Top College News Subscribe to the Newsletter

Fulfilling the moral mandate

Letter to the Editor

Published: Sunday, April 1, 2012

Updated: Wednesday, September 12, 2012 12:09

Last Monday night, the Common Council passed a measure protecting South Bend residents from discrimination on the basis of gender identity and sexual orientation. The 6-3 vote is more evidence of the change of attitudes celebrated by the Notre Dame 4 to 5 Movement. Things have improved significantly for gay and lesbian students at Notre Dame, thanks in part to the efforts of the Core Council. But as the 4 to 5 Movement video pointed out, “It needs to get better at Notre Dame.”

At present, the 4 to 5 Movement is promoting two initiatives that could make significant difference. First, the students are seeking club status for a Gay-Straight Alliance (GSA) that would address discrimination and harassment on campus and provide support to gay, lesbian, bisexual, transexual and questioning (GLBTQ) students. Second, they are once again pushing for the inclusion of sexual orientation in the University’s non-discrimination clause.

Similar proposals were rejected in the past, partly on the basis of a concern for Catholic teaching and Catholic character. As concepts, Catholic teaching and Catholic character are far from simple. But it is reasonable to take the Catechism of the Catholic Church as guide to current teaching approved by the hierarchy.

Speaking of “persons with deep-seated homosexual tendencies,” the Catechism affirms that they “must be accepted with respect, compassion, and sensitivity.” It continues, “Every sign of unjust discrimination in their regard should be avoided,” (2358).

On these principles, Catholic teaching does not preclude measures like the GSA and the non-discrimination clause; indeed, it would seem to require them.

The mission statement of GSA proposes as its aim to “serve as a peer-to-peer interaction-based student club/gay-straight alliance, where GLBTQ students and allies can work together to ‘create a sense of human solidarity and concern for the common good’ as outlined in Notre Dame’s mission statement.” A GSA would provide social support for GLBTQ students without isolating them, as well as a significant complement to classroom learning, and would be a venue for student-led effort to assure that GLBTQ students are, in the words of the Catechism, “accepted with respect, compassion, and sensitivity.”

Equally important is the Catechism’s stipulation that “Every sign of unjust discrimination in their regard should be avoided.” Endorsing the capacity of gay and straight students (and associated faculty) to organize around sexual identity and adding sexual orientation to the non- discrimination are two essential steps toward fulfilling the moral mandate the Catechism articulates.

Mary R. D’Angelo

associate professor

Department of Theology

March 30

Recommended: Articles that may interest you

12 comments

Anonymous
Mon Apr 2 2012 22:45
Your inability to handle discussion without resorting to ad hominem attacks is discouraging.

Who said anything about sin? Having a Core Council instead of a GSA means Notre Dame is dehumanizing for gay students?

Anonymous
Mon Apr 2 2012 22:27
"You clearly reject this given your insults directed at Church and University leadership."

Wow, you really are naive. Criticizing the stupid, backwards leadership of this university and the hypocrisy of our bishops IS NOT THE SAME as rejecting the teachings of the church. Man, you need to grow a brain sack and think for yourself or just finally come out of the closet.

Is it too much to ask that the university embrace Catholic teaching and allow for gays and lesbians to be treated like real human beings on campus? I guess you don't support the Church on this.

Anonymous
Mon Apr 2 2012 22:23
You Assume that these groups are being proposed just for "sin" then you go on to deem them unnecessary. You blind homophobic religious hypocrite. Go read the Catechism.

"I simply support allowing a Catholic university to uphold the teachings of its faith."

No you don't. If you did you'd support what the author wrote in her letter to the Observer. You are like a typical bishop, obsessing over the pill but worthless when it comes to real things like human dignity and protecting the marginalized.

Anonymous
Mon Apr 2 2012 20:46
You begin with a litany of unfounded insults and assumptions. You assert that a GSA is a "need" without any supporting qualifications.

I made no claim suggesting I know what is best for "a whole bunch of people." I simply support allowing a Catholic university to uphold the teachings of its faith. You clearly reject this given your insults directed at Church and University leadership. It is beyond belief that people attend a religious school and then have the audacity to actually be upset when the faith is supported.

Anonymous
Mon Apr 2 2012 16:38
Thank you, Prof. D'Angelo.
Anonymous
Mon Apr 2 2012 16:32
You convict yourself over and over again. Such blindness and immaturity. We're not talking about people wanting Notre Dame to pay for their ipads just for the sake of convenience and cost. We're talking about human dignity.

Recognizing needs of people expressed over quite a few years takes skill and intelligence, something you and the leadership of Notre Dame don't have.

You accuse, without any good reason, the SGA and similar proposals of merely being a way for students to have their "sins" blessed by Notre Dame. Your homophobic assumptions show how little regard you have for others on this campus.

Amazing how wise you are. You know what's best for a whole bunch of people here. Their needs are not real, in fact, they are just wants. And you know what's best for them. Discriminating is not discrimination, the lack of a non-discrimination clause is not discrimination, and the Catechism has nothing to say in this situation. You'd make a nice bishop; you know how to neuter and render the faith irrelevant. Except of course when it comes to birth control.

Anonymous
Mon Apr 2 2012 16:05
If you are ignorant enough to think that because some groups on campus feel something is a need, or desire recognition, then Notre Dame should be compelled to provide whatever they demand then you are quite clearly blind. Supporting any candidate or party is not against Catholic teaching as long as it is for the appropriate reasons.

You are woefully uninformed and your assumptions and childish insults do not serve you well. You know nothing about my qualifications and nothing about me. You illogical emoting only proves to further damage your cause.

Anonymous
Mon Apr 2 2012 14:50
"The fact that the Catechism prohibits discrimination does not necessitate a non-discrimination clause"

Dear Pharisee, Talk about assumptions....
Thank you for this classic example of a non-sequitur (which, by the way, does not mean critical thinking).

Supporting abortion, the death penalty, and weird racist Republican candidates is against Catholic teaching, yet on campus groups do this all the time.

Your assumptions that these groups somehow constitute a mere hook-up club are totally UNFOUNDED and show how narrow minded and homophobic you really are.

The fact that SO MANY faculty and students are calling for these groups AND the non-discrimination clause should tell you (if you use your critical thinking skills here) that there are huge needs that are not being fulfilled by ND's inadequate solutions.

If you yourself are gay and find comfort in the current student group, good for you. Not everyone does. If you are straight and think you know the experiences of gays and lesbians on campus and what their needs really are, you are totally ill-equipped to make that judgment call and totally naive to think the university is somehow magically right in all its decisions.

Either way, you are blind to what's really going on here.

Anonymous
Mon Apr 2 2012 09:57
Dear Anonymous Juvenile Insults,

You the majority of your post is made up of a string of uninformed and ignorant assumptions. I will deal with the portion that actually attempts to make a cogent argument (poorly.)

The fact that the Catechism prohibits discrimination does not necessitate a non-discrimination clause or GSA especially considering there is already a group dedicated to addressing the needs of the GLBTQ community. We call an argument like that a non-sequitur (critical thinking.)

Obviously there are members of campus political groups who disagree with Church positions. None of them are facilitating active participation in executions, abortions, etc.

Don't let a little critical thinking get in the way of your emoting.

Anonymous
Mon Apr 2 2012 09:35
Dear Anonymous Pharisee,

You haven't read the Catechism nor have you taken the time to learn about the GSA and 4-5 movement.
The Catechism prohibits discrimination against gays and lesbians.

A group on campus that welcomes them and recognizes their dignity is not some kind of endorsement of personal behavior or ideology on the university's part.

The Republican group on campus is full of quite a few students who support the death penalty (against Catholic teaching). That the university allows the group on campus doesn't mean the university supports their idiotic pro-death penalty ideology or the hooking up that goes on at their parties (yes, seen it happen).

Grow up, take a theology class, think critically.

Anonymous
Mon Apr 2 2012 09:15
The catechism says nothing about a GSA. The moment a non-discrimination clause is added the University would be defending itself from cases regarding the formation of a GSA and same sex benefits. The goal of the 4-to-5 movement is to put the University in a situation where they are forced to endorse same sex relationships.
Anonymous
Mon Apr 2 2012 00:24
Thank you.




log out