jueves, abril 30, 2015

Princeton se une a Chicago en la defensa de la libertad de expresión

No todo vale. La libertad de expresión tiene límites. Pero los grupos poderosos de lo "políticamente correcto" llevan tanto tiempo acusando a quienes les resisten de usar "lenguaje de odio" y de "violar los derechos humanos", que algunas universidades han sentido la necesidad de defender el espacio para la libre expresión, sin que sus miembros se sientan intimidados por las mafias violentas.

Chicago lo hizo.

Ahora se suma Princeton.


Faculty adopts statement affirming commitment to freedom of expression at Princeton

The Princeton faculty adopted a statement Monday, April 6, affirming the University's commitment to the principles of academic freedom and freedom of expression as essential to the University's educational mission.
The proposal was made by Sergiu Klainerman, the Eugene Higgins Professor of Mathematics, and signed by 60 faculty colleagues. They recommended that Princeton adopt the major portion of a freedom of expression statement that a University of Chicago faculty committee issued in January.
Here is the statement, which will be included in the Princeton policy guide, Rights, Rules, Responsbilities:
Because the University is committed to free and open inquiry in all matters, it guarantees all members of the University community the broadest possible latitude to speak, write, listen, challenge, and learn. Except insofar as limitations on that freedom are necessary to the functioning of the University, the University fully respects and supports the freedom of all members of the University community "to discuss any problem that presents itself."
Of course, the ideas of different members of the University community will often and quite naturally conflict. But it is not the proper role of the University to attempt to shield individuals from ideas and opinions they find unwelcome, disagreeable, or even deeply offensive. Although the University greatly values civility, and although all members of the University community share in the responsibility for maintaining a climate of mutual respect, concerns about civility and mutual respect can never be used as a justification for closing off discussion of ideas, however offensive or disagreeable those ideas may be to some members of our community.
The freedom to debate and discuss the merits of competing ideas does not, of course, mean that individuals may say whatever they wish, wherever they wish. The University may restrict expression that violates the law, that falsely defames a specific individual, that constitutes a genuine threat or harassment, that unjustifiably invades substantial privacy or confidentiality interests, or that is otherwise directly incompatible with the functioning of the University. In addition, the University may reasonably regulate the time, place, and manner of expression to ensure that it does not disrupt the ordinary activities of the University. But these are narrow exceptions to the general principle of freedom of expression, and it is vitally important that these exceptions never be used in a manner that is inconsistent with the University’s commitment to a completely free and open discussion of ideas. 
In a word, the University’s fundamental commitment is to the principle that debate or deliberation may not be suppressed because the ideas put forth are thought by some or even by most members of the University community to be offensive, unwise, immoral, or wrong-headed. It is for the individual members of the University community, not for the University as an institution, to make those judgments for themselves, and to act on those judgments not by seeking to suppress speech, but by openly and vigorously contesting the ideas that they oppose. Indeed, fostering the ability of members of the University community to engage in such debate and deliberation in an effective and responsible manner is an essential part of the University’s educational mission. 
As a corollary to the University’s commitment to protect and promote free expression, members of the University community must also act in conformity with the principle of free expression. Although members of the University community are free to criticize and contest the views expressed on campus, and to criticize and contest speakers who are invited to express their views on campus, they may not obstruct or otherwise interfere with the freedom of others to express views they reject or even loathe. To this end, the University has a solemn responsibility not only to promote a lively and fearless freedom of debate and deliberation, but also to protect that freedom when others attempt to restrict it. 

domingo, abril 19, 2015

Los tabúes no se crean ni se destruyen, solo se transforman

La historia es tremenda: si eres liberal, puedes decir lo que quieras y está protegido por la libertad de cátedra. Si eres simplemente cristiano, tu crítica será considerada una ofensa y podrás ser expulsado de la Universidad sin necesidad de justificar la violación de ninguna libertad de cátedra.

El liberalismo es hipócrita. Leed.

APRIL 2015
Campus inquisition
The treatment of John McAdams at Marquette University reveals the newest level of intolerance in the world of higher education.
John McAdams via
The Jesuits these days may have a tenuous relation to Catholic orthodoxy, but their traditional expertise in the matter of conducting inquisitions continues in fighting trim. Consider the case of John McAdams, a sixty-nine-year-old associate professor of political science, and the Jesuits at Marquette University (“Be the Difference”) in Milwaukee, Wisconsin. McAdams has been suspended from teaching. He has been banned from the campus. And the Jesuits and their lay minions at Marquette are mobilizing the modern tools of inquisition to revoke his tenure and expel him once and for all from an institution that (according to its website) “prepares [students] for the world by asking them to think critically about it.”
We’ll come back to that risible claim in a moment. First, what do you suppose John McAdams did to warrant the academic equivalent of excommunication? Did he steal money from the Women’s and Gender Studies program? Publicly consume gluten on campus? Vote Republican? No, Professor McAdams really violated the canons of civilized behavior. He published a blog post. Yes, that’s right. He actually had the temerity to publish an essay on Marquette Warrior, his personal weblog, that was critical of a graduate teaching assistant and, even worse, he stood up for a conservative student who disagreed with said teaching assistant about gay marriage.
No wonder mandarins at Marquette are out for McAdams’s blood. He trespassed against the one commandment modern academics take seriously: thou shalt not violate politically correct orthodoxy.
Here’s what happened. In a philosophy class on ethics, a graduate teaching assistant called Cheryl Abbate asked students to apply ideas from John Rawls’s Theory of Justice to some modern political controversies. She listed a few subjects on the blackboard, including “gay rights.” According to McAdams, she then said that “everybody agrees on this, and there is no need to discuss it.” After class, a student approached Abbate and said that he thought the issue worthy of discussion. He argued against gay marriage and gay adoption but was told by Abbate that “some opinions are not appropriate, such as racist opinions, sexist opinions.” (How about the outlandish opinion, expressed in Abbate’s master’s thesis, that, on “utilitarian” grounds, medical research should be conducted not on animals but on prisoners? We gather that’s just fine: it doesn’t affect anyone on this week’s approved list of victims.) The student (who surreptitiously recorded the exchange) objected that it was his right as an American citizen to make such arguments, to which Abbate replied that “you don’t have a right in this class to make homophobic comments,” noting also that she would “take offense” if the student said that women can’t serve in particular roles. She then suggested that the student drop the class. Which he did. (It was a required class, by the way, so he will have to make it up in the future.)
McAdams’s heinous tort was to describe the particulars of this exchange on his weblog and then go on to criticize Abbate’s response. “Abbate,” he wrote,
was just using a tactic typical among liberals now. Opinions with which they disagree are not merely wrong, and are not to be argued against on their merits, but are deemed “offensive” and need to be shut up. . . .
Of course, only certain groups have the privilege of shutting up debate. Things thought to be “offensive” to gays, blacks, women and so on must be stifled. Further, it’s not considered necessary to actually find out what the group really thinks. “Women” are supposed to feel warred upon when somebody opposes abortion, but in the real world men and women are equally likely to oppose abortion. . . .
But in the politically correct world of academia, one is supposed to assume that all victim groups think the same way as leftist professors.
McAdams ended by observing that, “like the rest of academia, Marquette is less and less a real university. And, when gay marriage cannot be discussed, certainly not a Catholic university.”
McAdams’s post elicited a vigorous response. Cheryl Abbate received a torrent of comment, some of it supportive, some critical, some rude and abusive. Delicate creature that she is, she has since left Marquette because of the incident. Curious readers should look up her website. A more perfect specimen of wounded vanity and politically correct attitudinizing is hard to come by.
And then there was the response Professor McAdams received from Marquette. Marquette Warrior features a disclaimer: “this site has no official connection with Marquette University. Indeed, when university officials find out about it, they will doubtless want it shut down.”
And how. Their first step was to suspend him and bar him from the campus. On what grounds? Well might you ask. Peter Bonilla of FIRE—the indispensable Foundation for Individual Rights in Education—has detailed the contemptible, kangaroo-court travesty of justice meted out by the craven administration of Marquette at thefire.org. It’s been a goulash of overheated rhetoric long on nebulous charges of harassment and very short on due process and substance. On December 17, Michael R. Lovell, Marquette’s president, issued a statement about McAdams’s suspension: “As stated in our harassment policy, the university will not tolerate personal attacks or harassment of or by students, faculty and staff.” Yes, OK. But where was the personal attack or harassment?
At the end of January, Marquette’s dean, Richard C. Holz, sent a letter to McAdams notifying him that the university was commencing the process of stripping him of tenure and dismissing him. It is a remarkable and depressing document, full of wild, irrelevant accusations, disingenuous posturing, and the lowest species of Jesuitical casuistry. “[F]aculty members,” Holz wrote, “have voiced concerns about how they could become targets in your blog based upon items they might choose to include in a class syllabus. Your conduct thus impairs the very freedoms of teaching and expression that you vehemently purport to promote.” Hello? As Peter Bonilla observes, “This is a preposterous argument, Yet again asserting a nonexistent right to be free of criticism, under which one can claim a rights violation simply because another person spoke his or her mind.”
It gets worse. Holz went on to argue that Professor McAdams “knew or should have known that [his] Internet story would result in vulgar, vile, and threatening communications” and that he thus bore responsibility for the criticism Cheryl Abbate received. Again, Peter Bonilla is right: the argument is ridiculous. “If bloggers like McAdams become vicariously liable for what others say or do in response to their writing,” Bonilla observes, “free speech as we know it ceases to exist.”
Of course, that may well be the point: to stamp out free expression and vigorous debate. Particularly disgusting in this star-chamber proceeding against John McAdams is the pretense of high-mindedness. In a statement released on February 4, President Lovell said that Marquette’s proceedings against McAdams “have everything to do with . . . guiding values and expectations of conduct toward each other” and “nothing to do” with academic freedom or freedom of speech. In fact, as that contemptible apparatchik well knows, it has everything to do with academic freedom and freedom of expression.
Like most American institutions of higher education these days, Marquette is Janus-faced when it comes to free speech. Their public-relations, fund-raising face proclaims their commitment to academic freedom and an environment that “prepares [students] for the world by asking them to think critically about it.” Tuition dollars and annual-fund checks safely docketed, the workaday, totalitarian face takes over. Only opinions that pass today’s politically correct test of orthodoxy are allowed. “Thinking critically” means repudiating anything not on the approved list of PC attitudes.
As of this writing, the fate of John McAdams at Marquette is still up in the air. As a private institution, Marquette need not offer the same sort of Frist Amendment protection as a public institution. FIRE has argued in meticulous detail that the university has violated its own policies in its campaign to rid itself of John McAdams. McAdams has engaged legal counsel and, who knows, perhaps he will prevail. We hope he does, though, frankly, we wouldn’t be surprised if he left anyway. Why would anyone not thoroughly marinated in the politically correct nostrums of the moment wish to study or teach at a sclerotic, intolerant institution like Marquette? Unfortunately, that same disease is endemic in the culture of so-called higher education in this country. Commentators like Glenn Reynolds are right: there is a bubble in higher education, partly economic, but partly spiritual. Our colleges and universities, though they can’t stop shouting about “diversity,” are pathetic bastions of intellectual and moral conformity. It will come to an end, but not before many more John McAdamses are ostracized for the sin of speaking out against the ideology of intolerance darkening the educational establishment.
This article originally appeared in The New Criterion, Volume 33 April 2015, on page 1
Copyright © 2015 The New Criterion | www.newcriterion.com

sábado, abril 18, 2015

Simposio Ideas&Debates sobre la masonería

Haré un simposio Ideas&Debates sobre la masonería durante el fin de semana largo.

Si alguno quiere venir, puede preguntarme por correo electrónico.

Entre tanto, les dejo los links de infocatólica sobre el tema.


Copio el artículo aquí.

La verdadera naturaleza de la masoneria

Hoy hemos sabido que los masones paraguayos quieren ser recibidos por el papa Francisco cuando visite su país del 10 al 12 de julio. Así lo ha manifestado Édgar Sánchez Caballero, serenísimo Gran Maestro de la Gran Logia Simbólica del Paraguay, quien ha aprovechado la ocasión para soltar loas hacia el Santo Padre y, de paso, afirmar algo que sencilla y llanamente no es cierto. A saber, que se puede ser católico y masón.
La realidad es que pocas cosas hay tan claras en el magisterio pontificio de los últimos siglos como la condena de la masonería. Aunque hay varias encíclicas al respecto, la más importante, siquiera sea por lo bien que explica en qué consiste esa falsa religión y cuál es su verdadero origen, es la Humanum Genus del papa León XIII. Recomiendo vivamente su lectura.
Algunos dirán que ya nada es lo que era y que los masones modernos no son los matacuras de tiempos pasados, sino gente de bien que busca la concordia y la paz mundial. Quienes piensan así deberían ver esta serie de vídeos en los que Javier Paredes entrevista a Alberto Bárcena, uno de los mayores expertos en masonería de España.
Son siete en total, pero créanme que merece la pena verlos todos. 
1. Los orígenes de la masonería
2. La Masonería en España y el Trienio Liberal (1820-1823)
3. Las sectas masónicas luciferinas
4. Los grados de la masonería
5. Las logias encubiertas y las organizaciones pantalla
6. La masonería en la II República
7. Hay que crear un hombre nuevo
No hace falta que les diga lo que pienso sobre la mera posibilidad de que un Papa tenga algún gesto de condescendencia hacia la masonería.
Luis Fernando Pérez Bustamante

jueves, abril 16, 2015

Entrevista a Mons. Georg Gaenswein: ¡feliz cumpleaños, Papa Benedicto XVI!

Una interesante entrevista al secretario privado del Papa Emérito.

Monsignor Georg: "Il mio Ratzinger segreto. Così provai a convincerlo a non lasciare il pontificato"

Monsignor Georg: "Il mio Ratzinger segreto. Così provai a convincerlo a non lasciare il pontificato"
Dalla messa all'alba tutti i giorni al tg delle 20. Georg Gänswein, storico segretario di Benedetto XVI, racconta la vita del Papa emerito che oggi compie 88 anni e di cui domenica ricorrono i dieci anni dall'elezione. "Impossibile dissuaderlo, ma fu una decisione serena"

CITTÀ DEL VATICANO - "Quando rinunciò al pontificato era di una serenità sconvolgente. La sua anima ne è ancora oggi pervasa, mentre trascorre le sue giornate fra gli amati libri, collocati in un ordine che soltanto lui, da oltre mezzo secolo, sa riconoscere. Legge, studia, suona e anche canta". Canta? "Solo nella santa messa!".

Monsignor Georg Gänswein, 58 anni, ci conduce nel Monastero Mater Ecclesiae dentro la vita privata di Benedetto XVI, il Papa emerito di cui egli è segretario, nei motivi della storica rinuncia, nell'amicizia col successore Francesco. Il tutto in giorni importanti per Joseph Ratzinger: oggi compie 88 anni, il 19 aprile festeggia i dieci anni dall'elezione al soglio di Pietro.

Partiamo dai libri. Quali legge?
"Ama i teologi, ma anche le biografie. A volte si concede letture su tematiche inerenti fede e ragione, ma anche Balthasar in relazione con Rahner, De Lubac, insomma i teologi che conobbe al tempo del Concilio. Ci sono anche libri di storia che gli piacciono. Nel Monastero ha la grande libreria che aveva prima nell'appartamento in piazza della Città Leonina e poi nel palazzo apostolico. I libri sono tutti nella medesima posizione di un tempo. All'inizio del papato, quando ancora non era stato fatto tutto il trasloco dei libri, ogni tanto dovetti accompagnarlo per qualche "fuga" nel suo vecchio appartamento per prendere qualche libro che gli mancava".

Al di là delle poche uscite pubbliche, ha mai lasciato il Monastero?
"Esce ogni giorno per fare la passeggiata pregando il rosario nei giardini. Dal Monastero va alla grotta di Lourdes, quindi verso la Torre di san Giovanni, e poi di nuovo indietro. Fatica un po' a camminare perché, come ripete lui stesso, le gambe non sono più quelle di una volta. Si aiuta con un deambulatore, lo preferisce a un bastone. Si sente più sicuro e più stabile ".

Come sono le sue giornate?
"Alle 7.45 c'è la messa nella cappella. Di solito io concelebro, se non posso chiamo un sacerdote amico. Ci sono sempre anche le Memores che abitano nel Monastero e ci aiutano nelle faccende di casa come già nel palazzo apostolico. La messa, come la preghiera successiva, si svolge lentamente. Papa Benedetto non ama la fretta. Ogni cosa deve essere fatta bene e con calma. È molto ordinato e metodico. Dopo il breviario fa colazione. Quindi si dedica alla corrispondenza privata che è addirittura cresciuta negli ultimi tempi, allo studio. Tre o quattro volte alla settimana, a fine mattinata, riceve ospiti. Alle 13.30 c'è il pranzo e dopo fa alcuni giri a piedi sul piccolo terrazzo del Monastero. Poi riposa e il pomeriggio alle 16.15, durante l'estate più tardi, la passeggiata col rosario. Poi ancora studia e legge. Alle 19.30 cena, quindi guarda il Tg1, e dopo si ritira in cappella per la compieta".

Sta scrivendo qualche libro? "Non sta scrivendo nulla. Mi ha detto: "Il Gesù di Nazaret era il mio ultimo libro, la mia vita scientifica è conclusa. Non ho più la forza per scrivere". E poi: "Se avessi ancora la forza per scrivere, non avrei rinunciato al papato".
Perché ha scelto di rimanere ad abitare in Vaticano?
"Glielo chiesi anch'io. Mi disse: "Riflettendo, ho capito che il Mater Ecclesiae sarebbe il posto ideale perché è un po' isolato, ma nello stesso tempo garantisce la libertà necessaria per vivere tranquillo e nascosto".

Disse di rinunciare all'esercizio del ministero petrino perché le sue forze, per l'età avanzata, non erano più adatte. I motivi furono soltanto questi?
"Si, disse che il ministero petrino necessita di vigore sia del corpo, sia dell'animo, "vigor quidam corporis et animae necessarius est". Parlò, insomma, di forze fisiche e anche di spirito. Negli ultimi mesi del suo pontificato si vedeva che per andare avanti doveva sforzarsi fortemente ".

Erano momenti difficili in Vaticano. Anche questi fattori esterni lo spinsero a lasciare?
"I motivi sono quelli appena detti. Tutte le altre ipotesi restano tali. È ovvio che tutto ciò che è successo nei due anni precedenti l'11 febbraio consumò le sue forze, ma non fu motivo per la rinuncia. Non fu una fuga. Era convinto che il pastore non deve mai fuggire da nulla, neanche dai lupi se li incontrasse. Questa è la chiave per la giusta comprensione della sua decisione. Non è fuggito, ha semplicemente e umilmente ammesso di non avere più la forza per reggere la Chiesa di Cristo ".

Vi fu chi scrisse che sarebbe stato insostenibile continuare a chiamare Ratzinger "papa", sia pure emerito, e che invece solo la qualifica di vescovo sarebbe stata appropriata.
"Non riesco a capire perché l'emeritato per il vescovo di Roma, per il successore di Pietro, non sia possibile. Benedetto XVI è Papa emerito e ritiene di esserlo legittimamente ".

Le parlò prima dell'11 febbraio 2013 della volontà di rinunciare?

Provò a dissuaderlo?
"Sì. Appena me lo disse, parecchio tempo prima dell'11 febbraio. Ma immediatamente vidi e capii che non era possibile convincerlo. Era una decisione presa con una tale chiarezza e serenità che tutte le paure e preoccupazioni svanivano senza bisogno che lui dicesse nulla di più".

Il 28 febbraio lei pianse lasciando con Ratzinger il Vaticano. Perché?
"Perché ho sofferto internamente. Ero consapevole che era l'ultima volta che facevo certe azioni, certi gesti. Piangevo, mentre lui invece era serenissimo. Aveva una forza interiore incredibile. Ed è così ancora oggi".

In forma privata a Castel Gandolfo le parlò del conclave, della sua successione?
"Tutti i giorni dopo il 28 febbraio lasciavo Castel Gandolfo e venivo in Vaticano per lavorare in Prefettura. Benedetto in quei giorni era stanco, molto stanco. Parlava pochissimo. Tornando il pomeriggio dal Vaticano, gli raccontavo quello che facevo, che vedevo e sentivo. Ne prendeva atto, ma non diceva né chiedeva nulla".

La sera del 13 marzo Ratzinger ha visto dalla tv Bergoglio affacciarsi alla loggia centrale della basilica vaticana?
"Sì, ma in quel momento ero in Vaticano. A Castello c'erano con lui monsignor Alfred Xuereb e le Memores. Ricordo che appena eletto Papa, Bergoglio mi chiese se poteva chiamare Benedetto. A Castello non si aspettavano questa telefonata tanto che quando chiamò nessuno rispose. Erano tutti in sala tv ad aspettare di vedere chi si sarebbe affacciato e nessuno venne al telefono. Poi siamo riusciti a trovarlo e si sono parlati. Il giorno dopo gli chiesi della telefonata con il nuovo Papa. Mi disse soltanto: "Molto bello. Gli ho fatto gli auguri, gli ho promesso la preghiera".

Vi fu chi disse che, rinunciando, Ratzinger tradiva il papato e anche la Chiesa.
"Lo ritengo ridicolo. Ratzinger, da fine teologo, era consapevole che la sede vacante poteva essere data o dalla morte del Pontefice o dalla sua rinuncia, seppure questa seconda possibilità non si era mai verificata nei tempi recenti".

lunes, abril 13, 2015

Carta de apoyo al Cardenal Ezzati

Una carta con historia fue la que publicó La Tercera el pasado 8 de abril, donde unas decenas de personas apoyamos al Cardenal Ezzati en su determinación de no renovar la misión canónica al profesor Jorge Costadoat en la UC.

En efecto, un estudiante tomó la iniciativa; le dije que me adhería; me pidió que le redactara la carta; él y otro recogieron firmas; algunos colegas me las dieron directamente; un tercero sugirió dos retoques para precisarla; y finalmente La Tercera aceptó publicarla, con tres firmas y la nota de que otras 30 la acompañaban.

No aparecieron esas otras personas, que querían dar su testimonio público. Pero su esfuerzo fue importante para que se viera que no era una opinión nada más, sino un acto de testimonio colectivo, en un momento en que el Gran Canciller de la UC se quedaba solo, con apoyos tibios que no se atrevían a decir lo esencial: que la posición de Jorge Costadoat efectivamente se apartaba de la enseñanza de la Iglesia.

Como un homenaje a esos valientes que quisieron firmar esa carta, la publico ahora con las firmas de todos.

Apoyo al Gran Canciller de la UC, Cardenal Ricardo Ezzati

Ante las protestas motivadas por la reciente decisión del Cardenal Ricardo Ezzati, Gran Canciller de la Pontificia Universidad Católica de Chile, de no renovar la misión canónica para enseñar teología al Padre Jorge Costadoat, SJ, los abajo firmantes, sin ánimo de atacar a ninguna persona ni grupo, aseguramos nuestro apoyo filial al señor Cardenal, con la cercanía de nuestras oraciones y de nuestro afecto; deploramos las expresiones hostiles y hasta calumniosas que se han vertido en su contra; y llamamos a todos los profesores y estudiantes católicos a renovar su compromiso con la verdadera doctrina sobre la fe y la moral del Magisterio de la Santa Sede y a acatar las legítimas decisiones de la autoridad eclesiástica.

También pedimos a Dios que conceda la gracia del discernimiento, de la paz y del consuelo, en estos momentos de sufrimiento, al padre Jorge Costadoat y a quienes se sienten desconcertados, porque piensan —sincera, aunque erradamente— que sus opiniones teológicas no contradicen la doctrina segura que el Cardenal Ezzati y las autoridades académicas tienen el deber de salvaguardar en la Universidad Católica.


Cristóbal Orrego
Diego Ramírez Alcalde
Marcos Jaramillo
Jorge Martínez Barrera
Felipe Widow
Carlos Casanova
Pablo Cabello Fuenzalida
Virginia Cabello
Arturo Basaure
Fracisco Fierro Celis
Alejandro Von Conta
Antonio Barchiesi
Francisca Del Valle
Pablo Cabello Medina
Virginia Fuenzalida
José Pedro Ruiz
Franco Bonino
Juan Cristóbal Porzio
Diego de la Barra
Jaime Echeverría Celis
Verónica Ibáñez M.
Carlos González
Isabel Ugarte
José Joaquín González
Mª Josefina Ugarte
Gonzalo Vásquez
Nicolás Valdés
Carmen Correa
Raimundo Hurtado
Ricardo Vercelli
Carmiña Baldrón
Pilar Miranda
Juanita Huneeus

Y copio de La Tercera.

Apoyo al Cardenal Ezzati por caso Costadoat

Señor director:    
Ante las protestas motivadas por la reciente decisión del Cardenal Ricardo Ezzati, Gran Canciller de la Pontificia Universidad Católica de Chile, de no renovar la misión canónica para enseñar teología al Padre Jorge Costadoat, SJ, los abajo firmantes, sin ánimo de atacar a ninguna persona ni grupo, aseguramos nuestro apoyo filial al señor Cardenal, con la cercanía de nuestras oraciones y de nuestro afecto; deploramos las expresiones hostiles y hasta calumniosas que se han vertido en su contra, y llamamos a todos los profesores y estudiantes católicos a renovar su compromiso con la verdadera doctrina sobre la fe y la moral del Magisterio de la Santa Sede y a acatar las legítimas decisiones de la autoridad eclesiástica.  También pedimos a Dios que conceda la gracia del discernimiento, de la paz y del consuelo, en estos momentos de sufrimiento, al padre Jorge Costadoat y a quienes se sienten desconcertados, porque piensan -sincera, aunque erradamente- que sus opiniones teológicas no contradicen la doctrina segura que el Cardenal Ezzati y las autoridades académicas tienen el deber de salvaguardar en la Universidad Católica.  
Cristóbal Orrego
Diego Ramírez Alcalde  
Marcos Jaramillo  
(junto a 30 personas más)