[/color][/size][/font][/color][color=#000000][font=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif][size=3]
[color=#FF0000]But wake up Georgetown! You celebrate a woman who is helping to gut religious liberty. But [i]your[/i]religious liberty is just as much on the line as any one else’s. Uncle Sam will be back, and you might not be so pleased the next time. Time for sobriety Georgetown[/color].[/size][/font][/color][color=#000000][font=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif][size=3]
On the same weekend that the Georgetown announcement was made, Pope Benedict XVI spoke of the importance of [b][i]Catholic education and the intellectual and cultural challenges of the New Evangelization in the context of contemporary American society. The Holy Father recalled that during his pastoral visit to America in April 2008, in his homily at the Mass at Nationals Stadium, he called on the Church in America to cultivate “a mindset, an intellectual culture which
is genuinely Catholic”. Last weekend he reiterated the need for American Catholic institutions of higher learning to commit to “building a society ever more solidly grounded in an authentic humanism inspired by the Gospel and faithful to the highest values of America’s civic and cultural heritage”.[/i][/b][/size][/font][/color][color=#000000][font=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif][size=3]
[b][i]With all of the people struggling so hard to preserve freedom of religion, and with all that the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops has said in defense of this important value, Georgetown’s choice of the architect of the radical challenge of such freedom for special recognition can only be seen as a statement of where the university stands – certainly not with the Catholic bishops[/i][/b]. [color=#FF0000]Clear and unambiguous[/color][/size][/font][/color][color=#000000][font=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif][size=3]
[i][b]Georgetown University’s response to the commencement speaker decision is disappointing, but not surprising. When the vision guiding university choices does not clearly reflect the light of the Gospel and authentic Catholic teaching, there are, of course, disappointing results[/b][/i].[/size][/font][/color][color=#000000][font=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif][size=3]
[color=#FF0000]In other words, the fruit does not fall far from the tree. And the editorial could not be more clear, the vision at Georgetown is not the Gospel and it is not Catholic teaching.[/color][/size][/font][/color][color=#000000][font=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif][size=3]
So who wrote this? The editorial is unsigned. But the Catholic Standard is the official paper of the Archdiocese of Washington. As such it is a recognized voice of the Archdiocese and editorials like this are not published without review by the Cardinal’s senior staff.[/size][/font][/color][color=#000000][font=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif][size=3]
I hope you will agree that the editorial lays out a very serious need for soul searching at Georgetown. And, while some of you may wish that universities like Georgetown would have long ago been censured and/or had their Catholic identity officially removed, that involves extensive and careful canonical procedures. I have no knowledge that any such actions are underway or have ever been tried in the past. And such matters are wholly left to the pastoral discretion of the bishops. I think we ought to allow the bishops their rightful prudential judgements in these sorts of matters and not be too hypercritical of them. They know a lot more than we ever will, and they have a bigger picture in mind as well, as they try to hold everyone as close to Christ as possible.[/quote][/size][/font][/color]

[CatherineM]

The only good thing about this is Georgetown doesn't have saint or catholic in their name.

[Skinzo]

I wish the Archdiocese of Washington would do something more to help Georgetown recover its Catholic identity. Canon law requires that faculty have a mandatum, but Georgetown will not comment on whether any faculty actually possess one. Neither does the archdiocese of Washington.

S.

[CatherineM]

Does anyone else think that Washington is too important a diocese to have a cautious bishop? I mean don't we need a fire and brimstone kind of shepard for Soddom on the Potomac?

[qfnol31]

[quote name='CatherineM' timestamp='1337125778' post='2431051']
Does anyone else think that Washington is too important a diocese to have a cautious bishop? I mean don't we need a fire and brimstone kind of shepard for Soddom on the Potomac?
[/quote]I think Pope Benedict knows Cardinal Wuerl and his method quite well. I think there is a certain logic behind the appointment that has been lost on the laity. People in DC, particularly priests and those who work downtown know that the Cardinal's reputation isn't very accurate.

Did you get a chance to read the Msgr. Pope post I put up? He blogs for the Archdiocese.

[Skinzo]

[quote name='CatherineM' timestamp='1337125778' post='2431051']
Does anyone else think that Washington is too important a diocese to have a cautious bishop? I mean don't we need a fire and brimstone kind of shepard for Soddom on the Potomac?
[/quote]

As someone who grew up in the Archdiocese, I have to agree it's time, indeed way past time to do more. His silence is troubling as Catholic Culture has commented: [url="http://www.catholicculture.org/commentary/the-city-gates.cfm?id=294"]http://www.catholicculture.org/commentary/the-city-gates.cfm?id=294[/url]

S.