I guess this is the mandatory LGBTQ suck up article in this issue?? I'm surprised you guys don't just publish their press releases.

yawn..............

I wonder what would happen if GU Pride decided to pool its talent, funding and energy into showing the doubters out there that it really is possible to be gay and live a mature, thoughtful, other-centered life of substance. That would really help advance understanding, acceptance and respect for GU Pride and its initiatives.

Sure, something like the drag ball (or the call for dildo sales in Red Square a couple of years ago) catches headlines, but does it really advance the causes that GU Pride holds most dear? Don't get me wrong, I don't think there's anything inherently wrong or immoral about a drag ball (and I am very proud that Georgetown is taking the lead in showing the Church and the world that gay people can be a valued and vital part of a Catholic university's community), but it seems to me that there are probably other things that gay Hoyas could come up with to empower and earn credibility for LGBTQ concerns at Georgetown.

The truth is that GU Pride is a pioneering group in many ways. Gay students and faculty at lots of other Catholic schools are looking to Georgetown to see if GU Pride can flourish as an integral part of the university community, and they are hoping that it will. Pioneers can't afford to be seen as frivolous. For the larger LGBTQ cause, how GU Pride is perceived by people beyond the front gates is much more important than how they see themselves or how they are viewed by the already-convinced culture of the Hilltop.

One idea: What if GU Pride were to adopt an on-going service commitment to the poor in Washington? It wouldn't have to be something huge, just something real and regular. As a group, make a collective commitment: Tutor in the inner-city, make and serve meals at a homeless shelter, answer phones at a suicide hotline, help out at a shelter for battered women. Whatever. Just show that they can be a community that is not completely self-referential and solely defined by sex/gender issues. Refuse to be defined, individually and collectively, by sexuality. Be defined instead by their common humanity, of which sexuality is one important aspect. I know that's not how most LGBTQ groups define themselves, but who says Georgetown's group should be like anyone else's?"

What if they could say, "We are Hoyas who are gay, and that matters a lot to us. That's why we take stands, hold protests, have social events, provide resources for LGBTQ students, and articulately address LGBTQ issues. We are serious about such issues. But we are more than that. We are aware that other people in our city and world suffer from all sorts of injustice, and we believe that we have a responsibility to serve not just gay people, but all people, even those who don't like or agree with us. We choose to be of service to others beyond our group and kind -- and beyond our Hilltop --because we know that we, like all human beings, have a responsibility to all people."

Seems to me that a GU Pride that could say something like that could still have fun and address serious LGBTQ issues, but it would be able to do so with a kind of credibility that it doesn't currently have with the audience beyond its own like-minded circle. In fact, it seems to me that such a GU Pride could show with self-evident authenticity what it is for a group of gay men and women to live their undergraduate experience out of the Jesuit and Catholic tradition.

Now THAT would be a contribution to be proud of.

Faithful Alum,

I think the entirety of your post is understandable, and your appreciation of Pride commendable, but your argument that Pride should focus on other issues in order to "earn credibility" or become less "frivolous" is mistaken.

In my opinion, Pride, a group formed around LGBTQ issues, should focus primarily on such topics. While serving a part of the community, unrelated to sexuality/LGBTQ issues, would certainly not hurt the groups image or reputation, I do believe it would detract from time and energy spent on specifically LGBTQ-related issues.

Georgetown offers students plenty of opportunities to serve its community members, and LGBTQ students are more than welcome to, and very often do, participate in these activities as individuals or as a group, through co-sponsorship, which they have often done in order to support like-minded, progressive events.

While I believe that many issues are interrelated and LGBTQ justice is tied very closely with a number of issues dealt with on our campus and in our community, Pride should not be required to 'earn credibility' through community service. Did College Dems need to feed the homeless before being considered a legitimate group?

Ultimately, I am not an active member of GU Pride, and thus, don't feel I have much a right to direct the actions of their group. But I encourage them to continue their focus on LGBTQ-related issues.

GU Pride has been and continues to be a great contributer to the Georgetown campus, and something I AM very proud of.

Mr. Alum, I find it somewhat disingenuous for you to suggest tactics to GU Pride, given that you are not a member who is invested in their struggle. If you feel that your ideas are the best way to advance LGBTQ issues, then I'd encourage you to get involved with a local group, and make these proposals there.

I unfortunately am not a member of GU Pride, but I'm sure that they have good reason to choose the tactics that they use. I do, however, know several members, and know that they already present themselves as upstanding individuals who are not entirely defined by their sexuality. I would guess that they recognize, just as other marginal groups in the past have recognized, that simply being a good upstanding person is not enough to change the minds of those with deep-seated prejudices nor the institutional structures which they create. In order to achieve change, confrontation is necessary. One cannot simply hope that others will become enlightened without being challenged, rather one must actively work to bring about change.

Funding a center for homosexuals with a Catholic University's
monies seems at odds with The Holy Father's recent comments:
To preserve their Catholic identity, academic leaders should ensure not only that their students receive orthodox instruction, but also that they are encouraged to set high standards for personal behavior. The Pontiff said:

"This requires that public witness to the way of Christ, as found in the Gospel and upheld by the Church's magisterium, shapes all aspects of an institution's life, both inside and outside the classroom. Divergence from this vision weakens Catholic identity and, far from advancing freedom, inevitably leads to confusion, whether moral, intellectual or spiritual"
Did anyone from Georgetown bother to listen?

As a member of GU Pride, I would like to echo what Tim M. and "the Hoya" wrote in response to the comment posted by the "Faithful Alum." I do not think it is fair for people to expect every event hosted by Pride to be completely academic or service-oriented in nature. I do not see other student groups being held to this standard and do not understand why GU Pride should be when its primary purpose is to serve as a resource for LGBTQ and Allied students. Pride's decision to host a drag ball this year, especially since much of what came up pertaining to LGBTQ issues on campus this year has been so serious, was a great move; it showed people that there are fun ways to engage in dialogue about gender. I also think it complemented the many other events of Pride week, which included a film screening about intersections of faith and sexuality, a lecture about one woman's experience as an Asian-American in the LGBTQ community, and the finale, Pride's participation in Relay for Life, in a very effective way.

To be more specific, however, I would encourage this "Faithful Alum" to make an effort to actually find out what Pride has become involved in this semester. It might interest him or her to know that Pride has actually begun a program in conjunction with the Students of Color Alliance called "Mentoring in Arlington," in which students from GU Pride travel to a high school in Arlington to meet with LGBTQ students there (mostly students of color) and serve as both mentors and friends to students who might be dealing with issues specific to LGBTQ aspects of their identities, and to simply share experiences. These students have also come to Georgetown to visit the campus and get a feel for what college life is like.

In other words, if the "Faithful Alum" wanted community engagement, constructive programming, fun and inclusive social events, and service/outreach all in one student group, I might normally say that he or she was asking for a lot. In this case, however, I would say that GU Pride is just the group you were looking for.

Dear Tom Harvey,

"it can be clearly seen that the phenomenon of homosexuality, complex as it is, and with its many consequences for society and ecclesial life, is a proper focus for the Church's pastoral care. It thus requires of her ministers attentive study, active concern and honest, theologically well balanced counsel."

Letter to the Bishops of the Catholic Church on the Pastoral Care of Homosexual Persons, Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, Joseph Cardinal Ratziner.

The issues at stake are more complex than you seem to be aware of. Perhaps you are aware of the complexities - your comment was short. I don't know. I would like to give you the benefit of the doubt. But just in case, the vatican's wesbite is a good resource. www.vatican.va

Thanks for your Vatican.com reference. Here are excerpts from, than Cardinal , Ratzinger’s 1986 letter to the bishops on homosexuality:
In the discussion which followed the publication of the (1975) Declaration, however, an overly benign interpretation was given to the homosexual condition itself, some going so far as to call it neutral, or even good. Although the particular inclination of the homosexual person is not a sin, it is a more or less strong tendency ordered toward an intrinsic moral evil; and thus the inclination itself must be seen as an objective disorder.
Therefore special concern and pastoral attention should be directed toward those who have this condition, lest they be led to believe that the living out of this orientation in homosexual activity is a morally acceptable option. It is not.
To chose someone of the same sex for one's sexual activity is to annul the rich symbolism and meaning, not to mention the goals, of the Creator's sexual design. Homosexual activity is not a complementary union, able to transmit life; and so it thwarts the call to a life of that form of self-giving which the Gospel says is the essence of Christian living. This does not mean that homosexual persons are not often generous and giving of themselves; but when they engage in homosexual activity they confirm within themselves a disordered sexual inclination which is essentially self-indulgent.
Nevertheless, increasing numbers of people today, even within the Church, are bringing enormous pressure to bear on the Church to accept the homosexual condition as though it were not disordered and to condone homosexual activity. Those within the Church who argue in this fashion often have close ties with those with similar views outside it. These latter groups are guided by a vision opposed to the truth about the human person, which is fully disclosed in the mystery of Christ. They reflect, even if not entirely consciously, a materialistic ideology which denies the transcendent nature of the human person as well as the supernatural vocation of every individual.
The Church's ministers must ensure that homosexual persons in their care will not be misled by this point of view, so profoundly opposed to the teaching of the Church. But the risk is great and there are many who seek to create confusion regarding the Church's position, and then to use that confusion to their own advantage.

Someone send a copy to DeGioia

You could easily send a copy to DeGioia if you wished to, and since you have expressed a desire for him to have one, I would encourage you to follow through on that.

Thanks for posting a longer excerpt from the same letter. As you know, letter makes many arguments, none of which are against pastoral care for homosexuals. A resource center at a Catholic university is not automatically a bad thing; in fact it has the potential to be a very good thing. That is the only point I was trying to make.

Given the number of married faculty, grad students and even undergrads; how about a resource center for those tempted by adultery; THE GU ADULTERERS Resource Center? The university community may also have a few pedophiles, "living in the shadows' and vulnerable to public scorn. The list of groups, active in a sinful lifestyle is endless. Surely these groups deserve pastoral care too.

You seem to have a lot of time on your hands - go for it!