Teresa Collett on the St. Thomas/Tutu Issue

My colleague Teresa Collett asked me to post her thoughts on this.

+++++++++++++++++

       The reason given by the University administration to not participate in the invitation to Desmond Tutu is both baffling and frustrating.  As someone who has followed (and is active in) the international politics of abortion, I am well aware of Anglican Archbishop Tutu's public support of the availability of abortion and contraception.  I am equally aware, however, of his public efforts to encourage the elevation of Nigerian Cardinal Francis Arinze to Pope, prior to the election of Pope Benedict XVI.  Cardinal Arinze's staunch support for the Church's teachings on sexual morality and the Culture of Life is well known.

      I would have been surprised and pleased, but in disagreement, with the administration if it had announced that it would not participate in a joint invitation to Archbishop Tutu due to the possibility that he would use PeaceJam as a platform for advocating the availability of abortion and contraception.

       Surprised and pleased because the University was taking seriously Ex Corde Ecclesiae  and the 2004 statement by the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops "Catholics in Political Life." The bishops are quite clear that "Catholic institutions should not honor those 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."  This prohibition is most commonly understood in the context of giving honorary degrees to speakers supporting abortion and euthanasia, although some faculty at Boston College invoked its terms to argue against inviting Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice to be the graduation speaker. 

     Yet, ultimately, I would disagree with the administration's decision not to offer our students the opportunity to hear this spiritual warrior for peace.  There is nothing publicly available that indicates that Archbishop Tutu has been invited to (or intends to) focus his remarks on advocating the international drive to recognize abortion as a human right.  The public record is equally barren of any evidence that he is going to discuss the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, which is the public reason given for our administration's position.  Instead what is available suggests that Archbishop Tutu will share his experiences regarding the great personal costs of combating injustice with love.  This is a lesson we all need to hear as often as possible. 

     Our university should be willing to risk incidental remarks that may scandalize the faithful, while prudently guiding the procedural aspects of the conference to minimize this possibility.  Certainly we should know the focus of the Archbishop's remarks in advance, and refuse to offer a platform for the advocacy of intrinsic evils like abortion and genocide. We also should encourage the inclusion of prominent speakers who are sympathetic to the Church's teaching that abortion is a fundamental violation of human rights.  What we should not do is refuse to offer a platform to a speaker who is seeking to advocate the intrinsic good of a just peace, and has an incidental controversial opinion on a matter properly characterized as a prudential judgment. 

                                                                               Teresa Stanton Collett

                                                                               Professor of Law