By JAMES K. FITZPATRICK
We continue this week with the discussion begun by our readers in last week’s edition of First Teachers. The discussion centers on whether Catholics with traditional views deserve to be charged with hypocrisy for opposing politically correct professors and administrators who prohibit conservative speakers and right-to-life representatives on campus, when we call for Catholic college administrators to not permit pro-abortion politicians such as President Obama and Joe Biden to speak on campus and call for an end to performances of The Vagina Monologues.
In other words, how do we answer the charge that our side opposes censorship by the politically correct academics of today only because they disagree with us, but that we are fine with it when we are in charge?
W.W. writes to encourage Catholics serious about their faith not to get into the weeds about whether we favor censorship or not. He argues that that debate is over. He correctly notes that the politically correct leftists, whether they admit it or not, now favor censorship, as their efforts to prohibit conservative and pro-life speakers on campus make clear.
W.W., who describes himself as a “husband, father, and grandfather” and “Jesuit-educated former Marine officer and retired businessman,” stresses it is not the process of censorship, but what is being censored, that is the key.
“Ideas have consequences,” he writes. “The Progressives believe our ideas are wrong and harmful, just as we believe the same of their ideas. If all thoughts and the actions were equivalently valid (for a good life and a good society), then it would be difficult to decide when a college should permit or not permit a speaker to appear on campus. But all ideas are not equivalent. Some lead to a better life and society and some detract from life and society, despite the stated intentions.
“Says who? If you believe in God, the natural law, and that the purpose of life is to arrive at eternal salvation, that is the only justification needed to support the idea that a speech by Pat Buchanan, for example, is good and useful for a university to sponsor, and that a performance of The Vagina Monologues is ultimately harmful.”
W.W. continues:
“It is not just conjecture that Progressive ideas are intended to change the individual and society. It is the stated goal of those ideas. When done correctly, our ideas enhance and support our higher ideals. When done correctly, Progressive ideas bring out the worst in us since their goal is a ‘perfect,’ earthly, secular human being who can never be. The result is always a crueler, baser human being, as depicted in George Orwell’s Animal Farm.”
W.W. points to the platform of the Frankfurt School in 1938 to transform society along secular leftist lines: “Their 11 actions to achieve the destruction of society are chilling because today they are accepted and seem ‘normal.’
“Creation of racism offenses;
“Continual change to create confusion;
“Teaching of sex and homosexuality to children;
“The undermining of schools and teachers’ authority;
“Huge immigration to destroy national identity;
“Promotion of excessive drinking;
“Emptying of churches;
“Unreliable legal system with a bias against victims of crime;
“Dependency on the state or state benefits;
“Control and dumbing down of media;
“Encouraging the breakdown of the family;
“Engaging in a debate over the appropriateness of censorship promotes the agenda of our adversaries.”
J.B. of New Jersey takes a different angle: She is not opposed to Catholic colleges giving a forum to ideas hostile to Christianity and our constitutional system, as long as it is done in a “civilized manner.” She writes, “As Catholics, we should encourage free speech, but more importantly, we should encourage a civilized debate. This should be a top priority in a Catholic university. We need to be challenged so that we may better defend what we believe. If we are never tested, we become soft. (Most Catholics can’t tell you why they believe what they do, and others don’t really believe in anything.)
“Catholic institutions should be encouraging free speech, but as the host, should also have something to say about the way that speech is delivered. They should be encouraging and instructing civilized dialogue to examine all sides of an issue with the explicit goal of arriving at the truth.
“One of the bigger problems we are facing today is that we have allowed the thug mentality to take over free speech on campus — the belief and practice that free speech is one-sided and can be accompanied by violence. A very stark example is the manner in which Black Lives Matter activists marched through the Princeton University library a few months ago, chanting during study hours. It was in your face. It was terribly disrespectful. There was no room for dialogue or debate about their cause without the implicit consequence of violence.
“As Catholics, we need to hold our ground. But we also need to be able to intelligently and peacefully defend it. There is a fine line between allowing differing points of view and endorsing those views. In my humble opinion, it is the duty of Catholic institutions to allow differing points of view, encourage civilized debate and discussion in order to arrive at truth. We should hold and defend the truth when we know it, and when we don’t know, admit it. Only then will we be able to convince intelligent young people to come over to the side of light.”
T.F.B. of Los Angeles is also convinced that Catholic academic institutions should be willing to give their students an accurate and full understanding of the ideas of those on the left who disagree with us.
He writes, “Regarding the dilemma you describe, for genuine Catholic institutions (which may no longer include Notre Dame or most Jesuit institutions), the teachings of Jesus as carried on to us by the official teaching of the Church should be the foremost influence. Since truth is the guide for all Catholic teaching, the search for truth in all its forms should be the primary goal.
“If that search for truth includes speakers who hold opinions hostile to Catholic teachings, so be it. But if those speakers differ with Catholic teaching, then their differing positions should subsequently be discussed and their errors explained by what hopefully is a competent and well informed faculty.” T.F.B. is confident that the Church’s teachings can carry the day in a debate with the enemies of the Church in a fair and honest debate.
The question, of course, is whether Catholic institutions sponsoring speakers who attack Catholic beliefs these days are also providing a defense of our beliefs, as T.F.B. puts it, “by competent and well-informed faculty.” He writes that he “fears that this seldom happens, and students’ faith is endangered.”
What if a speaker with atheistic views or a performance of a film sponsored by a campus LGBT group leads to students abandoning the Catholic faith or into immoral behavior? The notion of a “near occasion of sin” is as valid now as it ever was. Catholic colleges should not be in the business of setting up venues for them. One would hope that the administrators of our Catholic schools of higher education take this danger into account when they make their decisions.
+ + +
Readers are invited to submit comments and questions about this and other educational issues. The e-mail address for First Teachers is fitzpatrijames@sbcglobal.net, and the mailing address is P.O. Box 15, Wallingford, CT 06492.
Powered by WPtouch Mobile Suite for WordPress