Three recent incidents illustrate this fact:
In December, a Penn State art student set up a "sculpture" on campus
which, to use THE DAILY COLLEGIAN'S description, was a "three-dimensional
grotto with a statue of the Virgin Mary emerging from a bloody vagina".
Fortunately, one of the catholic chaplains, Fr. Leo Arnone, sprang into action,
protesting that the display was extremely offensive. The so-called art was
taken down after five days because of Fr. Arnone's action. But in spite of the
fact that this display was intensely offensive and even pornographic, the
University administration has taken no steps to discipline or even criticize
the artist or the teacher for whom the sculpture was a class project. One can
be sure that if the "art" had attacked a figure like Martin Luther King in such
a grotesque manner, the University would be entertaining charges of "racial
insensitivity" and "ethnic intimidation" or at least be issuing official
statements condemning the racist who put it up. Are anti-Catholic bigotry and
gross attacks on Our Lady athe only type of intolerance to be tolerated at Penn
State?
On another front, the University Athletics Office recently decided to
sell Penn State football and basketball tickets at a reduced rate to the
homosexual "spouses" of gay and lesbian students. So, this coming Fall, the
University will give homosexual "couples" a benefit that only married students
received in the past. That this is only one step in the push to have the
University give complete "spousal" benefits to "committed" homosexual couples
can be clearly seen in THE DAILY COLLEGIAN'S January 30th, 1997, editorial which
asked readers to lobby the University administration for complete benefits for
homosexuals. Homosexuals and their allies at Penn State want to claim benefits
which traditionally only went to normal married couples. This is nothing less
than an attack on marriage and Christian morality.
Finally, the University locked out the computer accounts of a Catholic
member of the faculty for eleven days for doing nothing other than to respond
via e-mail directly to representatives of the Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual,
Transgendered (LGBT) Alliance at Penn State in regard to their propagandizing
of the "virtues" of gay lifestyles which were anathema to his faith, a right
guaranteed under the freedom of religion clause in the Constitution.
This harassment of a member of the faculty by the LGBT Alliance
resulted when they accused him of sending e-mail after they asked him not to -
something which he has never done except in two instances where he felt that
his free speech rights to respond were being threatened by a radical minority
who believe that they can intimidate the entire faculty of the University.
Witness a recent report in THE DAILY COLLEGIAN where representatives from the
LGBT Alliance told the president of a new group called STRAIGHT, formed to
combat the promotion of the homosexual lifestyle on campus, that any member of
the faculty considering becoming an advisor to STRAIGHT would be "COMMITTING
CAREER SUICIDE."
I am protesting the University's treatment of Catholics, its insult to
Our Lady, and its plan to encourage homosexuality.
Why is Penn State attacking the definition of marriage when the State
recently passed a law explicitly defining marriage as involving a man and a
woman only? Why does the University tolerate displays of anti-Catholic
bigotry? When will the University issue a statement condemning the recent
insult to Catholics and Our Lady? Does the University's code of conduct favor
some groups yet not protect others? Why is the University pushing to have
marriage benefits extended to homosexual couples? How will the University
determine who is a "committed homosexual partner" when the State of
Pennsylvania has defined marriage according to its traditional understanding?
Why is Penn State supporting homosexuality which is anathema to the
faith of many of the taxpaying constituents of the Commonwealth to include many
Christian Alumni and donors and attacking Christian morality? As a Penn State
Alum, I and many like me across the country would like to have these questions
answered. We don't understand how religious icons can't be allowed on
University property because they promote religion while the desecration of same
icons can be allowed with the blessings of the University Administration, an act
which attacks religions. We don't understand why the people of the
Commonwealth of Pennsylvania are expected to subsidize activities for which
civil rights have never historically existed (for good reasons, I might add as
homosexuality is behavior which can be changed as compared to skin color or
ethnicity which can't, reference HOMOSEXUALITY AND THE POLITICS OF TRUTH by Dr.
Jeffrey Satinover, and THE HOMOSEXUAL PERSON - NEW THINKING by John Harvey and
which are anathema to their religious faith - a faith guaranteed persecution
free practice of under the Constitution.
