UPDATED (16:14…15/05) Georgetown’s Defense of Invitation to Sebelius

Georgetown Defends Sebelius Pick with Misleading Statement

Georgetown University has finally issued an official response to the controversy surrounding the Jesuit institution’s invitation to “pro-choice” HHS Kathleen Sebelius, architect of the HHS mandate the U.S. bishops oppose as a threat to religious liberty, to speak on commencement day this Friday.

But in making this case, Georgetown seems to have forgotten the timing of the HHS mandate, which was announced in August 2011.  The response also seems to forget Georgetown’s own weak response to the mandate, and that of the Association of Jesuit Colleges and Universities (AJCU).

Here is the statement posted on the Georgetown website:   

In recent days on the Georgetown University campus and in the larger American Catholic community, concerns have been expressed by some who object to an invitation to Secretary Kathleen Sebelius to participate in a Public Policy Institute awards ceremony during the University’s commencement weekend.

Last fall, public policy students expressed preferences for potential speakers who could participate in the program. Given her role in crafting the landmark legislation that will make health care more accessible to 34 million Americans who are currently uninsured, Secretary Sebelius was identified by students as a leading policy maker in our country who could contribute to this event. Secretary Sebelius has a long and disting
uished record of public service, including two terms as governor of Kansas before beginning her service in April, 2009, as Secretary of the Department of Health and Human Services. She is also the spouse and the mother of Georgetown graduates.  

In early January, an invitation was extended to Secretary Sebelius and she accepted.  In the weeks that followed, elements of the legislation, specifically terms covering contraception, dominated our public discourse and impacted our Georgetown community very directly. 

In different contexts over the past three months, including a March 14 “Statement on Religious Freedom and HHS Mandate,” the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops expressed strong opposition to the position put forward by the Obama Administration.  Some have interpreted the invitation of Secretary Sebelius as a challenge to the USCCB.  It was not. The invitation to Secretary Sebelius occurred prior to the January 20^th announcement by the Obama Administration of the modified healthcare regulations. 

The Secretary’s presence on our campus should not be viewed as an endorsement of her views.  As a Catholic and Jesuit University, Georgetown disassociates itself from any positions that are in conflict with traditional church teachings. [Huh? Traditional Church teachings? This is obviously a bone for the dissenters at GU, who recognize GU must say this to keep the bishops at bay (which they are). There is no difference between traditional church teachings and church teachings. On top of that, I don't happen to believe that Georgetown disassociates itself from any positions that are in conflict with CHURCH TEACHINGS… because, well, it doesn't! When was the last time it did? It took all this criticism to make them HALFWAY disassociate. Who wrote this?]

We are a university, committed to the free exchange of ideas. [Here is comes…spare me the excuses for your superdogma of democracy.] We are a community that draws inspiration from a religious tradition that provides us with an intellectual, moral, and spiritual foundation.  By engaging these values we become the University we are meant to be.

There are clear factual problems with the statement. It says that the invitation was extended to Sebelius in early January and that “in the weeks that followed” the issue of contraceptive coverage became a public issue. However, the HHS mandate that faith-based institutions must pay for health insurance policies that cover contraception and abortion-inducing drugs was issued in August 2011, followed by public opposition from the bishops and faithful Catholics — albeit not much from Georgetown.

In a September 29, 2011 letter to the White House, The Cardinal Newman Society and 18 Catholic institutions of higher learning officially informed the administration of their concern about the mandate and requesting that they be granted an exemption from having to comply with a mandate that would require them to violate their consciences.

Although Georgetown was not one of these universities, The Hoya, one of Georgetown’s student newspapers, quoted a university health services official in October 2011 saying that the university “supports” Church teaching.

A university spokesman was quoted in The Hoya story expressing Georgetown’s support of an initiative by the Association of Jesuit Colleges and Universities to prevent Catholic institutions from being forced to pay for morally coverage of objectionable procedures:

According to university spokeswoman Stacy Kerr, the university has opposed this type of legislation as a member of the Association of Jesuit Colleges and Universities:

AJCU has been engaged in initiatives to revise the implementation of the regulations as they pertain to religious institutions, and Georgetown is supportive of those efforts,” Kerr wrote in an email. 

That AJCU letter, which reportedly was joined by Georgetown President John DiGioia, is described in the Boston College student newspaper:

On behalf of the 28 presidents of the Jesuit schools, the letter called for a “revisit (of) the rules of the Affordable Care Act that pertain to religious exemptions” and stated that “compliance with these new rules would force us to deny our religious heritage and identity by helping our students to act contrary to Catholic teaching and belief.” 

My biggest problem with the statement is not what the Cardinal Newman Society wrote above. It is that the statement is clearly deceitful and meant to placate the criticism. How do I know? It is in the one line I commented on. There is traditional Church teaching (bishops) and then their is church teaching.

I would like to also point out that Georgetown did not announce the speaker for commencement until the end of April.  They could have seen how tasteless and how much of a slap in the face of the bishops to announce. If they have any sympathy for the church teaching, they would have privately rescinded their invitation, despite her courageous fight for universal healthcare…a moral issue, with political implications, which the university doesn't seem to have a problem taking a stand on, unlike other moral issues…or shall I say “traditionally moral issues?” Why the difference? They don't accept 'traditional church teaching.'

UPDATE: 16:14, 15/05/2012: The Archdiocese of Washington has issued the following statement, though softer than hoped for:

During the past week there has been much in the national and local news regarding the controversial selection of the U.S. Secretary of Health and Human Services, Kathleen Sebelius, to be a featured speaker at an awards ceremony at Georgetown University’s Public Policy Institute.  Yesterday, the President of the University, John J. DeGioia, issued a public statement in response to the concerns, objections and even outrage that have been expressed.

The Archdiocese of Washington reserved public comment to permit Georgetown University and its sponsor, the Society of Jesus, the opportunity to address the controversy.  While the explanation of how this unfortunate decision was made is appreciated, it does not address the real issue for concern – the selection of a featured speaker whose actions as a public official present the most direct challenge to religious liberty in recent history and the apparent lack of unity with and disregard for the bishops and so many others across the nation who are committed to the defense of freedom of religion.

Contrary to what is indicated in the Georgetown University President’s statement, the fundamental issue with the HHS mandate is not about contraception.  As the United States Bishops have repeatedly pointed out, the issue is religious freedom.  Secretary Sebelius’ mandate defines religious ministry so narrowly that our Catholic schools and universities, hospitals and social service ministries do not qualify as “religious enough” to be exempt.  This redefinition of religion penalizes Catholic organizations because they welcome and serve all people regardless of their faith.  Ironically, because of Georgetown’s commitment to open its doors to Catholic and non-Catholic students alike, the university fails to qualify as a religious institution under the HHS mandate.

Given the dramatic impact this mandate will have on Georgetown and all Catholic institutions, it is understandable that Catholics across the country would find shocking the choice of Secretary Sebelius, the architect of the mandate, to receive such special recognition at a Catholic university. It is also understandable that Catholics would view this as a challenge to the bishops.

It is especially distressing to think that the university’s Public Policy Institute would be unaware of this national debate since the mandate was published last August.  Such a radical redefining of ministry should prompt Georgetown, as a Catholic and Jesuit university, to do more to challenge the mandate and speak up for freedom of religion.

Thank you Archdiocese of Washington. I can assure you your response will be promptly ignored but at least you said what we were all thinking! Hopefully the rift between this school and the bishops does not become even stronger such that Georgetown ends up like Limatown. Does anyone have any suggestions on how to prevent this from happening? I have a few ideas.