Bookmark and Share
My Photo


    Opinions expressed on the Insight Scoop weblog are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the positions of Ignatius Press. Links on this weblog to articles do not necessarily imply agreement by the author or by Ignatius Press with the contents of the articles. Links are provided to foster discussion of important issues. Readers should make their own evaluations of the contents of such articles.


« Ignatius Press in the news | Main | Mark Brumley to make announcement on Sacred Heart Radio, Thursday, 7:45 am ET »

Wednesday, July 28, 2010



The silliness expressed in the statement that the university has an interest in not offending people has even trickled down to high schools, and even Catholic high schools. I know -- I teach at a Catholic high school in the religion department. My particular school doesn't even feel comfortable informing students accurately about the Church's own discipline regarding who may receive Communion at Mass out of fear that some students or teachers will be offended by feeling excluded. I have been over this with them to no avail. The most they will do is say, "If you are not prepared to receive Communion, please join us in receiving a blessing." Education has deteriorated into a vacuous leftist propaganda machine.


Just today I was reading an article by Chesterton for the Illustrated London News and found in the Collected Works that seems to apply very well to this situation....

"On Modern Controversy" (August 14, 1926)


See Matthew 15:12--14 and Luke 6:26.


I note that McKim's bio says he is working on a book on the implications of religious diversity. Isn't that perfect? As a prof. myself, this episode makes me depressed if not sick. Carl, you are right: "If McKim is intent on not offending people, he is surely working in the wrong field." Ironically, usually profs. brag about shattering students preconceptions. The problem here is 100 percent the sacred cow topic. It is becoming increasingly clear there is no "neutral" ground on homosex. Either you endorse it as OK and having inherent dignity as a sexual expression, or you think it is wrong and sinful, and are vilified as a puritan dinosaur who also thinks the earth is flat, women should be barefoot & pregnant, and Palin should be Prez. In the blogosphere, Breitbart is evil and Andrew Sullivan sainted. Homosexuality is unfortunately a telltale flashpoint now, and an example of an issue that uncomfortably will not allow for moral deflections. Churches had best begin patiently discussing their counter-cultural teaching with their members.

Charles E Flynn

Once a university has decided that there is no objective truth, even in the physical sciences, that students are consumers, and that the university has the right to invent a bogus parallel judiciary, rather than following local, state, and federal laws, all kinds of embarrassing and catastrophic failures are inevitable.


Howard, I think that those passages can be applied here, but I also think that it is dangerous to not look at the wider picture, not necessarily to put up a political fight, but at least to know where we are and what we can expect. I fear there are large numbers of Catholics and non-Catholic Christians who are blithely ignorant of the enemy arrayed against them.

That is why Joe's suggestion is exactly the right one. Churches had best begin patiently discussing their counter-cultural teaching with their members.

I think that many of us have been under the delusion that there actually can be a neutral ground. There can be no detente with the Satan, and he is the one driving these battles here and there all over America. What we have imagined was neutral ground was only the intervening space as society morphed from dominantly Christian to dominantly secular humanist. What we are seeing is the tail-end of the transfer zone. Because we spent most of our lives in that zone we didn't realize that it was transitory. It seemed normal and permanent.

We need to realize that these attacks on Christianity, this limiting of religious free expression especially if it is Christian, will not peak and level out. It will only accelerate into outright persecution. There is no neutral ground. The difference is that under Christian domination, tolerance of other religions, of atheism, etc., while not perfect, is always at its best, because of the nature of Christianity. Under secular humanism, tolerance is no longer important because it was only a means to an end, not a deeply held principle.


I think the fact that this university has decided there's no objective truth is the real issue. Their main concern is not offending anyone and making money. That's just short sighted. And, McKim can work in this hotbed field without offending anyone because obviously his goal is not to form students that understand the truth about different religions but to understand religion from a dispassionate viewpoint so that one can restructure the tenets based on the filter of tolerance. Isn't that just like so much of culture.

The sad thing is that one can never truly have dialogue with people of other religions unless there is absolute truth in the presentation of what they believe. McKim is failing his students miserably. They can't be sure of any teaching really because the handling of Catholicism is so botched. Are they learning the real truth of any religions in the curriculum? Or is it a presentation filtered through what the professor believes should be omitted? It's hard to say. If I entered into dialogue with someone from another religion, I would want to really know what they believe. Otherwise, I might say something stupid and seriously offend the other person.

Teo Matteo

How can a University have an Interest?
What he means is that: the people in charge at this university will dictate what is said here. Hmm... that's worth my $$$ to send my kid to!?!

Kevin J Jones

"I think the fact that this university has decided there's no objective truth is the real issue."

If they decided there's no objective truth, they wouldn't be treating certain sexual acts as objective goods which should not be questioned. They are committed to the principle of non-discrimination against Christian tradition, which is not the same as being committed to relativism

“The university has an interest in not offending people,” the university administrator said.

Of course by "people" he doesn't mean Catholics, he means something like "the faculty at Harvard" or "our gay friends."


The bizarre thing is that the connection between religion and the morality of homosexuality is something every Religious Studies major should understand. Even if students are taught that this is obviously wrong, wrong, wrong they need to be taught it. If they don't teach it the university should give them their tuition back. Such a huge failure to educate people on a much talked about issue directly related to their major just makes me wonder what they think they exist for. It is like being a music major and never discussing a guitar. It is like right in the middle of their chosen field of study.

The comments to this entry are closed.

Ignatius Insight


Ignatius Press

Catholic World Report


Blogs & Sites We Like

June 2018

Sun Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri Sat
          1 2
3 4 5 6 7 8 9
10 11 12 13 14 15 16
17 18 19 20 21 22 23
24 25 26 27 28 29 30
Blog powered by Typepad