Mom’s Response to a Loyola Marymount Student

The following is a comment sent by a Loyola Marymount student with my responses interspersed.  Original comment can be found here in the comment section:

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…

Is this really what they teach at Jesuit schools these days?  You’ve completely proven my point about them.   Catholicism is kind of overlooked there.

So, in response, we owe each and every individual on this planet respect as a child of God.  This doesn’t we mean we agree with every single ridiculous notion they proffer.  If you were to ask any devout Catholic if people who want to label themselves with the alphabet are beautifully and wonderfully made, we would answer yes.  Sadly, we realize that better than they.  Whether or not we believe in something does not change its reality. 

For someone to say “Hey, there are only two genders!” is science as God made it.  It’s not some fundamentalist notion.  It’s hard, empirical science.  It’s in DNA. There are x and y chromosomes and they unite to make something wondrously unique and beautiful.  It doesn’t change.  It’s not fluid depending on your notion. It’s a reality that cannot be changed at its core, no matter how people try.  Why people constantly try and rail against God’s creation is beyond me and it’s REALLY beyond me how this notion can be so prevalent at a Catholic school.

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…

This isn’t the first time I’ve heard this bleeding heart cry.  Nobody is saying somebody didn’t exist.  It’s just silly to keep repeating this ad naseaum.  It’s a red-herring.  It makes a heart wrenching tale which is completely inaccurate.  Just because you disagree with someone (and this time it’s on the wonderful world of science that God created) doesn’t mean you don’t exist.  It means someone is scientifically right and someone is scientifically wrong.  And for Catholics, it means someone is morally right and someone is morally wrong.

Perhaps not, but we aren’t the deciders of that.  The person who it is said to gets to make that judgement. 

Clearly you have not read much of this blog.  Yes, there is actually a tangible reality.  It does exist and we can decide whether or not something is in keeping with this.  We can also judge (oh it’s such a mean ol’ word).  Can we judge someone’s immortal soul?  Nope. There are things, like culpability, that are beyond our purview but can we morally and in good conscience judge peoples’ actions?  Absolutely.  If anyone tells you otherwise, run far, far away because this is anything but Catholic.  We should be using our judgment all day long.

There was even a conversation about this incident, and there was still hate issues about it.

If I tell my child that the stove is hot and they shouldn’t touch it, is that hate?  Try to move beyond the touchy-feely crud spewed in the world today and realize that truth is the loving way to go.

To trash the school for liberal indoctrination is a fallacy. Our conerstone is the promotion of social justice through the world.

You have to know justice before you can actually promote it.  Justice isn’t running round telling people fanciful tales to make them feel better.  The catechism is a beautiful thing.  Let’s look at it, shall we?

1928 Society ensures social justice when it provides the conditions that allow associations or individuals to obtain what is their due, according to their nature and their vocation. Social justice is linked to the common good and the exercise of authority.

According to their nature and vocation.  What does that mean in the eyes of the Church?  Well, let’s look at nature.  That’s really what’s being twisted at good old LMU.


362 The human person, created in the image of God, is a being at once corporeal and spiritual. The biblical account expresses this reality in symbolic language when it affirms that “then the LORD God formed man of dust from the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living being.”229 Man, whole and entire, is therefore willed by God.

363 In Sacred Scripture the term “soul” often refers to human life or the entire human person.230 But “soul” also refers to the innermost aspect of man, that which is of greatest value in him,231 that by which he is most especially in God’s image: “soul” signifies the spiritual principle in man.

364 The human body shares in the dignity of “the image of God”: it is a human body precisely because it is animated by a spiritual soul, and it is the whole human person that is intended to become, in the body of Christ, a temple of the Spirit:232

Man, though made of body and soul, is a unity. Through his very bodily condition he sums up in himself the elements of the material world. Through him they are thus brought to their highest perfection and can raise their voice in praise freely given to the Creator. For this reason man may not despise his bodily life. Rather he is obliged to regard his body as good and to hold it in honor since God has created it and will raise it up on the last day. 233

365 The unity of soul and body is so profound that one has to consider the soul to be the “form” of the body:234 i.e., it is because of its spiritual soul that the body made of matter becomes a living, human body; spirit and matter, in man, are not two natures united, but rather their union forms a single nature.

366 The Church teaches that every spiritual soul is created immediately by God – it is not “produced” by the parents – and also that it is immortal: it does not perish when it separates from the body at death, and it will be reunited with the body at the final Resurrection.235

367 Sometimes the soul is distinguished from the spirit: St. Paul for instance prays that God may sanctify his people “wholly”, with “spirit and soul and body” kept sound and blameless at the Lord’s coming.236 The Church teaches that this distinction does not introduce a duality into the soul.237 “Spirit” signifies that from creation man is ordered to a supernatural end and that his soul can gratuitously be raised beyond all it deserves to communion with God.238

368 The spiritual tradition of the Church also emphasizes the heart, in the biblical sense of the depths of one’s being, where the person decides for or against God.239

Sadly, sadly, sadly, people are trying to separate and change their natures. I have to tell you, my young LMU student, that the very next line is probably going to confuse you. If you really just stop and give it a read, you will hopefully see the beauty in what’s been lost at LMU for far too long:


Equality and difference willed by God

369 Man and woman have been created, which is to say, willed by God: on the one hand, in perfect equality as human persons; on the other, in their respective beings as man and woman. “Being man” or “being woman” is a reality which is good and willed by God: man and woman possess an inalienable dignity which comes to them immediately from God their Creator.240 Man and woman are both with one and the same dignity “in the image of God”. In their “being-man” and “being-woman”, they reflect the Creator’s wisdom and goodness.

You see, the dignity comes from God, it is not something we invented.  God knew what he was doing.  Do you doubt that?

Respect should be given to all people lgbt or not, religous or not, bible thumper fundementalist, or atheists like myself.

Oh, so you do doubt that!  LOL!  Ok, this makes things a bit more sense now.  I’ve already dealt with the difference between respect due for the dignity of the human person vs. the respect due for the silly notions of people.  I can see that you do not understand Catholicism, which is really sad considering the fact that you attend a Catholic school.  I don’t expect everyone attending a Catholic school to be Catholic and I welcome those that are not.  That said, I do expect a Catholic school to teach Catholicism or drop their pretenses.  That’s why Catholic schools exist and, believe it or not, my young atheist, there are Catholic teachings on that.  I would think that, just logically, you and your supposed logic-based non-religion could see that small sensibility.

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.

Please read this about 10 times.  The only person undermining the identity of a person was the complainant.  The staff member was the one acknowledging and teaching about the true nature of the complainant.  It’s kind of silly to think that when a faculty member takes the time out to engage the students in conversation about the reality of science and the Catholic teachings surrounding it,they are somehow perceived as the one who is treating someone like a second-class citizen.  You know how people treat other people like second-class citizens?  They ignore them.  This faculty member chose not to ignore them, but to explain Catholicism to them like these young students were actually thinking beings with a thought in their head.  Clearly she was wrong but she made the attempt to treat them with REAL respect and dignity.

It’s not silencing or brainwashing or Satan’s liberal logic or whatever you want to call it…

Yeah, it kind of is.

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.

Why was “that person” disrespectful?  Because she presented and opinion contrary to someone else’s?  Please.  This is what a snowflake society we’ve become.  And, just to ask, by the way, have you actually read the account of the faculty member in question?  Really didn’t sound like she went in guns a-blazing.  She did run down the corridors yelling “Abomination!”   Geez!  Even I wouldn’t think that helpful.  She had a conversation.  How about the respect for freedom of religion and free speech?  

I stand with equality.

Funny because you don’t seem to think that the faculty member in question has an equal say.  Don’t you think Catholic morality should actually be seen as a little more than equal at a Catholic school?  It wasn’t a Jewish, atheist, or pan-whatever school.  It was a Catholic school. 

I stand for minorities,

Um, it sounds like this poor woman is a minority.  The BIRT (Bias Incident Response Team aka Thought Police) probably took care of the rest of those pesky Catholics who actually follow the teachings of the Church.  Really?  Have you read 1984?  You might want to pick up a copy.

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

LOL!  As long as they agree with you!  Don’t you think for a moment, using your Spock-like, atheist logic, that this woman was made to feel like less than she was?  I mean, gosh, BIRT was called in.  She’s being investigated by the police for having a different opinion and her job is threatened. She must be evil! Talk about hyperbole!  This whole incident was hyperbolic.

Can you say the same?

The real question is, would I want to say the same?  Do I stand for LGBTQWERG…?  Of course not.  I stand for reality and the nature God created, like faithful Catholics do. Men and women are fearfully and wonderfully made and are called to (back to the Catechism) embrace their nature and vocation.  It’s called Truth.  Only there  will we find true love, dignity and respect.  Outside of that is a cruel hoax which many people will find out about way too late.


Guest Blogger on LMU

I’m going to reprint Ginnyfree’s observations (with permission).  I disagree that this is “nuff said!”  I think we could do volumes more on the lunacy at LMU and most Jesuit schools.  Thanks, Ginnyfree.

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.

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:

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:  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. (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.