WORCESTER, MASSACHUSETTS, BISHOP SLAMS JESUIT HOLY CROSS COLLEGE THEOLOGIAN FOR CALLING OUR LORD A ‘DRAG KING’

WORCESTER, MASSACHUSETTS, BISHOP SLAMS JESUIT HOLY CROSS COLLEGE THEOLOGIAN FOR CALLING OUR LORD A ‘DRAG KING’

[I hope and pray that this time the bishop stands up to the college president.  In 2007 he challenged Borough’s predecessor, Jesuit Michael McFarland, over a scheduled conference in the campus center on teenage pregnancy including speakers from Planned Parenthood and NARAL.  The bishop asked McFarland to cancel the conference and said that failure to do so might call into question the diocese’s (i.e., the bishop’s) continuing recognition of the college as a Catholic institution.  McFarland stood his ground, and the bishop “blinked” – other than having a pro-life speaker in the cathedral meeting room on the same date as the conference and also not attending the college’s graduation to give the benediction.  The next year a similar conference was held by the same sponsoring group at the city’s convention center, and all was well again between the diocese and the college – as evidenced by the bishop attending the college’s graduation and giving the benediction! – AQ moderator Tom] 

by Rodney Pelletier  •  ChurchMilitant.com  •  April 2, 2018

Reacts to theology professor at a Massachusetts Jesuit college

Worcester Bishop Slams Theologian for Calling Our Lord a ‘Drag King’

WORCESTER, Mass. (ChurchMilitant.com) – Bishop Robert McManus, head of the diocese of Worcester, is condemning the statements of Dr. Tat-siong Benny Liew, chair of New Testament Studies at Holy Cross in Worcester, Massachusetts.

Bishop McManus responded on Friday to statements made by Liew that had been revealed on March 26 in The Fenwick Review [the College’s “independent” and conservative student newspaper], claiming Our Lord was “not only the King of Israel” but a “drag king.”

He blasted Liew’s statements about Our Lord as “blasphemous” and “perverse,” warning, “I am deeply troubled and concerned to hear that someone who holds an endowed chair in New Testament studies at the College of the Holy Cross has authored such highly offensive and blasphemous notions.”

He continues, “Such positions have no place in the biblical scholarship of a professor who teaches at a Catholic college and who, as such, should be supportive of the college’s Catholic identity and mission.”

Bishop McManus asserted that college president, Fr. Philip Boroughs, S.J., had claimed that Liew “is a man of deep faith” and that “scholars are … free to push boundaries on widely accepted thought.”

He declares Liew’s conclusions “both false and perverse,” adding that he is “particularly concerned that Professor Liew’s book that contains these unorthodox views is featured on display in the Religious Studies Department at Holy Cross.”

He further asserted the college has a “duty” to oblige Liew to disavow his teaching publicly, “so as not to create confusion about the nature of Christ.”

[In his official statement (see text in comment below] Bishop McManus warns:

If he does not, then it is my duty as the bishop of Worcester to clearly state that such teaching is a danger to the integrity of the Catholic faith and, in prudence, warn the Catholic faithful committed to my pastoral care that such unorthodox teaching has no place in a Catholic College whose mission is to promote and cultivate the Catholic intellectual tradition.

Faithful Catholics were outraged at Liew’s statements, originally written in the 2009 Society of Biblical Literature publication, “They Were All Together in One Place?: Toward Minority Biblical Criticism.”

Facebook
Twitter
Google+
http://angelqueen.org/2018/04/02/worcester-massachusetts-bishop-slams-jesuit-holy-cross-college-theologian-for-calling-our-lord-a-drag-king/
Get AQ Email Updates
AQ RSS Feed

14 comments on “WORCESTER, MASSACHUSETTS, BISHOP SLAMS JESUIT HOLY CROSS COLLEGE THEOLOGIAN FOR CALLING OUR LORD A ‘DRAG KING’

  1. Statement by Bishop McManus on Professor Liew’s analysis
    /
    March 30, 2018
    /
    Statement by Most Reverend Robert J. McManus, STD [a “real” earned doctorate, not the honorary DD that a prelate automatically receives upon becoming a bishop, although he got his at the Jesuit Gregorian University in Rome], Bishop of Worcester on the writings of Professor Tat-siong Benny Liew about the true nature of Jesus Christ
    /
    March 30, 2018, Worcester MA – A few days ago I learned of the highly controversial writings of a local Holy Cross professor, Tat-siong Benny Liew, that cast doubts on the male sexuality of Jesus Christ based on Professor Liew’s seriously flawed analysis of some texts of the Gospel of St. John. I am deeply troubled and concerned to hear that someone who holds an endowed chair in New Testament studies at the College of the Holy Cross has authored such highly offensive and blasphemous notions. Such positions have no place in the biblical scholarship of a professor who teaches at a Catholic college and who, as such, should be supportive of the college’s Catholic identity and mission.
    /
    Fr. Philip Boroughs, SJ, president of the College of the Holy Cross, has stated publicly that Professor Liew “is a man of deep faith” but that “scholars are … free to push boundaries on widely accepted thought.” Academic freedom certainly plays a critical role in the intellectual life of a Catholic institution of higher learning like Holy Cross. However, how that academic freedom is exercised, particularly in the fields of Theology or Religious Studies, cannot provide cover for blatantly unorthodox teaching. Clearly the biblical conclusions that Professor Liew has reached in his writings are both false and perverse. I am particularly concerned that Professor Liew’s book that contains these unorthodox views is featured on display in the Religious Studies Department at Holy Cross.
    /
    The Church is the steward of her authentic Catholic faith, and Catholic institutions of higher learning have the mission to teach the normative faith of the Church in communion with the Church’s authentic Magisterium. The U.S. bishops, relying on St. John Paul II’s insightful document, Ex Corde Ecclesiae, (“From the Heart of the Church”) about the nature and purpose of Catholic universities, have asked Catholic colleges to reaffirm their Catholic identity in all aspects of their intellectual endeavors. Central to the orthodox faith of the Church is the acceptance of Jesus Christ as fully divine and fully human that the early Fathers of the Church and the Church’s Councils so clearly taught. In light of the controversy caused by Professor Liew’s writings, Holy Cross has a duty to, at least, ask Professor Liew if he rejects the biblical positions he penned some ten years ago or if he supports and defends those positions today. If he disavows them, then he must state so publicly, so as not to create confusion about the nature of Christ. If he does not, then it is my duty as the Bishop of Worcester to clearly state that such teaching is a danger to the integrity of the Catholic faith and, in prudence, warn the Catholic faithful committed to my pastoral care that such unorthodox teaching has no place in a Catholic College whose mission is to promote and cultivate the Catholic intellectual tradition.
    /
    It is particularly disheartening for me to be addressing this issue during Holy Week. Our commemoration of the Easter Triduum, namely Holy Thursday, Good Friday and Easter Sunday, would be meaningless if we did not recognize the suffering that Jesus Christ as the God-man bore for us and that our relationship to him as Savior is the most important dimension of our Christian lives. May our hearts and minds as Christians remain focused on bringing ourselves and one another to a deeper appreciation of the Easter celebration of Christ’s resurrection which is the source of hope for the world.

  2. It is a strong statement which should be commended.

    However, the bishop needs to take it a step further and make it clear that a modernist fruitcake and mentally-disturbed pervert who puts into writing disgusting, grotesque, and repulsive slurs against Jesus Christ CANNOT be given teaching authority at an authentic Catholic institution of higher learning. This is Maria Monk and Jack Chick trash. Only some kind of recanting, disavowal, and public penance could possibly lead to consideration of retaining a faculty position.


    This scandal at Holy Cross is profane and vulgar in the extreme. No “who am I to judge?” situation ethics will cover that up.

    And they were worried about the “Crusaders” name and Knight mascot imagery? After what also happened at Providence College, the emasculation of Catholic education by modernist perverts needs to be addressed. There needs to be a public discussion by the USCCB of canonical penalties and sanctions against priests and “Catholic” colleges which enable and tolerate anti-Catholic perversion as a regular part of their campus culture.

  3. Agreed, Howl. This blasphemous evil will not go gently into the mists. It is wicked and unimaginably hostile. The USCCB should, but likely won’t, go nuclear with these maniacs. Expulsions are the very least that must first needs be done,

  4. Professor at Decadent Jesuit Holy Cross College Commits Blasphemy
    /
    Posted by Tancred on Wednesday, March 28, 2018: Father Feeney was right.

  5. The Feeney issue was slightly different. The Americanist desire not to embarrass or offend WASPs and freemasons at Harvard in the 1940s with the Catholic doctrine on salvation and damnation was one of power games related to getting Catholics into Harvard with stealth (like the Kennedy brats who went on to such modernist achievements in ecumenism as the Houston Speech, Chappaquiddick, and pro-abortion politics). Today no one would even know there was a debate about extra Ecclesiam nulla salus or how to parse it, while some liberal Catholics (in name only) think you can support abortion and be Catholic.

    Why modernist fruitcakes think making a public nuisance of themselves with passive-aggressive Lavender Mafia antics at “Catholic” colleges will help their cause defies logic and common sense. But then, liberalism is a mental disorder.

    For extra credit:

    en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Extra_Ecclesiam_nulla_salus

  6. [Academic freedom uber alles except when the liberals’ sacred cows are challenged!]
    /
    Holy Cross dean defends ‘academic freedom’ of embattled professor
    /
    By Mark Sullivan – Apr 5, 2018 at 10:32 AM
    /
    [Summary from Catholic World News – 4/6/18]
    /
    The provost of Holy Cross College has defended Tat-siong Benny Liew, the theological professor whose “highly offensive and blasphemous notions” about Jesus prompted Bishop Robert McManus of Worcester, Massachusetts, to demand a public retraction. Margaret Freijie, the dean of the Jesuit-run college, said that “academic freedom is a foundational principle,” implicitly brushing aside the bishop’s demand.
    /
    WORCESTER – The chief academic officer at the College of the Holy Cross is defending a religious studies professor at the college whose earlier scholarly writings depict Jesus Christ as a “drag king” with “queer desires.”
    /
    “Here at Holy Cross academic freedom is a foundational principle, as it is for all academic institutions,” Margaret N. Freije, provost and dean of the college, writes in an email sent to Holy Cross faculty on Tuesday.
    /
    “Moreover, freedom of inquiry and the search for truth are foundational to our mission and to the Catholic intellectual tradition,” she wrote. “We will continue to reiterate our commitment to academic freedom and our mission.”
    /
    The writings have been controversial on campus since the work of Tat-siong Benny Liew, holder of the Class of 1956 Chair of New Testament Studies in the Religious Studies Department at Holy Cross, was featured in an article in the Fenwick Review, a conservative student paper. A Fenwick Review reporter read scholarly publications by Mr. Liew written before he was named in 2013 to the New Testament chair at the college.
    /
    In a 2009 article cited by the paper, Mr. Liew wrote that Christ in the Gospel of John might be perceived as a cross-dresser of indeterminate gender, whose Passion can be viewed in a homoerotic light, and whose bodily penetration on the cross suggests a masochistic sexual relationship with God the Father.
    /
    Mr. Liew’s article, “Queering Closets and Perverting Desires: Cross-Examining John’s Engendering and Transgendering Word Across Different Worlds,” demonstrates “the centrality of sex and gender to his way of thinking about the New Testament,” Fenwick Review reporter Elinor Reilly wrote.
    /
    The article in the student publication was later cited on conservative news sites and sparked controversy during Holy Week.
    /
    Worcester’s Catholic bishop, Robert J. McManus, described the notions advanced by the Holy Cross theologian as “highly offensive and blasphemous.” Members of the class of 1956 that endowed the college’s chair in New Testament studies said they may seek Mr. Liew’s removal from the position.
    /
    The president of Holy Cross, the Rev. Philip L. Boroughs, released a statement describing Mr. Liew as a “dedicated teacher” and “man of faith,” and defending the freedom of scholars to “push boundaries on widely accepted thought.”
    /
    However, Rev. Boroughs added: “I strongly disagree with the interpretation of John’s Gospel, as described in the Fenwick Review, and I find it especially offensive in this most sacred of all weeks in the liturgical calendar.”
    /
    The college released a statement last week on the controversy. “The decade-old work referenced in the Fenwick Review article was not intended for an undergraduate classroom, nor has it ever been assigned at Holy Cross,” read the statement released by college spokesman John Hill.
    /
    “It was an intentionally provocative work, not a statement of belief, meant to foster discussion among a small group of Biblical scholars exploring marginalization. No one has made a complaint about the content of Professor Liew’s classes in his four years at Holy Cross.”
    /
    The Telegram & Gazette emailed Mr. Hill to ask whether the professor’s interpretation of John’s Gospel was an issue when Mr. Liew was appointed to the Class of 1956 Chair five years ago. He declined to respond.
    /
    Mr. Liew has not replied to email or phone requests for an interview.
    /
    The Fenwick Review reporter, Ms. Reilly, a Holy Cross senior, also declined an interview request, as did the Review’s editors, seniors Bill Christ and Claude Haney.
    /
    The paper’s faculty adviser, David L. Schaefer, professor of political science at Holy Cross, said: “I would be inclined to guess that this is the biggest scoop the Fenwick Review has run in 28 years.”
    /
    He said the paper’s editors in recent years have been particularly concerned with religious and theological topics. “They are taking these issues seriously and I think they did uncover a major problem here,” Mr. Schaefer said. “I’m Jewish, so as the saying goes, I don’t have a dog in this fight, except indirectly as a longtime faculty member concerned with the reputation of the college.”
    /
    “Speaking as an outsider, I can only make the analogy as a Jew: I would find it astounding (if) I were an alumnus of Yeshiva University and they had hired somebody to teach the things about Moses that this theologian says about Jesus. I found it astounding,” he said.
    /
    Mr. Schaefer, who has taught at Holy Cross for 42 years, added: “I want to emphasize what is quoted from this man’s writing is the same kind of approach that has infiltrated what are broadly called the humanities across the United States.” He offered an example: “About 20 years ago somebody ‘discovered’ that the composer Handel was gay,” he said. “Needless to say, Shakespeare was a cross-dresser and so on. Whether in English, philosophy, religion, history, and I’m sorry to say, in political science, my own field, this is how you get ahead: by coming up with something that first, will be outrageous or cutting edge, and second, will appeal to certain constituencies.”
    /
    Mr. Liew’s 1997 doctoral thesis at Vanderbilt University, which examines the politics of Roman colonial occupation reflected in the Gospel of Mark, “moves literary criticism of the Gospels further into the socio-political struggle for liberation,” according to the publisher’s description when it was released in book form two years later.
    /
    An ordained Presbyterian minister, Mr. Liew was interim academic vice president and dean at the Pacific School of Religion in Berkeley, California, before coming to Holy Cross.
    /
    More than 80 former Pacific School of Religion students signed a letter of support for their former professor of New Testament Studies that was sent to Holy Cross’ president, Rev. Boroughs.
    /
    An organizer of the letter, the Rev. Eric Atcheson, pastor of the First Christian Church (Disciples of Christ) in Longview, Washington, posted the text to his website.
    /
    “Beyond simply being entitled to the protections of academic freedom as a tenured professor in spite of his scholarship, Professor Liew’s work as an educator has, in fact, done great good,” the letter states. “He has tangibly contributed to the well-being and spiritual and intellectual enrichment of his students over the years – and not just cisgender or heterosexual students, but LGBTQ students as well. And we want all of our voices to be heard in support of Professor Liew.”
    /
    At the same time, a conservative Catholic website, TFP Student Action, claimed nearly 16,000 supporters as of Tuesday for its petition asking Rev. Boroughs to remove Mr. Liew for “outright blasphemy.”
    /
    – The Fenwick Review article is at thefenwickreview.holycross.edu/archives/newtheology.

  7. “An ordained Presbyterian minister…”

    Cheshire Cat smile.

    Well, there you go. He’s not even a Catholic, but a Presbyterian. Maybe Presbyterians have a different doctrine in Christology. He may not know that in the Catholic Church there is no homoerotic doctrine in Christology.

    So the endowed “Class of 1956 Chair of New Testament Studies” in the Religious Studies Department at the College of the Holy Cross is a crazy liberal Presbyterian with homoerotic fantasies about Jesus and God, the Father. Isn’t that just Land O’Lakes on steroids? Roll over, Rudy Bultmann.

    It’s such a good thing that Holy Cross isn’t stuck back in the pre-Vatican II Catholic ghetto, isn’t it?

    The most grotesque and disgusting scandal in the history of the College of the Holy Cross is Presbyterian. Call Ann Coulter.

  8. I tried, Howl. She hasn’t returned my call, yet. She may be doing a book signing at a popular spa with the Log Cabin Republicans this weekend. 😎
    /
    Her late father, whom she treasured, was a Catholic. I haven’t given up hope.

  9. This points out serious problems with Vatican II and the Land O’Lakes conference. The Protestant homoerotic Christology controversy at the College of the Holy Cross brings into focus the conflict between the claims for anti-Catholic “academic freedom” from Land O’Lakes and the responsibility of both the bishop and the president of the college to ensure that matters pertaining to the Catholic faith are taught and explained properly. That includes Christology in Religion or Theology courses.

    Bishop McManus stated: “In light of the controversy caused by Professor Liew’s writings, Holy Cross has a duty to, at least, ask Professor Liew if he rejects the bibilical positions he penned some ten years ago or if he supports and defends those positions today.”
    The problem here is that the professor with the homoerotic theories about Jesus is not a Catholic, but a Protestant (Presbyterian). He does not recognize the authority or jurisdiction of a Catholic bishop. The only avenue for redressing this is an appeal to common sense and decency, which, under the liberal idea of “academic freedom” understood in a completely secular, progressive sense from Land O’Lakes, the professor is free to disregard and dismiss.
    The bishop’s appeal is to the modernist president and administration of Holy Cross. Their line has been about academic freedom, as if nutjob homoerotic gnosticism about Jesus is covered by academic freedom and the grandiose claims of the Land O’Lakes conference. This is an utterly absurd position for Catholic education. The cause is Land O’Lakes which marginalized Catholic identity and suppressed Catholic teachings.

    Compare this episode at Holy Cross with what happened to Professor McAdams at Marquette and to Anthony Esolen at Providence College. The differences in their treatment are revealing.

  10. [The late Fr. Vincent Miceli on academic freedom quoted from his book The Antichrist by Paul Anthony Melanson at his La Salette Journey blog – 4/3/18]
    /
    The late Fr. Vincent P. Miceli, who was a classically-educated Jesuit scholar and a brilliant philosopher, would have disagreed. For he explained that, “The trouble with this understanding of academic freedom is that it takes for granted as a truth what is a falsity, indeed a complete illusion, namely, that academic freedom is absolutely immune from any reasonable bounds, limitations or restrictions. No human freedom is absolutely immune to restriction. Freedom is no longer freedom when it is reduced to being the unhindered pursuit of one’s whims and desires. This is especially true of freedom exercised in the field of philosophy where conflict with the authentic and infallible teachings of the Church is foreseeable. A true understanding of academic freedom, therefore, is in order so as to distinguish it clearly from academic license.
    /
    Academic freedom derives from the rational nature of man. It is rooted in the intellectual activity of man whereby he is called to a dominion and stewardship of the universe through a conquest of truth. Positively, then, academic freedom is a generous guarantee to the unimpeded access to the evidence of truth in any given science. Thus, academic freedom is always bounded by the canons and axiomatic truths of each discipline of learning. Thus, again positively, academic freedom is both purposive and responsible. It has its own built-in rules; its requirements are conditioned by pre-defined directions towards the truth of its particular science. The moral right to academic freedom arises from the inviolability of the proper action necessary to its scientific achievements of truth, founded on man’s connatural inner dynamism of the human intelligence’s hunger for truth. Negatively, academic freedom means at the very least the immunity from unreasonable restrictions, both from within and from outside the academic community, of the right to communicate the results of one’s researches through lectures and publications, and the right to be immune from unreasonable restriction in the pursuit of the teaching profession.
    /
    We are now in the position to ask, ‘How is academic freedom violated?’ Scholars, scientists and philosophers hold that whenever one of their members ventures consciously and freely to teach as truths doctrines that contradict the clearly established dogmas or unconditional truths of their disciplines, then such a member of the university is abusing his academic freedom, putting it at the service of stupidities or known falsehoods instead of using it to advance the horizons of truth. Now every science has its dogmas, theology, philosophy and all the natural sciences. Dogmas are not only the ultimate answers to some fundamental questions; they also prompt further questioning and research, leading thus to enlarged, more profound truth….a Catholic university that allows professors and lecturers to attack the authentic teachings of the Church, whether they are infallibly defined or not, is not faithful to the best canons of scholarship, nor to the Church or its own students who have a right in justice to receive the divinely revealed truths in their pristine purity.” (The Antichrist, pp. 166-167).
    /
    Many Catholic institutions have devaluated the faith and have become enslaved to a narrow (and conceptually flawed) notion of academic freedom. And why have these institutions sold out to secularism? Again, Fr. Miceli, S.J., explains: “Gradually, over the years the essential purpose of the Catholic university has been radically changed. Lusting after secular academic excellence, huge student bodies, expensive science complexes, notoriety, publicity, political clout and financial power, the leaders of Catholic universities somehow lost sight of the unearthly purpose and spirit of the Catholic university. Thus, in today’s Catholic university, intellectualism is preferred to Catholicism; scientism to faith, relativism to truth, immanentism to transcendence, subjectivism to reality, situationism to moral integrity and anarchism to authority. The essential purpose of the Catholic university has de facto been changed, despite the lip service that is still paid to the original Catholic ideal. Conduct flows from convictions and when the conduct is consistently depraved [Such as allowing controversial plays like the Vagina Monologues, my note] it is because the convictions have been corrupted. For example, Judas, forerunner of the Antichrist, had radically changed his deepest convictions about the person and mission of Christ before he sold his Lord for thirty pieces of silver. No virtuosity at contorted rationalization can mask the massive turning away from the Catholic ideal that has taken place in the Catholic universities of the United States. The light and love of the world have made tragic advances against the light and love of Christ.” (The Antichrist, p. 161).

  11. Jesus as drag king article draws protesters, counterprotesters to Holy Cross
    /
    By Paula J. Owen – 4/7/18
    /
    WORCESTER — Catholics outraged over a theology professor’s suggestion that Jesus may have been a “drag king” with “queer desires” gathered outside the College of the Holy Cross Saturday morning for a “rally of reparation.”
    /
    Dozens of members of the American Society for the Defense of Tradition, Family and Property gathered for a Rosary of Reparation and, they say, to deliver a message to the Jesuit-run college that Tat-siong Benny Liew, professor of religious studies at the College of the Holy Cross, must disavow his position and apologize or lose his job.
    /
    Counterprotesters, mostly Holy Cross students with the grassroots campus group HC Students for Scholarship, stood across the street from the protest holding signs, chanting “Love thy neighbor,” and “Who are you to judge?” and singing “God Bless America,” while the Defense of Tradition group recited prayers led by member Ben S. Broussard from Pennsylvania on a loudspeaker.
    /
    “Everyone has the right to peacefully make their voice heard and Holy Cross respects that right,” said a statement provided by the college about the protests.
    /
    Mr. Liew’s writings, penned almost a decade ago before he was hired by Holy Cross, have been controversial on campus since they were featured in an article in the Fenwick Review, a conservative student paper. A Fenwick Review reporter read scholarly publications by Mr. Liew written before he was named in 2013 to the New Testament chair at the college.
    /
    In Mr. Liew’s 2009 article, “Queering Closets and Perverting Desires: Cross-Examining John’s Engendering and Transgendering Word Across Different Worlds,” he writes that Christ might be perceived as a cross-dresser of indeterminate gender, whose Passion can be viewed in a homoerotic light, and whose bodily penetration on the cross suggests a masochistic sexual relationship with God.
    /
    John E. Ritchie, director of student activists from the group, who also traveled from Pennsylvania for the protest, said he believes Mr. Liew is part of a homosexual network within the Catholic Church that is putting pressure on church leaders and others to accept nontraditional teachings of “queer theology.”
    /
    Mr. Ritchie said young Catholics across the country from the 200,000-member group collected 16,000 signatures on petitions that call for the president of the college to ask Mr. Liew to apologize and disavow his “blasphemous position against Christ” or resign.
    /
    “What we have here is homosexual pressure groups who want to change the teachings of the church,” Mr. Ritchie said. “I believe he (Mr. Liew) is part of a network called ‘queer theology’ that is deliberately attempting to destroy the holy teachings of the Catholic Church and to replace them with a pro-homosexual, false, pseudo-theology.”
    /
    Holy Cross senior Carly C. Priest, 22, from San Rafael, California, who helped organize the counterprotest, said she feels very strongly that colleges are a place for open scholarship and free academic expression.
    /
    “We believe strongly that diverse representation that breaks against typical representation of historical figures is a good thing,” Ms. Priest said, who is a member of the United Church of Christ. “Religion is supposed to be about love and to me, this doesn’t seem like love.”
    /
    Adam D. Coshal, 20, a sophomore from New York and chair of Pride, which supports LGBTQ faculty and students on campus, said he identifies as a gay, nonconforming man. Mr. Coshal helped organize the counterprotest and held a sign that read, “I (heart) my drag Jesus.”
    /
    “This struck a chord with us,” Mr. Coshal said. “This school is a Jesuit, liberal arts school, so we’re always encouraged to pursue studies to be a good, well-rounded person. To me, their protest has a strong undertone that Jesus can’t be gay or LGBTQ.”
    /
    Nancy F. Goggin, who said she is attending Boston College for a master’s degree in theology and has worked in religious education and youth ministry for more than 20 years, drove from Randolph to participate in the protest.
    /
    “The interpretation this teacher gave is so against any traditional or accepted beliefs,” she said. “It’s really a matter of academic integrity, too. If they had a professor in the science department saying the world is flat, it’s unlikely they would keep that professor. It would be an insane thing to say. What he said is heretical and against the teachings and is the most absurd interpretation I’ve ever heard.”

  12. The episode is absurd.

    The first person of the Holy Trinity, God, the Father, is an invisible, immaterial spirit and does not have a body. It is, therefore, illogical and absurd to suggest that Jesus has homoerotic lust for God, the Father. It’s contrary to reason. Now, generally speaking, Protestants are not trained in scholastic reason or Thomistic philosophy, so in their non-rational fideism (a heresy) they may feel that they can just make up stuff out of thin air in theology that is contrary to reason and totally absurd and that that is OK. It is profoundly absurd to defend this kind of gnostic theology behind the cover of academic freedom as some sort of plausible argument in Catholic education.

  13. All the nice philosophical distinctions of Fr. Miceli — God bless him — and everyone else — God bless them — are worthless.
    Totally depraved perverts like Benny Baby and his sycophants aren’t even capable of understanding them.
    /
    It’s really very, very simple — and even they, with their darkened and corrupted intellects — can understand this:
    1) The Catholic Church teaches what it teaches.
    2) If you teach in a Catholic institution, you have to teach what the Catholic Church teaches.
    3) If you don’t — and yet pretend to be a Catholic teacher — you are a filthy lying bar steward; a contemptible truth-hating hyprocritical pervert.
    /
    And anyone who tolerates you, excuses you, or pretends to assert your “right to academic freedom”, does so because they are just like you.
    Because, OBVIOUSLY, if you don’t believe what the Church teaches, and don’t want to teach it, you are indeed free…TO GO TEACH SOMEPLACE ELSE.

Leave a Reply