Comments for The Heaviest Oppression at http://www.thecatholicthing.org , comment 1 to 15 out of 15 comments http://www.thecatholicthing.org Fri, 24 May 2013 10:37:12 +0100 FeedCreator 1.7.3 http://www.thecatholicthing.org/columns/2012/the-heaviest-oppression.html#comment-12629 To Mr. Evans: Fr. Schall is pointing out the obvious, rather than denying the obvious. Forcing denial of the obvious, and and forcing Judeo-Christian value-holders into 'submission' (i.e., dhimitude) is the objective of the progressive Leviathan. Progressives are waging open war against those who are trying to obey (i.e., show their love) to Our Lord. - Chris in Maryland Fri, 27 Jul 2012 04:25:57 +0100 http://www.thecatholicthing.org/columns/2012/the-heaviest-oppression.html#comment-12628 "Universities were once places that promoted very narrow viewpoints." Were? Sounds as if little has changed except against whom discrimination will be tolerated. - Mark Fri, 27 Jul 2012 04:09:40 +0100 http://www.thecatholicthing.org/columns/2012/the-heaviest-oppression.html#comment-12621 A=A - Aristotle A thing can only be itself. - Tim Eiler Thu, 26 Jul 2012 06:43:25 +0100 http://www.thecatholicthing.org/columns/2012/the-heaviest-oppression.html#comment-12620 Whatever happened to the right of association guaranteed by the First Amendment to the US Constitution? Doesn't this give organizations like clubs the right to set their own rules for who can be a member? Forcing broad diversity on such clubs violates this right. The Boy Scouts already reaffirmed this right via a decision handed down by the US Supreme Court. Why should the opinion of a lesser court trump that decision? - Darrell Thu, 26 Jul 2012 05:28:43 +0100 http://www.thecatholicthing.org/columns/2012/the-heaviest-oppression.html#comment-12611 The issue, as I see it, is in trying to correct the system which in itself was intended to protect our distinctiveness. At some point the system will break down because standards will be so vague that everyone will be right and no one wrong. While I don't believe homosexuals have started this mess, I do believe that sinful mankind started this by trying to avoid dealing with the ethical standards set forth by God the Father. The only way to correct the system is for mankind to be made righteous by the blood of Jesus Christ. Then the system will self correct by virtue of godly men and women living the way God intended. - Dr. Raymond Grabert Wed, 25 Jul 2012 08:47:38 +0100 http://www.thecatholicthing.org/columns/2012/the-heaviest-oppression.html#comment-12603 I would add that I am a same-sex attracted Catholic man who lives celibately. My issue is not with the majority of the article, just the statement I quoted. Perhaps the author is also not intending this as a generalization but rather a specific example in the case of Vanderbilt, in which case I agree fully with his point. God bless. - Richard G Evans Tue, 24 Jul 2012 19:24:18 +0100 http://www.thecatholicthing.org/columns/2012/the-heaviest-oppression.html#comment-12602 The one statement I question in this article is the following: "A common good, however, means not that everything becomes everything else, but that the parts of the society have the authority and duty to remain what they are. When everything is absorbed into a non-discriminatory mode, nothing is really left. Most of this thinking, as in the case at Vanderbilt, originates in homosexual problems." He seems to imply that its basically LGBT pepple who are behind this entire phenomena. That could certainly be true in cases, and is, but without further clarification it sounds a bit like "blame it on the gays" when the issue is deeper. The author rightly points out that groups should be able to be who they are. At issue are court decisions that affect every group, and not just LGBT versus straight people. A much better example is the Filipino club mentioned earlier. But to generalize that "most" of this kind of thinking comes from homosexual groups is kind of slanderous methinks. - Richard G Evans Tue, 24 Jul 2012 19:21:16 +0100 http://www.thecatholicthing.org/columns/2012/the-heaviest-oppression.html#comment-12601 Universities were once places that promoted very narrow viewpoints. I am unclear where Fr. Schall understood the "diversity" of viewpoints model as originating. 1972? Unisex, coat and tie. No Jews in some universities, no Catholics in others. Fr. Schall has a short memory. - Dan C Tue, 24 Jul 2012 18:36:45 +0100 http://www.thecatholicthing.org/columns/2012/the-heaviest-oppression.html#comment-12598 "I refuse to join any club that would have me as a member." - Groucho Marx - Grump Tue, 24 Jul 2012 10:36:37 +0100 http://www.thecatholicthing.org/columns/2012/the-heaviest-oppression.html#comment-12597 I see a great opportunity for you, Fr. Schall. As Georgetown is in the process of accommodating an LBGTQ club on campus, it would be ideal for you to drop by and submit an application to join. Once in, you could run for office and possibly serve as its president. I am being neither sarcastic nor facetious. Your presence would serve as a monitor of any activities which might otherwise occur at meetings. You could even offer to hear Confessions and to serve as the Spiritual Director for the Club. After all, Fr. Ted Hesburgh of Notre Dame served as the Chairman of the pro-abortion Rockefeller Foundation. - Manfred Tue, 24 Jul 2012 10:24:01 +0100 http://www.thecatholicthing.org/columns/2012/the-heaviest-oppression.html#comment-12596 Thank you Fr. Schall. Americans must look to develop, encourage and elect/promote leaders who are ethical and moral...and instruct, deny, impeach/fire those who are falling short. The nation needs to turn in that direction. Teachers need to teach by example in this regard as well. - TaylorKH Tue, 24 Jul 2012 07:50:21 +0100 http://www.thecatholicthing.org/columns/2012/the-heaviest-oppression.html#comment-12595 every club can become like every other club; every university can become like every other university. Where is the prized diverstiy? - Jim Tue, 24 Jul 2012 06:06:58 +0100 http://www.thecatholicthing.org/columns/2012/the-heaviest-oppression.html#comment-12594 Thank you Fr. Schall for an illuminating post. Of course, what Dr. Johnson assumed in his Rambler piece was that there was a villain behind the "perversion and the exorbitance of legal authority.” But as we often see in the U.S., laws have unintended consequences. A law passed to defend "civil rights" in one case, is used to destroy religious freedom in another. The framers of the original law in no way intended the "perversion and the exorbitance of legal authority” which distorted it. As you note, "Ultimately, the problem is virtue, not political structure." A public sphere where virtue is discouraged and people are expected to behave like sheep, will end up with a bureaucratic judiciary attuned only to professional group-think. As you once wrote of Maritain's aim of wisdom rather than mere cleverness, how rare for a judge to aim for wisdom rather than group-think-correctness these days! - G.K. Thursday Tue, 24 Jul 2012 06:00:45 +0100 http://www.thecatholicthing.org/columns/2012/the-heaviest-oppression.html#comment-12593 Should those of us who disagree with "non-discriminatory" policies such as at Vanderbilt practice them to their absurd conclusion? Should believers flood the atheist club? Should heterosexuals flood the LGBT club? Should Christians flood the Muslim club? - Jon S. Tue, 24 Jul 2012 03:13:02 +0100 http://www.thecatholicthing.org/columns/2012/the-heaviest-oppression.html#comment-12591 Are the university clubs subsidized by the university? The Right to association was nationally circumscribed in 1965. Do you agree or disagree with the justice of it? - Gian Mon, 23 Jul 2012 19:35:26 +0100