The Louisville Courier-Journal yesterday had a story about the little dust-up over Congressman John Yarmuth being invited to give the commencement address at Spalding University in Louisville. Spalding is at least nominally a Catholic institution and Yarmuth is pro-abortion. As my friend Mike Janocik at Kentucky Right to Life pointed out in the story, the U. S. Catholic bishops released a statement several years back that would seem to preclude such invitations.But what I found most interesting--and amusing--were a couple of comments by Tori Murden McClure, vice president for external relations for Spalding, although she could pass for the school's astrology adviser. In the first comment, she pretty much lays bare why Yarmuth was invited:
"The congressman is in a position to influence financial aid policies that might improve access to higher education for those who can least afford it," she said. . Murden McClure said Spalding's trustees chose Yarmuth because he serves on the U.S. House Committee on Education and Labor and can promote legislation on student grants and loans.There you have it. Just dangle a little money in front of some people (or institutions), and those nice little principles they like to tout go right out the window. But then there was this one (and you might want to prepare yourself to read this by burning a little incense and sipping some herbal tea):
"True diversity is challenging. It calls us to be reflective, humble, and hospitable in our responses to opposing points of view. Promoting diversity forces us to negate polarity and to question single-sided viewpoints."Okay, I can handle some of the first part of that. But "negate polarity"? What does that mean? Or maybe there is something in canon law forbidding positive polarity that I missed. How do you negate polarity anyway? And does it require an electrician?
And then there is the little matter of questioning "single-sided viewpoints." First of all, is there such a thing as a viewpoint that is not "single-sided"? Aren't all viewpoints "single-sided", even (and perhaps especially) those viewpoints that reject single-sidedness? And by questioning anything, aren't you, ipso facto, rejecting diversity?
Now c'mon. Do they really allow Catholics to talk like this? I thought Benedict was going to bring more discipline to the Church?
I'm Sorry. I'm being sarcastic. Maybe I need my polarity negated, or maybe I just need to sit down and contemplate all this for a while.
In the lotus position, of course.