Jesuits to host homosexual “Pride Prom” at @MarquetteU

It seems that whenever some morally questionable thing comes up these days, there is an “SJ” somewhere in the frame.

Jesuit-run Marquette University is hosting a homosexual prom.  There is a story about how the Jesuits are digging in their heals in favor of this homosexualist event at the site of the infamous New Ways Ministry.

That story also mentions a petition protesting the prom.

It seems to me that this sort of thing undermines the dignity of students with SSA.

Let’s ask some questions.

  • Does this sound like a good thing to host at an even nominally catholic school?
  • What is the tuition cost that parents are paying to send their children to this place?
  • Could it be that that tuition money could be better spent at a Catholic school which doesn’t actively and openly promote scandalous events?

Perhaps students and others at Marquette should at least have a look at the online petition.

>>HERE<<

Another story about this HERE.

Some sharing options...

About Fr. John Zuhlsdorf

Fr. Z is the guy who runs this blog. o{]:¬)
This entry was posted in Sin That Cries To Heaven and tagged . Bookmark the permalink.

23 Responses to Jesuits to host homosexual “Pride Prom” at @MarquetteU

  1. Sawyer says:

    News reports such as this used to disturb me. Now I just consider them par for the Jesuit course.

    In my opinion, “S.J.” should be pronounced “ethhhh jayyyyyy” using a soft, breathy tone of voice. The Jesuits have deteriorated into a homosexualist society, and Fr. James Martin, ethhhh jayyyyy, is their poster boy.

  2. Chaswjd says:

    I was wondering if the following norm applied to Marquette:
    Ex Corde Ecclesiae
    Art. 5
    § 2. Each Bishop has a responsibility to promote the welfare of the Catholic Universities in his diocese and has the right and duty to watch over the preservation and strengthening of their Catholic character. If problems should arise concerning this Catholic character, the local Bishop is to take the initiatives necessary to resolve the matter, working with the competent university authorities in accordance with established procedures(52) and, if necessary, with the help of the Holy See.

  3. TonyO says:

    Tuition, room and board at Marquette are about 54,000 per year. (Plus fees and books). After 4 years, parents who pay full price could have bought the kid a decent house.

    No, it’s not worth it. If you examine the output, the product, the typical result is a freshman who goes in believing in standard Catholic faith, and who comes out either (a) no longer Christian at all, or (b) believing some weird fruitcake version of Catholicism that has nothing to do with the Bible or the actual Church that Christ founded. No matter how much money they might be positioned to make, it CAN’T be worth it: What does it profit a man to gain the whole world, and lose his soul in the bargain? Or, if I might paraphrase just a bit: what does it profit a man to gain the whole world but lose that very self through which one would possess anything at all?

  4. teomatteo says:

    Adolescents.

  5. Joy65 says:

    Lord have mercy on us and on the whole world.

  6. SKAY says:

    Matthew 18:6
    but whoever causes one of these little ones who believe in me to sin, it would be better for him to have a great millstone fastened round his neck and to be drowned in the depth of the sea.

    The Jesuits have lost their way.

  7. frjim4321 says:

    It’s so weird to me that we call gay students “Students with SSA (sic)” but we don’t call straight students “Students with OSA.” [That’s because it’s normal and SSA isn’t.] As long was sexual orientation is identified as a pathology, we won’t be able to minister effectively to an population, no matter where they fall on the LGBTQ spectrum.

    By the way, I know that “LGBTQ” is a severely limited kind of nomenclature in itself, if for no other reason that gender dysphoria and sexual orientation are entirely different subjects.

    Nevertheless, as I understand the history, the reason the “SSA (sic)” nomenclature was first proposed was as part of an effort to dissociate sexual orientation from personality. Proponents of the “SSA (sic)” model imply that gay and bi people identify themselves solely in terms of their sexuality, which they do not. They identify as black, white, male, female, parents, siblings, children, scientist, artists, laborers, whatever, who also are gay or bi or whatever.

    Having studied personality at the undergraduate and graduate level, I have to say that the practice of isolating sexual orientation from other components of personality, and specifically within a pathology model, is both depersonalizing and dehumanizing. It is a practice that I find more supportive of pastoral malpractice than pastoral best practice.

    I also find it very curious that every discussion I ever been a part of, either as an observer or participant, with regard to the pastoral care of persons within the LGBTQ continuum, devolves into an argument about the etiology of sexual orientation. Which, when you think about it, has no implications whatsoever with regard to the care of persons.

    And it gets worse. Defective models for the etiology of orientation (cf. Fitzgibbons et al.) can lead to dangerous pastoral applications, including “reorientation therapy,” such as is permitted by organizations such as “Courage (sic).”

    Looking back at 30 years in ministry I would have to say that some of the most generous people I have know to the Church, with regard to time, talent, treasure, art, ministry and more have been person within the continuum, whether overtly or covertly.

    [All of this seems like excuse making for sodomy.]

  8. Julia_Augusta says:

    Let’s conduct a poll.

    Will Father Martin show up in:
    – a gown
    Or
    – a tux?

  9. my6fish says:

    My daughter (a junior) attended her first prom at her all girls Catholic high school last weekend, where a significant number of senior girls brought girls from other schools as their dates. As an alumna and a parent I say hagan lio!

  10. Pingback: FRIDAY MORNING EDITION – Big Pulpit

  11. The Masked Chicken says:

    Dear my6fish,

    I may be humor impaired, today, but was the prom a good thing or a bad thing? I can’t tell from your last sentence.

    The Chicken

  12. JohnE says:

    @frmjim4321

    Daniel Mattson:
    https://www.firstthings.com/web-exclusives/2012/07/why-i-dont-call-myself-a-gay-christian
    The gay community will become family when those of us in the Church who live with the inclination accept it for what it truly is: a deep wound within our persons which we joyfully choose to unite with the Suffering Christ, on behalf of those we love so dearly in the gay community. By his wounds we are healed, and by the acceptance and transformation of our wounds, through the love of Christ, the Holy Spirit will draw them home to their Heavenly Father.

    I’m curious what your pastoral approach is towards those who identify as gay. Does that approach ignore or disagree with Church teaching that sexual activity between members of the same sex is sinful? If so, has that approach ever led any under your care to a chaste lifestyle?

    By the way, my understanding from a Catholic Answers podcast featuring Fr. Paul Check of Courage was that they do not do reorientation therapy. So I guess “permitting” it means they respect the person’s freedom to choose it if he desires it (unlike the state of California).

    By the way, I think Courage is aptly named (without your scare quotes). It does take courage (and many other virtues) to live a chaste lifestyle in today’s culture.

  13. frjim4321 says:

    JohnE,

    Thanks, I have been long familiar with the Mattson article, and the approach of Fr. Check. I don’t particularly agree with their stance. I would tend more toward the approach of accompaniment, as suggested by Pope Francis.

    Specifically, I don’t necessarily agree that everyone who has a homosexual orientation is automatically imbued with the charism of chastity, nor that we should take such for granted. Further, to so assume would be, in my view, to diminish the significance of that charism as it is expressed by those, such as persons in religious life, who have chosen it willingly.

    Fr. Jim

  14. my6fish says:

    Oh, Chicken, TERRIBLE! But 3 weeks ago (before prom) I sent an email inviting parents concerned about the direction and Catholic identity of the school to my house for a casual coffee. We are now almost 50 families strong and growing (out of about 400), and collaborating on a letter and accompanying binder of specific concerns and suggested improvements for the board and incoming head of school. Hagan Lio!

  15. majuscule says:

    frjim4321, I am trying not to be scandalized by your comments about chastity. (Is it a charism?)

    All the baptized are called to chastity. Perhaps you are getting the term mixed up with celibacy, since you add that persons in religious life have “chosen it willingly.” All the baptized are called to chasity, according to their station in life.

    Of course we (and priests especially) should accompany those who are unchaste back into the fold. Accompaniment does not mean affirming people in their sins.

  16. chantgirl says:

    frjim4321- You make it sound like chastity is for the few, the proud, the religious. Is it a charism given by God to only a few, or are all people called to it? There are quite a few spouses who don’t like to live chastely. Should they be given a pass because they are not religious?

    Courage is one of the few places left that those with SSA can find accompaniment in truth and love.

  17. JohnE says:

    frjim4321,
    As mentioned in the responses above, I am unclear if you really meant what you said about chastity. Hoping you will confirm/clarify.

    Also, what is the purpose of accompaniment? Certainly if someone was thinking about taking his own life, I would hope accompaniment would involve leading him away from that choice and not saying “if that’s what you’d like to do, who am I to judge?” if he tells you he wants to kill himself. Do you personally believe that sexual activity between persons of the same sex can be permissible or even a moral good in the eyes of God?

  18. Imrahil says:

    Rev’d dear Fr Jim,

    Specifically, I don’t necessarily agree that everyone who has a homosexual orientation is automatically imbued with the charism of chastity,

    Am I correct to understand you to imply that God has positively selected the “not everyone”s among the homosexuals for damnation by not giving them the grace to do what they must?

  19. maternalView says:

    I can tell you “accompanied ” is heard as affirmation of SSA.

    I’ve read a number of first person accounts of people who made the decision to leave the same-sex lifestyle. They were all “accompanied ” into the lifestyle. But were not on their way out. In fact, many have been criticized for leaving the lifestyle.

    Why are we not holding these people up as examples of what prayer and desire to be close to God can accomplish?

  20. frjim4321 says:

    “Am I correct to understand you to imply that God has positively selected the “not everyone”s among the homosexuals for damnation by not giving them the grace to do what they must?” – Irmahill

    I don’t think I would put it that way. I see the evangelical counsels as being associated with the perfection that all Christians seek; as a sort of ideal. I don’t associate the lack of perfection with “damnation,” nor would I expect the lack of perfection to disqualify a person from participating in the life of the Church. Were that the case, none of us would be worth.

    Also, inasmuch as sin requires intention, and sexual orientation is not a matter of intention, you seem to imply that the Creator’s intention is that persons who are homosexuality oriented are necessarily denied human intimacy.

  21. Sawyer says:

    frjim4321 is playing the same sophomoric theological word games that Fr. James Martin does. His beliefs and his aims are equally clear too. He’s not clever, even though he thinks he is.

  22. Ages says:

    Fr. Jim: “Also, inasmuch as sin requires intention, and sexual orientation is not a matter of intention, you seem to imply that the Creator’s intention is that persons who are homosexuality oriented are necessarily denied human intimacy.”

    Sexual intimacy is denied to all unmarried people, including homosexuals.

  23. maternalView says:

    I would disagree with frjim about sexual orientation not being intentional. Based on my experience with family members it is and can be.

    These individuals were going through some difficult emotional times including bad breakup with the opposite sex. They were counseled by others (who adhere to SSA theology) that their experiences or their confusion or hurts over these experiences probably meant they were “gay”.

    They then “immersed” themselves in “gay” culture. That primarily was reading popular blogs by gay activists and associating with others who embraced that choice.

    One eventually through prayer and the help of family recognized the wrong path had been chosen. ( This person had been actively looking for a “partner”). Today that person is looking forward to finding a spouse and marrying in the Church. The other maintains that after prayer and research that the Church’s teaching doesn’t apply to her. She is knowledgeable of the Church’s teaching but because the woman who eventually became her partner “helped” her find who she is she’s not interested in changing her behavior. She is attached to this person. Until this person she’d not been questioning her orientation and had been dating men.

    Several years ago a “gay” man I knew suggested that one of his adult students had expressed a sense of “not belonging”. This man immediately thought this student was gay and didn’t know it. And was contemplating having a conversation with his student. I asked another of his adult students who knew him much better than me to talk to him and not have that conversation. I also asked this other student to talk to the young man also. This young man to this day is dating women. He does not have a problem with his orientation. He was going through a rough time.

    I also read the heartbreaking story of what psychologist Carl Rogers did to religious orders. I remember the quote from one former nun who said that basically they were told they were all lesbians. She said they began to engage in that behavior because they believed it.

    And what of all the stories of people who have left that lifestyle? If you can intentionally leave then you can intentionally enter it.

    We’re not doing people any favors by pretending they can’t help themselves. We don’t do that for alcoholics or drug abusers or gossips or liars.

  24. chantgirl says:

    frjim4321 says:
    “I don’t think I would put it that way. I see the evangelical counsels as being associated with the perfection that all Christians seek; as a sort of ideal. I don’t associate the lack of perfection with “damnation,” nor would I expect the lack of perfection to disqualify a person from participating in the life of the Church. Were that the case, none of us would be worth.

    Also, inasmuch as sin requires intention, and sexual orientation is not a matter of intention, you seem to imply that the Creator’s intention is that persons who are homosexuality oriented are necessarily denied human intimacy.”

    The Church’s moral law is not an ideal that only a few heroic people can attain. All of us have access to the grace of God, which gives us the strength to obey God’s commands. This was confirmed by the Council of Trent. In addition, homosexual feelings in and of themselves are not a sin, even though they are objectively disordered, but homosexual acts are sinful. Fr Jim is conflating the two, to make it sound like those with SSA were created by God that way, leaving them no option but to live their God-given orientation. This line of reasoning makes it sound like God condones homosexual acts because God creates people to be homosexual.

    This is catechism 101, and Fr. Jim knows better.