dotCommonweal

A blog by the magazine's editors and contributors

.

Xavier Will Keep the Contraception Benefit

Xavier University, which in April stated it employees health insurance would no longer cover contraception, has reversed its stance.

The policy change was announced in an interview with The Cincinnati Enquirer, although the decision was made earlier, said Kelly Leon, a university spokeswoman. In the interview, the Jesuit universitys president, the Rev. Michael J. Graham, said he faults himself for his handling of the situation. While he disagrees strongly with the mandate, he told the newspaper, he said he believes universities should set a moderate example for the nation.

Its good to see a Jesuit university setting a moderate example, even as its president reiterates his opposition to the mandate. Its also interesting to note that while some Catholic colleges had provided contraception coverage nominally because state law required it, Xavier had done so in a state that doesnt: Ohio.In his original statement rescinding coverage, Father Graham said, Absent a legal mandate, it is inconsistent for a Catholic institution to cover those drugs and procedures which the church opposes. The change was to have gone into effect on July 1, but after protests from the Xavier community the president agreed to keep the coverage until December. Now, apparently with the mandate provided by the Supreme Courts June upholding of the Affordable Care Act, Xaviers coverage will simply remain in place.

Comments

Commenting Guidelines

Interesting that such an important and conspicuous an action was decided by the president of the school, not the Board of Directors. Is Xavier expecting the bishop to come down hard and would find it easier to dispense with a particular president than have a full-fledged war between bishop and board? Ah, academic politics. Masters.

Startling that almost the entire Catholic world practices contraception that any Catholic should object to the mandate. We may triumphantly cite religious freedom but the truth is that religious freedom lies with those who willingly practice contraception against the tyranny of a mediocre hierarchy.

Good to see. Another crack in the party line. But how long before the hammer of fraternal correction descends? The heat will be on the Bishop of Cincinnati. (Meanwhile, Bishop Finn remains in place and Bishop Jenky and others make a hash of Catholic moral theology.)

What social issues stance will the hierarchy be forced to take in the future when the probable Obama win next week will set the USA social agenda for a long long time?... 2016 and beyond.. { demographics rule] meanwhile The GOP will have to either totally re-organize or plunge into an extremely small reactionary party. When you publicly back a political loser, especially one whose likabilty is minimal you lose big time and doors will remain closed sometimes for generations. The Bishops will be in the same boat as the Billy Graham family, George Bush, et al for a long long time. .

I hope Xavier has an alumnus as intrepid as Peter Blatty.

Here is the key paragraph:"Xaviers decision [to discontinue contraceptive coverage] -- which would have taken effect in the middle of the health insurance plan period, on July 1 -- provoked an outcry from faculty and staff, in part because the decision would apply to married couples, non-Catholics, and those who did not agree with church teachings on birth control, and because it was made without consulting employees. Faculty met with Father Graham to express their displeasure, Leon said Friday, and he agreed to postpone the change until December."I suspect this is the first of many Catholic institutions that will decide that it's easier to just go along to get along than take an unpopular stand.

Ed --That Romney is a Republican disaster has been proven by the governor of Pennsylvania's praising Obama to the skies one week before the election. The GOP is dead and Christie is smart enough to see it.

Its good to see a Jesuit university setting a moderate example, even as its president reiterates his opposition to the mandate.Perhaps this position is not so moderate, but actually attempting to radically redefine human reproduction

Ann, Yes i think Romney will lose. but Christie is 'Jersey' as an old New Yorker would say.US bishops have not been 'chased' by federal Justice Dept. on child abuse coverups however. the Penn State president and others now indicted is a example and warning about being not so un-touchable. bishops should beware.

Aspiring to be a moderate example. Yes, that's so reminiscent of St. Ignatius of Loyola, isn't it? One can almost feel him rolling over in his grave.

Glad to see that at least some Jesuits have not lost their intellectual rigor!The vast, vast majority of Catholic women [that includes "Catholic couples" as well] use some form of contraception. No one is listening to or bothers with what the hierarchs are saying. For a long time now, most Catholics have come to the conclusion that Catholic hierarchs are little more than reactionary, right-wing political ideologues with too much money to throw away on ill-fated political gambits.This is on top of the perception among Catholics and the public at large about the hierarchs that they are fundamentally anti-feminine and anti-science.DEFUND the hierarchy!

Jim Pauwels:You wrote, I suspect this is the first of many Catholic institutions that will decide that its easier to just go along to get along than take an unpopular stand.Do you feel sure that its as simple as that, and that thats all there is to it (the decision)?Unless you're privy to direct, inside information, I dont see how you can have that degree of certainty. And if you dont have it, is it right to speak as categorically as youve spoken here?

Hey Jim J ...our bishops are not the most reactionary. Huckabee's newest ad promises that your wrong vote will be recorded in ETERNITY and will result in the non -consuming FIRE. More desperation? Romney just gave a speech that if Obama prevails.'You will be told by your doctors' receptionist we are not accepting anymore Medicare patients' And Romney has held out his tax reporting till the very end.. So Let us hear from the Cons giving him shout out about how resolute he has been on the not disclosing his taxes.

Gene - what I know about Xavier's decision is what is reported in the article linked above. The quote from that article that I pasted in my previous comment about opposition to Catholic teaching from people in the university community, together with the college president's statement that setting an example of moderation is what drove this decision, are the basis for my comment.The college president's approach would seem to be an example of "personally opposed, but ..."

Yay for the Jesuits :) I believe there were a number of Catholic colleges, like Fordham, that paid for contraception in health care before the hierarchs raised a religious liberty question.

@ ed gleason:I still can't fathom how any so-called "conservative" could ever vote for a flimflam artist like Romney who won't show the public his tax returns.[You know, should Romney get to the White House, some how his tax returns will be made public. I don't think even Republicans will be able to abide a tax cheat in the Oval office.]I thought that Republicans were suppose to be the "fiscal responsible" ones in the political mix???

The bishops were decimated in 08. 2012 will be their waterloo. A fit demise for all Napoleans.

Bill, you're making me salivate for the episcopal waterloo! It can't come soon enough :-)

The college presidents approach would seem to be an example of personally opposed, but Jim Pauwels,Isn't "personally opposed, but . . . " a perfectly reasonable position on a great many issues? Why is it necessarily wrong on contraception? I think basically the Catholic approach to divorce and remarriage (i.e., adultery) is "personally opposed, but . . . " Do Catholic organizations refuse spousal benefits to the divorced and remarried? When is "personally opposed and . . . " the only acceptable approach?

The mediocre bishops have pulled off a huge stunt in getting Catholics to obsess once more about contraception, a sure marker of Catholic identity.

Crystal Watson: There are more than two dozen Jesuit colleges and universities in the United States. Xavier is only one. So I wouldn't cheer for the Jesuits until we learn what the other two dozen or so Jesuit colleges and universities are going to do. But it would be fine to cheer for Xavier.

David N - if a Catholic institution declines to uphold Catholic values, to carve out its own little corner of the universe where people are free to live as the Catholic Church believes that people should live, and to provide institutional support for those who wish to live holy lives, then in what sense is it a Catholic institution? Why would a student, or the parents of a student, spend tens of thousands of dollars to immerse oneself in that institution? Surely the same courses of study are available at many other colleges, a good many of which are less expensive and some of which probably are academically superior. It seems to me to border on the fraudulent for a Catholic university to tell the world it's a Catholic institution if it declines to be Catholic when it would be so easy to be Catholic.The contraceptive mandate is premised on a selfish and hedonistic philosophy that is diametrically opposed to the Catholic theology of marriage. We should all be dismayed that a Catholic university voluntarily chooses to align itself with the contraceptive mandate and all the sinful and destructive behavior it represents when the university has the legal option to not do so.Had Xavier said, "Even though there is a gap of only a few months before an unjust law compels us to violate our institutional conscience, we will abide by Catholic teaching for those few months because that is our right and duty as Catholic Christians in a free society" - had it said that, a very different and salutary message would be sent. In fact, such a message would be an instance of spreading the Good News. It would be evangelizing to a couple of segments of the world - academia, and young adults - that badly need to hear some Good News. Granted, I suppose that message would be somewhat less "moderate". For myself, I think sometimes it's okay to be a bit immoderate, if that is the price of speaking what is true and doing what is right.

JP - had the same reaction as Gene P. You are usually very balanced in commenting.Let's compare Xavier/president with a typical Diocese/bishop. The paragraph you quoted appears to highlight a number of very positive things:- fact: catholic universities have diverse staffs that are more than just catholic; universities are in the business of *faith seeking understanding* which requires asking questions, doing tough theological work in all disciplines, treating folks as educated adults, defending the right to religious liberty in a broad and non-judgmental way; exhibiting leadership by listening to your peers - faculty and administration; would make a case that faculty/admin have some leverage in Xavier's policy decisions- compare to typical diocese - little leadership listening to the folks in the pews; treating folks as less than educated adults; issuing condemnations rather than doing the work of exploring questions; interpreting religious liberty in a narrow, rigid institutional and denominational sense; ignoring folks in the pews because they have little to no leverageLook at the paragraph you quoted from - birth control has been accepted by >90% of all catholics. The bishops' pronouncements only decrease the little credibility they have. (your later attempt to connect to catholic theology of marriage? (you been drinking from JPII's Theology of the Body - not exactly recognized as either good theology, biology, or philosophy)Faculties believe that their highest goal is to do the work of raising questions - even in a catholic enviornment (think Newman). Your attempt to paint a catholic university as selfish/hedonistic and sinful/destructive behavior if they don't see the HHS Mandate as evil is sad. Fact - using catholic moral theology, Xavier realizes that the HHS Mandate (at worst) is remote material cooperation for those catholic faculty involved. OTOH - it recognizes that some faculty are not catholic; it recognizes that some catholic facuty are married and have the right to conscience to choose and decide - they may need prescriptions for health, medical, and even marriage reasons.\Is the duty of a catholic university to first uphold the institutional marching orders? Or is it to *evangelize* by asking questions, investigating, trusting folks to make their own decisions, giving folks both sides to a question, etc. rather than acting as the right arm of an institution?True - what is really true? HV, as we now know, has little to do with moral theology - it was not decided based upon the moral merits in questions - rather, it was a tool to protect papal authority. (and it has not been *received* which is another valid part of catholic theology)Religious liberty - much broader question than just the narrow defense of a catholic instituion. Don't catholic organizations have a social justice duty to protect the religious liberty of all? If catholic universities implement the HHS Mandate - do you really think folks will see this as weakening or lessening their *catholic identity*?Sorry, this whole HHS Mandate and folks such as Lori, Chaput, George, etc. remind me of the earlier dust up over FOCA. There is a much longer and valued tradition in catholicism than the recent episcopal (the sky is falling) manufactured howl of rage.

Bill deHass says it all for me . The silent bishops waited too long to establish a more nuanced position then the 'Henny/Penny' approach, so they now are in the same boat as the bishops Bill named. Will Catholic colleges survive by standing pat with these shout out bishops for two more presidential election cycles? Or will they all sink down like bible colleges by heeding the bishops request for banning/censoring e.g. the Catholic University of San Diego; becoming Catachism academies based on the world shaking notions as 'no on contraception and SS marriage'.

Mr. Pauwels, I had to do a double- (or was it a triple-) take on your references to "[t]he contraceptive mandate [being] premised on a selfish and hedonistic philosophy" and "all the sinful and destructive behavior it represents". Thank you for your response, Bill. As with Ed here, I think you speak for me, too --- and not a few other adult Catholics, as well! In fact, I think you better articulated a good response than I could have done. Thank you.The more our bishops open their collective mouths and engage in de facto partisan political activity on behalf of the GOP, the more they lose what darn little credibility --- moral or otherwise --- they might still have.I'm anxiously hoping these guys in their purples and reds will meet their Waterloo next Tuesday. Can't come soon enough.

Bill - if the college president had mounted an argument about remote material cooperation, that could be worthwhile to consider. But he didn't. Instead, we're told, in effect: 'Even though I personally oppose the HHS mandate, the employees really complained that they'd have to pay for their own contraception, so I caved.'If a Catholic university can't find the courage to proclaim the truth about Catholic marriage to the young adults in its care, then who will?

"I suspect this is the first of many Catholic institutions that will decide that its easier to just go along to get along than take an unpopular stand."Or maybe said institutions will realize that their initial decision was erroneous, irrespective of what the USCCB says?Jim P @ 9:56 am. I suspect that "Catholic values" are as much a matter of what the broad swath of Catholics hold and practice as much as what the corresondingly few members of the episcopy with the Eyes on The Promotional Prize decide they are.

Which is worse? Contraception, or excruciatingly large families (in researching my family history, families of 10+ children were far from the exception) that resulted in women being worn out long before their time and men (acting on any and all of their urges could be viewed as the ultimate in hedonism!) working themselves to death to attempt to feed and clothe their offspring? Was that what is meant by "Catholic values?" If so, maybe they need to be reined in.I don't care WHAT the church says about this. I have seen the results of the lack of contraception and, in the main, it ain't pretty!

"Is the duty of a catholic university to first uphold the institutional marching orders? Or is it to *evangelize* by asking questions, investigating, trusting folks to make their own decisions, giving folks both sides to a question, etc. rather than acting as the right arm of an institution?"Well, there are no "institutional marching orders" that I know of when it comes to the HHS mandate. Nobody has been ordered to toe the church line on this (afaik). Xavier, I believe, is independent of the bishops, and quite possibly even independent of the Society of Jesus, and is free to determine its own response to the HHS mandate.And it seems to me that a Catholic university is free to ask questions, investigate, consider both sides of questions, etc., whether its administration chooses to align itself with the Catholic Church on the HHS mandate or not. So is any other university, whether Catholic, secular or of some other origin and tradition. In other words, the decision of whether or not to comply with the mandate needn't have any bearing on its scholarly pursuits.You may be right that those academic pursuits are a form of evangelization (I think it depends on the nature and content of those pursuits, but let's agree that they are in at least some cases). But the duty to evangelize can't be compartmentalized. A Catholic institution should manifest its Catholic faith and identity in all of the aspects of its operation, or as many as it's able.

" I suspect that Catholic values are as much a matter of what the broad swath of Catholics hold and practice as much as what the corresondingly few members of the episcopy with the Eyes on The Promotional Prize decide they are."I don't agree. The bishops possess teaching authority on matters of faith and morals. The faithful may hold to the truths of the faith. I don't see that this position by Xavier is as faithful as it could be.The situation with regard to contraception - and pastorally, it is a dire situation - is that many Catholics are *un*faithful to what the church teaches - but, to be sure, faithful to the zeitgeist. The HHS mandate is an audacious attempt to normalize a sinful spirit of the times.

Jim.P 'HHS mandate is an audacious attempt to normalize a sinful spirit of the times'.this is a civic attempt.. which forces no one to use the benefit. I'm old enough to remember when the bishps caved on anti-divorce laws and anti contraception sales laws. They have long experience on how to cave. How about a Catholic University with divorced, gay, living together faculty and students, Catholics not attending Mass, resigned clerics, ROTC tell us how you and the bishops would sanction each of these behaviors. And would mommies and daddies still pay $40K a year tuition for you and the bishops to determine kids' consciences. ? Especially those families with 10 kids Jim McCrea mentions.

'A Catholic institution should manifest its Catholic faith and identity in all of the aspects of its operation, or as many as its able."Jim P. --I wholeheartedly agree with you that a Catholic school must present the teachings of the Church fairly. But the fact is that in some cases the teachings of the Church have varied, even being contradictory at times, and, depending on the current relevance of topic, those should also be presented as well.Yes, there are some teachers (especially some outside of theology and philosophy departments) who sometimes express contempt for Church teaching when they are not competent to judge just what those teachings are/have been. This is counter to the idea of what a professor is according to the American Association of Univ. Professors and Cardinal Newman as well. Teachers are not supposed to teach their own views as authoritative when they are not authorities. So I'm sure you would agree with me there too.However, it seems to me that our Church needs to consider what the function of universities are, and they should remember the medieval ones where it was *required that all sided* of a question be presented fairly. Rome seems to have forgotten about presenting its opponents' views. Pity.In other words, a tradiitonal Catholic college education will not leave its graduates with a nice little box filled with uncontested, never threatening answers to the questions which only the teachers have asked. That is not an education at all .

Jim P. --Why do you think that the current Church teaching on contraception is valid? Paul VI was going to disagree based on the report of his blue ribbon commision. But Woityla persuaded him to go against the report. Later JP II condemns contraception on the basis of his "theology of the body" which, so far as I can see, is in large measure original with him, and it is not that of prior popes and theologians. So, when the Vatican says "this is THE teaching of the Church", why are you so sure they're right? It has never been proclaimed ex cathedra, and JP II's notion of "definitive teachings" seems to have originated with him, not the traditional Church.Do you think that the popes and bishops can ever make big mistakes in matters of faith and morals?

Ann OlivierIt is not very surprising that matters of sexual morality have not been proclaimed ex cathedra. They are notoriously contentious issues with large practical consequences, and only the most or the least wise among us would venture to pronounce on them for all time. How different are the Immaculate Conception and the Assumption, dogmas that no counterevidence is ever likely to call into question, and that were happily and all but universally accepted beliefs long centuries before they were defined. Indeed, they might almost be said to have brought more glory to their proclaimers than honor to Mary, for when one has been singled out by Almighty God to be the Theotokos, the Mother of God, what honor can ever be lacking?But sex is different, as someone must have said. It may turn out that today's authoritative teaching on contraception, for example, will simply prove untenable, as other doctrines have. In that case it will be far easier to let it fall into oblivion, after a suitable period of silence, if it has not been declared irreformable truth forever.

"I wholeheartedly agree with you that a Catholic school must present the teachings of the Church fairly. But the fact is that in some cases the teachings of the Church have varied, even being contradictory at times, and, depending on the current relevance of topic, those should also be presented as well."Ann, you're right, of course, and in my view, presenting the contradictions and disputes as clearly and charitably as it can is part of the university's living out its Catholic mission.I'd also note, though, that the topic under discussion here, whether or not Xavier University should subsidize its employees' contraception even when the law doesn't mandate it, isn't a topic that touches on its academic mission. My opinion would be the same if it were a Catholic hospital or social service agency rather than a university that promulgated this policy. In this case, the Catholic employer happens to be a college.

If a Catholic institution of higher learning is going to teach all sides of an issue (as I believe should be the case), then it stands to reason that its academic, operational, and other decisions and behaviors should mirror the debates occurring in the classroom. The school, in other words, becomes itself a living laboratory of experience for faculty and student alike.

"Why do you think that the current Church teaching on contraception is valid? Paul VI was going to disagree based on the report of his blue ribbon commision. But Woityla persuaded him to go against the report. Later JP II condemns contraception on the basis of his theology of the body which, so far as I can see, is in large measure original with him, and it is not that of prior popes and theologians. So, when the Vatican says this is THE teaching of the Church, why are you so sure theyre right? It has never been proclaimed ex cathedra, and JP IIs notion of definitive teachings seems to have originated with him, not the traditional Church."My short answer is that something needn't be framed in an ex cathedra pronouncement to be true. Humanae Vitae was an exercise of the pope's teaching authority, and we Catholics are bound to accept it at the level of assent the nature of that document calls for.We may not like how the sausage is made, but at the end of the process, it's a sausage.I'd note, too, that the issue at hand isn't about whether or not Xavier employees are permitted to use contraception. I expect that quite a few of them do, and to my knowledge, nobody is looking to stop them. The question is whether or not Xavier as the employer should subsidize it.

"If a Catholic institution of higher learning is going to teach all sides of an issue (as I believe should be the case), then it stands to reason that its academic, operational, and other decisions and behaviors should mirror the debates occurring in the classroom."Why does that stand to reason? I don't see that it stands to reason at all. An employer either is going to subsidize contraception or it isn't, just as it's either going to pay women comparably to men or it isn't, and it's going to be an equal opportunity employer or it isn't, and it's going to provide dental insurance or it isn't.

"My short answer is that something neednt be framed in an ex cathedra pronouncement to be true."JIm P. --Yes, that's true. But my question wasn't "Is this teaching true?" It was "Why are you convinced that the pope et al knew what they're talking about when they asserted it?" My question is about your belief in their competence, not about the statement itself, although if you have evidence to corroborate it, then that might make you think that JP II is indeed the wise man in all this.JP II was obviously, ISTM, a strong and holy man, but how wise he was has been debated even within the Church.

Jim P if the mandate to cover contraception is a mandate to the insurance entity, the same as a mandate to cover mammograms, where is the Catholic entity 'subsidizing' except in some REMOTE way that everybody except you and the bishops won't acknowledge because you are ardently opposed to an Administration winning a compromise. .what political doors do you think the Cardinal can walk through in the coming four/eight years? The Benghazi cover up stupidity makes more sense than the hierarchy stance on this. . My advise is for you to not watch Tuesday's election reports.

Speaking of the election, Nate Silver now says that given the addition of Friday's polls to the rest of the polling data, Obama is a 83.7 favorite to win on Tuesday. (Obama won 19 of 22 polls and tied in 2. That left Romney winning one). But take heart, conservatives. it is still possible for Romney to win. Who knows what the storm has done. Given the blocked roads in many states and the lack of electricity in many polling places, and the changed sites of polling places, etc., etc., think of all the possible litigation over such stuff that could be filed -- as happened in Florida and gave us Dubya. We might not know who's president until Christmas.The contraception mandate pales in significance.

Ann, Even Carl Rowe woudn't say Romney could win NY And NJ even if all polls were closed.

Jim Pauwels @1:52:pmWe are all entitled to our own comparisons, certainly, but I'd be extra cautious with that sausage metaphor in this context, especially if I was arguing from your point of view.But in assessing the level of assent that Humanae Vitae calls for, are we permitted to consider all the relevant information and discussions and motivations that preceded its issuance? Or is it just ipse dixit?

JP - the one line you highlighted (if actually spoken by Xavier president) is specifically galling and agree with your statement on that. But, Xavier statement was much more than either the paragraph you originally provided or the one line.That being said - here is another catholic university on the issue of presenting issues that create an environment that supports student critical thinking, reasoning, etc. and the actual role of a catholic university: http://www.americamagazine.org/blog/entry.cfm?blog_id=2&entry_id=5468Money quote from the America magazine writer:"......Catholic schools have an obligation to explore these sensitive issues openly, honestly, and without fear. Many said that critical dialogue is not only an essential part of higher education, but of the Catholic faith that guides these schools. Bowing to pressure from dogmatic watchdog groups will not further our understanding, but create a climate of fear and resentment."You and I may disaagree on this but would suggest that the role of bishop as teacher does not mean acting as a *dogmatic watchdog*.

Bill, I'm not sure which line you refer to when you mention one line, but it's the thing I put in single quotes - that was me (uncharitably) summarizing what I took to be the gist of his argument. I just want to make sure folks understand that he didn't actually say that.

Bill - that situation with USD and the dis-invited theologian is an interesting topic, but it's not really a parallel to what Xavier is doing with regard to subsidizing contraception. The USD topic seems to be about academic freedom and the role of "watchdog" organizations like the Cardinal Newman Society to influence or intimidate Catholic colleges. The Xavier topic is about what employers subsidize for their employees.

"Jim P if the mandate to cover contraception is a mandate to the insurance entity, the same as a mandate to cover mammograms, where is the Catholic entity subsidizing except in some REMOTE way that everybody except you and the bishops wont acknowledge because you are ardently opposed to an Administration winning a compromise"Ed, Xavier isn't covered yet by the HHS mandate. Xavier is doing this voluntarily for some of period of time, until it does fall under the mandate. That's what galls me about this situation. Once the mandate does kick in for Xavier, you may be right that it will be remote material cooperation; and furthermore, its participation is compelled by the force of law, which surely will be an extenuating circumstance. You're not correct, though, in asserting that "everyone" agrees that it is remote material cooperation. Serious arguments have been linked to on dotCom that complying with the mandate would actually be direct, formal cooperation with evil. Whatever the merits of that view or the one apparently favored by a majority of dotCom contributors and commenters, it would be nice if institutions like Xavier were free to do their own moral analysis and shape their policies accordingly. The mandate takes that freedom away from them.

Many people are puzzled by the Catholic Church's teaching against contraception.But, in a lot of ways the teaching makes sense.For those who wish to learn more about the Church's teaching on contraception, an excellent commentary and further resource links can be found here:http://allhands-ondeck.blogspot.com/2012/02/why-catholic-church-opposes....

""Why are you convinced that the pope et al knew what theyre talking about when they asserted it?"For a number of reasons: because I find the popes generally to be credible in exercising their office of teaching on faith and morals; because this particular teaching seems pretty firmly rooted in the Catholic Christian tradition on questions of contraception, and I don't lightly set aside that wisdom tradition; because my own life experience has affirmed the wisdom of this particular teaching; and because I believe that the Holy Spirit is present in the church and helps her. FWIW, I also think that those who have subsequently claimed that Paul VI was "prophetic" are right.

"How about a Catholic University with divorced, gay, living together faculty and students, Catholics not attending Mass, resigned clerics, ROTC tell us how you and the bishops would sanction each of these behaviors"None of those things seems an apt parallel, because it's not clear that the university is voluntarily subsidizing these things (a number of which, like divorced, gay and ROTC don't seem problematic from a Catholic moral point of view in any case). Perhaps this would be a more direct analogy: suppose that a state that has legalized gay marriage made a law that anyone with a faculty from the state to officiate at a wedding, including clergy, must not discriminate against gays who wish to marry; and the state will revoke the faculties of any member of the clergy who declines to officiate a gay marriage (I trust that this is not a far-fetched hypothetical situation). Suppose further that a Catholic college like Xavier announced, a year before that requirement takes effect, "Effective immediately, we will allow our clergy to celebrate gay weddings in our university chapel, because universities should set a moderate example for the nation."

Pages