Thursday, January 26, 2012

More on Clark University and its definition of heterosexism...

Some of those students who attend Clark University have suggested that Clark University, through its definition of "heterosexism," is merely trying to protect a certain segment of the school's population from "harassment."  This is, of course, ludicrous.  Even a cursory read of Clark's definition   will reveal that much more is intended here.

Lest there be any doubt about where Clark University stands, let's look at the definition of "heterosexism" provided by Clark University's homosexual propagandist-in-residence.  In an article co-authored with JuliAnna Smith of the University of Massachusetts Amherst, we read from Dr. Abbie Goldberg that heterosexism is, "an ideological system that denies, denigrates, and stigmatizes any nonheterosexual form of behavior, identity, relationship, or community."

Got that?  Any moral opposition to the homosexual lifestyle is, then, deemed heterosexism, a form of discrimination.  Goldberg and her co-propagandist for the radical homosexual agenda continue: "At the societal level, institutionalized heterosexism takes the form of antigay legislation such as laws preventing same-sex couples from marrying or adopting children." (See here for full article).

In other words, the Catechism of the Catholic Church is "heterosexist" because it insists that homosexual acts are "intrinsically disordered," "contrary to the natural law," and "under no circumstances can they be approved." (CCC, 2357).  And, according to Goldberg and associate, any institution which opposes same-sex "marriage," such as the Catholic Church, is guilty of "institutionalized heterosexism."

The U.S. Bishops, see here, teach us that: "The natural structure of human sexuality makes man and woman complementary partners for the transmission of human life. Only a union of male and female can express the sexual complementarity willed by God for marriage. The permanent and exclusive commitment of marriage is the necessary context for the expression of sexual love intended by God both to serve the transmission of human life and to build up the bond between husband and wife (see CCC, nos. 1639-1640).

In marriage, husband and wife give themselves totally to each other in their masculinity and femininity (see CCC, no. 1643). They are equal as human beings but different as man and woman, fulfilling each other through this natural difference. This unique complementarity makes possible the conjugal bond that is the core of marriage.

Why is a same-sex union not equivalent to a marriage?

For several reasons a same-sex union contradicts the nature of marriage: It is not based on the natural complementarity of male and female; it cannot cooperate with God to create new life; and the natural purpose of sexual union cannot be achieved by a same-sex union. Persons in same-sex unions cannot enter into a true conjugal union. Therefore, it is wrong to equate their relationship to a marriage.

Goldberg's definition of "heterosexism" is nothing less than an assault on Catholic moral teaching.  As Pope John Paul II said, in his Encyclical Letter Veritatis Splendor, "In teaching the existence of intrinsically evil acts, the Church accepts the teaching of Sacred Scripture.  The Apostle Paul emphatically states, 'Do not be deceived: neither the immoral, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor sexual perverts, nor thieves, nor the greedy, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor robbers will inherit the Kingdom of God.'" (Veritatis Splendor, No. 81, citing 1 Corinthians 6: 9-10).

Dr. Goldberg's definition of "heterosexism," which has obviously been fully embraced by Clark University, takes no account of the Natural Law and is merely an exercise in chronological snobbery or what the French philosopher Jacques Maritain referred to as"chronolatry" in his work "Le paysan de la Garonne" - The Peasant of the Garonne. Maritain defines chronolatry as the idolatry of what is newest or latest in time. This is the characteristic flaw of today's "progressive" who looks upon the wisdom of the ages and dismisses it as nothing more than "theories" which belong to the past.

Clark University is indeed suffering an intellectual crisis.  A crisis which has resulted in institutionalized arrogance.


Stewart said...

New Advent Encyclopedia explains that: "The natural law is universal, that is to say, it applies to the entire human race, and is in itself the same for all. Every man, because he is a man, is bound, if he will conform to the universal order willed by the Creator, to live conformably to his own rational nature, and to be guided by reason. However, infants and insane persons, who have not the actual use of their reason and cannot therefore know the law, are not responsible for that failure to comply with its demands. (b) The natural law is immutable in itself and also extrinsically. Since it is founded in the very nature of man and his destination to his end—two bases which rest upon the immutable ground of the eternal law—it follows that, assuming the continued existence of human nature, it cannot cease to exist. The natural law commands and forbids in the same tenor everywhere and always..."

And yet, Dr. Goldberg refuses to acknowledge this Natural Law in her work, preferring instead to set herself against it and to accuse every institution (religious and secular), including governments, which oppose same-sex "marriage" as being "heterosexist."

This fact highlights professor Goldberg's lack of competency. For no one in their right mind dismisses the Natural Law with a wave of the hand as if it doesn't exist.

Paul Anthony Melanson said...

Today the opinion poll has replaced the Natural Law for many. It is thought that morality is simply the sum total of individual opinions and that all must submit to the collective expression of the majority. Here is the Dictatorship of Relativism which Pope Benedict XVI spoke of.

But majority consensus cannot be the basis for morality. A lynch mob is a majority. And often it has hanged an innocent man.

Michael Cole said...

Vatican II says that, "..all men, because they are persons, that is, beings endowed with reason and free will and therefore bearing personal responsibility, are both impelled by their nature and bound by a moral obligation to seek the truth" (Dignitatis Humanae, 2).

The truth spoken of here is not an abstract or speculative truth. The same docment stresses that men are "bound to adhere to the truth once they come to know it and to direct their whole lives in accordance with the demands of truth." (DH, 2).

The truth in question here is moral truth, the truth which is known by practical reason. In knowing this truth men participate in God's divine and eternal law.

Wendy said...

The message Clark University officials are sending is loud and clear: if you oppose homosexuality and same-sex "marriage" on moral grounds, that makes you the same as a rapist or sexual abuser. You are discriminating against homosexual persons.

In this way, no one may question or challenge the prevailing orthodoxy, the dogma of the extreme left, that homosexuality is a good.

So much for Clark being a place of critical thought. Everyone line up and march in lock step like a good Nazi. You said it well Paul - the Church proposes and the world imposes.

Clarkie13' said...

Wendy, professor Goldberg defines opposition to same-sex "marriage" as "anti-gay." She is saying that anyone who opposes it is anti-homosexual. But this is simply not true. The Church opposes same-sex "marriage" while insisting that the homosexual person must be treated with respect and compassion (CCC, 2358).

Professor Goldberg assumes there is animus where there is none.

Site Meter