What I find interesting is this.
In the article, it says:
Daniel Hughes, president of the student group Progressive Alliance for Life, said he is among the students who have confronted administrators with concerns over summer internship funding. He said he threatened to take the matter to the church officials if action wasn’t taken. Aleinikoff said Georgetown’s decision had nothing to do with external pressure.
Hughes said the university is finally taking the appropriate action by honoring church teachings.
“I don’t think Georgetown needs to enact Catholic doctrine on every issue — that wouldn’t be desirable,” he said. “But the most bedrock Catholic teaching is the protection of life. No advocacy group that works against that principle should be supported by the university.”
Hughes said he doesn’t understand the complaints. Students, he said, need to realize that there are tradeoffs to coming to a Jesuit institution, such as the fact that some alumni donate because they support certain beliefs associated with the church.
“If this is finally a sign of them owning up to their commitment to honor the church, I’ll be impressed but surprised,” he said. “This seems like a grudging, half-hearted commitment.”
Meanwhile, the first commenter says:
Don’t quote me on this, but I’m pretty sure Dan Hughes is the Treasurer of Outlaw, Georgetown Law’s LGBT organization. At the very least, he helped organize the SLDN Lobby Day protest, which advocated revoking the military’s Don’t-Ask-Don’t-Tell policy.
Hughes states his opinion in states his opinion in this Georgetown Law Weekly article (linked to Google cache because the site is down or something)
Personally, I am all for “choice.” I believe in the right to choose (or not choose) sex partners and the right to choose birth control. What I do not approve of is unspeakable violence against another human person, a.k.a. abortion (not “choice”), done in the name
of personal convenience, the rationale for the vast majority of abortions.
Is Hughes a hypocrite, or does he have a consistent philosophy? (7:32 AM)
2 Comments:
Well, if he is indeed Gay, which seems to be the case, then his Catholic Theology seems to be a bit askew. Abortion, in most timeframes of application, according to Catholic Theology, is the derailment of the natural process, that is, the fetus is not allowed to come to term, regardless of the question of when life begins, which is an ongoing discussion in Catholic Theology. But this is also the question in Gay sex - derailment of the natural process. There is no way you can say two guys screwing, in whichever configuration you want, is not a derailment of the natural process, most especially as the Catholic Church sees the natural process. Maybe Mr Hughes is celibate? Someone ought to slap him on the side of the head and tell him he's full of shit!
It's entirely possible to be pro-gay and pro-life, sure.
The question of whether a human life begins when a zygote is formed and whether all human life is worthy of protection (and the related questions of euthanasia and personal dignity and pacifism) is an entirely separate question from the morality of homosexuality. Why assume that everyone who is pro-life is Catholic, or even Christian? There are certainly atheist pro-life groups who believe in the sanctity of life for humanistic reasons, and there's no reason to believe that they would be anti-gay.
As to whether Hughes himself is internally consistent with his own reasoning, I have no way of knowing.
Post a Comment
<< Home