Former NY Governor George Pataki is pro-choice on abortion. That is fact. Furthermore, Gov. Pataki is getting an honorary Fordham Doctorate this Saturday at Commencement.
The reasonable belief is that the Cardinal Newman Society has come out as pro-choice (or "pro-abortion") politicians speaking at Catholic schools. Even more so when they are getting honorary degrees. Yet, the CNS is silent on Gov. Pataki getting an honorary degree.
I myself, on my personal Twitter, have called out CNS about it. They have not yet responded in any fashion as of yet.
So President Obama (a Democrat) gets an honorary degree from Notre Dame and there is a huge uproar while Gov. Pataki (a Republican) gets an honorary degree from Fordham and there isn't even a press release about it?
I call on the Cardinal Newman Society to be consistent on their pro-life message and not play partisan politics on the issue of abortion (which it seems they are doing).
Showing posts with label Cardinal Newman Society. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Cardinal Newman Society. Show all posts
Tuesday, May 17, 2011
Wednesday, September 2, 2009
Yet Another 'Scandal?'
Oh boy! Here we go again with the Cardinal Newman Society. Their latest 'scandal' is how Georgetown University giving an honorary doctorate to the President of the AFL-CIO (whom is for gay marriage
What I am going to say is my interpretation and by no means am I speaking for any University.
When a school has a speaker come, it is not always an endorsement of the speaker. Go google "define: school" and you will see that the top hit is "an educational institution." Schools have speakers come to inform pupils on a subject or way of thinking. When schools give some honor to a speaker, again it may not be an endorsement, but more an endorsement of the role the person plays in society and/or the education of others.
A teacher would be failing if he or she never presented other ways to attack a problem or other schools of thought. Think of this math problem:
Was either solution better than the other? No, they were the same. The only difference was the approach made to finding the solution.
Has it ever occurred to groups like the Cardinal Newman Society that, perhaps, by taking a different education route, it will come to the same result? Perhaps, taking the "wrong" route will lead people who do not adhere to take a route that, when properly traversed, will get the person to the same place. You can look at a road map right now and see that there are more than one way to get from point A to point B; one may be a longer and more difficult route, but, the rewards are the same in the end.
Let me give you an example from my life: I, like most people, at one point, doubted God's existence. However, I had (and still have) an interest in the paranormal (which is spoken poorly upon in the Old Testament). During some free research, years ago, I found confirmed reports of demonic possessions by impartial parties. I realized that if there was an evil force, then there would have to be a good force because, unless there was some type of competition, the evil force would have no reason to posses others. That good force must be God.
Even if a person does not make it to the end of the path and nothing changes, there was no harm nor foul based upon the preliminary education.
Notice how I did not bring up how the Catholic Church happens to be vehemently pro-labor union nor the response from Georgetown?
What I am going to say is my interpretation and by no means am I speaking for any University.
When a school has a speaker come, it is not always an endorsement of the speaker. Go google "define: school" and you will see that the top hit is "an educational institution." Schools have speakers come to inform pupils on a subject or way of thinking. When schools give some honor to a speaker, again it may not be an endorsement, but more an endorsement of the role the person plays in society and/or the education of others.
A teacher would be failing if he or she never presented other ways to attack a problem or other schools of thought. Think of this math problem:
| 2x + 4 = 4 | |
| (2x)/2 + (4/2) = 4/2 | 2x + 4 - 4 = 4 - 4 |
| x + 2 = 2 | 2x = 0 |
| x + 2 - 2 = 2 - 2 | 2x = 0 / 2 |
| x = 0 | x = 0 |
Was either solution better than the other? No, they were the same. The only difference was the approach made to finding the solution.
Has it ever occurred to groups like the Cardinal Newman Society that, perhaps, by taking a different education route, it will come to the same result? Perhaps, taking the "wrong" route will lead people who do not adhere to take a route that, when properly traversed, will get the person to the same place. You can look at a road map right now and see that there are more than one way to get from point A to point B; one may be a longer and more difficult route, but, the rewards are the same in the end.
Let me give you an example from my life: I, like most people, at one point, doubted God's existence. However, I had (and still have) an interest in the paranormal (which is spoken poorly upon in the Old Testament). During some free research, years ago, I found confirmed reports of demonic possessions by impartial parties. I realized that if there was an evil force, then there would have to be a good force because, unless there was some type of competition, the evil force would have no reason to posses others. That good force must be God.
Even if a person does not make it to the end of the path and nothing changes, there was no harm nor foul based upon the preliminary education.
Notice how I did not bring up how the Catholic Church happens to be vehemently pro-labor union nor the response from Georgetown?
Tuesday, May 12, 2009
Catholics vs Obama
Oh, how this story seems to keep on playing endlessly. I just saw this video:
For those of you that have been living on a rock for the past two months, conservative Catholics are angry that President Obama is speaking at Notre Dame. Why? Because he is 'pro-abortion.' First off, NO ONE IS PRO-ABORTION! Being pro-choice means that the decision is not up to you, but up to the decider. Morality is a personal thing (anyone that has ever read Kant would know that); I have personal morals that some people may not follow (like, how I make it my duty to always wish friends 'Happy Birthday' -something that not everyone can agree with or could follow). That duty can only be a moral if everyone can follow it. Well, on the issue of abortion, to begin this argument, only women can choose that.
Second off, these people that oppose Obama speaking never seemed to have a problem with conservative speakers that are -if you weigh it- more opposed to Catholic Social Teaching. (I am working on a more extensive blog post on that very topic, which is forthcoming.) The argument is that since Obama is pro-choice he is opposed to fundamental Catholic beliefs. Maybe one, but other issues are just as heavily weighted. Health care, environment, anti-war labor, death penalty, and poverty -all of these are necessary to be consistently pro-life. So, Obama who is wrong on one issue suddenly has more moral baggage than Newt Gingrich (whom spoke at Fordham University last month) whom is wrong on all of the other ones? Why is one life suddenly more precious than another? All of those issues are necessary to sustain life, why does one trump them all? A friend of mine once said "conservatives care about babies up until the point they are born." I will not go so far as to say that, but when I look at the hypocrisy of all of this, I cannot help but feel that he is right.
The radical liberal would say that President Bush is just as wrong as Obama on the life issue because of the War in Iraq. I do not know what to make of that (to make a poor pun, such a weighing is 'above my paygrade'). I doubt that if President Bush spoke at a Catholic University, the Cardinal Newman Society would make it an issue (they certainly did not for Newt).
I will be honest, at face value, I am not consistent on my views on Catholic Social Teaching, but I look at the issues on a more philosophical level that makes the issue more complex -but that explanation is for another time (I blame my Jesuit education).
For those of you that have been living on a rock for the past two months, conservative Catholics are angry that President Obama is speaking at Notre Dame. Why? Because he is 'pro-abortion.' First off, NO ONE IS PRO-ABORTION! Being pro-choice means that the decision is not up to you, but up to the decider. Morality is a personal thing (anyone that has ever read Kant would know that); I have personal morals that some people may not follow (like, how I make it my duty to always wish friends 'Happy Birthday' -something that not everyone can agree with or could follow). That duty can only be a moral if everyone can follow it. Well, on the issue of abortion, to begin this argument, only women can choose that.
Second off, these people that oppose Obama speaking never seemed to have a problem with conservative speakers that are -if you weigh it- more opposed to Catholic Social Teaching. (I am working on a more extensive blog post on that very topic, which is forthcoming.) The argument is that since Obama is pro-choice he is opposed to fundamental Catholic beliefs. Maybe one, but other issues are just as heavily weighted. Health care, environment, anti-war labor, death penalty, and poverty -all of these are necessary to be consistently pro-life. So, Obama who is wrong on one issue suddenly has more moral baggage than Newt Gingrich (whom spoke at Fordham University last month) whom is wrong on all of the other ones? Why is one life suddenly more precious than another? All of those issues are necessary to sustain life, why does one trump them all? A friend of mine once said "conservatives care about babies up until the point they are born." I will not go so far as to say that, but when I look at the hypocrisy of all of this, I cannot help but feel that he is right.
The radical liberal would say that President Bush is just as wrong as Obama on the life issue because of the War in Iraq. I do not know what to make of that (to make a poor pun, such a weighing is 'above my paygrade'). I doubt that if President Bush spoke at a Catholic University, the Cardinal Newman Society would make it an issue (they certainly did not for Newt).
I will be honest, at face value, I am not consistent on my views on Catholic Social Teaching, but I look at the issues on a more philosophical level that makes the issue more complex -but that explanation is for another time (I blame my Jesuit education).
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
