James P. McGlone
t is clear from the article “Sexing Discourse” (October 29, 2013) by Reed E. McConnell ’15, that the author simply does not understand why groups like the Anscombe Society, Harvard College Faith and Action, the Catholic Student Association, the Knights of Columbus, and the Daughters of Isabella are concerned about the widespread use of pornography.
As such, Pope Francis, like all 265 of the popes who preceded him, will not teach anything contrary to the Church’s beliefs on matters of faith and morals. This continuity should itself be a source of great joy to Catholics, for these teachings are beautiful and even liberating. What he can do, and what we pray that he will do, is inspire the whole world, by his words, leadership, and example, to embrace the truths of the Gospel and the person of Jesus Christ. Thus far the Holy Father has certainly gotten the world’s attention; we pray that over the course of his papacy, he will be so compelling as to strengthen the Church and bring more and more people into its fold.
As an academic community, Harvard should not be in the business of banishing that which some of the people in its community find offensive, which is largely a matter of perceptions, feelings, and visceral reactions. That which is socially corrupting, degrading to our humanity, and detrimental to our community, is a very different matter. Tyga’s music fits this description in its lyrics and themes, and it is for this reason that the College Events Board should never have invited him in the first place.
The idea that the Church does not do enough for the poor in Africa is dubious at best. The idea that she is complicit in the deaths of hundreds of thousands is absolutely outrageous.
How can we sustain healthy dialogue when the presumed majority is content to quash opposing positions, even those that are held in good faith and defended by reasoned arguments, by demonizing them with accusations of bigotry or malice?
The fact that the beliefs of some religious people contradict our knowledge of the natural world does not imply that religion and science are irreconcilable.
Science settles the question at the heart of the abortion debate—that of fetal personhood—in favor of the unborn.
Marriage is a very significant and contentious issue in our society and on our campus, and it is my hope that more debate on the issue can fill the pages of this newspaper in the future. However, name-calling is simply counterproductive, as well as antithetical to the mission of an institution of higher learning.
Those seeking to redefine marriage to include same-sex unions often make their case by calling for “equality” in our marriage ...
Those who take the “personally opposed but pro-choice” position must confront the question: why are you “personally opposed” to abortion in the first place?
One does not have to look far to see the threats posed by marriage’s decline.