Sunday, November 12, 2017

From the WAPO Compost



Benedict XVI once wrote on the Parable of the Sower and the Seed: “When anyone hears the word of the kingdom and does not understand it, the evil one comes and snatches away what is sown in his heart; this is what was sown along the path.” Our Lord reminds us here that His teaching on the Kingdom of God in its fullness remains fruitless for those who see the Kingdom as merely an earthly kingdom, having rejected its supernatural dimension. This seed bears no fruit, and its fate is the spiritual fate of the hearer. What the Sisters of Notre Dame DeNamur taught me in my formative years was that there was more to my existence than things temporal, challenging me to work toward holiness and the salvation of my soul Ad Majorem Dei Gloriam  that I might enjoy happiness with Him forever. Here is the lastest example of furuitlessness:

 Perspective
Evangelicals and Catholics made their peace. Catholics are paying the price.
Some have begun to realize they traded orthodoxy for political expediency.


By Elizabeth Bruenig October 27 

In 1994, 39 church leaders and scholars — some Catholics, some evangelical Protestants — published a statement of reconciliation. “We together, Evangelicals and Catholics, confess our sins against the unity that Christ intends for all his disciples,” they said, and over the course of their letter laid the foundations for political and spiritual cooperation. They would work together, they declared, to strengthen the family, defend democracy and end abortion on demand. Over the next decade, signatories of the 1994 document, Evangelicals and Catholics Together (ECT), would confer again and pen further statements , all in hopes of establishing a durable accord between their traditions. These were the leaders and the elites: the pastors and priests, professors and bishops, notables and worthies from each side of the great schism. Together, and for what they saw as the greater good, they would overcome the old hostilities dividing rank-and-file pew-sitters.
They had a reason for dramatic measures. For decades, evangelicals and Catholics had struggled to work together even on political issues both groups took seriously, such as abortion and prayer in schools. Old animosities divided them, and mistrust poisoned attempts at cooperation. In the 1950s, Catholics resented the proto-evangelicals pushing for prayer and Bible readings in schools — from Protestant texts and translations. In the 1970s, Foy Valentine , a crusader for traditional Christian morality and the longtime head of the Southern Baptist Convention’s Christian Life Commission, griped that public campaigns against abortion were a strictly Roman Catholic preoccupation; other evangelicals were also wary of participating in anti-abortion politics for fear of associating too closely with a cause presumed to be thoroughly Catholic, and at times they developed their own parallel anti-abortion groups just to avoid cooperating with the Romish.
But a new generation of rightward activists, intellectuals and politicians mobilized during the culture wars, attracting Catholics and evangelicals to their ranks. Eventually, thanks to the work of groups like ECT and the pressure of ongoing polarization, relations between Catholics and evangelicals grew so warm that it now seems hard to recall these struggles. But the political pact between evangelicals and Catholics also came with significant hazards. It has, especially recently, become a source of anxiety for the Catholic leaders who helped convene the alliance in the first place. For all their success building a new coalition on the right, evangelical and Catholic doctrines are still distinct. Working together meant that one party would have to make concessions to the other. And so far, Catholic teaching has given the most ground.
Catholics have had trouble fitting into U.S. politics since the beginning. America’s founders were suspicious of the faith. John Adams mocked the “nonsense and delusion” of “absolutions, indelible characters, uninterrupted successions, and the rest of those fantastical ideas, derived from the canon law.” Immigration from predominantly Catholic countries throughout the 19th century sparked anti-Catholic parties such as the Know-Nothings ; roughly 100 years later, echoes of those sentiments sounded in response to John F. Kennedy’s historic presidential run.

So the evangelicals and Catholics who wanted to join forces had their work cut out for them. Catholics had generally leaned Democratic, with a few exceptions: They liked Ike, for example, but turned out in droves for Kennedy and Lyndon Johnson. Yet, just as evangelicals began cleaving ever closer to the Republican Party in the late 1970s and early 1980s based on issues such as divorce, abortion and public morality, Catholics shifted from voting generally blue to a more even split ; they remain resolutely bifurcated between the two parties. Today, working with evangelicals, a group that identifies overwhelmingly with the Republican Party , means that Catholics must operate within the political agenda of the GOP.
The close quarters produced a new breed of politically evangelicalized Catholic candidates and officeholders who have little use for the church’s social teaching (which includes support for organized labor , immigrants and the poor) but adhere vehemently to its teaching on issues related to sexuality. Evangelicals have greater theological latitude when it comes to matters of the economy, with much less in the way of binding, traditional doctrine on the right use of wealth and property than Catholicism has accrued over the years. In supporting typically lean Republican policies on social programs and the economy, these Catholic politicians adopt a moral approach to politics reminiscent of their evangelical compatriots.
Among these new Catholics, seemingly custom-made for the GOP, are House Speaker Paul Ryan, a onetime fan of the intensely anti-religious, free-market thinker Ayn Rand; former Louisiana governor Bobby Jindal, who radically shrank his state’s nutritional assistance program and rebuffed Louisiana bishops’ attempt to halt an execution scheduled for Ash Wednesday ; and Rep. Dave Brat, a Virginian who describes himself, dizzyingly, as Catholic, Calvinist and libertarian . This brand of Catholic, a perfect fit with America’s conservative movement, would supposedly “remake” the GOP.
But instead of carrying Catholicism’s compassionate approach to social programs into the party, the Catholics who’ve joined the Republican ranks seem to have adjusted their faith to the party’s interests, at least where economic matters are concerned. Church authorities have taken notice. Though Ryan has enjoyed some support from more conservative church leaders, the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops (USCCB) has repeatedly issued letters of correction to Ryan’s austere budget proposals, urging Congress in a 2012 letter to remember that “a just spending bill cannot rely on disproportionate cuts in essential services to poor and vulnerable persons.” Ryan replied that he and the bishops “just respectfully disagree,” a statesmanlike rebuff from an evangelical politician, but a more puzzling riposte from a Catholic speaking to the ordained leaders.
Similar statements have increasingly come from Republican politicians seeking to distance themselves from Pope Francis’s teachings in order to remain closer to GOP orthodoxy. During the 2016 presidential primaries, disavowing the pope became a kind of ritual for Catholic candidates. Jeb Bush rejected his characterization of climate care as a religious obligation, on the grounds that “he’s not a scientist.” Marco Rubio remarked that “on economic issues, the pope is a person.” Chris Christie was blunt: “I just think the pope is wrong,” he said, referring to the pontiff’s desire that the United States renew diplomatic relations with Cuba, a predominantly Catholic country . Rick Santorum openly rejected the USCCB’s position on immigration in 2011, saying, “If we develop the program like the Catholic bishops suggested, we would be creating a huge magnet for people to come in and break the law.” Their repudiations of church hierarchy have the same ring as Kennedy’s 1960 speech on his Catholicism — “I do not speak for my church on public matters, and the church does not speak for me” — but they come much more readily, often on TV, and with showy indifference to the church that calls itself the one, the holy and the apostolic. It’s one thing to insist, as Kennedy did, that church and state are simply separate; it’s another to add that the church is in fact wrong and the state right.
With statements like these accumulating, could the bond between the faiths hold out? In July, the Rev. Antonio Spadaro, a close confidant of Pope Francis and a top Vatican official, indicted such evangelical-Catholic collaboration in an article published with a Protestant co-author in La Civilta Cattolica, a Jesuit journal reviewed by the Vatican before publication. The essay, “Evangelical Fundamentalism and Catholic Integralism: A Surprising Ecumenism ,” offered this thesis: “Some who profess themselves to be Catholic express themselves in ways that until recently were unknown in their tradition and using tones much closer to Evangelicals,” Spadaro wrote. “They are defined as value voters as far as attracting electoral mass support is concerned.” His article was widely read to mean that the church hierarchy had become disillusioned with the 24-year-old political cooperation pact, and Vatican-watchers saw the hand of the pope.
Shortly after its publication, Catholic writer P.J. Smith pointed out that, in calling for a more stern separation between religion and politics, Spadaro’s essay contradicted the very vision of political activity that Pope Francis often advocates. Perhaps the omission resulted from Spadaro’s focus being overly trained on partisanship, an artifact of frustration from those early days of Catholic-evangelical cooperation under the auspices of the New Right. Spadaro and other like-minded Catholics might be irritated by Catholic cooperation with evangelicals on conservative issues, but the same challenges certainly face Catholics working within the Democratic establishment, where the situation is similar in kind but reversed on the issues.
The impasse comes down not to the specific nature of either party but to the very foundations of America. Spadaro was right about the difficulties of Catholic participation in U.S. politics, but he didn’t seem to see how deep the trouble goes. This country was founded around Protestant principles. Catholics involving themselves in American politics — especially the machinations of the two parties — are always likely to find that the closer they come to Washington, the further they stray from Rome. It may simply be the price of doing business in a country like ours, but it makes authenticity and efficacy very difficult to square.
Twitter: @ebruenig
Read more from Outlook and follow our updates on Facebook and Twitter.
 950

Comments
·          Share on FacebookShare
·          Share on TwitterTweet
·         Share via Email
https://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-apps/imrs.php?src=http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/acts-of-faith/wp-content/uploads/sites/45/2016/12/unnamed1.jpg&w=180&h=180&t=20170517a
Elizabeth Bruenig is an assistant editor for Outlook and PostEverything at the The Washington Post.

Tuesday, October 24, 2017

Catholic university blasts ‘Unborn Lives Matter’ posters as ‘bigotry,’ bans them on campus | News | LifeSite

Catholic university blasts ‘Unborn Lives Matter’ posters as ‘bigotry,’ bans them on campus | News | LifeSite:



'via Blog this'

New Film Shows How to Leave the Gay Life Behind - Crisis Magazine

New Film Shows How to Leave the Gay Life Behind - Crisis Magazine:



'via Blog this'

Libido Redux: Insanity


Not only Catholic teaching but the larger American culture was in general opposed to birth control until 1930, when the Anglican Church cracked the dike of uniformity on the question by permitting contraception in marriage. In 1963, during the pontificate of John XXIII, theological speculation emerged to the effect that “the pill,” since it did not appear to interfere with the physical integrity of sexual intercourse, was perhaps morally different from spermicides, IUDs and the diaphragm, and perhaps was similar to natural family planning and therefore morally licit. Indeed, the Holy Father formed a small commission to examine this view.
Following Pope John XXIII’s death, Paul VI thought it prudent to delay judgment on this opinion until further study could be undertaken, being determined not to require of the faithful anything God did not ask of them. His goal was to give all who wished to weigh in on this question every chance to make their case, and so he enlarged John XXIII’s commission to include married couples as well as bishops and their  theological advisors (included among them Karol Cardinal Wojtyla, Bishop of Krakow). As to the finding of the commission, we witness the hand of the Holy Spirit guiding the successor of St. Peter. The majority opinion, comprised of nine of the sixteen bishops, Cardinals and their theologians, was not only that birth control pills were not morally different from other modes of contraception, but that contraception itself was morally acceptable. 

After four months of study, in October, 1966, Pope Paul noted serious flaws in the commission’s report, and under prayerful intense study he came to realize there was no other course than to reaffirm the teaching of the Church on contraception, the genesis of Humanae Vitae. During a delay in promulgation of the encyclical, those theologians and bishops who dissented from Humanae Vitae, having obtained an advanced copy, launched their propaganda campaign in the American media to maximize the impact of this dissent under the leadership of Fr. Charles Curran of Catholic University, among others.  Since his initial dissent on Humanae Vitae, Fr. Curran has repeatedly opposed centuries-old Catholic teaching on faith and morals, specifically Catholic doctrine on premarital sex, masturbation, contraception, abortion, homosexuality, divorce, and in vitro fertilization. Thus it was that dissent from Catholic teaching in the Church in the United States began over the issue of the moral use of man’s God-given sexual power, and continued in opposition to Catholic moral teaching on other key issues.  In spite of the prophetic truths contained in the encyclical, we now see the Evil One resurrecting his attempts to further divide the Body of Christ:

VATICAN  |  SEP. 11, 2017
Humanae Vitae Comes Under Fire
COMMENTARY: Recent developments in Rome indicate a campaign is underway to challenge the encyclical’s prohibition against artificial contraception.
VATICAN CITY — Half way through the first synod on the family, when it was becoming clear that heterodox agendas were being pursued in heavy-handed and deceptive ways, a well-respected Church figure took me aside at a reception with a pained expression on her face.
“Of course, you realize this is all about Humanae Vitae,” she said. “That’s what I think they’re after. That is their goal.”
What she meant was that the many dissenters of Blessed Paul VI’s 1968 encyclical wanted the Church’s ban on artificial contraception — which Humanae Vitae (The Regulation of Birth) reaffirmed — softened and ultimately undermined.
At the time, her prediction seemed plausible, but too speculative. The synod participants didn’t seem too exercised by the issue, and Humanae Vitae was largely left alone, at least directly. German-speaking prelates, who took a leading role in the controversies during both synods on the family, even spoke warmly of the encyclical at a closing press conference of the second synod.
But as the Church prepares to commemorate the 50th anniversary of Humanae Vitae in 2018, the recent revelation of a four-member stealth commission to study the document — and other subtle and less subtle attempts to weaken the Church’s moral teaching — are making the concerns of the Church figure at the 2014 synod look ominously prescient.
In his encyclical, Paul VI re-affirmed the Church’s prohibition of artificial contraception, approved natural family-planning methods, and upheld the Church’s teaching on conjugal love and responsible parenthood.
It caused a sensation when published: In the wake of the sexual revolution — when much of the world had accepted birth control — and after a five-year study by a pontifical commission that appeared to be vying for the Church to also approve it, Paul VI’s reaffirmation that contraceptive use is “intrinsically wrong” made it one of the most controversial encyclicals in Church history. Immediately, many clerics and academics outright rejected Humanae Vitae’s teachings.
And yet many, particularly those who have devoted their lives to defending life, vigorously uphold Humanae Vitae as prophetic. They argue that the widespread acceptance of artificial birth control, revolutionized by the contraceptive pill for women, has separated the unitive and procreative purposes of sexual relations. This, in turn, has fueled the sexualization of culture and promiscuity now prevalent in the West, precipitating legalized abortion, the collapse of marriage, and inflicting deep harm on the family.
By contrast, the encyclical’s dissenters have pressured the Church for its teaching on artificial contraception to be loosened, arguing it is unrealistic, out of touch with people’s lives, and needs “updating.” A 2014 poll of Catholics in five countries by left-leaning broadcaster Univision found that 78% supported artificial contraception.
Now, dissenters — who today hold positions of influence and enjoy support from some in the highest ranks of the Church — appear to be viewing the upcoming anniversary as a golden opportunity, half a century in the making. Evidence to show that efforts are underway to exploit this opportunity is not hard to discover. One of the most visible has been the creation earlier this year of the four-member commission, quietly established by the Vatican with the Pope’s approval, to study Humanae Vitae.
The commission was never formally announced: The veteran Vatican correspondent Marco Tosatti first reported rumors of it, and the Vatican only confirmed its existence after the Italian website Corrispondenza Romana was able to verify the rumors in June, after it obtained a classified memorandum, circulated by Archbishop Giovanni Becciu, the sostituto or deputy, secretary of state.
The memorandum states that the commission is to “promote a comprehensive and authoritative study” of the encyclical to coincide with the anniversary and listed its four members. They include Msgr. Gilfredo Marengo, the commission coordinator who is professor of theological anthropology at the Pontifical John Paul II Institute for Studies on Marriage and Family, and Msgr. Pierangelo Sequeri, appointed dean of the Pontifical John Paul II Institute last year.
Archbishop Vincenzo Paglia, president of the Pontifical Academy for Life, was the first to publicly defend the commission’s work after news of it was leaked, telling Catholic News Agency that the initiative aimed at “studying and deepening” the encyclical. But he denied it was a “commission” whose purpose was to “reread or reinterpret” the document.
Msgr. Marengo further played down its influence, explaining its purpose is simply to carry out a “work of historical-critical investigation,” reconstructing the “whole process of composing the encyclical.”
But added to its unannounced beginnings, the mere existence of such a commission has left many suspicious and asking: Why make all the effort to deepen and study something that will not fundamentally change?
Also viewed as suspect is the unprecedented level of access given to the commission members. According to the memorandum, the Pope has given the scholars permission to view the relevant historical archives not only of the Secretariat of State, but also the Vatican Secret Archives and that of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith.
Msgr. Marengo insisted such access was relevant, given the document’s importance and the debates it unleashed. Humanae Vitae, he said in a July 25 interview, “must be placed in the context of everything important and fruitful the Church has said on marriage and family during these last 50 years.” But such privileges haven’t even been awarded to researchers of Venerable Pius XII’s pontificate during World War II, despite years of lobbying for the archives to be opened.
All of which amounts to a concern that the commission is being used as a cover: to look at the scientific and historical character of the document, but with the ultimate goal of presenting the Pope with enough information for the encyclical’s dissenters to say: “Times have changed — Humanae Vitae needs to be interpreted in the light of conscience, according to the complexity of people’s lives today.”
Before his death on Sept. 6, Cardinal Carlo Caffarra had privately expressed similar grave concerns about the commission. Like others, he believed the opening of the archives was a ploy to obtain selected findings and then present them to show that Paul VI’s commission was moving in the direction of loosening the Church’s teaching on contraception, but undue pressure was placed on the Pope to reassert the doctrine.
Another expected strategy by commission members and other “revisionists” is to present any re-interpretations as part of a “change in paradigm” in moral theology, just as was achieved with Amoris Laetitia (The Joy of Love) in allowing for some civilly remarried divorcees to receive Holy CommunionThe emphasis is expected to be on changing pastoral practice to make it more applicable to today — a tactic, say critics, to alter and soften Church teaching by finding exceptions, while all the time insisting the doctrine won’t be changed.
Msgr. Marengo has firmly denied such an intention, insisting that “the issue of a conciliation between Amoris Laetitia and Humanae Vitae is not in the agenda.” But in an article in March for Vatican Insider — headlined, “Humanae Vitae and Amoris Laetitia: Parallel Histories” — he warned that the Church’s moral teaching can be too abstract and detached for people to follow and asserted that “responsible creativity” should be risked in pastoral care. He also quoted Pope Francis’ address to the John Paul II Institute in October, in which Francis warned against presenting “a theological ideal of marriage that is too abstract, almost artificially constructed, far from the concrete situation and of effective possibilities of families as they are.”
But the commission is not the only means to maximize this long-awaited opportunity to change Humanae Vitae. Further evidence can be seen in what appears to be a four-year concerted attempt to marginalize the teachings of Pope St. John Paul II, who led the resistance to a relativistic interpretation of the encyclical.
As archbishop of Krakow, Poland, Karol Wojtyla contributed to the commission that drafted the document (although he was unable to take part personally due to the communists’ travel restrictions) and strove to uphold the Church’s teaching in the document by emphasizing personalism (seeing man as a person rather than an object) with the natural law.
His teachings ever since formed a bulwark against the dissenters. Most notably they include his 1981 apostolic exhortation Familiaris Consortio (The Role of the Christian Family in the Modern World) and his theology of the body catecheses — both attempts to provide an anthropological foundation and explanation for the encyclical’s teaching. Perhaps even more significant was his 1993 encyclical Veritatis Splendor (The Splendor of Truth)which for the first time presented Catholic moral doctrine in a systematic and formal way, firmly rejecting any relativist interpretation of an intrinsically evil act (an action that is always morally wrong, regardless of its particular circumstances), such as use of artificial contraception.
The operation to marginalize John Paul II ahead of next year’s anniversary has been visible in two primary ways. First, by largely ignoring his teachings during the previous two synods to allow the kind of “paradigm shift” in the Church’s moral teaching that found its way into Amoris Laetitia. Second, by overhauling the leadership of the Pontifical John Paul II Institute for Studies on Marriage and Family, respectively replacing its chancellor and dean with Archbishop Paglia and Msgr. Sequeri. Both are known supporters of softening the teaching of Humanae Vitae.
Msgr. Sequeri, who is not a moral theologian, but a specialist in aesthetic theology and musicology, has written the introduction to a new book entitled, Amoris Laetitia: A Turning Point for Moral Theology, edited by Stephan Goertz and Caroline Witting, in which it is argued that Amoris Laetitia represents a paradigm shift for all moral theology, and especially in interpreting Humanae Vitae.
For his part, Archbishop Paglia was unable to give a clear answer when I asked him in early July if he agreed with the encyclical’s teaching against use of artificial contraception. The document “must be studied and more fully appreciated, particularly in the light of the challenges we face every day,” he said, highlighting the “negative consequences of gender ideology, the de-population crisis in the West, the omnipresence and invasiveness of technology, and mankind’s inability to hold on to its own humanity.”
Another reason for concern about Archbishop Paglia’s position with respect to Humanae Vitae is a document he circulated privately among family synod participants, advocating “the gift” of reception of Communion for divorced-and-civilly-remarried Catholics who request such permission from their bishops. In light of that synodal intervention, as well as a corresponding approach in a Vatican-published book he edited in 2015 with Msgr. Sequeri entitled, Church Family — An Indissoluble Bond, evidence of Archbishop Paglia’s support for a similar softening of Church teachings on artificial contraception appears solid.
In addition to marginalizing John Paul II, further evidence of moves to undermine the encyclical can be seen in new members chosen for the Pontifical Academy for Life — also since last year placed under the leadership of Archbishop Paglia. Several of them have gone on the record to voice their dissent from Humanae Vitae, in particular Father Maurizio Chiodi, who uses arguments to justify contraception that critics say are condemned in Veritatis Splendor, and Jesuit Father Alain Thomasset, who wants to see the term “intrinsically evil” removed.
Finally, there are Pope Francis’ own comments regarding the encyclical’s teaching. Asked in 2014 if the Church should revisit the issue of contraception, he replied: “It all depends on how the text of Humanae Vitae is interpreted. Paul VI himself, toward the end, recommended that confessors show great kindness and attention to specific situations.”
He added it is not a question of “changing doctrine, but to go into the depths, and ensuring that pastoral [efforts] take into account people’s situations, and that, which it is possible for people to do.”
The Pope also last year praised one of the most prominent dissenters of Humanae Vitae, the German moral theologian Bernard Häring. And speaking to reporters in February last year, Francis cited favorably a mythological story of Paul VI allowing nuns in the Congo to use contraception for cases of violence. The case has historically been used by dissenters as a means to circumvent the encyclical’s teaching. The Pope is also sympathetic to the vision of the Church of the late Jesuit Cardinal Carlo Martini, who was very vocal in his opposition toHumanae Vitae.
So what is likely to happen? The commission will have no authority to enact changes, and, already, there are reports of divisions among them that will weaken its purpose. But some cardinals, bishops and theologians, as well as elements of the media, will use this opportunity to try to persuade Francis to modify Humanae Vitae using the strategies outlined above as well as others. From the other side, pressure will be exerted to leave the encyclical alone on the grounds that it has proven so prophetic and that the Church’s teaching on artificial contraception is based on her infallible moral teaching.
Debates will, therefore, deepen over the coming months, as the document considered the lynchpin of the Church’s resistance to the collapse in sexual morality in the West comes under intensified attack, directed not from the secular world or a few dissenting theologians and bishops this time, but from some of the most senior figures in the Church.
Edward Pentin is the Register’s Rome correspondent.
Also see moral theologian Father George Woodall's concerns about Msgr. Marengo's commission here.
Benedict XVI's personal secretary denies health rumors
00:1901:11
Now Playing
Benedict XVI's personal secretary denies health rumors
Pope Francis is praying for California
0:46
California fires: Santa Rosa bishop urges prayer
0:59
Escolares de la India aseguran haber visto a la Virgen
0:54
Iowa judge upholds waiting period for abortion
0:56
India schoolkids report Marian apparitions
0:55
Unemployed? Pope Francis is praying for you this month.
0:52
Mexico City archdiocese offers free medical care for earthquake victims
1:01
Night of "indescribable terror" in Las Vegas
1:19
Las Vegas bishop calls for prayer after mass shooting
0:57
Powered by

View Comments

Sunday, October 22, 2017

Dancing With Mr. D at Georgetown

Did you ever notice that when people take issue with Catholic teaching, rarely does it concern the Hypostatic Union, the Vatican’s guidelines on road rage, or the Vatican Conference on Extraterrestrial Life? No, those things with which they take issue bear directly or vicariously on their sexual lives — homosexuality, same-sex “marriage,” premarital sex, adultery, contraception, masturbation, population control, abortion, divorce, remarriage, in vitro fertilization, etc. Remember Our Lord’s words on this: "What comes out of a man is what defiles a man. For from within, out of the heart of man, come evil thoughts, fornication, theft, murder, adultery, coveting, wickedness, deceit, licentiousness, envy, slander, pride, foolishness. All these evil things come from within, and they defile a man." What is coming out of our oldest "Catholic" University??


Georgetown Pro-Marriage Group Faces Sanctions Following Student Complaints
Love Saxa is in danger of being defunded and barred from campus facilities.
WASHINGTON — A pro-marriage student group at Georgetown University is in danger of being defunded and barred from campus facilities, after fellow students have petitioned that it be recognized as a “hate group.”
The Hoya, Georgetown’s student newspaper, reported on Oct. 20 that Love Saxa, a student organization promoting Catholic doctrine regarding marriage, will undergo a Student Activities Commission hearing on Oct. 23 to defend itself against charges that the group fosters hatred and intolerance. The hearing is a response to a petition filed by a student-senator in the Georgetown University Student Association and supported by leaders of “gay pride” student organizations at Georgetown.
Love Saxa intends to petition for a delay before the hearing takes place. The group told CNA it was only officially informed of the hearing’s date on the evening of Oct. 19, giving them an insufficient amount of time to prepare. The group also says members haven’t been given a copy of the petition or an exact rendering of the charges against them.
Lova Saxa’s student-president, Amelia Irvine, told CNA, “I believe that Love Saxa has the right to exist, especially at a Catholic school. We exist to promote healthy, loving relationships at Georgetown.”
In a Sept. 6 column in The Hoya, Irvine wrote that “we believe that marriage is a conjugal union on every level — emotional, spiritual, physical and mental — directed toward caring for biological children. To us, marriage is much more than commitment of love between two consenting adults.”
Leaders of “gay pride” student organizations at Georgetown denounced this language as “homophobic” and claimed it violated university standards.
The university’s Student Organization Standards state that: “Groups will not be eligible for access to benefits if their purpose or activities … foster hatred or intolerance of others because of their race, nationality, gender, religion, or sexual preferences.” Love Saxa is accused of fostering hatred and intolerance because of its support for Catholic teaching regarding marriage.
Love Saxa receives $250 of funding from the university and is permitted to use university facilities for its activities, according to The Hoya. Results of the hearing could lead to loss of funding and facility access, among other sanctions, the newspaper reported.
Irvine told CNA that Love Saxa is hopeful about the results of the hearing. “We’re optimistic that the university will uphold our right to exist, given that we share the Catholic view on marriage,” she added.
In an Oct. 20 editorial, The Hoya’s editorial board advocated for Love Saxa’s defunding. The editorial board wrote that Love Saxa fosters intolerance by “actively advocating a limited definition of marriage that would concretely take rights away from the LGBTQ community.”
Georgetown is a Catholic university in Washington, D.C., founded by the Society of Jesus in 1789. It recently sponsored a pro-life event on campus.