Likely no issue is more controversial among the chattering class than when university leadership ought to exercise what I call “the Catholic veto.”
“The Catholic veto” is when senior administration decides an event, speaker, student group etc. is so offensive to Marquette’s character as a Catholic Jesuit institution that he, she, they or it should not be allowed on campus.
For instance, two years ago the Office of Student Development (OSD) denied an application for a student chapter of the Human Rights Campaign, a gay marriage advocacy group. However, OSD did permit a Gay-Straight Alliance student group on campus, despite a 1992 statement from Cardinal Pio Laghi, then prefect of the Vatican Congregation for Catholic Education, explicitly opposing the creation of such groups.
This brings us to the present question of whether or not University President the Rev. Robert Wild, S.J., should have exercised “the Catholic veto” on the Les Aspin Center for Government, which honored U.S. Rep. John Lewis, D-Ga., with its prestigious Democracy Award at a luncheon last week.
Opponents of the award recipient cite Rep. Lewis’ 100 percent pro-abortion voting record in the House and outspoken advocacy for gay marriage. One must ask how the award can be reconciled with the following excerpt from the U.S. Bishops’ instruction: “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 (emphasis in original).”
Others counter that the Les Aspin Center (and the Catholic Church more broadly) must be bipartisan in who it honors to maintain credibility and relevance. Strict rules for suitability obstruct dialogue, they argue. It should be no surprise that I adopt the former position and not the latter.
Dialogue and awards are two separate things, and two different standards ought to apply. Conversations like the October 2005 event with area Catholic leaders and Wisconsin elected officials are entirely appropriate— praiseworthy in fact. But prestigious university awards are different from academic lectures and dialogue sessions. Moreover, such awards can maintain a bipartisan nature by honoring moderate Democrats like former U.S. Rep. Jerry Kleczka or pro-life Democrats like Ambassador Tony Hall.
Looking forward, there is no doubt that deciding when to use “the Catholic veto” will often spark disagreements. Everyone involved in the debate says they are committed to dialogue. But no one seems to acknowledge that true dialogue requires both parties be consulted before decisions are made.
Right now, conservative and orthodox voices are forced to be critical and negative because we learn of the decisions after they have already been made and the invitations have been extended. A better model would be for university leadership to seek out respected, thoughtful members of the Marquette community who are known to be politically conservative and theologically orthodox and engage them in conversation about these issues. Otherwise, the status quo of confrontation will continue as both sides seek to faithfully express their deeply-held convictions.
Popularity: 3% [?]
