n September 15, “StandForMarriageMaine.com” released a television ad. In it, Scott Fitzgibbon, a professor at Boston College Law School (a Catholic institution), argued for the traditional understanding of marriage as between one man and one woman and in favor of an upcoming referendum to overturn a law passed by the Maine legislature legalizing same-sex marriage. The ad unleashed a fire storm, directed at the courageous professor.
Fellow professors at B.C. Law School – one hesitates to call them colleagues – contacted the dean to express their anger. So fiery was the blast that the dean was forced to issue a statement that defended Fitzgibbon’s academic freedom (or right to speak his mind). But the dean also later joined a statement from faculty and administrators assuring homosexual students (and staff) that they were welcome at BC Law. Apparently, it is no longer remarkable that a Catholic law school in this country prides itself upon being “one of the first” to set up a non-discrimination category for homosexuals at a time when everyone, including surely BC law professors, knows that just such a category in federal law will be the nail in the coffin of religious liberty for America’s Catholic institutions.
This is a highly instructive event that invites comment.
Clearly what is going on here is an effort to “shame” Professor Fitzgibbon (and those who agree with him) into silence. The assumption by the angry members of the BC Law “community” is that his views are so far outside the “mainstream” that all right-thinking persons must reject them. They are so poisonous, on this view, that they make civic life impossible; anyone who holds them should be ashamed; they are intolerable. [reference]
10 comments
Clearly what is going on here is an effort to “shame” Professor Fitzgibbon (and those who agree with him) into silence.
It has been argued (well, imo) that progressives are the inheritors of Puritanism. Emotional blackmail being one of the hallmarks.
Why would the issue of homosexuality ever come up in conjunction with gaining admission to a Catholic academic institution?
It never comes up when choosing a Pope.
I love it when “liberated” folk like red dog use bigoted remarks to express their detachment.
[quote]Why would the issue of homosexuality ever come up in conjunction with gaining admission to a Catholic academic institution?
It never comes up when choosing a Pope.[/quote]
It never comes up, doggie dear, because those priests who do struggle with homosexual desire in the Church somehow manage to do so with integrity, ie, they remain true to their vow of celibacy and to the teaching of the Church- thus their sexual proclivities are a moot point.
I am so tired of this “out there culture” How does anyone know if you are homosexual unless you deliberately draw attention to it by wearing a badge?
I think all people should refrain from imposing what should be private on the general public.
We will all face our Maker one day.I assume the first thing same sex attracted people will say is you made a mistake in designing me?
I am so tired of this “out there culture” How does anyone know if you are homosexual unless you deliberately draw attention to it by wearing a badge?
Technically, traditional marriage is an “out there” institution–man and woman in a marriage normally implies children and the public nod to the act that brings children. This is part of why the Church teaches that homosexual unions are unacceptable whether you call it “marriage”, “civil unions” or whatever–they imply formal approval of the act that goes with it. Thus, it’s not that there shouldn’t be stuff out there–there should some things out there–as long as they are morally correct.
“But the dean also later joined a statement from faculty and administrators assuring homosexual students (and staff) that they were welcome at BC Law.”
I see nothing wrong with this. Catholic teaching is to respect the human dignity of the individual. It’s the act of homosexuality that is morally wrong.
When talking about the homosexual agenda in a Catholic context we should remember this.
I see nothing wrong with this
On it’s own, there is nothing wrong with it. However, that’s the problem–it never is on its own. Or, to put it another way, it’s the ounce of truth that in these scenarios always comes with a pound of bullshit.
Catholic teaching is to respect the human dignity of the individual. It’s the act of homosexuality that is morally wrong.
True, but incomplete. The Church also teaches that a homosexual orientation/inclination is an intrinsic disorder (both in kind and degree). Thus, even chaste homosexuals are morally obliged to avail themselves of all licit means by which to eradicate all inclinations to view a member of the same sex as sexually attractive. Hence, I also assert that ‘realshanti’ is mistaken: sexual proclivities (even if only internal movements of desire) are not at all moot points. This is why the most recent document on seminary training emphasizes that merely being chaste is insufficient from the point of view of the psychological maturity of a candidate for Holy Orders.
Liberals are like the Borg. Their motto is “You will be assimilated; resistance is futile.”