"Catholic" Boston College seeks to be gay-friendly

  • Thread starter Thread starter Catholic29
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
C

Catholic29

Guest
boston.com/news/local/massachusetts/articles/2005/05/10/boston_college_set_to_adopt_language_that_welcomes_gays/

Boston College set to adopt language that welcomes gays

By Jenna Russell, Globe Staff | May 10, 2005

Boston College administrators have agreed to change the school’s statement of nondiscrimination to make it more welcoming to gay students and employees, but the revision stops short of prohibiting discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation.

The policy changes were agreed on after weeks of meetings between BC’s general counsel, two high-ranking student affairs officials, and student leaders. Jack Dunn, a spokesman for the Catholic university, said the compromise was drafted last week and is expected to become policy after further internal review.

Three weeks ago, a campus rally in support of gay rights drew 1,000 people. Student activists have lobbied for changes in the nondiscrimination policy for more than three years, since BC appeared on a list of gay-unfriendly colleges published by the Princeton Review. The university’s nondiscrimination statement pledges compliance with laws against discrimination based on race, religion, age, sex, and other protected criteria, but because Massachusetts law includes an exemption for religious institutions with moral objections to homosexuality, the policy doesn’t grant the same blanket protection to sexual orientation.

In new language to be added to the statement, BC ''commits itself to maintaining a welcoming environment for all people and extends its welcome in particular to those who may be vulnerable to discrimination on the basis of their race . . . religion, color, age . . . or sexual orientation."

But the revised policy also makes clear that BC will comply with antidiscrimination laws ''while reserving its lawful rights where appropriate to take actions designed to promote the Jesuit, Catholic principles that sustain its mission and heritage."

University officials have said the exemption allows them to withhold funding or recognition from student groups with goals at odds with Catholic principles, without being vulnerable to lawsuits.

Student leaders said in a joint statement that the new policy is ''vastly improved" and ''noticeably more welcoming and affirming to all communities," but not perfect.

''We are disappointed that the revised clause continues to separate sexual orientation from other groups . . . when the welcoming address . . . so accurately and vividly represents the culture of our University," student government president Grace Simmons and other student leaders wrote. ''The new statement is a milestone, but not an end."

A spokeswoman for the Association of Jesuit Colleges and Universities in Washington, D.C., said 21 of the nation’s 28 Jesuit campuses include the words sexual orientation in their nondiscrimination policies. She could not say how many schools offer full protection. The College of the Holy Cross in Worcester, which chose to forgo the state’s religious exemption, does include sexual preference alongside age, race, and gender.

Dunn acknowledged that some students think the policy still needs work, but he said campus reaction has been overwhelmingly positive. ''Students respect the fact that as a Jesuit university, we have an obligation to uphold our religious convictions," he said.

The Rev. John W. Howard, a BC alumnus and a longtime faculty member, said many students feel they have a long way to go until the policy is truly fair. Many of the most vocal students seem to be motivated by Jesuit teachings about the duty to fight injustice, he said.

''I heard one university official say, this is the price we pay for having bright kids coming to BC," said Howard. ''Like it or not, many of them seem to have gotten the [Jesuit] message. I’m not the only one who admires them."

Student activists scored a victory in 2003, when the university’s president, the Rev. William Leahy, agreed to grant official recognition to a gay-straight student alliance on campus.

''The hard work of the movement, including the rally and discussions, have definitely had an impact on the culture at BC, and students are committed to continue the work," said Michael Yaksich, director of gay, lesbian, bisexual, and transgender issues for BC’s student government.
 
Catholic29 said:
boston.com/news/local/massachusetts/articles/2005/05/10/boston_college_set_to_adopt_language_that_welcomes_gays/

Boston College set to adopt language that welcomes gays

By Jenna Russell, Globe Staff | May 10, 2005

''The hard work of the movement, including the rally and discussions, have definitely had an impact on the culture at BC, and students are committed to continue the work," said Michael Yaksich, director of** gay, lesbian, bisexual, and transgender** issues for BC’s student government.

It sounds like the menu of perverse sexual expression has rudely excluded those students who hold to fornication, polygamy, bestiality, self-abuse …these people have feelings and the “right” to perverse/immoral sexual expression too. Let’s not exclude or discriminate against the diversity of perverse sexual expression.

Romans**, *Chapter 1:24,-25, 28, 32 “***Therefore, God handed them over to impurity through the lusts of their hearts for the mutual degradation of their bodies. They exchanged the truth of God for a lie …And since they did not see fit to acknowledge God, God handed them over to their undiscerning mind to do what is improper. Although they know the just decree of God that all who practice such things deserve death, they not only do them but give approval to those who practice them.”
 
Catholic29 said:

Hold your horses and note the inflamatory headline is NOT an accurate summary of what the college has done. read on…
In new language to be added to the statement, BC ''commits itself to maintaining a welcoming environment for all people and extends its welcome in particular to those who may be vulnerable to discrimination on the basis of their race . . . religion, color, age . . . or sexual orientation."
How does this conflict with Catholic teaching? Catholics who happen to have SSA are a most welcome part of the community of faith so long as their conduct is in line with Catholic principals–just as is required of heterosexuals. The “…Welcomes Gay…” headline is misleading precisely because “gay” implies living a sexually active homosexual life. That is NOT what this policy is about. read on…
But the revised policy also makes clear that BC will comply with antidiscrimination laws ''while reserving its lawful rights where appropriate to take actions designed to promote the Jesuit, Catholic principles that sustain its mission and heritage."
University officials have said the exemption allows them to withhold funding or recognition from student groups with goals at odds with Catholic principles, without being vulnerable to lawsuits.

Seems in line to me.
Student leaders said in a joint statement that the new policy is ''vastly improved" and ''noticeably more welcoming and affirming to all communities," but not perfect.

''The hard work of the movement, including the rally and discussions, have definitely had an impact on the culture at BC, and students are committed to continue the work," said Michael Yaksich, director of gay, lesbian, bisexual, and transgender issues for BC’s student government.
Clearly a distinction exists between the agenda of “gay” activists/clubs and the anti-discrimination policy the College has adopted towards those with an orientation, not a lifesyle.

I think we need to be very careful and precise about the commmunication we endorse and/or criticize on this issue. It allows others who are uninformed to take advantage of sloppiness in the media to label Catholics as intolerant and bigoted, when that is not the case.
 
Island Oak:
Hold your horses and note the inflamatory headline is NOT an accurate summary of what the college has done. read on…

I think we need to be very careful and precise about the commmunication we endorse and/or criticize on this issue. It allows others who are uninformed to take advantage of sloppiness in the media to label Catholics as intolerant and bigoted, when that is not the case.
Some of us are under the opinion that this would fall under the category of politically correct Trojan horse.
 
''Students respect the fact that as a Jesuit university, we have an obligation to uphold our religious convictions," he said.
''I heard one university official say, this is the price we pay for having bright kids coming to BC," said Howard. ''Like it or not, many of them seem to have gotten the [Jesuit] message. I’m not the only one who admires them."
''The new statement is a milestone, but not an end."
Uh huh, I see the camel’s nose.

BC is not well known for orthodoxy.
 
40.png
felra:
Some of us are under the opinion that this would fall under the category of politically correct Trojan horse.
Do you agree or disagree that the media report cited by the OP is an inaccurate summary of BC’s amendment of its policy?

Do you agree or disagree that BC’s revised policy, as written and not as mischaracterized by media, comports with Catholic teaching on this issue?

Please let’s not join the fray for sport and further muddy the issue at hand.
 
40.png
fix:
BC is not well known for orthodoxy.
Regardless of your opinion of the school, does the policy at issue conflict with Catholic teaching? I would submit it does not.
 
The policy in in accord with Catholic teachings. In fact it ia part of the mission of Catholics to minister to the marginalized of society which certainly includes homosexuals. This does not mean that we call homosexual actions acceptable, as they are not. As long as the college does not allow promotion of homosexual actions and marriage, they are OK. In fact, not only should it not allow such activity but take preventive action to insure such activieties do not occur.
 
Get out your anti-liberal decoder rings:

But the revised policy also makes clear that BC will comply with antidiscrimination laws ''while reserving its lawful rights where appropriate to take actions designed to promote the Jesuit, Catholic principles that sustain its mission and heritage."

Note the words “where appropriate.” This means, as long as Catholic teachings are sufficiently politically correct.
Code:
University officials have said the exemption allows them to withhold funding or recognition from student groups with goals at odds with Catholic principles, without being vulnerable to lawsuits.

Vulnerability to lawsuits has more to do with the financial stakes than compliance to Catholic principles.


Student leaders said in a joint statement that the new policy is ''vastly improved" and ''noticeably more welcoming and affirming to all communities," but not perfect.

This means we won't hear the end of it until the activists get everything they want.  Remember, these activists are out of a job if they actually solved any problems..


''The new statement is a milestone, but not an end."


Ditto to the one above this one.

She could not say how many schools offer full protection.
Sounds like they have condom giveaways on their minds! 😛
Code:
which chose to forgo the state's religious exemption, does include sexual preference alongside age, race, and gender.
This means they are making the change because of being badgered or just plain liberal, not required by law.

''Students respect the fact that as a Jesuit university, we have an obligation to uphold our religious convictions," he said.
Sure they do. Just like Cub Scouts respect the religious convictions of the Boy Scouts of America.

Liberals. Give them an inch and they’ll take a mile. That’s why it’s important to hold the line.

Alan
 
Alan:

Sorry, but your post is full of speculation and conjecture and scant on facts. The FACT is that BC has adopted a new policy which adheres to Catholic teaching and theology. If you think it is the first step towards disobedience–then by all means stay tuned and watch. I, along with you, am sure that we all intend, aspire and hope with all charity for only the best for and from our Catholic insitutions of higher learning.

Remember the protesters and agitators you cite do not speak for nor represent Boston College. Don’t be so easily swayed by media reports that attempt to equate protest with accession by the relevant authority. It’s not all that different from all the reports that surfaced after the death of our beloved JP II that the Catholic Church was ripe and poised for “change” on fundamental teachings. Not so. Nor did any of the faithful really take much stock in such reports. We should continue the same vigilence and faith when our insitutions are attacked or mischaracterized in the same manner.
 
Island Oak:
Alan:

Sorry, but your post is full of speculation and conjecture and scant on facts. The FACT is that BC has adopted a new policy which adheres to Catholic teaching and theology. If you think it is the first step towards disobedience–then by all means stay tuned and watch. I, along with you, am sure that we all intend, aspire and hope with all charity for only the best for and from our Catholic insitutions of higher learning.
Yes, it is full of speculation and conjecture, but they are not developed in a vacuum. I have been involved in corporate, government, and political bureaucracy for long enough to be able to read between the lines in many cases where others take the bait.

You may have a more utopian view of the motives of people who run worldly institutions than I do. Believe me, I’ve been there, and I was burned badly for being the one person who actually did buy into the management spew (such as “mission statement”) that is designed to give a certain public impression but otherwise has no effect on the way they did business.

Remember the protesters and agitators you cite do not speak for nor represent Boston College. Don’t be so easily swayed by media reports that attempt to equate protest with accession by the relevant authority.
Help me out here. What protesters and agitators did you mean? If you’re talking about “activists” for the gay agenda, then these people are precisely speaking for the institution because little by little, they are getting the institution to make official policy changes on their behalf. Whether they used protest and “agitation” to further that agenda and get the changes they want is not relevant.

I’m simply talking about a likely scenario of what the truth is behind the headlines. I’ve worked side by side with politicians from both liberal and conservative camp, and I am certainly no worshipper of either side.
It’s not all that different from all the reports that surfaced after the death of our beloved JP II that the Catholic Church was ripe and poised for “change” on fundamental teachings. Not so. Nor did any of the faithful really take much stock in such reports. We should continue the same vigilence and faith when our insitutions are attacked or mischaracterized in the same manner.
It’s not like that at all. You are talking about reports of pure speculation. We are talking about a report of what the institution actually did.

I’m curious why you think a Catholic College needs to stipulate that it is gay-friendly? What part of Catholic teachings do you think it was failing to get across before they did so?

Alan
 
Wouldn’t encouraging treatment and celibacy be more friendly than accepting a self-destructive lifestyle?
 
Island Oak:
Regardless of your opinion of the school, does the policy at issue conflict with Catholic teaching? I would submit it does not.
I do not know. What is the intent of the new policy? Does it depend on who is interpreting the new policy?

The CCC calls for no unjust discrimination. That means* just* discrimination is legitimate. BC is a so-called Catholc school. Does this new policy mean they will allow displays of homosexual conduct or water down Catholic teaching or capitulate to those who push the “gay” agenda?
 
40.png
AlanFromWichita:
Yes, it is full of speculation and conjecture, but they are not developed in a vacuum. I have been involved in corporate, government, and political bureaucracy for long enough to be able to read between the lines in many cases where others take the bait.

You may have a more utopian view of the motives of people who run worldly institutions than I do. Believe me, I’ve been there, and I was burned badly for being the one person who actually did buy into the management spew (such as “mission statement”) that is designed to give a certain public impression but otherwise has no effect on the way they did business.
Hardly a utopian, here, but you make a good point–one on which we should be vigilant.
Help me out here. What protesters and agitators did you mean? If you’re talking about “activists” for the gay agenda, then these people are precisely speaking for the institution
because little by little, they are getting the institution to make official policy changes on their behalf. Whether they used protest and “agitation” to further that agenda and get the changes they want is not relevant.

So then all those activists who call for the Catholic Church to welcome practicing gays, married priests and condone contraception are speaking for the Church?!? Hardly–the nature of the representation is not determined by the demands made by outsiders nor even the insitution’s response to them. The activists pushing and prodding BC to go further neither speak for the institution nor have power to directly effect policy change within it. That power still rests within BC unless it decides to abdicate it. The activists can make any ridiculous demand they want–it does NOT mean they speak for the school. The challenge for BC will be to stand up to the tactics including manipulation of media coverage so that its true position is not mischaracterized or misunderstood as has been the case by several posters on this very board.
I’m curious why you think a Catholic College needs to stipulate that it is gay-friendly? What part of Catholic teachings do you think it was failing to get across before they did so?

Alan
You’ve fallen right into the trap. BC didn’t stipulate or concede or attempt to be “gay friendly.” The media inflicted that title upon the College when BC amended a policy and refused to discriminate on the basis, of among other things, sexual orientation. It is the same discrimination we are called upon to avoid in our faith life. Same sex orientation and the “gay lifestyle” are two radically distinct concepts. The activists and media cited are hoping you and others blur that distinction. Fortunately BC did not and hopefully will continue to maintain said distinction in its official statements and policies.
 
40.png
fix:
I do not know. What is the intent of the new policy? Does it depend on who is interpreting the new policy?

The CCC calls for no unjust discrimination. That means* just* discrimination is legitimate. BC is a so-called Catholc school. Does this new policy mean they will allow displays of homosexual conduct or water down Catholic teaching or capitulate to those who push the “gay” agenda?
I think the fair thing to do is look at statements issued by BC (not the protesters) as well as the wording of the amendment to discern its intent:

“…the revised policy also makes clear that BC will comply with antidiscrimination laws ''while reserving its lawful rights where appropriate to take actions designed to promote the Jesuit, Catholic principles that sustain its mission and heritage.”

University officials have said the exemption allows them to withhold funding or recognition from student groups with goals at odds with Catholic principles…"

Assuming an intent at odds with Catholic teaching or other hidden agenda on the part of BC without any demonstration of such would be IMO unjustified and specious at this point.
 
Island Oak:
I think the fair thing to do is look at statements issued by BC (not the protesters) as well as the wording of the amendment to discern its intent:

“…the revised policy also makes clear that BC will comply with antidiscrimination laws ''while reserving its lawful rights where appropriate to take actions designed to promote the Jesuit, Catholic principles that sustain its mission and heritage.”

University officials have said the exemption allows them to withhold funding or recognition from student groups with goals at odds with Catholic principles…"

Assuming an intent at odds with Catholic teaching or other hidden agenda on the part of BC without any demonstration of such would be IMO unjustified and specious at this point.
Well, I am not a lawyer and do not look at each situation like a lawyer. The words as stated may be narrowly defined as you claim, but the history of that school, and the Jesuits, lead me to be suspecious. Time will tell, but to be honest the school has enough black marks that to me it is one more nail in their coffin.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top