As Catholic, we affirm the heritage which has developed through two thousand years of Christian living, theological reflection, and authentic interpretation.
As Jesuit, we are inspired by the vision of Christ at work in the world, transforming it by His love, and calling men and women to work with Him in loving service of the human community.
Susie Prusch is Gonzaga's Manager of University Events. Web info from her Facebook page (click to enlarge):
Reader Stan forwarded Susie a LifeNews.com story that Planned Parenthood of the Inland Northwest, located in Spokane, had committed "significant" Medicaid billing malfunctions. According to The Spokesman-Review, August 12:
PP of the Inland Northwest required unnecessary office visits by its poorest patients, a practice that led to excessive payments from the taxpayer-financed Medicaid program, according to a recent audit.
The audit also uncovered troubling billing procedures and problems with unauthorized staff prescribing and dispensing birth control pills, said Doug Porter, WA's Medicaid director....
The issues amounted to excess Medicaid payments to the clinic totaling $629,143. Interest of 1% per month will begin accruing Aug. 20 if the clinic fails to repay the state.
Stan also forwarded Susie a LifeNews.com story about Sarah Palin opposing Obamacare "over abortion, euthanasia components."
Susie must have had a nasty day at the office and clearly carries a big ole soft spot in her heart for PP. Because here's the emal she sent Stan in response (click to enlarge):
What was that about transforming the world with His love?
[HT: Stan W., Bill C.]
since when does PP support women who actually GO THROUGH ALL 9 MONTHS of pregnancy? HUH? What KoolAid was she drinking? They certainly don't encourage giving life to babies! That's why they are the #1 provider of abortion in America. If you look at how many prenatal visits they have listed on their annual reports, its definitely not as many abortions or sterilizations.
Posted by: LizFromNebraska
at August 13, 2009 4:08 PM
I wonder if Susie is Catholic? I doubt it.
Unfortunately, Susie's response is typical of Planned Parenthood supporters. PP can do no wrong. They are above the law.Posted by: Janet at August 13, 2009 4:35 PM
I ran into a young Latina who told me that she checked with PP re: abortion and decided against abortion. she said that PP offerred to bring her back for group parenting classes and counseling. She said that on every return visit they would give her "points" that could be accumulated and traded for furniture and baby supplies. I suppose this is their way of driving down the % of services dedicated to abortion. If one mother comes for 5 counseling classes, then that's five individual (though not by a unique user) "services" that they can "count" when computing what % of their services are abortion. For example, when a woman walks in the door for an abortion, she receives 6 services that are NOT an abortion (2 counseling sessions, blood test, urine test, ultra-sound, etc.) and only 1 abortion. So you can see how the numbers are very distorted when they say that less than 3% of their services are providing abortions.Posted by: Nora at August 13, 2009 4:44 PM
I think it's time to send Ms. Susie a little message of our own.
Or better yet, forward her choice words to the president of the University.
In fact, I think that's what I'll do.
Carder, let me know if anything comes of it.Posted by: Jill Stanek at August 13, 2009 5:26 PM
I sent something to the director of public relations. I sent the cut out e-mail, with a message -
This is circulating on the internet, and she is being identified as a Gonzaga employee. You might want to look into this to see if she is an employee, and if not, that the University get the word out before your reputation gets damaged.
Posted by: Lee
at August 13, 2009 5:30 PM
As soon as I saw the word Jesuit, I flinched and knew where this was going.
Poor St. Ignatius Loyola, he must be sick to his stomach, knowing the turncoats his beloved Jesuits have become.Posted by: angel at August 13, 2009 6:26 PM
Most organizations I've worked for, sending a reply like that to someone, in your official capacity, would have been what we called "a career-limiting move" -- as in immediate termination. Maybe that's what's called for here.Posted by: Bill at August 13, 2009 6:27 PM
Great comments Carder & Bill.
Will she get a slap on the wrist? The more emails and phone calls they get, the better the chances that they remover her.
How ironic: "Former President Father Robert J. Spitzer, S.J., announced in April that he will be moving to Irvine, Calif., in August to more vigorously run his Magis Institute and the Spitzer Center for Ethical Leadership. He plans to do a lot more writing and developing curricula in Faith and Reason and in Ethical Leadership for worldwide delivery. Fr. Spitzer founded both institutes about five years ago. His last day will be July 15, 2009."
We'll probably get the interim prez. at this number: President 509 313-6103
I'd love to know what Father Bob thinks about this type of attitude at his former place of employment. I'm all for redemption, but her attitudes are so deep-seated and anti-life, she obviously needs to be removed.
I wonder if we could get her comments published in the school paper?
That school is in serious need of a CBR GAP.
(aren't they all)Posted by: Ed at August 13, 2009 7:14 PM
My question is, what was Stan's purpose in sending that info to Susie? Does he know her personally? Does he know someone at Gonzaga? Were they previously debating this issue?Posted by: carder at August 13, 2009 7:29 PM
Just a little dust-up. Got me smiling after a rough day.
Be well everyone.Posted by: Hal at August 13, 2009 9:02 PM
Her comments were completely uncalled for.Posted by: army_wife at August 13, 2009 9:04 PM
Her comments were fine. The problem, if any, is using her work email to get political.Posted by: Hal at August 13, 2009 9:26 PM
To Whom it May Concern,
I am writing you today as a concerned individual, who has always held Gonzaga University in high regard. I have attended Catholic schooling since middle school, and am a devout Catholic.
I understand, despite my personal religious beliefs, that Gonzaga welcomes those of all walks of life. I have always respected the University for this and other honorable and respected stances. Which is why, when I write to you with concern, it is not for the political stances of the University staff. Nor is it for the ways in which they choose to address those in their personal communications. Rather, my concern is for the manner in which, from a Gonzaga email address, and in her capacity as Manager of University Events, one Ms. Susie Prusch chose to address a concerned citizen.
I have attached the image of the email which is circulating on the internet. As you can see, this email displays none of the love of Christ to which Gonzaga's mission statement refers.
It is my honest hope that the image currently circulating is, in fact, not a true representation of communication from any University staff in their capacity as staff. I sincerely hope that the matter is addressed by the University directly.
Thank you for your time.
This is the email I sent. I had some difficulty obtaining the email address of the Interim President, and therefore sent it primarily to individuals in public relations positions at GU. I also CC'd it to the ministry department (what can it hurt?).
Feel free to use it as a template, though I ask that you not copy it exactly.Posted by: MaryRose at August 13, 2009 9:32 PM
You're in trouble my friend:
Woe to those who call evil good, and good evil...
Therefore, as the fire devours the stubble,
And the flame consumes the chaff,
So their root will be as rottenness,
And their blossom will ascend like dust;
Because they have rejected the law of the Lord of hosts,
And despised the word of the Holy One of Israel.
I'm a GU alum.
I'm going to forward this to my family; maybe now they'll understand why our children will never, ever attend there.
We went back there for a visit in 2006 and I was appalled to find pamphlets in the bathroom on various subjects, particularly "How to Care for Your G*nital Piercing".
GU has lowered the virtue bar so low as to trip over it. Very, very disappointing, but not surprising.Posted by: an alum at August 14, 2009 12:12 AM
I am a student at Gonzaga, and the President of a Conservative, Orthodox Catholic Club on campus.
This doesn't supprise me but at the same time, this is not how all of Gonzaga is. There are bastions of Orthodoxy here, in catholic groups like the John Paul II Fellowship, Right to Life Club, and the Gonzaga Witness Magazine (www.gonzagawitness.com). Also there is a very faithful seminary attached to the University, that is growing and just had to build a new seminary building to accomodate their growing numbers.
Gonzaga like many Catholic colleges is in a bad situation, we need your prayers. There is good here, but there is also much evil. Pray for the growth of true Catholic belief on our campus, but please dont just rant and rail, pray, pray, pray. We need your prayers to strengthen our efforts.
In the peace of Christ,
thanks Mitch. Good to know Gonzaga hasn't completely fallen to the darkside.Posted by: LizFromNebraska at August 14, 2009 7:23 AM
Maybe she is just offering people a choice: "Be transformed by His love into someone who agrees with me, or I'll scortch your eyebrows."
It's sort of like the "choice" that proaborts want all unborn babies to have: "Be a wanted baby, or die".Posted by: Doyle Chadwick at August 14, 2009 8:06 AM
Her comments were fine. The problem, if any, is using her work email to get political.
Posted by: Hal at August 13, 2009 9:26 PM
The vulgarity and name calling is NEVER fine in business e-mail.Posted by: xppc at August 14, 2009 8:58 AM
What a sad little twit Susie is. Sending stuff like this via your work email is a big no no. Doubt if Susie will last too long either in the job or at the Univ.Posted by: Andy at August 14, 2009 10:11 AM
Liberal's think they're so freaking clever when they throw out that "not all conservatives are stupid, but almost all stupid people are conservatives" quip.
Oooh, you got us there. What with your completely unsubstantiated claim! I will definitely "think about it!" as I've been instructed.
I'm so sick of glib liberals.Posted by: Lauren at August 14, 2009 10:20 AM
"Gonzaga like many Catholic colleges is in a bad situation, we need your prayers. There is good here, but there is also much evil. Pray for the growth of true Catholic belief on our campus, but please dont just rant and rail, pray, pray, pray. We need your prayers to strengthen our efforts."
In the peace of Christ,
* * * * * * * * *
Thanks so much for your post. Too often we forget the power of prayer to change things. I will pray for you and Gonzaga University as I'm sure many reading this will.
How wonderful that you have a faithful seminary. Vocations to the priesthood are on the rise, especially in parishes which have a Eucharistic Adoration chapel open for Perpetual Adoration of the Blessed Sacrament. I hope you have one at Gonzaga University!Posted by: Janet at August 14, 2009 11:12 AM
I'm so sick of glib liberals.
Posted by: Lauren at August 14, 2009 10:20 AM
Oh well, what are you going to do? We just get more and more glib every day. But we're having fun. Are you?Posted by: Hal at August 14, 2009 12:16 PM
I don't consider the death of our country's values to be fun. Nor do I consider you or any of your ilk to be clever.
The values I want my country to have are alive and well. I'd rather Obama repeal "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" and the "Defense of Marriage Act," but I can be patient. We're on the right track.Posted by: Hal at August 14, 2009 2:06 PM
Yes, you are, Hal, if your desired destination is the total moral decay of our society.Posted by: Doyle Chadwick at August 14, 2009 2:17 PM
Of course, Doyle. Nothing is right or wrong...except people who say something is right or wrong. They are wrong!Posted by: Lauren at August 14, 2009 2:35 PM
Well, "moral" might be a relative term. I thought most things GWB did were immoral. You might disagree.Posted by: Hal at August 14, 2009 2:59 PM
No, it's not a relative term.Posted by: Lauren at August 14, 2009 3:09 PM
Here's a great exploration of liberal thought by Neal Stephenson in The Diamond Age.
"You know, when I was a young man, hypocrisy was deemed the worst of vices. It was all because of moral relativism. You see, in that sort of a climate, you are not allowed to criticize others - after all, if there is no absolute right and wrong, then what grounds are there for criticism? Now, this led to a good deal of general frustration, for people are naturally censorious and love nothing better than to criticize one another's shortcomings. And so it was that they seized on hypocrisy and elevated it from a ubiquitous peccadillo into the monarch of all vices. For, you see, even if there is no right and wrong, you can find grounds to criticise another person by contrasting what he has espoused with what he has actually done. In this case, you are not making any judgment whatsoever as to the correctness of his views or the morality of his behaviour - you are merely pointing out that he has said one thing and done another. Virtually all political discourse in the days of my youth was devoted to the ferreting out of hypocrisy. "Posted by: Lauren at August 14, 2009 3:13 PM
Perfect. Thank you.
Neal Stephenson is great. He definitely gets into some more technical sci-fi than some may not like, but his cultural observations are spot on.Posted by: Lauren at August 14, 2009 3:26 PM
Yep. That's why the pro-abortionists' accusation fingers always point squarely at the "The only moral abortion is my abortion." group. I hate it when they start by assuming everyone is a hypocrite. "Well, I bet if you were ever in a crisis pregnancy, poor, without a place to go, you'd get an abortion alright!" and when I tell them that guess what, I have indeed been poor, pregnant, and without my own residence or employment and still did not submit to some compulsion to kill my daughter...they're just absolutely flabbergasted. They cannot fathom that someone a.) has come to the logical conclusion of their own volition that there are indeed absolute "right"s and "wrong"s, b.) been able to adhere to those fundamental principles and applied them to their own life as they would expect everyone else to do.Posted by: xalisae at August 14, 2009 3:28 PM
Neil Stephenson comments on people who think "hypocrisy is the worst of all voices," but doesn't say he disagrees with that line of thinking. Does he disagree with it? If so, why?Posted by: Hal at August 14, 2009 3:53 PM
I received this response to my e-mail to Gonzaga-
It has come to my attention that an e-mail, written by an employee of the University and expressing personal opinions regarding certain political perspectives -- as well as the individual's views regarding a specific organization -- has been circulated on the internet.
This employee does not speak for Gonzaga University nor are the views expressed in the e-mail reflective of the University’s position or character. We are actively looking into the circumstances surrounding the authorship of the e-mail and its issue. As is the University’s protocol in such matters, it is being dealt with as a matter of personnel conduct, within the framework of the University's policies and expectations. The University will take appropriate action once this matter has been thoroughly reviewed.
I deeply regret this incident and the consternation is has caused. I am grateful to those who brought this matter to our attention, and all who are concerned about the University’s welfare and reputation. Gonzaga holds steadfast to its Jesuit and Catholic identity and works vigorously to make this identity evident in all of its actions, as well as the actions of its employees.
Thayne M. McCulloh, Ph.D.
Hmm. I wonder if there willbe any further action? We'll have to keep watching.Posted by: Lee at August 14, 2009 4:02 PM
It is obvious by the tone of the passage that he disagrees, Hal. Of course, if reading comprehension isn't your strength, he states it more explicitly later in the book.
"Because they were hypocrites the Victorians were despised in the late twentieth century. Many of the persons who held such opinions were, of course, guilty of the most nefandous conduct themselves, and yet saw no paradox in holding such views because they were not hypocrites themselves — they took no moral stances and lived by none. We take a somewhat different view of hypocrisy. In the late twentieth century Weltanschauung, a hypocrite was someone who espoused high moral views as part of a planned campaign of deception — he never held these beliefs sincerely and routinely violated them in privacy. Of course, most hypocrites are not like that. Most of the time it's a spirit-is-willing, flesh-is-weak sort of thing. "
"No one ever said it was easy to hew to a strict code of conduct. Really, the difficulties involved — the missteps we make along the way — are what make it interesting. The internal, and eternal, struggle between our base impulses and the rigorous demands of our own moral system is quintessentially human. It is how we conduct ourselves in that struggle that determines how we may in time be judged by a higher power"Posted by: Lauren at August 14, 2009 4:28 PM
Why must we judge others based on the "set of rules" we ourselves live by? I don't understand and never will. I guess I am "liberal" but I accept "conservative" views and do not like to be seen as immoral because I do not have those same views. I do not want to live in a box and associate only with those who live the same way. Why must Catholics be so black and white, right or wrong? Because I am not a devout Catholic (I was raised Catholic), I am leading an immoral life? Please, Devout Catholics, explain it to me in simple terms.
Jane, I'm not Catholic either.
You're conflating a lot of issues, so I'll try to answer them all.
First you ask why you must judge others based on rules that you live by. That was answered very well in the above quotes. If we have no objective moral code, the only thing left to judge a situation by is how well it follows some random moral code it set for itself. This results in completely absurd society.
We judge a killer whose moral values allow him to kill as a better person than someone who opposes drinking, but had a few beers after a very stressful day.
If everything is relative, those who do the most heinous acts in society can be lauded as long as they believe that their evil is good or neutral.
As for your question on immorality:
There are objective moral values. If you act opposite these values, you are acting in an immoral fashion. It matters little if you support or ignore these morals prior to acting against them.
The world really is black and white. There are things that are wrong, there are things that are right. There are also things that are neutral. Killing is always wrong. Adultery is always wrong. Theft is always wrong.
The events in our lives should be held to this objective moral standard. We should judge our actions not by our own feelings toward the matter, but rather against these universal morals.
Moral people can and do commit moral wrongs, but that doesn't change the fact objective morality exists.Posted by: Lauren at August 14, 2009 5:43 PM
Ed, why must you wield Scripture as a club? Why do religious conservatives attack those that are not and condemn us to Hell? This is the problem I have with those that define themselves as "religious". I do not go around telling others (or insinuating) they will go to Hell if they do not live as I do. I agree there is a an objective moral standard. I do not stand in judgment, though, of those who do not follow society's exact set of morals. Shouldn't the Lord have that role?
Are gay men and women causing harm? Who, exactly, do they hurt? Is it just the "objective moral standard" they are not following?
Question.... isn't "killing" different than "murder"? If someone was about to "murder" your child, would it or would it not be ok to kill to protect yourself or your family? Most Christians believe losing thousands of men and women in Iraq was justifiable. If killing is wrong, how can this be justified?
Is there not somewhere between absolutism and moral relativism where we can meet? I'm tired of Devout Christians passing judgment.Posted by: Jane at August 14, 2009 7:03 PM
Jane, there is grace. Victor Hugo does a great job exploring this in Les Miserables.
Please be more specific. Which of my points are you referring to and in what way? It's great to refer to literature, but you need to explain yourself. There are many ways to dissect a piece of literature.Posted by: Jane at August 14, 2009 8:27 PM
My answer was in response to your question "Is there not somewhere between absolutism and moral relativism where we can meet?"Posted by: Lauren at August 14, 2009 10:53 PM
There are also two kinds of judgment. The first kind of judgment is condemnation, which belongs to God and God alone. The second kind of judgment is better understood as *discernment* and is what helps us to navigate right and wrong. People get hung up on the Scripture that tells us, "Do not judge, lest ye be judged". Properly understood, that passage says, "Don't condemn, lest ye be condemned"; it's not about "don't discern".
Obviously, we must not ever judge a person's worth or their heart. We *must*, however, discern the nature of actions against moral absolutes. If we didn't discern, how on earth could we ever know that it's bad to steal, lie, commit adultery, or drown kittens for fun. On the other hand, how do we know that it's good to help the poor, heal the sick, shelter the homeless, and so on?
But hey, what if I *like* adultery, what then? What if think that if someone's sick it's their own fault so I don't need to do anything to help them; it's not my fault, why should I help?
These last two scenarios make most everyone squeamish on some level. Where does that come from, the sense that those are horrible sentiments? Did we learn them, or are they hard-wired somewhere in the human heart?
The questions that you ask are wonderful, deeply philosophical questions. Keep asking.
God bless +Posted by: Jennifer at August 15, 2009 1:13 AM
ps--Jane, you are right. Killing and murder are decidedly different. There are situations where killing can be *justified*. There are no situations where murder ever is.
Killing connotes and unintentional consequence where the loss of life is mourned. By contrast, in the case of murder, the point is to end someone's life, without regard to justice or compassion and loss of life is either celebrated or is *perceived* as justified (when, objectively, it was not justified). Murder carries with it a sense of evil, for want of a better explanation.
Not a great explanation and for that I apologize; been a difficult day. Hopefully someone here has a much better answer for you.
Blessings +Posted by: Jennifer at August 15, 2009 1:22 AM
Regarding Nora's post, I believe the Latina woman who described the program in which she could earn points towards baby items was actually referring to a pro-life pregnancy center, many of which operate such free educational and counseling programs for the benefit of their clients and children. I don't know of any Planned Parenthood facility that runs such a program.Posted by: Debra at August 17, 2009 11:13 AM
This lady does not belong there. She should work for planned parenthood. If this is the kind of personnel they have in the university, it is no wonder parents are not sending there kids there. I have 1 more going to college and will never send him there.Posted by: Lucie at August 18, 2009 1:58 PM
She should be cashiered. It will be a wonderful day when our formerly Catholic universities and colleges are liberated from poorly formed "Catholics" like her.Posted by: Jack at August 19, 2009 8:42 PM
Unfortunately, what this woman actually wrote was;
throughout their pregnancy.
Obviously, the termination of pregnancy can be defined with such sneaky language.
She believes that abortion helps women.
She believes that counsel to end a pregnancy is HELP.
I can hardly surprised she has no idea what the definition of a stupid person would be. In my dictionary, Stupid has her face next to it.
I am saddened by the way the Jesuit institutions have allowed the moral blight of the world to invade their domains. Georgetown honors prominent proponents of homosexuality and covers up the symbol for the name of Jesus so that it cannot be seen behind Obama as he speaks. Gay and Lesbian clubs abound. Sexual promiscuity is promoted. Pornographic plays are presented as "art." And on and on. As for me, I have suspended any further contributions to my alma mater, Rockhurst University, because of the Jesuits' malfeasance, and I will no longer recommend a Jesuit education to young people.Posted by: Yosef at August 26, 2009 3:32 PM
It is amazing how many people fall for the propaganda put out by Planned parenthood and their supporters. They actually think Manger Sanger, the founder of Planned Parenthood, cared about the health of young girls. Nothing could be further from the truth. Read Angela Frank's book for the REAL story. PP are in the business of killing unborn babies period. It is a proven fact, over and over again, that the more contraceptives are handed out, the more abortions occur. The physical and mental anguish abortion causes is unimaginable, and stays with a woman until the day she dies.Posted by: Bill at August 26, 2009 3:54 PM
Gonzaga class 45. We were a boys school and we did not have to put up with all the intellectual thoughts that women bring to the table. If they would act like ladies of old we would not have to put up with the likes of Margaret Sanger and her ilk. Get rid of the stupid liberal and shut off her computer. She does not belong in a Jesuit school.Posted by: Gene at August 26, 2009 4:34 PM