Archbishop of Washington Cardinal Donald Wuerl recently approved the canon law petition against Georgetown University requesting that the Church revoke the school’s right to call itself Catholic if it doesn’t comply with the Vatican’s requirements for Catholic colleges. The petition now makes its way to the Vatican, which will ultimately decide the case.
Author of the petition, William Peter Blatty (COL ’50), has been a vocal critic of University policy in the past few years –namely, of inviting pro-choice speakers and hosting pro-LGBTQ events such as Lavender graduation.Blatty accuses Georgetown of failing to comply with Ex Corde Ecclesiae, a 1990 apostolic constitution that outlines the Church’s requirements for Catholic colleges. The document requires that “the number of non-Catholic teachers should not be allowed to constitute a majority within the Institution, which is and must remain Catholic,” an absurd provision for a school such as ours.
This petition is far from the ideological revival its author envisions. In fact, it serves as a perfect example of the close-minded misinterpretation of Catholicism that breeds intolerance in our society. Pope Francis himself has stated that he wants to steer the Church’s focus away from the divisive social issues that constitute the bulk of Blatty’s grievances. Last September he told America magazine, a weekly Jesuit publication, that the Church “cannot insist only on issues related to abortion, gay marriage, and the use of contraceptive methods.”
This attitude is a marked change from Francis’ past position on Ex Corde Ecclesiae. In 2012, as the consequence of an adversarial relationship between local bishops and the Vatican, he backed then-Pope Benedict XVI’s decision to revoke the University of Peru’s designation as a Catholic university. Although the circumstances of the University of Peru differ from those of Georgetown, the Church’s decision in this case serves as a reminder of how much work remains to promote inclusivity in Catholic institutions.
Blatty claims that his attack on Georgetown was motivated by “love” for the University. However, this “love” threatens to strip the University of the identity that has guided Georgetown since its founding and continues to thrive today. Offering a wide range of theology courses and promoting LGBTQ equality makes Georgetown no less Catholic. Instead, it fosters a free exchange of ideas that should be the hallmark of a University whose mission is to educate the whole person
The assertion of Blatty’s legal council that Georgetown is now “prisoner to intolerant new orthodoxies” could not be further from the truth. The only intolerant orthodoxies at Georgetown are those Blatty himself is perpetuating with his misguided petition. We should be proud of our “radical autonomy” and continue promoting diversity and inclusivity as the foundational principles of Catholic education.
You wrote council. You meant counsel.
Perhaps The Voice is stationed a bit too close to the headquarters of The Washington Post, inasmuch this editorial seem equally comfortable with misquotations and twisting the facts.
For instance, there’s this, averring that Pope Francis said, “We cannot insist only on issues related to abortion, gay marriage, and the use of contraceptive methods, when in fact he stated that we should not be speaking of these matters “all the time.” Secondly, contrary to the editorial’s brazenly false claim, the ground of the Georgetown petition is a mirror reflection of the issue raised against the Pontifical University of Peru, in particular the extremely low percentage of Catholics teaching theology. I have no doubt that the editorial is well-meaning but it errs in stating that LGBTQ issues are a priority of the Petition, when such are not even named among what the Petition is complaining about, namely Georgetown’s non-adherence to the principles of Ex corde Ecclesiae, not a single one of which has to do with homosexuality.
Be well, but in future please do your research more carefully. The power of the press is
mighty, thus one is obliged in conscience to tread very carefully concerning the facts.
It is important to note that the Archdiocese of Washington in NO WAY indicated approval of this petition. There is NO official statement that suggests this. This editorial should be notified to reflect that. Silence does not imply consent here. This editorial as it stands is incorrect.
What the Cardinal actualy did was an even grater rebuke. Asked directly whether or not he could confirm that Georgetown was in keepig with Ex corde Ecclesiae, he declined to answer, and subsequently helpfully suggested to the Petitioners which Congregations in the Vatican the Petition should be sent to, On this score it is not the editorial that is incorrect but you.
Is there an official statement from the Archdiocese? Has the Cardinal spoken publicly on this? Where is the submission itself and why has this not been made public? What a farcical witch hunt.
Or, dear journalists, simply make a call to Cardinal Wuerl’s office to check the accuracy of Blatty’s press release.
What you’ll find is not that Wuerl “recently approved the canon law petition against Georgetown University,” but instead that someone from his staff told these wahoos, kindly, “This office has no comment on your kooky ‘petition’, so please try somewhere else, such as Rome.” But when faced with such failure, the Blatty spin machine tried to dissemble and parlay that failure into tacit approval and even more whorish media attention. Big Difference.
Next, pick up the phone again and call a Church expert or two. As any true Canon Law specialist can tell you, this “Petition” is a legal and religious non-starter, regardless of its contents. It is a make-believe kind of “lawsuit” whose motivating fuel is ego and grudge and attention.
Christ, of course, takes all kinds, so ultimately we, too, must forgive Blatty and Miranda for their sins.
To paraphrase the Gospel of Matthew, “Go ye, therefore, and make thyselves journalists for all nations, and not just disciples of the campus press release.”
Wow, Gerry, you are one angry dude.
I think the Voice editorial problem is that they ran their mouths off before dedicating effort to a hard news piece. But they may be more right than wrong in suggesting “approval.” Here is the Blatty press release: http://www.gupetition.org/. It says “guidance” and “green light.” Not “approval.” But here is the Archdiocese’s statement:
http://www.ncregister.com/daily-news/william-peter-blatty-submits-petition-to-halt-georgetowns-drift-from-the-ch/ The Archbishop could have denied the Blatty petition. It doesn’t look like he did. But he was asked to confirm GU’s Catholicness as an option. It looks like he opted against that too. And he also seems to have opted not to deny the words in Blatty’s release. So…what we know is that Blatty’s petition was approved to go forward to Rome, rather than denied.
Perhaps an editor took a course in Logic. Now if they could only spell.
Here is a statement from the Archdiocese. I suspect the Petition has not been made public ….yet. This seems to be operating in Church time, not our time.
http://www.ncregister.com/daily-news/william-peter-blatty-submits-petition-to-halt-georgetowns-drift-from-the-ch/
Quibbling over semantics.
Georgetown University will thrive no matter (example: the records of colonial slave-pwnership). Any decent post secondary school should thrive in Wash DC. The resources that are a short bus, walk or bike trip away are incredible.
However, I understand Blatty’s concern … and it is the prerogative of the Catholic Church given the University’s history and alumni linkages….Catholic Ivy League. I have to admire the Catholic Church’s stance (not the content but the act) … so many other “religions” have been quick to bend with the PC winds or issue ambivalent, unclear policy. I recall “eating meat on Friday is a mortal sin”. I was very young when the Vatican did an about-face on that but old enough to know this revision did not reflect infallability as claimed by the Church …downhill from there. Trust in God, not in Man.