News broke two weeks ago that Georgetown University, my alma mater, had invited Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius, as a guest of honor for the Public Policy Institute’s commencement weekend festivities. It’s a headline that could have appeared in the The Onion, were it not in the Washington Post. A firestorm of course ensued, and to little avail. The ceremony took place on Friday and Sebelius’ presence became reality.
For years, before, during, and after my undergraduate time at that remarkable university, I’ve had to swat away outsiders’ objections about the place. And I became quite adept at it, because the script was more or less the same every time. An interlocutor would raise an eyebrow when I mentioned my alma mater, reel off some glib remark (“doesn’t everyone who goes there lose their faith?”) and then chortle a bit at their imagined cleverness. “Well, actually, no,” I’d more or less obliged to reply, and then begin a litany of counterfactuals which buried their unserious half-concern.
Were they aware of the excellence of some Jesuit and lay professors who still taught life-changing courses on Dante, Milton, Plato, Church history, and other pillars of the Western canon they’d assumed had evaporated? Had they any idea of the vibrancy of campus ministry; of the quiet leadership of individuals working within and without the system; the sheer history and beauty of the campus? Did they understand that not every student wasted their time there?
These defenses are accurate, and I’d gladly stand by them to the fiercest critics. But what I (and many friends) failed to realize is that they were, to an almost absolute extent, relative. They do not reflect a majority or ‘mainstream’ experience at the school, much less some sort of coherent outlook on the part of the administrators and deputies who makes up its managerial class.
There is not much ‘center’ holding at Georgetown; precious little common frame of reference, shared culture and experience, or underlying first principles to which parties can defer debates about ultimate ends. In the absence of that, of course, rush the watery slogans: “dialogue” (nothing is said about with whom, on what terms, or to what goal this ought to be pursued); vague intimations of humanitarianism and globalism; and “pluralism” (a noble word drained of its essential basis in intractable difference).
Still, if critics are right to point out that Georgetown’s animating Catholicity is endangered, they are dangerously mistaken in calling it dead. The difference between life, even embattled life, and death is not a distinction to be casually or sloppily made. And, as valuable and incisive as outsider critics and watchdog organizations can be, their formulaic denunciations of the place will forever ring hollower to me than perhaps they ought to.
But the Sebelius invitation was absurd, and it doesn’t take an expert or a local mind to see that. There was no way of papering over the cognitive dissonance; of possibly passing this off as some sort of grand “conversation” or anything other than contempt for the Church and her ordained servants. There was an attempt: On Wednesday, the president of the university put out a dithering statement explaining that the invitation was issued before the mandate was promulgated, and Sebelius would not technically be a “speaker” at the ceremony, only a guest of honor. It completely dodged the question at hand (why was she still being invited, knowing what they knew now?) and earned a swift call-out from the Archdiocese of Washington.
To their great credit, a few (nine, to be specific) faculty members signed a letter of protest written by departing government professor Patrick Deneen. Only one of the signers, a venerable professor of philosophy, was both a co-signer of both this and the Paul Ryan protest letter, about whose presence on campus more than ninety faculty members happily found the time and will to register moral objection.
For me, as a recent graduate, the situation is absolutely heartbreaking, and it has already fomented bitterness in people far too young for such sentiments. As a close friend put it: “I expected to become a dyspeptic old alum, but I didn’t expect it to happen this quickly.”
But it is worse than a mere disappointment. It is, in the words of legendary 20th century Georgetown history professor Carroll Quigley, a “contemporary trahison des clercs.” To accord a place of honor to an official responsible for initiating what amounts to a present-day persecution of the Church is not just sloppy; not merely obnoxious. It amounts to a kind of betrayal.
To make a few distinctions which other critics perhaps have not been as adept at: This invitation was not something cooked up by the student body, and apart from maybe a few hardcore activist-types, I don’t think they’d have ever collectively dreamt it up. It certainly was not an initiative of the Jesuits (though we could do with some boldness on their part right now). The reactions of those groups (or lack thereof) do indicate something about the climate of the school, but they did not initiate this battle. No, blame for this particular event lies largely in the hands of the career administrators who now mostly have the run of the place.
When a common culture fragments, it’s the easiest solution: find some ‘neutral’ professionals to sand down the shards, especially when putting them back together would require so much exertion. Never mind that the hired experts may, in fact, harbor their own agenda. It’s a peculiarly sad decline because it’s so lame—the oldest Catholic university in the United States is being suffocated by a thousand qualifications.
Matthew Cantirino is a junior fellow at First Things.
RESOURCES
Patrick J. Deneen, “For the Salvation of Souls”: A Farewell to Georgetown
Become a fan of First Things on Facebook, subscribe to First Things via RSS, and follow First Things on Twitter.
Comments:
There are two kinds of Catholics: one major group is the social conservatives who would not be represented at any educational institution and who would be mortified that Obama was allowed to speak at ND and Sebelius given an invitation to Georgetown.
The other major group are statists: they don't care about abortion, marriage or contraception but rather how the Federal government can push "social justice" and this group has overwhelming numbers in the faculty at any major university.
There might as well be two Churches. These two groups' differences more than outweigh their similarities. David Nickol provides an example by quoting DeGioia; he and Sebelius completely put aside "social issues" and instead focus on the "social justice" part of Catholic doctrine.
Definitely a dumb move on Georgetown's part. My alma mater, Marquette, choose Hank Aaron, a much smarter and better choice who has done his country fine service.
However, it should be noted that many Catholics in America don't see this decision as persecution of any sort, nor a betrayal. Many (especially female) Catholics support the HHS decision. I don't know about Georgetown alum in particular, but it would be a hyperbole to claim that all Catholics see this as persecution at all.
I would beg to differ that Secretary Sebelius's speech was "totally innocuous." Well-reported in the media were excerpts from these lines of the speech:
"When I was in junior high, John Fitzgerald Kennedy was running for President. I wasn’t old enough to vote, but it was the first national campaign I really remember. Some of then-Senator Kennedy’s opponents attacked him for his religion, suggesting that electing the first Catholic President would undermine the separation of Church and State, a fundamental principle of our democracy. The furor grew so loud that Kennedy chose to deliver a speech about his beliefs just seven weeks before the election.
"In that talk to Protestant ministers, Kennedy talked about his vision of religion and the public square, and said he believed in an America, and I quote, 'where no religious body seeks to impose its will directly or indirectly upon the general populace or the public acts of its officials – and where religious liberty is so indivisible that an act against one church is treated as an act against us all.'"
Notice what she achieved by inserting this small anecdote and quote into the speech (and, if you read it in its entirety, one should note that it is really a non-sequitur). What she was able to insinuate is that those who are now objecting to the imposition of a Mandate by the HHS and the federal government are really no different than religious believers who seek to impose their belief upon others through enactments of public policy. Now, we could discuss this latter claim at some length (and it should be discussed, because Catholics don't, and have never appealed, merely to faith commitments to justify their stance on various public policies), but leave that for a moment. Rather, notice the sleight of hand - by inserting this line, she was able to continue to convey the impression that those seeking to defend the legitimate liberty of conscience within their religious institutions and organizations are tantamount to oppressors, and are themselves engaged in a "war on women." By claiming their right not to provide a service to employees and students in a way that would contradict their faith, they are now no different than those who seek to impose their beliefs on others through recourse to public policy. This speech - for all of its airiness - was not "totally innocuous," but in fact continued a campaign of disinformation, using as its platform a graduation ceremony at the nation's oldest Catholic university.
I am amazed you interpret the speech that way. I found the speech itself quite evenhanded. If someone else had given it, the focus could very well be on Kennedy saying, "[R]eligious liberty is so indivisible that an act against one church is treated as an act against us all."
I see nothing in the speech following the Kennedy quote that hints that either the Obama Administration, on the one hand, or the USCCB and others fighting it, on the other, is right.
She says:
**********
And more than 50 years later, that conversation, about the intersection of our nation’s long tradition of religious freedom with policy decisions that affect the general public, continues.
Contributing to these debates will require more than just the quantitative skills you have learned at Georgetown. It will also require the ethical skills you have honed – the ability to weigh different views, see issues from other points of view, and in the end, follow your own moral compass.
These debates can also be contentious. But this is a strength of our country, not a weakness. In some countries around the world, it is much easier to make policy. The leader delivers an edict and it goes into effect. There’s no debate, no criticism, no second guessing.
Our system is messier, slower, more frustrating, and far better. It requires conversations that can be painful and it almost always ends in compromise. But it’s through this process of conversation and compromise that we move forward, together, step by step, towards a “more perfect union.”
Looking out on you this morning, I feel very optimistic about the future of that union. If you hold on to your idealism, resist complacency, take chances, and engage thoughtfully with the difficult challenges of our time, you will succeed. And I can’t wait to see what you will accomplish.
**********
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/guest-voices/post/hhs-secretary-kathleen-sebelius-full-remarks-to-georgetown-universitys-public-policy-institute/2012/05/18/gIQAYERnYU_blog.html
Now, we all know which side she is on, but I really don't see any way of reading the speech as a dig at those who oppose the mandate.
I find your commentary predictably disappointing on this subject. But there's almost a silver of common ground buried in there:
"If she had been at Georgetown to engage in a frank exchange of views with those who oppose many of her actions as a public figure, it could at least have been a learning experience."
It would not be unreasonable for Georgetown to host Ms. Sebelius for a frank discussion of the Affordable Care Act, or even for the regulation that her department has pushed through requiring the coverage that has ignited this controversy. *That* would be a dialogue, an exchange (one hopes) of views between a key representative of the administration and the Catholic community (among others), and nothing more.
But this is not what happened this weekend at Georgetown. The occasion was, as you concede, "an honor bestowed on Sebelius." So the question which must be posed as pointedly as possibly, both to you and to the Georgetown administrators: Is it impossible to engage in "dialogue" without giving an honor? Could not some other avenue have been found that had no honorary patina? How can we possibly separate her (very real) achievements in the public sector from the very wrongful ends which she has regularly pursued in the course of that service?
But it's hardly surprising that Georgetown administrators (and the faculty who support them in this) apparently find a person with Ms. Sebelius's track record (which goes back to her full-throated endorsement of partial birth abortion and her close association with notorious abortionist George Tiller) worthy of honor, not least in such a way that is such a blatant slap to the U.S. bishops. Most are no longer Catholic, but rather garden variety progressives with real enthusiasm for the sexual rights agenda of which the HHS mandate reflects merely one aspect.
The irony of this statement is not lost on those of us who are paying attention.
Going forward, the 'approval' of academia and of governmental powers trumped the Church, with the results we see commonplace today. Ironically, Notre Dame, which defended its choice of President Obama as a speaker and honorary degree recipient, has today filed suit against teh present administration, to wit:
KATHLEEN SEBELIUS, in her official capacity as Secretary of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services; HILDA SOLIS, in her official capacity as Secretary of the U.S. Department of Labor, TIMOTHY GEITHNER, in his official capacity as
Secretary of the U.S. Department of Treasury; U.S. DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES; U.S. DEPARTMENT OF LABOR; and U.S. DEPARTMENT OF TREASURY.
(The text can be seen here: http://opac.nd.edu/assets/69013/hhs_complaint.pdf)
As part of the supporting statements made by Notre Dame at the time was this:
“We think having the president come to Notre Dame, see our graduates, meet our leaders, and hear a talk from Mary Ann Glendon is a good thing for the president and for the causes we care about.”
The causes we care about? And what were they? Did they include abortion, given the fact that the honoree had voted to kill infants that had survived an abortion procedure? One can only hope that Notre Dame, and other so-called Catholic univerities realize that the number one thing they should care about it their faith, with ALL that that entails. One can only hope that those universities and colleges that have fallen away from their Catholic roots will wake up from their slumber and follow the lead of CUA and other schools and realign themselves with the Church's teachings, as Pope Benedict described when he spoke in Washington DC.
You say: "I find your commentary predictably disappointing on this subject. . . ."
I don't know how much farther I can go to the First Things side! I think it was a mistake to invite her. I denied President DeGioia's claim that there was an "immense contribution Sebelius would add to the event." I said they might just as well have had a cardboard cutout. I said her speech was innocuous, which not every seems to agree on, but it is scarcely a compliment! I said that in spite of the fact she didn't get an honorary degree, nevertheless I thought she was being honored (something the American bishops say should not be done for "dissident" Catholic politicians).
I think the way any Catholic university or organization can invite someone like Sebelius on campus to speak is in a debate or symposium in which all points of view are represented. If you wanted to have a debate about the contraceptive mandate, who better to represent the administration's side than Secretary Sebelius?
You say: "no more discussion, it is finished"
What about the flurry of lawsuits today? What about the November election? If Obama is defeated, do you think we'll have a contraceptive mandate? What if Republicans take the House and Senate? What if the Supreme Court strikes down the entire law? Not only isn't it finished, it hasn't started yet. It goes into effect in August 2013, and the regulation (that is, the modifications known as the "accommodation") hasn't even been written.
“I don't know how much farther I can go to the First Things side!”
It’s remarkable to watch, really, in a train wreck kind of way. First Things is a smart journal with smart readers, but the culture warriors dominate the comboxes. In this article, Cantirino makes many of the same points you made on an earlier thread, but you were excoriated for these points, accused of bad faith and distorting the record. People on these threads don’t seem interested in thinking through their positions. They seem more about striking the right posture. There’s little charity and much accusation. Some of the tone setting is done at the top. Cantirino’s speculation that blame for Sebelius’s invitation can be placed at the feet of administrators “harbor their own agenda” feeds the problem.
In a statement released by the archdiocese of Washington (http://www.adw.org/query2011/newsite_news.asp?ID=1000&Year=2012), the archbishop echoes this exaggeration, calling the mandate “the most direct challenge to religious liberty in recent history..."
The statement continues, however, by more narrowly defining the problem: “Contrary to what is indicated in the Georgetown University President’s statement, the fundamental issue with the mandate is not about contraception. As the United States Bishops have repeatedly pointed out, the issue is religious freedom. Secretary Sebelius’ mandate defines religious ministry so narrowly that our Catholic schools and universities, hospitals and social service ministries do not qualify as “religious enough” to be exempt."
Thus, at least according to the Archdiocese of Washington, the real problem with this mandate has nothing to do with contraception, but the fact that organizations or businesses owned by the church do not qualify as religious institutions. I, personally, am confused as to how this fact constitutes a "challenge to religious liberty." Unlike the past persecutions of the Church to which Mr. Cantirino is comparing the mandate, the Church's existence in this case is in no way threatened, Catholics are still allowed to worship how they please, and the freedoms and protections of churches (little "c") are not being violated in any way.
When a religious organization decides to voluntarily engage in commercial activity - whether it be a university, a school, or a hospital, it must abide certain laws which define the legal activities of a business or corporation. Although such a business may be connected to the Church in name, the Church has already forfeited some of its legal protections as a religious establishment to engage in commercial activity as well as receive government subsidies through loans and grants. Georgetown University, for example, turns over about a billion dollars in revenue each year and is the largest private employer in the District of Columbia according to the most recent statistics. At that point, not providing the services required under the mandate to its most valuable human asset--its employees--is not a protection of religious freedom, but instead a gross violation of business ethics and corporate responsibility.
When a religious organization decides to voluntarily engage in commercial activity - whether it be a university, a school, or a hospital, it must abide certain laws which define the legal activities of a business or corporation.
These activities, and also related ones such as adoption placement, were established as ministries, not as "commercial" entities. It should be remembered that the vast majority of the nations colleges in our earlier history were founded by, and often as, religious institutions. Hospitals arose out of the charitable works of Christians going back to the beginning. Hospitals as businesses concerned with profit and loss are a relatively recent phenomenon. In the latter half of the 19th century:
Privately supported voluntary hospitals, products of Protestant patronage and stewardship for the poor, were managed by lay trustees and funded by public subscriptions, bequests, and philanthropic donations. By contrast, Catholic sisters and brothers were the owners, nurses, and administrators of Catholic institutions, which, without a large donor base, relied primarily on fundraising efforts along with patient fees. Public or tax-supported municipal hospitals accepted charity patients, including the aged, orphaned, sick, or debilitated. Some physicians established proprietary hospitals that supplemented the wealth and income of owners. Owners of not-for-profit voluntary and religious hospitals on the other hand took no share of hospital income. [History of Hospitals, Barbra Mann Wall, PhD, RN, FAAN, University of Pennsylvania]
No legal protections have been "forfeited", but several have been stripped away by an overweening state intent on expanding its control over society. No one is holding a gun to the heads of any of the employees of Church organizations to keep working there. If having their employer (or taxpayers) foot the bill for the items in question (which, after all, are primarily related to voluntary activity on the part of the user, and therefore not a human or civil "right") is that important, they are free to work for an employer who will provide these relatively inexpensive items at no cost. This is not a matter of "business ethics and corporate responsibility", no matter how much you may wish it to be so.
President DeGioia defended the invitation by saying “her role in crafting the landmark legislation that will make health care more accessible to 34 million Americans who are currently uninsured” was indicative of the immense contribution Sebelius would add to the event. But her contribution was a totally innocuous speech—perfectly suitable for the occasions, but a speech thousands of other people were capable of giving. I think it would have been inappropriate for Sebelius to give a spirited defense of the contraceptive mandate (and her pro-choice views), but in a way it would have justified her presence.
I think, in the end, it really was an honor bestowed on Sebelius, even though she wasn't given an honorary degree. DeGioia's own words pretty much make that clear. If she had been at Georgetown to engage in a frank exchange of views with those who oppose many of her actions as a public figure, it could at least have been a learning experience. But for all the contribution she made to the ceremonies, they might just as well prominently displayed a cardboard cutout of her.
One doesn't need to be firmly on the side of the bishops (I'm not) or believe the Catholic Church is being persecuted (I don't) to see that Georgetown didn't come out ahead on this one.