Cardinal Keeler has boycotted Loyola's latest graduation because the speaker recognizes that while he is personally opposed to abortion, it is the law of the land and he discharged his duties accordingly. Who was the speaker? Rudolph Guilani. According to the article, The Archdiocese sent a letter notifying of the boycott along with a shot across the bow as a warning they may lose their designation as a Catholic college.

This distresses me greatly. One of the reasons I went to Loyola was because they were a Catholic school. This was, of course, not the first reason. Or even the second. Reason #1: they let me in. Reason #2: The women were stunning. Seriously. [/begin crochety old man voice] Why back in my day, we were known as "J. Crew U." [/end crochety old man voice] A badge we wore with pride and one that (sadly) disappeared shortly after I left and preppie was out. It was replaced by the "just fell out of bed" look which has probably changed thrice since then.

My views on things have changed so dramatically since my days at Loyola it's hard to believe I'd ever think the way I do now. Then I couldn't be bothered with all the rules and regs the college foisted on us. Why we weren't allowed to live in bacannalian bliss was a point of contention. We had fun trying to thwart the rules and usually succeeded (exceptions noted). Looking back, I realize we had too much latitude and far too little responsibility. It was nice to be coddled and behave like beer sodden children but it was also very risky. Truly binge drinking, driving while intoxicated, violence, irresponsible sex were all part of living at Loyola. I'm sure much of what went on is now so tame as to be considered "quaint". Recreational drug use was infrequent (though grew in frequency by senior year) and party drugs were almost non-existant. Loyola was then, a pretty conservative place. We drank hard but that was pretty much the line. I now hear that things have moved well past that.

It's hard for me to tell you now what makes Loyola decidedly Catholic. Surely there was an undercurrent but that was it. Most of the faculty are lay faculty. Even in Theology. That's right, "theology" not "religion". There were no intro courses in Catholicism or anything that would indicate we were attending a school of the One True Faith. No, the two semesters of required theology were survey courses akin to Western Civ. More like a history course with a dose of ethics.

We had two single sex dorms. Butler Hall and Hammerman House. Freshmen and Freshwomen respectively. We tried very hard to break curfew rules in Hammerman (or at least tried to get the women to break curfew in Butler). Sometimes we succeeded. Most of the time, we didn't. After freshman year, all the buildings are co-ed by room. Not even by floor. That went out before I arrived.

I thought I was living in a tyrannical dictatorship who's agents were killing my buzz and thwarting my attempts to bed as many females as possible. Now I realize that the administration was trying to hold back the tide. They inexorable drag toward Towson (State U that is). Towson was reputed for it's loose(r) women, utter lack of alcohol rules and the school we taunted most at lacrosse matches with "that's alright, that's ok, you'll be working for us someday" whenever they scored.

Now I see that all the things that I wanted are ultimately bad for both student and college. All the things I railed against were milquetoast versions of what they should be doing. You want to see a REAL Catholic school in action, look here, here or here or here. We're a bunch of pikers compared to that lot. I don't think a school needs to be overly rigid and parental as college is a time to try new things and a safe place to form opinions and ideas. However, Loyola has pushed the envelope too far in the other direction. To maintain their identity as a school they need to do more than just attract Catholic kids from Long Island, New Jersey and the Main Line.

The article states: "Keeler's decision to boycott the commencement first came to light in a news release from the Cardinal Newman Society, which has assigned itself the task of monitoring Catholic colleges to make sure they toe the hard line. In the same release, the society bragged about its success in bullying Catholic colleges around the country into disinviting commencement speakers who are supporters of abortion rights."

Alarmist language aside, I am troubled by Cardinal Keeler's decision. Guilani cannot be said to be a proponent of abortion. He tacitly admits it is his duty to discharge the laws of the state whether he likes them or not. I understand his position. I also understand the Cardinals. He believes that the option of abortion should be so abhorrent to a Catholic they would be willing to lose their job rather than allow it (either directly or indirectly). Both are defensible positions. I don't know which side of the line I'd fall on if it were me.

I think the Cardinal Newman society does some good work and there is indeed much to do but is this the man to start with? Where are their priorities? Look at Georgetown, look at Notre Dame! They're far further down the garden path than Loyola. It's not as if Rudy is an abortion provider or proponent. He's not known for his stand on abortion. He's known for being the man that carried New York on his shoulders like Atlas during the worst the city has ever seen. He was a pillar of strength when others had feet of clay. He is a hero to many and deserves more respect. The Cardinal has a point and a valid one but Rudy is not the man to beat with the scepter. Admonish him, even publicly for his tacit approval of abortions but do not push aside the rest at the same time. He deserves better, he's earned it.

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

So....the autism thing

For Gerard