Welcome, if you're new here, you may want to subscribe to our RSS feed or subscribe to our email newsletter. Thanks for visiting!

The Catholic Herald, the Milwaukee Archdiocese’s weekly newspaper, ran an entire page of Marquette-related items yesterday. Many non-Catholics may not have heard of this particular publication, but it’s widely circulated within the Catholic community in Milwaukee.

The top half of page six was a guest opinion written by Fr. John Yockey of Oconomowoc. The piece is not available on their website, so I’ve reprinted it here. (Used with permission of your Catholic Herald.):

MU should not honor Rep. Moore

Marquette University will give its Distinguished Alumna of the Year Award to U.S. Rep. Gwendolynne S. Moore from Wisconsin’s 4th District during its Alumni National Awards Weekend April 26-28.

This, despite a 2004 directive from the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops: “The Catholic community and 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” (emphasis in the directive).

Actions do speak louder than words, especially when they are on public record. For a snapshot of Moore’s legislative positions, Wisconsin Right to Life gave her a 0 percent rating during the 2001-02 session of the state Senate, a 40 percent rating during 2003-04 (pro-adoption procedures), and a 0 percent rating for her first term as a U.S. representative, 2005-07.

In Madison, Moore supported partial birth abortion, embryonic stem cell research, and the cloning of human embryos for research purposes. She favored a bill which would have forced employers — including Catholic organizations with conscientious objection — to include contraceptives in employee health benefit plans. Similarly, she opposed the Conscience Clause Bill, protecting the legal rights of health care workers who refuse to participate in elective abortions, assisted suicides, or the deliberate destruction of human embryos.

In Washington, Moore opposed a ban on human cloning. She voted against the Child Interstate Abortion Notification Act which would have criminalized taking a minor across state lines to evade parental notification requirements in the state where the minor resides. She favored tax dollar funding of embryonic stem cell research as well as abortions in U.S. military hospitals. She supported the United Nations Population Fund with its inclusion of coercive abortion, while she opposed the Unborn Child Pain Awareness Act.

EMILY’s List, the national fundraiser for pro-abortion, female candidates, has been the major contributor to Moore’s congressional campaigns. Individual members have donated almost $300,000, and the group itself has spent more than $600,000 on independent efforts to (re-)elect her.

How can a university proud of its Catholic and Jesuit identity ignore ongoing “defiance of our fundamental moral principles”?

No leader has championed the spectrum of human rights as prophetically as the late Pope John Paul II. Yet, in his consistent ethic of life, he teaches that not all rights are horizontal, of equal weight. Rather, there is a hierarchy in their interconnection. The right to life in its most fragile beginning and end is the premier human right from which every other right flows and on which every other right depends for its security.

Thus, the metaphor of the “seamless garment” makes all life issues analogous, not identical. The right to life, especially in the fragility of its pre-born and final stages, is the garment’s indispensable core fabric.

Notes the Bishop of Rome with careful precision: “Above all, the common outcry which is justly made on behalf of human rights – for example, the right to health, to home, to work, to family, to culture – is false and illusory if the right to life, the most basic and fundamental right and the condition of all other personal rights, is not defended with maximum determination” (Christifideles Laici #38, 1988, emphasis his).

The pope, as do the U.S. bishops, appreciates the terrible dilemma in which legislators find themselves in a pluralistic society where the intrinsic evil of “abortion rights” is the law of the land. John Paul challenges civil servants to meet two conditions if they are to live out their moral responsibility before God in such a compromising context.

“When it is not possible to overturn or completely abrogate a pro-abortion law, an elected official, whose absolute opposition to procured abortion is well known, could licitly support proposals aimed at limiting the harm done by such a law and at lessening its negative consequences” (Evangelium Vitae #73, 1995, emphasis his).

Moore’s “absolute opposition to procured abortion” is not at all well known. Just the opposite, as the Planned Parenthood Federation of America, Inc., would gratefully testify. Nor does her lengthy voting record show meaningful support for restrictive measures, “limiting the harm done” by violations of the most basic of human rights.

Why then does Marquette want to honor her as a distinguished alumna who models the university’s values?

Fr. John G. Yockey
Pastor, St. Jerome Parish
Oconomowoc

This opinion raises some great questions.

What makes Moore distinguished appears to be her work as an important politician. She has not carried out this work in keeping with our mission. Indeed, the very activities for which we are honoring her are ones she carries out in disharmony with Catholic, Jesuit values.

Fr. Yockey’s wisdom about actions speaking louder than words applies to Marquette just as well as it does to Moore. We proclaim ourselves to be a Catholic university committed to excellence, faith, leadership, and service, doing all things for the greater glory of God.

Yet when we nonchalantly pass out awards without regard to any of these things, we effectively make a mockery of anything we may have said.

Presenting this award is an act whose message is not only, “I support what you do,” but also, “I’m proud of what you do.” Marquette should not be proud of what Congressman Moore has done.

As if this wasn’t enough, the rest of the page is filled with letters to the editor regarding Marquette Professor Dan Maguire. One of the writers proclaimed that they would now be withholding financial support and would not consider sending their children here.

Although such people can do more to set things in the right direction by sending their children to Marquette rather than elsewhere, it is difficult to blame their viewpoint. When a letter of dismay over Dan Maguire appears below an opinion of dismay over Gwen Moore, Marquette seems to be digging itself a deeper and deeper hole.

• Marquette Must Prosecute - Fully and Publicly - March 5th, 2008
• ¿Por qué no te callas?: Hugo Chavez Still Won´t Shut It - November 18th, 2007
• Tribune Preoccupation Wows Me - September 19th, 2007
• "Clout" Proves Easy to Come by at Black Journalists' Convention - August 12th, 2007
• License Plate Splicer on Campus - July 18th, 2007