Knights of Columbus Not Welcome at Catholic Colleges

By: David L

There’s been a controversy over at Gonzaga University for the past week ago revolving around a Knights of Columbus council a group of young men is looking to form. The student clubs’ office at Gonzaga has rejected their application for funding because, according to the school's vice-president for student life,

“The Knights of Columbus, by their very nature, is a men’s organization in which only Catholics may participate via membership. These criteria are inconsistent with the policy and practice of student organization recognition at Gonzaga University, as well as the University’s commitment to non-discrimination based on certain characteristics, one of which is religion.”

This actually isn’t an isolated incident; a group of men (including myself) at Fordham University has also been trying to get a Knights council started. They, too, have been denied official club status—but on the grounds that they are an inherently sexist organization.

I’d like to note that, although both schools are run by the Jesuits, it would be unfair to pin this one on the Society of Jesus. The Fordham Knights’ council has received support from a number of Jesuits on campus, and is currently incorporated as a group within Campus Ministry, which is quite firmly under Jesuit control. The Jesuits have limited control over the administrative body overseeing clubs and student activities. I don’t know the specifics of the Gonzaga knights’ situation, but I’ve read that they have also been incorporated within their school’s Campus Ministry, so I imagine that their situation is similar.

I’m not trying to say that it isn’t a disturbing situation when a group like the Knights of Columbus can’t be sponsored by a Catholic university. I’m not saying that criticism of the Gonzaga administration isn’t warranted. However, I think the problems stem from a deeper problem of identity with Catholic universities, and highlights some of the difficulties with running a college in a secular world. 

Quotes, Photo Credit: Catholic World Report:

 http://www.catholicworldreport.com/Blog/2172/Professor_Will_Gonzaga_also_consider_removing_the_Society_of_Jesus_from_campus.aspx#.UXCeuzejZLH

c. David L. 2013

It’s Freedom “of” Religion, Not Freedom “from” Religion

By: Tabitha Garnica

“Whether therefore ye eat, or drink, or whatsoever ye do, do all to the glory of God. Give none offence, neither to the Jews, nor to the Gentiles, nor to the church of God:” ~ 1 Corinthians 10: 31-32

Our society seems to be at an interesting point regarding the way religion is treated and looked upon.  We keep hearing about people fighting for “separation of church and state.”  However, I feel as though they are not just fighting for the separation of church and state; they are now fighting for separation of church and everything. Slowly but surely, religion is being abstracted. We are at a time in which people get uncomfortable simply mentioning religion in public events or in the media. Freedom “of” religion means that everyone should be free to live out the faith of their choosing, including the lack of a religion, and without the government’s active role in the process.  However, freedom “from” religion means that religion should not even be mentioned and is not an important part of society. We should actually hide religion from our culture. Sadly, this seems to be the extreme which our society is approaching.  No one should be forced into a religion; yet, no one should feel as though carrying out their religion separates them from normal society. 

The way Christmas has been treated in our society has always fascinated me.  Years ago, one would be able to say “Merry Christmas” on television without being regarded as insensitive.  I understand that not everyone celebrates Christmas, and we should not behave as though everyone does. However, I do not think that saying “Merry Christmas” should be regarded as an attack on anyone who is not Christian.  After all, Christmas has become a much commercialized holiday, and many people who do not actually believe in its religious significance still take part in Christmas traditions.  There are songs that have the word Christmas in them that have nothing to do with the birth of our savior.  Irving Berlin, who actually wrote “White Christmas”, was Jewish.  He obviously was not offended by the inclusion of the word “Christmas” in our society.  When I say “Merry Christmas” to someone I do not mean to say, “I am Christian and you must be too!” Rather, I mean to say, “I am joyful about Christmas and I want to share that joy with you!”   However, now our society has become so bothered by Christianity that it wants to eliminate the importance of Christmas in our culture. I would, of course, not be offended if someone wished me a Happy Chanukah.  It does not bother me that not everyone celebrates Christmas, but it does bother me that I am not allowed to express my happiness about Christmas in public circles. 

An experience that I had last school year comes to my mind when I think about the way religion is being treated in our society.  The Sisters of Life came to visit our campus and table with the Students for Life club.  Shortly after we started tabling, we were told by an authority from the Campus Auxiliary Services that we were not allowed to table on campus with nuns.  Even though the nuns were just standing there without trying to impose themselves on students, the presence of religious orders seemed offensive. We were unaware that religious tabling required additional paperwork, which had not been filled out. While the fact that religious tabling needs additional paperwork is upsetting in and of itself, we quickly responded that the Students for Life Club was not a religious organization. The sisters were not trying to “evangelize” or push a specific religion. They were simply standing there giving out pamphlets about how they help women who are pregnant. He responded by saying that it did not matter what they were promoting. Nuns have a religious connotation simply by their appearance, therefore, had the potential to make students uncomfortable. They were being unwelcomed on my college campus because of their religious vows.  I am saddened by the idea that priests, nuns, rabbis, and others of religious life cannot function in society without the public having an aversion to them. 

Religion is supposed to be a respected aspect of culture.  When we learn about ancient civilizations, their religious beliefs and rituals are fascinating, even if we do not share in their beliefs.  As an American culture, we should be proud of all the diversity our religions have given us.  We should find joy in learning about different religions without fearing that we will have their beliefs forced upon us. Religion should be regarded with the same interest and respect as different languages, backgrounds, and personalities. The more our society hides religion and is embarrassed by it, the less beautiful and tolerant we will be as a country. 

------------------------------------------------------------------

Copyright (c) Tabitha Garnica 2013

Photo Credits:

• No Religion Sign
• http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:No_Religion.svg

Catholic Compassion and Homosexuality: A Universal Path, Ignored Universally

By Joseph Jablonski

Fr. James, on his Facebook page during the Triduum, boldly posted the story of two gay male teens being allowed a Junior Dance together at a Jesuit high school in upstate NY. What seems to be a situation of a breach of the Church's teaching, however, reveals the nuances that I (and others)(and even more others) think should more often mark the discussion about homosexuality in the Church.

The decision came down from the school's president himself through a long and well-written letter. As is commonly the case with the media, we find the intricacies of the letter, as well as its beautifully complicated solutions, are glossed over and tossed in favor of highlighting the feebly odd and the interesting points. This is done because the reporter wants either conflict or his or her own agenda. Even so, the one statement that is being trounced by everyone as the key statement in this article is the one showing the school president's rhetorical aptitude. For the president states that "if our two brothers who have asked to attend the Junior Ball together wish to do so, they will be welcomed."

Scenes from the March for Marriage in Washington, DC.

Brothers. The debate about gay marriage, gay rights, and homosexuality spirals so quickly into a discussion on perversions, either of justice or of sexual norm, that we fail to see potential for unique relationships that homosexuals can have. We condemn the negative and fail to uphold the positive, and, in fact, the positive ceases to exist in our discussion. We also prefer to uphold our own points rather than take the discussion to answering the genuine concerns of others. Defending and upholding traditional marriage may be great, but by doing only that, we don't answer the elephant sitting in the room for the past few years: how do we show love, care, and concern for homosexuals, now publicly acknowledging their orientation? Denying the existence of a natural cause to homosexuality (i.e., that they are created like that in the image of God) leads us on a short route to alienation, even if we are to discover one day that homosexuality occurs in a person by nurture alone. If we can answer the genuine concerns of homosexuals, we can sidestep that whole muddle.

The letter from the president of the school highlights the USCCB’s very own document, "Always our Children." Passages about showing love and care for others no matter their decision about their orientation are supplemented with beautiful ideals about chastity that not only conforms to the sexual ethics of the Church, but answers the concerns, to the best we Catholics can, of gays and lesbians:

"I would like to let a ray of light enter into possible misunderstanding of the Church's teaching. In that same message, Always Our Children, the Bishops are clear --"Nothing in the Bible or in Catholic teaching can be used to justify prejudicial or discriminatory attitudes and behaviors." The Bishops continue: "It is also important to recognize that neither a homosexual orientation, nor a heterosexual one, leads inevitably to sexual activity. One's total personhood is not reducible to sexual orientation or behavior." In that same message, the Bishops refer to a 1986 Letter from the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith which emphasizes that "Respect for the God-given dignity of all persons means the recognition of human rights and responsibilities. The teachings of the Church make it clear that the fundamental human rights of homosexual persons must be defended and that all of us must strive to eliminate any forms of injustice, oppression, or violence against them."
 “The Bishops continue, "It is not sufficient only to avoid unjust discrimination. Homosexual persons 'must be accepted with respect, compassion and sensitivity' (Catechism of the Catholic Church, no. 2358). They, as is true of every human being, need to be nourished at many different levels simultaneously. This includes friendship, [brotherhood] which is a way of loving and is essential to healthy human development. It is one of the richest possible human experiences. Friendship can and does thrive outside of sexual involvement.""

While the mass media will simply look upon this as a liberalizing Church on some overly idealistic yellow-brick road towards gay marriage, I can see a way for the Church to move forward in acceptance without moving backward into possible error. The Church, and we as Catholics of various backgrounds, must accept that the modern homosexual man chooses to live publicly. He is public about his homosexuality, and unabashed.

However, this does not merely mean that we must accept the culture's flawed, hastily created, and troublesome answer to the publicly gay man. I have the highest respect for him, in fact, because he tolerates a total war made in his own name, as well as an equally vicious counter-attack. The culture, in response to his existence, immediately cries that a liberalization of marriage is the answer. This is so ingrained to our brains that, when we see a post like this on Fr. James Martin's Facebook wall, we immediately imply he has some sort of deep-seated desire to legalize gay marriage. On the other side, if one doesn't support gay marriage, one doesn't support gay anything, apparently. This contrast is not only ridiculous, but worrisome: it must be shattered by love if love, which always has had a path moderate and peaceful, is to make its course.

And this is where I plead that a response to the publicly homosexual man becomes one more like that of Fr. Edward Salmon. No love comes from coercion; when faced with such a difficult situation and petition in his school, the president opted for peace. He did not, however, allow his action to go unexplained - in the meek letter, he outlines a bold rebellion to the cultural paradigm, avoiding error, while moving forward in an acknowledgement that should stir hope inside of us. Why would he reiterate multiple times the openness towards a non-sexual relationship? Can we see the marriage of the conservative sexual ethics of the Church with the liberal call to love the public homosexual man?

If gay rights is only about legally redefining marriage, you have decided the answer for yourself. The Catholic, however, doesn't ebb and flow with the times. He is a man for all ages, moderate in his kindness, zealous in his adherence, and rebellious to all sin, both sexual and discriminatory, in his desire for heaven.

-------------------------------------------------
Copyright (c) 2013 Joseph Jablonski

Photos
Dominican and Pride Flag: http://www.worldmag.com/mobile/article.php?id=25660
Two men...arguing http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2013/03/how-paul-clement-avoided-looking-huge-homophobe

Easter: How Little We Understand, Yet How Beautiful It Is

By Joseph Jablonski

Happy Easter!

I want to extend an apology for our readers who may be wondering where all the articles are. We've all been a bit busy at school and during Easter Break, but, thanks to David, we've been doing well. As for me, your clumsy and sporadic editor, I'm recovering from a bout of writer's block.

However, I wanted to share with you in its entirety my Easter reflection from my personal blog, Sparks of Joy. I will be writing still for Gaudium Dei, but the personal blog has given me a place to help exercise more causal creativity, wit and wisdom while healing myself of writer's block. I have articles already prepared for Gaudium Dei for this and next week, including an exclusive interview with Dr. Robert George!

May you all have a beautiful Easter! He is risen!

Many of these ideas that I thought of in those deep moments of prayer, yearning for my notebook (even yearning for a notebook, oh flawed and human heart. Yet that fault is happy!), surrounded a central theme of helplessness. Who are we to say we know and understand Christ's death and resurrection, when itself it is a joyful mystery? We are completely undeserving of Christ's sacrifice for our sins, yet he gives it. And, to defy all odds, he rises again. The atheist may believe he holds the truth, but I hold the mystery, the story which has not the cold, factual, definable answer. I prefer it yet lament such a state, for humankind will not ever fully understand the love of Christ. If it ever does, it only does so for a moment and soon forgets. It is like death: it may be months or years, but we forget a loved one's death. We learn to live again, for thinking about death at every waking moment only drives us to insanity and to death. If we recall for a moment, we are sure to forget. However, death is truth and the one truth which we can all know as a fact. We all surely die, and when we realize this, even in the momentary throes of woe and sadness, we realize what is real. However, unlike this metaphor of thought of death, the Easter mystery has one aspect we cannot and do not forget: the life of Christ and the rising which gives us hope after death, a hope which requires our faith and governs our love.

However, all of these are mere words. Though I have discovered their meaning in prayer, I will surely forget their poignancy. However, I will try not to forget that I, for one brief moment before the Lord, found them poignant. When we all remember only this, and hold onto this vestige in our hope, we should be reduced to one prayer, the prayer of the criminal next to Christ: Remember me, Lord, when you enter into your kingdom. 

He is risen! May you all find joy with your families today, as in all days, and may you for one moment realize, like I have, how little we truly understand of Christ's infinite love. How little we understand, yet how beautiful.

Awkwardness on Holy Saturday

By David L.

What are we to do with Holy Saturday? It seems to be the most awkward holy day. What happened on the original Holy Saturday? On Thursday, you had the Last Supper and institution of the Eucharist; on Friday, the Passion; on Sunday, the Resurrection. But on Saturday? The Apostles are in hiding, mourning their friend, waiting for something to happen, Jesus has died but not risen. To Jesus’ followers on earth, Holy Saturday is a period of waiting.

However, tradition shows us a considerably more exciting picture of Holy Saturday, in terms of what Jesus was doing. In the interim between death and resurrection, Jesus experiences death. We recall this teaching whenever we recite the Apostle’s Creed, with the line “He descended into hell.” Recently, there’s a bit of a tendency to downplay the idea of Hell as a place at all, so this is somewhat lost on us. However, this episode, called The Harrowing of Hell is the completion of Christ’s incarnation and messianic mission. Christ descends to the realm of the dead because, in a very real sense, He has died for us and as one of us. Hell here has a somewhat elastic meaning, referring not only to fire and brimstone but to the realm inhabited by everyone awaiting the Christ, including the heroes of the Old Testament. Jesus has to go there to complete His messianic mission as well; He has to be the savior for those who have died before Him. 

The Catechism notes: "The gospel was preached even to the dead.’ The descent into hell brings the Gospel message of salvation to complete fulfillment. This is the last phase of Jesus' messianic mission, a phase which is condensed in time but vast in its real significance: the spread of Christ's redemptive work to all men of all times and all places, for all who are saved have been made sharers in the redemption.

So, as we’re awkwardly waiting for Easter, we can know that Jesus isn’t taking the day off.


Image Credit: Wikipedia
Copyright c2013 David L

Why Freedom?

By David L.

Lately, I've been noticing a meme in public discourse. We're always talking about freedom to do this or that, and these freedoms rarely seem to point to any deeper reality of the human person. Freedom to own property, for instance, doesn't seem to point to a reasonable ownership of goods, but rather a barely-controlled plunder of the market, in which the goal is to obtain as much material wealth as possible.

Bl. Mother Teresa commented that there exists in the Western world a sort of poverty that is worse than that found in areas of the world where material, social, and political inequality are much greater, and freedom more limited. In her Nobel Lecture, she noted finding impoverished people who had much deeper wounds than those brought by hunger and disease: “a person that is shut out, that feels unwanted, unloved, terrified, the person that has been thrown out from society - that poverty is so hurtable and so much, and I find that very difficult." 

While material inequality and poverty warrant compassion, concern for a person’s lack of material goods is incomplete. Concern for a fellow human being ought to speak to the deeper reality of his or her existence, going beyond his or her material state to the soul. Little seems to speak to this deeper need in contemporary political discourse. Freedom is good, but much of its goodness comes from it being a condition for love. However, freedom is often reduced to license to do what one wants. If you use your freedom to own property merely to horde as many material goods as possible, haven't you wasted that freedom? 

Perhaps Pope John Paul II says it best: "When freedom does not have a purpose, when it does not wish to know anything about the rule of law engraved in the hearts of men and women, when it does not listen to the voice of conscience, it turns against humanity and society."

Mother Teresa's Nobel Lecture can be found at http://www.nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/peace/laureates/1979/teresa-lecture.html

--------------------------------------------------------
Copyright c2013 David L.

The Pope's Name

By David L.

I knew very little about Cardinal Bergoglio, now Pope Francis. Actually, I really have only a dim memory about a Jesuit cardinal from South America being papabile. When Bergoglio’s name was announced in St. Peter’s Square, I didn’t recognize it at all. What I did recognize was his new Papal name: Francis. Firstly, because he’s chosen a name not held by a former Pope, which hasn’t been done since Pope Lando in 913 (yes, I had to look that up; no, I’m not counting John Paul I, because John and Paul had both already been taken). Secondly, because it refers to St. Francis of Assisi, whom I love dearly, and there are a few reasons the name is important.

Firstly, the names points to reform. It’s believed that Christ appeared to St. Francis of Assisi in a vision and told him, “Go, rebuild my Church, which is falling into disrepair.” While the problems of the Church now aren’t identical to the problems in the Medieval period, there’s been plenty of talk of the Curia needing reform (and I don’t just mean the sensationalized nonsense some major news outlets have been talking about). This might not be the reform some are hoping for; perhaps “revitalization” would be a better word. Less changing rules about who gets ordained, more taking a hard look at how the Curia is organized and bringing the New Evengelization to greater  fruition.

Secondly, the name points to humility and concern for the poor. St. Francis has always been known for his humility and poverty. From what I’ve heard, the man lived in an apartment, cooked for himself, and took the bus to work every day. Being a Jesuit, he’s had no personal belongings since he entered the Society. As Archbishop of Buenos Aires, he’s been known for his advocacy of the poor. But plenty of popes have spoken out for the poor. Bergoglio could have taken the name of Leo, seeing as Pope Leo XIII’s encyclical Rerum Novarum is considered essential in modern Catholic social teaching. Leo simultaneously stood up to Marxism and radical Capitalism as dangerous for the poor. If Bergoglio had taken this name and sent a word through his press office, anyone who has studied modern Church history would have understood the reference immediately. However, by taking the name Francis, Bergoglio went directly to the poor. Everyone knows who St. Francis is. Taking the name Francis goes straight to everyone who has ever seen an image of this humble man in a simple brown habit. You don’t need to rely on a Vaticanologist to tell you who Francis is. Our new Pope told the poor in the simplest, most accessible way he could, that he was in their corner. You could say he instantly went meta-Franciscan.  

If that was just his first day, I’m quite excited to see how this papacy goes.