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?
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.