Loyola sexuality class stirs debate

A seminar on human sexuality at Loyola College, which includes explicit videos of intimate sex acts by homosexuals and heterosexuals, has ignited a campus debate about the graphic material itself and the theological questions it poses for the Roman Catholic institution.

Last week, a group of students placed a full-page advertisement in the campus newspaper describing the films and saying they were "detrimental to the soul of our college." The critics claim some of the views expressed in the course are contrary to Catholic doctrine.

The students asked that the course be canceled.

Since the ad appeared, the campus debate has grown to include discussions of censorship, academic freedom, value-free education and whether the Catholic stands on homosexuality, premarital sex and masturbation are justified.

The Rev. Harold Ridley, Loyola's president, said the seminar, a non-credit elective, was developed out of "a concern that some of our students lacked very basic information about human sexuality" -- including facts about sexually transmitted diseases. The six-session course is being taught for the third year by two psychology professors.

In a letter to alumni, Father Ridley said that "no adverse reaction to the seminar was brought to the attention of the administration" until recently.

Father Ridley also said the course will continue while a faculty committee takes a new look at its content and methods. He has asked two Jesuit priests to attend the seminar this year "to provide Catholic moral perspective as required."

In turning down the request to cancel the course, Father Ridley said: "Direct and abrupt action on my part would have shifted the discussion towards questions of censorship and academic freedom." Important as those considerations are, he said, the issue that needs to be addressed now is "what is or is not appropriate material in this type of seminar at Loyola College."

No comment from faculty

Charles T. LoPresto and Cynthia Mendelson, members of the psychology faculty who teach the Thursday evening course in a large, crowded lecture room in Knott Hall, could not be reached for comment yesterday. Frank Cunningham, assistant provost and chairman of Loyola's committee on sexuality education, said descriptions in the Greyhound of the films shown were accurate.

Students Phil Hurley, Gina Marie Kelly and a few others paid $370 for the ad, said John Elter, the newspaper's editor in chief.

In part, the ad said: "The course this year has included, in the first two sessions, films explicitly showing men and women masturbating, and homosexual men and women having oral sex; an overview of masturbation, including methods and proposed benefits; a personal testimony by one of the faculty presenters explaining why he feels the church teaching on homosexuality is not the true Christian position; and a separate story involving how he feels church teaching on masturbation is also flawed."

The ad went on to say, "In the two years since its inception, the seminar has also included a film showing a married couple performing multiple sexual practices; a session on the many forms of contraception as ways of 'safe' sex [and] premarital sex presented as a legitimate option if one so chooses."

Although five students writing in the Greyhound this week disagreed with the ad's claim that the seminar "is detrimental to the soul of our college, and the material it presents leads students away from the full knowledge of God's sacred gift of human sexuality," they, too, did not challenge the accuracy of the descriptions of the seminar's content.

Dr. Cunningham, whose committee is reviewing Dr. LoPresto's and Dr. Mendelson's presentations, said the teachers have been sensitive to the likelihood that the films and videos would offend some undergraduates. The videos were obtained from Loyola's Department of Pastoral Counseling, he said.

"They're shown at the end of the class," Dr. Cunningham said. "What the films are about is made clear, and the students don't have to stay and watch them."

He said his committee is looking into possible changes "in the way moral and religious issues are dealt with." In the first year of the seminar, he said, "a couple of theologians taught the last class in the series, but the feedback we got from students was that this was less than successful."

Inadequate balance?

According to Mr. Hurley, a Loyola junior, this year's participation by the two Jesuit priests -- the Rev. Frank R. Haig and the Rev. William J. Sneck -- has not provided an adequate balance of "Judeo-Christian moral standards."

After about two hours of information in each session "which is often directly opposed to church teaching," only "a couple of minutes" are devoted to moral questions, Mr. Hurley said, and "one of the Jesuits present has several times left the distinct and strong impression that he is in disagreement with many of the pertinent church teachings."