We believe the message of the recent editorial, entitled “Reslife Poster Does Not Support ‘Love,’” has been misconstrued by an irate student body. The Observer has no issue with homosexuality or homosexual persons who live according to the faith. We take issue with a Catholic university’s implied endorsement of homosexual relationships through a supportive poster. The Catholic faith supports and loves individuals who are homosexual but calls them to chastity – like it does all unmarried individuals.
The Observer has no intention of vilifying or alienating any group of people on campus; our intention was never to offend or make any group uncomfortable. We simply want Boston College and its officials to remain committed to Catholic identity. We would like to extend a heartfelt apology to anyone who interpreted the article to have a different intent.
There was no need to apologize
You’re right. Meanwhile, everyone should stop using condoms. That’s been bugging me for a while.
Could you also write and article condemning Harry Potter?
This isn’t an apology?
Thank you to whoever wrote this article! I’m glad to see someone provide an excellent example of the kind of intolerance homosexuals face every day on this campus and mobilize the sane people for their cause. I hope this article leads to a school-wide discussion of GLBTQ issues (which never get any press.) Maybe then BC won’t top the lists of “schools most hostile to homosexuals” year after year anymore and the BC constitution will finally include them in the non-discrimination clause.
No apology!
Come on, I mean really…. how were you expecting the student body to react? Lets publish an article attacking a popular and tolerant student organization, and then act surprised when everyone gets upset about it
I mean come on… how did you really expect the student body to react? lets publish a highly controversial (and frankly biased and poorly reported) statement attacking a popular student group notorious for its tolerance and acceptance, and then act surprised when people get pissed. haha right.
I really don’t think that many people misunderstood you.
There was no misinterpreting the article.
“By supporting same-sex relationships, Boston College betrays this mission in favor of the pernicious fiction of secular, atheistic ‘tolerance.’”
Though the Church may not accept same-sex relationships, the Church does promote respect. Labeling something as atheistic is highly disrespectful in my book, and extraordinarily flagrant.
Support love is beyond the pictures on the shirts, posters, etc. Supporting love means creating a community of respect where all feel welcomed and comfortable.
Your apology will not be taken seriously. Thanks for trying though.
Jessica, touche. That is all I have to say is TOU-CHE.
This is a horrible attempt to try and clean up after yourself. It is obvious that the observer does not supply an objective view of life on BC’s campus, as one should expect from journalism. Every piece of dribble that I have ever read by the observer has done nothing but alienate members of our community, which ironically is the opposite of christian teaching. I have never felt a message of love from this journal. Every word drips with disdain and judgment. This journal does not unite members of the community. It creates a clear separation. Whenever I read an article from the Observer I feel as though my IQ has dropped ten points.
Sincerely,
Not Yours
Molly Solomon
Hold the phone. You expect ANY journalism to be objective? Seriously?
Please, by all means, cite a single unbiased news source. I would LOVE to encounter it.
Molly, maybe you should try the Gavel. I’m sure they’ll give you a very fair, unbiased view of what’s happening on campus.
You do not vilify yet you openly claim that homosexuals cannot love? Please find an instance where the catholic faith has actually supported homosexuals rather then claim your love to be universal and let them take a back seat. You were wrong, admit it. How could you possibly have not expected to offend anyone with a conscience with that abomination? It was not misinterpreted, it was poorly written and ill conceived. Get better.
Yikes! So if you’re not a virgin then the Catholic faith can’t love you….? Since when did the word ‘love’ (as in on the poster) mean ‘sex’?
Way to alienate the whole BC community in your response. And unless the Observer has a strict virgins-only requirement, then way to alienate your whole newspaper.
Virgins are cool. But to take the bible so seriously to suggest that Catholic individuals can’t be loved isn’t.
Do you see your loop here? This apology points out that the Catholic Church calls homosexual people to chastity just like it does everyone who isn’t married (which is actually only partially right – only unmarried people are called to CELIBACY, but ALL people are called to chastity). The issue is either about sex or it isn’t. Make up your mind. Furthermore, the Church is the place of second chances. Not having always lived the virtue of chastity doesn’t mean one isn’t trying now.
For homosexual individuals who are living in accordance with the faith, i.e. celibately, neither the Church nor The Observer has the slightest problem with them. In fact, the Church has regularly encouraged support of these individuals as they bear a weighty and difficult cross. It’s hard to be celibate, no matter who you’re attracted to!
Well said, Lindsay!
Lindsay, do you see YOUR loop? Or rather, does anyone apologetic to the Observer’s position see the real problem that people are attacking? People are upset at this article and this pathetic attempt at a response, NOT because you’ve misconstrued the Catholic doctrine of chastity, celibacy, love, etc. The REAL problem is that ANYONE would take this stance against homosexuality (love, sex, or otherwise). People are upset and “irate” because it is disturbing to hear a school newspaper propagate such close-minded, hateful, irrational, dogmatic, and intolerant views. Are people seriously so indoctrinated into their Catholic dogma that they can’t see the CLEAR hypocrisy between a message of love and this kind of intolerance? There are a lot of intelligent Catholics out there that can distinguish between the POLITICAL stances of the Church institution and RELIGIOUS doctrine of Catholicism. GET OUT OF THE 11th CENTURY!
Alex please refrain form discussing church doctrine anymore because you clearly know nothing about it. The church’s stance on homosexuality is an issue of morality meaning it is RELIGOUS doctrine. The church has declare that all acts of sexuality must be both procreative and unitive. Now this might come as a suprise to you, but one of the those qualifications cannot be met with a hommosexual union. Therefore, hommosexual actions are considered immoral by the church. So this has nothing to do with the “Political” stance of the church it is strictly a matter of religoun and morality. However, the church (aswell as this editorial) is very clear in stating the ACTS are immoral not the individual. In fact, the church makes clear that homosexual are nothing other than our brothers and sisters in christ and that they should be venerated for the great cross that they bear. So next time before you start spewing that a position is “close-minded, hateful, irrational, dogmatic, and intolerant” mabey you should actually put some effort into understanding it first.
“Whoever does not love does not know God, because God is love.” 1 John 4:8
There were several issues with your article:
You made BC out to be an illustrator of the Church’s teachings… which it is not.
You specifically targeted homosexual relationships, not homosexual sex.
Here you claim you do not want to alienate a group, you do… please do not lie.
Why don’t you take issue with the multiple faith services and organizations available on campus because that must certainly be against the Catholic Church to allow them on campus?
Maybe you do. I honestly don’t know. I generally don’t read the Observer because your reputation precedes you. I am Roman Catholic. I support love.
There are several issues with your article:
Taken from the mission statment “The Catholic Jesuit university is founded upon the conviction that the religious and the academic are intrinsically related.”
When you can explain to me how a homosexual relationship can be built on chastity, please get back to me
No, he just thinks it wrong to have a poster supporting homosexuality when the institution this school was built on declares it to be immoral. There is no call for alienation
Lets see what catacism says on religouns liberty: “Nobody may be forced to act against his convictions, nor is anyone to be restrained from acting in accordance with his conscience in religious matters in private or in public, alone or in association with others, within due limits. This right is based on the very nature of the human person…”
If you are a Roman Catholic then you must be willing to accept that all love follows from Christ. Of course we should all extend feelings of love to our homosexual brothers and sisters, however, homosexual acts are counter to love.
This response seems very self-contradicting to me. You have no issues with homosexuality but you have issues with posters supporting homosexuals? That doesn’t make a whole lot of sense. You are ok with homosexuals being what they are, but are not ok with a sign of love and comforting support from their community, especially in a world where they are often antagonized? Boston College as a university never issued an official statement saying they were cool with gay people having premarital sex. I see nothing wrong with this poster.The “support love” slogan is not about sex. It is about love. That’s why it says “support love” and not “support sex.”
Also, what bothers me most is the publication of this article which addresses homosexuality with an unsupportive tone by those that are very likely heterosexual. My opinion is, if you are heterosexual, leave the homosexuals alone to live their life as they want. What happens in their relationships does not concern you and you should not be judging them or those that support them. I think it is very sad when religious people are blinded by the rules and regulations that may have fit society thousands of year ago when they were written but now are out of date. I wish more Catholics would wake up to the true love of Christ and not cause drama for those that are different and those that are more tolerant and supportive of everyone.
While not explicitly referencing sex, the shirts and posters make it pretty clear that they consider homosexual relationships to be on equal footing with heterosexual ones. While friendship between gays certainly has its merits, to equate it with nuptial love is simply a distortion of natural law (which remains every bit as valid today as it did thousands of years ago), something which no Catholic university can encourage while remaining faithful to its tradition.
Catholics, in virtue of their love for Christ, ought to support and love gays, while nevertheless gently reminding them that all are called to live chastely and seek the Kingdom of God. To show cold indifference, and let them “live their life as they want”, would be quite far from showing authentic Christian charity. Tolerance and support derive their true significance only from true love.
There is a diffrence between condeming actions and condemnig people. The church calls us to condemn acts of homosexuality but to love homosexuals as our brothers and sisters in Christ. And as Paul said, this poster clearly supports homosexual relationships.
I think you’re confused. Misinterpretation is not the issue here.
“Hey guys, sorry you got offended by the dumb terrible thing one of us wrote. We’re sorry you got all angry and offended by those terrible ignorant things. We’re sorry you read them (We didn’t expect anyone to…Finally Page views!!!). But by the way you’re all crazy and heathens and we stand by the terrible things we said. Sorry you’re all sinners and angry about it!
P.S. Don’t forget to read our other weird and terrible editorial calling a simple Occupy Wall Street event ‘sinister’ and ‘Anti-Semitic’!”
Mabey you should come up with some intellectual response instead of just spewing the same old “your intolerant” BS.
P.S. The Occupy Wall Street people aren’t sinners, there just idiots with no knowledge of economics who rally need to go look for a job.
Too late- you messed up. If you did not mean to alienate or offend any one- there was a better way of going about this. You failed Observer. But how does your foot taste? good?
Articles like that (and the mentality that it fosters) is the reason the rate of suicides among the gay community are climbing exponentially…. You can say sorry all you want- but the words are there. Black and white. And you can’t take it back.
I just beg of you, really and truly THINK before you speak. Because it was and is still NOT OKAY.
You should feel like ass about yourselves.
Nobody “messed up”. An editorial is an opinion, and given that the BC community (which is supposed to be based on Catholic traditions and values) seems to be surprisingly liberal and vocal, the response was more than expected. There’s no need for an apology, nobody put their foot in their mouth, it’s just an unexpected response for a simple editorial. Great to know the BC community cares to much about an issue once it’s called into question. This response has provoked an abomination of this editorials authors opportunity to express free speech, a right that does actually exist in the US for us BC students. There’s not apology needed for ones own opinions, so I hope next time you really and truly think before you speak and degrade someone for expressing their own opinion on an ever growing topic.
Real Sandusky move there, Observer.
This particular author stated that it would be wrong for this poster to represent the BC community, and thus endorse homosexuality within a Jesuit University. While I see the use in acknowledging the tedious line between teaching acceptance and falsely representing the BC community as a whole, the author went beyond this point, and delved into a vicious and offensive attack on people who identify as homosexual. The author writes, “The “love” of the GLC’s campaign and the Edmond’s poster is not rooted in genuine Christian charity. The Church calls homosexual acts intrinsically disordered. As such, they do not flow from authentic love, the love of Christ. By supporting same-sex relationships, Boston College betrays this mission in favor of the pernicious fiction of secular, atheistic “tolerance” (The Observer at Boston College, Dec. 6, 2011).”
The fact that this intolerance and bigotry made its way into the newspaper, through peers, editors and publishers, disgusts me to the point of nausea. Who is to say that someone does not deserve love? Who is to say that the support of “tolerance” is an atheistic ideal? For someone who seemed so concerned about being falsely portrayed through the expressions of others, this author certainly is falsely grouping all homosexual people into his/her idea of an atheistic way of life. This blatant hatred for homosexual people, by saying they cannot receive love from Christ due to their sexual orientation, goes against any teachings of love that I learned growing up with the Catholic faith. I simply cannot believe that archaic interpretations of the Bible can trump the love we are called to have for others within our society. I find that it is less appropriate for a Catholic University to promote the hatred that this article spurs than to promote the tolerance the poster attempts to encourage.
Personally, I was actually frightened by the fanatic level of hatred the author placed upon homosexual people. He or she wrote, “…symbols of three couples – two men, two women, and a man and a woman – do not merely promote respect and tolerance; they imply that these three relationship types are equally acceptable in the eyes of a Catholic university (The Observer at Boston College, Dec. 6, 2011).” Later, The Observer staff defended the offensive article, stating, “The Catholic faith supports and loves individuals who are homosexual but calls them to chastity – like it does all unmarried individuals (The Observer at Boston College, Dec. 7, 2011).” I find this in no way to be the point the original author was making. He or she very decisively stated that the relationships of same-sex couples were not equal to those of opposite-sex couples. Does this sound like the kind of support and love for homosexual individuals The Observer later reports? To me, it sounds like discrimination coming from a place of intolerance and loathing. To say that someone is unequal because of his or her sexual orientation absolutely appalls me. I do not find anyone to be in such a place of elevation that he or she is capable of denouncing the value of someone else’s relationship.
The implications for Jesuit Universities nationwide are of concern. With Boston College supporting this article, it sends out a deliberate message to potential students that anyone not identifying with the University’s Catholic ideals will not be tolerated within the school body the same way people of straight orientation will be. This does not sound like something a college would want to promote, but essentially, that is what the defense of this article is doing. While I am proud of the horrified reactions within the BC community, the fact that this article was published in the first place brings disgrace to the paper, the student body, and the University as a whole. To respond to this outrageous message of hate, I hope the students of Boston College can stand together (and by together I mean men and women together, men and men together and women and women together) and prove that the words of one student do not represent the views of 14,625. After all, we would not want to misrepresent the community.
Preach!
Cassie, as a practicing Catholic (and someone who spent my four years at BC studying Catholic theology), I most certainly agree with you(and think the author of these articles would probably agree with you) on the importance of showing love and concern to gays, and would likewise agree that tolerance is a good thing, provided one properly understands the meaning of these terms.
Gays undoubtedly find themselves confronted with a great struggle, and for BC to unjustly discriminate against them on the basis of their sexual orientation would be very wrong. Additionally, it would only be right for a Catholic University to provide a compassionate atmosphere where homosexuals can find support in dealing with the difficulties they encounter in daily life. However, such love and support always have to be governed by a commitment to truth and morality, for the good of all involved. For anyone, Catholic or non-Catholic, seeking truth and goodness is our highest purpose in life, and the only way to true happiness. No university with a commitment to these values can justly support a lifestyle which glorifies acts that run contrary to the moral law of nature. To tolerate such a lifestyle out of respect for human freedom is one thing. But to embrace or encourage it is simply incompatible with the mission of a Catholic university like Boston College.
This is not a message of “intolerance and loathing”, nor is it meant to claim that two gay people cannot love each other properly, or that Christ doesn’t love gays. These are strawman arguments, and I’d expect better from students at my alma mater. It is simply an objective fact that a relationship between two people of the same sex is inherently closed off to procreation, and as such, is not equal to a potentially life-giving relationship between people of the opposite gender (and in virtue of this, cannot properly be considered the equivalent of nuptial love). To distort the sexual act by deliberately separating it from its natural purpose is a violation of natural law, and is immoral for that reason. This is what the Church affirms, and likewise what I imagine is intended by these articles, which were perhaps a bit antagonistic, but hardly what I would consider hateful. Homosexuals may of course love one another, and of course they are loved by Christ. Christ, who calls all of us to turn away from sin and follow after Himself, the way, the truth, and the life.
Phil – Though I think you provide one of the most rational arguments in favor of this article (which does not say much), it seems as though your definition of “love” is quite different from what I understand love to be. I am blessed in that I have some absolutely wonderful gay friends whom I can say with no hesitation that I love, but I am confused because I would NEVER say something like this to someone I love. So all I’m asking is which is it? Love and tolerance are not the same. It seems as though you believe that Jesus and Catholicism tolerate gays, which I do think is accurate. But please do not mistake tolerance for love. This article is many things, but it is absolutely not an act of love.
Unfortunately, the article was not misconstrued and your “heartfelt apology” doesn’t count for much when you still defend a position that seeks to use faith as a reason to withhold love for our brothers and sisters. Have you thought about the members of campus that you just alienated? Anyone who is gay, anyone with a gay loved one, and essentially the MAJORITY that is accepting and supportive of all human beings.
Catch up with the country, “Observer”. I will happily never support your newspaper again. http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-16062937
“The Observer has no issue with homosexuality or homosexual persons who live according to the faith”. Your mistake was adding “who live according to the faith”. The great thing about Boston College is that it is filled with students from all different backgrounds. Therefore, just because a person doesn’t adhere only or entirely to the Catholic faith doesn’t mean they are living a life of sin. You are entitled to your opinions, but you also need to be respectful of others. Catholic teachings on human sexual behavior remain incredibly controversial (just look at the mess the Humanae Vitae created), and plenty of people who identify with Catholicism ignore this aspect as it has no relevance to their secular life.
You also said in your previous article that “The “love” of the GLC’s campaign and the Edmond’s poster is not rooted in genuine Christian charity.” Please don’t group Christianity and Catholicism as one in the same. Plenty of Christian denominations (Anglican, Lutheran, UCC) are accepting of homosexual relationships.
If you are catholic, than you must believe that homosexual acts are sinfull. Just as acts of hetrosexualality before marrige are sinfull. Opinions are not the same as belief in a religous doctrine. You can’t believe that all people who don’t belive in your religoun are exempt from the doctrine. Oh and I’m not entirly sure what you mean by the “mess” that was created by Humanae Vitae, except that so many catholics in America fail to adhere to it.
You do understand that no matter how you word it, condemning a supportive poster is going to lead to feelings of alienation and cause many people to become uncomfortable, yes? You do understand that calling a group of people “inherently disordered” and defining this group’s relationships as purely sexual in content is vilifying, yes?
“Is there so much love in the world that we can afford to discriminate against any kind of love?” – Fr. Mychal Judge
As an alum from Boston College, I was surprised to read this post as well as the article that this post seeks to respond to. Frankly I feel that the remarks in this response are disingenuous at best.
The incendiary article, published in your paper, cites “The ‘love’ of the GLC’s campaign and the Edmond’s poster is not rooted in genuine Christian charity. The Church calls homosexual acts intrinsically disordered. As such, they do not flow from authentic love, the love of Christ.”
It’s hard to believe your response, that the Observer has “no issue with homosexuality or homosexual persons who live according to the faith”, for you published an article which argues that homosexual acts are not authentic forms of love in the way Christ defined love. That to me sounds like you do not believe homosexuals live within the Christian faith altogether. If your intent was really to make sure that BC was upholding a “Catholic identity”, you should’ve written an article describing the inclusion that this support campaign demonstrates. Christianity at its core is about love, particularly of the marginalized. The people supporting this campaign clearly demonstrate “genuine Christian charity”, in that they show their support for a marginalized population. I fail to see how your opinion against this campaign shows love and care for marginalized groups. Who here really shows the more appropriate actions committed to a Catholic identity?
This newspaper and its staff are entitled to have their beliefs. But your words have impact. You articles directly affect the students at the University, and I am shamed to read that this paper seeks to alienate an entire sect of its student population. Please publish responsibly.
Matt Gelman
A&S 2010
In this apology, perhaps next time you will realize before publishing clearly offensive ideas. The University that you are calling to action is not the Boston College that I attend, its 2011, wake up.
Nice to know the school thinks its students equate sex and love.
I know, right ? So ignorant.
How can you say that you have no problem with homosexuality, but you take issue with the poster?
How is it an endorsement of homosexuality? It merely aims to “support love,” nothing new at BC given the GLC’s existence for decades.
I think the issue lies with the definition of love. Love is not merely the act of sexual intercourse. By wiriting the previous article, you were in fact villifying homosexuality. Chastity? Are you serious?
I can’t see this article as anything more than a last ditch effort for The Observer to appease to its donors after a semester of irrelevance. The ideas presented here are too dated to appeal to anyone else under the age of 50.
“Chastity? Are you serious?” Homosexuals are not the only ones called to chastity. Hetrosexual men and women are also called to chastity if they don’t undergo the vocation of marrige. Not to mention the church calls its own clergy to a life time of chastity. And believe it or not, it is possible to live life without focusing soley on instant gradification.
Your apology is even worse than your original article. You should be ashamed of yourselves. I’m so sick of the old “we don’t hate gays, we just hate the gay act” line. That’s like saying “I don’t hate catholics, I just hate it when they believe in God.” I’m sorry that you didn’t mean to offend anyone, because you absolutely have. You’ve made homosexuals feel alienated in their own home away from home. I hope the overwhelmingly negative response your article has garnered helps you to understand how backwards and bigoted your views are. Boy are you going to feel dumb in 50 years when everyone is talking about how ignorant those homophobes used to be. Someday people are going to be talking about you the way we now talk about racists. This was a hateful publicity stunt and I can only take solace in the fact that hardly anyone at BC finds your little publication to be at all credible. If you really want BC and its officials to “remain committed to Catholic identity,” you would be reaching out to the GLBTQ community and offering them support and love the way Jesus would have certainly done.
In short, we do not accept your apology.
p.s. look for me today, I’ll be the one in the tie-dye Support Love shirt
First of of all, speak for yourself and not for others. Secondly, there is nothing wrong with saying that act is wrong but the individual is not. In fact this is exactly what Christ told us to believe. We are called to dispise sin, but love the sinner. Now did the original article use the correct tone in promoting this message? I don’t think so, however, that dosn’t mean the message is incorrect.
No one is misconstruing what you meant, we’re just all offended by it. If this were a Catholics only Catholic university, then maybe you’d have a point.
What you’re really saying is “sorry, not sorry”
You’ve made a fool out of yourselves, and you attempted to make a fool of the Catholic Faith. Ask any Jesuit on BC campus and they will tell you that you are grossly misinterpreting the faith. It’s ironic that not some three weeks from now, we celebrate the anniversary of a baby boy being born far from comfort and a home because of the hatred of others. Jesus experienced, time and again, the rejection of others, and yet every time, instead of bitterness, he chose love. Shouldn’t you, as a self-proclaimed “Christian,” do the same?
The original article and this pathetic excuse for an apology just show what a piece of crap this publication really is. It’s no wonder that no one takes you guys seriously. Why don’t you bigots join the rest of us in the 21st century?
I think the students at BC went a little far in tearing the article apart. It seems contradictory, however, to be stating that BC is a Catholic University (which does not support homosexuality), yet there are few other times the faith at BC is put at the forefront. BC for the most part does not follow the Catholic faith – nor does most of the student body go to Mass during the school year. The article was written in a distasteful manner – perhaps you should address the lack of Catholic values of BC students and the BC community then you would not be so narrowly insulting one group of individuals.
Honestly, I really hope the University considers revoking your funding over this. I know it won’t because it’s a free speech issue, but it sickens me to know that money is being funneled into such a mouthpiece for bigotry.
It sickens me to know that university money goes to groups like AHANA who by their very existance are discriminatory.
Hmm, not just bigoted against homosexuals, but also bigoted against clubs that allow racial and cultural minorities to have a voice, huh Ethan? So classy. Try saying something like that in a setting where you can actually be held accountable for it. I dare you.
Oh so I’m a racist because I believe we shouldn’t have organizations that elevate some people over others based solely on race? People like you truly disgust me. You say your all for the Civil Rights movement, but then are against a color blind society. Its because of people like you that there is so much self segregation on this campus.
Ethan – There’s no such thing as a color blind society, at least in today’s world, and to suggest that a school like BC that is 85% white can’t be culturally sensitive is what’s disgusting. There is nothing wrong with giving minority students a chance not to feel like they are in a place they don’t belong. Many people have valid arguments about culture groups or groups such as AHANA and that they promote exclusivity, and if that’s what you were trying to say then fine. However that is not how it comes across when you say “It sickens me to know the university money goes to groups like AHANA.” That statement, especially when it’s completely irrelevant to the issue at hand here, does come across as racially insensitive. AHANA isn’t about elevating – it’s about making everyone feel like part of a community.
they’re not funded by BC.
They’re not funded by BC
I’m sorry that YOU ALL misconstrued what was intended is not an apology. This apology places the blame on students who reacted poorly by implying that we all are collectively stupid enough to misread a text. A legitimate publication takes reader response into account BEFORE publishing an article. Clearly The Observer is illegitimate.
Boston College should be ashamed of “The Observer.” Embarrassed to call myself an alumni where such hate is tolerated.
Never have I been more proud to say that I turned down Boston College. You, Observer Staff, disgust me.
Never have i wished more that I turned down Boston College.
I don’t think it counts as an apology when you’re still persecuting a specific group. Catholics are about love, supposedly God’s the only one supposed to do the judging. This is probably a great subject to discuss in theology class though, it’s college, take it there.
I’m probably more upset with the fact that the article was published anonymously. Everyone’s allowed to have their own views. But if you are publishing them in a journalistic setting, you must stand behind what you said, not mask yourself in a publicly cowardly way.
The meaningless and pathetic apology should have been kept to yourselves.
Reading through these comments I have seen some respectful discussion on both sides, but I have also seen a lot of anger, albeit perhaps understandable. That being said I do not think any minds or hearts will be changed through angry words.
If this discussion continues, and I think it should its topic is important, then let us try and make it an intelligent and respectful discussion. Perhaps then some hearts and mind swill be changed.
“The Observer has no issue with homosexuality or homosexual persons who live according to the faith.” seems to be in blatant, albeit unshocking, discord with your previous statement “The Church calls homosexual acts intrinsically disordered. As such, they do not flow from authentic love, the love of Christ.”
If your “publication” (I hesitate to use this word to describe your exercise of the “Observer Staffs” 1st amendment rights in print) is attempting to champion the cause of a “Catholic education” and BC as a “Catholic university” it is de facto adopting, or at the very least supporting, the principles and stances of the Church. Thus, whether intended or not, your “publication” implicitly finds “homosexual acts intrinsically disordered” and as such, The Observer clearly “has an issue” with homosexuality.
Further, the initial “article” (once again, I hesitate to use this word as I do not wish to dignify the contents of the content printed) condescendingly quoting the term “tolerance” and thus, further implies that The Observer “has an issue” with homosexuality. If the The Observer truly did not have “an issue” with homosexuality, I would imagine a more unbiased approach would have been taken.
In addition, as students whose decision-making process lead them to BC for their undergraduate education – the very Catholic university who’s founding principles “Observer Staff” is seeking to protect and bolster – aren’t these gay students at the very least, respecting and attempting to live in accord with the faith?
And “Observer Staff”, doesn’t the Bible preach tolerance (no quotes)? Doesn’t it advocate refraining from the judgment and condemnation of others? I believe it does. It appears you have some work to do, as well, with respect to living “according to the faith”.
Alexandra
CSOM ’10
You (just like most of the students on this campus) fail to understand that there is a diffreance with having a problem with homosexuality and having a problem with homosexuals. The Observer doesn’t hide the fact that it has an issue with homosexuality. Any catholic must accept that homosexual acts are disordered due to the fact that they are not porcreative. However, all catholics must also love individual homosexuals as their brothers and sisters in christ. There is a difference between the two.
There are straight couples who aren’t procreative so the issue is obviously not just procreation even though you seem to use that reasoning. And I don’t hate you; I just hate everything you believe in. That’s less offensive, right?
SiobhanAnn, I’m sorry but I really don’t understand what your point is. Yes, there are straight couples who are not procreative and that type heterosexuality is equally wrong. I never said that heterosexuality could not be immoral. Any sexual act that is not both unitive and procreative is immoral. The fact of the matter is that homosexuality can never be procreative. However, as I said, this does not mean I think it right for homosexuals to be alienated or discriminated against. Our homosexual brothers and sisters should be embraced and venerated for the heavy cross they bear.
“And I don’t hate you; I just hate everything you believe in” You would not be the first to say that, but I thank you for the beginning.
As a BC Alum, I can’t decide if I’m grateful I’m no longer living on a campus where these discussions are STILL happening (my anger and resentment towards The Observer can be, at times, debilitating) or if I’m just so sad that a place that I love so dearly is still grappling with human rights issues in this manner.
Lets put ourselves in the shoes of the marginalized on the Boston College campus- homosexuals, women, non-white, non-Catholics, etc. Let us practice our faith by welcoming all, and embracing those who may “seem different” from ourselves. Let us remember that we are all created in His image, and this appreciation is what makes Boston College such a special place. Let us support love and reject intolerance.
I’m just so sad that a place that I love so dearly is still grappling with mortal sin in this manner.
As I said in a comment to the other article:
If you are truly upset about this, you should address the University Administration directly. They may be an “independent voice”, but why on earth then are they welcomed on-campus if they spew such a hateful diatribe? Surely the campus would not be comfortable allowing a group to publish and distribute hate speech, would they?
Granted, I never found any of the publications enlightening, but considering the numerous examples the Observer has published over the years of such awful near-hate speech articles, when is enough enough?
So you say “The Catholic faith supports and loves individuals who are homosexual but calls them to chastity – like it does all unmarried individuals.” Gays can get married in Massachusetts, so gays don’t have to be chaste! So now gay sex can be sanctified! Observer, thanks so much for opening my eyes, I can finally come out of the closet and get some sweet lovin’
This article blatantly contradicts the one it references. Also, very classy submitting the article “Observer Staff” ; at least man up and take responsibility for your opinions. This is all a desperate cry for attention from a newspaper that nobody reads, and it doesn’t deserve any attention. A school like BC encourages its students to be educated in their beliefs and substantiate them, rather than ignorantly giving opinion with no backing.
…that’s not an apology. The best apology for anyone is for the Observer to leave the Old Testament…aka the one no one reads.
*leave their opinon