Loyola Marymount and the Thought Police

OK, I haven’t delved into this story since so many sane people already have, but I just can’t take it anymore!  Not going to quote much, so read it yourself:  http://www.dailywire.com/news/5338/catholic-college-employee-investigated-police-amanda-prestigiacomo

First of all, I think we can all agree (or we at least have to face the facts) that the AVERAGE college student/millennial’s maturity has been severely stunted.  I really can’t figure out why.  Maybe Gen X tried to make life a little too comfortable for their kids?  Haven’t we heard a million times that we should make the lives of future generations better than our own?  Maybe that was the problem.  Society removed a few too many obstacles and now these kids are just bored and lost.  Whatever the reason, they are just plain immature.

Because of their stunted maturity, I’d like to suggest that these kids totally qualify under Matthew 18:6-7 and that the vast majority of the faculty of Loyola Marymount (a Jeusit college – a shocker, I know) might want to go find their milltones, because you’re going to have to pay up for what you’ve promoted at your school.  It may have started in their childhood with their parents, or possibly the twelve years of Catholic schooling they received before they ever got to you, but you’ve added insult to injury, and everyone who molded these students is going to face a reckoning.

And if anyone hurts the conscience of one of these little ones, that believe in me, he had better have been drowned in the depths of the sea, with a mill-stone hung about his neck. 7 Woe to the world, for the hurt done to consciences! It must needs be that such hurt should come, but woe to the man through whom it comes!

Do you think Loyola Marymount remembered it was the “Year of Mercy” before they started to investigate and have the police investigate their own staff member for a hate crime???  Probably not.  Mercy only goes one way with these people.  The ONLY person who has shown any mercy in this story is the employee who bothered to share a shred of truth with the students on that campus.  Thank you, unnamed employee.  You appeared to have known that this was going to be an issue, yet you trudged forth anyway. Your reward will be great in heaven. 

So let’s look at some facts here:

  • Loyola Marymount doesn’t actually believe in science, so if you’re thinking of science as a degree, I’d rule that one out. There are only two genders.  It’s totally biological and it’s in our DNA and cannot be separated nor changed.
  • Loyola Marymount has a Bias Incident Response Team which, apparently, is called in to weed out faithful Catholics. What is BIRT you may ask? 


BIRT’s Charge

The purpose of BIRT is to manage institutional communication and university-wide responses to incidents where bias may be a factor. Duties include making recommendations to the president on proposed responses, developing university communication protocols, and reviewing bias incident reports.


Excerpt from LMU’s Non-Discrimination Policy Concerning Biased Incidents

The university does not tolerate hate crimes or bias-motivated incidents and will respond to them with appropriate sanctions, which may include: for students, expultion [sic – too bad a Catholic university can’t be bothered with something as basic as proper spelling!], suspension, or exclusion from the campus; for faculty and staff, disciplinary action up to and including termination. Students, faculty, or staff who experience or witness any form of hate crime or bias-motiavted [sic – ditto on spelling properly] incident should immediately report it to the Department of Public Safety.


One of the students reported an employee for espousing the teachings of the Catholic Church on a Catholic campus?!?  Color me Catholic, but aren’t we supposed to be biased TOWARD Catholicism?!?!?!  We do consider it Truth, after all.  Well, at least some of us do.  Not entirely sure about most of the Jesuits. 

  • Which brings me to the fact that Loyola Marymount considers teaching Catholicism and science to be a hate crime. 

Seriously, the words “thought police” now have some actual meaning outside of the dystopian novel “1984.”  By the way, if you haven’t already and you want to have your kids really see what’s going on in today’s world, you might want to have them read it. 

Remember when universities were promoted as “a place for the free exchange of ideas?”  “Free” has been abused to the hilt.  There is no more looking at opposing views, trying to understand them, and figuring out ways to debate them.  Universities (especially Jesuit ones) no longer want opposing view even discussed.  Nope.  Cannot even be uttered.  Those with opposing views are marginalized, ostracized, and now, prosecuted.  Doesn’t get more Orwellian than that.

  • Loyola Marymount chooses to completely ignore Pope Francis’ comments on the little game they’re trying to play. 

Here’s a nice compilation: http://cnsnews.com/commentary/dr-paul-kengor/pope-francis-vs-demon-gender-theory  Ouch!  What do you say, Loyola Marymount?  Going to call out the BIRT on him too?

And then there’s Pope Benedict.  They don’t just ignore him, they rail against him.  They really don’t want anyone to see his explanation on gender and nature.  He’s definitely hateful and, BTW, he was part of the Hitler Youth. Who are they going to call out for him?  BIRT might be a little to light weight.   http://w2.vatican.va/content/benedict-xvi/en/speeches/2012/december/documents/hf_ben-xvi_spe_20121221_auguri-curia.html (emphasis mine):

While up to now we regarded a false understanding of the nature of human freedom as one cause of the crisis of the family, it is now becoming clear that the very notion of being – of what being human really means – is being called into question. He quotes the famous saying of Simone de Beauvoir: “one is not born a woman, one becomes so” (on ne naît pas femme, on le devient). These words lay the foundation for what is put forward today under the term “gender” as a new philosophy of sexuality. According to this philosophy, sex is no longer a given element of nature, that man has to accept and personally make sense of: it is a social role that we choose for ourselves, while in the past it was chosen for us by society. The profound falsehood of this theory and of the anthropological revolution contained within it is obvious. People dispute the idea that they have a nature, given by their bodily identity, that serves as a defining element of the human being. They deny their nature and decide that it is not something previously given to them, but that they make it for themselves. According to the biblical creation account, being created by God as male and female pertains to the essence of the human creature. This duality is an essential aspect of what being human is all about, as ordained by God. This very duality as something previously given is what is now disputed. The words of the creation account: “male and female he created them” (Gen 1:27) no longer apply. No, what applies now is this: it was not God who created them male and female – hitherto society did this, now we decide for ourselves. Man and woman as created realities, as the nature of the human being, no longer exist. Man calls his nature into question. From now on he is merely spirit and will. The manipulation of nature, which we deplore today where our environment is concerned, now becomes man’s fundamental choice where he himself is concerned. From now on there is only the abstract human being, who chooses for himself what his nature is to be. Man and woman in their created state as complementary versions of what it means to be human are disputed. But if there is no pre-ordained duality of man and woman in creation, then neither is the family any longer a reality established by creation. Likewise, the child has lost the place he had occupied hitherto and the dignity pertaining to him. Bernheim shows that now, perforce, from being a subject of rights, the child has become an object to which people have a right and which they have a right to obtain. When the freedom to be creative becomes the freedom to create oneself, then necessarily the Maker himself is denied and ultimately man too is stripped of his dignity as a creature of God, as the image of God at the core of his being. The defence of the family is about man himself. And it becomes clear that when God is denied, human dignity also disappears. Whoever defends God is defending man.


Does anyone find it ironic that you find more “free thinking” people at a faithful Catholic university than at a liberal university who considers them to be “oppressive”, “narrow-minded”, “hateful”, and “judgmental”? I love watching the kids come out of these schools where they supposedly teach nothing but hate.  I’ve seen people walk up to these students and practically spit in their face about some point of the faith, yet they will respond with a “Let’s talk about that,” which either shocks and amazes the person or sends their head spinning.  They don’t actually know how to have a conversation.  They only know how to hatefully espouse their opinion.  Listening, studying, and understanding another person is a foreign concept.  All they can do is say, “hate, hate, hate, hate.”  Again, rather ironic.  Where’s the love and mercy there?  There isn’t any.  True love and mercy is not found in these liberal, Jesuit schools.  They have utterly failed their students.  They sacrificed compassion a long time ago for the sake of political correctness.

The scariest part about this whole story?  This:

Carleo said, “‘[Y]ou can have your opinion’ as long as it doesn’t ‘deny my existence,’

Since the unnamed employee obviously thought she was having a conversation with somebody, it’s not about denying anyone’s existence.  This is about Carleo and club denying freedom of speech and religion.  Carleo is saying that the unnamed employee cannot have an opinion if it contradicts the one? Apparently the supposed ROMAN CATHOLIC Loyola Marymount University wholeheartedly agrees!

Sad and pathetic, but I’ve come to expect that from a school run by Jesuits. 




28 thoughts on “Loyola Marymount and the Thought Police

  1. The entire Jesuit order at univ.
    level needs to be Reformed or abolished as Templars were in 1300,s for apostate actions. L.M.U., U.S.F .and U.s.d are a Disgrace to California and the entire Catholic college system. Fordham, Fairfield and Marquette just as bad elsewhere

    Liked by 3 people

    1. Keep praying for them, Ed. From what I understand, there’s a good crop of them coming up to join the five good ones that already exist. (Just kidding. I’m sure there’s more but not too many.)


      1. Cardinal Newman society, Life site news and Church militant has a full time job keeping track of the zanies running loose at Jesuit, and Holy Cross(ND Indiana and HC- of Mass) Alleged Catholic colleges . HOW disgruntled ex Catholics and ex priests like P Lakeland at Fairfield of Ct. and D. McQuire end up teaching theology and religion at those schools for Years is Disturbing to say the least.

        Liked by 1 person

  2. Very good Mad Mom. I don’t think you left much out. I can’t comment now as I’ve got Mass to get to. It’s the student’s Mass;we’ve got an elementary school at our parish. God bless. Ginnyfree.

    Liked by 1 person

  3. “Loyola Marymount considers teaching Catholicism and science to be a hate crime.” This is sad and shocking. For a time, I wondered why these places even bother calling themselves Catholic. Then I realized, the so-called LGBT community wishes, not to eliminate the Catholic Church, but to take it over, to make its values the Church’s values. That seems ambitious, but since they managed to do this throughout the United States and Western Europe, it isn’t so far-fetched after all. I’m not sure how this state of affairs came to be in the first place, but the Church needs to get out front on this, or the Catholic “brand” of education will be permanently tainted. Perhaps a good first step would be for the dioceses in which these schools are located to withdraw support and cut ties. If necessary, go all the way to the Vatican to force them to remove “Catholic” from their name, as they are no longer Catholic.

    Liked by 2 people

      1. Oh buddy…
        So here I am, a student at lmu…and I read this…

        I don’t know where you come from, but this is utter nonsense…let’s break it down shalt we?

        First off and formost…and let’s just get it out of the way as it needs to be addressed.

        The people of the lgbt community are still just people, and ask and demand for equality and respect like an one else.
        For someone to say I don’t believe in your gender, does not make it so. I dont believe in war, yet here we are doing it perpetually in the name of oh so many fruitless ideals…

        I digress…
        This person ( who has had polarizing issues in the past) has not evolved with rest of the world. Is it hate crime to say you essentially don’t exist…
        Perhaps not, but we aren’t the deciders of that. The person who it is said to gets to make that judgement. There was even a conversation about this incident, and there was still hate issues about it. To trash the school for liberal indoctrination is a fallacy. Our conerstone is the promotion of social justice through the world. Respect should be given to all people lgbt or not, religous or not, bible thumper fundementalist, or atheists like myself. When you create a dialog that undermines the identity of a person, you treat them like a second class citizen…it’s simply wrong,and the lmu community will rise up against hate rehtoric and hyperbole. Because it’s the right thing to do.
        It’s not silencing or brainwashing or Satan’s liberal logic or whatever you want to call it…
        It’s about respect. And that person was disrespectful to my lgbt brothers and sisters…and yes he can say it, but that doesn’t mean his opinion will be well received.

        I stand with equality. I stand for minorities, I stand for lgbt, and against rehtoric and hyperbole that make people feel like less than they are.

        Can you say the same?


        1. Well, Samuel, I’m wondering just how far your tolerance will extend. You are an atheist. I respect that, so I won’t try to offer you Christ. But I expect the same respect from you.

          I am a Christian and acknowledge God as my Creator and worship Him as well as live by His Commandments. I am voluntarily bound to a particular way of life that includes the very nature of Jesuit spirituality which is to preach and teach the Gospel to all in all seasons and particularly to the ignorant. Part of this Gospel message that must be preached by Jesuits is the fact that a homosexual orientation is forbidden to be acted upon in the Christian life the moral theology of a Christian way of life. Another part of this message includes the historical record of how God dealt with the sins of sodomy et. al. found in our Scriptures. The school in question is Jesuit FIRST, and a school SECOND. That means its primary focus is to impart the Gospel truths and the Sacraments to those in need of each and its secondary focus is to provide sufficient education to its students so as to provide them with whatever they felt they needed to obtain from an education at a higher level, ie. preparation for a particular career or personal enrichment. Jesuits are Christian and they are vowed religious who are separated from the rest of us Christians and specifically prepared to preach and teach the Gospel message to all to whom they are sent. That is the heart of their lives as they are donated to Christ and His Church. It is the sole reason for their existence. Respect for all of this means you cannot decide for them how much of their works get completed. Nor does it mean any government can dictate to them just how and to whom or what of their works gets completed. And that means all governing bodies, whether of a State or local government or a governing body within a University.

          The problem outlined by Mad Mom is that there are those at the college who are attempting to regulate how these men, these vowed religious, are to spend their lives and this cannot be done by anyone except their legitimate Superiors. That is part of the problem. No one has any right to tell them anything at all. They bear the yoke of Christ. He is their Master and no other can take them from His Hand. That is their reality. The administration at the college has usurped His Authority over His men and have decided for them how they will deliver, if at all, their message of the Gospel. Some of their own have agreed that this is acceptable. It is not. These men are Christ’s and it is their school. That means the school itself exists for the glory of God and that is the primary purpose for which it can be legitimately sustained. This has been obscured in recent years by other things and is sorely needs to be “rediscovered” by those who actually own the buildings, the Jesuits. DUH! Private enterprise. Property rights. All those legal walls that properly applied and made use of could’ve prevented the encroachment that has insinuated itself into places it truly had no business at all. I repeat, the core of the Jesuit vocation is to march under the banner of Christ, preaching and teaching the Gospel message unadulterated to all to whom they are sent, bringing to certain persons the Sacraments and a thorough inculcation of the Christian way of life. That’s all. The preparation for a career that also occurs at a college or the preservation of academia is all secondary to their Vocation. If this is lost, then it remains a viable possibility to simply dissolve the relationship between the school and the Order. The Order could simply withdraw and problem solved. They can then focus on purifying themselves from the taint of the world with which they’ve wounded and heal. Yeppers, then the school would fall to diocesan ownership and administration or it could totally be sold to private persons and it would no longer be a Jesuit school or enterprise. It is an option. One other thing to think about and I know you don’t acknowledge the existence of this next reality, but I hope you try to comprehend what I’m about to say and respect it: the Jesuit as a whole bear a certain level of corporate guilt before God for a great deal of the sins that all of this is creating and sustaining. They cannot support a LGBTQ community because that is evil and it is sin compounded to such a level as to taint everything it touches. We as Christians cannot be accessory to the sins of others. The gravity of any sins committed by being accessory to mortal sin, whether mortal or venial, depends on three things: Intention, nature of the sin supported, and the circumstance, whether forced or voluntary. The very nature of the sins inherent in a LGBTQ lifestyle, whether the L, the G, the B, the T or the Q of it, are very mortal. There is nothing venial about any of it, and so those who do support it, encourage it, defend it, conceal it, command it, praise it, etc. are partaking in these sins and so render themselves unworthy to partake in the Sacraments until they remove themselves from these ways and attitudes. There are 9 ways a Christian can be accessory to the mortal sins of others and this is the very reason why the Jesuits are guilty corporately before God by allowing this insidious evil to obtain a foothold in their schools. The Superiors are guilty of mortal sins because of it. This is very serious stuff in the Religious Life of the Order. They have to act to end their participation in such grave matters. They could fall under an Interdict as a just remedy and it would be very just. So they need to act justly soon or go to Hell. This is the part of the spiritual aspects of these problems. I don’t expect you to agree with me and that really isn’t necessary at all nor does you agreement or disagreement have an bearing on the reality of all of this. It doesn’t change a thing nor impact the spiritual reality of it all. You simply need to understand and respect it. No Christian can support intrinsic evil and remain worthy to receive the Eucharist. But that is only the immediate consequence of doing so. Long term it damns those who do so. Being accessory to the sins of another can and do send souls to Hell. And that is why the LBGTQ stuff is so dangerous to us. We need to handle it with kid gloves. Love the is sinner but not his sin is one approach, but it isn’t the only one.

          So, why can you not respect this?

          God bless. Ginnyfree

          Liked by 1 person

  4. Okay. I’ve got a little time to chat, so I’ll start by answering Mad Mom’s question about who actually is BIRT. She’s already explained that they are a part of the campus life of Marymount and that they are charged with processing incidents of bias that the newer anti-discrimination policies are attempting to limit. In the “incident” regarding the employee who simply stated Church teaching to others who seemed interested in listening, we discover that there really was two versions of the alleged “incident,” at that those who are charged by the college to investigate such things are pretty much biased in favor of the LGBTQ community of persons who are a part of campus life and Marymount. It is they who are twisting the truth of what actually happened to make it seem as if there really was a hate crime. Of course they do. They have to because that is what they were organized to find and deal with, so they interpret actual interactions with rainbow colored glasses. They’ve be given the task of finding those persons who actually hate gays and would hurt them and by gosh, by golly, they are going to give it the Old College Try and will find a few even if they have to make it up. OOOOOOPS!
    Now, wanting to be charitable, I looked up the current dictates in the college’s policy manual that provide BIRT team members with their authority to do what it is they do for the school and since it is relevant, I will add it here: “Equal Opportunity & Non-Discrimination
    The University seeks to ensure a positive living, learning and working environment for all LMU community members. Specifically, this policy prohibits unwelcome, harassing conduct on the basis of race, religious creed (including religious dress and grooming practices), color, national origin (including language and language use restrictions), ancestry, disability (mental and physical) including HIV and AIDS, legally protected medical condition (cancer-related or genetic characteristics), denial of Family and Medical Care Leave, marital status, sex (including pregnancy, childbirth, breastfeeding or related medical condition), gender, gender identity, gender expression, age 40 or over, military or veteran status, sexual orientation, genetic information or any other bases protected by federal (including but not limited to Title VI and Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, Title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972, Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 and the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990), state or local law. The University does not discriminate on these bases, or any other basis protected by law, in the administration of any of its education or admissions policies, scholarship or loan programs, athletics, and other school-administered policies and programs, or in its employment policies and practices. All University policies, practices, and procedures are administered in a manner consistent with LMU’s Jesuit identity and character.” Okay, so by their actions, the BIRT team has successfully limited the ability of the College to actually discuss Catholicism in an authentic way outside of the classrooms anywhere on campus within earshot of any person who may take offense at what is being said. It is the BIRT team who will process any incident that gets reported to them in which a person is offended by the actions or words of another and that is NOT according to any Catholic standard, but rather of a standard of compliance with an agenda that seeks to silence the Church in the public square everywhere, and not simply on the well groom lawns of our colleges and universities as is outlined in the paragraph above. They’ve in effect, made preaching a crime on their campus if there is anyone who may be offended by preaching against the LBGTQ agenda within earshot.
    I guess, since the college has approved this and moved forward with it, it will get worse.

    What is also very troubling to me is the very last sentence of the paragraph I’ve quoted, the part about these policies being considered a part of the school’s Jesuit identity and character. Last time I checked these words couldn’t be reconciled to these that actually pretty much describe EXACTLY the authentic and more importantly authorized Jesuit identity and character:”He is a member of a Society founded chiefly for this purpose: to strive especially for the defence and propagation of the faith and for the progress of souls in Christian life and doctrine, by means of public preaching, lectures and any other ministration whatsoever of the Word of God, and further by means of retreats, the education of children and unlettered persons in Christianity, and the spiritual consolation of Christ’s faithful through hearing confessions and administering the other sacraments.” That paragraph is part of a Papal Bull, which the other paragraph has rendered bull of another sort. The Pope said they are supposed to preach under the banner of Christ all sound doctrine, but the BIRT team will be listening!

    Okay. Nuff said. God bless. Ginnyfree.

    Liked by 2 people

  5. Yes, it is a shame to see what a prestigious Jesuit University has become. It’s time to take the “Catholic” label off. We are fortunate in Ventura County, California to have St. Thomas Aquinas College. Such a contrast! As a medical professional, I see these patients with “gender dysphoria” undergo surgical procedures and hormone treatment to attempt to reverse their God-given gender. What you usually wind up with is some kind of “Frankenstein.” (Just look at Caitlin Jenner!) Deacon Vince

    Liked by 1 person

  6. As an involved student at LMU, I see and experience the diversity of perspectives and opinions on campus. You can’t make any of these claims without having experienced the kind of students that work at and attend LMU. Do I judge all of America for supporting Trump? No, I know not all of America agrees. LMU is a private Jesuit university, where students choose to attend at their own accord. They choose to join this lifestyle, choosing to take everything the university has. There is no oppression. You can trust me when I say there are many different opinions on campus. Yes, we teach Christianity. Yes, our mission statement is grounded on Catholic beliefs. Yes, we have a chapel on campus. However, LMU does teach science. We do offer Atheism classes. Students make their experience what they want. If religion is not a part of it, that’s their decision to make. The problem with this incident is that a staff member, who agreed to abiding by the school’s mission, code of conduct, etc. disrespected his/her duties to conduct him/herself by these rules. And lastly, the Jesuits are some of the most liberal Catholics. Which allows us to have an LGBT representation on campus. The author of this post seems to have been ignorant at the posting of this article. I hope you can read up.


    1. Adrianna writes: Yes, we teach Christianity. Yes, our mission statement is grounded on Catholic beliefs. Yes, we have a chapel on campus. However, LMU does teach science.

      You write that in the tired vein of Christianity and science do not mix, which is about as tired and disproven a trope as there is. It exposes a serious lack of understanding and oversimplified generalization on your part if true.

      It’s kind of difficult to take anything that you say seriously after that. The author of this comments seems to be ignorant of history. I hope she can read up.

      Liked by 1 person

  7. Adriana, did you ever stop to think that this is a Catholic school under the auspices of the Catholic Church and thus it should follow the rules of Catholic education? In short, LMU should be teaching Catholicism, not dissent. It’s goal is supposed to be to bring people to the Faith and nuture the Faith already there.

    You, also, spell out the problems at LMU. You seem to think everyone gets free speech as long as they contradict Church teaching and that, somehow, a faculty member is somehow breaking the code of conduct in teaching it. Rather twisted at a Catholic school. Don’t you think it should be more along the lines of “Welcome all but teach Catholicism is taught here” The students should be formed around Catholicism. Catholicism should not be formed around the students.

    The fact that you see Catholicism as oppression is kind of the problem. I hope you can read up on Catholicism and maybe delve into Canon Law in regards to Catholic education and maybe even the Catechism. You don’t know it, but you are being cheated.

    So, I fail to see where my ignorance lies. I now very well what’s allowed on that campus and all about the Jesuits. Please feel free to enlighten me.


  8. Nice to hear your opinions Adrianna. A few troublesome statements from you though: “We do offer Atheism classes.” This “class” flies in the face of all that a Jesuit is vowed to do – that is bring Christ to others by preaching, teaching and the Sacrament. This should not be allowed in any Catholic college or university. Affirming students in their anti-Christianity is not wise nor is it helpful to anyone. ” the Jesuits are some of the most liberal Catholics. Which allows us to have an LGBT representation on campus.” Liberal and Catholic shouldn’t be combined. It brings to mind Cafeteria Catholicism in which brings to mind those who pick and choose which Doctrines and Dogmas they will believe and which they will reject, meantime expecting their sense of entitlement includes any and all Sacraments that they may demand. Yet, from the tone of your message, I can only conclude that you think this is a good thing. It is NOT. Jesuits shouldn’t affirm people in their errors and call it justice. It is anything but just. God bless. Ginnyfree.

    Liked by 1 person

  9. I would like to point out that there are “Get to know your atheist buddies!” classes and classes that are on the fundamental problems with atheism. I don’t have a problem learning about cults like the Jehovah Witnesses or Mormons, atheism, world religions, etc. as long as they are put in the context of why Catholicism contains the complete Truth and the others are flawed and why.


  10. Are you aware of exactly what happened during this incident? It seems so funny to me that you paint this picture of the employee as a woman of God who decided that she was responsible for laying out the word of the lord for some students who had been led astray. You paint her as someone who only wanted to maintain LMU’s Catholic roots, and help lead the clearly misguided children of my generation into understanding.

    That’s not what happened.

    She went outside of her office building and tore out the signs that a student organization had worked hard to make and then have approved, and she threw them in the trash.

    Does that seem like someone with evangelical drive to you?

    There are honestly so many things twisted and diluted in this article, but I’m just going to say one thing. Jesus did not spit in the faces of those whose lifestyles he didn’t agree with – he dined with them, he washed their feet. He accepted them for where they are, but also gave them an opportunity to listen to what He believed. This is literally exactly what LMU (and most other Jesuit institutions) does for its students. It allows for a space of intellectual and spiritual growth that isn’t restricted by legalism or fear.


    1. Danamackk, just a quick apology before I respond. When you post here the first time it asks me to moderate. I was working from my phone. When went to approve it somehow I trashed it instead. When I got to my laptop to respond, it was in the trash. Sorry. No censoring. I only censor profanity and lewd comments.


    2. Umm, “Jesus did not spit in the faces of those whose lifestyles he didn’t agree with” Neither did the employee you’ve falsely accused of trashing signs. No one has any proof of her doing this thing. It is pure fabrication. But if enough people SAY she did it, then some folks will begin to BELIEVE she did it, and the lie will become reality in the minds of those who rely on hearsay to make up their minds. Is there any proof that she did what these people claim she did? And guess what? A fifteen year career shouldn’t be ended by false accusations. That is serious and grave harm to another that cannot be easily repaired. Looking at it from my angle, those posters could’ve been about an endangered species and it still isn’t such a grave harm done that a career should be ended and in such way as to cause loss of the ability to obtain similar employment elsewhere in the future! Over some cardboard pictures with words on them. Do you call this a just remedy? The punishment should fit the crime and in this case, there isn’t even any proof that the crime was committed by the employee in the first place. The last word in your comment is FEAR. That is exactly what this whole thing is about: making others FEAR crossing the LGBTQs on campus. It is a message of hate and a warning to others that if you cross us, we will make you pay. In a court, the cost of the cardboard is a few dollars and small claims would only award that much compensation and perhaps a fine for disorderly conduct and fees to the court IF THERE WAS PROOF POSITIVE OF GUILT. There isn’t any and it isn’t going to a court. Well, it may get to one if the employee can find the money to try and get her career and reputation out of the whole with competent legal counsel who doesn’t fear crossing the queers on campus and their allies.

      BTW, “Jesus did not spit in the faces of those whose lifestyles he didn’t agree with” but He is the same God who wiped all of mankind from the face of the planet in the Great Deluge. He is also the very same God who leveled Sodom, Gomorrah, and the surrounding Cities of the Plain as well as turned Lot’s wife into a pillar of salt for just glancing back at those lands of abomination. He is the same God who told us on the Sermon on the Mount that whoever even looks on a person with lust has already committed grave sin. You are talking about a whole “lifestyle” of mortal sins. No, He entrusts His Church to warn you and anyone else who needs to know that yes indeedie, if you are living in mortal sins and die, the price will be Hell and you will only have yourself to blame for it. The employee in the above “incident” did back off. I don’t sugar coat it: die in mortal sin, go straight to Hell. Homosexual acts are mortally sinful in all regards and cannot ever be venial. My love for my neighbor demands I tell them about this and let them grapple with it. Jesus died for you. If you really love someone who is gay, tell them it isn’t too late to change. And then help them actually do it. That is REAL love. Okie dokie. Nuff said. God bless. Ginnyfree.

      Liked by 1 person

  11. What is your source for what happened? Are you one of the students involved in the incident? Here’s what’s been said in the press at this time and appears to be backed by Carleo.

    “Carleo claims that the posters for “Rainbow Week” were taken down and placed behind a garbage can. She has not accused the unnamed employee of taking down the posters, as there is no evidence of this.”

    I have yet to read one article on the subject that says anyone saw the “unnamed employee” taking down the signs. Next, there is a completely counter story.

    “My wife is Catholic and a strong supporter of the Church, marriage and family, and Catholic morality. Of particular focus was the girls promotion of what they label “PanSexual” i.e. someone who participates (or prefers) every kind of sexual encounter. One of the girls identified herself as lesbian and accused my wife of not loving women. My wife pointed out she was called to love everyone, including the girls. She said she found the whole sexual labeling thing was causing confusion especially in the youth whose sexuality is still malleable. The girls agreed with my wife that they too disagreed with the ideas behind Pan-sexuality, claiming they wanted monogamy, but wanted to give it a label so people could identify themselves. My wife pointed out that this was promotion of these lifestyles not just labeling and this was offensive to her heart. It was lovingly expression of disagreement, and a legitimate exchange of ideas and reasons, with my wife defending the Truths of the Church, and listening with love to these girls ideas. One girl did ask if she thought they were going to hell, to which my wife gave the only legitimate Catholic response, that she could never say anyone is going to hell and “I’m not called to judge that”. However she could and had a right to disagree with signage that contradicted Catholic morality, especially at a so called Catholic University. My wife pointed out that none of the signs promoted Catholic teachings, it was the girls who suggested that Campus ministry place a sign promoting the Catholic idea of relationships next to their signs next year. My wife of course agreed. At the end everyone shook hands and my wife invited them into the Alumni office anytime they wanted to talk more. The girls express out loud how much they enjoyed the opportunity to ‘dialogue’ on these subjects with my wife. Everyone thanked the other upon leaving, the girls thanking my wife for her opinions and “appreciated the dialogue’.”

    and further…

    “My wife was informed this morning that she is suspended from her job of 15 years pending an investigation of this “incident”. No one got her side of the story. In addition there was an alumni witness who verified her accounts of the conversation. No one has spoken to him either.”

    so, there was a witness to the conversation.

    As far as Jesus goes…Remember flipping of tables and whips? Remember the “Go and sin no more!” things? Yes, indeed, Jesus dined with sinners but he didn’t say “I’m OK, you’re OK!” He calle them to conversion. Look at what the lady said about judging souls found above. This is right on the money. Please see https://onemadmomblog.wordpress.com/2015/05/15/buddy-jesus-is-not-your-buddy/ for more on this topic. You’ve been sold the “We shouldn’t judge!” bill of goods. The joke is YOU as well as I judge all the time. Are rapist peachy? How about the murderer? Gasp! You’re judging because you know darn well you condemn those actions. You’re willing to draw a line. Here’s the thing, I don’t actually draw the lines. God does and he tells us where they are through his Church. Your lines are drawn wherever YOU disapprove. God’s irrelevant.

    Liked by 1 person

  12. Alright, I usually don’t comment on posts like these, mostly because it’s so hard to interface with people over a screen. The loss of the humanity of all people involved leads to the quickened loss of a sense of lovingness and understanding that we as faithful Catholics are called to. In other words, it becomes harder to be charitable when attempting to respond to something written online with another things written online.

    With that said, I wanted to ask you, Mad Mom, what you think about this?
    “They only know how to hatefully espouse their opinion. Listening, studying, and understanding another person is a foreign concept. All they can do is say, “hate, hate, hate, hate.” Again, rather ironic. Where’s the love and mercy there? There isn’t any.” (That’s a direct quote from the second to last paragraph of the article.)

    This post is rather hateful. There seems to be no love or mercy for the people at LMU. There seems to be no listening or understanding (though lots of studying…) of the other’s opinion. And I’m not upset, and I understand you’re position, Mad Mom. You are trying to be a faithful, loving Catholic Woman. I respect your willingness to put your faith and your heart on the internet, which can be a cruel place. My only challenge is that you and I might both succumb to the same ability to a loss of charity. Regardless of our beliefs towards men and women within the LGBTQ+ (which we hold as Truth) does not mean that we do not still treat them as what they are: our brothers and sisters.

    Yes, Jesus flipped the tables in the temple and drove out the people with whips. Yes, Jesus said “Go and sin no more!” to the woman who had been saved from the stoning. Yes, there are other examples of Jesus acting in a way that was not being a “buddy buddy” to sinners. But he did all of it out of a righteous anger. Also, it is within our faith and Jesus was both fully human and fully divine. Jesus was God incarnate and walking on the earth. It is different for God to flip tables in anger out of people sinning within his home (the temple) and to command a woman whom he saved from earthly judgement to not sin anymore than for us to do it. Though he set an example of what we should do, that doesn’t literally mean to drive people out of the church and flip over the alter and pews. God’s knowledge is perfect; ours is not.

    God did command us in the Gospel of Matthew (which you also quoted from in the article) to love our neighbors as ourselves (Matthew 22:36-40), and the in the separating of the sheep from the goats (Matthew 25:31-46) calls us to service of those “least ones,” and claims that he is present in them. I think that to find God in all things, and to do all things Ad Majorem Dei Gloriam (For the greater glory of God) means to love one another, to pray for one another, and to be present with one another. Thank you for your service, and I pray that the both of us may find God’s will for us in how we love his people.


  13. For clarity, I’m going sandwich my comments between yours:

    “This post is rather hateful. There seems to be no love or mercy for the people at LMU. There seems to be no listening or understanding (though lots of studying…) of the other’s opinion. And I’m not upset, and I understand you’re position, Mad Mom. You are trying to be a faithful, loving Catholic Woman. I respect your willingness to put your faith and your heart on the internet, which can be a cruel place. My only challenge is that you and I might both succumb to the same ability to a loss of charity. Regardless of our beliefs towards men and women within the LGBTQ+ (which we hold as Truth) does not mean that we do not still treat them as what they are: our brothers and sisters.”

    We’re likely to go around with this one. How do I not have love and mercy towards the people at LMU when I’m upset that the school doesn’t teach them love and mercy? The problem lies in people trying to stifle love and mercy, not my just anger at them being led astray. I feel sorry for the faculty member who put her job on the line to teach these kids love and mercy and I feel sorry for these students so led astray but the school that exists to teach them the faith.

    I do say is kind of funny that you throw out that this post is hateful when the point is that the constant use of that term in all conversations of the modern world is used to stifle people from sharing the truth and their concerns. I mean, seriously, we can’t point out any error without being labeled hateful. Like I asked, is it hateful to tell my kids not to touch the hot stove? And yes, I’m going to get angry at them if they keep trying to do it because it’s bad for them.

    “Yes, Jesus flipped the tables in the temple and drove out the people with whips. Yes, Jesus said “Go and sin no more!” to the woman who had been saved from the stoning. Yes, there are other examples of Jesus acting in a way that was not being a “buddy buddy” to sinners. But he did all of it out of a righteous anger. Also, it is within our faith and Jesus was both fully human and fully divine. Jesus was God incarnate and walking on the earth. It is different for God to flip tables in anger out of people sinning within his home (the temple) and to command a woman whom he saved from earthly judgement to not sin anymore than for us to do it. Though he set an example of what we should do, that doesn’t literally mean to drive people out of the church and flip over the alter and pews. God’s knowledge is perfect; ours is not.”

    Not entirely sure where you going with this. I don’t think I disagree with any of this. It doesn’t mean that God didn’t give us common sense and we certainly can see when actions contradict the teachings of the Catholic Chuch, can we not? Whether a person is culpable for such things is a whole other question but still doesn’t not change the fact that we can very well have just anger against something that is unjust or contrary to Church teaching, right? Paul (who was not Christ) is a pretty darn good example as well are many of the saiints. Now, the problem is that anger must be directed at evil and injustice and cannot bring us to hate those involved. We cannot give into it. I do not.

    So, I will continue to see the whole incident really, really contrary to the teachings of the Church and I will be angry about it. First of all, students should not be allowed or encouraged to live immoral lifestyles with the blessings of the Jesuits. Next, people should be allowed to express Catholic doctrine without penalty on a Jesuit campus. Lastly, thank goodness at least one person who works for this school is trying to help these students get to heaven! It’s supposed to be the goal of the whole school.

    See? Discussion is a good. Hope I didn’t make it too painful!


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s