Naming Names – Bishops and St. Ambrose University Board *

If Bishop O’Keefe had left a pile of money with a naming codicil or “understanding” . . . would the Saint Ambrose University (SAU) library still be the O’Keefe Library?

However provocative, the question is not intended to be impudent.  The question flows from the SAU building naming policy. Some readers will get my drift immediately but the veritaspac reader who holds only casual interest in SAU requires some background.

The question is occasioned by a recent naming ceremony of an SAU building and conversely statements surrounding the removal several years earlier of the name of the late Bishop Gerald O’Keefe from the campus library.

Bishop O’Keefe was the local Ordinary who the SAU library was named for in 1996 out of appreciation for his service and good works in the Diocese. A bio which we take to be reliable is available here. The Bishop’s body of work did not change but the question is, was it properly overwhelmed by the existence of  an  accusation of nonfeasance or misfeasance pulled together several years after his death, regarding the covering up of sexual abuse extending back decades?

A three person SAU panel empowered to make a recommendation, which the full SAU Board went along with,  voted to remove his name, famously we might add,  in some effort at expiation regarding the accusations against him and the Diocese.  It was at a time when the Church was under intense scrutiny and criticism, appropriately, for incidents related to sexual abuse.

The current Ordinary, Bishop Amos is quoted in August of 2007 in Catholic Online as saying “We’re not making  a judgment on Bishop O’Keefe because he isn’t here to defend himself.”  But they went ahead and removed his name, certainly creating an aura of judgment. Of course the removal of his name received far more press than the original naming.  What St Ambrose can make somewhat familiar on campus by naming, it can make infamous to a much greater extent to the community at large by “un-naming .”

According to the Argus Dispatch in its story about the name removal

In March the SAU Board adopted a policy that said ” the naming of buildings is a permanent act, but if the honoree violates the standards of integrity and civic leadership, it can be removed by an ad hoc subcommittee of three board members.”

If the honoree violates . . .  is an interesting use of verb tense given that most of the SAU buildings are named after dead people . . . Standards of integrity and civic leadership  . . . credibly accused to be in violation we presume, which is an indictment and not a trial (more about the standards later) . . . removal in the future by a subcommittee of three board members  . . .  another interesting standard that we suppose serves to keep the full board out of the messiness, and what the hell, open up a new opportunity for a legacy gift on occasion.

If we seem just a little bit jaded by the standards you are getting our drift.

While we are less than impressed with the clarity of the “de-naming policy” or any philosophical consistency behind it, we do not  disagree with the removal of Bishop O’Keefe’s name from the SAU library.  But contrast the treatment of Bishop O’Keefe’s name removal for cause or appearances with information  contained in the report in last week’s Davenport Catholic Messenger (DCM) about the  dedication of McCarthy Hall  in honor of SAU alumnus and major donor Richard McCarthy. According to the DCM,  Mr. McCarthy’s estate provided for more than $2 million to SAU.

Mr. McCarthy’s remarkable bio includes his service record in WWII, for which he received a Purple Heart for wounds and four Bronze Stars for heroic actions. He was educated at St Ambrose and DePaul University College of Law,  preceding a long and accomplished career as a lawyer in Rock Island. He parlayed land holdings and other investments into what became a $3-$4 million dollar trust estate.

The naming ceremony featured remarks by McCarthy’s close friend, law associate, and trustee of the Richard W McCarthy Charitable Trust, John Callas.  Those remarks, proud admiring revelations no doubt innocently delivered, about McCarthy’s political influence, rekindled our chronic nausea surrounding SAU.

According to the DCM and quoting Mr. Callas:

“Every Sunday was 7 a.m. Mass and then down to the office for a private meeting of politicos where a number of candidates and races would be discussed and vetted.” …

Besides practicing law — which McCarthy did until several weeks before his death on April 26, 2008 — McCarthy served as a Democratic Party precinct committeeman for 40 years. “Dick took pride in his ability to operate at a grassroots level and assist people, including lawyers, in obtaining elected and/or appointed offices,” Callas said. “…Dick worked in the background without the need or desire for publicity. But everyone who wanted to run knew who they had to call first on the list.”

The words are from Mr. Callas, the bold typeface is our emphasis. Credence, and even more emphasis, has been given to what is described as Mr. McCarthy’s behind the scenes political influence by a well connected Rock Island County politico known to us, who also holds Mr. McCarthy in the highest regard for his support of friends and family.

Now back to the SAU “naming of buildings” policy statement referred to above, specifically “standards of integrity and civic leadership.”  Without saying so, the SAU by its actions seems to presume that Bishop O’Keefe violated the “integrity” component of that policy statement clause most directly. But let us not put words into their mouth.

The SAU public statement announcing Bishop O’Keefe’s name removal is a mishmash, a little short of integrity in that respect, but high on the benefits of appearances.  According to the Argus-Dispatch (bold typeface our emphasis):

“While a very difficult decision, the board felt it was the right thing to do for the university, as well as a step taken in the spirit of promoting healing within the diocese and, in a larger sense, for all victims of abuse,” the board said in a prepared statement.

“Obviously, it was not an easy decision,” Bishop Martin Amos – current head of the diocese and president of the SAU board – said later Friday.

“They really felt it was the right thing to do,” he said of the board. “Perhaps it will bring healing. I hope it says that we are serious about this business.”

As regards Bishop O’Keefe’s good name, there is no operative benefit of the doubt, or  withholding of judgment felt necessary.  Appearances matter to such institutions: It was his watch, he passed people through, he is said to have told individuals to keep quiet about their charges. Perhaps he thought the abuse was not a big thing or that people should get over it and move on. That would be seriously wrong.

However we are willing to charitably stipulate that anything he did was in the interest of avoiding embarrassment, scandal or disrepute associated with the church.  The greater good, however wrong headed. Still that does not shield one from association with perpetuating a serious wrong by ignoring bad actors and moving them forward in their careers with indifference to serious wrongs incompatible with church teaching.

Indeed, loyalty to an institution can demand too much. Such loyalties can be misplaced or overextended whether one holds a Doctor of Divinity or Doctor of Jurisprudence (or whatever degree of rank or involvement one holds with the Knights of Columbus). The implications of those ranks and degrees are toward more culpability, as regards any lapses, when the person holds positions of trust and influence.

Misbegotten institutional loyalty, whether involving a political party or the desire of a local prelate to avoid scandal or embarrassment to the Catholic Church, can also engender, indeed make one inseparable from, material cooperation and facilitation of significant wrongs. This applies whether the institution’s established policies are ignored or contrary  matters are allowed to unofficially fester.  At some point the term “lapse of judgment” does not do the matter justice. At some point and some level the culpability or association is inextricable and cannot be ignored.

As regards Bishop O’Keefe, SAU and Bishop Amos chose not to ignore even the appearances of  culpability to those aggrieved about a serious matter.  However we question their consistency as regards other matters of appearances, with regards to the bestowal of naming honors, to those with a substantial level of inextricable culpability, in advancing those persons and organizations who have a goal of not only thwarting key policies of the Church, but denying protections to believers in those policies.

As regards Mr. McCarthy’s influential standing in Democrat politics, we know that the history of politics in Illinois is sordid.  The history of Democrat politics in Illinois is particularly sordid. The history of Democrat politics in Cook county is absolutely rank. It has practically been verified as a criminal enterprise. And Rock Island County has not escaped a level of unholy notoriety.

But we are not concerned with the limited matter of whether a forty year precinct committeemen  guided the system of political spoils and patronage to the benefit of fellow Democrats, as seems to be suggested in fond reminiscences. Such ward healing and the like is a mere peccadillo in our scheme of objectionable matters given the terrain in Illinois.

We are more interested as a pro-life publication in the incongruities of an officially pro-life Church institution honoring a “local prelate” influential in the Democrat Party for a high honor if for all practical purposes he was largely indifferent to the Party’s notorious abortion policy.  Wishing a policy otherwise does not cut it.  The Democrat Party is after all a party that  for decades has vigorously opposed the right to life and been in support of tax payer funded abortion on demand for any reason with no meaningful restriction at any time.

We could go on and on about the connections of  the Democrat Party to abortion, and to denying religious freedom to Catholics and pro-life individuals.  The latter in particular suggests to us that the real religion of so called Catholic Democrats is the Democrat Party. Their loyalties, shall we say, seem much more focused there, regardless of the harm to the Church and society.

There is no demonstrated  push back, no minimum requirement, no line in the sand drawn to foster preeminent teachings the Church regarding the right to life, teachings the Church says are incumbent on all people not just Catholics. Worse yet, the Democrat Party is engaged in a  concerted effort to inculcate abortion into the vary fabric of society.

Policies regarding economic betterment are arguable according to the Church, even just war and to some extent the death penalty.  Elective abortion is not.  Imposing support of it on others through the taxing power is not. Both have been Democrat Party policies  for decades.

Most of the candidates, at least state and federal, that presumably made the approach for Mr. McCarthy’s nihil obstat and imprimatur, we believe have been substantially doctrinaire supporters of Democrat anti-right to life agenda. Exceptions they muster are pathetic efforts at window dressing.  Passing such individuals on through the system and then attending Sunday Mass is not exculpatory of such matters any more than it was for Bishop O’Keefe regarding any implications or allegations about him.

We are not suggesting that Mr McCarthy was a direct advocate of policies deemed gravely evil  by the Church, not that it would have necessarily made any difference to SAU or to Bishop Amos.  They know why we can say that with some confidence given their response to objections over the award of an honorary doctorate at SAU to former State Senator Maggie Tinsman, someone definitively, notoriously and actively opposed to protecting the right to life of unborn members of the human family.  But Mr. McCarthy was a person of key influence. A part of the power structure behind the various voting thrones.

Keep in mind that Bishop O’Keeefe  has not been credibly accused of advocating for sexual abuse or for that matter publicly advocating general indifference to it.  But he allowed people to move forward who abused children, and it didn’t even involve the children’s right to life. His name removal was justified primarily for what amounts to appearances to those victimized during his watch, to show SAU and the diocese’s concern, but, perish the thought, not to judge.   And that is fine. Nor are we judging Mr. McCarthy. But nevertheless we wonder about the application of consistent standards for appearances as regards all issues of importance by these ethical standard bearers.

As a right to life advocating publication we appreciate the admonitions of the nation’s Catholic Bishops supporting the fundamental importance of protecting the right to life.  While we are fatigued by observing it, a great cause is set back by the high pro-file appearance of indifference, equivocation and soft pedaling of this issue as follows when leaders of the most virulently pro-abortion political party in the Western world are honored by Catholic institutions and bishops.

Would the victims of sexual abuse ,who called for the removal of Bishop O’Keefe’s name from the SAU library, be mollified by pointing out that, well, all people are sinners, and the honor was not for his cover-up or indifference or failures, but for his greater body of work  . . .  a celebration of his compassion and perseverance on other matters?  After all Bishop O’Keefe never advocated for sexual abuse and even did some things no doubt that counseled against it.  We suspect not, and justifiably so when the matter is significant.

So where is the exquisite public attention, the fine sensitivity at SAU to the right to life which the Church itself says is of fundamental importance to souls, family, culture and society?  Where are the policies, the standards, the mitigation, the avoidance of scandal and duplicity, the outreach?

Would academic freedom, plurality, multiculturalism  provide cover for bestowing “permanent” honors on an unrenounced mere member of the Ku Klux Klan, much less a kleagle?  Maybe if they wrote a big check?

We are tempted to ask what level of donorship leads to such on and off blinders.  But then we internalized once again that in pursuit of political correctness or as a result of obliviousness, no donor level per se is required. Honors will happily be bestowed in pursuit of whatever emits from the machinations the SAU Board goes through, offenses against Catholics are irrelevant.

With the cast of  players from the Diocese  to SAU to the Democrat Central Committee there is no level of trust that we can muster unless demonstrated consistency precedes. That is the same standard sexual abuse victims called for and received from entities under Diocese control or influence. On behalf of the unborn we can only beg for the same, we don’t have any money to give SAU or the diocese and we can’t sue them.      Roger Mall

* The Davenport Catholic Messenger (DCM) is the official newspaper of the Diocese of Davenport. Bishop Martin Amos, current Bishop of the Diocese is the publisher. St. Ambrose University (SAU) refers to itself as  “independent diocesan and Catholic”  The school houses and teaches seminarians  The school teaches theology (see comment section).  Bishop Amos is the Chairman of the Board of Trustees of SAU.

Ed. note: this post was added to from the original post and the title changed.

0

0