No Man Can Serve Two Masters

Mary Frances Myler

October 13, 2021

A foray into the university’s treatment of LGBT issues

Notre Dame has been swept along by the tides of secularism. Ever-shifting societal mores threaten Notre Dame’s Catholic identity. Increasingly, the university conforms to dominant secular narratives surrounding contentious cultural issues. Particularly on issues of gender and sexuality, the university’s stance regarding Church teachings raises concern.

Perhaps it is assumed that because the debates on these topics have subsided, there is simply nothing left to discuss. Indeed, secular culture assumes the acceptance of same-sex unions as universal. It turns now towards transgenderism, among other issues. Discussions surrounding the nature of marriage as a union between one man and one woman have gone extinct from the public, including at the University of Notre Dame; now, debates rage regarding the definitions of “man” and “woman.”

The university may believe that she navigates the issue well, but she in fact simultaneously professes Catholic teaching and espouses a secular movement in opposition to the Church’s position. The result? Incoherence. While the university’s decisions may be motivated by genuine good will, diligent attention to love of neighbor, and desire to evoke a nuanced understanding, the apparently whole-hearted espousal of the secular LGBT agenda leaves many members of the Notre Dame community confused and concerned.

In 2012, the university published the pastoral plan “Beloved Friends and Allies,” which articulates the framing paradigm for “the support, holistic development and formation of students who identify as GLBTQ [sic], as well as their heterosexual friends and allies.” The pastoral plan repeatedly emphasizes that the university’s “goals and objectives, as well as its programs and initiatives, are consonant with the teachings of the Roman Catholic Church.” The plan extensively cites the Catechism, as well as USCCB documents regarding ministry to LGBT individuals, affirming the natural law tradition of the Church’s teaching that “sexuality is ordered to the conjugal love of man and woman.” This document remains an active and relevant part of the university’s engagement with the LGBT community.

But, the university announced its decision to extend employment benefits to legally married same-sex couples in 2014. The university did so without coercion of civil law. University president Fr. John Jenkins praised this decision as an effort undertaken “to provide support and welcome gay and lesbian members of our community.” He stated, “These efforts must not and will not flag.”

This past June, the university announced its first ever celebration of Pride Month. The diversity and inclusion page of the university’s website published an article which draws exclusively upon President Biden’s “Proclamation on Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Transgender, and Queer Pride Month, 2021” in an effort to “raise awareness about efforts for equal justice and equal opportunity for the LGBTQ+ community” during the month of June. The article directs curious readers to the website of the Human Rights Campaign, the largest LGBT advocacy group lobbying organization within the United States, for information on “what it means to be an ally in the effort to achieve equality for all.” The article does not allude to the Catholic Church or her teachings in any way.

Just this week, on October 11, PrismND (Notre Dame’s official LGBTQ+ undergraduate organization) and Baumer Hall co-hosted a “Coming Out Day Celebration.” Fr. Robert Lisowski, C.S.C., rector of Baumer and recently-ordained priest, attended the event wearing a rainbow stole which matched the pride flag hanging on the wall directly behind him. When asked for comment on his involvement with the event, Fr. Lisowski told the Rover, “My presence at this event was simply to affirm, support, and celebrate the dignity of every human person as a child of God. We prayed in gratitude for the unique gift that every person is [and] for an end to discrimination.”

Other erosive occurrences disclose the university’s adherence to secular standards set by the LGBT movement. The home page of the ND Student Government website displays a picture of the student government executives in front of a pride flag. The College of Arts and Letters now accommodates students’ preferences for the use of singular “they/them” pronouns in news articles. And this fall, Notre Dame Press published the book Gay, Catholic, and American written by Greg Bourke, who was a named plaintiff in Obergefell v. Hodges (2015), the decision that legalized same-sex unions nationwide.

Furthermore, no student can escape Welcome Weekend, which emphasizes the necessity of allyship. Student leaders receive instruction to use inclusive language, have “inclusive thoughts,” and wear rainbow pins to demonstrate their commitment as allies. But allies to what? To the recognition that students who experience same-sex attraction are human beings created in the image of God and loved immeasurably by Him? Or to the secular agenda that promotes the normalization of same-sex unions, transgenderism, and other cultural phenomena, institutions, and movements in direct opposition to Church teaching?

The lack of clarity in the university’s approach to LGBT issues is highly problematic. On the one hand, the university professes a Catholic mission and articulates a faith-based vision for the inclusion of the LGBT community in “Beloved Friends and Allies.” On the other hand, the university promotes signs and images laden with secular meaning. The pride flag cannot be separated from the secular LGBT movement and the ends it seeks—ends which are directly contrary to Catholic teaching. How can the university have a holistic and intrinsically Catholic response to the LGBT community if she merely appropriates secular images and slogans? Why does the university look to the world for solutions, rather than turning to the truths of faith?

It should be noted that Notre Dame is not unique in her incoherent response to the challenges raised by the LGBT agenda. The Catholic Church finds herself internally troubled by dissent from her teachings on gender, sexuality, and doctrine. This is not mere individual disagreement, but institutional rebellion. Notably, the German bishops have persisted in their decision to bless same-sex relationships, despite the Vatican’s repeated clarifications on Catholic doctrine.

A March 2021 Responsum of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith regarding the action of the German bishops succinctly and elegantly expresses the Church’s response to challenges to her teachings on sexuality: “The Church recalls that God Himself never ceases to bless each of His pilgrim children in this world, because for Him ‘we are more important to God than all of the sins that we can commit.’ But he does not and cannot bless sin: he blesses sinful man, so that he may recognize that he is part of his plan of love and allow himself to be changed by him. He in fact ‘takes us as we are, but never leaves us as we are.’”

Properly nuanced, the Church’s teachings on sexuality are simple. In light of Catholic doctrine, Notre Dame should recognize the incoherence of her current position. Her current approach confuses, rather than models, Church teaching. In order to resolve her current incoherence, the university must choose between two conflicting views—one Catholic, the other secular.

The implications of this choice are dramatic; each departure from doctrine erodes the Catholic character of the university. If the university adheres to secular standards on LGBT issues, what else will she be willing to surrender? When truth capitulates to untruth, what shall stand?

The university should cling to the truth, especially when the social cost is high. She may not attract allies, but she will flourish in her witness to Christ’s invitation of authentic love, sacrifice, and transformation.

Mary Frances Myler is a senior in the Program of Liberal Studies with minors in theology and constitutional studies. If she had free time, she would spend it outdoors, ideally on the shore of Lake Superior. Send thoughts, concerns, and questions to mmyler@nd.edu.

Photo credit: Fr. Robert Lisowski, C.S.C. attends “Coming Out Day Celebration”, Baumer Hall’s Instagram account @baumerhall

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=4941876&forum_id=2#43269975)

https://irishrover.net/author/mary-frances-myler/

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=4941876&forum_id=2#43270033)

That first sentence is incoherent. "Properly nuanced", lol. She is unable to articulate the actual church's position because it is not at all a simple question. If you accept that being LGBTQ+ etc isn't a choice but part of the human condition in the same way that being straight is, then I'm not sure how you can go all "hate the sin, love the sinner!" on people. Maybe with some of those new orientations you can argue it's just a shallow sexual fetish, but the vast majority of people aren't going to think that way with gay, lesbian, or bi orientations. The church is slowly adapting to this reality.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=4941876&forum_id=2#43270163)

Truth is always true and does not adapt. otherwise, it was never Truth. one can argue that the church adapt to current social conditions, but the Truth of the matter. up to and including, "the sins that cry to God for vengence" are both Sacred Scripture and Tradition.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=4941876&forum_id=2#43270290)

the church doesn't teach that same-sex attraction is inherently sinful, only that acting on it is

many people are born with sinful inclinations; that doesn't mean the church must acquiesce to them

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=4941876&forum_id=2#43270993)

" If you accept that being LGBTQ+ etc isn't a choice but part of the human condition in the same way that being straight is, then I'm not sure how you can go all "hate the sin, love the sinner!" on people"

what you think makes sense isn't the issue here. The Church sees gay sex as a sin. It also sees premarital sex as wrong. You are making her point for her. You think the Church needs to adapt to secular thinking and she is saying that the Church hasn't done that yet, so why is ND-- the preeminent Catholic university in the country-- acting like it has.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=4941876&forum_id=2#43270302)

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=4941876&forum_id=2#43270334)

And you're right about certain places and people within the church having different positions. But that's my point in my first post. The Church's teachings on sexuality are not at all simple or set in stone and have changed drastically in the past few centuries.

This girl is stuck in the 1950's.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=4941876&forum_id=2#43271298)

but the church has never condoned *acting* on same sex attraction and never will--nor would it ever condone same sex marriage.

you're either confused about this or are being intentionally misleading

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=4941876&forum_id=2#43271347)

The Church has only been clear on that relatively recently. It previously condoned abuse for purpose of punishing homosexuality or converting gay people (conversion therapy). The Church has absolutely changed how it views gays because of what we now understand about homosexuality.

"but the church has never condoned *acting* on same sex attraction and never will--nor would it ever condone same sex marriage."

It will in due time. Too many find the rule contradictory and untenable given what we now understand about homosexuality. CGM and the author of this article keep saying "just follow the rule, IT'S SO SIMPLE!" Well it's not. For many, excluding gays from ever acting on such attraction or holding such views would require breaking other (and more important) tenets of the faith. That's the direction we're moving in, especially young, highly-educated Catholics. The author is avoiding the debate and simply pointing to authority, as if it has never changed.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=4941876&forum_id=2#43277649)

The catechism of the Catholic Church is very explicit on this issue. There is no possibility for reinterpretation.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=4941876&forum_id=2#43271404)

In effect, you are arguing that the Catholic Church's various positions on gay issues is analogous to a circuit split on an issue. That is the type of situation where people dig in and ramp up their efforts promoting their preferred outcome. Obviously that's precisely what the sodomites and their supporters are doing.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=4941876&forum_id=2#43272342)

Get behind me, satan.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=4941876&forum_id=2#43271003)

Let me spell it out for you:

1. What is and is not sin can never, by definition, change. If you think that has happened in the history of the Catholic church you are wrong. If you are confused and think usury or the death penalty has changed, how about you ask me or someone who knows the topic to explain it to you instead of spouting nonsense.

2. Whether being gay has genetic drivers, environmental drivers, or both, it does not change Church teaching nor make it illogical. We know, for example, that being an Alcoholic has genetic origins, that doesn't mean that being a drunk is no longer a sin. We know that men will be constantly tempted to have impure thoughts and actions throughout their lives (and that has a huge genetic basis), that doesnt mean a dude watching porn or fornication is no longer a sin.

The Church's teaching on sexual morality are crystal clear; any sexual act outside of marriage between a man and women is a sin. A grave sin. No changes in the society can change this immutable truth which has been preserved in Church teaching regardless of what the World believes.

edit: I want to add a quick addendum. People think the Church is mean to those that have same-sex attraction. They think that the "rules" are particularly harsh on them. They are not. Let me give you an example of a sympathetic charater who has a larger cross:

A women marries a man. Has 3 kids with her. He then runs away and abandons them. The women is 35, was a SAHM. She is barred from any sexual relationship with any other man. She cannot find another man to marry in order to help her raise her children. This women faces the same outlook as someone with SSA: They cannot have a sexual partner, but has the additional burden of raising a family on her own too.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=4941876&forum_id=2#43271342)

Back in the day, that organization was called GLND-SMC, short for "Gays and Lesbians of Notre Dame and Saint Mary's College." Everyone referred to it as "gland smack," which the gays did not appreciate. Also, the letters for homo groups keep growing like the national debt, so they had to go with a new name. In any event, sex and sexuality is an obsession almost on par with football at ND.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=4941876&forum_id=2#43270260)

I remember when the independent conservative paper, cant remember the name (Right Reason?), took on this issue in the 90s.

my dorm mate was a dude named Kelly who also published a pro-Columbus piece in the paper and gained so much notoriety that profs would pull him out of class.

I went to a meeting of the paper's staff in the Hesburgh. Faculty advisor was Ralph McInerny and there were like 4 students there, 3 fat chicks into Adoration of the Blessed Sacrament and Kelly.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=4941876&forum_id=2#43271501)