Skip to comments.Notre Dame’s Fr. Jenkins Promises “A Fresh Look” at LGBT Issues
Posted on 09/06/2012 6:43:58 AM PDT by marshmallow
In an interview with the student newspaper, the president of the University of Notre Dame, Father John Jenkins, spoke at length of the universitys decision to not add sexual discrimination to its nondiscrimination clause. But he cryptically added that its time for the university to take a fresh look at issues relating to LGBT students.
The decision to not alter the universitys nondiscrimination clause was announced at the end of the last semester and sparked a number of protests including a student led vigil, a number of professors speaking out, and over 100 faculty on campus signing a public letter urging the administration to change its mind.
Fr. Jenkins told The Observer that Notre Dame doesnt discriminate on the basis of sexual orientation but said that if Notre Dame were to alter its nondiscrimination clause it could undermine our ability to live in accordance with the Catholic teaching because we distinguish between orientation and action.
At Notre Dame, we do not discriminate on the basis of sexual orientation, Jenkins said. Thats a fundamental thing, but thats not the only thing. The Spirit of Inclusion, which was approved by the Board of Fellows, higher than me, the highest level of the University, says that not only dont we discriminate, but we want to be a place, an environment, where people feel of same-sex orientation, anything else feel respected, supported, fully involved in this community.
The clause primarily addresses discrimination against prospective students and employees in areas such as admissions, employment, scholarships and athletics. The current clause states the University does not discriminate on the basis of race, color, national or ethnic origin, sex, disability, veteran status or age.
What the University includes in the non-discrimination clause are all and only those categories required by....
(Excerpt) Read more at blog.cardinalnewmansociety.org ...
In other words, “We’ll do whatever we have to do to make the Sodomites comfortable”.
That is the same rationale which gave us a generation of homosexual child molesting Priests and Alcoholic Bishops in ultra liberal Mainline Protestant Churches who divorced their wives (and children) to move in with their homosexual lovers. A bad philosophy. There's a reson the Apostle Paul refers to homosexual orientation as "vile affections".
“We looked and the Bible said the same thing.”
“The University announced earlier this year that it would delay until the fall a decision about whether to recognize a gay-straight alliance. In February, the Notre Dame Student Senate even passed a nearly unanimous resolution requesting that the University approve the application. “
The school of Tyrannus (Acts 19:9) it is not.
Quite a spine you have there, Father. What next? Appease wife swappers and folks who are attracted to barnyard animals?
If ND caves to the queer faggots, I won’t be surprised. ND has been drifting that direction for some time. What a shame.
A “fresh look” will come up with the same conclusion as before IF they are honest, LGBT is sinful depravity and completely not moral
Somebody has to remove this guy before he does any more damage to that institution. Is it up to the Church?
And which declension is concomitant with their liberal view of Scripture.
Then you have stats as this,
After examining the official web sites of 244 Catholic universities and colleges in America, the TFP Student Action found that 107 or 43% have pro-homosexual clubs. TFP Student Action Dec. 6. 2011; studentaction.org/get-involved/online-petitions/pro-homosexual-clubs-at-107-catholic-colleges/print.html
15 percent of the clergy polled listed themselves as “gay or on the homosexual side.” Among younger priests 23 percent did so. Los Angeles Times (extensive) nationwide survey (2002). http://www.bishop-accountability.org/resources/resource-files/reports/LAT-Priest-Survey.pdf
44 percent of the priests said “definitely” a homosexual subculture’—defined as a `definite group of persons that has its own friendships, social gatherings and vocabulary’—exists in their diocese or religious order. ^
No, it’s not, Fr. Jenkins. Just follow what the Church teaches or resign.
Yes. Its time to evangelize them. Its time to get them saved and filled with the Holy Spirit. They need what we all need which is Jesus Christ.
How do you deal with "LGBT issues"? Preach Christ and let the chips fall.
Let’s take a “fresh look” at the Ten Commandments and decide which ones we can do without.
The problem with Jenkins——is simple. You DON”T respect people who think sodomy is “good” and “normal”. NO. It isn’t. It is a dysfunction at best and needs to be treated as any drug addict would be treated. It is indulging in intrinsic evil, since it is such a debasing, dehumanizing act-—even the “thought” is evil. It is using human beings as a “means” which is NEVER “OK” with the Catholic Church.
This constant redefining of “evil” comes from the Marxists who want to kill off God’s standards of Good and Evil and elevate Satan’s Rights——to change the “worldview” of the children to be the worldview of the little boys in harems in Afghanistan. If you noticed, sodomites now have control of curricula in schools to normalize the behavior in children. You have to brainwash and condition—to get children to think such an unnatural act is “normal” and “good”. This is being done intentionally to eliminate Christian Ethics which eliminated slavery and created the most free and exceptional cultures. You have to kill this God to make slaves of the masses. Homosexuals are slaves of the flesh and have killed the Judeo-Christian God in their minds.
BTW, I’ve written letters to this guy-—decades ago when he was promoting his Vagina Monologues-—another intrinsically evil play which reduces women to sexual parts and is total hatred of men and endorses pedophilia by a lesbian. It is vile and being used to program our young people into this Satanic/occultist, anti-God mentality. (I have a child that graduated with honors from ND and I have followed this sick guy’s thinking for a decade. He endorses Marxist ideology. (Yes, I know it is Godless.)
The only cure for this identification of religion with an endlessly evolving ethno-cultural tradition is Fundamentalism, plain and simple; and Theocracy and Theonomy. But the entire western world has been allergic to these concepts since the Renaissance. And America's founders were allergic to it as well.
G-d doesn't make suggestions and He doesn't have "opinions." When religious authorities take their calling seriously instead of acting as ethnarchs whose job is to coddle every remember of their ethnic group (no matter how heterodox) then we will begin to crawl out of this mess. But when we finally do it will be a very different world than either this one or the one that preceded it for the simple reason that the seeds to our current disaster were there from the beginning. In other words, the "good old days" really weren't.
Unfortunately religious authorities are more antagonistic to "fundamentalist" religion than anyone else. Their services are essentially pantomimes performed for the sake of nostalgia. Most people (and not just liberals) have watered religion down. The most conservative conservative couldn't bring himself to advocate the death penalty for idolatry, even though this is an explicit commandment of G-d.
Catholics need to get over their sneering superiority to "inbred trailer park rednecks" and Fundamentalist Protestants need to stop seeing the Spanish Inquisition around every corner. But even then, what can they do? Lay people don't "run" religion; the clergy do, and the clergy is perhaps the most agnostic sector of the religious population.
Two false concepts must be discarded but won't be by chrstians because they are dogmatic to them: "render unto Caesar" and "natural law." G-d is sovereign over Caesar and "natural law" doesn't exist any more than "nature" does. "Nature" is simply what G-d chose to create and "natural law" is what G-d chose to make it. When you get right down to it "nature" is as gratuitous as "grace." "Natural law," the appeal to a universal non-sectarian standard that transcends the authority of G-d, has been a disaster. There is no "natural law;" there is only G-d's law. And in anticipation of my chrstian critics, yes, much of this secularization of the west has been in the name of atoning for the persecution of Jews and many Jews (even Orthodox) have been in the forefront of the modern movement to de-Theify law and behavior in the name of a secular universal moral standard (supposedly the only thing that can protect Jews from another Holocaust, which is sheer nonsense).
Everyone's to blame. Who is willing to be the second person to cast away secularism in its entirety and declare him/herself a Theocrat?
PS: The only exception to this dismal modern view of religion seems to be islam, which conservatives usually attack in purely secular, enlightenment terms (just as liberals defend them in the name of multiculturalism). I'm afraid that some of the anti-sharia mentality is vaccinating conservatives and hardening their hearts against the True Law of G-d. How can conservatives attack relativism and liberalism in their own religions when they advocate them for moslems?