Notre Dame Feels Political Heat Again Over DC Gay Rights March
- Status
C
Cider
Guest
D
Domer1997
Guest
The school didn’t send anyone to the march. It has already been verified that the student newspaper, The Observer, was flagrantly wrong. No university monies were used…and the students were certainly not representatives of the university. Check out the post from the other member who replied to your original post. It gives the specifics.
J
JReducation
Guest
The school itself said that the students needed only the faculty advisor’s permission to get access to the money. It’s not an administrative decision. It is a decisiion made at the local level, like in any other club or school organization. The error is not with the school.
Second, the students themselves admit to their surprise. What more do people want as proof that the administration had nothing to do with this.
Third, office that provides pastoral care for gay students did not have anything to do with this or know about it.
Fourth, the office that provides for inclusion education for gay and straight students did not know about this or support this.
How many offices do we need to scrutinize to let this die. When the students tell you that they had a petition denied, this tells you that the university is not on the same page with this issue. Why does everyone think that the students were so surprised to get the money?
It’s one thing to be a critical thinker and it’s another to be a hardcore critic of your own Church everytime you read something in the paper.
Fraternally,
Br. JR, OSF
S
sedonaman
Guest
See what happens when you “embrace diversity” ? You end up seeking and eventually embracing error.
J
JReducation
Guest
This situation had nothing to do with diversity. The Univesity did no such thing. This was an independent action on the part of the students. These students could have been at any university. Most college students embrace diversity. We can’t blame their parents, their universities or their other social systems for that. That’s an individual choice.
In addition, one can embrace diversity without embracing sinful behavior. They can be mutually exclusive is one wants to do it correctly. We welcome everyone, but we do not welcome any sin, of any kind, gay or straight sin.
Fraternally,
Br. JR, OSF
S
sedonaman
Guest
I can see that some clarification of terms is in order.
“Diversity” has come to be understood as a form of relativism in that all ideas are equally valid, and that none are better [or worse] than others. Given this postulate that is accepted true without proof, the inevitable conclusion that follows is that even error has rights.
Therefore, I beg to differ. Its roots are firmly planted in the idea of “diversity”.
You are correct in that this could have happened at any university because, since even error now has rights, homosexuality has become one of the cause célèbres of the academy. The search for truth has been replaced by the search for error. Naturally the University would facilitate this event by encouraging students and funding it, lest the University be accused of not being “politically correct”[1] and/or “intolerant.”
I whole-heartedly agree, but certain ideas have been deemed error, through the distillation of 3,000 years of Judeo-Christian tradition, reason, and revelation, and are not subject to time, place, or people. So, I don’t think it’s currently being done correctly.
In conclusion, offer a clip from the UND website search engine for the term “diversity”:
Celebrating Diversity and Internationalism
Creating Community
Immersion in diversity - in diverse ideas, in diverse experiences, and in diverse ways of approaching life’s great questions - is central to the idea of a liberal arts education. The College of Arts and Letters not only invites its students to encounter varying perspectives but empowers them to create challenging dialogue and fosters within them a richer sense of community.
At a glance:
Code:
* The percentage of students from an ethnic minority background in Notre Dame’s entering first-year class has risen in four of the past five years, reaching an all-time high of 24 percent for the class of 2010.
* Of the African-American students admitted to Notre Dame for Fall 2006, 53.4 percent enrolled, the fifth highest percentage among U.S. News’ top 30 universities. The University accepted 48.4 percent of its African-American applicants in 2006, a rate tied for second in this group.Note [1] Def.: Political correctness – a crusade to ignorance.
C
credoinunum
Guest
Your initial statement in the quote above seems to imply that you are ok when we look a a superficial definition of diversity (e.g., differences we can sense), but that diversity of opinion, lifestyle or belief away from a given set of norms is relativism. Is this what you mean? I genuinely want to know, because I believe while not all ideas or values are true, the notion that those who espouse them should lack the right to express them is difficult for me to palette.
Operating from this viewpoint, I can understand why the Academy, which by its very nature should welcome all forms of diversity, should seek to encourage those students who wish to better understand the nature of the phenomenon or stand up for the rights of those to believe or live in line with their values. Even the most grievous sin can offer us a reflection of truth and a lesson to learn, and I would not consider being homosexual a highly grievous sin. We can debate about intercourse outside of marriage in a different post. All Universities, to my way of thinking, should allow students to grow into members of society with a fuller understanding of themselves and their place in the world. I, for one, am glad that ND, even if they had nothing to do with promoting students going, did not fold to the form of scrutiny they have been under and try to stop the students, or punish them after the fact.
S
sedonaman
Guest
Not at all. What I mean by relativism is that everyone has his own truth, i.e., truth is relative to the individual [or group] and would therefore be internal to each individual/group. We can clearly see that this can’t be because it would mean that truth would not exist until people are born. To illustrate, consider the question, were all men not created equal until Thomas Jefferson wrote it in the Declaration?
The Catholic Church was founded on certain truths which are explained in the Catechism. If the University is claiming that it is centered around the teachings of Jesus Christ, one would think that it would not be engaged in teaching [or giving tacit/implied approval to] ideas antithetical to those explained in the Catechism. If there is such an institution as the University of Atheism, one might expect to find courses that teach why the various religions are wrong from the atheist point of view, but one would hardly expect it to fund pilgrimages to the Holy Land for the purpose of gaining indulgences, would one? Academic freedom does not give professors the right to talk nonsense to their students. They should not make statements to their students that they would not be willing to make in front of a peer group better able to challenge them. As far as free speech goes, people are generally free to express themselves on a traditional public forum and on their own dime. What you are asking for here is that a student or professor have the right not only to express himself, but also has the right to cloak himself in University endorsement.
“All” forms of diversity? I want a mathematics professorship at ND so I can espouse that 2+2=5, and if I don’t get it, the university is denying me my academic freedom and is not welcome to my idea.
This is advocacy, not the pursuit of truth. Values don’t necessarily have anything to do with truth. Advocating certain values might be a good thing, but it is political, not academic. A university might have its own values, but it should be upfront about its advocacy and not hide it in academic jargon. [Note: There actually are courses at some institutions that state openly that their purpose is to advocate for “social justice”, etc.]
I do not consider it a sin at all. A university can offer all the courses it wants on the psychology of homosexuality as far as I’m concerned, but when it advocates that it is an acceptable alternate lifestyle is where I draw the line, because, again, it is advocacy.
What would you think of a university that offered female masturbation workshops?
I don’t have a problem with like-minded people getting together, but it has to be on their own dime and their own time, and not with university endorsement, stated or implied.
J
JReducation
Guest
All Catholic schools have an obligation to maintain communion with the Church. This is a given. That being said, I am still under the impression that the students who went to the march in Washington were not sponsored by the University. This was their project on their dime. The fact that the money is in a university account, does not entitle the university to deny them access to it. From everything that I have read, the university did not know that they were going nor did the university pay for the trip. The money came from a student fund, not a university fund. Only a professor knew that they were going, not the administration. Even if the administration had known that the students were going, there is not much that the university can do to stop them. I wonder if we’re blowing the university’s role in all of this way out of proportion.
Fraternally,
Br. JR, OSF
Fraternally,
Br. JR, OSF
C
credoinunum
Guest
S
Stylteralmaldo
Guest
This may be true. Having said that, Notre Dame could issue a clarifying statement indicating that they disapprove of the actions taken by these students. If such a statement will be forthcoming shortly, please post it to this thread. This is an opportunity fo Notre Dame to restore it’s dignity (to some degree) as a Catholic institution. If it remains silent, we’ll have our answer as to where it stands on the issue.
D
DOShea
Guest
It’s not IMO out of proportion to expect the university to examine this case in light of the facts. The university is not obligated to allow this group use of campus facilities, and while they can make the claim they “didn’t know” about this, only 1 professor did, it begs the question why that one professor, on staff at a supposed Catholic university, thought it was perfectly fine for students to attend this rally and NOT inform the university officials as it was happening?All Catholic schools have an obligation to maintain communion with the Church. This is a given. That being said, I am still under the impression that the students who went to the march in Washington were not sponsored by the University. This was their project on their dime. The fact that the money is in a university account, does not entitle the university to deny them access to it. From everything that I have read, the university did not know that they were going nor did the university pay for the trip. The money came from a student fund, not a university fund. Only a professor knew that they were going, not the administration. Even if the administration had known that the students were going, there is not much that the university can do to stop them. I wonder if we’re blowing the university’s role in all of this way out of proportion.
Fraternally,
Br. JR, OSF
The larger issue is that now that the university DOES know the end result of the activities, what is it going to do about it? Is it still going to allow the group to use facilities on campus? Still going to babysit their funds, and let the group make mockery after mockery of what the school supposedly stands for?
The fact that they can’t have a say in the monies is a very weak argument. If a religious group, with funds in a diocesan bank account, were doing something against Catholic Church teaching, does it seem logical the Bishop should sit on his hands and say, “Hey, nothing I can do… it’s their money!” That probably would not happen. What would happen is those monies would be removed from anything having to do with the diocese unless or until the group turned itself around. This is what Notre Dame should also do.
Does anyone believe they are blameless when they, themselves don’t commit a sin but they do provide a means for or otherwise lead others into sin? I don’t think so.
S
sedonaman
Guest
I suppose we could find a lot of people who do think that way, but the idea is counter to Catholic teaching.
H
holy_moly
Guest
J
JReducation
Guest
Actually, this is why the National Catholic Foundation exists. The money of religious groups is kept there and the bishops have no say as to how it is administered. It is a private organization that manages monies for Catholic groups. You deposit your money through the local chancery, but it goes right to the Foundation and it is posted to your account. Only the people who have authority over your organization can access those funds. Bishops are not allowed to have access to those funds or to control their use. The Vatican does not allow this, because it places the money at risk for anyone who wants to sue a bishop since bishops are sole corporations under the rules of the Vatican.
Therefore, religious organizations from Catholic Charities to religious orders have thier monies in accounts that are not legally the property of the Church. Because according to law, the bishop is the church. So, bishops want nothing to do with these funds or their administration. The moment a bishop tells an organization what it can or cannot do with its funds, he’s demonstrating proprietorship. The same applies to the university. Proprietorship means that if you own it, someone else can sue you for it. This is civil law 101.
We often have to make other arrangements for the use and banking of funds to protect the funds, the institution and those who have a legitimate right to the funds. As we all know, today everyone wants to attack the Catholic Church and milk her for her money. Some people ae attacking the Church for some very unscrupulous reasons.
Fraternally,
Br. JR, OSF
- Status