I agree with DG that the point is debate, that different viewpoints make the conversation more interesting and the insular-ness of GU cliques keep events non-diverse, and limit the scope of conversation. Trust me that this was not the goal of planning the week.

The point is to foster conversation. Specifically referring to the conversation on pornography, the point was to take porn out of its secluded, silenced, private context and open it up for debate: does this affect relationships outside of its isolated use/viewing? does it affect people sexual practices desires? what is the relationship between pornography, sex, objectification of men/women/transexuals in everday life, respect, agency, etc?

There is a reason that the description was a question. It wasn’t a lecture, not preaching, but a round of questions.

Otherwise, maybe the other events were onesided. I don’t know that this is wrong except that we should recognize this if it is so. If sex is specifically discussed outside of a paradigm of Catholicism (which wasn’t necessarily the case, I don’t know that everyone involved wasn’t Catholic, but so it seemed), is that like a discussion of sex specifically within Catholicism—and does that mean that religious doctrine shouldn’t be used to argue in the first case, and a doctrine of unbelief to argue in the second case?

And lastly, a very important question is, can the school, associated with the Catholic church, financially support programs, groups, and events that are not condoned by the Church? Should the school support these events/groups? I think this question includes the question of GU Pride and H*yas for Choice, also, because of how funding affects them, or how their existence has affected the means of funding.

True, there wouldn’t be such a debate if it weren’t for your letter, but also there wouldn’t be your letter, if it weren’t for the events themselves. Maybe they weren’t perfectly representative, but maybe they will eventually and indirectly lead to an open and revelatory conversation among the students/staff about student sexualities (including sexual health), discourse on sex, Catholic identity, administrative policy, and the role/responsibility of the school as a Catholic-affiliated institution, an academic institution dedicated to intellectual pursuit/challenge (even controversy?), and an environment open to and (supposedly) representative of people of many different faith-based and ideological backgrounds.

As for being open to the Jesuits, do you know Fr. Pat Rogers? He’s the man, and he’ heard and seen it all. We can talk about that at a future point, but there’s no need to be scared of our Jebbies.

In response to your last comment, I did not know that the invitation to the Jesuits had been revoked until after that had happened. I did not understand why that would be the case.
However, according to the student organizers that put the event together, their reasoning for this was that the presence of the Jesuits would keep students from being as open and frank with their personal stories and beliefs as they were at Wednesday’s discussion.
Of course, I cannot say whether or not these concerns were unfounded. However, as you yourself called the discussion “tame” when I thought it was quite open and frank, I wonder how the presence of the Jesuits would have affected it. That is definitely something to consider, and I would certainly like the Jesuits (as well as other members of Campus Ministry) to be involved in future conversations with Pride.

What really has me upset is that the head of the LGBTQ center invited Jesuits to these events, the Jesuits of course happily accepted, but the student organizers rejected this idea. It’s that kind of fear and animosity that we need to break down.

I am indeed advocating that the administration refrain from endorsing events such as this, which do not foster true discussion, which is required by the Catholic identity of the school. Trust me, I would never take up this fight if I was attending a secular university.

And once again, you’re right in that the Church recognizes that the conscience of the individual is the one thing we have which we should always follow, even if it is in opposition to Church teaching. We ought, however, strive to inform our consciences to the greatest extent possible, and that education is not happening at Georgetown. I am not saying that Sex Positive Week shouldn’t happen, I’m saying it should include the Catholic point of view also, simultaneously and side-by-side with events which oppose the Church’s teaching. I don’t think the events themselves should be changed, I think more should be added.

Because when it comes down to it, if you all really think you’ve got the most complete understanding of human sexuality, then you should not be afraid to engage in real debate with the Catholic understanding of human sexuality. That’s right, I’m challenging you all to explore that. As G.K. Chesterton said, “Christianity has not been tried and found wanting; it has been found difficult and not tried.”

As I have said before, and I’ll say it again, students are not debating. They’re locked into insular communities, refusing to engage the other side. We can start a bigger, better, louder, Catholic-er event (these already exist…look at everything Georgetown does already), but those who disagree with the Church will not really engage it. We all remain trapped in our caves, refusing to emerge and come to a greater understanding of the world in which we live and the school that we call home.

I think what you’re arguing for is a kind of totalitarianism, where every group and event has to be run past the bishop (or just you guys) for approval.

I think that the Church, in its infinite wisdom, knows that people have a conscience, and that we should all enjoy the right to speak freely in a democratic society. So, even though the argument can be made that the Sex Positive week is inclusive of a wide variety of points of view, including the idea that chastity and celibacy are sex positive, they are not required to adhere to Catholic teaching.

The right answer to speech with which you disagree is to make a speech of your own. Set up your own event, outdo them, get more people to come, have a bigger better louder Catholic-er debate. Then let people decide, through public discourse, who has the better point of view.