Jesuitical 21: Georgetown and Love Saxa

Part 21 of my ongoing survey of the follies of many modern day Jesuits.  It seems that defending traditional Catholic teaching at Georgetown is verboten:



A student group at Georgetown University faces defunding and other possible sanctions for defending the Catholic Church’s teaching on marriage.

Love Saxa exists to promote healthy relationships and sexual integrity.

It describes itself as a “new initiative at Georgetown to promote and celebrate authentically loving relationships.”

Love Saxa was restarted as a student group after taking a break for a year, according to the Hoya. On October 3, it hosted a talk by Dawn Hawkins, executive director of the National Center on Sexual Exploitation.  

“In a society where dating and courtship are largely forgotten, structures of marriage and family are eroding, traditional understandings of gender complementarity are distant concepts, the use of pornography is prevalent, and sexual assault is rampant, Love Saxa exists to promote healthy relationships on campus through cultivating a proper understanding of sex, gender, marriage, and family among Georgetown students,” Love Saxa says on its website and Facebook page.

“Many Georgetown students lack a space to discuss their experiences of the harmful effects of a distorted view of human sexuality and the human person,” Love Saxa’s mission statement explains. “Through programs consisting of discussions, lectures, and campaigns, we hope to increase awareness of the benefits of sexual integrity, healthy dating relationships, and the primacy of marriage & family as central pillars of society.”

Georgetown student Jasmin Ouseph submitted a formal complaint to the Jesuit-run Catholic school about the club, claiming it violates the Division of Student Affairs’ Student Organization Standards.

The presidents of GU Pride and Georgetown University Queer People of Color are complaining along with Ouseph.


Go here to read the rest.  The powers that be at Georgetown are about as Catholic as Karl Marx was.  Scratch that.  Old Commie Marx doubtless had more traditional views of marriage and homosexuality than the Jesuits of Georgetown.

More to explorer


  1. Nothing surprising. With the election of Francis the modernists have definitely won the fight for their vision of the Church. It is only a matter of time before all orthodox voices will be silenced. The Catholic died at Vatican II. Francis is just organizing its burial.

  2. You’ll recall the prefect of the Congregation for Divine Worship was ca. 2004 boo’d during a public address at Georgetown in an incident that incorporated at least one graphic faculty meltdown. What induced that in Prof. Borderline-Personality-Disorder was one sentence on family relations.

    It’s the Jesuits, whose charism is now single-malt scotch and sodomy.

  3. On a positive note, I think it is wonderful that Love SAXA exists. Let’s hope the hearing on defunding the organization of $250 and possible sanctions finds in favor of this orthodox group.
    The LBGTs must be incensed that the pictured Love SAXA student rep looks so feminine with her long hair and ruffled skirt. Good heavens, she even looks happy.

  4. How about defund GU (law) clinics that teach the use of adversarial methods of dispute resolution to “resolve” disputes between parents of minor children, because all these clinics do is harm innocent, vulnerable children and their parents, destroy and impoverish families, and because modern (DC) administrative orders applicable to the family courts require that these cases be handled strictly through non-adversarial, non-harmful, non-violent, structured family mediation. How can GU fund clinics, such as DV clinics that do almost nothing but dirty file (i.e., ex parte, sans due process) and prosecute “protection” orders against mostly pro se parents, and teach law students how to severely harm innocent children and their families, rather than teaching them best practices for resolving these matters–i.e., through structured, non-harmful family mediation.

  5. “through structured, non-harmful family mediation.”

    This is very off-topic, but in my experience of 35 years at the bar mediation rarely works unless both sides want it to. In the vast majority of cases I have been involved in mediation crashes and burns, although, in general, both attorneys prefer that it would work since it means less toil on a particular case for them. Illinois requires mediation in regard to child custody and visitation. I have seen it work about 20% of the time, and in regard to those cases, almost all of them would have settled in any case, sans mediation.

  6. and in regard to those cases, almost all of them would have settled in any case, sans mediation.

    Erma Bombeck once said ‘a couple that has a friendly divorce didn’t need one’.

  7. 35 years at which bar, Illinois? If a traditional-type family lawyer is present in a family mediation, you are right, the mediation crashes and burns. This is precisely why there is special protocol in all of the modern, court and community-based family mediation programs, including the crucial protocol that no lawyer or 3d party is entitled to attend any of the mediation sessions. This is the same family mediation protocol used in the DCSC Family Mediation (court-based) Program, the North Carolina Child Custody Mediation (court-based) Program, the Montgomery County Conflict Resolution Center, and the Northern Virginia Mediation Services (NVMS),
    the latter two being community-based mediation programs. Another big difference between regular mediation and family mediation is that, in the latter, mediation is indeed mandatory, and multiple sessions occur (up to around 10) until all issues are resolved, and if the judge is well-trained, it is re-ordered if any issues remain unresolved. Your stats are also completely wrong. In each of these family mediation programs (DC, NC, VA and MD) approximately 85% of cases are resolved within three, two-hour sessions if the proper protocol is used and the mediator is trained and skilled in family mediation, as they generally are in each of these four programs. This is why mediation is mandatory in all four states when minor children are involved/impacted by the case. It is unfortunate though, that neither the lawyers, nor the faculty who teach them, generally understand what family mediation is, why it is mandatory, and why it works so well when performed correctly, even when the parents don’t initially know what mediation is or how well it works. How could they; their own lawyers don’t know these things, and had no opportunity to learn how to mediate family cases in law school (there are no mediation clinics at any of the DC law schools, so Georgetown is not the only serious offender in this regard).

  8. Art Deco claims: “would have settled anyway?” Really? If adversarial methods of dispute resolution are employed, e.g., in place of or alongside family mediation, the cases are then “litigated” and generally go to trial, where 3d parties, having no specific parenting wisdom or training in family dispute resolution, will then decide delicate issues of custody and parenting, meaning there is often or usually another trial, and another trial until all the money, assets, property of both parents is gone and, in addition, life-long inter-parent hatred, fear and anger tends to replace mere marital discontent. When adversarial methods are used in this case type, the chances of impoverishment or bankruptcy increase perhaps twenty-fold, along with the chances of unnecessary incarceration, hospitalization, homicide, suicide and all the other horribles associated with the use of adversarial litigation/warfare to “resolve” disputes between parents of minor children. Properly conducted family mediation can easily prevent all of these terrible things, and will at least lessen the likelihood and severity of such things in all cases.

  9. “If a traditional-type family lawyer is present in a family mediation, you are right, the mediation crashes and burns.”

    By statute Illinois attorneys cannot be present at court ordered mediation regarding child custody and visitation.

  10. Of course the Illinois (and DC) family mediation programs are only as good as the clerks, magistrates and judges assigned to handle domestic, protection order and other intra-family (non-criminal) cases. Georgetown and other university-based DC clinics are still training clinical students–i.e., future lawyers, judicial clerks, magistrates and judges–solely in “family litigation,” and in how to “prosecute” a parent/family case (all except Howard Law School in DC are unfortunately still clinically training law students to prosecute, to quickly/easily create complex civil litigation between, and ‘destroy’ (mostly) pro se parents of minor children). At the same time, neither Georgetown, nor any DC university (including those with a law school) is training future lawyers (or future doctors, nurses or other health professionals) in mandatory, primary, best (and least harmful) practices–i.e., structured family mediation–for resolving intra-family disputes. “Resolving disputes” is a “practice of law.” Family mediation is by court administrative orders now the standard method, in theory, for resolving family disputes, and is also standard clinical training at many universities (and law schools) outside of DC (i.e., those with “family mediation clinics.”) As the university and law school clinical training currently stands in DC, it is too bad for the thousands of innocent minor children in DC, and their equally vulnerable and distressed parents, who are subjected to or must access the family courts. Georgetown will demonstrate its leadership among DC universities–and it would be consistent with modern laws/best practices, and squarely in pursuit of important Jesuit principles–by converting/combining its ‘family litigation clinics’ (including ‘protection order clinics’) into a single, unified, multidisciplinary “family mediation clinic.” This would be a great way to update clinical legal training at Georgetown, and harmonize it with modern laws, rules and best practices for resolving family disputes. It is also the best way to protect the health, safety and well-being of DC children and families accessing Georgetown clinics, while promoting excellence in the local practice of family law, and among judicial officers in future family courts.

  11. Art Deco claims:

    I didn’t make any claims. I retailed an Erma Bombeck quip. (I am skeptical of your claims, FWIW).

Comments are closed.

%d bloggers like this: