In defense of the “Purity Culture is a Feminist Issue” IWL event

I write in response to the opinion column published in The Record on October 21st titled “IWL event goes against Benedictine values” by Molly Wells. The event referenced was not an attack on the Catholic Church, Catholic students or the Benedictine Values.

In fact, the event complemented the Benedictine Values. The values of Respect for Persons and Listening were the primary goals of this event: to ensure all students had the opportunity to feel heard and valued, no matter the choices they make or have made with their body.

It was an opportunity to actively listen with the ear of one’s heart and engage in discourse surrounding the ways in which purity culture, through religious beliefs and societal standards, has disrespected women on our campus.

As the article referenced, the Rule of Benedict states, “we believe the divine presence is everywhere” (RB 19.1). As uncomfortable as it may sound, even if the divine is present during sex, this in no way requires sex to be solely observed in the bounds of marriage.

If we were to take originalist biblical teaching for law (and current Catholic teachings), we would also believe that queer relationships are “not showing love and respect to the partner you are engaging in the activity with.” So next time we use biblical verses, rules, and teaching as law, let’s first consider the fact that doing so is furthering a system of discrimination and hate.

It is hurtful as a member of the Benedictine community to read this misuse of biblical teaching to shame women and their bodies.

There is an incredible underlying level of shame within the article. It stated, “Yes, virginity is not an object because you are not an object. Your body itself is not sinful. But the things you choose to do with your body?” This implies that people should be shamed for the private choices they make with their body. It also implies that those who choose to engage in sexual activity are deserving of shame, ridicule and to be seen as sinners.

Isn’t the entire message of Christianity to love one another and serve one another? I see no love in this message of shame.

Additionally, who said all events on this campus need to be completely in compliance with traditional Catholic teachings? If that were true, there would be no room for Q+ events or safe spaces for those who are not Catholic, white, heterosexual, cisgendered men.

Around 50% of our student population do not even identify as Catholic. By omitting these types of events we would never be able to serve our student body in the way they deserve.

A person’s sexual choices, if they are religious or spiritual, should be between them and their God.

This idea that women and the choices they make with their body should be controlled by anyone other than themself is the reason why the article’s entire argument rests on the foundation of shame and hate. It puts women’s bodies in the hands of the men who run the Catholic Church.

Nobody is judging anyone for their choice to interpret the bible in this way for their own life and body; so don’t shame me for mine. The Catholic Church says I am sinning if I ever engage in sexual activity, even within marriage, given my sexuality, so shame on me for not caring what the church has to say on this topic.

All journeys that women on this campus experience in regards to their religion and practices of sex and mesturation are completely valid in the eyes of the IWL. They never held this event to exclude women; they held it to empower all women.

IWL is not the problem. They are doing their job.