[slidepress gallery=’041710_rallyphotos’]
In protest of the Reclaiming the Culture of Marriage and Life Spring Forum, around 200 demonstrators gathered to rally for equal rights Saturday morning on South Campus.
As forum participants walked from the corner of Summit and Cretin avenues, through the Science Center and to Brady Educational Center, where the forum was held, demonstrators hoisted homemade signs and led chants supporting gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgender communities.
Only ticketed participants were allowed into the forum. The Catholic Spirit newspaper was the only media organization allowed inside.
Once the forum began, the rally moved back to Summit and Cretin avenues. Speakers then addressed the group of protesters, which included students, alumni, community members and activists.
According to a letter of intent to demonstrate, the protesters were frustrated not only by the forum’s speakers but also by what they consider a lack of equality exercised by the administration in choosing speakers. The letter was submitted to the dean of students’ office Wednesday.
The St. Paul Seminary and the Archdiocese of St. Paul and Minneapolis hosted the forum, which lasted from 9 a.m. to noon Saturday. It was part of an archdiocesan initiative “aimed at helping the faithful ‘Understand the Cultural and Legal Battle’ over the restoration of marriage and the respect for human life,” according to the Archdiocesan Office of Marriage, Family and Life website.
Congratulations to everyone who participated in the demonstration yesterday. I was VERY proud to be a Tommie.
I think it’s important to point out that the speakers were not brought to campus by the administration. The reason that the event was only open to ticket holders is because the event was a private event put on by the Archdiocese, and not related to the university. Given the circumstances, the St. Thomas administration has little to no power in denying the Archdiocese access to St. Thomas’ facilities given the fact that we are an institution that aligns with the catholic church. My point being, the administration didn’t consider equality when choosing the speakers, because the administration didn’t choose the speakers at all.
Regardless, I think we all know that this is an important issue. I was proud to see so many fellow classmates and community members peacefully demonstrating, and I am perhaps even more thankful that the university allowed them to do so.
I would like to congratulate the demonstrates on successfully ruining the good nights of sleep that many south campus residents were expecting. In all seriousness, I think it is terrible that a group of St. Thomas students thought it was a good idea to stand outside two dorms at 8 in the morning literally beating drums and chant slogans. How would you like it if I stood outside your door beating a drum?
Also, I think the Universities administration deserves some blame in this matter as well, in their failure to enforce their own policies regarding quiet hours. There is no reason why any demonstration should have been allowed to continue at an academic institution next to residential buildings at 8 in the morning, especially during the weekend.
I would like to state that this post has nothing to do with my political views, just my expectations of common courtesy every human being should have. It doesn’t bother me that people were demonstrating, just the disruptive nature of this demonstration.
Thank you to those protesters for standing up for equal rights for the gay students on campus.
I think this demonstration shows that St. Thomas is not a cesspool of politically and morally apathetic students as many claim, but rather is a community of students who are concerned about unequal policies on campus and unequal laws on marriage and want to make themselves seen and heard.
Father, fogive these protesters, for they know not what they do.
You’re right, Michael. Social justice, love, peace, diversity, understanding, equality…none of these are Christian values and morals.
Michael, I am perfectly aware of what I “did”. And I stand behind it. Completely. I don’t need your prayers. Only your respect. Please learn to co-exist with others who share different beliefs with you. It will do the world much more good, than comments such as the one you have just posted.
Out of curiosity Michael, what is it these protesters did to necessitate forgiveness?
As for the protest, if I may be critical, I just do not see the significance. I understand striving for equality, but that goal was hardly benefited in this situation. It is a safe assumption that those waking up at 8 in the morning to participate already agreed with the protest’s main goals. There was little to no dissemination of information save for chants and a speech. Nor was an attempt made to show an error in the opposing group’s beliefs. If the intent of the demonstration was to simply reject one group’s beliefs in support of another group’s I’d say that went well, but I’m forced to ask “so what?” To make myself perfectly clear I support equality for all people. I just wish the efforts put forth to arrange this rally had been spent trying to achieve something as opposed to reaffirming the group’s shared beliefs.
Stefan, Emily, Matthew, et. al., I deeply respect your viewpoint on this issue, and understand completely where you’re coming from.
However, I believe that the Catholic Church, and her alone, possesses the fullness of Truth, and I will defend that Truth vigorously.
Brett, to answer your question, what the protesters did amounted to a complete and utter betrayal of the Catholic Church’s teachings on human sexuality. Since the protest happened at a Catholic university, the protest may have also scandalized the faithful.
Michael, if the Catholic church does not support love, peace, diversity, understanding, equality, or a group of students standing up for their beliefs…. then I have never been more proud to NOT be Catholic.
The Catholic Church is made up of celibate men who by definition do not understand the emotions associated with relationships. Homosexual couples feel the same love toward each other and have the right to the benefits of heterosexual marriages (being able to make life/death decisions, being able to file married tax returns, etc). This issue is personally important to me and I strongly support anyone who stands up for liberty and equality for those still persecuted in our society because of prejudice.
Matthew-
I take issue with your statement, “The Catholic Church is made up of celibate men who by definition do not understand the emotions associated with relationships.” I am a Catholic, but I am not celibate. There are millions (perhaps billions?) of female Catholics throughout the world as well. To say the church is made up of celibate men is inaccurate. Non-celibate men and women make up the far majority of the church.
Both your views as a Catholic are unimportant from the perspective of what happens with Church policy. The Church is not a democracy. The celibate men (the bishops) who operate the Church are typically very different than the average Catholic. It was the bishops to which I was referring in my prior statement.
I would like to respond to Brett Brakefield’s comment and also clarify the intent of the demonstration. There WAS in fact “dissemination of information” and not with just one of our speakers, but all TEN of them. There were both graduate and undergraduate students, there were alumni, there was a priest, there were directors and presidents of various MN LGBT organizations, including two that are Catholic LGBT organizations, and there were everyday community members–all who spoke on Saturday and all who shared why they think gay marriage should be legalized, from a religious and secular standpoint. I definitely believe this is a dissemination of information.
Our demonstration intended two things:
1.) To demonstrate against the bias speaker policy. I believe the demonstration achieved this goal because we are currently in talks with upper level administration about this policy.
2.) To show that people within the UST community care about LGBT rights and marriage equality. I believe this demonstration achieved this goal because of the sheer amount of UST community members who showed up, because of the amount of media attention received, and because I walk by people everyday telling me how proud they are of all the students involved in the demonstration.
The speaker policy is biased because the Catholic Archdiocese is able to invite its own Catholic-aligned speakers to its own closed event which it held on campus but without asking or receiving any sponsorship from the very Catholic college it founded and directly administered for nearly its entire history? That strikes me as a bizarre point of view. Please explain?
I am proud to say that I am from UST most especially as someone who is formerly homophobic and now can proudly stand and demostrate for the rights of the GLBT community. They deserve the same rights that everyone else gets, we are all equal!
I want to echo what Nick said. He and the other organizers did a phenomenal job putting this demonstration together. They created a passionate, educational event which was exceptionally successful. I am confident I speak for many with this comment. Congratulations on your success!
James, we allow speakers like Maggie Gallagher and Anne Coulter to speak on campus, but we deny speakers like Archbishop Desmond Tutu. I think that is biased. And even though this is sponsored by the Archdiocese, they must still follow the speaker policy because it is an on-campus event.
In no way am I against these speakers coming on to our campus. By attending a Catholic school, I in fact do expect to get an education on what Catholic values are. But at the same time, I expect to be also educated on what the rest of the world thinks and views. We live in a worldly society, and a University should teach its students on a variety of different viewpoints.
So what I AM against, is that a pro gay marriage speaker would never be allowed to speak on campus unless “the other side” was being presented. Whereas with this forum, “the other side” was not needed. This is the bias and the double standard that I speak of and that we are demonstrating against.
I would also like to mention that this was an OPEN forum and anyone from the public could attend this event, you just needed to request a reservation ahead of time. There were many students, faculty and staff from UST who attended this event.
Ann Coulter’s appearance on campus was in April 2005. Neither of us even went here back then. If the first example of “bias” that comes to mind is five years old, it suggests that our speaker policy is actually pretty darned good. The Tutu incident is sure a lot more recent, but also had nothing to do with the Catholic students or faculty opposing his appearance — it was just a bizarre decision by Fr. Dease based on a (false) belief that Tutu was an anti-Semite. I really don’t think those examples serve your case. Nor, I think, does the Gallagher case; an event that requires reservations and tickets, ultimately approved by the Archdiocese and not the University, is by definition a closed event.
I certainly agree with you that a University must educate its students about a variety of different viewpoints. Indeed, it *must* do that in order to be a University. But I don’t see why insisting that the Catholic teaching always be present at University interferes with that. Quite the contrary: the policy perfectly strikes the delicate balance between our ideally omnipresent Catholic character and our vocation to engage with the world, as Pope JPII laid it out in Ex Corde Ecclesiae. It is not biased for a University to fulfill its mission.
The speaker policy at St. Thomas is perfectly compatible with St. Thomas’ mission statement. It is also approved by the opinions in Ex Corde Ecclesiae which St. Thomas has shown at least partial deference towards. While it may be frustrating to have a policy at odds with one’s own personal opinion, it does not constitute a valid argument against it. The speaker policy and how St. Thomas deals with controversial issues are detailed online. Potential students and those currently enrolled have access to it, and to an extent agreed to it by applying and/or attending this institution. It is on those grounds that I do not agree with this protest.
However, your second goal of this demonstration I could not support more. It is good to see active participation in social issues, from all sides. I’d like to point out that this success was done within the confines of the speaker policy and I doubt a change in the speaker policy would have changed much about this event.
http://www.stthomas.edu/policies/student_policy_book/policies_guidelines/Speakers.asp
http://www.stthomas.edu/policies/student_policy_book/Controversial_issues.asp
I think it is important that people should familiarize themselves with the policy before rallying for change.
Realize that you don’t have to remain Catholic if you don’t want to be part of an organization that does not bless and support homosexual relationships. Join a different faith that is accepting of your lifestyle. Don’t let any institution tell you that you can not be in love with someone just because that person is the same gender as your. I wish I could have been there as part of this protest, illustrating my support for equal marriage rights for homosexuals.
“Another factor governing speakers on campus is our concern that a wide variety of issues and viewpoints be given expression.” Where is the pro gay marriage speaker?
Once again, I am in no way arguing that these speakers should not have spoken on campus. OF COURSE, Catholic speakers, with Catholic viewpoints, should be allowed to speak on campus. I am arguing because the other side was not presented.
Sorry I don’t have time to be posting on TommieMedia everyday, so this will probably be my last post. But I am willing to meet with anyone to talk about this if they wish.
I believe the pro gay marriage speakers all “TEN of them” were outside when the event took place.
So your objection is not to the policy itself, but to the perception that the university invites a lot of anti-gay-civil-marriage speakers, bur rarely any pro-gay-marriage speakers? If that perception is true, it would seem to suggest not that you need to renegotiate the policy with the administration, but that the university needs to adjust its invitation lists to better conform to the policy. But you would also need strong evidence in favor of your perception of things, and, frankly, I don’t see it. The fact that you chose to protest an event that only falls under the speaker policy *at all* using a strained interpretation of the policy suggests that you couldn’t find any better events to protest — which suggests, again, that the policy is actually being applied in a very balanced, equal fashion.
Either way, this symposium remains the most peculiar occasion for a protest that I have ever heard of. Not inherently bad, I suppose, but downright weird.
Another very heated topic it appears! I was raised Lutheran so I am ignorant to the reason the Catholic Church opposes gay marriage? If anyone could provide a historical context or cite some scripture that will be helpful! Otherwise I guess I agree with Mark Schreck even though he missed that quiz bowl question in the final round…It does seem a bit insensitive to the people who live on SC. As for who gets to speak here and what not, I do not see a huge problem. Ive only been here one year, but my impression has been fairly positive of the academic enviroment that is created. We are not required to go here, or listen to speakers who do not share our viewpoint. If it is such a problem to a student who feels that all views are not being addressed they can transfer or accept it. Again though, I do not feel the level of one-sidedness is so great as to force a reasonably thinking student to transfer. I feel that every college is somewhat similar; gen. requirements, cafateria, common area, but they also have their niche. St. Thomas’s happens to be a very liberal arts based Catholic background. This should not be a surprise to its stuents…
Dylan,
Here is an article that helps explain the Catholic Church’s teaching on homosexual acts
http://www.catholic.com/library/Homosexuality.asp
Here are two documents from the Congregation of the Doctrine on the Faith on the pastoral care of homosexual persons, and on same-sex marriage:
http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/documents/rc_con_cfaith_doc_19861001_homosexual-persons_en.html
http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/documents/rc_con_cfaith_doc_20030731_homosexual-unions_en.html
Giving vatican documents to Catholics who are not concerned with the Church’s policy or nonCatholics is not helpful.
Matthew,
Dylan requested information regarding the Catholic Church’s teachings on homosexuality, and, since the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith (CDF) is charged with preserving orthodoxy in Catholic doctrine, statements from the CDF are among the best resources on the topic. As a well-educated Catholic yourself, you should know that.
Matthew, giving Vatican documents to someone who *specifically asks* for Church teaching on the subject, as Dylan did, and who already believes in all the basic points of the Nicene Creed, as Dylan, a Lutheran, can be presumed to do, makes perfect sense.
Please realize that neither the Catholic Church, nor its earthly leadership, nor its membership, opposes liberty or equality. Nor is it opposed to justice or love. Its positions are not based on prejudice, nor does it persecute homosexuals in any sense of the word. Anyone who would claim otherwise merely displays a grave and flagrant failure to engage the Catholic teaching. Indeed, such a claim could only be described as bigoted.
The Church, in a very very compressed nutshell, teaches that homosexuals should not live out homosexual lifestyles because the Church believes that God has revealed that homosexual behaviour — like the use of birth control, or masturbation, or pornography — is disordered in such a way that eventually leads to unhappiness in both this life and the next. Catholics teach what they teach out of love, because they want everyone to be happy forever. You might think they’re *incorrect*, but to accuse them of hate or intolerance is totally uncharitable.
Well done, James! I completely agree with what you stated above.