By Bob Terry
Georgetown University in Washington recently found itself the victim of false rumors and accusations. The way the school responded illustrates that religiously affiliated colleges and universities not only can but also continue to legally resist some “politically correct” positions on social issues that violate basic tenets of the school’s religious commitments.
Georgetown is the nation’s oldest Catholic institution of higher learning. Early Roman Catholic religious leader John Carroll bought land for the school in 1789 but it was not until after the First Amendment of the United States Constitution was adopted Dec. 15, 1791, that the school actually opened.
The opening words of the First Amendment declare, “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.” The university’s website says when the nation’s laws “allowed for free religious practices” the school opened its doors in 1792.
Today one of the major challenges of religiously affiliated institutions of higher education is whether or not the nation’s laws will continue to allow “for free religious practices” as the First Amendment assures.
Pro-abortion student group
Recently some pro-life news outlets reported that Georgetown had given official approval to a pro-abortion student group called Medical Students for Choice. Not surprisingly the story spread quickly on social media. Pro-life groups began asking, “Why does Georgetown med school have a pro-abortion club?”
A pro-abortion club officially approved by the administration of this renowned Catholic university would be big news. Roman Catholic theology teaches life begins at conception and that abortion at any stage of pregnancy is the equivalent of murder.
Furthermore the school declares that education at Georgetown will be consistent with “the ideals and practices that have characterized Jesuit education.” The Jesuits (the Society of Jesus) is the religious order that founded the institution.
To have an officially approved pro-abortion student group on the Georgetown campus would be a direct contradiction to centuries of Catholic theology and practice and contrary to Jesuit teachings.
As is frequently the case with rumors and innuendos, the charge was based on partial information.
A Georgetown spokesman told new outlets that Medical Students for Choice had accidentally been listed on a website as an approved student organization, adding that as soon as the mistake was discovered the group was removed from the list. Unfortunately once a charge is publically made it is hard to take back.
The spokesman said the student group had received no funding or support from the university and was not eligible to receive funding and support.
G. Kevin Donovan, director of Georgetown’s Center for Clinical Bioethics, went further. He said, “Medical Students for Choice is not and never has been and never will be an approved student organization at Georgetown.”
Social media presence
The organization has only a Facebook presence, which the university cannot control, he added.
Important to this story is that Georgetown does have a Medical Students for Life club and a Law Students for Life club as well as a Right to Life club. All are active on campus, officially approved by the school and receive university support.
Having pro-life groups on campus is consistent with the historic Catholic theology which guides the institution. And just because pro-life groups are officially approved is no justification for having pro-abortion groups on campus, the institution explained.
One group is consistent with Catholic theology. The other is a violation of Catholic theology.
Because the U.S. Constitution guarantees “free religious practices,” Georgetown was legally able to support student groups on the pro-life side of the national debate about abortion and to ban student groups on the pro-abortion side of the debate.
The university could take this stand even though abortion is legal in the U.S. in practically all circumstances. But the deciding principle was not whether an act was legal or socially acceptable. The deciding principle was the school’s faithfulness to Catholic theology concerning life and abortion.
Cultural issues
Baptist colleges and universities face similar issues. In addition to abortion, questions abound over the makeup of a family, homosexual activity and gender identity to mention only some of the major issues. As with abortion, legal rulings have brought once dark behaviors into the light of social acceptance.
Some argue that if a behavior is legal then Baptist colleges, churches and other religious ministries should accept the behavior even if it violates traditional Baptist understanding of Scripture. Some wrap the charge of discrimination around what was once considered “deviant behavior” in an effort to make politically correct behaviors condemned by the Bible.
Thankfully the First Amendment still allows religiously affiliated institutions to remain faithful to the religious tenants of their faith. The incident at Georgetown illustrates that just because a behavior is legal or socially acceptable it does not have to be approved or supported by a religious entity.
No institution and no law can stop private behaviors. Georgetown may have medical students who are pro-abortion but the university is not responsible for individual actions. Everyone recognizes there is a difference between private behaviors and behaviors that are officially recognized, endorsed or supported by an entity.
And there is the issue. Can a religious college or university be forced to accept, through official recognition and support, behaviors that violate the school’s basic theological commitments? That is not just an academic issue. It is a question faced by every religious entity.
The recent Georgetown incident answers “no.” Schools may be true to their religious convictions. That should be encouraging to Baptists everywhere.
Share with others: