Article on SHU, basketball, but other more broad issues

[The Crows Nest]

Including living up to our Catholic mission.....or not.

thoughts?
This post was edited on 8/31 11:47 AM by halldan1

http://www.creativeminorityreport.com/2010/08/futu

 

[catholicman]

Very good article. If I say any more it will start WWIII on this board.

However, I will say this: if we as a university could, by the help of God's grace, become faithful to Catholic principles, teaching, and morality,
it would make us a unique and wonderful educational institution, which would give us an advantage in basketball recruiting. The world is longing for the wisdom and beauty of Catholic teaching. It is the mother Church and the heart of Christendom.
This post was edited on 8/31 8:44 PM by catholicman

 

[hall58]

Dan, please put this over to 'Life off the ship'.

 

[hall58]

To paraphrase Catholicman: However, I will say this: if the Vatican could, by the help of God's grace, become faithful to Catholic principles, teaching, and morality, it would make us a unique and wonderful Religion.

 

[Muggsy Blue]

Love that Catholic mission, but can't quite accept the stance on pedophilia.

 

[catholicman]

You guys are brutal. Cheap shots as usual, no intellectual vigor.

 

[SHUHobbit09]

Originally posted by catholicman:
You guys are brutal. Cheap shots as usual, no intellectual vigor.

While I respect your opinion, I have to disagree with your points. I love SHU and my time at the university, I do not identify myself with any religion because of how members inside a particular religious group or sect treat individuals that do not fit the specific mold of a group.

I grew up catholic and went to mass every Sunday but the constant belittling of gays and other "fringe" groups by my Church's Deacon and Priests turned me off. I felt that Jesus taught us to accept other cultures and opinions not to put people different from you down.

I went to SHU to see if going to a Catholic institution would renew and strengthen my faith, but instead I was pushed farther away from that faith because of the exclusiveness of priests and bishops. At my commencement instead of the Newark Bishop congratulating us and offering kid words he took the time to put down gay marriage and the child molestation. He used our graduation as a pedestal to perpetuate hate instead of love.

While I may get closer to God later in life but I do not foresee myself becoming Catholic once more.

 

[jcalz88]

Everyone is going to hate me but... Who caresssssss. Let me tell you I have some very relegious friends who go to mass every day but they are a dime a dozen, it doesnt happen the Seton Hall masses attendance I would think is very week I do not have the numbers. We are a college a place for different views I am as far right as you can be but idc if they have a class on gay marriage if someone wans to be educated on it who am i to say no. Kids want to go to this class who are we to stop them. Now this is from a student stand point and I get I did not grow up in the same time the majority of you did but no one cares on campus. We have gays in our classes idc doesnt bother me shuld they not be aloud to have a gay and lesbian club because it is against relegion? Isnt the basis of shu to teach students with a hint of a catholic mission? It is college noone goes here to get closer to god anymoe just doesnt happen people come to get a degree end of story. The arch rip off just wants to make money it is not about teaching catholic values. Sorry if im just venting but that is how it is we go to class we study during the week and we want to party on weekends. We dc what classes whose teaching and the last thin we want to hear is what we can learn the studnets are paying it is our school if we want to learn we should. Btw you would never find me in that class ha please dont hate me everyone just how i feel. I can go all night about what i would change about seton hall but i dont have the time or the will power it would be exhausting. This is coming from a good student not some slacker but I would do things alot differently.
This post was edited on 8/31 11:57 PM by jcalz88

 

[shuNick]

This whole article is bull, written by some ultraconservative Catholic.
The same site believes King Fatass's lies about the $400 million (http://www.creativeminorityreport.com/2010/08/mindless-drones-vs-chris-christie.html).


Among religious schools Catholic schools have long been renowned for being especially open places. We shouldn't shove any beliefs down anyone's throat and we should instead focus on the main point of being a Christian - sacrifice for others, social justice, etc.

We need more guys at Seton Hall like James Martin.(http://www.colbertnation.com/the-colbert-report-videos/267673/march-18-2010/glenn-beck-attacks-social-justice---james-martin)

By "guys like James Martin" I mean Jesuits.

http://www.creativeminorityreport.com/2010/08/pawlenty-to-obamacare-nope.html

 

[jcalz88]

Now why cant SHU have a young priest from wharton who worked at GE. I would love to buy him a beer at cryans and just chat with him... Rumor was the priests back in the day used to be alot of fun any truth to that?

 

[Bobbie Solo]

lol

 

[Section112]

This is a well written article that took a great deal of thought and courage to write. Some posters on the board love to say the church hates this and that, but then they criticize just the same.

Whether you agree or not, respect the article for what it is. A good attempt at making some sense out of the current situation. That's all.

I prefer a Catholic University, not because it only teaches Catholic values but because their is more of a sense of community and concern for the poor etc. Most are much better in my opinion than some of the sterile universities out there that only focus on one's major producing robots rather than well-rounded citizens. In my mind, the seminary needs to be pure and teach Catholic values only. The University needs to espouse Catholic values but not push them too hard and welcome all providing a solid educational experience.

Bottom line is SHU needs to find the right balance between welcoming all and having an underlying sense of Catholic values to guide it's mission.

 

[SHUBigT]

I agree with Setion 112, this is a very well written article that took a lot of thought to put together.

Some students (myself included) chose to attend a Catholic University because the curiculum is guided by Catholic teachings and values. I believe the Catholic Church takes clear stances on homosexuality and abortion and those stances should be presented in the curiculum of the University. If you don't like the message of the Church then you have the right to chose a non-Cathoic University. I know people may argue that those teachings do not provide a well rounded education and again if you feel that way; don't go to a Cathoic University.

 

[Halldan1]

I'll keep this here for a short time for all to read. But in a while it will be moved to the Life off the Ship board since it has strayed from a BB discussion.

 

[Merge]

Originally posted by SHUBigT:
I agree with Setion 112, this is a very well written article that took a lot of thought to put together.

Some students (myself included) chose to attend a Catholic University because the curiculum is guided by Catholic teachings and values. I believe the Catholic Church takes clear stances on homosexuality and abortion and those stances should be presented in the curiculum of the University. If you don't like the message of the Church then you have the right to chose a non-Cathoic University. I know people may argue that those teachings do not provide a well rounded education and again if you feel that way; don't go to a Cathoic University.

I think that is a fair.
However, if you don't want a course that may clash with your personal values... you also have the right to not take that course (which is an elective). Not everyone at Seton Hall has the same beliefs and there is plenty of student interest in the course.

The gay marriage issue is a pretty big national issue right now and I expect that it will make it to the supreme court within a couple years. What is wrong with exploring that issue academically?

 

[mclaugmi]

In my time at SHU I always felt there were two factions pulling against each other trying to answer a question of who we are; are we a University that is also Catholic or are we a group of Catholics collected at a University? Are we an organization that fosters debate and dialogue and the free exchange of ideas in a setting that also promotes a guide to living in a ethical and principled manner, or are we a group of individuals committed to that guide to living or lives in a manner that happen to be gathered in a setting that allows for discussions on topics as long as they do not conflict with our accepted principles.

I had always hoped that we would be the former, but I always felt that those advocating for the latter had the upperhand.

For the past 5 years some in the Seton Hall community have launched a campaign to discredit Dr. Mott. It is perhaps one of the most disgusting things I have watched at SHU. Mott is not teaching a class on gay marriage. He, as a well-respected member of the political science faculty, is teaching a class on a public policy issue, the role of government, and political culture. I wonder if those who speak so adamantly about his course and its attempt to undermine the "mission of Seton Hall" have ever taken the time to speak to him and to hear his views on the University. I have. I know that there are few people on campus or in the larger Seton Hall community that are dedicated to the cause of the University and concerned about its well being as Dr. Mott.

 

[SHUBigT]

Merge you are 100% correct that the gay marriage issue is huge nationally right now and it probably will go to the supreme court in a couple years.

Exploring the issue academically is a slippery slope at a Catholic University. As a Catholic institution I don't really believe that you can present the pro side of gay marriage to teach the course impartially and stay within the Catholic value structure. The course is also being taught by an openly homosexual professor; so you would have to assume that the pro side of gay marriage will be represented fairly strongly, which does not fall in line with Catholic doctrine.

Yes students have the right not to take the course and that is fair.
The question is can the course be taught fairly while staying in bounds with Catholic teachings? I say no it can't be which means that it should not be offered at a Catholic University.

 

[Merge]

Originally posted by SHUBigT:
Merge you are 100% correct that the gay marriage issue is huge nationally right now and it probably will go to the supreme court in a couple years.

Exploring the issue academically is a slippery slope at a Catholic University. As a Catholic institution I don't really believe that you can present the pro side of gay marriage to teach the course impartially and stay within the Catholic value structure. The course is also being taught by an openly homosexual professor; so you would have to assume that the pro side of gay marriage will be represented fairly strongly, which does not fall in line with Catholic doctrine.

Yes students have the right not to take the course and that is fair.
The question is can the course be taught fairly while staying in bounds with Catholic teachings? I say no it can't be which means that it should not be offered at a Catholic University.

It isn't an easy answer and I admit my bias as being pro gay marriage.

Cutting it because it is against Catholic teaching seems okay at first glance, but why then do we offer "Intro to Islam"?

 

[SHUBigT]

No Merge it certainly isn't an easy answer and I respect your stance on the issue. I'm not trying to debate whether gay marriage is right or wrong.

As far as I know the Catholic Church isn't anti Islam so teaching a course on Islam seems ok. If I am correct the course is more of a history of the religion as opposed to a poly sci based issue course like the gay marriage one seems to be.

At the end of the day there is no perfect solution to make everyone happy. In my opinion at a Catholic institution certain topics should not be taught based on the Catholic belief structure. A Catholic institution should not teach pro gay marriage philosophies, therefore you can not have a legit course on the topic.

 

[SHUSource]

If the purpose of a university is to provide knowledge and debate ideas, then it is beyond me how a class whose purpose is strictly to inform students on issues of gay marriage and takes no editorial stance can be squelched by the university.

I happen to favor the legality of gay marriage, but I can understand how a Catholic university would not approve of a course that essentially recommnends this practice. However, this class does not - rather, it simply explores the issue and prepares students the information to form their own well-informed opinions on the matter. If the Church does indeed feel the facts favor its policy, it ought to have nothing to fear by offering such a course.

To suppress such a class is antithetical to the very purpose of a university. Seton Hall and other Catholic universities have to decide whether they want to function as centers of static doctine - dogma, really - or as centers of knowledge, free thought and intellectual exploration.

 

[shu09]

I was not a political science major but I did take a political science class with Dr. King Mott. He was certainly one of the most intelligent and thought-provoking professors I had at Seton Hall. The man knows how to teach and also knows his stuff inside and out.

 

[Seton75]

The Church's reason for being is not to stimulate intellectual discussions. It never has been, ask Galileo. If the Church suceeded in it's attempts at stifling thought contrary to its teachings, much of modern science would never have happened. The Church, all churches, see things as they see them. Having their followers see it the same way is the point of their existance, along with the idea that their teachings lead to good lives, here and/or hereafter. One man's pearly gates is another's 7 virgins.

 

[Belluno]

"Knowledge, free thought, and intellectual expression' is it? And where do we find that? At Yale, Harvard or a host of other "outstanding" universities. Until a traditonal speaker appears on campus or the rare conservative professor is up for tenure. Then the open minded free speech advocates show their true colors and spew their venom, just as they do on these very boards.

 

[Section112]

Merge wrote: "What is wrong with exploring the issue of gay marriage academically?"

I say nothing is wrong with offering that class at all. At a University all issues should be open to discussion and debate. But the point of the article is not whether this class should be offered or not. I think the point of the article is what kind of university should SHU be in the future. And with all the problems over getting a new leader, problems with the BBall program and debate over this class it seems like the University could be at a crossroads.

For me we should not try and discredit a prof and we should not rule with an iron fist based on the Bishop's opinion. But we should espouse concern for people and try and espouse virtues that are implied through the Catholic faith. Basketball is cool and helps us attract students and build school pride. But let's try and build that program the right way and we took a good step with firing Gonzo and hiring Willard. So from a BBall perspective, it is my hope that we are going in the right direction.

I also think that by not hiring Swetland, the University did a good thing as well as he might be way too conservative like our Bishop and not be good for the long-term future of the University. At the same time we need a leader who can espouse Catholic values but be repectful to all faiths. Not an easy task. Should be interesting to see how our beloved SHU moves forward....

 

[SHUSource]

Originally posted by Belluno:
"Knowledge, free thought, and intellectual expression' is it? And where do we find that? At Yale, Harvard or a host of other "outstanding" universities. Until a traditonal speaker appears on campus or the rare conservative professor is up for tenure. Then the open minded free speech advocates show their true colors and spew their venom, just as they do on these very boards.

I agree, Belluno. There does seem to be a double standard in many cases, as some of our top universties, such as the ones you mention.

I'm not as concerned about Yale or Harvard as I am Seton Hall, however. And the precepts of knowledge, free thought and intellectual exploration are the most vital a university can offer. It's disheartening when our alma mater would rather bury its head in the sand than encourage students (and itself) to learn about issues and be as well-informed as possible.

 

[donnie_baseball]

Originally posted by Seton75:
If the Church suceeded in it's attempts at stifling thought contrary to its teachings, much of modern science would never have happened.

This is a fascinating thread, I just wanted to correct this. Actually, the monasteries were the keepers of scientific knowledge during the Dark Ages and the Renaissance. They protected the volumes of textbooks from the pillaging hordes, and they were very elitist about being the keepers of cutting edge scientific knowledge. The Galileo incident was unusual, and probably more about ego than offending God.



It's very common, and in vogue to regurgitate these atheist/anti-religion talking points, such as the Church being at odds with science (it's not, the papacy recognizes Darwin's theory -- but not so much 'Darwinism'); the Church's role in the Crusades and the Inquisition, etc.


Followers of Bill Maher and Hitchens and that crew love to spew this propaganda. They are so poorly read in their history, it's pathetic, and people believe them without checking the facts, or realizing that in doing so, they're more dogmatic than the Church ever was. It's great irony.
This post was edited on 10/5 3:11 PM by donnie_baseball

 

[Seton75]

donnie, I guess upon further review you are right. Even Copernicus was buried with full Catholic approval. Of course, that happened 400 years after he died when he was re-buried...

 

[Old_alum]

Originally posted by Seton75:
The Church's reason for being is not to stimulate intellectual discussions. It never has been, ask Galileo. If the Church suceeded in it's attempts at stifling thought contrary to its teachings, much of modern science would never have happened. The Church, all churches, see things as they see them. Having their followers see it the same way is the point of their existance, along with the idea that their teachings lead to good lives, here and/or hereafter. One man's pearly gates is another's 7 virgins.

I cannot agree with all of this, 75.

For millennia it was exactly the Catholic Church --- more than any other group --- which advanced science and its application. It was the Catholic Church that preserved the writings and arguments of all --- heretics and believers, alike. Scientists, too. A credo of the Catholic Church is ‘’Faith and reason’’. Read the letters of Galileo’s daughter.

That said, there have been --- and still are --- practitioners and priests who do not exemplify what the Catholic Church teaches. Inductive reasoning --- using the particulars to seek a universal --- is a pillar of the scientific method, but it leads to ‘’propositions’’ which might be accepted as’’ theories’’, not as ‘’laws’’. And these theories are often rescinded ‘’upon further review’’. Inductive reasoning is never accepted by a true scientist as a ‘’proof’’. To use inductive reasoning to argue that bad acts by members of a group justify the condemnation of the group, as a whole, is as specious as it is popular. Nor would this approach be accurate and appropriate with regard to democracy, higher education, capitalism, the Salvation Army, or message board participation.

IMHO the Church does not always express its positions with rhetoric that is easily understood --- let alone accepted --- by modern masses.

Indeed, I would agree that ‘’ Having their followers see it the same way is the point of (a church’s) existence (sic), along with the idea that their teachings lead to good lives, here and/or hereafter.’’ This is just another way of saying they are trying to save souls.

That said, just because all churches do try to save souls in their own ways, this does not justify lumping all of them together in other regards, such as ‘’truth’’. This, too, is specious.

 

[Old_alum]

Originally posted by Section112:
Merge wrote: "What is wrong with exploring the issue of gay marriage academically?"

I say nothing is wrong with offering that class at all. At a University all issues should be open to discussion and debate. But the point of the article is not whether this class should be offered or not. I think the point of the article is what kind of university should SHU be in the future. And with all the problems over getting a new leader, problems with the BBall program and debate over this class it seems like the University could be at a crossroads.

For me we should not try and discredit a prof and we should not rule with an iron fist based on the Bishop's opinion. But we should espouse concern for people and try and espouse virtues that are implied through the Catholic faith. Basketball is cool and helps us attract students and build school pride. But let's try and build that program the right way and we took a good step with firing Gonzo and hiring Willard. So from a BBall perspective, it is my hope that we are going in the right direction.

....

IMHO this post probably comes closest to my own point of view with some significant exceptions. First, just as the Catholic Church teaches that an individual's own conscience is his/her primary guide, the corollary is that each is required to have a rightly-formed conscience. SHU --- and all Catholic universities --- should support open education and discussion of all issues, BUT they must assure that this is done in a complete and unbiased manner. (I know many of you are laughing at this). The issue here is not about learning or tolerance, but about advocacy. I am totally confident that if the Church’s view were to be accurately and completely presented in any discussion forum, then most logical people would concur with it. Similarly, I am totally confident that if the Church’s view were to be presented by others based on popular perceptions that are highly inaccurate and unlearned, then many logical people could be badly deceived and misguided. There is something about putting the fox in charge of the henhouse.

Originally posted by EWTN Professor Mott maintained that his own avowed homosexuality would not prevent (emphasis added) the course from presenting “all perspectives” on “a considerable public policy question,” including the convictions of “those that hold a religious belief.”

Here is the problem: A truly unbiased curriculum would ‘‘assure’’ that ‘‘all perspectives’’ would be explained. Mott merely says he would ‘‘not prevent’’ them from being presented. I suspect there is advocacy in Mott's curriculum.
This post was edited on 10/12 11:54 AM by Old_alum