Gonzaga U schedules pro-abort zealot commencement speaker

Gonzaga U schedules pro-abort zealot commencement speaker April 2, 2012

It’s Desmond Tutu, who has automatic progressivist cachet, but who nonetheless advocates grave intrinsic evil. Just as wearing the Precious Feet pin does not take away the sins of the world, so opposing apartheid does not constitute a 007 on the unborn.

If you want to sign the petition protesting this asking Gonzaga to find somebody who doesn’t cheer for murder babies, sign here.

"Very good point, Mark. We need people like MLK Jr. and Dorothy Day in this ..."

How Cults Function
"Your credible source: "Armed Resistance to Crime: The Prevalence and Nature of Self-Defense with a ..."

The Rest of the Gun Cult’s ..."

Browse Our Archives

Follow Us!

What Are Your Thoughts?leave a comment
  • James H, London

    It’s not exactly surprising he’s pro-abortion. When the ANC govt came to power in SA, one of the very first pieces of legislation they enacted was to legalise abortion, on demand, up to 25 weeks.

    This was over the objections of every poll that had been taken, showing massive pro-life majorities in the country, across all racial and linguistic divides; and over the objections of the Catholic church, which had been in the can for them (and Liberation Theology) for decades.

    To his credit, Tutu hasn’t hesitated to call the ANC on their corruption nepotism since; but his pro-condom, pro-abortion attitudes haven’t changed.

  • S. Murphy

    On the other hand, they’re quite possibly inviting him for the other, good things he’s done, and not for his pro-abortion stance. And it’s Desmind Tutu. You wanna makepropaganda for Planned Barrenhood and Kos, go ahead and let pro-lifers protest one if the heroes of the struggle against apartheid.

  • I can’t believe that Desmond Tutu is pro-abortion. But here is the evidence:



    This is going to be a hard fight to win. Tutu is THE voice for “justice” in the world. For him to be not invited for being pro-abortion, it will seem “racist” and “sexist.”

  • Martial Artist

    @S. Murphy,

    You wanna make propaganda for Planned Barrenhood and Kos, go ahead and let pro-lifers protest one if the heroes of the struggle against apartheid.”

    Dr. Eric,

    Tutu is THE voice for “justice” in the world. For him to be not invited for being pro-abortion, it will seem “racist” and “sexist.”.”

    Failing to make the case that he would not be invited very specifically stating that it is because of his gravely sinful views on the taking of innocent human life leads the average uninformed observer to conclude that grave evil is just fine as long as one engages in some countervailing morally correct struggle on another issue. Whatever individual or group chose to invite him needs to be replaced with people who have the willingness to examine the full spectrum of a potential honoree’s positions on matters of morality, and knowledge and integrity to insist that the honoree selected is not a simultaneious exemplar of both unmitigated evil and moral uprightness.

    Whoever makes the selection (and let me remind you that it is on behalf of a Catholic Institution of higher education) is expected to have some considerable amount of good sense and the ability to bring it to bear, an expectation which is clearly not the case in this instance.

    Pax et bonum,
    Keith Töpfer

  • Dave Smithe

    As if the very first thing we think of when we hear the name “Desmond Tutu” is “Pro-abortion zealot.”

    I’ve found no evidence that Tutu is pro-abortion. I’ve found no evidence he has ever advised anyone to get an abortion. At most, he has said that he thinks it should be a legal option. There’s a big difference between the two. For example, I happen to think it should be legal to watch American Idol, even though I have no idea why on earth anyone ever would; but if you call me pro-American Idol, them’s fightin’ words.

    I’d ask for some video of Tutu “cheering for dead babies,” but that would be like asking the blogger to actually use facts. I guess the great thing about blogs is that facts are optional.

    What’s even more offensive is the petition that this site links to, which was apparently written by a middle-school kid who hasn’t learned that gleaning random facts off of the wikipedia does not constitute research. For example, the petition accuses Desmond Tutu of being “anti-Semitic.” This sounded strange so I looked into it and apparently this stems from his position that Israel is not entirely innocent in the international political dispute known as The Middle East. That’s not actually a very controversial position and it’s pretty much impossible to derive the notion of antisemitism from it. That’s why I know that the petition was *not* written by a Gonzaga student. You see, I happen to know that Gonzaga students all have to take a class called “Critical Thinking,” where they are taught how *not* to commit fallacies and how to properly deduce conclusions from premises. To say that accusing Israel of war crimes or other injustices constitutes antisemitism is kind of like saying that accusing the producers of American Idol of dumbing down television constitutes grand larceny. No GU student could possibly make such an argument.

    The petition also accuses the Archbishop of having some association with permitting the ordination of homosexual clergy. As everyone knows, Catholic priests are 100% heterosexual and 100% celibate. But here’s the thing, Desmond Tutu isn’t Catholic. I don’t know if he ever said that maybe the Catholic priesthood would benefit from some homosexual priests (and we can thank our lucky stars that there aren’t any), but why should we care what his positions are on theological disputes relevant only to his own religion? I notice that this petition isn’t upset that Desmond Tutu does not recognize the authority of the Pope, or raise any questions regarding his theory of the Sacraments, and those are kind of big deal issues in Catholic circles.

    You see, this sort of brings me to my point: This is all about culture wars and not at all about religion or ethics. Traditionally, a religion’s ethical system flows from its metaphysical commitments, and not vice-versa. So the real controversy, if there were to be one, would be about these theological and metaphysical differences. But thanks to the culture wars and the hi-jacking of American Catholicism by the fundamentalist right and agents of the GOP, the defining mark of a Christian (and apparently of a decent human being at all) has to do with positions on gonad politics. Does anyone else see just how insane this is?

    Does anyone else think the following sentence from the petition is Laugh-Out-Loud (henceforth “LOL”) hilarious: “Before further damage is done to Gonzaga’s reputation as a Catholic University, we prayerfully ask you to withdraw Archbishop Desmond Tutu’s invitation….” When I got to that sentence I started wondering if the whole petition might be a hoax, because no sentient being could possibly think that snubbing a Nobel Prize Winner who was instrumental in fighting grave injustices could possibly improve our reputation. Maybe while we are trying to improve our reputation, we can also ban controversial literature and revise our highly successful CORE curriculum. Oh, wait…

    And yet here is another one: “As an expat of South Africa, I was most disappointed to learn of Archbishop Tutu’s anti-life stance. How sad! Poor Africa!” Come on! Archbishop Tutu, anti-life… And those poor Africans. They would have been much better off without him. The white ones, anyway.

    • Donna Clark

      On point Mr. Smithe. You are the reason I support a Jesuit education for my daughter.

  • Dave Smithe

    My above comment was heavily edited; thus the last paragraph lacks continuity. Apologies.

  • Hi Dave, You wanted some proof that Archbishop Tutu is pro-abortion? Here are a couple of links that might help.

    God bless you and Happy Easter!

    Here’s a link to an article about his support of Marie Stopes abortion clinics in South africa with a picture of him on a poster –

    Here’s a link to the Cardinal Newman Society article about some of his position, including abortion –

    • Donna Clark

      Your source? Credible? I was active in the pro-choice movement for a number of years, both as a Catholic and as an Episcopalian. I NEVER met anyone who was Pro-Abortion.

  • A friend sent this to me and I hope it helps clarify why it’s so innapropriate to have a pro-abortion commencement speaker at a Catholic Univeristy. (I’m sharing it with permission.)
    I had a thought experiment about this yesterday. Let’s assume that we (Gonzaga University) invited a prominent South African pro-life activist to come and speak at the commencement at the university, or to give a talk at the law school. This person is a leading force in the pro-life movement in South Africa and has been involved in the pro-life movement for the right reason — to uphold the inherent dignity of the human person grounded in the right to life that is each person’s due as a person made in the image of God. So far, so good.

    But what if it came out that this person, who is a devout member of a church that been supportive of apartheid, had been a strong apartheid supporter back when that policy had been in place? She had spoken out in favor of apartheid as being part of God’s plan for the races, that was the separation of the races was predestinated, and that the Bible supported such a policy. Would the university and/or the law school ever invite such a person to come speak here?

    No, that would simply never happen. And even if it did, once the person’s support for apartheid become public, the university &/or law school would not only rescind the invitation, they would apologize for ever having invited the person to come speak to begin with.

    What we are facing is the flip side of this situation. We have man coming to speak to the campus who has an admirable record — a heroic record — of standing against the evil of apartheid. But he embraces an evil of at least as great a magnitude — and arguably a greater magnitude — which is the killing of innocent unborn human beings. The evil of racial segregation has been replaced with the evil of extermination. And let’s not kid ourselves. It is not wealthy Afrikaners having abortions for the most part. It isn’t the English professionals in Johannesburg and Pretoria and Cape Town having abortions for the most part. It is black people, economically marginalized black people, who are having abortions. This is simply eugenics by another name, accomplished not via sterilization but by slaughter.