Washington Post:
The author who turned Georgetown University into a horror scene in “The Exorcist” plans to sue the school in church court, charging that his alma mater has strayed so far from church doctrine that it should no longer call itself Catholic.
William Peter Blatty, who graduated from Georgetown in 1950, says the “last straw” was the university’s speaking invitation to Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius.
Sebelius, who addressed graduating public policy students on Friday (May 18), has been criticized by conservative Catholics for approving a mandate that requires many religious institutions to cover employees’ birth control costs. The Archdiocese of Washington called the Sebelius invitation “shocking.”
Blatty, 85, credits a Georgetown scholarship with fostering his writing career, which includes an Academy Award for “The Exorcist,” a blockbuster based on his best-selling 1971 novel. In the book and movie, a Jesuit priest at Georgetown, the nation’s oldest Catholic university, struggles to save a demon-possessed girl. Now retired, Blatty lives in Bethesda, Md.
“What I owe Georgetown, however, is nothing as compared to what Georgetown owes to its founders and the Christ of faith,” Blatty said in a statement.
In response to criticism of the Sebelius speech, Georgetown president John J. DeGioia said this week that the university is “committed to the free exchange of ideas” even if it does not agree with all of them.
Blatty’s “indictment” against Georgetown charges the school with failing to recruit Catholic teachers and students, neglecting to instruct students in Catholic morality and failing to act in accord with church doctrine. He expects the suit to be filed in the Archdiocese of Washington’s court of canon law this fall.
William Peter Blatty needs a good smack down. He plans to sue Georgetown Univeristy for not being Catholic enough. Of course, Blatty leaves off the 40 or so years he has been living off the spoils of a good old fashioned exorcism which apparently isn’t even on the books of the Catholic Church, or so we were told. What is Georgetown’s sin, other than graduating that punk? They had Secretary of Human Services Kathleen Sebelius as the graduation speaker.
Now, I am not sure what her sin is other than she is pro choice and advances the use of contraception. Does that mean that Georgetown, a Jesuit school, should only allow uber Catholics to speak? Jesuits are known for being independent thinkers who advance knowledge. Now, they might come along and tell you why you should avoid certain things, but they don’t hide the knowledge of such things from their students. In fact, I would give the Jesuits the highest marks of all.
I always had a lot of respect for Blatty as an author. In fact, he and Joe Paterno were life long buddies, dating back to their prep school days in Brooklyn. I always followed both men because I liked The Exorcist so much. Both men had been poor boys growing up and because of academic success, were given a good Catholic education. But this thought police nonsense Blatty has taken on is just disgusting. Does he want to stamp out everything “not-Catholic?” It’s one thing to not approve of guests. It’s quite another thing to sue Georgetown. That’s just a little too much control. Someone ought to spin Blatty’s head 360 degrees, just like in his book, and see if it makes him any more tolerant.
22 Thoughts to “William Peter Blatty needs a good smack down”
Just to be clear, Blatty isn’t “suing” Georgetown via the traditional American judicial system. He’s appealing to the ecclesiastical court, which has power and jurisdiction only over spiritual matters within the Church. The judges themselves investigate the case, and the ruling is made by “moral certainty.” The WaPo’s use of the word “sue” is misinformed and inflammatory.
Those stairs still creep me out every time I cross the Key Bridge.
They are creepy stairs. Thanks for clarifying. I had read that in one of the articles but it makes no sense to me. What is the “punishment” if Georgetown is found guilty? What word should be used instead of “sue?”
It has more to do with issues like whether annulments should be granted, whether or not someone should be excommunicated, whether a priesthood is valid–that sort of thing that might call into question whether canonical law is being upheld or not. Kind of an internal issue, and I’m not really sure why it’s national news (who has really given Blatty a thought over the last 30 years or so?), except as part of WaPo’s effort to keep up the “war on women” narrative. It would be surprising to me (and highly doubtful) if such a tribunal would want to ban future appearances by government officials.
Perhaps throughout history, those who thought their church had gone astray should have just kept their traps shut. Martin Luther needed a good smack down!
Why Slow, I didnt know that William Peter Blatty had been ordained! I expect lots of folks thought Martin Luther and Henry XIII needed a good smack down.
Everybody is kind of beating around the bush here, so let’s be honest. The invitation of Kathleen Sebelius to speak at a ceremony related to graduation at Georgetown was intended to poke the Catholic Church in the eye. The University argues that it is a free speech issue, but the Secretary of HHS has no shortage of opportunities to make her views known. Coupled with the fact that she is the architect of a policy that infringes on religious freedom, this is a slap in the face to Catholics that provide financial support to Catholic universities with the expectation that they will follow the basic principles of the Church. Blatty has every right to challenge her invitation.
So….let me try to figure out who the offender is. Are you suggesting that someone forced Georgetown to invite her? They can invite who they want. Who is it that you think wants to poke the Catholic Church in the eye? I believe that is a stretch.
As for being the architect of any plan, she is a politician, former governor type. I expect that she did not act alone.
You are aware that Kathleen Sebelius has been forbidden to approach any alter in the United States for communion? The declaration came out of the Holy See. Now I am not so sure how much weight that carries or if the lady really cannot practice her faith and receive communion.
I find it highly offensive that the Church tries to control politicians by denying them communion. That is just a little too much church state violation for my tastes. I feel strongly enough about it that the first time one of those edicts comes out on a public official, the church lose its tax exempt status. (any church, not just the Catholic Church)
I certainly did not mean to beat around the bush. I prefer to not come out swinging a baseball bat howwever. In the first place, I wasn’t sure what it meant to sue Georgetown University to be a better Catholic school. That’s a new one on me. I thought Blatty might want to take away Georgetown’s Jesuit or Catholic status. Ecclesiastical tribunals are confusing and often leave everyone scratching their heads, including those religion it is.
Moon – Nice juxtaposition with the Maher thread. You have shown two examples of people wanting to restrain academic freedom. Maher degrades Liberty University because he doesn’t like much of what they teach and Blatty goes after Georgetown because they invite a speaker with whom he disagrees. Maher thinks that he should have the power to edit the curriculum of institutions of higher learning to conform to his beliefs; otherwise they shouldn’t be accorded the status of college or university. His arrogance knows no bounds.
I’m pretty much a First Amendment absolutist. Aside from “yelling fire in a crowded theater” I oppose virtually every attempt to restrain speech. I can’t stand Bill Maher but won’t cancel my subscription to HBO. I despise the idea of economic boycotts that are designed to stifle anyone’s expression of their views, regardless of how much I might disagree.
John Stossel had a very good show on Fox this weekend about groups trying to get people with whom they disagree thrown off the air. His conclusion was that people should not try to muffle others, but instead get their own competing views out. Let the free market of ideas decide with whom to agree. It’s worth watching if Fox reruns it.
The commencement speaker many years ago when I finished one of my graduate degrees was John Kenneth Galbraith. For those who are not as old a vintage as me, Galbraith was the nemesis of William F. Buckley, Jr., one of the commentators I most admire, and have mentioned on MH. They enjoyed lively discussions and debates, on the old “Firing Line” show and elsewhere. They were a lot of fun to watch. It’s too bad they and their style of debate of both gone now.
My parents attended that ceremony. My father came from a Republican background also, and about three years prior had gotten tickets for us to a fundraiser featuring Ronald Reagan as the keynote speaker (we’re talking ‘70s here). We both enjoyed the Galbraith speech very much but instead of protesting him as the speaker, later just dissected everything he had gotten wrong in his remarks.
Sure. They need an even harder smack-down. Blatty is ancient.
Why are they special? And most of us don’t feel their rights are being violated. No one is making them take contraceptives.
If they don’t want to have to act like every other employer, then don’t employ.
If they were sincere, this issue would have been brought to a head a long time ago at the state level.
Here’s a fascinating article about the supposed true story that Blatty based his work on. It happened near Mt Ranier in Maryland in the 1940s but most likely it was nothing more than a disturbed, attention-seeking kid manipulating people around him. In fact, the initial WaPost article that broke the story back then is almost humorous in nature and the reporter evidently didn’t believe it.
Anyway, Georgetown should procede with its plans. Who cares what Blatty thinks? The guy was a gullible fool and fraud who exploited a disturbed kid for his own gain.
From everything known at the time, Blatty was not gullible and there is documentation of a catholic exorcism. If you believe in such things, the young boy had a little more than a touch of emotional disturbance. I am too superstitious to write this off as much ado about nothing and I have stood by my fear since the the book was first publish. I won’t permit an ouija board in my house because of that story. There are book out there with documentation in them. I just can’t recall all the details.
I always liked Blatty until he decided he was the definitive answer on what it meant to be Catholic. I would say in his old age he has just gotten too big for his britches.
I rewatched The Exorist tonight. It is still just as terrifying. Starry, I can’t tell you what a sensation that book and film were in the early 70’s. If I ever needed something to convince me evil exists, it would be that book/film and the Mansons.
Excellent opinion piece. I used to think that my catholic friends exuded a tolerance that pretty much said Christ loved everyone. Now those same people have left the church. It just became too intolerant. Hatred of gays, contraception users and pro choice people really isn’t Christ-like at all. Is this Christian delusion? I would say people who hate might think they are Christian but really aren’t.
I am kind of surprised to read your reaction to that article, Moon. Yes, it was a well-made movie and all, but after reading more about it, it looks to me like a lot of priests, family members and Mr. Blatty believed what they wanted to believe about the kid. Call me Agent Scully to your Muldur 🙂
@Starry, from what I have read, it was a fairly well researched case and Blatty had to practically bribe it out of the Catholic archives. The kid really existed and the family moved to St. Louis or something. The kid remains anonymous, even to this day.
All I can say is, if I ever need an exorcism, I want the Catholics to do it. They have had more practice.
Yea. I am fairly Mulder on this one. Maybe I have just believed something for so long, it is entrenched in my brain.
“It just became too intolerant. Hatred of gays, contraception users and pro choice people really isn’t Christ-like at all.”
That “hate” word is so utterly overused, it’s meaningless. The Church doesn’t “hate” gays, but it believes homosexual acts are sinful. The Church doesn’t “hate” contraception users, but believes that sexual intercourse should be open to the possibility of life. The Church doesn’t “hate” pro choice people, but believes that life begins at the moment of conception. Hate? Come on, really?
What word would you use to replace “hate” Emma? the people I hear say lets put them in pens, drop food to them and hope they die….that sounds like they hate them to me. I even offered to let the word “dislike” replace hate. Why would The Church have any feelings at all about people who are pro-choice? Do they now categorize you by what you think? Pro-choice is a belief, not an action. At least gay and contraception users participate in an action. I expect contraception believers and pro-choice people draw in the same degree of hate/dislike.
Whatever happened to those who are obedient simply saying we don’t do that rather than standing out on a street corner screaming at other people for their beliefs?
It takes some motivation to get out on a street corner to harrass someone who doesn’t think as you think.
Hate isn’t meaningless to you and if you had ever been on the receiving end of that hate, you would know what I mean, existentially. I still have lifelong injuries that are debilitating from the little love push to the ground I was given by someone about 20 years ago.
Just to be clear, Blatty isn’t “suing” Georgetown via the traditional American judicial system. He’s appealing to the ecclesiastical court, which has power and jurisdiction only over spiritual matters within the Church. The judges themselves investigate the case, and the ruling is made by “moral certainty.” The WaPo’s use of the word “sue” is misinformed and inflammatory.
Those stairs still creep me out every time I cross the Key Bridge.
They are creepy stairs. Thanks for clarifying. I had read that in one of the articles but it makes no sense to me. What is the “punishment” if Georgetown is found guilty? What word should be used instead of “sue?”
It has more to do with issues like whether annulments should be granted, whether or not someone should be excommunicated, whether a priesthood is valid–that sort of thing that might call into question whether canonical law is being upheld or not. Kind of an internal issue, and I’m not really sure why it’s national news (who has really given Blatty a thought over the last 30 years or so?), except as part of WaPo’s effort to keep up the “war on women” narrative. It would be surprising to me (and highly doubtful) if such a tribunal would want to ban future appearances by government officials.
I actually have thought about Blatty. I thought of him a lot during the Penn State uproar and Joe Paterno. I am probably the only one though.
Thanks for the info though. I seriously thought he was taking them to court of sorts, even though I read some disclaimer…I didn’t understand it.
So you are saying that its really almost like a publicity stunt on his part?
Perhaps throughout history, those who thought their church had gone astray should have just kept their traps shut. Martin Luther needed a good smack down!
Why Slow, I didnt know that William Peter Blatty had been ordained! I expect lots of folks thought Martin Luther and Henry XIII needed a good smack down.
The Church wouldn’t have such a tribunal if it just wanted everyone to shut up and comply.
Everybody is kind of beating around the bush here, so let’s be honest. The invitation of Kathleen Sebelius to speak at a ceremony related to graduation at Georgetown was intended to poke the Catholic Church in the eye. The University argues that it is a free speech issue, but the Secretary of HHS has no shortage of opportunities to make her views known. Coupled with the fact that she is the architect of a policy that infringes on religious freedom, this is a slap in the face to Catholics that provide financial support to Catholic universities with the expectation that they will follow the basic principles of the Church. Blatty has every right to challenge her invitation.
So….let me try to figure out who the offender is. Are you suggesting that someone forced Georgetown to invite her? They can invite who they want. Who is it that you think wants to poke the Catholic Church in the eye? I believe that is a stretch.
As for being the architect of any plan, she is a politician, former governor type. I expect that she did not act alone.
You are aware that Kathleen Sebelius has been forbidden to approach any alter in the United States for communion? The declaration came out of the Holy See. Now I am not so sure how much weight that carries or if the lady really cannot practice her faith and receive communion.
I find it highly offensive that the Church tries to control politicians by denying them communion. That is just a little too much church state violation for my tastes. I feel strongly enough about it that the first time one of those edicts comes out on a public official, the church lose its tax exempt status. (any church, not just the Catholic Church)
I certainly did not mean to beat around the bush. I prefer to not come out swinging a baseball bat howwever. In the first place, I wasn’t sure what it meant to sue Georgetown University to be a better Catholic school. That’s a new one on me. I thought Blatty might want to take away Georgetown’s Jesuit or Catholic status. Ecclesiastical tribunals are confusing and often leave everyone scratching their heads, including those religion it is.
Moon – Nice juxtaposition with the Maher thread. You have shown two examples of people wanting to restrain academic freedom. Maher degrades Liberty University because he doesn’t like much of what they teach and Blatty goes after Georgetown because they invite a speaker with whom he disagrees. Maher thinks that he should have the power to edit the curriculum of institutions of higher learning to conform to his beliefs; otherwise they shouldn’t be accorded the status of college or university. His arrogance knows no bounds.
I’m pretty much a First Amendment absolutist. Aside from “yelling fire in a crowded theater” I oppose virtually every attempt to restrain speech. I can’t stand Bill Maher but won’t cancel my subscription to HBO. I despise the idea of economic boycotts that are designed to stifle anyone’s expression of their views, regardless of how much I might disagree.
John Stossel had a very good show on Fox this weekend about groups trying to get people with whom they disagree thrown off the air. His conclusion was that people should not try to muffle others, but instead get their own competing views out. Let the free market of ideas decide with whom to agree. It’s worth watching if Fox reruns it.
The commencement speaker many years ago when I finished one of my graduate degrees was John Kenneth Galbraith. For those who are not as old a vintage as me, Galbraith was the nemesis of William F. Buckley, Jr., one of the commentators I most admire, and have mentioned on MH. They enjoyed lively discussions and debates, on the old “Firing Line” show and elsewhere. They were a lot of fun to watch. It’s too bad they and their style of debate of both gone now.
My parents attended that ceremony. My father came from a Republican background also, and about three years prior had gotten tickets for us to a fundraiser featuring Ronald Reagan as the keynote speaker (we’re talking ‘70s here). We both enjoyed the Galbraith speech very much but instead of protesting him as the speaker, later just dissected everything he had gotten wrong in his remarks.
So Cardinal Timothy Dolan and others are suing the Obama Administration…..do they need a smack-down?
Sure. They need an even harder smack-down. Blatty is ancient.
Why are they special? And most of us don’t feel their rights are being violated. No one is making them take contraceptives.
If they don’t want to have to act like every other employer, then don’t employ.
If they were sincere, this issue would have been brought to a head a long time ago at the state level.
Here’s a fascinating article about the supposed true story that Blatty based his work on. It happened near Mt Ranier in Maryland in the 1940s but most likely it was nothing more than a disturbed, attention-seeking kid manipulating people around him. In fact, the initial WaPost article that broke the story back then is almost humorous in nature and the reporter evidently didn’t believe it.
http://www.strangemag.com/exorcistpage1.html
Anyway, Georgetown should procede with its plans. Who cares what Blatty thinks? The guy was a gullible fool and fraud who exploited a disturbed kid for his own gain.
From everything known at the time, Blatty was not gullible and there is documentation of a catholic exorcism. If you believe in such things, the young boy had a little more than a touch of emotional disturbance. I am too superstitious to write this off as much ado about nothing and I have stood by my fear since the the book was first publish. I won’t permit an ouija board in my house because of that story. There are book out there with documentation in them. I just can’t recall all the details.
I always liked Blatty until he decided he was the definitive answer on what it meant to be Catholic. I would say in his old age he has just gotten too big for his britches.
Here’s Maureen Dowd’s opinion in the NY Times about what it is to be Catholic/catholic today. I think she disagrees with Blatty…
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/05/20/opinion/sunday/dowd-here-comes-nobody.html?_r=1
I rewatched The Exorist tonight. It is still just as terrifying. Starry, I can’t tell you what a sensation that book and film were in the early 70’s. If I ever needed something to convince me evil exists, it would be that book/film and the Mansons.
@Censored bybvbl
Excellent opinion piece. I used to think that my catholic friends exuded a tolerance that pretty much said Christ loved everyone. Now those same people have left the church. It just became too intolerant. Hatred of gays, contraception users and pro choice people really isn’t Christ-like at all. Is this Christian delusion? I would say people who hate might think they are Christian but really aren’t.
I am kind of surprised to read your reaction to that article, Moon. Yes, it was a well-made movie and all, but after reading more about it, it looks to me like a lot of priests, family members and Mr. Blatty believed what they wanted to believe about the kid. Call me Agent Scully to your Muldur 🙂
@Starry, from what I have read, it was a fairly well researched case and Blatty had to practically bribe it out of the Catholic archives. The kid really existed and the family moved to St. Louis or something. The kid remains anonymous, even to this day.
All I can say is, if I ever need an exorcism, I want the Catholics to do it. They have had more practice.
Yea. I am fairly Mulder on this one. Maybe I have just believed something for so long, it is entrenched in my brain.
Great op ed piece Censored!
Hypocrisy has no end sometimes.
“It just became too intolerant. Hatred of gays, contraception users and pro choice people really isn’t Christ-like at all.”
That “hate” word is so utterly overused, it’s meaningless. The Church doesn’t “hate” gays, but it believes homosexual acts are sinful. The Church doesn’t “hate” contraception users, but believes that sexual intercourse should be open to the possibility of life. The Church doesn’t “hate” pro choice people, but believes that life begins at the moment of conception. Hate? Come on, really?
What word would you use to replace “hate” Emma? the people I hear say lets put them in pens, drop food to them and hope they die….that sounds like they hate them to me. I even offered to let the word “dislike” replace hate. Why would The Church have any feelings at all about people who are pro-choice? Do they now categorize you by what you think? Pro-choice is a belief, not an action. At least gay and contraception users participate in an action. I expect contraception believers and pro-choice people draw in the same degree of hate/dislike.
Whatever happened to those who are obedient simply saying we don’t do that rather than standing out on a street corner screaming at other people for their beliefs?
It takes some motivation to get out on a street corner to harrass someone who doesn’t think as you think.
Hate isn’t meaningless to you and if you had ever been on the receiving end of that hate, you would know what I mean, existentially. I still have lifelong injuries that are debilitating from the little love push to the ground I was given by someone about 20 years ago.