“What I find truly insufferable is the idea that we should pretend that science knows less about sexuality than it knew in the 1950s.”
|Maureen Mullarkey is in distress|
From the ever-erudite Federalist we are blessed with Maureen Mullarkey’s religious diatribe titled: “Georgetown University To Offer ‘Jesuit-Approved’ LGBTQ-Only Housing.” I am not entirely sure that she is factually correct. Nevertheless, the subtitle of her little tantrum reads:
The once-eminent Jesuit university has approved a queer-only campus residence. Georgetown officials crow this ‘is in keeping with our Catholic and Jesuit values.’
Two things seem to be driving Mullarkey over the edge of reason:
- The fact that a Jesuit university is trying to be welcoming to LGBT students and;
- The fact that medical science does not conform to the catechism of the Catholic Church when it comes to human sexuality.
Apparently, not treating LGBT students as pariahs renders Georgetown no longer eminent. Most of the tirade is gibberish. Included is this little tidbit:
Georgetown already permits students to live—and shower and pee—with those who identify themselves however they choose, regardless of their biological sex. Which Catholic and Jesuit values accord with facilitating student petitions to inhabit in real-time the dystopian eroticism encouraged in “Brave New World”? And what, precisely, are the duties of a director of residential education?
Mullarkey obviously embraces the notion the sexual identity is a choice as if people opt to have gender dysphoria. It is an opinion at odds with the overwhelming consensus of science and it is formed in an attempt to conform the world to ancient texts. The majority of Catholics are capable of finding a balance between religious dogma and the real world. Ms. Mullarkey is not among them.
The office [of residential living] suggests that education as a function of the classroom is an idea that no longer holds. Cocooned behind her title, Georgetown’s Heather sounds as cheerfully forward-thinking as Aldous Huxley’s director of Hatcheries and Conditioning. The DHC, on a tour of the garden, observes a small group of kidlets at play:
I’ll spare you the idiotic quote. Mullarkey is referring to Katie Heather who is the associate director of residential education. That office has a clear sense of purpose:
The mission of the Office of Residential Living is to create comfortable, inclusive communities that foster formation and engagement.
In other words, they view student living as an important part of the educational experience. The office has a very modern, business-oriented culture:
Operating in a collaborative, fun, and team-oriented environment, we are knowledgeable educators supporting the University’s mission. We expect all team members to be innovative, effective and proactive individuals who care for our students and each other.
Kudos to them for reaching out to students who would feel more comfortable in an LGBT setting. I am not so sure it is a great idea. After all, eventually these kids are going to have to work with predominantly heterosexual, cisgender people. I would opt out but I would not impose my decision on anyone else. It is their choice.
In a sane culture, any applicant for Georgetown’s pandering experiment in educational living would be directed to therapy for counseling. But that is all past us now. Therapists are in on the scheme.
That’s right. Medical science is part of an elaborate conspiracy to defy the teachings of the Catholic Church. And who is this person who claims that LGBT people are mentally ill and that (presumably conversion) therapy can cure them? Well, the Federalist informs us that she is a painter. There is no mention of a degree in psychology or that she is a medical doctor. I cannot imagine where her certainty comes from.
Yet, Ms. Mullarkey seems to think that she knows a thing or two about human sexuality:
Mystification of sexuality, with its kaleidoscope of fanciful genders, opens a valuable new stream of lifelong clients seeking affirmation. Pathology attaches now only to those who cling to an outmoded understanding of normalcy …
No, the mystification applies to religious dogma which is based on faith. The gender continuum is science which is based on evidence. Which of the two is more likely to be correct?
You might think that care for the entire person—cura personalis—would demand countering the long, institutional march against established norms, particularly sexual ones. That charity in its fullness would deny efforts to override the concept of normalcy and of nature itself. Instead, a Jesuit institution has permitted LBGTQ militants to turn a gracious phrase into a slogan of infiltration with a religious gloss.
Cura personalis is a core belief of the Society of Jesus religious order. According to them it suggests individualized attention to the needs of the other, distinct respect for his or her unique circumstances and concerns, and an appropriate appreciation for his or her particular gifts and insights. Mullarkey has nothing but disdain for LGBT people.
When we are not described as radical activists we are militants — every single one of us. What she is really saying in that paragraph is that society should put the brakes on our advancements; our achievements in understanding the natural world. The reason we should do that is to not contradict the teachings of the Church.
Mullarkey seems to think that Georgetown University is being irresponsible and unreasonable. What I find truly insufferable is the idea that we should pretend that science knows less about sexuality than it knew in the 1950s.