Marquette Arts and Sciences dean search F-up

[mu-rara]

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?

I'll try to help Sugar here....Sugar, feel free to let me know if I'm off base.

The Catholic Church and by proxy Marquette, let pedophile priests run rampant for decades, hurting how many children?   Yet they find the need to discriminate against gay and lesbian people, who have hurt nobody, and have much to offer.

[ATWizJr]

I'm totally in favor of people who have hurt nobody and have a lot to offer, regardless of orientation!!

[Henry Sugar]

I'll try to help Sugar here....Sugar, feel free to let me know if I'm off base.

The Catholic Church and by proxy Marquette, let pedophile priests run rampant for decades, hurting how many children?   Yet they find the need to discriminate against gay and lesbian people, who have hurt nobody, and have much to offer.

pretty much.  thanks.

I think critically regarding the institution of the Catholic Church and their dogma when that same institution of the Catholic Church has a fundamental issue with molesting children and then covering it up.

Thank God Marquette University helped me learn to think critically, so that at least I can carefully consider the Church's positions and reflect on those that seem to be the most in line with Jesus' teachings.  And honestly, I have a hard time thinking that Jesus would be against two people who love each other wanting to get married.  As mu-rara stated, it hurts nobody.

[Lennys Tap]

I'll try to help Sugar here....Sugar, feel free to let me know if I'm off base.

The Catholic Church and by proxy Marquette, let pedophile priests run rampant for decades, hurting how many children?   Yet they find the need to discriminate against gay and lesbian people, who have hurt nobody, and have much to offer.

The reason I disagree with the church's position on gay marriage, etc is because I think they're wrong. Had the bishops handled the clergy's sex abuse scandals perfectly, I would still feel that way. So would you and so would Sugar.

[MUeagle05]

pretty much.  thanks.

I think critically regarding the institution of the Catholic Church and their dogma when that same institution of the Catholic Church has a fundamental issue with molesting children and then covering it up.

Thank God Marquette University helped me learn to think critically, so that at least I can carefully consider the Church's positions and reflect on those that seem to be the most in line with Jesus' teachings.  And honestly, I have a hard time thinking that Jesus would be against two people who love each other wanting to get married.  As mu-rara stated, it hurts nobody.

Just because the Church screwed up with the pedophile priest scandal doesn't mean that it can't speak authoritatively on any other topic or enforce its positions on another (completely unrelated) topic.

[Hards Alumni]

Just because the Church screwed up with the pedophile priest scandal doesn't mean that it can't speak authoritatively on any other topic or enforce its positions on another (completely unrelated) topic.

True, but the topic isn't completely unrelated.

[MUeagle05]

Thank God Marquette University helped me learn to think critically, so that at least I can carefully consider the Church's positions and reflect on those that seem to be the most in line with Jesus' teachings.  And honestly, I have a hard time thinking that Jesus would be against two people who love each other wanting to get married.  As mu-rara stated, it hurts nobody.

Do you REALLY understand the Church's position on homosexuality?  Do you understand the depth and breadth of the position?  How it is fundamentally connected to many other teachings and principles?  It's more than just "we don't like gays."  It's tied in to human nature, natural law, integrity, the procreative and unifying aspects of sexuality, etc.  While everyone is entitled to their own opinion, it is infinitely more complicated than "but they love each other."

[Hards Alumni]

Do you REALLY understand the Church's position on homosexuality?  Do you understand the depth and breadth of the position?  How it is fundamentally connected to many other teachings and principles?  It's more than just "we don't like gays."  It's tied in to human nature, natural law, integrity, the procreative and unifying aspects of sexuality, etc.  While everyone is entitled to their own opinion, it is infinitely more complicated than "but they love each other."

It really isn't that complicated.  No, really, it isn't.

[MUeagle05]

It really isn't that complicated.  No, really, it isn't.

Well, there are volumes of articles by some of the world's top theologians debating and discussing this topic.  Hell, just Google the Catechism and read that.  Justification for the Church's position is connected to its general teachings on human dignity and human sexuality, which helps form the foundation for some of its teachings on marriage, premarital sex, birth control, abortion, masturbation, pornography, etc.  Read some of that work and come back and tell me that the Church's position is simple or superficial.

[4everwarriors]

I didn't know Kobe Bryant is gay. Must be so since Chicos said Fr. Matt married him.

[GGGG]

Just because the Church screwed up with the pedophile priest scandal doesn't mean that it can't speak authoritatively on any other topic or enforce its positions on another (completely unrelated) topic.

Take out the word "authoritatively" and I'll agree with you.  Or better yet, they have every right to speak with authority.  But the fact that they have been so fundamentally wrong on dealing with pedophiles, it makes it hard for people to think they somehow have an insight into God's position on this issue.

[Lennys Tap]

Take out the word "authoritatively" and I'll agree with you.  Or better yet, they have every right to speak with authority.  But the fact that they have been so fundamentally wrong on dealing with pedophiles, it makes it hard for people to think they somehow have an insight into God's position on this issue.

Had they been fundamentally right on dealing with pedophiles would you then accept their position on homosexualiy, gay marriage, etc.? Anyone whose view on these subjects is based even a little on priestly abuse and cover up is totally missing the point.

[GGGG]

Had they been fundamentally right on dealing with pedophiles would you then accept their position on homosexualiy, gay marriage, etc.? Anyone whose view on these subjects is based even a little on priestly abuse and cover up is totally missing the point.

I wouldn't.  But any one who thinks that anyone can speak authoritatively on God's will has enough issues to deal with.

[Lennys Tap]

I didn't know Kobe Bryant is gay. Must be so since Chicos said Fr. Matt married him.

Funny on so many different levels.

[MUeagle05]

I wouldn't.  But any one who thinks that anyone can speak authoritatively on God's will has enough issues to deal with.

I'm pretty sure all religious leaders (priests, ministers, rabbis) as well as their congregations believe they are speaking authoritatively, do they all "have issues"?

[ChicosBailBonds]

True, but the topic isn't completely unrelated.

That's true, in many other ways too.  Not hard to figure out really.

[ChicosBailBonds]

I didn't know Kobe Bryant is gay. Must be so since Chicos said Fr. Matt married him.

Yes, a priest presiding over a wedding ceremony, to marry them. Or in this case, a robot.   

http://www.yourtango.com/201070466/couple-married-robot-japan 

Lenny is really good at definitions, he can probably help you with this one. 

Though after seeing the latest photo shoot with Kobe, I have sincere doubts.

http://www.latimesmagazine.com/2010/05/kobe-white-hot.html

[ChicosBailBonds]

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.

Yes, as a professor, not as a VP setting policy.  Thus, the difference.  Quite frankly, many Catholics would love to see Maguire on his ass.

[ChicosBailBonds]

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"? 

You been around teens lately?

[ChicosBailBonds]

I wouldn't.  But any one who thinks that anyone can speak authoritatively on God's will has enough issues to deal with.

And here I thought that was one of the core beliefs of Catholicism.


Papal Infallibility

I realize this is rarely used, and has not been for this particular issue, but what you are saying by your comments is that Papal Infallibility does not exist.  Am I reading you incorrectly?  If you do believe in Papal Infallibility and such a statement in the future comes from the Pope on this topic, then what?

I've read through your comments, Lenny's and others and I realize all of you view this differently, as if you are enlightened and not caught up in the time warp that the Catholic Church is.  What begs the question for me is whether or not you are open to potentially being wrong on this, or is it your way and nothing else?

[ChicosBailBonds]

  Fr. Wild seems to have capitulated to people who don't share the same vision of academic rigor, intellectual curiosity, transformative education, etc etc.

No, it seems that he capitulated to people that follow Catholic teachings, including the latest and most current directives of the Pontiff, the head of the Catholic Church.  What a wild and crazy idea, for a Catholic university to follow Catholic teachings.  What in the hell will they think of next.

[ChicosBailBonds]

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.

Out of curiosity, at what point will the tolerance meter be filled?  Does the tail wag the dog or does the dog wag the tail?

[d6]

You been around teens lately?

Yes, I work with teens and young adults.  What does that have to do with people grappling with difficult issues? 

[Canned Goods n Ammo]

Out of curiosity, at what point will the tolerance meter be filled?  Does the tail wag the dog or does the dog wag the tail?

It's a fair question, and in all honesty, I don't really know. It's a bit of a moving target for me.

I love the Catholic church, and I understand the tradition and why the church isn't a progressive organization. In fact, I'm glad that it's not. It's comforting to know that the Church is willing to dig in and stick to its guns and not fall to the political winds.

BUTTTT... Throughout history, there are also examples of church teachings and dogma being manipulated to fit political needs, so I can't give the church THAT much credit in this area.

As far as the church's view/tolerance of homosexuality, it's just hard for me to rectify that it's "ok" or at least passively accepted that a lot of Catholic men and women are participating in premarital sex and/or living together before they are married, and there is no real consequence. But, somehow engaging in homosexuality is seen as a mortal sin by the same parishioners and some clergy members.

Is being gay the same as premarital cohabitation/sex? No. BUT, it's hard for me to rectify that engaging in homosexuality is somehow a mortal sin, but living with my girlfriend before we are married is usually just shrugged off as "par for the (modern) course". Why is one really worse than the other? Is there a "sin scoreboard" that I'm not aware of? How many Hail Marys for being gay?

We can say that the church is technically still against premarital relations, but we also know that they aren't THAT against it. I've been to numerous weddings where the couple lived together before they were married and some even had children. They were proudly (and properly) married in the Catholic church.

I don't think that means that the Catholic church should start performing gay weddings, but like I said, it's just hard for me to understand sometimes.

I'm by no means bashing the church or proposing radical changes. I just struggle with the church's stance on this issue.

How can the church be more tolerant? What should the policies be? etc. etc.
I honestly have no idea, and that's part of my internal struggle/search.  

[Hards Alumni]

And here I thought that was one of the core beliefs of Catholicism.


Papal Infallibility

I realize this is rarely used, and has not been for this particular issue, but what you are saying by your comments is that Papal Infallibility does not exist.  Am I reading you incorrectly?  If you do believe in Papal Infallibility and such a statement in the future comes from the Pope on this topic, then what?

I've read through your comments, Lenny's and others and I realize all of you view this differently, as if you are enlightened and not caught up in the time warp that the Catholic Church is.  What begs the question for me is whether or not you are open to potentially being wrong on this, or is it your way and nothing else?

If the pope is infallable why has he apologized for mistakes?

just sayin'