UPDATE:
University has responded
Check that, we know that the Catholic Campus Ministry opposes natural sexuality.
Contact:
| Fr. Scott R. Pilarz S.J. |
| (414) 288-7223 |
| President; Associate Professor of English |
| Office of the President |
| Zilber Hall, 441 |
| scott.pilarz@marquette.edu |
source
And there's more:
Gender Sexuality Alliance holding "Chronicles of the Closet"
Gender Sexuality Alliance will celebrate LGBTQA diversity on campus with "Chronicles of the Closet," an open-mic night for sharing coming-out stories. The event will be held at 7:30 p.m. Thursday, Oct. 13, in the AMU Brew. GSA will also hold a bake sale from 11 a.m. to 4 p.m., Tuesday, Oct. 11, in the Wehr Chemistry lobby.
Oct. 11 is National Coming Out Day, an internationally observed civil awareness day for coming out and for discussion of LGBTQA issues. The date was chosen because it is the anniversary of the 1987 National March on Washington for Lesbian and Gay Rights.
5 comments:
What a disgrace! Xavier University just reversed course and is now funding contraception in its health care plan. The devil is out full-force trying to derail the Year of Faith.
serious Catholics should look into sending their kids to Madison (ironically), ultra-secular campus but much cheaper, and the priests at St. Paul's are solid. The lines between the secular and the profane are much more clearly drawn there.
Is anyone surprised?
This will continue to get worse, and still worse, until our Bishop finds the courage to put a stop to it, and not be frightened away by the dicey concept of "autonomy", which is always what we hear from Catholic universities which are no longer Catholic.
When the viper Father Wild was in charge over there things went from bad to worse.
Let's all get out of our lethargy and send a little note to Archbishop Listecki, respectfully asking him what he plans to do about this.
Badger,
I'm shocked at your shock that the "Coming Out Day" was planned for the opening of the Year of Faith. Marquette *is* celebrating their "faith". You rightly note that contacting the Campus Ministry is a waste of time, but do you seriously believe that Fr. Pilarz is unaware or disturbed by it?
"Aged Parent" is only slightly less naïve in suggesting a letter to +Listecki as if he would take any significant action beyond a staged wringing of his hands. While bishop of La Crosse, +Listecki had the president of Viterbo on his Connecting With the Bishop radio show on Relevant Radio. +Listerki stated that the mandatum concerning Catholic universities was purely voluntary. Shameful for a canon lawyer to say, and an outright lie:
Can. 812 Those who teach theological disciplines in any institutes of higher studies whatsoever must have a mandate from the competent ecclesiastical authority.
+Listecki won't do anything more than +Dolan did during his stay at Milwaukee. In 2006, Daniel Maguire sent out a letter to all the bishops on same-sex marriage and abortion. http://www.religiousconsultation.org/News_Tracker/letter_from_Catholic_theologian_to_270_bishops.htm This required +Dolan to respond to him as his bishop (also in the link). Note that +Dolan says that Maguire's position is "totally at odds with clear Church teaching". Now, in response to those on this blog that have excoriated my criticism of +Dolan, I ask, "What pastor of souls would meekly allow such a man to endanger the souls of the students of Marquette with his poison?" The reason I am so critical of +Dolan is that I have followed his (and +Listecki's) actions and inactions for years and there is a clear pattern.
Much is made of Maguire's tenure at MU as an intractable problem, but that is not the bishop's problem; it's the University's problem. They are only required by contract to pay Maguire, not give him teaching assignments. If they foolishly granted tenure and it costs them dearly to buy him out, that is their problem. While the Archbishop of Milwaukee may have limited legal power over MU, at the very least he should be issuing a warning to students and parents of the grave danger to their souls. But that is not going to happen.
You want to know what can be done though? First, instead of just a "letter" to +Listecki over this, send a "grievance" to him. At the recent canon law conference offered by +Burke at the Shrine, I picked that up from a lawyer. Bishops don't have to respond to "letters", but they do have to respond to "grievances" from the faithful. So, mark your letter clearly as a "grievance".
Secondly, as the abuse crisis showed us, the majority of bishops only take action when forced to do so by civil law. Such is the state of justice in the Church today. If you *really* want something done about situations like Marquette, you're going to have to take action on your own by exercising your rights under canon and civil law.
My following comment shows how you do that.
Marquette advertises itself as a Catholic and Jesuit university (http://www.marquette.edu/about/jesuit.shtml ). They have recruited students and convinced parents to send children based on MU's assertion that they are Catholic. In other words, they have engaged in fraud by taking the tuition money of students and parents who expect that their children will receive a Catholic education. I believe MU is subject to litigation under consumer protection laws. Furthermore, MU sends recruitment materials via the USPS which constitutes mail fraud. They accept student aid and students loans from the federal government. I think what they deserve is a nice class-action lawsuit from alumni, students, grieved parents, and donors for fraud. Now, the first thing the university will defend itself with is the fact that under canon law, the local bishop determines what is and is not a Catholic institution. Having now involved the local bishop, the lawsuit proceeds to demonstrate that the local bishop knew or had reason to know about the university's actual catholicity. It only takes two to make a conspiracy under law. The bishop now becomes a subject of the suit.
I can't guarantee how successful a suit like that would fair in civil court, but I can nearly guarantee two immediate results: 1) the secular lawyers of the university will recommend to its Board that they stop presenting themselves as Catholic in order to avoid potential liability. 2) the diocesan secular lawyers will recommend to the bishop that he revoke the Catholic moniker from any institution of questionable merit. That's how lawyers think. And it would be at least a good first step. Heck, the publicity of the suit would raise a needed conversation in the Church.
The Church has its own court system as well. This lawsuit could and should also be filed within the Church courts. Let the bishop and the university try to offer their excuses to the Roman Rota.
Now this will be messy, no doubt. Proper order in the Church requires the bishops to fulfill their duties and govern properly. Whenever the laity have to initiate action, it creates a mess like the abuse suits. So you're left with a question: Is it better to avoid a little political and legal fallout, or is the salvation of the souls of students more important? The bishops thought that shuffling predators from parish to parish was less painful than confronting the problem directly. Is allowing the shuffling of a stream of students through a predator institution any better? It's your conscience, your soul, your decision. I never took classes at MU and don't have legal standing to bring this lawsuit, although perhaps I could send them a donation and gain standing. But if those harmed by MU, such as parents who saw their children spiritually raped, don't care enough to file suit, should I?
You may email your indignation directly to me at maundy95756@mypacks.net
Post a Comment