It’s official: Ave Maria University will no longer make available health coverage for students, according to a statement by Ave Maria President Jim Towey.

In making the announcement, available on the university’s website, Towey cited both moral objections and skyrocketing costs that are consequences of President Barack Obama’s Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act and the associated HHS contraception mandate.

The university is also dropping the requirement that students be insured. The new policy goes into effect August 15, 2012.

Ave Maria announced that the college was recently informed by its insurance carrier that the provisions of Obamacare would require an increase in the maximum benefit per injury or illness (from $50,000 to $100,000) and that students would not only face a 66% increase in their premiums (from $839 to $1,392) but an increase in their deductibles (from $100 to $250 per policy year).

On top of that, the HHS mandate would require the university to provide coverage for contraceptives, abortifacients, and sterilization procedures, which Towey called “an affront to our core values.” (Matthew Archbold @ Cardinal Newman Society)

This of course follows the news last week when the Franciscan University of Steubenville did the same.

At 11 a.m. Eastern time today, 43 Catholic dioceses and organizations — including Our Sunday Visitor and the University of Notre Dame — filed religious liberty lawsuits against the federal government in a dozen different jurisdictions around the country.

At issue are regulations that require Catholic organizations, employers and insurers to provide or facilitate abortion-inducing drugs, sterilization and contraception — in violation of their consciences.

Equally troubling is the extreme narrowness of the government’s new test for determining which religious organizations are exempt from this mandate — which would appear to exclude Catholic schools, health care facilities, charities and others like Our Sunday Visitor. source

Fr. Jenkins of the University of Notre Dame comments here

The speaker who received an honorary doctor of laws degree at the University of Notre Dame’s 164th University Commencement Ceremony would not release a full statement.

But he did say how is that “sensible conscience clause” working out for you?

Well Christ did take a lickin’ and keep on ticking’

At a party this weekend celebrating New York Design Week, which begins today, the Chilean-born artist plans to hand out 100 “Christian Popsicles” made of “frozen holy wine transformed into the blood of Christ” and featuring a crucifix instead the tongue depressor that typically hosts the frozen treats, he said.

GetReligion Covers this story from CNN which is a textbook example of the typical horrible mainstream religion reporting.

An image of Jesus Christ positioned traditionally on the cross is visible once the ice pop is consumed. As for the frozen wine, Errazuriz said, he concealed it in a cooler and took it into a church, where it was “inadvertently blessed by the priest while turning wine into the blood of Christ during the Eucharist.”

Lets bypass the whole “inadvertently blessed” component for a minute and cover another point. Now why did this self-admitted atheist artist decide that he needed first to attempt this aspect of it anyway? He doesn’t believe in the doctrine of the Eucharist and consecrated wine and unconsecrated wine is all the same to him.

No doubt it is the same reason so many artists attempt blasphemous art for attention. Mocking of belief is one component and to increase making the believer think that consecrated wine was actually used increases the intensity of such mocking. The “daring” artist is so common now and almost always the target is specifically the Catholic faith. Though that is an old trend that started with the shaping of the Crown of Thorns.

Raised in a Catholic household, Errazuriz is now a “practicing atheist,” but he has many friends and family members who are religious, and he respects their beliefs. … His frozen cocktails stand as a symbol, he said, an invitation to “drink the Kool-Aid” that he feels so many religious zealots are stirring up.

Well if this is how he “respects” their beliefs, I wonder what he does when he disrespects something. So in answer to all this “religious zealotry” the answer is art mocking one aspect of belief – yeah that will really make the world better and not stir anything up.

Now as to the “inadvertently blessed” aspect of the story this is so ridiculous and GetReligion rightly lambasts CNN for not challenging this aspect of the story in any way.

Now I am rather skeptical that this artist actually brought a cooler into a Church with enough wine for 100 popsicles. But even if he did there is no scenario where the wine would actually get consecrated. Even if he did go to all the trouble of putting the cooler underneath the altar (with nobody noticing this), consecration is an intentional act – not a piece of magic. It is not as if any wine or bread in the Church gets consecrated if they happen to be in people’s pockets regardless of how close they are to the priest during consecration. What a shock that another ex-Catholic turned atheist doesn’t have even a basic theological understanding. If you are going to go to all the effort to mock something, you might just want to check if you actually succeeded. If you are going for the P.Z. Myers school of art you first actually need something to desecrate. For my part I am glad he was inept about this, though actually getting hold of a volume of consecrated wine would be fairly difficult to pull off.

GetReligion asks the pertinent questions about the reporting.

In other words, this story is a disaster. Did the CNN team grasp the bizarre and ludicrous nature of this claim by the artist? Did anyone stop and think about the practical details of what was said to have happened? If so, why was the story published without some kind of commentary from a liturgical expert, if not a priest or bishop of the church?

As Errazuriz himself states, this was not a joke. Why did CNN treat it as a kind of wink-wink joke?

Update: Jimmy Akin posts on the subject.

According to the late Fr. Nicholas Halligan, OP, in his outstanding book, The Sacraments and Their Celebration (written as a training manual for priests and seminarians):

The material to be consecrated must be definitely intended by the minister, since by intention the formula determines the significance of the material. . . . The bread and wine to be consecrated should be placed on the corporal (or the altar cloth). If there is material to be consecrated or which is consecratable on the altar, but its presence is unknown to the celebrant, by that very fact it is not consecrated, since the intention of the minister must in some sufficient way designate or include the material that is to be consecrated (pp. 68-69, emphasis in original).

Georgetown University alumni, students and others are preparing a canon law suit to be filed with the Archdiocese of Washington and the Vatican, seeking remedies “up to and including the possible removal or suspension of top-ranked Georgetown’s right to call itself Catholic or Jesuit in its fundraising and representations to applicants.”

The effort is being led by the distinguished Georgetown alumnus William Peter Blatty, who won an Academy Award for his screenplay and book The Exorcist and has been honored by Georgetown with its John Carroll Medal for alumni achievement.

Blatty is urging Georgetown alumni, students, parents, faculty and anyone associated with Georgetown to join the lawsuit at <www.gupetition.org>. The website includes an inspiring letter by Blatty and a description of Georgetown’s historical ties to the Jesuits, the Washington Archdiocese and the Vatican. (Source)

I like the letter from Mr. Blatty and especially like what he quotes from a Georgetown grad who wrote him.

Unfortunately, I found that Georgetown today lacks the integrity to consistently live the Catholic identity it claims. While faith and spirituality are embraced at Georgetown, they are respected only so long as they are either confined within the walls of Dahlgren Chapel, or diluted to appease the dictatorship of relativism which is sweeping our civilization. My Catholic manner of worship was always accepted, but my Catholic lifestyle and convictions were sometimes attacked by student organizations and staff members, themselves underpinned by tacit and even explicit university endorsement. Far beyond nuanced scrutiny or respectful debate, my convictions, especially those regarding the dignity of human life, were instead the subject of sweeping condemnation, even at university-sponsored events. My cultural identity was insulted; my intellectual autonomy and personal agency were denied in order to render my voice inconsequential. On those occasions I came to wonder why, at a Catholic institution, I was so ridiculed for my Catholicism. I sometimes felt betrayed by a campus culture which discouraged faithfulness, even while banners everywhere touted the ideal of “faith in action.”

Not an uncommon diagnosis of the state of Catholic eduction where Catholic identity is boasted of, but with the fruits predominately secular and often in a way that opposes the faith. Dr. Jeckle could not live the dual personalities of Dr. Jeckly and Mr. Hyde and Catholic institutions that try to do the same thing will also fail at it or have Mr. Hyde predominate.

There is also something cool about the author of The Exorcist as an alumni calling out the university. I can easily imagine a group of priests surrounding the President of the University and some of the faculty while chanting “The Power of Christ compels you!” Though considering the university there just might be a flood of pea soup involved.

How do you tell if a Catholic university is possessed? When suddenly it stops speaking in Latin.

Though the action of Georgetown and other Catholic educational institutions don’t require diabolic possession as an explanation. More like possession by the spirit of the age which seems even harder to drive out until it dies its own natural death. No doubt much prayer and fasting is required.

Bishop Jeff Miller

As a certified Catholic pundit that means I was ordained into the internet bishopric or the e-piscopacy. This means I get to second-guess priests, bishops, cardinals, etc. A flurry of keyboard presses and my anathemas are there for all the world to see. If only bishops would read my blog, take my advice ,and solve all their problems or at least the ones I deign to comment on. Want a comment on Canon 915? I am there for you, after all I read a blog post or two on the subject at one time and I got the Canons on my hard drive – somewhere. Want to know how to deal with wayward Catholic educational institutions? I got opinions galore and they include interdiction. Want to know how to deal with dissident Catholic politicians? Aren’t excommunications pastoral?

Plus I am not alone in my vocation to the e-piscopacy and I am quite annoyed that some other Armchair Bishops don’t always agree with me. Though due to collegiality I don’t always pronounce them as heretics. There seems to be a good amount of vocations to the Armchair Bishophood and in some cases the Armchair Papacy. But I am humble enough to only aspire to the e-piscopacy.

Now what is this blog post about? Well sometimes some people need their egos deflated and unfortunately sometimes that person is me.

I’ve been quite critical about the Archdiocese of Washington in regards to the handling of the Georgetown invitation to Sec. Sebelius. It is quite easy to critique somebody who has the care of souls when you don’t have the same responsibility for those souls. When your only sources of information pass through the media and you don’t know what is going on behind the scenes, it is quite amazing the conclusions you can come to based on such evidence.

I was thinking what really should be done in regards to Georgetown or whatever Catholic-Educational-Institution-Scandal-of-the-Week? Some would just have the Cardinal pull Georgetown’s designation as a Catholic institution. Kind of the nuclear-option in this regard. I can certainly see occasions when this should be done when there is pretty no hope of influencing the school. When they have so departed from Catholic teaching on the whole that they only serve to cause further scandal. I don’t see this as the situation in Georgetown myself and while they are quite maddening as so many schools are, there are still some very Catholic elements and instructors (who haven’t yet packed their bags). Though it kind of reminds me of the conversation between Abraham and God in regards to Sodom and Gomorrah. “Lord what if there is one instructor who still teaches the faith.” Kind of the “Go ahead and Brimstone Boston College, if it wasn’t for Peter Kreeft” argument.

Considering that the President of Georgetown seemed to do this quite deliberately (or at least my Armchair Bishop-senses tell me so), what could the Archdiocese do to get the invite canceled? Is this something that would really rise to the level of excommunication? Excommunication over an invite? Part of me yells “yes, yes, yes.” Of course with an understanding as excommunication used as a medicinal remedy as a call for repentance. In that light possibly. In the Culture of Death we certainly need to pick our fights, not sure if this is the one that should be picked.

Or how about Sec. Sebelius? While her bishop already told her that she should not receive Communion until she repents, isn’t it time to take the next step? I would certainly be inclined to think so since what she has done as in regards to Obamacare and the stripping of the Catholic conscience is quite serious. But on a technical point I do wonder about Catholic Politicians who maintain residence in both D.C. and their home state as to what bishop has jurisdiction? Or do both bishops have jurisdiction in this case. Though it is easier to ponder this than to realize I have jurisdiction in regards to prayer for her.

Maybe I just want the Cardinal to be vocal about this and what an outrage it really is. I don’t think the university is going to change its mind regardless of even such an outcry or the number of people that sign the petition against the invite. Notre Dame’s invite of President Oboma garnered repeated condemnations by their Bishop and a 300,000 plus petition signers. Catholic schools that do such nonsense seem to be immune to outside pressure or at least immune to pressure from faithful Catholics.

Mostly I think it is a case of us having to slowly take back our Catholic institutions and not just write them off. Though often another news story makes me want to type up another flurry of anathemas in frustration. Though like the parable of the barren fig tree, after years of producing no fruit it does come time to cut it down. Being an optimistic-pessimist I hope it is the case that as usual dissenters will die out and be replaced by people who don’t think a Catholic institution is just one that mentions it’s Catholic in its mission statement. That we can see a revival generally as what happened at the Franciscan University of Stuebenville. If note I will simply put my Armchair Bishop mitre back on.

During the past week there has been much in the national and local news regarding the controversial selection of the U.S. Secretary of Health and Human Services, Kathleen Sebelius, to be a featured speaker at an awards ceremony at Georgetown University’s Public Policy Institute. Yesterday, the President of the University, John J. DeGioia, issued a public statement in response to the concerns, objections and even outrage that have been expressed.

The Archdiocese of Washington reserved public comment to permit Georgetown University and its sponsor, the Society of Jesus, the opportunity to address the controversy. While the explanation of how this unfortunate decision was made is appreciated, it does not address the real issue for concern – the selection of a featured speaker whose actions as a public official present the most direct challenge to religious liberty in recent history and the apparent lack of unity with and disregard for the bishops and so many others across the nation who are committed to the defense of freedom of religion.

Contrary to what is indicated in the Georgetown University President’s statement, the fundamental issue with the HHS 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. This redefinition of religion penalizes Catholic organizations because they welcome and serve all people regardless of their faith. Ironically, because of Georgetown’s commitment to open its doors to Catholic and non-Catholic students alike, the university fails to qualify as a religious institution under the HHS mandate.

Given the dramatic impact this mandate will have on Georgetown and all Catholic institutions, it is understandable that Catholics across the country would find shocking the choice of Secretary Sebelius, the architect of the mandate, to receive such special recognition at a Catholic university. It is also understandable that Catholics would view this as a challenge to the bishops.

It is especially distressing to think that the university’s Public Policy Institute would be unaware of this national debate since the mandate was published last August. Such a radical redefining of ministry should prompt Georgetown, as a Catholic and Jesuit university, to do more to challenge the mandate and speak up for freedom of religion.

This is the statement released by the Archdiocese of Washington’s “Office of Media and Public Relations”. This is the usual method the Archdiocese employs when commenting on matters embracing the political sphere. Though in this case I think it would be much more effective that Cardinal Wuerl had issued the statement himself. Bishop Robert C. Morlino of Madison, Wis. had spoken up about this. Though no doubt even a statement from him would fall on the purposely deaf ears of the administration of Georgetown University.

The selection of Secretary Sebelius was intended as an eye-poke to the U.S. Bishops and they knew the response it would engender. I just wish Cardinal Wuerl would take a rubber hammer to the President of Georgetown University.

(Via Cardinal Newman Society), (Statement)