Friday, December 07, 2007

Hospitality or coercion?

Has Keene State College succumbed to homosexual ideology?

Even while opposing homosexual acts as gravely sinful [objectively speaking], the Catechism of the Catholic Church, No. 2358 teaches that:


"The number of men and women who have deep-seated homosexual tendencies is not negligible. This inclination, which is objectively disordered, constitutes for most of them a trial. They must be accepted with respect, compassion, and sensitivity. Every sign of unjust discrimination in their regard should be avoided. These persons are called to fulfill God's will in their lives and, if they are Christians, to unite to the sacrifice of the Lord's Cross the difficulties they may encounter from their condition."

One has to wonder then why Keene State College has bought into the use of the word "homophobia" and why the College is offering a course entitled HOLO 254, the description of which reads:

"Explores gender in Central Europe in the 1930's and 40s and women's experiences under Nazi rule - in ghettos, camps, and anti-Fascist resistance - and as Holocaust survivors. Examines connections between the Holocaust and present-day manifestations of anti-Semitism, sexism, homophobia, nationalism, masculinity, and feminism." (Source: http://www.keene.edu/catalog/courses/HOLO.cfm).

As documented here: http://lasalettejourney.blogspot.com/2007/12/is-cohen-center-for-holocaust-studies.html, George Weinberg, a friend of the Gay Activist Alliance (GAA), coined the word as a semantic weapon designed to intimidate opponents of homosexuality into silence by painting them as being somehow mentally ill. In his own words, "I would never consider a patient healthy unless he had overcome his prejudice against homosexuality." (Quoted in Jack Nichols, "George Weinberg, Ph.D - Badpuppy's February Interview," http://gaytoday.badpuppy.com/garchive/interview/020397in.htm

How does this not constitute an attempt at coercion and or harassment? The Vatican II Fathers taught us that:

"The Church of Christ reproves, as foreign to the mind of Christ, any discrimination against men or harassment of them because of their race, color, condition of life, or religion." (Nostra Aetate, No. 5).

The Cohen Center for Holocaust Studies at Keene State College has called for "hospitality" and a "discussion" where all are respected. But is it very respectful to paint Catholics (or anyone else) who oppose homosexuality based upon the moral teaching of their Church or religion [not to mention the Natural Law] as being somehow mentally ill or psychologically unhealthy?

Although I have called upon the Cohen Center and Keene State College to explain why they have adopted the use of the word "homophobia" or what is meant by the course description of HOLO 254 when it says, "Examines connections between the Holocaust and present-day manifestations of..homophobia," my request has largely been met with silence. The only exception being a Keene State College student who tried to convince me that the course hardly mentions homophobia at all. How comforting.

Is this what Keene State College and the Cohen Center mean by "discussion"?

7 comments:

Matlee said...

I get the impression that their idea of "dialogue" and "hospitality" translates into a one-sided monologue where anything Catholic is denigrated. Obviously, Catholics aren't welcome at the table of discussion. Or if they are, they are only welcome if they subscribe to a liberal, anti-Catholic mindset or philosophy.

Stephen said...

It is being reported that the Keene Equinox, student paper for Keene State College, has just published an article titled "Town residents express concern about Catholic group."

Admittedly, if you scroll far enough down the article, you come to this "While the Diocese of Worcester (Massachusetts) recognized the SBC in Massachusetts, the Diocese of Manchester did not recognize the one in New Hampshire."

But given the fact that the Diocese of Manchester has stated clearly that the SBC is not affiliated in any way with the Roman Catholic Church, you have to wonder why the article is titled "Town residents express concern about Catholic group."

Is this just another effort to embarass the Catholic Church?

Paul Anthony Melanson said...

Ordinarily, this being a student newspaper, I would suggest giving these students some slack. However, considering the offensive anti-Catholic comment from Mr. Henry Knight posted at the Cohen Center Blog and the fact that Keene State College appears to have succumbed to homosexual agitprop, I just don't know.

Let's hope that this doesn't represent an attempt to convince students that the SBC is a Catholic organization engaging in anti-Semitism.

Matlee said...

In the course of defending residents of Richmond who oppose the SBC and its anti-semitism from an SBC supporter, Victoria Provost wrote, "I can speak of my personal relationships with some of the "dolts, ignoramuses, lemmings, barbarians, and heretics" who challenge SBC. I have found most of these folks to be passionate, neighborly, and very well informed on much of what has happened and is happening here in Richmond.
Not once have I heard an anti-Catholic, anti-God, anti-semitic, homophobic, racist remark from these folks."

Well, it has already been shown that some who oppose the SBC have made anti-Catholic comments. But that's not why I'm writing. Notice how Mrs. Provost uses the word "homophobic"?

Now she says she is a practicing Catholic at the article Stephen cited. I'm happy that she took exception to the hateful labels SBC followers were using. But isn't "homophobic" in the same category? I know it is to me.

Just the sort of Catholic Keene State welcomes. As a "practicing Catholic", does Mrs. Provost oppose homosexual acts? And, if so, what does she mean by "homophobic"? Does she support same-sex "marriage"? Does she consider opposition to same-sex "marriage" evidence of "homophobia"?

I am really curious. Does she dissent from the teaching of the Church? If she does, isn't she being just as dishonest as the SBC when she calls herself a "practicing Catholic"?

Brian said...

It sounds like this woman doesn't accept the Church's teaching that homosexual acts are intrinsically disordered (CCC, 2357). If this is the case Matlee, then she is dissenting from the Church's authoritative teaching. It's not enough to just refer to yourself as Catholic. One has to accept the Church's teaching with loyal submission of mind and will (Lumen Gentium, No. 25).

That article in the student newspaper isn't very encouraging. It seems to me that Keene State is using the anti-Semitism of the SBC to make it look Catholics are intolerant and backward and therefore shouldn't be trusted when it comes to the subject of homosexuality.

Has anyone ever seen a comment from her promoting aborton? There are, as most of you know, people who think they can call themselves Catholic while promoting abortion or propagandizing for "freedom of choice."

Ellen Wironken said...

Mr. Melanson, I love your weblog. I discovered the link at the Cohen Center weblog.

Thought I would share this with your readers. I wrote this at the Keene Sentinel weblog.

"Dear Mr. Majoy,

You have at least acknowledged the offensive nature of the quote offered by Mr. Tom Matson. Thank you for that. But you also wrote, "for many reasons, I don’t share your assessment of the quote nor the accusations made against the Provosts, Mr. Matson, or the Cohen Center."

It is most revealing that you have failed to address any of the points which I made in my comment. I will therefore post my comment once again in the hope that you will at least attempt to answer my questions:

"I learned of this weblog from a friend who lives in Swanzey and was just horrified when I learned that there was a group in Cheshire County which actually believed that Jewish people "undermine public morality." And I am happy to see that you find such an anti-Semitism to be unacceptable. Something concerns me though. You wrote that, "I love and care very much for the Provosts, the Tandys, the Graves, and the Matsons and reject the indictment of them as “anti-Catholic."

Now I'm not familar with all of these people. But since the Provosts have posted the following quote at their weblog:

"History, I believe, furnishes no example of a priest-ridden people maintaining a free civil government", and, "In every country and in every age, the priest has been hostile to liberty. He is always in alliance with the despot, abetting his abuses in return for protection to his own." "May it be to the world, what I believe it will be, (to some parts sooner, to others later, but finally to all), the signal of arousing men to burst the chains under which monkish ignorance and superstition had persuaded them to bind themselves, and to assume the blessings and security of self-government," isn't it safe to assume that they don't exactly have a love affair with Catholicism?

How can we condemn those who say that the Jewish people "undermine public morality" but make excuses for those who would publish such a horrendous quote at their weblog? Is such an attitude really honest?

And if Mr. Matson didn't already know in his heart that the quote he was offering was offensive, why did he write, "To Paul, Take no offense please"?

How do you understand the quote which Mr. Matson offered and Mr. Provost published at his weblog? Do you honestly believe that anyone can benefit from such a hate-filled quote? If not, shouldn't those responsible for posting it offer an apology?

Reflect very carefully on the words in that quote Mr. Majoy. And ask yourself: Do these words represent hospitality and love or exclusion and hatred.

Peace of Christ to all."

Mr. Majoy, I will assume that you have a basic understanding of the workings of the English language. Whee exactly in my comment am I making an "accusation"? Instead of trying to turn this around so that I am the one who comes across looking hateful, why not exercise a modicum of intellectual honesty and provide me with an answer to my rather simple questions. I specifically said that, "I'm not familar with all of these people." And I made no accusations.

I would still very much like to know how the quote offered by Mr. Matson and published by Mr. Provost adds anything positive to the discussion of the issues at hand.

Or is there some reason for your refusal to answer my questions in a clear and direct manner?

Again, please refrain from saying that I have made "accusations" against anyone. It is a falsehood."

Ellen Wironken said...

Mr. Melanson, I want to commend you for your interesting articles which challenge the anti-Catholicism of the Cohen Center and in and around Cheshire County.

I thought this would be of interest as I wrote it at the Keene Sentinel weblog.

"Mr. Majoy,

Once again you have failed to provide me answers to some very simple questions. This is regrettable. I have asked you twice how the following quote posted by Mr. Tom Matson at the SBC Watch weblog: ““History, I believe, furnishes no example of a priest-ridden people maintaining a free civil government”, and, “In every country and in every age, the priest has been hostile to liberty. He is always in alliance with the despot, abetting his abuses in return for protection to his own.” “May it be to the world, what I believe it will be, (to some parts sooner, to others later, but finally to all), the signal of arousing men to burst the chains under which monkish ignorance and superstition had persuaded them to bind themselves, and to assume the blessings and security of self-government,” adds anything positive to any discussion regarding tolerance.

I shall take your refusal to answer my simple questions as a tacit admission of you own prejudice toward Roman Catholicism. I have not asked you for in-depth theological treatises or philosophical essays. It is amazing to me that while you find the anti-Semitic language of the SBC to be so objectionable, you brush away the legitimate concerns of Catholics who are concerned about anti-Catholicism.

I visited the weblog La Salette Journey: http://lasalettejourney.blogspot.com after finding the link at this weblog and at the Keene Sentinel weblog. I find it instructive that the author of that weblog has challenged the Cohen Center - which you are apparently involved with - and that the Cohen Center cannot, or will not, respond to his articles.

I wrote Mr. Roger Vaste and he informed me that Brother Andre Marie of the SBC was similarly evasive when he was questioned on television. For my mind, when an individual or group of individuals refuses to answer simple questions about their philosophy, this most often implies dishonesty.

I will leave you now. It is obvious that you have no intention of responding to my simple questions. This will prove to be very revealing to those who frequent this weblog.

As for meeting with you, I don’t live in New Hampshire. I am a housewife with kids and a busy schedule. This is why I had hoped that you would respond to my simple questions either here or at the Sentinel’s Weblog. Message received."

Site Meter