Critical Letter by Catholics Cites Boehner on Policies

[rjmacs]

Grace62 wrote:
I'm referring to what goes on in college classrooms and not inside churches - there are some significant differences.

To clarify, Charlie Curran was fired for what he published and what he taught in the classroom at Catholic University. The U.S. courts later ruled that the university was within its rights to terminate him for questioning the Church's teachings.

[Grace62]

Catholic University operates differently than other Catholic schools in the US. It is not the most highly regarded, from an academic perspective, certainly not in the league of say Notre Dame or Georgetown.

[rjmacs]

Grace62 wrote:
Catholic University operates differently than other Catholic schools in the US. It is not the most highly regarded, from an academic perspective, certainly not in the league of say Notre Dame or Georgetown.

Do you think this is related to the topic at hand, namely that they censor faculty in the name of religious authority? Or is it something else? I'm trying to get at whether you think this is a causal relationship.

[Grace62]

Do you mean do I think it's a lower caliber school than other Catholic universities because they censor faculty? I think you could say that's one reason, yes. They are going to get less research money and limit the pool of faculty applicants just based on those restrictions to academic freedom, and that would pull them down.
I don't want to go too far down that slope, however, because part of the raison d'etre for CU is to be a training ground for ecclesiastics, and that is a unique mission.

[rjmacs]

Grace62 wrote:
Do you mean do I think it's a lower caliber school than other Catholic universities because they censor faculty? I think you could say that's one reason, yes. They are going to get less research money and limit the pool of faculty applicants just based on those restrictions to academic freedom, and that would pull them down.
I don't want to go too far down that slope, however, because part of the raison d'etre for CU is to be a training ground for ecclesiastics, and that is a unique mission.

Thanks! That's what i was looking for.

[August West]

Grace62 wrote:
Do you mean do I think it's a lower caliber school than other Catholic universities because they censor faculty? I think you could say that's one reason, yes. They are going to get less research money and limit the pool of faculty applicants just based on those restrictions to academic freedom, and that would pull them down.

I am very well acquainted with someone who works at Catholic, who was in fact working with Boehner yesterday, and I receive this feedback and more regularly. There is agreement amongst many that this is a causal relationship, but as Grace says, they believe they have a further mission to achieve than other universities.

[RgrF]

"The Ratzinger intervention and the bishops' statement did little, ultimately, to quell the hierarchical attacks on Kerry, which had a real impact on the race. As Democratic pollster Stanley Greenberg noted recently in a memo designed in-part as guidance to pro-choice Catholic politicians: \"Conflict with the bishops on abortion or on Communion is not particularly helpful.\

In the general election, Bush and Kerry essentially split the Catholic vote. But in heavily Catholic Ohio -- the state that decided the contest -- Bush carried 53 percent of the Catholic vote to Kerry's 46 percent.

The Ratzinger effect? Parochially speaking, there's no doubt about it wrote:

from Freep no less

How does this concerted attack launched during a US Presidential election not cross the line established for non-profit charitable institutions? I'm old enough to remember when the Church bent over backwards during the Kennedy election to assure the American public that there would be no such interference by Rome, sans that pledge Nixon wins.

Seems their word carries as much weight as that of a local ward alderman or other politician. All this and tax exempt too!

[rjmacs]

RgrF wrote:
How does this concerted attack launched during a US Presidential election not cross the line established for non-profit charitable institutions? I'm old enough to remember when the Church bent over backwards during the Kennedy election to assure the American public that there would be no such interference by Rome, sans that pledge Nixon wins.

Seems their word carries as much weight as that of a local ward alderman or other politician. All this and tax exempt too!

Letter of the law. Just like privately funded "issue ads," statements that don't mention particular candidates are generally unrestricted. You're allowed to be as political as you like from the pulpit, you just can't comment on specific candidates.

When the Church stayed out of the '60 election, it was to help Kennedy, and that was a political decision. It didn't have anything to do with election laws.

[Black Tea]

You would think that these Catholic professors would know about the principle of subsidiarity.

[RgrF]

None of this addresses the issue of Catholic Bishops threatening divine retribution (it's a sin) to members of their flock who choose to vote for candidates whom the Bishops clearly disapprove.

How arethose actions not crossing the line and electioneering, a clear violation of violation of tax codes and statue law?