The following is an April 16 email forwarded to California Catholic Daily:

Yesterday (Thursday) my wife came home from work very excited and happy about a conversation she had with a couple of students at work. She has worked at Loyola Marymount for the last 15 years in the Alumni department. The students were placing signs along the walkway of the University promoting among other things, “PanSexuality”, meaning any and all sexual preferences. These girls were member of the LGBTQ group at LMU. LMU still calls itself a Jesuit Catholic University.

At the time my wife was talking to alum, who thankfully heard the entire exchange. After determining they had permission to post the signs, the group engaged in a what my wife thought was a very good dialogue of ideas and opinions. The girls were posting signs promoting the various sexual activities and orientations of the LGBTQ. My wife is Catholic and a strong supporter of the Church, marriage and family, and Catholic morality. Of particular focus was the girls promotion of what they label “PanSexual” i.e. someone who participates (or prefers) every kind of sexual encounter. One of the girls identified herself as lesbian and accused my wife of not loving women. My wife pointed out she was called to love everyone, including the girls. She said she found the whole sexual labeling thing was causing confusion especially in the youth whose sexuality is still malleable. The girls agreed with my wife that they too disagreed with the ideas behind Pan-sexuality, claiming they wanted monogamy, but wanted to give it a label so people could identify themselves. My wife pointed out that this was promotion of these lifestyles not just labeling and this was offensive to her heart. It was lovingly expression of disagreement, and a legitimate exchange of ideas and reasons, with my wife defending the Truths of the Church, and listening with love to these girls ideas.

One girl did ask if she thought they were going to hell, to which my wife gave the only legitimate Catholic response, that she could never say anyone is going to hell and “I’m not called to judge that”. However she could and had a right to disagree with signage that contradicted Catholic morality, especially at a so called Catholic University. My wife pointed out that none of the signs promoted Catholic teachings, it was the girls who suggested that Campus ministry place a sign promoting the Catholic idea of relationships next to their signs next year. My wife of course agreed. At the end everyone shook hands and my wife invited them into the Alumni office anytime they wanted to talk more. The girls express out loud how much they enjoyed the opportunity to ‘dialogue’ on these subjects with my wife.

Everyone thanked the other upon leaving, the girls thanking my wife for her opinions and “appreciated the dialogue’. My wife agreed.

She related the story to me last night when we got home from work and I could tell she was satisfied that everyone was heard and a good thing had happened for everyone. She even admired the girls’ openness…so she thought.

This morning, (Friday 4/15), the following distortion of facts was published in the Campus Newspaper, the Loyolan.

BREAKING: Alleged LGBT+ hate crime during Rainbow Week

LMU Gender Sexuality Alliance’s statement on incident. Posted on Apr 14, 2016 by Kellie Chudzinski:

Three student workers from the LGBT Student Services office engaged in a verbal altercation with an LMU employee from the Alumni Services office between 9:00 AM and 12:00 PM on Palm Walk near the Von der Ahe building on Thursday, according to a Gender-Sexuality Alliance press release.

Senior biology major Catalina Ibarra and senior business majors Kaii Blanton and Cosette Carleo noticed that signs put up for Rainbow Week, or LGBTQ+ Awareness Week, by LGBT Student Services (LGBTSS) had been removed and placed behind a garbage can, Carleo told the Loyolan.

According to the original statement, seen above, Blaton, Carleo and Ibarra attempted to replaced the signs, an employee from the Alumni Services office, whose name has not yet been made available to the public, allegedly engaged the students in a conversation about LGBT issues and voiced her opinions on different sexualities, expressing that anti-LGBT signs should be put up in place of the students signs, according to Carleo. The employee referred to one of the students as a man, even though that student had informed the employee that they identify as gender neutral.

“I am a member of BIRT [Bias Incident Response Team], which is convening first thing tomorrow morning to discuss it further. I am not currently aware of the facts or whether an investigation has started,” said John Kiralla, the executive director of marketing and communications. “The University stands behind its statement of non-discrimination, which prohibits unwelcome, harassing conduct on the basis of several classifications, including gender identity and sexual orientation.”

The Bias Incident Response Team (BIRT) met and released a statement on April 15, notifying the LMU community that BIRT along with Public Safety and the Los Angeles Police Department are looking into the events of April 14 as reported by the three students.

“I’ve really only experienced love and acceptance upon coming out to new people. But this lady told me that I was wrong and unnatural. That shook me to my core,” Carleo said.

LMU’s Gender-Sexuality Alliance press release asserted that LMU has created an unsafe environment for LGBT+ and minority students.

My wife was informed this morning that she is suspended from her job of 15 years pending an investigation of this “incident”. No one got her side of the story. In addition there was an alumni witness who verified her accounts of the conversation. No one has spoken to him either.

A large majority of alums have worked with my wife over the years. All would attest that none of these accusations are in her character. I can vouch for her state of mind after the conversations, now labeled a “hate incident”, and she was clear and happy relating the story, and in fact was deeply appreciative of the conversation, even excited that a dialogue was being had and a Catholic point of view heard and thought the girls felt the same way too.

No-one from the University talked to my wife before the Loyolan article was written, or before she was suspended and sent home. My wife, when she read the article, immediately went to her supervisor to protest the accuracy of the article. Her supervisor refused to talk to her and simply sent her home to let HR investigate.

Clearly my wife has been defamed by the Loyolan, and by lack of supervision, the University itself. The University is responsible for this hateful twist of the truth and allowing these lies to be published without getting the other side. If the girls involved really concocted this lie they too are guilty of libel and slander. We are a Catholic Family and hold true to the faith expressed by Christ. But now, being a loving Catholic called to care for others is a Hate crime at LMU, ironically at so called Catholic University.

This really shows the vacuum of academic and moral standards at LMU. Only a vacuum would cause the sucking of intellect from academic and rational discourses on subjects of the day. Pandering to adolescences does not help them grow, especially in the Faith. This is a proof that silence in the creeping face of evil is imprisoning all of us. The Truth is being extinguished. It’s our fault in our false tolerance of evil, and this is evil!

If you are an alum or an interested party, this incident affects you too. Censorship of ideas won’t stop here unless we make it stop. We will keep you posted. Read the article at the Loyolan and comment if you feel the grace. This letter is the other side of the story.