That’s the question that the board of regents of Seton Hall University is asking itself.
You see, one of their associate professors—W. King Mott—is scheduled to teach a course on homosexual “marriage” this fall.
According to The Setonian,
A course on gay marriage will be offered by the Women and Gender studies department next semester at Seton Hall University.
W. King Mott, an associate professor of political science and a member of the Women and Gender Studies program, will teach the course.
The class is not an advocacy course, according to Mott. Rather, it teaches the issue of gay marriage from an academic perspective.
“It is one thing to say ‘I am for or against gay marriage,’” Mott said. “It’s another to actually understand the issue.”
The course will teach various cultural perspectives of marriage, such as Eurocentric and Asian views, Mott said.
The course will also include an analysis of the contemporary political situation regarding gay marriage, such as Proposition 8 in California. Additionally, it will include a look at which states allow and prohibit gay marriage and what that means, Mott said.
Finally, students taking the course will write an analysis on gay marriage from a perspective they choose after they have been educated on the issue.
Also according to The Setonian,
Mott, however, does not think it is unusual for a Catholic university to offer a class such as this one.
“The best schools offer controversial classes,” Mott said. “The class is not about advocacy, but about studying the issue from an academic perspective. It’s about awareness.”
Mott said he did his own research for the class, and he also writes and publishes on queer theory.
Queer theory is the “academic study of anything from an outsider’s point of view,” Mott said.
It is not just about homosexuals, but can involve anything from civil rights to women’s rights.
This is not the first time a class has been offered at Seton Hall incorporating aspects of queer theory.
Mott has also taught classes on political movements of the 20th century, which includes LGBT movements and women’s movements.
However, this is the first time a class exclusively considered “queer” has been offered on campus, Mott said.
Depending on student responses the class may be offered in future semesters.
Not so fast.
It isn’t only student response that will have a role in determining whether the course will be offered in future semesters . . . or in the coming one.
According to Newark Archbishop John J. Myers,
As the shepherd of the Archdiocese of Newark, I am responsible for maintaining the Catholic identity of all Church institutions and organizations within the Archdiocese, and for ensuring authentic and orthodox Catholic teaching in all educational institutions and parishes. That responsibility extends to our Catholic elementary and high schools, to our parish religious education programs for both adults and children, and to the Catholic colleges and university operating within my jurisdiction.
Recent news that a course on same-sex marriage is proposed for the fall schedule at Seton Hall University troubles me greatly.
The Church teaches - and has continued to teach for two millennia - that marriage is a union of man and woman, reflecting the complementarity of the sexes. That teaching precedes any societal connotation of marriage, and is based on natural law.
This proposed course seeks to promote as legitimate a train of thought that is contrary to what the Church teaches. As a result, the course is not in synch with Catholic teaching.
And there’s more to the story. New Jersey’s Star-Ledger, writes concerning the professor scheduled to teach the course,
Mott, who is gay, has clashed with the church and university officials before. In 2005, he was demoted from his post as associate dean of Seton Hall’s College of Arts and Sciences after his letter challenging the church’s view on homosexuality was published in The Star-Ledger.
School officials objected to Mott signing the letter with his Seton Hall title, causing confusion about whether he was speaking on behalf of the university. The letter said the church unfairly scapegoats gay men for the clergy sex abuse scandal.
Faculty members protested Mott’s demotion, arguing school officials violated his academic freedom when they punished him for writing a letter. But Seton Hall’s provost upheld the demotion and Mott, who has tenure, remained on campus as a prominent professor.
He currently serves as the chairman of university’s faculty senate and as one of 12 members of the search committee looking for Seton Hall’s next president.
So it’s interesting that when the board of regents met Thursday, that they neither reached decisions on whether to allow the homosexual marriage course to go forward nor announced a decision on whether to hire the sole “remaining finalist” to be the university’s next president—the remaining finalist being a longtime friend of Myers.
“Who is that?” you ask.
It’s Msgr. Stuart Swetland.
Swetland, a Navy veteran and Rhodes Scholar, was raised a Lutheran and converted to Catholicism. Ordained in 1991, he has been a local parish priest and spent more than a decade as director of the Catholic student centers at Bradley University and the University of Illinois.
He is also the host of “Catholicism on Campus,” a show on the religion-themed cable television network EWTN.
So interesting things are happening on the campus of Seton Hall University.
Just how neutral do you imagine the proposed course would be? And should a Catholic school be offering a “neutral” course on an intrinsic evil (or rather, in this case, an intrinsic impossibility that involves an intrinsic evil)?
What are your thoughts?
Comments
Post a Comment
“From an academic perspective” are code-words for muddle the subject and tacitly support it. It’s so cliche that it would be surprising that this slight of hand is still used often if it weren’t tragic how common it is in Catholic universities.
Most Sacred Heart of Jesus, have mercy on us!
Maybe I’ve been out of the loop too long, but are single topic courses the norm in universities these days? Instead of blowing a whole semester, couldn’t the issues arising from gay marriage just as easily be discussed for a week or so in the context of another social science class? Devoting months to the topic seems like an attempt at indoctrination as the Archbishop implies.
“Should Catholic School Offer Course On Homosexual Marriage?” OF COURSE NOT!!! What utter nonsense. How will a “homosexual marriage” course better one’s intellectual pursuits? Absurd. That subject can be covered in a religion class on morality,
it needs no more than that and I certainly would never pay for such a class for my child.
To be an true intellectual is to search for the truth. Teaching a lie (same-sex “marriage”) and not treating it as a lie is not a true intellectual pursuit.
The purpose of marriage is to procreate. How can a homosexual “pairing” ever produce a child? Two males cannot procreate. Two females cannot procreate. To use the word “marriage in relation to homosexuality is utterly erroneous. Homosexuality is nothing more than for carnal pleasure.
According to the Setonian, Msgr. Swetland addressed the Seton Hall campus on the issue of the marriage course debate, saying: “Catholic universities are really free. We can talk about anything… we can integrate faith and reason.”
I have two children that have graduated from a Catholic University, never was there an issue so bizzare that had to be addressed, such as the one on gay marriage at Seton Hall. This course has no place in our Catholic Universities or any other Catholic schools. What you are dealing with is openly gay professor, who seems to be a loose cannon and has had other issues regarding same type situation. I respect everyone’s believe, no matter what it may be, but not to be taught in a school that teaches the Catholic Mission. Repect Archbishop Meyer’s and God Bless him. I would not send my child to Seton Hall if this nonsense about gay marriage was taught. Keep our Catholic beliefs and Church respected.
If the truth were taught about gay “marriage” (lack of fidelity, abuse issues, true role of marriage) an unbiased person would conclude that gay “marriage” should not be supported. But don’t count on Mott, who is gay and writes about queer theory, to provide an un-slanted point of view. I imagine that there are limitless numbers of people who would love to make a living teaching others about their pet sin.
Why not just give Satan tenure and have him teach a class: “Did God REALLY say homosexuality is a sin?” I’m sure the Father of Lies who was a murderer from the beginning could convince many students they were just intolerant humans who didn’t love their fellow men as God intended. At the very least, he’d leave a few very confused and, like Adam and Eve, thinking they, not God, should decide what is right and what is wrong.
I could see having a course on marriage in which gay marriage was discussed along with other challenges to marriage (adultery,open marriage, polygamy,etc.). It could be called “Love and Responsibility”. But if the focus of the course is on these challenges to marriage rather than on what marriage *is*, that would be inappropriate.
Having taken several “women’s studies” classes at university (that’s what these “women & gender studies” classes used to be called a quarter of a century ago when I was in college, back before advocating the LGBT agenda was so acceptable among non-academics), all I can say is “DON’T trust ANY “women & gender studies” professor to teach anything controversial in a “neutral” manner, much less a w&gs; professor who is openly gay and openly rebellious to the teachings of the Catholic Church to teach it at a Catholic university! Joanne S. said it perfectly above when she suggested it would be almost just as effective to give Satan himself tenure and let him teach the class. I hope this college is not allowed to call itself Catholic anymore if it persists in teaching this brain-washing, anti-Catholic “class.” (Brian, your post above about what it means to be a true intellectual is perfect and says it all!)
We in the Catholic faith have an obligation to present the truth. The truth is that He made them male and female.
For a Catholic College to teach otherwise is a perversion of the truth. Perhaps instead of a Gender Studies program, there should be a Theology of the Body program presenting John Paul II’s magnificent body of work on sexuality, marriage, and other truths. How about it?
@Jocille: If the purpose of marriage is procreation, should we ban marriage for older people? For the infertile, complete with required fertility tests?
If the teacher lives up to the standards of academia and doesn’t use the course to try to convince students that gay marriage is good, then I think the class is an excellent idea. It is a very important issue that Catholics should study. How else will we be able credibly to defend traditional marriage? If the administration is concerned, they should simply require the professor to submit a detailed syllabus in advance.
I don’t feel traditonal marriage should have to be defended at the university level. I would think at that point attending a Catholic University you either have made your decision and if you haven’t or you have doubt, the professor in question may be very instrumental in a negative way. This of course is my way of looking at it and again sharing thoughts are very important in decision making.
Dave:
There is another purpose to marriage, which I should have mentioned in my original comment. That purpose is to bring your spouse closer to God in order to save his/her soul. That is the goal when an elderly couple marry.
Obviously saving the soul of a partner cannot be done in a homosexual “relationship”.
Well, when considering what Catholic College’s I might want to send my children to, I can cross Seton Hall off the list!
Any other intrinsic evils they want to “banter about?” How about…“Murder, is it really so bad?” And a follow up course titled “The Fun of Infidelity!” And they call themselves Catholic…sheesh!
In regard to the comment, one of the purposes of getting married is to save your partners soul, is so far from the truth, whether you are young or old or homosexual or not. The only person to bring you and your soul closer to God would be you. How to you plan to save someone’s soul.
In regard to sending your children to A Catholic University, you mention youn wouldn’t send them to Seton Hall, well that is your lose, since obviously you don’t have a clue about the University. Just writing ridiculous, making no sense statements, however you might want to try Notre Dame where their commencement speaker, oh you remember him don’t you? Also the President of the University allowed him to speak, forcing the graduating students to go off by themselves, with the selected clergy, because they stood up for what they stand for. If condeming A good school like SHU makes you happy, all the more power to you. Oh and by the way you have to have the grades to be accepted. Not sure that can happen.
Truefaith36
Yes, I agree with you about Notre Dame. They were also crossed off my list a while back. And MANY more “Catholic” University’s, that are Catholic in name only. It’s very sad.
Are you implying that you don’t see anything wrong with a CATHOLIC University teaching a course on “homosexual marriage?” It’s an intrinsic evil!
I do know a little about Seton Hall. Two seminary students (now Priests) who are friends of ours went to school there for part of their schooling. They both said that some of the Professors there were “way off base.” Now I know just how far off base they really are!
True Faith 36:
I suggest you check out Canon Law 1055.1 on Marriage.
I agree, you cannot save anyone’s soul, but your own, but you can help another to save their own soul.
Kathy, If you read my comments about the class on gay marriage, you should know I’m totally against it, as well as Archbishop Meyers. I agree in every university there are some loose canons. That doesn’t mean we don’t support those in the school that feel the same way you and I feel. I’m happy to know professors and theologians at SHU. It gives me a better insight as to this situation. Your friends from the seminary who are now priests, as you stated, should not be speaking negatively about the professors that are way out, especially to you. I would think they might want to take it to a higher authority. Sounds like gossip to me. I’m praying for SHU, hope you do the same.
Jocille, I think we all would like to try and save someone’s soul. I’m well aware of your suggested reading. As I’m well aware of my Catholic beliefs. My concern at this time is to pray that SHU does not have to go through all this nonsense about gay marriage classes and continue to teach in the high quality it has since 1856. Enough said.
True Faith 36, I’m sure there are some excellent, faithful, faith-filled professors at Seton Hall University; however, if a “Catholic” college allows such poison to be fed to impressionable young men and women in the form of teaching them things that are contradictory not only to the Catholic faith but also to natural law—promoting an intrinsically disordered “evil” (the Catechism’s words, not mine) as a “good” equal to a sacrament—well, that university should no longer be allowed to call itself “Catholic.” You justify this by saying that all universities have “loose cannons”; however, the university has the final say in what classes are and are not allowed to be taught in its institution, so the proverbial “buck” stops with the university.
Think of it this way: if a cereal company made a cereal that gives a person 100% of the vitamins and minerals needed for a day, but they also add 0.1% cyanide, should that company be allowed to call that product “food”? Most of what it contains is very healthful stuff, after all. But the stuff in it that ISN’T healthful will kill you! Same with a Catholic university that teaches that an intrinsic evil is good—it should not be allowed to market that poisonous (to the soul) “food” under the guise of “Catholicism.” After all, that one class, the 0.1% of what this university would be teaching, could very well have farther-reaching effects than would might foresee—not only for the students that take this class and swallow this poison, but for their peers, family members, and friends—all of to whom the students could turn around and “feed” this same poison—as well as the “outside world,” which, by the very fact that a “Catholic” university is teaching such a course, will take it as a sign that Catholic moral teachings are changeable and up for debate. (And by the way, if you think that this professor will not subtly try to influence the students to believe that gay “marriage” is a good thing, or at least a morally-nueutral thing, then you are deluding yourself. See my earlier post about that.) Of course we need to pray for this professor and this university, but we also need to protect the integrity of the true faith by not allowing such poison to be marketed as “Catholic” if it is to be marketed at all.
Kathy, I could not agree with you more, I’m definitely in your way of thinking regarding all the issues that are on the table. It was not right that the provost and the political science dept approved this be fore seeing his syllabus, although it shouldn’t have matter either way. Hope the Archbishop who is on the Board of Regents can cancel the class as well as professor Mott. In all of my years connected to Seton Hall, you didn’t have to be catholic to teach, but you had to believe in the Catholic mission, therefore not influencing their thoughts on our Catholic students. This course definitely does not belong at SHU. I do believe his influnence is deadly. As someone else say we may just give Satan tenure. Pray and support the Archbishop. Enjoyed your thoughts.
Let’s forget the fact that this man is gay for a moment. Please explain to me why a man who is educated in the subject of political science qualified to teach anything about marriage? Maybe he could teach a class on abortion procedure next semester. No wonder people send there Catholic kids off to these over-priced, profit driven schools and they come out having no Catholic moral foundation at all. Maybe if mom and dad stopped paying 30 grand a year for this sort of uh, crap, the school officials would become more catholic.
Jesus, we need ya…...
TMC, you raise a couple of good points. Let’s go back to your first. Why does Seton Hall have an openly gay activist working as a professor there?
The Catholic teaching on marriage is a restatement of that taught by the Jewish Rabbis for at least 1000 years before the coming of Christ. They are both based on Genesis which clearly sets out why God created man and woman. If a Catholic University grants tenure to someone who either does not believe in God our ignores such a fundamental teaching that has been maintained until the coming of the present generation of academics it should cease calling itself Catholic.
No Catholic institution can give up Jesus or His Church teachings. It is their duty to uphold the Catholic teachings and to announce that the Church considers it as the TRUTH. Under this circumstance, how can gay marriage be a subject for lecture by a gay person in a Catholic University ? At this rate if one wants a class to show cleverness and ingenuity in the performance of theft or adultery , will it be permissible. The Catholic institution should be fisrt and last a Catholic one and nothing else.
All this happens because of false sense of secularism and democracy and toleration in the Western society. The so called “sex Orientaion ” started only a decade or two ago. A slender minority on account of absence in the moral values started arguing for their freedom It has now become serious illness for the nation. Only sincere faith in morality and religion can take them away from this slush civilization. The responsible Church and dedicated lay catholics can work hard to teach the truth and create awareness of the wrong trend. It is reversible if dedicated people pray and work peacefully.leave64
No academic value here at all!!!!!
Mother Seton, pray for us!
Well, I guess we could go on pretending it doesn’t exist instead of having an honest and open discussion. Is the Catholic church afraid of the truth
Previous comment: Why not just give Satan tenure and have him teach a class: “Did God REALLY say homosexuality is a sin?”
Hence the problem. God did NOT say homosexuality is a sin. There is a difference between being a “homosexual” and engaging in homosexual acts. Even the church agrees that there is no cure for homosexuality. The church just wants them to repress their sexual desires and remain celibate for their entire lives. Frankly, it’s debatable that the bible even says anything about homosexual acts. It’s certain that there is absolutely nothing in the bible that Jesus ever said anything about homosexual acts. This comment is not only wrong, but dishonest.
It’s unfortunate that the Church’s teaching on this issue so disjointed and purposefully confusing as to contribute the the misunderstanding that Joanne perpetuates.
How much time does this comment box remain here before it deletes everything someone writes????? Darn it!
I’ll have to start my answer to Paul all over again:
Paul: I did not say that people with same-sex attraction are sinners merely because they are tempted. Sex outside of marriage between a man and a woman is sinful, regardless if it’s heterosexual or homosexual.
Jesus made it clear that God made woman for man “from the beginning,” blessed marriage at Cana, called sex between divorced people “adultery,” condemned sex outside marriage (Samaritan woman at the well, woman caught in adultery, etc.). If I have to remain chaste as a woman not currently married, it’s no worse for those with same-sex attraction. Priests and nuns, single people, etc. must all be chaste. What gives homosexuals special privileges to sin?
Paul: I had to rush my reply above so it wouldn’t all be timed out, but I do have to add one more thing. You say the church has “even” acknowledged that there is no cure for homosexuality. That is simply not true. The church has made no such statement. No one knows what causes homosexuality, although there is much evidence provided by the Catholic Medical Association and psychological associations that homosexuality is disordered for a host of reasons not genetic. Claims that there is a gene for homosexuality have been disproved. But even if that were not the case, same-sex attracted people would still be required to remain chaste—which is why the church has no need to come up with the causes of homosexuality. Homosexuals, on the other hand, who wish to act out, would like people to believe it is genetic so that they have an excuse to behave in a disordered way.
For someone to claim that homosexual acts were never condemned (like all sins) in the Bible… hmm, which Bible are they reading?
And yes, the Church has always been open to the truth,
it is the only religion that was founded by Christ Himself who gave us the TRUTH.
What other religion is protected by the guidance of the Holy Spirit when it comes to Faith and Morals. Only the Roman Catholic Church. So NO the Catholic Church is not afraid of the truth Jamie.
Instead of going back and forth with one another, keep in mind what the issue is at hand. This course that must not run in the fall on gay marriage, taught by a loose cannon openly gay professor. those of us Catholics don’t believe there is a place for it. Those of us who believe in the Catholic mission, lets protect our children and support Seton Hall. Pray that the right decision is made. Let Professor Mott teach in a school that will accept influencing kids that is what he is doing. That is what we should be supporting. Pray for Archbishop Meyers and all those making the finally decision. Most importantly pray for our kids. WE choose to send our kids there not just for academia, but for moralty and ethics as well.
Paul,
God’s ways do not change with popular culture. Society’s “fads” come and go, but a sin will always be a sin.
You asked : “Did God REALLY say homosexuality is a sin?”
Why do YOU think God destroyed Sodom and Gomorrah?
Where do you think the word sodomy comes from?
Paul, what scripture supports homosexuality? You claim the Bible doesn’t address it but the story of Lot, Gomorrah and the homosexuals who came to rape the angels of God is pretty “nondebateable“. Homosexuals are not the only sinners God calls to repress what comes “naturally” to them. What do you find so “confusing” and “disjointed” in the catechism/magisterial on homosexuality? Any examples??? There is no way a Catholic university should give a soap box to a homosexual change agent pretending to be teaching. It would be a tacit stamp of approval and the university won’t really be Catholic anymore, just another secondary indoctrination center for the social engineers.
To fight the enemy, we need to understand the enemy. Since we Catholics understand that homosexuality (not a mere tendency to it but the actual act) is an intrinsic evil, then it can be considered an “enemy.” I do not see a reason to learn about it as long as it is not advocating a position. If anything, this can arm us in our “fight” with dealing with this social cancer with tenderness and charity to those affected.
However, this is just said in my humble opinion and I submit these to the Holy Mother Church and her bishops.
When I said “a position,” I actually meant “a pro-sin position”
Post a Comment
By submitting this form, you give The National Catholic Register permission to publish this comment. Comments will be published at our discretion, and may be edited for clarity and length. For best formatting, please limit your response to one paragraph and don't hit "enter" to force line breaks.