Recently a letter came out that called into question Creighton’s involvement with the distribution of Mackelmore and Ryan Lewis tickets.  The article was apparently an attempt to return Creighton to some sort of presupposed moral high-ground from which we have drifted away.  The authors stated that they were concerned for the “integrity” of Creighton, and that Creighton is deviating away from its mission. 

What deeply bothers me about the letter is that the authors in question clearly believe that they have some sort of moral monopoly on the concept of “truth.”  To them, Catholic Tradition is opposed to homosexuality, and therefore any sort of reaction against that suddenly makes our university un-Catholic.  This is ridiculous for several reasons.  First and foremost, the primacy of conscience has been emphasized by the Church since Vatican II. 

“This Vatican Council declares that the human person has a right to religious freedom. This freedom means that all men are to be immune from coercion on the part of individuals or of social groups and of any human power, in such wise that no one is to be forced to act in a manner contrary to his own beliefs, whether privately or publicly, whether alone or in association with others, within due limits.

The council further declares that the right to religious freedom has its foundation in the very dignity of the human person as this dignity is known through the revealed word of God and by reason itself. This right of the human person to religious freedom is to be recognized in the constitutional law whereby society is governed and thus it is to become a civil right.

It is in accordance with their dignity as persons-that is, beings endowed with reason and free will and therefore privileged to bear personal responsibility-that all men should be at once impelled by nature and also bound by a moral obligation to seek the truth, especially religious truth. They are also bound to adhere to the truth, once it is known, and to order their whole lives in accord with the demands of truth. However, men cannot discharge these obligations in a manner in keeping with their own nature unless they enjoy immunity from external coercion as well as psychological freedom. Therefore the right to religious freedom has its foundation not in the subjective disposition of the person, but in his very nature. In consequence, the right to this immunity continues to exist even in those who do not live up to their obligation of seeking the truth and adhering to it and the exercise of this right is not to be impeded, provided that just public order be observed.  (Vatican II, On Religious Liberty (1965), §2)”

Oh but hey, I guess this statement doesn’t apply when we can find other documents that contradict it.  By stating that Creighton should not offer tickets to students is strikingly close to the “coercion of social groups” called out in the first paragraph of the previous document.  Standing up for the gay rights is not a violation of Catholic social teaching at all.  It is fulfillment of them.  It is saying that we see a loving and committed relationship between two people as a good and beautiful thing, regardless of sexual orientation.  

The authors of the article also take the liberty of interpreting Creighton University’s mission statement in order to meet their agenda.  “Creighton is dedicated to the pursuit of truth in all its forms and is guided by the living tradition of the Catholic Church.”  They automatically assume that this statement backs their vilification of Mackelmore and Ryan Lewis.  However, they seem to have missed the “truth in all its forms” part as well as the “living tradition” part.  Apparently though, truth in the form of homosexuality as morally okay isn’t a valid form of truth.  As I understand it, the mission of a Jesuit university is to teach students to be contemplatives in action and to identify truth in all aspects of life.

In response to the “living tradition” portion of the Creighton mission, I personally would not be comfortable in a Church that still sold indulgences or that endorsed crusades and the Spanish Inquisition.  What the authors of the controversial article do not recognize is that Truth traditions in the Catholic Church are constantly changing in response to the world around it.  A wonderfully terrible part of being human is being prone to error and mistake.  Anyone who denies that the Church has made mistakes in its two-thousand year history has their head in the sand.  The Church of today is not the Church of our parents, and it is not the Church of the Middle-Ages.  It is a Church in the middle of a world filled with empirical knowledge and it needs to adapt.  This adaptation has been slow in coming, but in case some people haven’t realized quite yet, there’s a new Sheriff in town. 

“If a homosexual person is of good will and is in search of God, I am no one to judge.”

“Religion has the right to express its opinion in the service of the people, but God in creation has set us free: it is not possible to interfere spiritually in the life of a person.”

“A person once asked me, in a provocative manner, if I approved of homosexuality. I replied with another question: ‘Tell me: when God looks at a gay person, does he endorse the existence of this person with love, or reject and condemn this person?’ We must always consider the person.

“The dogmatic and moral teachings of the church are not all equivalent. The church’s pastoral ministry cannot be obsessed with the transmission of a disjointed multitude of doctrines to be imposed insistently. Proclamation in a missionary style focuses on the essentials, on the necessary things: this is also what fascinates and attracts more, what makes the heart burn, as it did for the disciples at Emmaus. We have to find a new balance; otherwise even the moral edifice of the church is likely to fall like a house of cards, losing the freshness and fragrance of the Gospel. The proposal of the Gospel must be more simple, profound, radiant. It is from this proposition that the moral consequences then flow.

These are all statements from Pope Francis, in an extensive interview that can be found on the Campus Ministry website and pretty much anywhere else on the internet.  Think of the amount of energy being extended into an issue regarding whether or not two people are morally allowed to have a loving relationship.  Over a billion people in the world live in crippling poverty, and we are supposed to focus our energies on making sure that Creighton doesn’t support gay rights.  Obsessing over trivial issues like this is why ex-Catholics represent 10% of the nation’s population.  Francis gets it.  It seems like the Catholic Church hasn’t been able to see the forest for the trees now for quite a while, but perhaps things are changing.  It is an exciting time to be a Catholic. 

The controversy over this article has been beautiful.  It is a sign of changing times, of hope for the Catholic Church, in the profound belief that we the people have the power to make a better world.  Do not justify bigoted actions by claiming that to do otherwise would act in contradiction to the mission of Creighton.  Instead, think critically about what the mission of Creighton really is.  Is it to blindly accept what has been handed down to us?  Or is it to shape our generation in a way so that we ourselves can pursue truth as we see fit?  Vatican II affirmed the inherent holiness of all people, religious or non-religious.  Let us rise as the voice of that holiness and make our own decisions regarding what is morally right.