Marquette Arts and Sciences dean search F-up

[MUMBA]

Homosexuality is not a sin.  Having homosexual sex is a sin.  It's not a difficult distinction.

I think the distinction is more difficult than some of us may realize.  As Fr. Wild said at the Pere Marquette dinner, gays and lesbians are God's creation.  And God doesn't make junk (my words, not Fr. Wild's, but you see the point).  

So how can you extract an element of their humanity (sexuality) and compartmentalize it?  How is God's creation not wholly good?  Tough question.  I don't know the answer, and my Catholic education was woeful w/ respect to thoughtful conversation on this sort of thing.

Which brings me back to my parting take of the day...a specialist in Gender Studies and Sexuality would have helped me grapple with this difficult question in the safety of the classroom.

Have a good weekend.  Go Brewers.

[ChicosBailBonds]

I think the distinction is more difficult than some of us may realize.  As Fr. Wild said at the Pere Marquette dinner, gays and lesbians are God's creation.  And God doesn't make junk (my words, not Fr. Wild's, but you see the point).  

That's cute and plays well with some folks, but I've always wondered then, was Hitler not a creation of God?  How about Ghengis Khan?  Or Idi Amin ?  Pol Pot?  John Wayne Gasey?  Dahmer?  Etc, etc.

We are all creatures of God in my opinion, but free will comes into play and that creates junk.  Now, I'm sure you're next statement is going to be, gays don't choose to be gay, it's not a choice.  And for most people, I would agree, gays and lesbians (as well as heterosexuals, bisexuals)  do not choose their sexuality.  This is why I support civil unions.  But that begs the question again, do polygamists choose how they are?

[ChicosBailBonds]

The hypocrisy is what you are scared of? Changing the institution?

I bet people used that same argument to try and keep interracial marriage illegal.

"If you let blacks and whites get married, where does it stop???" (again, in my best ignorant redneck impression).

Progress is scary, and I definitely understand what you are saying, I just don't think the risk is that great (thus our disagreement).

Also, just to be clear, I'm not talking about religion, I'm talking about state. Each church is going to have their own views on homosexuality. I'm cool with that.

I'm just not sure I want my government telling gay people that "You can't be married. You can have a "civil union", but "marriage" is only for straight people"

Just seems crazy to me.

Our gov't says things like this all the time, so why would this be any different.  Why, as a married citizen do I get hit with the marriage penalty in taxation...that's not fair.  There are examples all over the place.

And please, don't go there with marriage between blacks and whites, such a canard.  It's still male and female and capable of naturally producing children.  Those arguments existed due to racial prejudice.

I come back to the discussion I had with a few friends of mine that were pushing Gay marriage in California, working for that campaign (which lost, again, out here on the last ballot).  I told them I would support the legalization if they "went all in", meaning that polygamists can get married to as many people as they want.  They flat out told me they couldn't go for this because it was too controversial, and, here's the great part...that wasn't real marriage.   So here we have a group not liking the current definition of marriage but wanting to put more boundaries on marriage again.  Sorry, but it made me more than chuckle.

The biggest irony in all with the election in California, African Americans and Hispanics overwhelmingly shot it down.  Whites, in fact, voted in favor for gay marriage by a percent or two.

I'm sure at some point it will become legal, but they hypocrisy of it bothers me.

[ChicosBailBonds]

If by many states, you mean 8, then so be it.    

Source?

[reinko]

Source?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Samesex_marriage_in_USA.svg

CA, NV, OR, WA, and NJ give similar rights to civil unions to marriage and if if you add in IA, MA, VT, NH, and CT (who allow gay marriage) that that makes 10 states where the gays can have some kind of union with equal or near equal rights.

Interesting read on gay marriage and it's impact on the divorce rates at least here in 3rd circle of hell according to conservatives Massachusetts.  http://www.huffingtonpost.com/bruce-wilson/divorce-rate-in-gay-marri_b_267259.html

(And yes consider the source the huffington blah blah just read it...)

[ChicosBailBonds]

The reason I ask is there are other sources that claim many more than 8 states so I was curious what criteria they were using.

[shiloh26]

That's cute and plays well with some folks, but I've always wondered then, was Hitler not a creation of God?  How about Ghengis Khan?  Or Idi Amin ?  Pol Pot?  John Wayne Gasey?  Dahmer?  Etc, etc.

We are all creatures of God in my opinion, but free will comes into play and that creates junk.  Now, I'm sure you're next statement is going to be, gays don't choose to be gay, it's not a choice.  And for most people, I would agree, gays and lesbians (as well as heterosexuals, bisexuals)  do not choose their sexuality.  This is why I support civil unions.  But that begs the question again, do polygamists choose how they are?

I'm interested in seeing where this logic train is going, and I'm not saying that in a conceded way.  You do feel that sexuality is not a choice.  Doesn't it seem that polygamy is a choice?  How many people have a realization that it is part of their sexual identity to marry many or that they share their spouse with many others?  I just think you are making a false correlation... there is a real distinction, based on choice, there that you might be missing out on. 

If this is right, then it would stand to reason that, right now, most states impermissibly discriminate based on sexuality, something that one cannot choose by refusing to extend marriage rights, but do permissibly discriminate on something that is a choice, entering into multiple such unions, whether hetero or homosexual.  Again, I have trouble believing that it is someone's inherent sexuality that they must marry multiple people. 

Do you support civil unions for polygamists? I'm asking an honest question, and I'm sorry if you addressed that earlier somewhere in the thread. 

[ChicosBailBonds]

Actually, I said for MOST people sexuality isn't a choice, I do not believe that is the case for everyone, but certainly the vast vast majority.


I'm a Catholic.  As a Catholic, we believe that the Pope and other religious leaders are here to guide us.  We believe the Holy Spirit fills them and provides a guiding hand.  These are not perfect people, they make mistakes, some of them tragic (child abuse).  But they have also steered their flock in the right direction for centuries (and yes, I can give an entire dissertation on the corruption and immoral actions of the Catholic church throughout it's history, I get it).

Yesterday, my little daughter made her first Holy Communion.  I was listening to the priest (there were actually 4 of them, including Father Matt who looks like Jesus, it's incredible, and married Kobe Bryant....so you can have fun with that one) as he was talking about receiving the body and blood of Christ.  He told all the second graders that they are now walking tabernacles of Christ.  A cute image that the kids really attached themselves to.   He also spoke of how the religious are filled with the Holy Spirit as a guiding force.

In my mind, if we are to believe that the Pope and the religious are filled with the Holy Spirit and are guiding us in this fashion, and FORCEFULLY at that, then it's something we should take very seriously in our evaluation as Catholics.  I get that it's en vogue to be an American Cafeteria Catholic and basically say abortion is cool, gay marriage rocks, divorce is no big deal, etc, etc because it just causes so many things that our pals wouldn't agree with.  It's pretty sad. 

[reinko]

So Fr. Matt, is an Arab, because Jesus wasn't a white dude who looked like a lead singer of an indy band from Seattle from early 90's. 

[ChicosBailBonds]

So Fr. Matt, is an Arab, because Jesus wasn't a white dude who looked like a lead singer of an indy band from Seattle from early 90's.  

For the record, I believe Jesus was likely a nice olive color.    I'm glad my church portrays him in human form as someone likely to be from the Middle East.

[ChicosBailBonds]

.

[Canned Goods n Ammo]

Our gov't says things like this all the time, so why would this be any different.  Why, as a married citizen do I get hit with the marriage penalty in taxation...that's not fair.  There are examples all over the place.

And please, don't go there with marriage between blacks and whites, such a canard.  It's still male and female and capable of naturally producing children.  Those arguments existed due to racial prejudice.

We'll just have to agree to disagree here. I feel like it's a very apt comparison. Not that long ago, a lot of people in this country thought black people were less that human. They didn't think they were capable of things white people were capable of. They were refereed to as animals. FLASH FORWARD: While the gay population is enjoying more freedom than ever, let's not pretend that's its not a persecuted group. Prejudice, fear, and ignorance have kept people from accepting that being gay isn't an "illness". My point is this: 60 years ago, we had separate drinking fountains for black people, and thought that was ok. 60 years from now, we'll probably look at anti-gay marriage legislation and think WTF?!

I come back to the discussion I had with a few friends of mine that were pushing Gay marriage in California, working for that campaign (which lost, again, out here on the last ballot).  I told them I would support the legalization if they "went all in", meaning that polygamists can get married to as many people as they want.  They flat out told me they couldn't go for this because it was too controversial, and, here's the great part...that wasn't real marriage.   So here we have a group not liking the current definition of marriage but wanting to put more boundaries on marriage again.  Sorry, but it made me more than chuckle.

Again with the polygamists? I'll bring up the point that I brought up before: There is not a large demand or need to legalize polygamy. The US population and the "free market" should be able to guide the evolution of legislation. Speed limits are higher now than they used to be. The drinking age has been standardized. Woman can vote. These are legislative issues that have evolved over time. When they made the drinking age 21, did people freak out in fear they would make it 30? When they allowed woman to vote, were people fearful that the next legislation would allow dogs to vote? When the smoking ban went into effect in major cities, did people fear that all of the bars would close? Don't let your fear of the unknown cloud what is the proper evolution of legal "marriage".

The biggest irony in all with the election in California, African Americans and Hispanics overwhelmingly shot it down.  Whites, in fact, voted in favor for gay marriage by a percent or two.

I'm sure at some point it will become legal, but they hypocrisy of it bothers me.

I hear ya, but I have a hard time telling my gay friends they are hypocrites because they don't support polygamy. The 2 things aren't really the same to me (or them, especially), nor do I think that it's the same to the rest of America. AND if there is some large polygamist movement and demand 25 years from now, well, then I'll have to examine the issue. I can't justify holding back gay marriage because some dude will want 5 wives. It's just not the same thing to me.

Oh, and as a practicing Catholic, I realize what the church says about being gay. I'm strictly talking US legislation, not about the Catholic church. The church probably needs to evolve as well, but I have to be honest and say that I'm torn on that issue. I love the church, but it's tough for me to be apart of an organization that isn't the most tolerant.

[mu-rara]

I read some of Jodi O'Brien's writing over the weekend.  This by no means makes me an expert on her writing.  I don't even feel comfortable commenting on her scholarship.  I do think that she is asking questions that Catholics should not be afraid of.

She is no more controversial than Dan Maguire.  In fact, Dr. Maguire is much more in the face of Catholics, yet he has a platform provided by Marquette.

[radome]

She is no more controversial than Dan Maguire. 

I agree with your statement but Maguire isn't hired as a Dean and I believe that the position hired into matters.  For example, the Dean includes work with donors, it is an option with a Prof. I can appreciate Marquette's concerns with O'Brien as Dean but would be disappointed if Marquette wouldn't hire O'Brien as a Prof. (Besides, with a name like Maguire, we have to keep him)

[mu-rara]

I agree with your statement but Maguire isn't hired as a Dean and I believe that the position hired into matters.  For example, the Dean includes work with donors, it is an option with a Prof. I can appreciate Marquette's concerns with O'Brien as Dean but would be disappointed if Marquette wouldn't hire O'Brien as a Prof. (Besides, with a name like Maguire, we have to keep him)

Again, I am not sure what MU is afraid of.  O'Brien is asking challenging questions, no doubt.  They are questions that today's high school and college kids are asking.  I teach high school religion at a local parish, and I know that many of these kids disagree with current church teaching.   They have grown up with aunts, uncles and friends that are gay, and see nothing wrong with being gay.  If they are not answered with thought and logic, these future leaders of the Catholic Church will be gone anyway.   

In their minds,  Catholic teaching is: Gay = evil and yucky, with no thought or reason.  (Different than the norm is not reason)

[Henry Sugar]

I found this link today, and thought it would fit in this thread more than anything else.  Here is the Database of Publicly Accused Priests in the United States. 

Simply, it's staggering.

http://bishop-accountability.org/priestdb/PriestDBbydiocese.html

[Lennys Tap]

I graduated from Marquette in 1970. Believe it or not, one of the debates de jour was whether or not homosexuality was a mental illness. The scientific community at the time (American Psychiatric Association, World Health Organization, etc.) concluded that it was. Clearly an example of a wildly inaccurate "scientific consensus" being forged out of the politics and mores of the day. (Sound familiar? -different debate for a different day)

Forty years later the view that seemed obvious to me and most of my peers - that a person's general sexual preference (hetro or homo) was neither a choice nor an illness from which one could be "cured" - is widely accepted by all but the most backward of cultures.

Given that, the optimum outcome is the legalization of gay marriage. As a (mostly) conservative who believes in the societal worth of our institutions, I believe inclusion is best course. If families provide a stability that our culture so desperately needs, excluding gays from the rights and responsibilities of marriage seems counterproductive.

I understand that many are conflicted on this issue due to their Catholicism. But the church is stuck in a bit of a time warp as regards sexuality. The genie is already out of the bottle for most of us on the "sex only for procreation" and the birth control front (among others). If thinking this way makes me a bad or "cafeteria catholic" I plead guilty.

[MUeagle05]

I found this link today, and thought it would fit in this thread more than anything else.  Here is the Database of Publicly Accused Priests in the United States. 

Simply, it's staggering.

http://bishop-accountability.org/priestdb/PriestDBbydiocese.html

It is staggering . . . but why it is relevant?

[MUMBA]

I get that it's en vogue to be an American Cafeteria Catholic and basically say abortion is cool, gay marriage rocks, divorce is no big deal, etc, etc because it just causes so many things that our pals wouldn't agree with.  It's pretty sad.  

Are 'devout' Catholics 100% on board with the Church's view on just war? The death penalty? Rights of workers? Rights of immigrants?  Or the American Conference of Bishop's writings on Poverty & Race?  Or their call for the federal government to adequately fund a national health insurance program?

Are the Cafeteria Catholics you describe moral relativists that ride the fence and lack a backbone?  

Is there a third camp perhaps?  Catholics with reasonable and conscientious objections to specific rules made by fallible human beings who seem to lean heavily on tradition, authority, and the bronze age philosophy of St. Aquinas?  

is there a fourth camp?  Faculty and students who seek to grapple with the questions of moral knowledge at a Catholic institution dedicated to higher learning?

Again, there is a lot more complexity to our world than the false dichotomy of 'devout catholic' OR 'cafeteria catholic'.  

Again, I am not sure what MU is afraid of.  O'Brien is asking challenging questions, no doubt.  They are questions that today's high school and college kids are asking.  

Marquette wasn't afraid of anything O'brien had to say or the influence she would have.  I think the University extended the offer b/c she would give support to those faculty and students who sought to grapple with the difficult questions raised in this thread.  It seems that the only thing Fr. Wild was 'afraid' of was people yanking support from the university (notably financial support).  That's what is so mind-boggling about the decision.  Fr. Wild seems to have capitulated to people who don't share the same vision of academic rigor, intellectual curiosity, transformative education, etc etc.

[Canned Goods n Ammo]

It seems that the only thing Fr. Wild was 'afraid' of was people yanking support from the university (notably financial support).  That's what is so mind-boggling about the decision.  Fr. Wild seems to have capitulated to people who don't share the same vision of academic rigor, intellectual curiosity, transformative education, etc etc.

I suspect this is true, and part of me is discouraged.

BUT... as a student of a private high school and college, I understand the practical need of large donations to keep the school(s) operating.

Private education is expensive, and on some level the school has to cater/pander to who is cutting the checks, which in this case probably exist on the more conservative side.

I don't want it to be this way, but MU doesn't exist in a vacuum, and lets face it, some University decisions are made based upon $$.

[mu-rara]

MUMBA, 

Of course you are correctly addressing the reality (Fr. Wild caves to the conservative cabal) while I was addressing Marquette's stated objection (O'Brien will cause MU mission to go off track).

Don't underestimate Listiecki and Hartmann's influence.  The Archdiocese is on a homosexual witch hunt.

[GGGG]

I suspect this is true, and part of me is discouraged.

BUT... as a student of a private high school and college, I understand the practical need of large donations to keep the school(s) operating.

As someone who solicits and secures large donations for a university for a living, I can tell you that you have to be really careful about this though.  If you start letting donors make decisions that strike at the heart of what it means to be a academically rigorous institution, you are in trouble.  And I'm not even talking about this issue per se...but any issue.

The goal with any donor is to make sure they are thanked for their support, and that you listen to them when they have issues, but if you start making these types of decisions because of them, you may as well resign because you aren't running things any longer.

[Canned Goods n Ammo]

As someone who solicits and secures large donations for a university for a living, I can tell you that you have to be really careful about this though.  If you start letting donors make decisions that strike at the heart of what it means to be a academically rigorous institution, you are in trouble.  And I'm not even talking about this issue per se...but any issue.

The goal with any donor is to make sure they are thanked for their support, and that you listen to them when they have issues, but if you start making these types of decisions because of them, you may as well resign because you aren't running things any longer.

Absolutely agree. You can't let the rich inmates run the asylum (to mix metaphors).

I just know that there are a lot of decisions made with $$ in mind. On some issues, the school has to take a stand, on others they go along with what will keep bringing in the $$.

It's the beauty and curse of private education. In a vacuum, MU would obviously make all of these decisions internally with some input from the Board of Trustees. However, in real life, we all know there are some powerful players who definitely have some input based upon their financial and/or political contributions to the school.

It happens.

[d6]

I get that it's en vogue to be an American Cafeteria Catholic and basically say abortion is cool, gay marriage rocks, divorce is no big deal, etc, etc because it just causes so many things that our pals wouldn't agree with.  It's pretty sad. 

What a dismissive way to mention controversial topics.  People struggle with these issues and grapple with their consciences in dealing with these issues.  Who in the world has ever argued that abortion is "cool" or gay marriage "rocks"?  People may not believe that divorce is "no big deal," but they may accept it as a necessity if someone they know has been hurt mentally or physically or, heaven forbid, the love has been lost.  The worst thing anybody can do, and this is only my opinion, is to walk lockstep with any institution simply because of tradition or what the hierarchy believes.   

[Henry Sugar]

It is staggering . . . but why it is relevant?

All the random topics in this 14 page thread, including a surfing priest, and you choose to call out mine as the one off topic?