Matt C. Abbott
University of Detroit Mercy cries uncle
By Matt C. Abbott
The University of Detroit Mercy, a Catholic institution that was the subject of a previous column, has cried uncle.
Specifically, UDM's administration has finally agreed to a meeting with some Michigan pro-life activists who have been very concerned about the UDM Web site's advertising for career opportunities at Planned Parenthood. Pro-lifers were preparing to hold a peaceful protest this weekend at an Archdiocese of Detroit-sponsored conference at UDM, and were reportedly being pressured by the archdiocese to cancel the protest.
From a spokesperson for Citizens for a Pro-Life Society:
"This afternoon [March 23, 2007], the University of Detroit Mercy agreed in a written memo that a meeting will be arranged [for pro-lifers] to discuss concerns with UDM officials, including the president of UDM, Father Gerard Stockhausen. Therefore, there will be no distribution of literature tomorrow as planned. It is very important that the meeting takes place in the next 30 days. We will work hard to make sure it is facilitated. Please pray that our good efforts will indeed bear fruit."
UDM also recently held an event called "Sexapalooza," during which students could experience "safe-sex games" and "sex-tac-toe."
On a related note, yours truly had a "dialogue" with a UDM professor (not one of the two professors mentioned in my previous column) that went like this:
UDM professor (who e-mailed me): Your piece about the sticker at UDM failed to mention that the office next door has a sticker, too, that says "Abortion is Homicide." There are plenty of consistently pro-life (seamless garment) faculty, students and staff at
University of Detroit Mercy.
Me: Well, that's good to know, considering UDM is supposed to be a Catholic institution. I'm a little intrigued by the "seamless garment" reference, but it would be nice if at least some of the "consistently pro-life" faculty and staff would go on the record to denounce their pro-abortion, pro-sodomy colleagues' views.
UDM professor: The seamless garment reference has to do with the philosophy that all life should be protected including the quality of life for all marginalized persons. It is an idea that has a long history in the Church. The late Cardinal Bernardin was a proponent of this line of thinking. I am not sure what you mean by "pro-sodomy" in this context. And as for denouncing colleagues, I wouldn't be in favor of that method. It only would lead to more polarization between people. What we need is more compassion and more dialogue, especially on the issue of elective abortion.
Me: By "pro-sodomy," I mean those who support same-sex "marriage" and/or special rights for those who live the homosexual lifestyle. The seamless garment philosophy can be problematic. See: http://www.wandererforum.org/publications/spring2001focus.html
I think what we truly need are more faithful Catholics and Catholic schools loyal to the Magisterium.
UDM professor: I used to read The Wanderer (from the mail) just for entertainment when I was in graduate school at Marquette, another fine Jesuit university! Rhetoric is important but in the service of truth. By the Magisterium, I believe you mean the body of Church teaching. Now that is the crux of the problem: Who has the authority to say what? Is it individual bishops, the community of them, or just the Holy Father?
Me: The bishops in union with the Holy Father. Frankly, if Catholic schools would teach what's contained in the Catechism of the Catholic Church, there wouldn't be any confusion about what the Church truly teaches in regard to faith and morals. It would also be good to have students read various papal encyclicals as well.
UDM professor: Well, I don't teach theology. I am in the philosophy department. In my discipline, we cannot appeal to the authority of the Church to justify a philosophical claim. It is a logical fallacy. So, teaching the papal encyclicals would be outside my scope, although I do teach Thomas' particular understanding of the natural law theory. In our university, we have a Religious Studies Department and about half our students are not Roman Catholic. The first definition in the dictionary for sodomy is "anal or oral copulation with a member of the opposite sex." The second definition refers to the same acts but in the context of same-sex relationships. I am not sure the name of the colleague who is espousing same-sex relationships so I don't know if they are indeed associating sodomy in heterosexual or homosexual relationships. It would be absurd to think that pro-homosexual couplings want everyone, including heterosexuals, to practice homosexual couplings. Also, it seems likely that many heterosexual couples do practice sodomy, as in the case of oral copulation and possibly anal intercourse too. Regardless, the issue of whether a same-sex relationship is morally permissible does not necessarily entail the belief that same-sex marriages should be legalized. And I suppose too, that some same-sex couples do not practice sodomy at all and as I said above, some opposite sex couples do practice sodomy. But I would need to do some research for any statistics on the question. So when you mentioned "pro-sodomy" and "pro-abortion" faculty all in the same breath — it was a little strong on the rhetoric and low on the distinctions. There are all kinds of hasty generalizations that can be asserted. The issue of elective abortion, I think, is an entirely different kettle of fish.
Me: But you do teach in a Catholic school, so you should be teaching philosophy that isn't contrary to traditional magisterial teaching. That about half the students aren't Catholic doesn't mean the school should water down its Catholic identity. They are paying to attend a Catholic school; if they don't want to be exposed to (authentic) Catholic teaching, they can attend a secular university. As for heterosexual couples practicing sodomy, yes, I'm sure not a few do. And many also use contraception. Yet it's objectively sinful behavior, and Catholics who assert that such behavior isn't immoral are obviously dissenters. Why would someone want same-sex "marriage" legalized and yet believe it's immoral? That makes about as much sense as wanting abortion outlawed but espousing that it's morally licit. Proponents of same-sex "marriage" are, in my view, pro-sodomy. Not to mention they aren't exactly pro-Catholic. At any rate, while we likely won't ever be in 100 percent agreement, I appreciate your respectfulness. Thank you for writing.
© Matt C. Abbott
The University of Detroit Mercy, a Catholic institution that was the subject of a previous column, has cried uncle.
Specifically, UDM's administration has finally agreed to a meeting with some Michigan pro-life activists who have been very concerned about the UDM Web site's advertising for career opportunities at Planned Parenthood. Pro-lifers were preparing to hold a peaceful protest this weekend at an Archdiocese of Detroit-sponsored conference at UDM, and were reportedly being pressured by the archdiocese to cancel the protest.
From a spokesperson for Citizens for a Pro-Life Society:
"This afternoon [March 23, 2007], the University of Detroit Mercy agreed in a written memo that a meeting will be arranged [for pro-lifers] to discuss concerns with UDM officials, including the president of UDM, Father Gerard Stockhausen. Therefore, there will be no distribution of literature tomorrow as planned. It is very important that the meeting takes place in the next 30 days. We will work hard to make sure it is facilitated. Please pray that our good efforts will indeed bear fruit."
UDM also recently held an event called "Sexapalooza," during which students could experience "safe-sex games" and "sex-tac-toe."
On a related note, yours truly had a "dialogue" with a UDM professor (not one of the two professors mentioned in my previous column) that went like this:
UDM professor (who e-mailed me): Your piece about the sticker at UDM failed to mention that the office next door has a sticker, too, that says "Abortion is Homicide." There are plenty of consistently pro-life (seamless garment) faculty, students and staff at
University of Detroit Mercy.
Me: Well, that's good to know, considering UDM is supposed to be a Catholic institution. I'm a little intrigued by the "seamless garment" reference, but it would be nice if at least some of the "consistently pro-life" faculty and staff would go on the record to denounce their pro-abortion, pro-sodomy colleagues' views.
UDM professor: The seamless garment reference has to do with the philosophy that all life should be protected including the quality of life for all marginalized persons. It is an idea that has a long history in the Church. The late Cardinal Bernardin was a proponent of this line of thinking. I am not sure what you mean by "pro-sodomy" in this context. And as for denouncing colleagues, I wouldn't be in favor of that method. It only would lead to more polarization between people. What we need is more compassion and more dialogue, especially on the issue of elective abortion.
Me: By "pro-sodomy," I mean those who support same-sex "marriage" and/or special rights for those who live the homosexual lifestyle. The seamless garment philosophy can be problematic. See: http://www.wandererforum.org/publications/spring2001focus.html
I think what we truly need are more faithful Catholics and Catholic schools loyal to the Magisterium.
UDM professor: I used to read The Wanderer (from the mail) just for entertainment when I was in graduate school at Marquette, another fine Jesuit university! Rhetoric is important but in the service of truth. By the Magisterium, I believe you mean the body of Church teaching. Now that is the crux of the problem: Who has the authority to say what? Is it individual bishops, the community of them, or just the Holy Father?
Me: The bishops in union with the Holy Father. Frankly, if Catholic schools would teach what's contained in the Catechism of the Catholic Church, there wouldn't be any confusion about what the Church truly teaches in regard to faith and morals. It would also be good to have students read various papal encyclicals as well.
UDM professor: Well, I don't teach theology. I am in the philosophy department. In my discipline, we cannot appeal to the authority of the Church to justify a philosophical claim. It is a logical fallacy. So, teaching the papal encyclicals would be outside my scope, although I do teach Thomas' particular understanding of the natural law theory. In our university, we have a Religious Studies Department and about half our students are not Roman Catholic. The first definition in the dictionary for sodomy is "anal or oral copulation with a member of the opposite sex." The second definition refers to the same acts but in the context of same-sex relationships. I am not sure the name of the colleague who is espousing same-sex relationships so I don't know if they are indeed associating sodomy in heterosexual or homosexual relationships. It would be absurd to think that pro-homosexual couplings want everyone, including heterosexuals, to practice homosexual couplings. Also, it seems likely that many heterosexual couples do practice sodomy, as in the case of oral copulation and possibly anal intercourse too. Regardless, the issue of whether a same-sex relationship is morally permissible does not necessarily entail the belief that same-sex marriages should be legalized. And I suppose too, that some same-sex couples do not practice sodomy at all and as I said above, some opposite sex couples do practice sodomy. But I would need to do some research for any statistics on the question. So when you mentioned "pro-sodomy" and "pro-abortion" faculty all in the same breath — it was a little strong on the rhetoric and low on the distinctions. There are all kinds of hasty generalizations that can be asserted. The issue of elective abortion, I think, is an entirely different kettle of fish.
Me: But you do teach in a Catholic school, so you should be teaching philosophy that isn't contrary to traditional magisterial teaching. That about half the students aren't Catholic doesn't mean the school should water down its Catholic identity. They are paying to attend a Catholic school; if they don't want to be exposed to (authentic) Catholic teaching, they can attend a secular university. As for heterosexual couples practicing sodomy, yes, I'm sure not a few do. And many also use contraception. Yet it's objectively sinful behavior, and Catholics who assert that such behavior isn't immoral are obviously dissenters. Why would someone want same-sex "marriage" legalized and yet believe it's immoral? That makes about as much sense as wanting abortion outlawed but espousing that it's morally licit. Proponents of same-sex "marriage" are, in my view, pro-sodomy. Not to mention they aren't exactly pro-Catholic. At any rate, while we likely won't ever be in 100 percent agreement, I appreciate your respectfulness. Thank you for writing.
© Matt C. Abbott
The views expressed by RenewAmerica columnists are their own and do not necessarily reflect the position of RenewAmerica or its affiliates.
(See RenewAmerica's publishing standards.)
