Monday, July 26, 2010

Santa Clara University is under scrutiny (here) , (here) , (here) and (here)
Posted by at
Labels:

7 comments:

Anonymous said...

Under scrutiny? By whom? Bloggers? Hah! Nothing will come of it. Santa Clara will continue as it has been doing. Who do you think is going to come down hard on the university? The Jesuit provincial? Hah! Bishop McGrath of San Jose? Hah!

July 26, 2010 at 1:15 AM
Anonymous said...

The roach may survive, but he does not like the lights on.

July 26, 2010 at 4:10 AM
TonyD said...

As a former "Santa Claran", I would prefer that the University not encourage such events.

At the same time, I believe that Catholics really must be a role model for a higher standard in their life -- exemplifying "love your neighbor" -- and that includes acceptance of others values when possible.

So, considering the widespread acceptance of "alternative" lifestyles, especially in California, I find that I cannot find fault with the University.

July 27, 2010 at 5:58 PM
Anonymous said...

So, TonyD, you are saying that Santa Clara ought to promote and reflect the secular ideology of California instead of the Gospel? It's a Catholic school, not a California public university. By your logic, if one finds himself in the company of bank robbers he should go along and rob banks in order to fit in. If your reasoning is indicative of the kind of education that Santa Clara provides, then you wasted your (parents') money. The false "love" that you speak of is a cover for cowardly capitulation to sin. Describes the present Jesuit California Province rather well.

July 27, 2010 at 9:45 PM
TonyD said...

Anonymous,

Yes, there are rare situations where "love your neighbor" doesn't apply.

Let me share my experience: Sometimes good judgment will lead to a conclusion that negates "love your neighbor". But I have only seen that happen on rare occasions. It requires someone with good judgment and a deep understanding of the meaning of "love your neighbor". But be careful, it is easy to confuse "good" with "evil".

More specifically, such judgment requires someone who routinely practices putting the values of others before their own values -- even when they disagree. And someone who is able to separate their own emotions from their judgments, as well as practice humility about the will of God in a particular situation -- with an understanding that they are not God. (And the Church is not God and the Pope is not God.)

So, in general, if someone is willing to ignore the values of their neighbors, that person is not someone allowed to ignore the values of their neighbors. Good and evil are quite real. Be careful about which side you choose.

July 28, 2010 at 4:02 PM
Anonymous said...

TonyD:

Did you really write this nonsense?

" if someone is willing to ignore the values of their neighbors, that person is not someone allowed to ignore the values of their neighbors."

Yes, I believe you did. It's not even a coherent thought.

Very Jesuitical. Sheesh. Probably got an "A" for that one on an essay at Santa Clara. Were they after you for a possible vocation in the Society?

July 28, 2010 at 8:57 PM
TonyD said...

Anonymous,

It's always difficult to tell how serious someone is on a blog. So I'm taking you at your word - you really do think I'm talking nonsense.

>> "if someone is willing to ignore the values of their neighbors, that person is not someone allowed
>> to ignore the values of their neighbors." ... It's not even a coherent thought.
When you evaluate the actions of others, don't you take into account their values? Do you have some reason to believe that God's judgment would not consider such things?

Just because some theologians consider values in isolation - that does mean that they really can be analyzed in that way. Quite simply: Those theologians are wrong.

For example, if someone doesn't want to hurt anyone, and he consistently tries not to hurt anyone, but he becomes convinced that he must hurt someone, wouldn't you take his values into consideration? Wouldn't your response be "let's examine his judgment in this situation" rather than "lets change his values"?

In re-reading my post, I'm not really sure what you consider nonsense. Perhaps it is the "bank robber" issue? Laws - to the extent they reflect the real values of society - can be considered to be the values of your neighbors. So, in general, laws must be given serious consideration. If anything, "love your neighbor" is the reason why laws should be taken seriously - even if you want to rob a bank.

July 31, 2010 at 7:43 PM

Post a Comment

Subscribe to: Post Comments (Atom)