[Apologetics] FW: Catholics and Santorum v. Casey

[Art Kelly]

-----Original Message-----
From: Manuel Miranda [mailto:mmiranda at att.net]
Sent: Wednesday, September 27, 2006 10:25 AM
To: Undisclosed-Recipient:;
Subject: Catholics and Santorum v. Casey


As you may know, I am the former president of the Cardinal Newman Society
for Catholic Higher Education, so I took an interest in this controversy
over Bob Casey, Jr.  You may want to forward these two articles, especially
to your Pennsylvania friends.

______________________________________________________

http://www.ncregister.com/articulo4.php?artkod=OTUx

The University and the Candidate
Oct. 1-8, 2006
by KATHYRN JEAN LOPEZ

My alma mater, The Catholic University of America, owes Sen. Rick Santorum,
R-Pa., an apology.

Santorum’s opponent in his re-election fight, Democrat Bob Casey Jr., gave
the annual Pope John XXIII lecture earlier this month at CUA’s Columbus
School of Law. The Democrat’s remarks were billed as on “Restoring America’s
Moral Compass: Leadership and the Common Good.” By giving him a forum at the
bishop-chartered school, CUA showed poor leadership; its compass was pointed
in the wrong direction.

You may argue though that CUA was technically within its rights having Casey
on campus. Casey opposes abortion, though he supports public funding of
contraception and the over-the-counter-sale of Plan B, which can act as an
abortifacient. He refused to oppose the abortion-lobby-lead filibusters on
Bush judges and has given no real indication that he seeks to be a pro-life
leader on the level of the man he seeks to replace.



In other words, Bob Casey Jr. is no Rick Santorum.



Santorum, on the other hand, is the foremost leader in the U.S. Congress
when it comes to protecting innocent human life. Santorum fathered the
partial-birth-abortion ban. He has fought for a federal marriage amendment,
an issue many shy away from. He has not only fought against attempts to
legalize cloning, but has worked to find a constructive, non-destructive
middle ground on stem-cell research. Others may share his passion and
consistency, but he’s in the Senate leadership — the youngest member — with
such high name recognition that TV mob boss Tony Soprano mentioned him last
season on HBO. He gives those we can’t yet hear not only a voice but clout.
He has earned respect for both his principled leadership and his prudential
political skills.



That said, it’s not the job of The Catholic University of America to
determine who should win the Pennsylvania Senate race. Which is also
precisely why Casey shouldn’t have been on campus this fall. Although the
dean of the law school defended the decision to invite him against
complaints of political favoritism by arguing that the speech was not
political in nature, there was no way a candidate in the most contested
Senate race in the United States could appear on campus and it not be a
political speech. And, as anyone could have predicted, the speech did, in
fact, have an impact beyond Pennsylvania 
 with the speech itself, by the
way, sounding a lot like a campaign stump speech covering everything from
the environment to Iraq.



Within days, one Pennsylvania paper reported that “values voters” are “up
for grabs.” Since both Casey and Santorum say they’re pro-life — and since
CUA seems to have no beef with Casey — well, what’s the difference, anyway?



The black-and-white difference for Catholics to take a look at is the
prospect of losing a leader for life.



Still, you may argue, Casey supports a ban on cloning, he’d likely be better
news for the cause of defending human life than all too many other
Democrats. True enough. But put that alongside his support for civil unions
(and backing from the homosexual-rights group, the Human Rights Campaign),
his enthusiasm for Plan B and his insistence while at CUA that faith can’t
“dictate” a public official’s views on matters like marriage and religious
liberty, and you don’t exactly have the ideal Catholic candidate. But, in
the end, “that’s for voters to weigh in the imperfect world of politics,” as
my friend Patrick Reilly, president of the Cardinal Newman Society says.



When it comes to CUA, though, Reilly says, “Catholic colleges and
universities have a higher burden to meet than other institutions (or at
least they should have), when it comes to providing a forum for speakers,
especially when the topic is ‘America’s Moral Compass.’”

The one bit of silver lining in the Casey lecture is: The public misstep
provides an opportunity for CUA to teach — about Catholic teaching on
contraception, on the moral obligations of Catholics in public life. So far,
I haven’t heard that kind of teaching in the wake of the Casey speech, at
least publicly. I’ll give the university the benefit of the doubt and hope
they’re at least doing it in the classroom.

If they’re not, they don’t owe just Santorum an apology, they owe their
students and every American Catholic who ever put a dollar in the collection
basket for CUA an apology, too.



Kathryn Jean Lopez is the editor of National Review Online
(www.nationalreview.com) and is a nationally syndicated columnist.



________________________________________

National Review Online

September 13, 2006, 2:02 p.m.

Misinvitation
Bob Casey’s stumble into Church politics.

By Patrick J. Reilly


Fundamentally, it’s not a question of politics, but of truth in advertising.
Bob Casey has no business delivering a lecture on public morality at the
Catholic bishops’ national university of the United States.

The Catholic University of America (CUA) in Washington, D.C., was founded in
1887 with the certainty expressed by the great John Henry Newman just 30
years earlier in his classic Idea of a University: that Catholic theology is
true and ought to inform all academic study.

While many Catholic colleges and universities are struggling to live up to
their identity as Catholic institutions, CUA has recently done a much better
job of providing genuine Catholic education, even prohibiting The Vagina
Monologues and discouraging lectures that could be a scandal to faithful
Catholics.

That is why it is disappointing that the CUA’s law school has honored
Pennsylvania Senate candidate Bob Casey with a! n invit ation to deliver the
annual Pope John XXIII lecture on “Restoring America’s Moral Compass:
Leadership and the Common Good.”

Bob Casey, a Catholic and graduate of the law school, is a poor choice for
two main reasons. First, he is an active candidate for office and is in a
very tight race at the moment. Second, although purportedly pro-life, his
public positions on a number of issues should disqualify him from giving a
talk on morality and leadership at a Catholic school.

The Cardinal Newman Society, an organization I founded in 1993 to strengthen
Catholic identity at America’s 224 Catholic colleges and universalities, has
long held the position that it is a violation of academic neutrality for a
school — even a secular university — to feature active candidates for office
at lectures or other events .

Such activities inevitably lead to questions about a Catholic institution’s
political neutrality, and their academic mission is subjected to a candidate
’s p! olitica l motivations for earning the respect and votes of students,
faculty and the Catholic community.

This is true even in this case with CUA being located in Washington and
Casey running for office in Pennsylvania, because of the important role that
Catholic University plays as one of the flagship Catholic institutions in
the country.

And, practically speaking, is there any doubt that Casey views the event as
politically helpful? Why else would he pause from campaigning in
Pennsylvania only weeks before a competitive election?

As I wrote in a letter to Catholic University President Fr. David O’Connell
yesterday, “The law school’s poor choice is compounded by the fact that
Casey is a prominent Catholic who supports public funding for
contraceptives, laws mandating contraceptive coverage in health plans, and
civil unions for homosexuals, and who has stated that he opposes legislation
! banning adoptions by gay partners.”

Critics will say, yes, but those issues do not rise to level of abortion,
the most important issue, and, besides, Casey is pro-life. But what of Casey
’s pro-life credentials?

Last week on Meet the Press, Casey said that he supports over-the-counter
sales of the “Plan B” pill, because “It is contraception, and I support it.”

Host Tim Russert followed up by asking Casey if he believed that life begins
at conception, and Casey answered that he does.

Russert then asked him the next logical question: if an egg is fertilized
would Casey call its destruction contraception or abortion? Backed into a
corner, Casey called it contraception.

Leaving aside Casey’s enthusiastic support for contraception for a moment —
in itself a matter of dissent from Catholic teaching — even the “Plan B”
manufacturer freely acknowledges that in addition ! to bein g a
contraceptive, the pill also prevents fertilized eggs from implanting in the
womb. Such a situation would, as Russert’s question implied, be an abortion.

So, in other words, Bob Casey believes life begins at conception, but
supports the sale, without a prescription, of a pill that could end a young
life. This is in addition to his support for public funding for
contraceptives, including presumably abortifacients.

Is Bob Casey’s record on life issues better than many Democrats and
Republicans already in office? Yes, it is. To be fair, Casey supports a
human-cloning ban and opposes public funding of abortions and attempts to
weaken Pennsylvania’s abortion laws.

But that’s for voters to weigh in the imperfect world of politics. A
university — and a Catholic university, no less — should be above political
gamesmanship on moral concerns, especially matters of life and death.

That’s the point. Catholic colleges and universities have a highe r burden
to meet than other institutions (or at least they should have) when it comes
to providing a forum for speakers, especially when the topic is “America’s
Moral Compass.”

In this case, the evidence is overwhelming that Bob Casey, as a public
Catholic who openly dissents from fundamental Church teachings, does not
meet the test.

— Patrick Reilly is the founder and president of the Cardinal Newman
Society.

_____________________________________

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://gathman.org/pipermail/apologetics/attachments/20060927/57b487d4/attachment.html>