2007 List of Catholic Colleges who Invited Pro-Abortion Commencement Speakers
The good news: The number of colleges with inappropriate commencement speakers are down from 2006 when 24 colleges had speakers or honorees who publicly advocated for abortion rights, embryonic stem-cell research, physician-assisted suicide, homosexual marriage, women’s ordination or other issues contrary to Catholic values.
The bad news: There are still 12.
Entire article and list of colleges and speakers on LifeSite.
Â
.jpg)
St Vincent College in Latrobe PA invited a politician who supports the use of torture. Michael Novak at First Things: http://www.firstthings.com/onthesquare/?p=728 doesn’t seem to think inviting speakers with differing opinions is a bad thing and that perhaps we should “learn to enjoy good arguments with persons of goodwill who roundly disagree with (us) on fundamentals, as well as on concrete matters of fact.”
Comment by Todd — May 10, 2007 @ 3:10 PM
Todd -
So Michael Novak thinks that way; good for him. I don’t have time to check his article out right now but it is not clear to me from your summary of what he says that his position would necessarily conflict with the prudent judgment of most of this country’s bishops. That is, that one can only invite public figures for honorary purposes (which includes commencement speeches) at Catholic institutions if they do not publicly hold positions that will cause scandal (which does not mean shock but rather means leading one astray from the truth) to the public.
The concern is especially honorary situations. For example, if a Catholic university invited Louis Farrakhan say, to speak at commencement it would at the very least seem to diminish the gravity that the institution (and by extension the Catholic Church) places on the grave sin of anti-Semitism. At worse, it could imply support for the position. If there was great doubt about whether anti-Semitism were something that was sinful, a university doing this would further this confusion.
Furthermore, in the case of abortion and related life issues, it is not a matter of differing opinions, like say would be the prudential judgment of where applying the death penalty may or may not be licit. Thus, inviting speakers who support abortion or other acts that snuff out innocent human life to speak in honorary circumstances on issues that do not even discuss or debate their mistaken views, does apply to what you seem to say that Novak is suggesting.
So by all means: debate and discuss “differing opinions” when it does not lead to scandal. However, what CNS is working toward does not conflict with this reasonable academic pursuit.
Comment by David — May 10, 2007 @ 3:42 PM