Is promoting homosexuality "social justice"?

I am an (older) student at an allegedly Catholic university, and I am totally disgusted. I know that most “Catholic” universities aren’t very Catholic any more, but I can’t believe how far they have fallen. The worst I’ve had to deal with this semester is a professor who keeps bringing up homosexuality in my Interpersonal Communications class and keeps referring to it in the concept of “social justice.” For this class, we had to read “The Four Loves” by C.S. Lewis, and she stated that Lewis didn’t discuss homosexual love, but that was probably because he was writing in the early 1960s, and that just wasn’t talked about then. :eek:

This is my last semester at this university. I am transferring to the large state university here to complete my degree. I figure it can’t be any worse. :shrug:

I’m a big believer in certain rights for homosexuals! So, in a sense, I also think it’s social justice.

LOVE! :heart:

It’s much worse in the state universities. At least you were reading C.S. Lewis. :o


I think it’s fine to believe that no person should be the target of unjust discrimination because of their religion, race, nationality, gender, or sexual orientation. But is it proper for a Catholic university to “promote” homosexual acts and justify it under the banner of “social justice?”

By analogy, it would be contrary to the mission of the Church to allow one of its universities (or a professor teaching for one of those universities) to “promote” Islam at a Catholic university under the rationale that doing so is “social justice.” But it would be a matter of social justice to ensure that both Muslim students and Catholic students in attendance are, e.g. graded under the same set of standards, and that no students are discriminated against in regard to housing, or finances, etc., because of their religion. The same should hold true regarding moral doctrine, shouldn’t it?


No, you’re right from this perspective. Homosexual behavior should never be condoned from within a Catholic university.

LOVE! :heart:

Homosexuality is not a race, gender or religion, it’s a behavior. Homosexuals have the right to go to confession do penance and change their behavior.



Social justice is about how the general society treats its various subsectors.

These subsectors are normally defined by aspects of human life that are not chosen: Gender, race, ethnicity, age, poverty, etc.

Homosexuality is a life-definition that is chosen. Someone may be born with certain desires, but acting upon them is purely and simply a choice.

So it is no more a matter of “social justice” than are the demands of smokers, beer drinkers, etc.

No one should be persecuted, but special rights based on one’s sexual longings is not an issue of social justice.



I don’t think it’s wise to promote homosexual activities.

These are very damaging to the human spirit.

It is scandal…plain and simple.

I think there are two separate issues here. Homosexuality itself should never be promoted since it is intrinsically evil. On the other hand, there are some social justice issues that are legitimate. They should not be discriminated against in housing, jobs, etc. (Some years ago a community near us tried to enforce a law refusing to allow homosexual persons to live there! They had a real witch hunt! It was overturned.) They are human beings and deserve their human rights.

I understand your concern. There are very few Catholic Universities that are truly Catholic. Thankfully, there are some.

Be aware that a state university can be just fine if there is a Catholic Church nearby that has a strong ministry to the Catholics from the university that avails themselves of it. I know of two in the state that I live in, and they have retreats, bible studies, socials, Eucharistic adoration, rosary, spiritual direction, and great conferences. I know of priests in my diocese that went to college at those state universities as well. They hung out with like minded friends at the Catholic church near the university… In both cases these Catholic activities were in place for a long time and have grown and improved and have an excellent reputation.

I know the mother of one such young lady that attended a state college and had much spiritual support to be in an atmosphere where everyone else is like-minded. Such young Catholics are better off in such a university when they have support to keep up their spiritual lives. Some of their friends, Protestants, were brought to some of the activities and desired to become Catholics.

Blessings to you in your spiritual journey!

Read ROMANS 1.

That said, a Catholic school should not be “promoting” homosexuality.

Yet we are called to love one another for the love for God. We are called to help one another to come closer to God.

So it seems right to ensure that all are free from abuse. Thus, tolerance seems to be necessary. Everyone deserves a chance at the best education they are capable of. Everyone deserves a chance at the best jobs they are capable of. If I am in the US Air Force, I am expected to do it the Air Force way, not the Navy way. If I weigh 200 pounds I cannot expect a job as a jockey in the Kentucky Derby.

And it seems right that students in any interpersonal communication class be taught how to dialogue with everyone, and especially those who come from a different background. And it is right that whatever prevents some from coming closer to God should be studied in hopes of finding a way to open a path for them.

But, as stated in ROMANS 1, it is God First. Reject God and there are consequences. While one example of consequences is stated in ROMANS 1, the premise of our Faith remains true: God First. Reject God, put your self before God, and there are consequences. Those consequences may or may not come in this life, but certainly in the next.

To “promote” those consequences as being acceptable is non sequitur at a Catholic school.

There is very little that I can add here that has not already been said or at least alluded to. However I would suggest doing a bit further research into “Catholic Social Justice on Homosexuality”. You have to consider that in just about every major city there are “self identified homosexuals” who are economically depressed and depend on primarily Catholic programs such as soup kitchens, utility assistance, clothing closets, Knights of Columbus funded homeless shelters etc in order to meet their basic needs.
It would be against the charism of charity to SELECTIVELY offer these services whether the person in need is sexually attracted to the same gender or goats for that matter. In this sense there are many social justice programs that do in fact rightfully include self identified homosexuals in their benificiaries.
It is also important to adress the use of the word “homosexual”. It has already been correctly said in this thread that the word refers to an act not an identity. When a person tells me they are a homosexual I always correct them and say “No, you are a child of God- a human.” Part of any social justice program should also include education. So there is also a possiblity that in lending our hands to those with same sex attraction, we can educate and reform anyone who is living in any form of sin.
I hope this helps provide some perspective. Now PROMOTING homosexual acts is a different story…I wouldn’t even promote heterosexual acts outside the sanctity of marriage…

Superb post! :thumbsup:

Thanks, everyone.

This professor has not even mentioned showing prejudice to someone because they are homosexual, nor has she made any distinction whatsoever between same-sex attraction and homosexual acts.

What she keeps harping on is the “right” of homosexuals to marry and presents the idea that homosexual relationships are as legitimate as same-sex relationships.

Other things she has lectured on:

Moral relativism: She bluntly stated that no religion has all the answers or is better than any other, and it is arrogant and narrow-minded to think that your religion is the “right” one.

She also mentioned, when discussing C.S. Lewis’ book, that, even if you “take God out of the equation,” “human beings are pretty amazing in that we love one another.” I wanted to leap out of my seat and shout, “No, you CAN’T take God out of the equation! Because God IS love, and it is BECAUSE of God that we are able to love!” Duh!

Unfortunately, I am kind of a wimp and not taken to giving outbursts in class. :blush:

There is no constitutional basis to assert that gender identity or marriage is a civil right.

But if it is said over and over again, college students believe it. :mad:

This is why I believe strongly that The entire faculty of any Catholic school, college or university should consist of ONLY practicing Catholics.

Hi Maria:

Somebody needs to take her to task for this. First, the issue is not whether homosexuals have the right to “marry.” The question is whether the *meaning *of the word “marriage” should be changed so that two people of the same sex can call their union a marriage. Setting aside the moral objection to homosexual sex acts, no one is saying that a relationship between two people of the same sex is somehow illegitimate. It’s just different from a “marriage” as that term has been understood by every single society and civilization that has existed from the beginning of recorded history to the present, including societies and civilizations that were/are very accepting of homosexual acts. Her statement misses the target and assumes the resolution of the real debate in favor of the redefinition of marriage. This is a typical misstatement of the issue by those advocating for the change in the definition of marriage.


I don’t see how homosexuality and gay marriage ought to be a major topic or theme in an Interpersonal Communications class. Do you have a short précis of the Course that you could post.

I further find that “taking sides” on these issues, which the good professor appears to do, is somewhat unprofessional. If she wishes to present material that reflects Catholic philosophies, she can do that describing them accordingly - not assert that “herein are fundamental truths” or some such thing. The same goes should she wish to present material from the ‘gay rights movement’ - present the body of arguments that capture that thesis, comment on its history, completeness, consistency, whatever, but not declare it “right”.

It seems to me this professor is somewhat unprofessional in her approach.

I recall at university taking an elective course called “Philosophy of Religion”. This course covered many things including proofs for and against the existence of God and it canvassed various other religion-related topics. The teacher (properly) adopted an objective stance - he was not “voting” for or against any of the material covered - just presenting it, causing us to think, etc. It was interesting to note that a couple of students in this class really struggled because they could not see that “faith” was not a tool particularly applicable to this class. They sought to answer question based on their “faith”. Often I recall the teacher explaining that this course was not one of religious instruction!

Letter from C. S. Lewis regarding homosexuality, quoted in Sheldon Vanauken’s A Severe Mercy, pp. 146-148, in response to a question about a couple of Christian students of Vanauken who were homosexual and had come to him for advice:

I have seen less than you but more than I wanted of this terrible problem. I will discuss your letter with those whom I think wise in Christ. This is only an interim report. First, to map out the boundaries within which all discussion must go on, **I take it for certain that the physical satisfaction of homosexual desires is sin. **This leaves the homo. no worse off than any normal person who is, for whatever reason, prevented from marrying. Second, our speculations on the cause of the abnormality are not what matters and we must be content with ignorance. The disciples were not told why (in terms of efficient cause) the man was born blind (Jn. IX 1-3): only the final cause, that the works of God shd. be made manifest in him. This suggests that in homosexuality, as in every other tribulation, those works can be made manifest: i.e. that every disability conceals a vocation, if only we can find it, wh. will ‘turn the necessity to glorious gain.’ Of course, the first step must be to accept any privations wh., if so disabled, we can’t lawfully get. **The homo. has to accept sexual abstinence **just as the poor man has to forego otherwise lawful pleasures because he wd. be unjust to his wife and children if he took them. That is merely a negative condition. What shd. the positive life of the homo. be? I wish I had a letter wh. a pious male homo., now dead, once wrote to me–but of course it was the sort of letter one takes care to destroy. He believed that his necessity could be turned to spiritual gain: that there were certain kinds of sympathy and understanding, a certain social role which mere men and mere women cd. not give. But it is all horribly vague and long ago. Perhaps any homo. who humbly accepts his cross and puts himself under Divine guidance will, however, be shown the way. I am sure that any attempt to evade it (e.g. by mock or quasi-marriage with a member of one’s own sex even if this does not lead to any carnal act) is the wrong way. Jealousy (this another homo. admitted to me) is far more rampant and deadly among them than among us. And I don’t think little concessions like wearing the clothes of the other sex in private is the right line, either. It is the duties, burdens, the characteristic virtues of the other sex, I suspect, which the patient must try to cultivate. I have mentioned humility because male homos. (I don’t know about women) are rather apt, the moment they find you don’t treat them with horror and contempt, to rush to the opposite pole and start implying that they are somehow superior to the normal type. I wish I could be more definite. All I have really said is that, like all other tribulations, it must be offered to God and His guidance how to use it must be sought.

Read more:

DISCLAIMER: The views and opinions expressed in these forums do not necessarily reflect those of Catholic Answers. For official apologetics resources please visit