“GU Must Allow for Safe Sex”, but I ask, “Why”?

Earlier today, I wrote and submitted the following letter in response to an editorial appearing in this morning’s (February 12, 2008) electronic edition of one of the student-initiated papers at Georgetown University, The Hoya. The editorial is entitled “GU Must Allow for Safe Sex.” [HERE] I do not know if the editors will publish my letter. If they do, they may well ask that its size be reduced in order to meet space restrictions. Since the matters I address discuss the identity of Catholic institutions (a topic we have often addressed), I decided to post the complete text of my letter here:

For many years I have read The Hoya in order to follow the news about a great university that is alma mater to many—many who are Catholics and many who are not. Over the years I have found that prevailing attitudes reported in The Hoya have departed from the University’s raison d’être. On those past occasions, I remained silently discreet (or, if you prefer, discreetly silent), but today I cannot. I found this morning’s opinion piece sobering on a number of fronts. I write this letter to the editors from my dual citizenship of Georgetown as an alumnus (A.B., ‘’70, J.D., ‘’73) and as a Jesuit priest. I am saddened that I must write in response to this editorial. But to remain silent could suggest consent on my part, and I cannot consent to this editorial’s views nor can I be presumed to consent through silence. I am grateful to the editors of The Hoya for the opportunity to express my perspectives on some of the graver matters which their editorial raises.

The editorial begins by mentioning that the University President, Dr. John DeGioia, recently established a resource center for LGBTQ students citing the “need for a safe and accepting university community above objections raised by some that such a center would be inconsistent with the mission of a Catholic university.” No one should fear a university community regardless of who he or she is. But this does not mean that acceptance of each person must mean acceptance and, therefore, subsequent endorsement of views and activities that are inconsistent and conflict with the teachings of the Church which must be a part of any Catholic university’s mission. A Catholic university must exercise its responsibility and its authentic academic freedom to state and argue through reason why the teachings of the Church are meritorious and why conflicting views are wrong. Providing forums for responsibly debating issues—even controversial ones—within a Catholic university does not require endorsement of positions which contravene the Church’s positions. In the context of a discussion of academic freedom, the editorial cites the recent reversal of a decision at the Law Center that originally denied university funding for internships where law students would work for organizations whose views challenged head-on the Church’s moral teachings. With the reversal of the original decision which was correct because it gave a voice to the Church in a prestigious component of the academy, academic freedom has suffered rather than been enhanced. Moreover, a Catholic university has now been recruited as an accomplice to activities that contravene its identity and mission.

The editorial continues by stating that Georgetown “has proudly upheld its Catholic and Jesuit tradition for 219 years.” I am intrigued by the increasing choice of the word “tradition” over words like “identity” and “mission” to explain Georgetown and other schools which claim Jesuit heritage and patrimony. There is something about reliance on the term “tradition” that suggests the institution was Jesuit and Catholic and these comprise a part of its history. One could similarly argue that the United States has a tradition that one time permitted slavery (at least in some parts of the nation) and restricted the franchise to certain males over a particular age. These points constitute a part of the history of our nation, too. But these traditions of the country have been abandoned for good reason. I do not think that relegating Georgetown’s traditions to its past (to its history) as a Catholic institution can be endorsed for any reason, let alone a good one. Its traditions not only define its past but also its present and its future.

This point receives sharp focus when the editorial justifies its position advancing “safe sex” on the grounds of “public health” and the dangers of invoking Church doctrine “to deny students a safe environment.” The editorial then attempts to clarify what it means by these assertions. In the editors’ estimation, public health and safe environment mandate supporting and offering any form of birth control to any student without asking questions of students and without questioning these practices. The final justification offered for a “safe sex” policy appears in the statement that the University’s responsibilities to uphold Church teachings “should not be extended to the detriment of safe sex.”

This is a remarkable claim, but it is tragically flawed. The Church’s teachings on the matters questioned by this editorial involve not only the condemnation of abortion (in the context of the editorial’s discussion of denying “H*yas for Choice” university support) but also on not condoning pre- and extra-marital sex. The Church has given her sound reasons for the positions she teaches, and I need not explain them here.

But what I must explain is that the editorial’s claim that the University’s current practices serve as a detriment to “safe sex” is wrong for several reasons. The first is the need to acknowledge that condoms, the pill, and other artificial birth control measures can and do fail. And when they fail, people—both born and unborn—can be and are harmed. Second, unmarried persons should not be having sex with anyone, and they should be living chaste lives. Some, perhaps many, will argue that my second point is outdated since the contemporary culture has accepted, tolerated, and perhaps even sanctioned pre- and extra-marital sex in their diverse manifestations. Cultures can accept, tolerate, and sanction many things, but the actions of the culture in these regards do not make the activities being accepted, tolerated, or sanctioned right. They can be and often are still wrong. I, for one, do not believe that it is proper for any university, and certainly not one that considers itself in the Catholic and Jesuit “tradition,” to support behavior that endangers anyone and that is wrong for everyone. The University will promote far greater safety and advance what is right by staying the course with its current policy. Moreover, it should take proactive steps to explain why its policy is correct and why the changes advocated by the editors would endanger. Discussion is good, but endorsement is not.

I must disagree with the editors who claim that the policy they want the University to accept “should pose no problem” to Georgetown’s “Jesuit identity.” Here the word “identity” rather than “tradition” is used by the editors. And by doing so, they put their collective editorial finger on the heart of the matter: what is the soul of Georgetown? But their objective will attack the soul of Georgetown’s Jesuit and Catholic identity and, therefore, its mission to educate all who come to Georgetown in learning how to become wiser and more virtuous people. As a Catholic and Jesuit university, the salvation of souls is also inextricably related to Georgetown’s duty. That is, or at least was, a grand part of Georgetown’s mission. But the editors now advance a cause that would separate Georgetown from this and other critical responsibilities. The editors suggest that the University can remain true to its identity by simply looking the other way when they state that “[t]here is no need for explicit endorsement.” The history of our human race has demonstrated time after time that looking the other way permits what is wrong (and, in some instances, evil) to flourish and what is virtuous to perish.

This result would betray Georgetown’s identity for both now and for the future. Its duty to care for the whole person is to cultivate a virtuous life rather than one that is dangerous and wrong. I, too, am concerned about the health of students and of all others, but I do not express my perspective on the basis of “sticky ideological points” (a phrase with which the editors conclude their opinion) but on the wisdom that God has given us and the virtuous life which enables us to use that wisdom well.

RJA sj