The Catholic community is abuzz with the news that Georgetown University has invited Department of Health and Human Services (DHHS) secretary, pro-abortion Catholic Kathleen Sebelius, to be a speaker during graduation weekend.
Originally touted as being part of the commencement ceremonies, Sebelius’ speaking engagement is now listed under the category “speakers at other events.” According to the Georgetown website, Sebelius will be speaking at a Tropaia Ceremony. Tropaia is a Greek word that refers to a monument erected in celebration of a military victory. The university uses this ceremony to distribute awards to students from its different schools.
According to the university’s website, “The Graduate School Commencement and GPPI’s [Georgetown Public Policy Institute] Tropaia are actually one ceremony and you should definitely go to both parts. . . . GPPI’s Tropaia ceremony is where diplomas will be distributed. Each student will walk across the stage to be recognized.”
This invitation to Sebelius is a slap in the face of the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops (USCCB), which is currently working to topple the Obama contraception mandate through education programs, pressure on Congress, and other measures. This is an extremely grave matter. As many of us know, the fundamental question to be asked about the Obama diktat is a simple one: Does a Catholic institution in America have the right to maintain its commitment to Catholic doctrine in its policies and employment practices or must it succumb to the state, divorce itself from Christ, and become secular in order to exist?
Knowing that Sebelius is the driving force behind this mandate, one wonders what is going on. And one must wonder why a Catholic institution would invite her to speak at such an important ceremony.
Yet the nature of the ceremony is irrelevant. Regardless of what type of commencement ceremony the university calls it, the fact still remains that a Catholic institute of higher learning has invited someone who is clearly in opposition to Church teaching and tradition to speak. It wouldn’t matter when she was speaking on campus or for what occasion. The fact is that, by extending an invitation to her, the university is displaying approval or, at the very least, acceptance, of Sebelius’ actions. And that is just not acceptable.
Catholic institutions are obligated to instruct their students in Catholic tradition, Catholic values, and Catholic teaching. Though many may say that the Church should come into the 21st century and amend its teachings, they simply do not understand that the teachings of Christ are unwavering. We will not, and cannot, change them at every whim or every time the social climate changes.
I ask you: How difficult would it be for the bishops to pressure Georgetown to cancel the invitation when the USSCB is on record as doing nothing at all about Sebelius and her anti-life record? She’s been in the public eye for years and her pro-abortion position is very well known.
In fact, the headlines a few years ago claimed that Sebelius was told not to take Holy Communion. But, in May of 2008, when her bishop, Archbishop Joseph F. Naumann, was asked specifically whether or not he would instruct the priests in the Kansas City, Kansas, diocese to withhold the body of Christ from Sebelius, he said he was “not ready” to take that step. We must ask ourselves: When exactly will he be ready? And what else must Sebelius do to prove her disdain for the teachings of the Catholic Church?
So, today, the status quo remains. Kathleen Sebelius is free to receive the Eucharist if she so chooses and nobody is reprimanding her or denying her the Body of Christ despite the endless pro-death statements and actions she takes. Meanwhile, a Catholic university asks her to speak in front of a group of young, impressionable graduates—an act that clearly shows that the university has no qualms about Sebelius’ actions or behavior.
The Cardinal Newman Society has pressed for signatures on a petition asking the university to cancel Sebelius, but she will go on as planned and speak to a room full of eager students who are still learning how to survive in a world that clashes with their fundamental beliefs. Will her thoughts and words inspire them? Will she encourage them to lead a moral life? I don’t think this is likely.
The key to success in situations like this is to be able to rely on the consistency and courage of the bishops in addition to their unswerving defense of Christ in the Eucharist.
This brings up a very interesting question: What electoral outcome would have been realized at the November 2008 presidential election had the U.S. bishops united together and enforced Canon Law, specifically Canon 915, within every U.S. diocese? It was during the providential moment of the June 2004 USCCB Plenary Conference in Denver when Cardinal Josef Ratzinger (now Pope Benedict XVI) gave them, in his profoundly inspiring “memo,” the proper direction to follow to end the scandal. Ratzinger explained precisely how to enforce Canon 915; his memo was ignored.
Would the U.S. Church today be suffering, as it clearly is, from the string of immoral attacks by the current government administration on the most compelling moral issues of our time if the bishops had enforced Canon 915 as directed in the Ratzinger memo?
Woe to the hierarchy in the U.S. for the loss of so many scandalized and confused souls within their flocks who have left their parishes in shame and are staying home. And woe to a university that can toss aside its faith and allow the proverbial wolf in sheep’s clothing to enter its halls. Now is the time to be aware. Now is the time to be weary. And now is the time to take action.
The Catholic community is abuzz with the news that Georgetown University has invited none other than the pro-abortion "Catholic" secretary of the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS), Kathleen Sebelius, to be the commencement speaker at one of the university’s graduation ceremonies. The announcement prompted National Review blogger Shannen W. Coffin to write, “Reports are that Kathleen Sebelius, author of the HHS contraception mandate, will be a commencement speaker at Georgetown University. I’m certain that the 90 or so professors who took time to sign a letter lecturing Paul Ryan on Catholic teaching during his recent lecture at the university will similarly address Sebelius’ failure to protect the sanctity of human life.”
Is it really surprising that Georgetown, a “Catholic” university that boasts the likes of law student Sandra Fluke, is now hosting pro-abortion Sebelius? The Sebelius invitation is a slap in the face of the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops (USCCB), which is currently working to topple the Obama mandate through education programs, pressure on Congress, and other measures. This is a grave matter, to say the least. As many of us know, the fundamental question to be asked about the Obama diktat is a simple one: Does a Catholic institution in America have the right to maintain its commitment to Catholic doctrine in its policies and employment practices—or must it succumb to the state, divorce itself from Christ, and become secular in order to exist?
Knowing that Sebelius is the driving force behind the mandate, one wonders what is going on. But wait!
The historical fact that is being ignored when challenging the Sebelius invitation is that there exists an underlying crisis that exposes the problematic nature of the current situation. I ask you: How difficult would it be for the bishops to pressure Georgetown to cancel the invitation when the USSCB is on record as doing nothing at all about Sebelius and her anti-life record? She’s been in the public eye for years and her pro-abortion position is very well known.
In fact, the headlines a few years ago claimed that Sebelius was told not to take Holy Communion. But when her bishop, Archbishop Joseph F. Naumann of Kansas City, Kansas, was asked specifically whether or not he would instruct the priests in his diocese to withhold the body of Christ from Sebelius, he said he was “not ready” to take that step. That was in May 2008. When exactly will he be ready? And what else must Sebelius do to prove her disdain for the teachings of the Catholic Church?
So, today, the status quo remains. Kathleen Sebelius is free to receive the body of Christ if she so chooses, and nobody is reprimanding her or denying her the body of Christ despite the endless pro-death statements and actions she takes. Thus the dilemma: How can the bishops decry the Georgetown invitation and be consistent in their approach to Sebelius?
It is true that Archbishop Naumann has been more than pastoral in his expressions of concern about Sebelius, as evidenced in his public commentaries, but the fact remains that neither he nor any other bishop has made it clear that, if she approaches to receive the Body of Christ, she will be denied.
I applaud the Cardinal Newman Society for pressing for signatures on a petition asking the university to cancel Sebelius, but we won’t be holding our breath. The key to success in situations like this is to be able to rely on the consistency and courage of the bishops, in addition to their unswerving defense of Christ in the Eucharist.
This brings up a very interesting question: What electoral outcome would have been realized at the November 2008 presidential election had the U.S. bishops united to enforce canon law, specifically Canon 915, within in every U.S. diocese? It was during the providential moment of the USCCB’s June 2004 plenary conference in Denver that then Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger (now Pope Benedict XVI) gave them, in his profoundly inspiring “memo,” the proper direction to follow to end the scandal. Cardinal Ratzinger explained precisely how to enforce Canon 915; however, his memo was ignored.
Would the U.S. Church today be suffering, as it clearly is, from the current administration’s string of immoral attacks concerning the most important moral issues of our time if the bishops had enforced Canon 915 as directed in the Ratzinger memo?
Woe to the hierarchy in the U.S. for the loss of so many scandalized and confused souls among their flocks, who have left their parishes in shame and are staying home.
Editor’s note: This commentary has been updated since it was posted earlier today.
Whenever I hear or read of a news story involving the problem of bullying, my husband always reminds me that, as the youngest of four boys, he was bullied from the moment he could walk! I suppose that, because brothers will be brothers, in retrospect this is rather funny and is likely to be expected in a house full of boys. But that was then; this is now.
In today’s cultural climate, however, we are not talking about the taunts of a sibling. In fact, today, bullying and the actions many educational institutions are taking to prevent it make headlines with regularity. The reason is perhaps best defined by the National Crime Prevention Council, which reports, “Bullying has become a tidal wave of epic proportions. Although bullying was once considered a rite of passage, parents, educators, and community leaders now see bullying as a devastating form of abuse that can have long-term effects on youthful victims, robbing them of self-esteem, isolating them from their peers, causing them to drop out of school, and even prompting health problems and suicide.”
Undoubtedly there should be no place in a civilized society for brutality among classmates, on college campuses, or anywhere—including the family, which is often scarred beyond belief by abusive authority figures or inhumane acts perpetrated against those who are helpless. For example, could you ever have imagined a time in America’s history when commentators would be addressing a mother’s spoken desire to terminate the lives of her disabled children?
Or could we have ever imagined news reports about men who do not want their girlfriends or wives to be pregnant and subsequently brutalize them or even kill either the preborn child or both mother and child?
With all this violence and abuse being discussed, it is amazing that none take note of the underlying cause of this increasing exhibition of brutality. The fundamental problem that has aggravated human aggression, pitted the strong against the weak, destroyed families, and turned American values upside down is abortion. The violence that concerns so many in America today got a jump start when the Supreme Court chose to permit the ultimate child abuse by ignoring the result of the act of abortion in deference to the rights of the mother.
This deadly war is waged daily pitting mothers against their innocent preborn babies, pitting the strong against the weak, and pitting truth against fabrication. And sadly the lies have won the day and thus the acts that result from a callous disregard for human life go on and on, becoming ever more threatening not only to the expectant mother and her child, but to the society in which we live.
As long as America condones the act of abortion, and her citizens believe that it is nothing more than a choice a woman has a right to make, we will witness ongoing dastardly deeds of hatred perpetrated against those who are less fortunate—including the poor, minorities, children, and the infirm. What has happened to our national sense of justice, our concern for the weakest members of the human family? It has evaporated in an era of tolerance and delusion.
It seems to me that if, for example, our president can create a special agency to address atrocities abroad, he could most certainly address the horrors imposed on the innocent in the womb that he knowingly persists in condoning right here on American soil.
Why does America have a bullying problem? Because we are the bullies!
Responding to my recent On the News post about organ transplants, reader James Anderson posed a question that requires more than just a quick answer:
I thought that I recently read where the Church said that determining when a person is dead falls under the purview of the medical community, not theologians. Unfortunately I can’t find that article. Please comment on this.
It was Pope Pius XII who said that theologians must defer to doctors “to give a clear and precise definition of ‘death’ and the ‘moment of death’ of a patient who passes away in a state of unconsciousness.” This guidance from the Vicar of Christ is not particularly “recent” (although our reader might have come across it recently), and it is perfectly consistent with statements from Popes John Paul II and Benedict XVI. Since the question first arose—as a result of medical advances that made it possible to sustain some vital functions indefinitely by artificial means—the Roman pontiffs have frequently expressed confidence in the ability of doctors to distinguish between life and death.
I don’t share that confidence. I am not questioning the teaching of popes. I am questioning the judgment of doctors. Not all doctors, certainly. There are many fine doctors whose judgment I would trust implicitly. But since the medical community as an institution has now made its peace with abortion, embryo research, and in vitro fertilization—and is taking a long look at assisted suicide—I am no longer willing to abide by the accepted moral standards of the medical profession.
If you read my earlier column, you know that I question the morality of removing vital organs from a patient who has been classified as “brain dead.” Recall, too, that “brain dead” donors are for all practical purposes the only source of unpaired vital organs for transplantation. Except in the rarest of circumstances, after an “ordinary” death, when the heart stops beating, the condition of vital organs deteriorates so quickly that they cannot be transplanted.
Since I try to conduct my life in accordance with my own principles, I have notarized instructions on file, directing that I do not wish to donate my vital organs and that I refuse to accept a vital organ transplanted from another patient. But it would be misleading to suggest that every good Catholic must agree with me and take the same action. On the contrary, I realize that mine is a minority position. But I plan to continue arguing that position until someone persuades me that I am wrong.
In Evangelium Vitae, Blessed John Paul II described organ donation as “particularly praiseworthy.” When he was questioned about the morality of such donations, Pope Benedict XVI (then Cardinal Ratzinger) responded by showing his organ-donor card.
Before I go any further, let me clarify what I am not saying:
• I am not saying that no one should consent to be an organ donor. Pope Benedict is (or at least was) a donor; I don’t plan to second-guess his judgment. I do think that everyone should ponder the decision carefully.
• I am not saying that anyone who has donated or received an organ should be condemned. If Pope John Paul considers donations “particularly praiseworthy,” who am I to quarrel? And if you have been the recipient of a successful organ transplant, I have no doubt that you acted prudently, based on the best information available to you at the time, and I thank God for your current good health.
• I am not saying that the Church must change her teaching. Quite the contrary; if the magisterium were to reject the arguments that I am putting forward, I would accept that judgment. But—here’s the crucial point—I don’t think the magisterium has spoken, or is likely ever to speak, on these arguments.
Last year my friend John Haas, the head of the National Catholic Bioethics Center, published a journal article in which he summarized the Vatican statements supporting organ transplants and accepting the use of “brain death” as an acceptable standard for determining that a vital organ can be removed. Insofar as he writes about what the magisterium has said on the issue, Haas makes a compelling argument. There has certainly never been any hint of a condemnation of organ transplantation, and there have been several clear signs of support for the “brain death” approach. For example in 2000, speaking to the Transplantation Society, Pope John Paul II said that it should be possible to establish that death has occurred by using neurological criteria.
The Pontifical Academy of Sciences has gone much further. As John Haas observes: “Thus three times now, under two different pontificates, the Pontifical Academy of Sciences has concluded that the neurological criteria are a legitimate basis for determining death. No pope, no discastery of the Holy See, and no official consultative body to the Holy See has ever called into question this conclusion of the academy.”
However, one must bear in mind that the Pontifical Academy of Sciences is a consultative body, not a teaching arm of the magisterium. Moreover, the results of the Pontifical Academy’s latest discussion of this issue are tainted, since—because of some intense jockeying before and after the session—critics of the “brain death” approach were not allowed to present their arguments. For an accurate understanding of what the teaching magisterium has said on this issue, it is better to rely on statements by the Roman pontiffs.
At first glance those statements seem to give the green light to the “brain death” approach. After all Pope John Paul II accepted the possibility of determining death by neurological criteria, and “brain death” is diagnosed by neurological tests. But notice that Blessed John Paul did not say which neurological criteria would be sufficient to establish death; he did not endorse any standard for determining “brain death.”
Speaking more generally, when he said that organ transplants are “particularly praiseworthy,” Pope John Paul added that they must be “performed in an ethically acceptable manner.” What are the standards that determine that an operation is ethically acceptable? John Haas points out that there is universal agreement on one standard—the “dead donor” rule. Before doctors can remove a vital organ, they must be morally certain that the donor is dead.
So we are back where we started. An organ transplant can be morally acceptable—indeed praiseworthy—if it is done by ethically acceptable standards. It is done by ethically acceptable standards if (among other things) the donor is already dead. But how can we be morally certain that the donor is dead? On that question, I submit, the magisterium is silent. In fact, if I read the words of Pope Pius XII rightly, the magisterium not only is silent but will remain silent. It is the duty of doctors, not bishops, to determine when death has occurred.
Pope John Paul II voiced his confidence that doctors could set neurological criteria for determining death. But the current standards for diagnosing “brain death” have been roundly criticized by some doctors, nurses, philosophers, ethicists, theologians, and even pesky journalists. Is it possible to maintain moral certainty that these criteria are adequate, when so many people remain unsatisfied? The first criteria for diagnosing “brain death” were introduced in 1968, after the success of organ transplants created a demand for healthy organs. Surely it should give us pause if death is declared for utilitarian reasons: to make transplants possible.
Even John Haas, in his defense of the “brain death” approach, concedes that the necessary tests may not provide adequate safeguards in all cases: “It must be admitted that some physicians will not always be careful in the administration of these tests and may prematurely declare a person to be dead without properly ensuring that the criteria have been met.”
Exactly. When an organ transplant counts as a success, and the failure to obtain a vital organ may mean the death of another patient, doctors will always be under pressure to declare a potential donor dead. The “brain death” diagnosis makes it far easier for a doctor to reach that conclusion—and there are multiple different standards for “brain death,” creating confusion and multiplying the possibilities for abuse. In the early 21st century, when the medical profession has shown an alarming propensity for exploiting one human person to benefit another, we should demand more rigor in defining death.
This article has been reprinted from its original source with permission and can be found at http://www.catholicculture.org/commentary/otn.cfm?id=902.
Philip F. Lawler is the editor and founder of Catholic World News, the first English-language Catholic news service operating on the Internet. Mr. Lawler has served as director of studies for the Heritage Foundation—a conservative think tank based in Washington. He was founder and president of a national organization of Catholic laity, and was editor of Crisis magazine. In 1986 he became the first layman to edit The Pilot, the Boston archdiocesan newspaper. Mr. Lawler is the author of six books on political and religious topics. The most recent is The Faithful Departed, a book about the decline of Catholic influence in Boston. His essays, book reviews, and editorial columns have appeared in over 100 newspapers around the United States and abroad.
A few days ago, Emily Herx, a teacher in a Catholic school, announced to the nation through major media outlets that she had been fired from a Catholic school because she used in vitro fertilization in an attempt to get pregnant. Herx is now suing St. Vincent DePaul Catholic School and the Fort Wayne, Indiana, Catholic diocese for wrongful termination of employment. While Monsignor John Kuzmich, pastor of St. Vincent, has not hosted a press conference, preferring to do his duty as a priest in defending Catholic doctrine, the media has been inclined nonetheless to stick its noses into a matter about which it understands little—if anything at all.
To put this in the proper context, read what the Salem News editor Tim King stated in his “unbiased” report:
Of course it seems the average American doesn’t see eye to eye with a religious organization filled with so many cases both known and unknown, of child sex abuse.
What is the connection between papal celibacy and those crimes? It is worth knowing that in the early years, the Church did not ban priests from marrying, nor did it exclusively deny women from clergy. The morally reprehensible and terribly costly court convictions need to end sooner or later, along with the patterns that cause the behavior to go so far off the charts, whatever that may be.
For those who do not see the erroneous statements this reporter is making, and the silly conclusions he is drawing, let me be clear. The Catholic Church is not a “religious organization.” It is the one true Church of Jesus Christ established by Him. In other words, there is no such thing as a “religious organization” known as the Catholic Church.
Further, this is not about the failings of man. As we all know, every single one of us is a sinner, so why would a reporter raise the specter of the sex abuse scandal? The point is to further marginalize the Catholic Church and her teaching at any cost.
Catholics know that in vitro fertilization (IVF) has been condemned by the Church since the issuance of Donum Vitae in 1987. Fortunately, in light of this current case, the diocese has issued a loving statement affirming Catholic teaching and the pastor’s responsibilities in a case like this:
The diocese will not argue this case in the media or in the court of public opinion. This statement is meant to clarify what appears to be a serious misunderstanding regarding the pastoral obligations of priests.
The Church and her priests include in their proclamation of the Gospel Jesus’ call to conversion. It is the task of priests, following the example of Christ, to be instruments of Christ’s love and mercy. This includes at times correction, since sinful behavior not only offends God, but also harms the individual and the community. While sometimes difficult and delicate, priests are expected always to speak the truth in charity. Priests are required to clearly affirm the truths of our faith, and to speak honestly about what these truths mean for our lives and what we owe to others. It is also clear that priests must convey these truths in a respectful and loving manner consistent with the intrinsic, inestimable worth of every human person.
As the diocese asks for prayers, there are others in the Church who have joined the reporter quoted above in disingenuously explaining what the Church teaches on matters of reproductive technology. One such dissident, Father Richard Sparks, never known for his orthodoxy, told the Atlantic that, in his view, this is “less about in vitro fertilization and more about the HHS ruling on contraception.” To further muddy the waters, Sparks alleges that “Rick Santorum-type Catholics” might not care about the poor, but they are committed to making sure women like Herx are removed from their positions if they violate Church teaching.
This is absolutely outrageous, but so are the balance of Sparks’ interview and the media circus surrounding this case.
Herx’s lawsuit is based on an allegation that her civil rights were violated. But the same law does not protect the rights of children prior to birth. In fact, these persons are not recognized as having any rights.
Can such inconsistency in the law ensure a fair hearing in this case? Or is this case all about political agendas that are constantly poking the Catholic Church in the eye? Only time will tell.
