In view of Pope Benedict’s meeting, yesterday, with the leaders of American Catholic universities and colleges, the time has come for Georgetown to choose its future course: reversion to Catholicism as Notre Dame appears to be doing or continued secularization until it becomes a non-sectarian, private college.

Secularization of Catholic universities, particularly those that have taken positions that are anathema to the teachings of the Church, such as on abortion or embryonic stem cell research, under Ex Corde Ecclesiae may be declared to be no longer Catholic.

Such action has resulted in the declaration that Marymount Manhattan College, Marist College, Nazareth College and Saint John Fisher College are no longer Catholic institutions.

Similar to these institutions, Georgetown has had a fairly recent history of taking egregiously anti-Catholic positions. The article "How Catholic is Georgetown University?" by Patrick J. Reilly, which can be read at http://www.catholicculture.org/library/view.cfm?recnum=7274 documents many of these repugnant actions by Georgetown faculty and students.

Unfortunately, it appears that Georgetown has already decided to continue to separate itself from the Church. To demonstrate how deeply Georgetown has dedicated itself to such secularization, one need only examine the present Faculty Handbook Section III.C.3, "Religious Tolerance", as compared to the presently proposed revisions to this section of the handbook. The current handbook states:

"Members of the faculty have an obligation to recognize that Georgetown University is a Jesuit university committed therefore to Catholic principles and religious values. While this places no obligation on faculty members with regard to their personal beliefs or religious practices, it does require a respect, in their capacity as faculty members, for the basic religious commitment of Georgetown University."

In March 2008, the faculty senate proposed modifying these rules to instead state:

Members of the faculty have a responsibility to recognize and respect that Georgetown University is a Jesuit university committed therefore to Catholic principles and religious values. This places no obligation on faculty members with regard to their personal beliefs or religious practices OR THEIR TEACHINGS OR RESEARCH. Members of the faculty also have a responsibility to respect the rights of members of the Georgetown community to hold different religious views.

Thus, it is proposed that the faculty, in teaching or research, are no longer required to act with respect for the religious commitment of Georgetown University to Catholicism but may attack or undermine Catholicism in the classroom and conduct research that is abhorrent to the Church as long as they theoretically acknowledge the rights of others to hold a diversity of beliefs pertaining to religion (e.g., Catholic, Lutheran, Methodist, Jewish, Shiite, Wahhabi, Buddhist, Wicca, animist, atheist, etc.).

As an alumnus of this nation's oldest Catholic university (perhaps now the oldest formerly-Catholic university) and as a practicing Catholic, I cannot accept, or continue to financially support, this ongoing secularization of Georgetown.

A quick response to Scott McNeil's comments above:

The best part about being a Georgetown alum is going into the world with the same kind of confidence my alma mater has for itself. Georgetown is - and always will be - a Catholic institution. What separates our school, however, from the "league of ordinary Catholic institutions" is that it has embraced its origins which are - very humbly - human. Our school looks to the devine while very much residing in the world in which we live. It does not teach us what to think, rather it teaches us how to be great thinkers. The struggle between God and man that is allowed to go on within Healey Gates serves to ready us for the stuggle that lies in the world beyond. That's not Georgetown's weakness - it's the school's greatest strength. I'm a Catholic, a Hoya, and at times all too human. For all of us that spent our college days on the hilltop, we leave prepared to engage the lives that lay before us. The sign of a great Catholic university is a university that gives its sons and daughters command over one of God's great gifts - their mind.

" It does not teach us what to think, rather it teaches us how to be great thinkers. "

Well, it appears they did teach you what to think when it taught you that you can be "great thinkers" without being taught what to think.

It kinda reminds me of that argument against the absolute statement "there are no absolutes".

Unbelievable.
Barb

Barb-

Maybe a better example: the flock of a truly great shepard follows out of their own will. Without trying to sound like a Bible thumper, this is the choice God gave us, is it not? Of course there are absolute truths, Barb. Those who can understand them for themselves might even understand why they are absolute better than those who haven't given them any thought at all. Faith is the acceptance of something even if there are unanswered questions, but is it wrong to have questions? I dont know- it seems to me that Georgetown is confident enough in its beliefs that its not fearful of the realities of the world standing in the way of truths that it holds to be absolute.

I appreciate respectful banter, Barb

Mr. McNeil obviously sees himself as very smart and very Catholic. Smarter and more Catholic than Cardinal McCarrick and Archbishop Wuerl, who, as archbishops of Washington, have been and remain supportive of, grateful to, encouraging of Georgetown. Sure there are sometimes disagreements or questions about specific policies or events, but the underlying tone and substance of the relationship between these capable men, whom John Paul II and Benedict XVI entrusted with the care and management of the Church in Washington, have been and remains thoroughly warm, positive and fraternal. I wonder if Mr. McNeil judges these prelates to be foolish or deluded or incompetent or timid....or just not as smart and Catholic as he is.

OOOPS, the beginning of that second sentence should read:

"Sure there are sometimes disagreements or questions about specific policies or events, but the underlying tone and substance of the relationship between GEORGETOWN and these capable men..."

Sorry about that. I trust that the point is clear: If things were as bad as the reactionaries claim, Washington's archbishops would not speak to and about the University as they do.

But what happens to the sheep who refuse to follow the shepherd? Is the shepherd to remain silent and let them go their own way to fall prey to their own folly?

It is not wrong to ask questions about the faith if the intent is to further one's understanding of it. It is wrong to question the truths of the faith because we don't like the answers the Church gives us.

The doctrines of the Church are absolutes. They can never be changed by anyone. Since the Church is not a man-made religion like all others, She is protected from losing those doctrines by the Holy Ghost. Faith means that we accept those truths because God has revealed them and they remain inviolate forever. Faith is the assent of our wills to the Will of God.

Modern Academia insists that it is "close-minded" to give this assent of our wills to the Will of God. It begins by asking the question the devil put to Eve in the garden, "Why is it forbidden?..." It plants doubt as to the veracity of God's words.

I am grateful to God for my "close-mindedness". Best to close the doors and windows of the soul so that the smoke of satan be given no admittance. I am glad to know that someday (I pray soon) we will be permitted to open those doors and windows again when Our Lord is once more acknowledged as Lord and Savior by the whole world. Until then, they remain bolted shut as the Cenacle was right after Our Blessed Lord's crucifixion.

Our minds are indeed a great gift from God. But like all His gifts, he shall make a strict accounting of how we used it in this life. We must never abuse the gifts God has graciously given us by using them to "struggle" against Him.

Barb

Yeah you're right Barb... "The doctrines of the Church are absolutes. They can never be changed by anyone. "

What about Vatican I and II. No doctrine was changed then? Does the Catholic Church still sell indulgences?

Maybe instead of criticizing Georgetown for becoming too secular, we should be critical of the Church for again failing to live in the modern world. Am I the only person who believes that losing Georgetown, the oldest and most noteworthy Jesuit and Catholic institution in the country, would be a blow to the Church and not just to the University?

Georgetown should secularize since Catholicism, excepting the explicit mandate for social justice, is holding this university back. The less attention that professors, administrators and students pay to an outmoded, hierarchical, patriarchal and out-of-touch religious body, the better. Undoubtedly this will bring charges of "anti-Catholicism"; rightly so: it is a decidedly "anti-Catholic" viewpoint in the sense that it disagrees with Catholicism as a body of thought enshrined in a specific organization, but I see no reason to proceed through the standard liberal genuflections and pieties of meaningless multiculturalism for the sake of multiculturalism on this point. Georgetown's Catholicism means less social justice (a secondary, auxiliary concern) and more compliance with a medievalesque social conservatism. Even the most justified minor deviations from this are decried as horrible violations of doctrine; whether or not they are, it would be better to not even have to pay heed to such non-sensical blather.

You are correct. If Georgetown University prizes the false secular notion of "liberty" far more than faithfulness to the truths of the faith, then it would be for the best if it formally renounced it's ties to the Catholic Church, the faithful who started it and those who maintained it.

There are now many new truly catholic colleges being created and the faithful are beginning to gravitate toward them and away from institutions like GU. If a ship is sinking, it is for the best if the folks within transfer to a different but sea-worthier vessel and leave the rats to sink.

Barb

I'm glad that we agree, Barb, that Georgetown should sever ties with the Catholic Church. I submit that the university should prioritize liberty over misguided faith any day (assuming, as you do, that the two are in conflict). If renouncing an out-of-touch hierarchy is part of that set of priorities, then so be it. I only take issue the application of your analogy, but, were parts of it to be reversed, I could hardly agree more. I'm not sure what your affiliation with our university is but if the Georgetown heading down the path of liberty requires that people like you transfer your allegiances to different institutions, I would be the first to toast you at a going-away party.

Hmmmmm said: "What about Vatican I and II. No doctrine was changed then? Does the Catholic Church still sell indulgences?

Maybe instead of criticizing Georgetown for becoming too secular, we should be critical of the Church for again failing to live in the modern world. "

First, no doctrine was changed at either Vatican Council. Catholic doctrine IS unchangeable, as a previous poster stated. Changing rules of form, rubrics, disciplines, etc, CAN be changed. The manner in which the Mass is said is a matter of rubrics. It can be changed. Priests getting married is a matter of discipline. It can be changed. The doctrine which teaches willful abortion is murder is unchangeable.

This is another example of common ignorance, saying things like the above, "What about Vatican I and II. No doctrine was changed then?"

As to indulgences, the Church never "sold" indulgences. Again, as in the priest sex scandals, it was rogue priests, bent on self enrivvhment who propogated this scandal.

And, really, the priest sex scandals were actually brought on by so called "progressives" and liberals in the Church. After Vatican II liberal seminaries became overrun by those who felt accepting homosexuals into the seminaries was just dandy, even though forbidden by Rome. And they flooded in. (Ever hear of the Lavendar Mafia?" And now, decades later, we see the fruit of this liberal folly. (No pun intended.) Less than 8% of the victims of the priest abuse scandals were females. And the vast majority of the victims were adolescent/pubescent boys. This is not true pedophilia, but rather ephebophilia. The priest scandal was not a pedophilia scandal really, but rather homosexual rape by homosexual priests. But the media was not allowed to call it that; that would have been considered politically incorrect.

Let Georgetown secularize, it is a cancer, unworthy of the title "Catholic University"

Absolutely! A blight on society! Unlike the medieval Catholic Church with its head in the sand on almost all issues. Blame the gays and liberals! It's always gay folks, isn't it? Just reading these posts makes me realize how urgent the secularization of the university is... If for no other reason than to keep doctrinaire hardliners like Rebecca and Barb far, far away. We need not answer to people like them any longer. That they continue to have influence in our society, however slight, is a travesty. That their influence is accentuated at Georgetown is nothing short of a plague of folly.

A blight indeed! Let Catholic universities return to the Faith, and let the instructors be faithful Catholics. And if one disagrees with Catholic doctrine, THEN DON"T ATTEND A CATHOLIC UNIVERSITY!!!!!!! Very simple solution. Why is it so hard for supposedly educated people to understand?

As to "everything" being gay's and liberal's fault, I kind of doubt that. But no mistaking the priest abuse scandal; THAT was almost exclusively homosexual priests preying on altar boys. And these same homosexual priests were granted entrance into the seminary by liberal "progressives". Credit where credit is due....

I attended a university not worth the title "Catholic university" precisely because of its inadequacy in this regard. Were it to be a sufficiently Catholic university on your terms, I doubt many people would attend it, and it would surely lose its standing as an elite educational institution. It would become an irrelevant historical relic, just as the Church is now becoming. I suppose you would prefer this in the face of "liberalizing," but I'd be happy to defend the values that would be gained against the mythical inanities presented here. If want a place where people exclusively agree with Catholic doctrine, go to a seminary - not a university. Your dogmatic foolishness has no place in an institution of higher learning. You yourself said Georgetown should secularize in an earlier post; I'm merely agreeing from a different angle. As someone who views the impact of the Catholic Church as not merely neutral but negative, I have no problem advocating the secularization of a university. To quote an older saying...

"Humanity will not be happy until the last aristocrat is hung with the guts of the last priest."

I made a comment on 'Faithful Alum's' rather presumptuous (and snide) remark "Mr. McNeil obviously sees himself as very smart and very Catholic. Smarter and more Catholic than Cardinal McCarrick and Archbishop Wuerl"

Something along the lines of 'why would you assume that a superior position within the Church heriarchy implies someone is more intelligent or more Catholic - I think the scandals of the last few years have shown many people within the Church to be among the LEAST 'Catholic' among us. Furthermore, I see no reason to believe that the possession of a title (e.g. 'Archbishop') carries with it a seal of intellectual approval. Indeed, my expectation would be that many hoyas, present and past, are, in fact, more 'Catholic' and more 'intelligent' than these two individuals. How myopic to assume this to be not so.'

Anyway, this comment was deleted. It wasn't spam. It wasn't off topic. It wasn't abusive. It didn't use foul language, promote hate, or bias. It did take up another individual's comment for being wrongheaded. It did reference the failings of the Catholic Church. It did suggest that many Catholics have a misguided belief that having a title, a staff, or a robe implies a superior intellect or superior grasp of Church tradition, law, history, etc.

So ... what's up Hoya? Are we vetting comments based on who we agree with now? Are we playing favorites? Randomly clicking the delete button? Does Faithful Alum have a friend at the paper?

Pretty lame. Let's see if this one stays up.
Btw, I stand by my comment. I'm pretty disgusted by the myopic mindset of some of the apologists here. Defend your position. But don't become sychophants to it.

I guess my question to the authors of some of the comments above is this:

Why must Georgetown exist in a binary state?

For centuries people have struggled with the paradox of the teachings of the divine and the realities of this world (and this certainly isn't exclusive to Catholicism). The fact that Georgetown embraces this paradox head on is nothing new - the school was in fact founded by Jesuits who took their religion seriously but also took the issues of the day with that same degree of seriousness.

On one end of the spectrum there is dogmatic, fundamental Catholicism. On the other end there is the strictly human happenings of our corporal world. I don't think I'm going out on a limb when I say that most Catholics live somewhere near the middle. I've gotta believe that most of us have been faced with the issue of the Church teaching us one thing, but our heart and mind telling us the other. To give an example - without trying to go to the granularity of specific issues - I have a number of people that I would consider friends who are homosexual. While the church teaches me that the homosexual aspect of their existance is abhorrent, I often find that through some of their good works and the grace in which they take on the world they live in makes me see God's love for us through them. I might not agree with one aspect of their lives, but I have a real problem with Catholicism if it means they are to be condemned to hell.

Georgetown is a Catholic school that understands and embraces the daily paradoxes I believe most Catholics face. Would it not be doing a grave diservice to its students if it turned a blind eye to the realities of the world into which it is sending them?

What makes Georgetown the MOST relavant Catholic institution is that it takes the realities the modern Catholic faces head on. To either move to the far end of the Catholic spectrum or secularize completely would be a cop out. Georgetown has the guts to take the proverbial elephant and place him in the center of the room.

My point remains. If Georgetown is the scandalous, religiously corrupt, un-Catholic force for harm that Mr. McNeil sees, then how does he account for the fact that Theodore McCarrick and Donald Wuerl, two men whose public lives, not their titles, demonstrate that they are intelligent, capable, wise, prayerful Church leaders, do not share his view? What lack in them does he see that accounts for their support of Georgetown? I do not mean to be snide, I really would like to understand how he pieces this all together.

First of all, did anyone check that the Pope may have gone to CU because of the basilica? Did anyone ever think that so much of the university's insistence on tolerance may be because the Jesuits were thrown out of Europe and disbanded....in fact some argue John Carroll may not technically have been a Jesuit at the time GU was founded! Also, look into the origins of the state of Mary-land - (where technically, GU sat prior to the founding of the District) - Catholic English settlers found it because they weren't welcome in England, nor in colonies like Massachusetts. Yet, they let Jews settle there to show that one should practice the very discrimination that they themselves had encountered.

If you know in your heart of hearts that you are a "Catholic" by whatever your definition is, why feel so threatened? But do use the Jesuit method of examining your actions three times a day, and see how life giving you are - vs. how judgmental you are. What's that line about not praying loudly at the Temple..... Remember, the priest and the Levite who walked by the injured man were following the letter of the law of their religion, but Jesus told the story of the Samaritan to illustrate: THEY MISSED THE POINT!

Live your life following AMDG and a lot of things may appear quite clearer.

"My point remains. If Georgetown is the scandalous, religiously corrupt, un-Catholic force for harm that Mr. McNeil sees, then how does he account for the fact that Theodore McCarrick and Donald Wuerl, two men whose public lives, not their titles, demonstrate that they are intelligent, capable, wise, prayerful Church leaders, do not share his view? What lack in them does he see that accounts for their support of Georgetown? I do not mean to be snide, I really would like to understand how he pieces this all together."

Intelligent people can disagree? And, sometimes, as between groups of intelligent people, one will be correct and the other incorrect I don't think anyone would call Einstein a fool for resisting the efforts of mid-century quantum physicists. Nevertheless, he was incorrect.

Intelligence does not mean 'infallible' or omniscent. So, your point is a nice one as far as it goes 'look, here's two intelligent people that disagree with the author.' But it's hardly a resounding piece of argumentation. At best, it's slightly persuasive.

I agree entirely. Of course intelligent people can disagree, even intelligent people who are all committed Catholics...even on religious and theological matters....and still remian intelligent and committed Catholics. I have always believed that.

What's puzzling is that people who argue along Mr. McNeil's line almost always take the tack that intelligent people can disagree, but not with the Magisterium of the Church. There they draw the line in the sand: on their side, "orthodox" Catholics, on the other misguided or erroneous souls whose disagreement with Church authorities makes them at best bad Catholics, at worst not Catholics at all.

I really would like to understand how someone who self identifies as an "orthodox Catholic" can simultaneously argue that disagreement with Church authority is a sign of something less than orthodoxy while at the same time taking a strong public stand in contradiction of Church authority -- especially on something as significant as whether the nation's oldest Catholic university merits the adjective "Catholic."

Well, I guess the first thing I would like to say is that my reply to this discussion will not be as eloquent as all of yours. It appears to me that most of you are either alums or current students of GU. I am planning on attending this coming fall and have not yet had the benefit of a GU education.

Secondly, I would like to point out a minor...technicality. I realized that many of the more zealous Catholics - and even the people in support of secularization - failed to make a distinction between homosexuals and pedophiles (or ephebophilia, if you prefer). The truth is that yes most of the scandals involved young boys, but the condemnation of ALL homosexuals as a result of the actions of a select group of sick individuals is unfair. Are all men condemned to be evil rapists due to the fact that some men truly are rapists? Do all women become raging monsters during "that" time of the month? (I couldn't think of a stereotypical criminal action committed by women. So, perhaps women are better in moral terms than men?)

Lastly, from my perspective (which may not be as educated, intellectual, or as sophisticated as others), the Church has always been changing. Since the time of Jesus, the Church has undergone periods of great turmoil. As a result, the doctrines (I'm not being picky as to word choice) have been affected, I believe, for the better. Perhaps the Church is reaching another critical point in its long life after which we will see a changed Faith. Georgetown may be the bellwether for such a time. Inevitably, the Church will make a decision after which some will be pleased and others will be angry. This has always happened, and, as a result, we are surrounded with many different branches of Catholicism. I don't doubt that it will happen again. I can already see such a dichotomy in this forum. It is not for us to make this decision, but it is for us to react accordingly, I think.

All of your comments and criticism are welcome.

Some of thoughts from Pope Benedict regarding the roots of the sexual abuse crisis (the second paragraph is most relevant to the current discussion):

"It is a great suffering for the church in the United States, for the church in general, and for me personally that this could happen. If I read the histories of these victims, it’s difficult for me to understand how it was possible that priests betrayed in this way their mission to give healing and to give the love of God to these children. We are deeply ashamed, and we will do all that is possible that this cannot happen in the future.
I think we have to act on three levels.

The first is the level of justice, the juridical level. We now have also norms to react in a just way. I would not speak in this moment about homosexuality, but pedophilia, [which] is another thing. We will absolutely exclude pedophiles from the sacred ministry, this is absolutely incompatible. And who is really guilty of being a pedophile cannot be a priest. So the first level is, as we can do justice and help clearly the victims, because they are deeply touched. So [there are] two sides of justice, on the one hand that pedophiles cannot be priests; on the other hand, to help in all the possible ways to the victims.

The second level is the pastoral level, the level of healing and help of assistance and of reconciliation. This is a big pastoral engagement, and I know that the bishops and the priests and all the Catholic people in the United States will do all possible to help assist and to heal, and to help that in the future these things cannot happen.

The third point [is that] we have made a visitation in the seminaries to also do what is possible in the education of seminarians for a deep, spiritual, human and intellectual formation –with discernment so that only sound persons can be admitted to the priesthood, only persons with a deep personal love for Christ and a deep sacramental love, to exclude that this can happen [again]. I know that the bishops and the rectors of seminarians will do all that is possible so that we have a strong discernment, because it’s more important to have good priests than to have many priests. This is also our third level, and we hope that we can do, and we have done, and we will do in the future, all that is possible to heal this wound."

I'm a current student that was skeptical about coming to Georgetown, precisely BECAUSE of its Catholic nature. However, since coming here, I have realized that the Jesuit identity of the university is a wonderful thing, because of the emphasis placed on service and social justice. I somehow doubt a secular university would have had quite the same emphasis.
If certain alumni feel that by allowing a free exchange of ideas and freedom of expression, respecting the rights of the students whose sexual orientation the Church does not agree with, and generally fostering a more accepting and welcoming environment, Georgetown is losing it Catholic nature, then so be it. If they wish to dissociate from the university, that should not be a problem for anyone -- we "liberals" could be the ones to contribute to the university in the future. If they don't wish to send their children here, very well then, their children are simply losing out on a wonderful education.

Have you considered the possibility that some of us might have chosen to attend Georgetown for its great academics and location and not its Catholic identity specifically?
No, I doubt the thought even crossed your mind.
If Notre Dame were located in DC and had an international relations program as strong as Georgetown's, but was otherwise the same school it is now, I would not have attended. I have, over my time here, come to realize that I really appreciate some aspects of Georgetown's Jesuit and Catholic identity, but I would certainly transfer out if the vision of Georgetown certain people I have interacted with (mostly middle-class, white, staunchly conservative Catholics) hold were to actualize.