Gov. Howard Dean, M.D., will speak on the implications of the 2004 presidential election, an event sponsored by the Student Activities Fund and the College Democrats. Dean will speak at 7:30 p.m., at the Mundelein Center Auditorium, Lake Shore Campus; a reception will follow in McCormick Lounge, Coffey Hall. Admission is free with Loyola ID; $5 for the public. [Source]
Aren’t you glad that when the Bishops met together in June that they put an end to this problem. After all they backed down on mandating the denial of Communion, but they did say in Catholics in Political Life:
The Catholic community and Catholic institutions should not honor those who act in defiance of our fundamental moral principles. They should not be given awards, honors or platforms which would suggest support for their actions
And should not was emphasized in the original statement. Of course none of this really matters. Ex Corde Ecclesia required mandatums for theologians at Catholic colleges. This still has not come to pass in the majority of Catholic institutions. So if theologians are not required to accurately teach the Catholic faith why should we be surprised that they also allow a politician who interned with Planned Parenthood speak on their premises?
3 comments
Ah, Howie Dean, the screaming mimi carpetbagger, will grace the halls of that great Catholic Jesuit institution, Loyola U. Huh? What did I say? Great Catholic Jesuit institution?! ROFL! Silly me, using Catholic and Jesuit in the same sentence is an oxymoron for 98% of Jesuits. Any institution that allows Howie Dean on their premisis may be a college, it may be a university, but it ain’t Catholic. Christendom College in VA would never permit such a thing. But then, they still teach Catholicism and have theologians at Christendom.
I figure that Loyola will soon have Kerry and Edwards visit, the former to show how “catholic” they are, and the latter for the shucky-darn Amway upline shuck and jive good looks and Colgate smile to offset the French Lurch.
Catholic and Jesuit in the same sentence is an oxymoron for 98% of Jesuits
Unless, of course, there is a “not” somewhere in there.
Maybe the USCCB should have used “shall not” rather than “should not” – but then that would not have given any wiggle room.
I think you’re right, cmatt.
If “shall not” had been used the “feelings” of the “sensitive” and “creative” people would have been “hurt.” Can’t have that, now can we? We must be “nice” at all cost.