pertinax
Century (over 100 posts)
Posts: 131
|
Post by pertinax on Jul 3, 2013 17:44:00 GMT -5
Right around that time. I'm sure we must have had some of the same teachers. You mentioned LC. McHugh. There were also Fr. Joe Durkin, Tibor Kerekes, Bernard Wagner, Fr. Joe Cohalan, Fr. Dick Law, Fr. Dan Power. Ringing any bells?
|
|
pertinax
Century (over 100 posts)
Posts: 131
|
Post by pertinax on Jul 3, 2013 17:45:00 GMT -5
Dean of Discipline was Fr. Emory Ross.
|
|
EasyEd
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Posts: 7,272
|
Post by EasyEd on Jul 3, 2013 18:25:35 GMT -5
Can I have your e-mail address? PM me. Ed
|
|
pertinax
Century (over 100 posts)
Posts: 131
|
Post by pertinax on Jul 3, 2013 20:23:15 GMT -5
DeGioia meets with Vatican officials yearly; it's great that he was able to have such a 'close encounter' with Pope Francis. Just some random points that I've heard at dinner or from students who've met with Blatty. 1) I do not know all of the canonical issues, but I've been told, repeatedly, that the lawsuit has no chance of going anywhere. Maybe something's changed, maybe I was told in error. 2) Blatty regularly accuses Georgetown of not being in compliance with Ex Corde's requirement of the mandatum, something that, by demand of the local ordinary, he can't know one way or another. The "mandatum" is the requirement that theologians apply for a mandate to teach from the local ordinary. Cardinal McCarrick met with the Theology Department at the time and told them that we were to keep our status private, between the ordinary and the theologian, and that if anyone asked, we were to say, "My ordinary asks that I not reveal that to anyone." Cardinal Wuerl has not overturned that policy. Also: Cardinal McCarrick interpreted Ex Corde so as to require only that when Catholic theologians say "X" is the Catholic Church's teaching, that "X" actually be what the Church teaches. So, a Catholic theologian in good standing could have students read an article on why artificial birth control should be allowed, but he or she cannot claim that such allowance is the official Church teaching (which I take as a matter of professional integrity; it's a no-brainer: you can't mislead students on what the official Church's position is, or that of any other religious institution). I asked McCarrick specifically this question: "So I can write an article against Humanae Vitae [which I have no plans on doing, by the way], and tell students why the encyclical was wrong, and I would still be in keeping with the mandatum?" His answer, "Yes. I wouldn't like it, but you wouldn't be violating the mandatum as long as you were also clear that your position was contrary to the Church's position." 3) 1,200 signatures was a disappointment for Blatty (there are 130,000 alumni, and this wasn't limited to alums). They've been collecting them for a year. Recall the Notre Dame petition against Obama's invitation to that school had 300,000 plus. 4) The university has worked hard to mend fences with the local ordinary after the Sibelius controversy, including creating, supporting, and giving a high profile to this event: Catholic Perspectives on Religious LibertyGeorgetown Symposium on Religious LibertyAnd, by the way, the speakers cover an ideological spectrum. 5) Blatty has argued that the invitation of Sibelius violates Church law (Fr. Schall and others have argued the same). The law in question is actually a 2004 policy set by the US bishops (and approved by Rome), which states that Catholic institutions should not "honor" Catholic politicians 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." While I don't think it was a good or appropriate invitation, I don't think it violated Church law. The key is whether the invitation to speak at the ceremony itself constituted an "honor," "award," or platform. She didn't speak out in favor of artificial birth control, so you can't argue that she was given a platform. In a way, ANY invitation to speak at an institution is an honor, but usually Church law is not interpreted so expansively (on the contrary: it's a fundamental principle of Canon Law that laws which impose a penalty or restrict a right are to be interpreted strictly, i.e., narrowly, see canon 18). When Cardinal Dolan invited President Obama to the Al Smith dinner, he used arguments similar to those used by DeGioia in defending the Sibelius invitation: Cardinal Dolan's Blog on Obama's Invitation
6) Here's the US Catholic bit (bite) on the lawsuit: US Catholic on Blatty Lawsuit
"Blatty has argued that the invitation of Sibelius violates Church law." He has never argued any such thing, and that is not only a false but appallingly dim-witted observation. Let's have the citation where he said it. A Herculean task at the least, since he never said any such thing.
|
|
CWS
Bulldog (over 250 posts)
Posts: 272
|
Post by CWS on Jul 3, 2013 23:03:56 GMT -5
DeGioia meets with Vatican officials yearly; it's great that he was able to have such a 'close encounter' with Pope Francis. Just some random points that I've heard at dinner or from students who've met with Blatty. 1) I do not know all of the canonical issues, but I've been told, repeatedly, that the lawsuit has no chance of going anywhere. Maybe something's changed, maybe I was told in error. 2) Blatty regularly accuses Georgetown of not being in compliance with Ex Corde's requirement of the mandatum, something that, by demand of the local ordinary, he can't know one way or another. The "mandatum" is the requirement that theologians apply for a mandate to teach from the local ordinary. Cardinal McCarrick met with the Theology Department at the time and told them that we were to keep our status private, between the ordinary and the theologian, and that if anyone asked, we were to say, "My ordinary asks that I not reveal that to anyone." Cardinal Wuerl has not overturned that policy. Also: Cardinal McCarrick interpreted Ex Corde so as to require only that when Catholic theologians say "X" is the Catholic Church's teaching, that "X" actually be what the Church teaches. So, a Catholic theologian in good standing could have students read an article on why artificial birth control should be allowed, but he or she cannot claim that such allowance is the official Church teaching (which I take as a matter of professional integrity; it's a no-brainer: you can't mislead students on what the official Church's position is, or that of any other religious institution). I asked McCarrick specifically this question: "So I can write an article against Humanae Vitae [which I have no plans on doing, by the way], and tell students why the encyclical was wrong, and I would still be in keeping with the mandatum?" His answer, "Yes. I wouldn't like it, but you wouldn't be violating the mandatum as long as you were also clear that your position was contrary to the Church's position." 3) 1,200 signatures was a disappointment for Blatty (there are 130,000 alumni, and this wasn't limited to alums). They've been collecting them for a year. Recall the Notre Dame petition against Obama's invitation to that school had 300,000 plus. 4) The university has worked hard to mend fences with the local ordinary after the Sibelius controversy, including creating, supporting, and giving a high profile to this event: Catholic Perspectives on Religious LibertyGeorgetown Symposium on Religious LibertyAnd, by the way, the speakers cover an ideological spectrum. 5) Blatty has argued that the invitation of Sibelius violates Church law (Fr. Schall and others have argued the same). The law in question is actually a 2004 policy set by the US bishops (and approved by Rome), which states that Catholic institutions should not "honor" Catholic politicians 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." While I don't think it was a good or appropriate invitation, I don't think it violated Church law. The key is whether the invitation to speak at the ceremony itself constituted an "honor," "award," or platform. She didn't speak out in favor of artificial birth control, so you can't argue that she was given a platform. In a way, ANY invitation to speak at an institution is an honor, but usually Church law is not interpreted so expansively (on the contrary: it's a fundamental principle of Canon Law that laws which impose a penalty or restrict a right are to be interpreted strictly, i.e., narrowly, see canon 18). When Cardinal Dolan invited President Obama to the Al Smith dinner, he used arguments similar to those used by DeGioia in defending the Sibelius invitation: Cardinal Dolan's Blog on Obama's Invitation
6) Here's the US Catholic bit (bite) on the lawsuit: US Catholic on Blatty Lawsuit
"Blatty has argued that the invitation of Sibelius violates Church law." He has never argued any such thing, and that is not only a false but appallingly dim-witted observation. Let's have the citation where he said it. A Herculean task at the least, since he never said any such thing. Blatty to sue Georgetown after Sibelius Visit
"[Blatty] says the Jesuit-founded university in Washington ... has refused to comply with orders by the late Pope John Paul II for church-affiliated colleges and universities." I've tried to engage in respectful disagreement. Language of "dim-witted" is inappropriate. I'll take it as a sign that this conversation has run its course.
|
|
DanMcQ
Moderator
Posts: 30,460
|
Post by DanMcQ on Jul 4, 2013 8:55:25 GMT -5
Taking my cue from CWS' last post, please be mindful of respect for other posters. Since several of you are the same age as my father, I'd ask you to act your age and be respectful to other posters regardless of your disagreement with their views. If you cannot control that, I as moderator will be more than happy to edit your posts for you. As is clearly stated in the board posting rules, name calling directed against other board participants has no place here and will not be tolerated. In that vein, pejorative terms like "old white guys" are similarly unwelcome and subject to editing.
|
|
pertinax
Century (over 100 posts)
Posts: 131
|
Post by pertinax on Jul 4, 2013 9:19:51 GMT -5
A true Catholic education would have left you no doubt as to who are the gatekeepers: "Thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church and the gates of hell will not stand up against it." There is this thingee, you see, about the Holy Spirit guarding the church from error, about infallibility in matters of faith and morals (only, mind you), and these successors to Christ called popes and some weird thing called "the Magisterium."
|
|
pertinax
Century (over 100 posts)
Posts: 131
|
Post by pertinax on Jul 4, 2013 9:21:12 GMT -5
Apologies all around.
|
|
pertinax
Century (over 100 posts)
Posts: 131
|
Post by pertinax on Jul 5, 2013 8:30:54 GMT -5
I have two questions -- not arguments, questions -- for anyone willing to give me their answer. The first is, "What is the intended lesson of The Vagina Monologues," while the second question is, "Do you think it would be appropriate to stage a play on a Catholic campus entitled The Edited Monologues?"
|
|
|
Post by HoyaSinceBirth on Jul 5, 2013 9:15:48 GMT -5
I have two questions -- not arguments, questions -- for anyone willing to give me their answer. The first is, "What is the intended lesson of The Vagina Monologues," while the second question is, "Do you think it would be appropriate to stage a play on a Catholic campus entitled The Edited Monologues?"It's art. Why does it have to have a lesson? And I see no reason why they couldn't stage a play entitled the Edited monologues. I do not think we should censor free speech and artistic expression.
|
|
pertinax
Century (over 100 posts)
Posts: 131
|
Post by pertinax on Jul 5, 2013 9:32:53 GMT -5
Thanks for your reply. Do I interpret your answer correctly that there is indeed no moral lesson in it?
|
|
|
Post by HoyaSinceBirth on Jul 5, 2013 10:28:29 GMT -5
Thanks for your reply. Do I interpret your answer correctly that there is indeed no moral lesson in it? I've never seen the play, so I have no clue, but I don't think it should have to have one in order to be performed.
|
|
pertinax
Century (over 100 posts)
Posts: 131
|
Post by pertinax on Jul 5, 2013 10:30:49 GMT -5
Thanks again.
|
|
SSHoya
Blue & Gray (over 10,000 posts)
"Forget it Jake, it's Chinatown."
Posts: 18,204
|
Post by SSHoya on Jul 5, 2013 10:44:38 GMT -5
Pertinax, I am curious about your questions because I grew up hearing about the Index in the 1960s from my aunt who was Catholic (I am not). Are you advocating a return to the Index or are is this an entirely separate conversation from whether Georgetown as a Catholic/Jesuit institution should allow certain plays to be performed, or for that matter movies to be shown? en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Index_Librorum_Prohibitorum
|
|
pertinax
Century (over 100 posts)
Posts: 131
|
Post by pertinax on Jul 5, 2013 10:48:17 GMT -5
In the present instance, I not advocating anything, just seeking opinions. As to the Index, I'm uncertain as to what you're referring to. Something like the oldtime Breen office that censored movies, perhaps?
|
|
SSHoya
Blue & Gray (over 10,000 posts)
"Forget it Jake, it's Chinatown."
Posts: 18,204
|
Post by SSHoya on Jul 5, 2013 11:00:04 GMT -5
In the present instance, I not advocating anything, just seeking opinions. As to the Index, I'm uncertain as to what you're referring to. Something like the oldtime Breen office that censored movies, perhaps? From wikipedia: The Index Librorum Prohibitorum (English: List of Prohibited Books) was a list of publications prohibited by the Catholic Church. A first version (the Pauline Index) was promulgated by Pope Paul IV in 1559, and a revised and somewhat relaxed form (the Tridentine Index) was authorized at the Council of Trent. The promulgation of the Index marked the "turning-point in the freedom of enquiry" in the Catholic world.[1] A complete list of the authors and writings present in the subsequent editions of the index are listed in J. Martinez de Bujanda, Index Librorum Prohibitorum, 1600-1966, Geneva, 2002. Also there is a list of the books which were on the Index of Forbidden Books, on the "beaconforfreedom" website. [2] The final (20th) edition appeared in 1948, and it was formally abolished on 14 June 1966 by Pope Paul VI.[3][4][5] The avowed aim of the list was to protect the faith and morals of the faithful by preventing the reading of immoral books or works containing theological errors. Books thought to contain such errors included some scientific works by leading astronomers such as Johannes Kepler's Epitome astronomiae Copernicianae, which was on the Index from 1621 to 1835, and leading philosophers like Immanuel Kant's Critique of Pure Reason. The various editions of the Index also contained the rules of the Church relating to the reading, selling and pre-emptive censorship of books, including translations of the Bible into the "common tongues".[6]
|
|
pertinax
Century (over 100 posts)
Posts: 131
|
Post by pertinax on Jul 5, 2013 11:21:46 GMT -5
Thanks for enlightening me, and, no, I would not advocate a return to the Index. However, we were speaking of plays, one in particular. Do you find it to be just "art," as hoyaseincebirth opinined, or do you find some redeeming moral lesson in it?
|
|
SSHoya
Blue & Gray (over 10,000 posts)
"Forget it Jake, it's Chinatown."
Posts: 18,204
|
Post by SSHoya on Jul 5, 2013 12:00:49 GMT -5
That play is simply not my "cup of tea", so to speak. Like HSB, I have never seen it. That being said, you raise a larger philsophical point -- does art necessarily have to have a redeeming moral lesson? In my view "art", however one chooses to define it, may be used to provoke, outrage, stun, and do all sorts of things that may not necessarily have a redeeming moral lesson attached to it. BTW, the Index was later expanded to include films, plays, etc. Again, I believe one's view of the Index and whether Georgetown Univeristy should allow/sponsor/advocate any particular speaker, book, film, or play is a different question. Example, the rock musical "Hair" (absent the nudity) was a Mask & Bauble production when I was an undergraduate. Some may have found it objectionable because of the nudity, treatment of sexuality, and the irreverence for the American flag.
|
|
pertinax
Century (over 100 posts)
Posts: 131
|
Post by pertinax on Jul 5, 2013 12:17:33 GMT -5
I think we are coming together. First, no, art never has to have a moral lesson. But if I may expression my own personal opinion, when the play's content is vulgar -- e.g., when the monologue titles are such as "Reclaiming Edited" perhaps I'm old-fashioned, or even unconsciously rueing that "I was born 50 years too soon," but even if the play were an artistic triumph do you really think that, with all the world of truly classic plays available for performance, that this trash that survives because it both titillates and shocks, is the one to keep running for a coed campus of a Catholic school? There's perhaps another reason not to do so, and I say "perhaps" because I'm not completely certain of its validity; but I suspect that repeatedly staging such a play contributes to an atmosphere of "Hey, so what's wrong with good sex? Let's talk about it and then have it." As I said, not sure of that, although I do think it's likely true.
Ah! The moderator has unwittingly just given evidence that my argument is correct. Where I had cited the title of one of the monologues, the moderator, as you see above, has censored the "c" word!
|
|
DanMcQ
Moderator
Posts: 30,460
|
Post by DanMcQ on Jul 5, 2013 12:36:57 GMT -5
Ah! The moderator has unwittingly just given evidence that my argument is correct. Where I had cited the title of one of the monologues, the moderator, you see above, has censored the "c" word! Mod Note: FYI the forum software autocensors certain terms (most often used in board flame wars) to keep the discussion from descending into the swamp one finds on other sports discussion boards. In other words, it's a behavioral/decorum device. Translating that to what should and shouldn't happen on a college campus is a bit of a leap.
|
|