The Catholic Church holds that “Homosexuality: Sexual activity between persons of the same sex, is not a normal condition, the acts being against nature and are objectively wrong." (The Catholic Encyclopedia.).

I was therefore astonished to learn Georgetown is planning a center for homosexual students and faculty. This is not only a bold and highly public rejection of Catholic moral teaching but positions the University as a promoter of a life style that is medically unhealthy.

Homosexuality accounts for about half the Aids deaths in the U.S.
Research published by Oxford University; found "life expectancy at age 20 years for gay and bisexual men is 8 to 20 years less than for all men." (International Journal of Epidemiology)

If moral teachings no longer hold sway at my alma mater maybe medical research will dissuade Georgetown from creating a homosexual haven.

A concerned alumnus

Tom, I have to disagree with you.
While I also disagree with this editorial's take, I don't think the proposed LGBTQ center is in violation of any Catholic teachings (yet). Pope Benedict has written on this matter during his time leading the CDF and the Vatican's interpretation of this is that homosexual acts are sinful but homosexuality in it of itself is not. Furthermore, homosexual Catholics are called to a chaste life.

I am not opposed to an LGBTQ center but I am opposed to one that runs counter to Catholic teaching. If this center becomes something that promotes safe homosexual sex then I think you have a serious gripe with your alma mater but as long as it is just a resource center for LGBTQ students who face certain difficulties on campus, it should be OK.

Georgetown students are smart enough to understand the consequences of unprotected sex. They know the risks and are highly educated about how to curtail them. Every student knows where to go to get protection, etc. when needed. The University needs to stick with its moral obligation to not provide these things - they are easily accessible enough to begin with.

After all, if you're too lazy or tired to walk a couple blocks down M Street to a CVS, how do you expect to last more than 5 minutes anyway?

Spoken like a true bigot, Tom.

I'm sure you also subscribe to the following aspects of the Bible, right?

Leviticus 20:13 If a man also lie with mankind, as he lieth with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination: they shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them.

Numbers 23:24 Behold, the people shall rise up as a great lion, and lift up himself as a young lion: he shall not lie down until he eat of the prey, and drink the blood of the slain.

Deuteronomy 6:15 (For the LORD thy God is a jealous God among you) lest the anger of the LORD thy God be kindled against thee, and destroy thee from off the face of the earth.

There's a lot more of these, but I won't waste my time trying to convince you because you're obviously set in your medieval beliefs.
I have no problem with tolerant Catholics, but I do have a problem with intolerant dogmatists such as yourself.

PLEASE! GU get a grip! We are parents of a freshman who loves every aspect of the academic life at GU, but is understandably frustrated by the oppressive social morals that the administration tries to ram down students' throats in the name of religion. Obviously, we are not Catholic. However, in our opinion, you are only asking for trouble by not providing students with access to methods of contraception. Are you afraid that some "good" Catholic students might be tempted to stray? We have another child at Duke. There they set up tables and passed out condoms on the quad!

"Sticky ideological points"? The Church's position is clear, more so than this PC line of thinking.

When it comes to such teachings, It's up to students to either a) follow them, b) accept them and otherwise get on with their lives, or c)enroll somewhere else. I suspect most would select (b).

As any parent of a colllege student (Georgetown or otherwise) can tell you, teenagers and young adults don't do a lot of things they should unless you make it really easy for them to do. This is human nature, and not peculiar to college students.

Why would a college like Georgetown want to take all the effort to attract the best and brightest and then put them all collectively at risk for pregnancy and sexually transmitted diseases by not making condoms readily available? I was born and raised a Catholic and virtually no Catholic has believed in the anti birth control edict Humana Vitae since Pope Paul VI issued it in 1968.

Let's take a poll...how many faculty and administrators at Georgetown who are sexually active do not use and have never used condoms or contraception? Why expect students to live in a "do as I say, not as I do" world?

I agree with this article 100%. Georgetown University, while being a Jesuit institution, needs to get with the times, and also with the pressing health concerns that not providing students access to contraception causes.

Students that are thinking about having sex some night after a party or what not, are not likely to take a 20 minute walk (especially in the incredibly unsafe area that CVS is in) to CVS to buy condoms. They would, however, be willing to go to Vittles to buy them. Either way, however, their decision to have sex will likely be unaffected.

I'm not saying that GU needs to pass out condoms or have them in dorm common rooms like at other schools, but they should be available for purchase in independently owned companies. GU needs to live up to its motto of caring for the whole person, and it also needs to care for all persons, not just those who adhere to some outdated, irrational Catholic doctrine.

I personally, found it highly frustrating when I needed to get my pill perscription refilled and I couldn't, despite the fact that I take it only for pressing health concerns, not contraception. I also found the judgemental look the women at the pharmacy gave me to be highly frustrating.

The LGBTQ center is a wonderful step for GU, one that desperately needed to be taken. GU needs to decide if it is going to be a top university commited to the education and nurturing of ALL students or if its going to be Catholic, first. It can be both, but if GU plans to continue to attract the best and brightest students, it needs to get with the times.

I don't think that I believe that the administration is trying to ram social morals down students throats in the name of religion. Georgetown is obviously a more conservative school, and there are some things that are inherited as a result. You are free what to believe what you want, and yes, most Catholics probably don't really agree with everything that the church teaches on the subject, but that doesn't change the religion or the belief system itself.

I would think that people with some smarts like the kids at GU would have enough common sense to pre-purchase condoms at the CVS if they thought they might need them. While the act of sex itself is pretty compulsory, the people who are in the mindset of doing that kind of thing know it and have know it. Personality doesn't just change in an instant. If you are the type of person who knows that they are open to sex, then prepare yourself. Otherwise, you don't have anything to worry about anyway.

When it comes down to it, even though I might not agree with the principle, Georgetown does have a right through its rich Catholic tradition to not sell them on campus. It's not liked they're banned.

And ditto - If you don't like it, enroll somewhere else and miss out on all the great things Georgetown has to offer. Your choice.

You're talking around the issue on this, Kelly. You say, "GU needs to live up to its motto of caring for the whole person, and it also needs to care for all persons, not just those who adhere to some outdated, irrational Catholic doctrine," but fail to acknowledge that GU's Catholic caring for the whole person does not include premarital sex, birth control or contraceptives. Your vision of caring for the whole person may include these things, but Georgetown's doesn't and shouldn't.
This editorial was poorly conceived, in my opinion, because there is not as strong a link between the LGBTQ center and allowing contraceptives on campus as the Ed Bored purports there to be. But regardless of the argument this editorial makes, the LGBTQ center does not (yet) offend Catholic doctrine while allowing contraceptives to be sold on campus would in a very big way.

It's a Catholic School. Period. If you don't like it, don't go to the school.

There are many other similarly 'great' schools out there for you to chose from, since you were able to get into Georgetown. Recommendations: Brown, Cornell, Duke, Tufts, Boston, UCLA, UChicago, Northwestern. If you have the grades, hell, try Harvard / Yale / Princeton / Stanford.

This argument is revised every few years by different groups or populations. And every time, it is doomed from the start for this reason: GEORGETOWN IS A CATHOLIC SCHOOL.

Arguments from rationality, ethics, practicality, economics, morality, etc.
DO
NOT
MATTER

They just don't. When you are within a certain set of operating restrictions (e.g. 'Islamic school' 'Jewish school' 'Catholic school' etc.) you don't get to pick and chose what points of doctrine you will and will not follow. At least on those points of doctrine whose adherence is mandatory.

Personally, I think it's great that gtown sticks to Catholic doctrine. Why be another 1 of 25 'really good secular school' when you can be arguably the 'best nonsecular school' in the nation.

I can respect that others may disagree. What I have no respect for is when people, fully informed that GEORGETOWN IS CATHOLIC when they enter into the institution, attempt to undermine the core doctrines of the institution from within. You knew what you were getting into ahead of time. Get over it.

Besides which, let's all be honest here: if it's that difficult for you or your partner to go obtain birth control / reproductive counseling services if it involves more than a 2 minute walk to Leavy, maybe you shouldn't be engaging in sexual activity in the first place. Use google. Take a walk to CVS. Grow up.

"GEORGETOWN IS A CATHOLIC SCHOOL."

Why don't the angry Catholics here have the same critical fervor about the lack of Catholic teachings on social justice? Why is Georgetown allowed to get away with an entirely new business center, a bastion of unbridled capitalism, even though the Vatican has issued numerous statements condemning the current trajectory of the global economy? (It's going to have a bit more of an impact on the world than a business near campus selling condoms.) It seems like Catholicism, for those who refuse to hold the same standards across the board, is more of a safety blanket for ignorance than anything else.

That's a great point - there should be more social justice teaching. Bravo. Organize a petition.

Doesn't change the fact that Catholic doctrine has a specific stance on birth control and that Georgetown will not be allowed to deviate from that stance.

The failure to adhere to one aspect of a doctrinal set doesn't somehow provide license to volitionally fail to adhere to other aspects.

Also, just to correct you on some doctrinal matters:

1) There is nothing within Catholic teaching which is inherently anti-capitalism. In fact, there have been some wonderfully supportive papal encyclicals regarding the proper (and benefical) role of capitalist systems.

2) More generally, you fail to distinguish between primary and ancillary issues. Particular economic systems, or particular elements of social justice teaching, etc. are certainly an important part of the Catholic system of beliefs. However, they are largely secondary issues - one can be a Catholic coming from a capitalist system; one can also be a Catholic coming from a socialist system. One can be an ardent activist in social welfare matters; one can also be pretty apatehtic regarding universal social welfare. They can both be Catholic

When it comes to matters of human life, there are no compromise positions, and there is no flexibility. I'm sorry, there just isn't. Catholic doctrines regarding rights to life and human life principles are well-established and unmoving at present.

I realize that this doesn't sit well with many people. While that is unfortunate, it also doesn't change anything: a Catholic school cannot endorse birth control.

Pointing it out does expose the foolishness and hypocrisy of the angry Catholics here. I haven't read a single editorial or letter to the editor condemning the new business center or other practices for their failure to be in line with social justice teachings. I haven't heard any uproar from the Catholic community on the matter. "The failure to adhere to one aspect of a doctrinal set," you argue, "doesn't somehow provide license to volitionally fail to adhere to other aspects." I'm sure that's how many people here justify their own prejudices, but you still have failed to answer the question: why do these things get so much attention when giant centers that are contrary to teachings of social justice get so little? It would be nice if people would bother to actually THINK CRITICALLY about these issues rather than screaming "DOCTRINE DOCTRINE DOCTRINE" and nothing else.

"When it comes to matters of human life, there are no compromise positions, and there is no flexibility. I'm sorry, there just isn't. Catholic doctrines regarding rights to life and human life principles are well-established and unmoving at present."

It would be nice if you would value something called human dignity, an important part of human life. I fail to see why Georgetown training generations of people in the logic of for-profit systems should be considered a "secondary issue" in any way. Whether or not you are correct in your claim that economic issues are "ancillary" (I don't believe they are), you fail to take into account the fact that you must make such arguments in the context of Georgetown University. Do not such "ancillary" issues merit discussion in the face of a huge initiative by the university? Whether or not you believe that someone can still be Catholic provides no justification for the university/university community failings to debate these key issues of social justice and human dignity.

(And thanks for providing me with a good reminder of why I'm not Catholic. Oh, stop being an anonymous coward.)

1. You don't have a coherent argument here. What are you saying? You throw out terms like 'human dignity' without attaching them to any substantive meaning. You are moving from one ground to another.

The University is completely capable (and indeed does) debate issues of social justice (whatever that is) and human dignity (whatever that is) on a daily basis, in the proper fora - classrooms, meetings, lectures, etc.

What YOU are failing to see is the following: when you are tied to a particular set of core principles as composing the foundation of what you are (A Catholic University), one need not trot out justificatory reasons for following them. Follow carefully what I'm saying here Mr. Clark Whoever You Are, because it's a subtle argument: Georgetown is not bound to your proclamations of 'think critically'. If I say 'I am a believer in X' and X requires an adherence to a,b, and c, one does not have to continually justify a, b, and, c on 'think critically!' grounds to be a believer in X.

Now (again, it's a subtle argument, follow) I'm sure that there are some wonderful critical (and ultimately supportive) arguments for various Catholic positions, including right to life and the prohibition on birth control. People much more skilled than I have developed them and continue to refine them. So I would encourage you (if you so desire, which you likely do not) to engage the proponents of those arguments, test them, challenge them, etc.

But you're trying to change this discussion into something it's not: a referrendum on birth control in the Catholic Church. This is not what is at issue. Georgetown is a Catholic school. It is required to stand by the doctirnes of the Catholic church if it wants to retain its Catholic status.

Maybe you want Georgetown to become a non-Catholic school. Maybe you want the Catholic church to reform its positions. Bravo. Go out and work on that. But don't confuse the issues - in the here and now, a call for Georgetown to adopt a position fundamentally opposed to the Catholic faith when it exists as a Catholic school is ridiculous.

Finally: your sarcasm and baiting ('thanks for providing me with a good remidner') are puerile. Grow up.

I don't care either way about the issue; I can go to CVS or take condoms from the H*yas for Choice table. But calling someone a coward for posting anonymously and using the particularly identifying name of "Clark" is hypocritical.

The point of my posts are not necessarily to dispute whether or not being Catholic requires a rejection of birth control or whatever, but only to point out the misplaced priorities of the posters here. I never see any of these people posting on issues of social justice (where were you all in the recent article about ethical problems with a Georgetown-affiliated factory? Post there about Catholic doctrince and maybe I'll take you as more than just self-righteous wingnuts.)

"You throw out terms like 'human dignity' without attaching them to any substantive meaning."
Valuing human dignity means, in part, teaching people about the problems associated with the economic exploitation of the poor.

"The University is completely capable (and indeed does) debate issues of social justice (whatever that is) and human dignity (whatever that is) on a daily basis, in the proper fora - classrooms, meetings, lectures, etc."
I consider a newspaper a proper forum for this discussion, but I see much more blathering about these issues that any sort of critical thought on social justice in The Hoya or its comment section. I think most of the Catholics who post on these issues like to be self-righteous about the easy yes-or-no issues, but don't give a shit about evaluating their ethical relationship to things that are more complex.

"Georgetown is not bound to your proclamations of 'think critically'."
It's a university. It is bound to think critically.

"If I say 'I am a believer in X' and X requires an adherence to a,b, and c, one does not have to continually justify a, b, and, c on 'think critically!' grounds to be a believer in X."
Let's think about it beyond a single sentence. Being a believer in X requires equal adherence to principles of a, b and c, and it requires constant adherence to a, b and c; such adherence should dictate one responds to violations of a, b and c to the degree and manner in which they are violated. As such, a few million dollar center (which violates, say, principle a) should require a greater response to small violations of c. But since a smaller violation of c gets a greater response than a larger violation of a, we can conclude that some people have got some seriously misplaced priorities and privilege one principle over another because of principles unrelated to those which constitute identification as X. In other words, it's a cover for prejudice.

"Georgetown is a Catholic school. It is required to stand by the doctirnes of the Catholic church if it wants to retain its Catholic status."
Okay, and that should require a commitment to Catholic social justice that isn't present in these angry folks blathering on and on.

"sarcasm"
It's not sarcasm.

It never ceases to amaze me that the very folks who criticize the so-called dogmatism of traditional Catholic teaching are insistent that the ethics of modern sexual permissiveness are nevertheless demonstrably and unassailably true. This, even despite the toll that sexual permissivness has wrought on women's psychological and physical health. And as for whether the Church's teaching is outdated, many Catholics, indeed many young Catholics, follow this teaching (natural family planning grows in popularity every year).
The Church's teaching on sexuality is very rich for those open-minded enough to explore it, and certainly a welcome tonic to the mindless, loveless, mechanical approach to sex rife in Western society today. It's more than a sectarian sticking point like no meat on Lenten Fridays--it's a teaching that goes to the very core of human existence. For Georgetown to place both these modes of behavior on par with each other would do an injustice to its mission and identity.

"Must"
You are at Georgetown. You are not in Mr Roger's neighborhood.
.

GU is a Catholic school which has a responsiblity to uphold Catholic doctrine. GU is not in any way obligated to allow for "safe sex" or any other sex between unmarried students.

Catholic teaching squares directly with the Bible that sex belongs only in marriage. This is God's command, not just the Church's or the school's rule, and it applies to everyone. The school has no responsibility to protect students from the consequences of behavior that the both God and the school forbid.

To attend a Catholic school and then blame the school for endangering your life and health when you are choosing to act in ways that are contrary to the school's basic teachings is ludicrous.

You are responsible for your own activities, sexual and otherwise. The university is no more responsible for guaranteeing a non-existent "right to sexual whatever-you-want" than it is responsible for guaranteeing a non-existent "right to find a trampoline at the bottom of every cliff you choose to jump off of." If you aren't responsible enough to handle your own behavior, sexual and otherwise, then you belong in the zoo with the other apes.

February 12, 2008

This morning’s (February 12, 2008) electronic edition of The Hoya contained an editorial entitled “GU Must Allow for Safe Sex.” For many years I have read The Hoya in order to follow the news about a great university that is alma mater to many—many who are Catholics and many who are not. Over the years I have found that prevailing attitudes reported in The Hoya have departed from the University’s raison d’être. On those past occasions, I remained silently discreet (or, if you prefer, discreetly silent), but today I cannot. I found this morning’s opinion piece sobering on a number of fronts. I write this letter to the editors from my dual citizenship of Georgetown as an alumnus (A.B., ’70, J.D., ’73) and as a Jesuit priest. I am saddened that I must write in response to this editorial. But to remain silent could suggest consent on my part, and I cannot consent to this editorial’s views nor can I be presumed to consent through silence. I am grateful to the editors of The Hoya for the opportunity to express my perspectives on some of the graver matters which their editorial raises.

The editorial begins by mentioning that the University President, Dr. John DeGioia, recently established a resource center for LGBTQ students citing the “need for a safe and accepting university community above objections raised by some that such a center would be inconsistent with the mission of a Catholic university.” No one should fear any university community regardless of who he or she is. But this does not mean that acceptance of each person must mean acceptance and, therefore, subsequent endorsement of views and activities that are inconsistent and conflict with the teachings of the Church which must be a part of any Catholic university’s mission. A Catholic university must exercise its responsibility and its authentic academic freedom to state and argue through reason why the teachings of the Church are meritorious and why conflicting views are wrong. Providing forums for responsibly debating issues—even controversial ones—within a Catholic university does not require endorsement of positions which contravene the Church’s positions. In the context of a discussion of academic freedom, the editorial cites the recent reversal of a decision at the Law Center that originally denied university funding for internships where law students would work for organizations whose views challenged head-on the Church’s moral teachings. With the reversal of the original decision which was correct because it gave a voice to the Church in a prestigious component of the academy, academic freedom has suffered rather than been enhanced. Moreover, a Catholic university has now been recruited as an accomplice to activities that contravene its identity and mission.

The editorial continues by stating that Georgetown “has proudly upheld its Catholic and Jesuit tradition for 219 years.” I am intrigued by the increasing choice of the word “tradition” over words like “identity” and “mission” to explain Georgetown and other schools which claim Jesuit heritage and patrimony. There is something about reliance on the term “tradition” that suggests the institution was Jesuit and Catholic and these comprise a part of its history. One could similarly argue that the United States has a tradition that one time permitted slavery (at least in some parts of the nation) and restricted the franchise to certain males over a particular age. These points constitute a part of the history of our nation, too. But these traditions of the country have been abandoned for good reason. I do not think that relegating Georgetown’s traditions to its past (to its history) as a Catholic institution can be endorsed for any reason, let alone a good one. Its traditions not only define its past but also its present and its future.

This point receives sharp focus when the editorial justifies its position advancing “safe sex” on the grounds of “public health” and the dangers of invoking Church doctrine “to deny students a safe environment.” The editorial then attempts to clarify what it means by these assertions. In the editors’ estimation, public health and safe environment mandate supporting and offering any form of birth control to any student without asking questions of students and without questioning these practices. The final justification offered for a “safe sex” policy appears in the statement that the University’s responsibilities to uphold Church teachings “should not be extended to the detriment of safe sex.”

This is a remarkable claim, but it is tragically flawed. The Church’s teachings on the matters questioned by this editorial involve not only the condemnation of abortion (in the context of the editorial’s discussion of denying “H*yas for Choice” university support) but also on not condoning pre- and extra-marital sex. The Church has given her sound reasons for the positions she teaches, and I need not explain them here.

But what I must explain is that the editorial’s claim that the University’s current practices serve as a detriment to “safe sex” is wrong for several reasons. The first is the need to acknowledge that condoms, the pill, and other artificial birth control measures can and do fail. And when they fail, people—both born and unborn—can be and are harmed. Second, unmarried persons should not be having sex with anyone, and they should be living chaste lives. Some, perhaps many, will argue that my second point is outdated since the contemporary culture has accepted, tolerated, and perhaps even sanctioned pre- and extra-marital sex in their diverse manifestations. Cultures can accept, tolerate, and sanction many things, but the actions of the culture in these regards do not make the activities being accepted, tolerated, or sanctioned right. They can be and often are still wrong. I, for one, do not believe that it is proper for any university, and certainly not one that considers itself in the Catholic and Jesuit “tradition,” to support behavior that endangers anyone and that is wrong for everyone. The University will promote far greater safety and advance what is right by staying the course with its current policy. Moreover, it should take proactive steps to explain why its policy is correct and why the changes advocated by the editors would endanger. Discussion is good, but endorsement is not.

I must disagree with the editors who claim that the policy they want the University to accept “should pose no problem” to Georgetown’s “Jesuit identity.” Here the word “identity” rather than “tradition” is used by the editors. And by doing so, they put their collective editorial finger on the heart of the matter: what is the soul of Georgetown? But their objective will attack the soul of Georgetown’s Jesuit and Catholic identity and, therefore, its mission to educate all who come to Georgetown in learning how to become wiser and more virtuous people. As a Catholic and Jesuit university, the salvation of souls is also inextricably related to Georgetown’s duty. That is, or at least was, a grand part of Georgetown’s mission. But the editors now advance a cause that would separate Georgetown from this and other critical responsibilities. The editors suggest that the University can remain true to its identity by simply looking the other way when they state that “[t]here is no need for explicit endorsement.” The history of our human race has demonstrated time after time that looking the other way permits what is wrong (and, in some instances, evil) to flourish and what is virtuous to perish.

This result would betray Georgetown’s identity for both now and for the future. Its duty to care for the whole person is to cultivate a virtuous life rather than one that is dangerous and wrong. I, too, am concerned about the health of students and of all others, but I do not express my perspective on the basis of “sticky ideological points” (a phrase with which the editors conclude their opinion) but on the wisdom that God has given us and the virtuous life which enables us to use that wisdom well.

Robert John Araujo, S.J., A.B. ’70, J.D., ’73

"It's a Catholic School. Period. If you don't like it, don't go to the school."

So here is the big question: there is a great deal of Catholic teaching. Just War Theory, for example, that has been explicitly interpreted by the Pope to imply that the Iraq war is unjust. Or Catholic social teaching which forbids embrace of unconstrained capitalism, and demands a "preferential option for the poor." Why do these never require restrictions on student/faculty freedom? In these cases, the university might positively support the expression of Catholic doctrine, or work in accord with it, but never restricts those who disagree. Only when it affects women or queers, never when it affects the powerful, does GU place restrictions. And only then do bigots write in to demand more restrictions.

"Arguments from rationality, ethics, practicality, economics, morality, etc.
DO
NOT
MATTER"

I'm sorry HWGA. You are mistaken about the doctrine of the church you endorse. When it comes to matters of morality, arguments from rationality are all that matter --that is standard Catholic doctrine. No matter of morality can require a defense on the basis of faith. Moral truths must be discoverable by the natural light of reason. This is not a controversial point, and you are welcome to check with any Jesuit at the university or, even better, read some Catholic moral theory on your own.

Anyway, quite apart from this, it is worth considering that Georgetown strives to be a catholic UNIVERSITY, not a seminary. What that means -- what John Carrol intended it to mean, and what was reaffirmed in great detail by the Centered Pluralism report of the university-wide task force, adopted by the board of directors -- is that this university will privilege Catholic views, research, and practice in the sense of taking positive steps to ensure that it is always present in every relevant debate. But that it will not in any way infringe on the freedom of faculty and students to disagree. That is the crucial difference between a university and a seminary.

Just as a bit of advise -- I would think that Catholics would be happy to have universities. If you have only seminaries -- places in which acceptance of Catholic orthodoxy is required -- then Catholicism becomes utterly ghettoized. Do you think a philosophy department at a state school, or at Harvard, would even consider Catholic views? Would I -- a pagan agnostic -- know more about Catholic doctrine than you if I were still teaching at Syracuse? Certainly not. Only because there are places like GU, which support Catholic teaching, in a context of free inquiry, is this work in the conversation of US academia.

So if you have your way, not only will GU students suffer, but Catholicism will become marginalized in academia. Frankly, that in itself wouldn't bother me, but I would mourn the further homogenization of universities.

I'm sorry, you spoke a great deal, but I'm left wondering what your point is.

Are you making an argument in support of Georgetown offering birth control services? I didn't see one.

I.

Catholic doctrines on just war and social justice, etc. People keep on renewing this tired argument 'oh, if Georgetown is Catholic, then shouldn't it also be teaching about x and y and z'. Read carefully:

1. The failure of an institution to adhere to a particular doctrinal tennant does not somehow suggest a privilege to begin abandoning further doctrinal tennants. Where do people get this idea from? It's the morality of a 7-year-old child.

If you speed down the street one day, do you think to yourself "well, in for a penny, in for a pound" and rob a bank? Points about other aspects of Catholic doctrine are wonderful for positive arguments: Georgetown should be teaching more social justice. Georgetown should be teaching more just war theory. They do little to advance the position that Georgetown should violate Catholic doctrine on life rights issues and begin dispensing condoms from White-Gravenor.

2. Independent of the first point (this is an arguendo point): A perfectly coherent argument could be made for Georgetown not being bound to advance particular doctrinal aspects of Catholicism (just war / critiques of socialism / social justice). This is developed in two ways.

a. In the first place, Catholic positions on human life have specific negative mandates: do not provide birth control. do not provide abortion facilities. do not engage in premarital sex. etc. There is no parallel negative mandate attached to all these teachings which are being brought up. You dig?

b. In connection to that first point: the nature of Georgetown as a University (cheap attempts at getting a reaction by calling it a 'seminary' aside) could very well require the creation of academic environs which are doctrine free (or else doctrinal only in a truly pluristic sense of giving a plethora of options). This stance - of academic freedom to learn - would in no way lessen the mandate of the Church to not violate fundamental positions on human life and conception.

II. Arguments from rationality, etc. do not matter

Rationality, morality, ethicality - the struggle for knowledge, the pursuit of truth, the defense of objectivity. These values no doubt define the Catholic Church. No one would disagree. (Indeed, it is because the Church embraces such deep and empowering positions that you see Catholicism willing to stand in defiance of mass movements of culture)

The point being made was a technical point which still seems to escape many of the commentators on this board. (Not sure why ... it shouldn't be that hard to grasp) Georgetown is a Catholic institution. Period. Perhaps this point is hard to grasp because so many here have been born from the entitlement culture of the last few decades, wherein, if we want something, we are expected to receive it, no questions asked. (I digress)

Georgetown is a Catholic University. No amount of whining, begging, pleading, or tantrum throwing will alter that. As in the case of an institution which embraces any doctrinal set (Orthodox, Zoroastrianism, Islam, etc.) such institutions CANNOT 'OPT OUT' of fundamental doctrinal tennants of their belief set. This is just a point of harsh understanding, not debate. The choices are several those dissatisfied:

1) Transform Georgetown into a non-Catholic school
2) Alter the Catholic Church's position on abortion / birth control / etc. (insemination / cloning / reproductive aids)

Those are the only feasiable modi of change. So, it's missing the point to see the statement 'arguments from rationality do not matter' and think 'OH, but of course they do. They're at the heart of this so-called Catholic religion'. Yes they are. But no, they still don't matter.

III.

Not only will Catholicism not me marginalized in academia, I think that positive counter cultural stances such as those held by Catholic Universities can actually endow the schools with a reservoir of strength and fresh thought against the crush of groupthink that is reflected so eloquently in your half-hearted attempt at playing the modern 'boogey man': 'embrace the wave of reform or the school will fall behind! get with the times!'

I don't think so. Catholic schools have been centers of education and learning for 2000 years, and I imagine they will be for another 2,000 years hence. Certainly, not by turning their back on progress or criticism or debate. Such things are salutary to the growth of knowledge and the human mind.

But just as certainly, there would be no loss in turning their backs (as they certainly will) on empty-headed critiques driven less by thought and consideration and more by a desire to join a popular position or advance an ill-founded agenda. And that they would do this? It wouldn't bother me at all. No mourning here.

Well, LJ, I spoke a great deal less than you, in either post, but that's not the point is it? And I didn't argue one way or another about birth control. I pointed out the contradictions in your position. All your name calling doesn't change that.

No violating one rule doesn't justify violating another. But it does show hypocrisy, and since I take it virtually anyone would see the silliness of a university requiring positions on matters of economics, politics, and all the rest, I was trying to get you to see that it is silly to think that being a university in the Catholic tradition -- gu is not institutionally connected to the church, just for the record, but a private university incorporated separately from the Jesuits -- requires blind obedience to every view of the hierarchy.

And yes, Catholic social teaching does have specific negative mandates. Quite a few of them. And many far more central than views about condoms. It is striking that you are so dogmatic and adamant, yet know so little about Catholic thought.

And your point about argument makes no sense. If the Catholic doctrine is that matters of morality are open to rational debate, then you can't just have anyone -- not you, not a Jesuit, not even the pope just stamp your foot and insist that one must agree or not be a Catholic. (The range of issues on which Catholic doctrine claims this right is really very small.) This is all quite obvious, and it would be good if you thought a bit about it before calling people names. (And the primacy of reason to faith in matters of morals is a far deeper part of the Catholic tradition than any view on condoms.)

Note as well that plenty of people would deny that rationality defines the Church. My point was that its doctrine commit it to rationality, not that it embraces it on all issues.

As for not being marginalized, tell me what non-Catholic school takes Catholic teaching seriously in any discipline other than religion where it is studied as one might study a quaint culture? Where is Catholic economic teaching a serious part of the discussion in economics? Where is Catholic philosophy emphasized in philosophy departments? If you succeed in turning GU into something other than a university, there will be one fewer place where these debates are entered by serious scholars, and whether I agree with the Catholic view or not, that would be a shame.

As for all the rest of your name calling -- well, really, do you think you are convincing people with that sort of thing?

I think a better way to put what I was trying to say, or maybe something else I want to say, is that Georgetown Universtiy, while Catholic (yes, I do get it, everyone can stop screaming it now), also makes a BIG DEAL about the fact that it is open and accepting of people of all religions (or non-religions) and that it does not and will not ram Catholicsm down your throat. Thus, I get that I came to a University, knowing that it was Catholic, because I thought it was a good school, and I liked the people, and was under the impression that the "catholic-ness" of the University would not in any way get in the way of what I believe in or choose not to believe in.

That said, Georgetown has not lived up to its promise. If Georgetown University wants to not let any condoms be available in its dorms, and the SHC or the Georgetown Hospital, b/c all of these are directly affiliated and therefor "catholic" that's fine. However, contraception should be available in the independent institutions such as the Corp and especially Wisey's which is pretty much off campus. At that point, Georgetown is not allowing for non-Catholics to make decisions for themselves. They are saying, this is what Catholics believe, this is what is right, and this is what you will do.

It does not go against Catholic doctrine to allow for non-Catholic people (of which there are many here) to BUY contraception from independent orgs. It would if GU started giving them out at orientation.

It personally makes no sense in my opinion to have "natural family planning" as you call it (which, amongst the biased and vague phrasing, I will take to mean, only having sex when you intend to have a child). God gave humans the gift of sex (whether it be for only married people is an entirely different issue), and he also gave us the gift of sex for pleasure. We are the only mammals (excluding dolphins I believe) that are able to have sex for pleasure. Also the clitoris (considered a sex organ) has no reproductive purposes. Therefore, it is logical, in my opinion, to assume that God made us so that we can have sex (when we are ready/married/whatever) with the intention of pleasure and the emotional and loving connection with another human life, not pregnancy. God also gave us the intellegence to create contraception, and I say we use it.

Even when I'm married, I intend to have sex other than simply for when I intend to have babies. By not allowing for contraception, the Catholic church is holding back women into tradition roles by making it so that they must bear children. In the times of the Bible, that was their job though, and by using contraception (and "spilling the seed" as it were) was denying them their rights. Now it is the other way around. Catholics need to look at why their leaders are telling them to do something. What is it based in? and then decide for themselves if it is something that they want to follow.

And if eating meat on Friday is a sin, going against Catholic doctrine, Georgetown should forbid Vittles from selling meat products on Fridays too.

1. There are married students at Georgetown. (mostly Grad students, but they are here).

2. "God" does not forbid it. The Catholic Church forbids it. There is a BIG difference.

Kelly - have you heard of drugstore.com? they can ship you condoms in like two days for free if you buy some shampoo and deodorant with them. Stop complaining. You just make yourself sound whiny and woefully uninformed. You applied to a Catholic school, you accepted the offer to attend a Catholic school, and thus you get the honor to go to a Catholic school. If you didn't want to subject yourself to the burden of abiding by the policies that govern Catholic schools than why did you apply, accept, and come to one? If you had a change of heart since you got here, why don't you leave? Georgetown students have no problem transferring out of here to other good schools if they so choose. I think you need to reconsider why you go here if this is such a big deal to you. Maybe you might be happier somewhere else?

Can anybody imagine a Muslim university selling alcohol in its school store? I can only imagine the reaction if you went to one to study abroad and you started carrying on like this. Why don't you get some respect for the traditions of the school you attend?