Scheduling conflict
Sen. John Kerry's speech at the Catholic University of America has been cancelled due to scheduling conflicts.
From a Lifesite article:
Nakas however, explained that a Kerry lecture at CUA would not be a contradiction to the USCCB policy. "Unfortunately, some people are misinterpreting the bishops' statement on Catholic politicians. We verified with the bishops themselves that the intent of the statement was to refuse a platform to speakers who would be invited to speak on those specific issues for which they hold positions that are at variance with the fundamental moral teachings of the Catholic Church (emphasis in original email).
Nakas continued, "This means, for example, that we would be violating the letter and the intent of the bishops' statement were we to invite Sen. Kerry to speak on abortion. However, we would not be violating the letter and the spirit of the bishops' statement were we to permit the College Democrats to invite Sen. Kerry to speak on the environment or the Iraq war."
The Tower had previously reported that Kerry was invited to specifically address the issues of the environment and the Iraq war.
Now what the bishop's document Catholics in Political Life said was:
The Catholic community and Catholic institutions should not honor those who act in defiance of our fundamental moral principles. They should not be given awards, honors or platforms which would suggest support for their actions.
*emphasis in the original statement.
While the bishops statement can be certainly interpreted in a vague manner the idea that someone can speak on a subject as long as it isn't one of the fundamental moral principles they violate is rather compartmented. They wouldn't invite a member of the KKK even if they were an expert on the environment. Or a speaker that supported genocide that was an expert in another subject. This is just part of the attitude where a politician's 100 percent voting record for abortion and against other life issues is not perceived as all that bad in the first place.
The Kerry lecture would not have been held as an officially school sponsored event. While the administration had to approve the speaker choice, the cost of the event would have been paid by the College Democrats who were to organize and host the lecture. However, funding for the political group comes, at least in part, from a student activity fee that all CUA students are required to pay each year.
The "it is not an officially sponsored school event" dodge is becoming more and more frequently used. This is the educrats version of "plausible deniability."
Known as 
This is exactly why we did not give to Catholic University during the second collection a few weeks ago.
Don't be too hard on CUA; as an alum, I know they're trying to fight this. There has been a great alumni and student uproar over Kerry's being allowed to speak to begin with.
When I was a grad student there a few years ago, there was an equal uproar when the school would not allow Stanley Tucci (then Planned Parenthood's Man of the Year) to speak for the drama school. I completely agreed with the school's decision, and am a bit surprised that they made an exception for Kerry. It seemed like exactly the same situation to me. The school was probably afraid of the bad press they would get by not allowing a Democrat, as if they were taking political sides.
Anyway, I'm glad he can't go, and I hope they don't allow him next time. However, the opinion to allow speakers like him on campus is not a majority one. It is mainly the view of immature liberals on campus.
Aw come one.
We got "don't taze me, bro!" out of Kerry's presentation in Fl. It boggles the mind what could be said there. Aside of the normal incoherent tripe usual muttered by talentless hacks passing as politicians and feigning faith.
Am I the only one who does not have a problem (in principle, anyway) with a Catholic university's inviting a cafeteria Catholic to discuss an issue within his expertise and having nothing to do with abortion/Catholic teaching/etc.? Assuming he doesn't get an "honor" out of it but is merely paid for his time and expenses?
(Now, if Kerry was going to be there to discuss the way "just war" theory applies to the war in Iraq, then I agree that he shouldn't have been invited. I don't think a cafeteria Catholic should be allowed to speak at a Catholic university on a matter related to the faith.)
If someone could explain to me why the Kerry invitation is wrong IN PRINCIPLE, I would sincerely appreciate it. (Not being sarcastic - genuinely interested.)
I have to admit I'm a bit on Robin's side. Also, I think it can backfire if a private college has a rule that non-pro-life speakers aren't allowed. As a member of the pro-life club on campus, we would love to have a debate between an expert pro-lifer and an "expert" pro-choicer on campus (we all know who would win, right?) but our college doesn't allow us to ask a pro-choice expert to speak. The political exception is interesting, though, as I know the Democrat club on campus had representatives of the canidates here a few weeks ago.
Mary, the difference you cite is that you would like a DEBATE between the sides...that is very different than simply inviting a pro-choice speaker to campus to have his/her own talk. And it's not so much that they speak on a topic within their expertise or not...if you're a Catholic University, there are plenty of good, orthodox Catholic speakers out there with expertise in a wide variety of subjects that are relevant and hip, and they have the credibility of their faith to back them up as well.
I think it comes down to a question of prudence on the part of CUA. John Kerry sets a very public example of consistent opposition to the (ostensibly) espoused principles of Catholic education, Catholic educators and the Magisterium. Will his participation satisfy anything other than curiosity as will similarly occur at Columbia and their likewise very "public guest"? And as for tolerance, the Holy Father aptly pointed out: "If Christ had been tolerant, he would not have been crucified."
Stanley Tucci should have been a more welcome guest than Kerry because Kerry is a pro-choice politician and will influence votes that lead to the killing of children. Stanley Tucci's a good actor. I had no idea about his stance on abortion. His acting, unless he acts in a pro-choice themed film, is not likely to influence people's conscience is it?
Oh, wait a minute. I guess Michael J Foxx influenced many, didn't he? I lose.
Lori,
Thanks for your input. Makes sense to me...now, how do I convince the college administration? (I'm not expecting anyone here to have the answer.)
Mary,
I have written (emailed) the presidents of Creighton University and the University of San Diego about their speakers...now I'm not so arrogant as to think that my email in particular had any influence, but combined with comments from many people, these administrators get a better idea of what's going on in people's heads outside the ivory towers of academia...
I suppose it doesn't hurt if you reference the fact that you are the parent of 5 kids who will be looking at colleges soon and that with extra-curricular experiences like this, their universities are not high up on our list of choices... :-)
And as for tolerance, the Holy Father aptly pointed out: "If Christ had been tolerant, he would not have been crucified."
What a great quote; thanks for posting it, Tom G.