The News Gazette is reporting that an adjunct college professor was let go from his position because he was espousing beliefs of the Catholic Church. The course he was teaching was actually…Catholicism 101. One student labeled it “hate speech” and the school responded the way liberal nutjob academics always do -they hyperventilate, send lots of emails, and do the stupidest most politically correct anti-Christian thing imaginable. And then tell their therapist they’d had a stressful week.
The story by the News Gazette is a very good one. Check it out here:
An adjunct professor who taught courses on Catholicism at the University of Illinois has lost his teaching job there, and he claims it is a violation of his academic freedom.
Kenneth Howell was told after the spring semester ended that he would no longer be teaching in the UI’s Department of Religion. The decision came after a student complained about a discussion of homosexuality in the class in which Howell taught that the Catholic Church believes homosexual acts are morally wrong.
Howell has been an adjunct lecturer in the department for nine years, during which he taught two courses, Introduction to Catholicism and Modern Catholic Thought. He was also director of the Institute of Catholic Thought, part of St. John’s Catholic Newman Center on campus and the Catholic Diocese of Peoria. Funding for his salary came from the Institute of Catholic Thought.
One of his lectures in the introductory class on Catholicism focuses on the application of natural law theory to a social issue. In early May, Howell wrote a lengthy e-mail to his students, in preparation for an exam, in which he discusses how the theory of utilitarianism and natural law theory would judge the morality of homosexual acts.
“Natural Moral Law says that Morality must be a response to REALITY,” he wrote in the e-mail, obtained by The News-Gazette. “In other words, sexual acts are only appropriate for people who are complementary, not the same.”
He went on to write there has been a disassociation of sexual activity from morality and procreation, in contradiction of Natural Moral Theory.
The student complaint came in a May 13 e-mail to Robert McKim, head of the religion department. The author of the e-mail said he was writing on behalf of a friend – a student in Howell’s class, who wanted to remain anonymous. The e-mail complained about Howell’s statements about homosexuality, which the student called “hate speech.”
“Teaching a student about the tenets of a religion is one thing,” the student wrote in the e-mail. “Declaring that homosexual acts violate the natural laws of man is another. The courses at this institution should be geared to contribute to the public discourse and promote independent thought; not limit one’s worldview and ostracize people of a certain sexual orientation.”
Howell said he was presenting the idea that the Catholic moral teachings are based on natural moral law, and the Catholic understanding of what that means.
“My responsibility on teaching a class on Catholicism is to teach what the Catholic Church teaches,” Howell said. “I have always made it very, very clear to my students they are never required to believe what I’m teaching and they’ll never be judged on that.”
He also said he’s open with students about his own beliefs.
“I tell my students I am a practicing Catholic, so I believe the things I’m teaching,” he said. “It’s not a violation of academic freedom to advocate a position, if one does it as an appeal on rational grounds and it’s pertinent to the subject.”
You’ve got to read the rest. The school essentially wants to put a warning label on the class that the class on Catholicism doesn’t reflect the school’s thinking.
I’ll give you some choice quotes though:
Kaler declined to comment on the specifics of a personnel matter. She said adjunct lecturers are hired on a semester-by-semester basis, and they have no expectation that their employment will last longer than that semester.
Kaler also said the UI is “absolutely committed to teaching the theory of Catholicism, but it’s up to the department as to who teaches a class.”
The religion department’s website says Howell was recognized for excellent teaching in the spring and fall semesters of 2008 and 2009.
In a series of e-mail exchanges between McKim and UI administrators about how to proceed regarding Howell’s teaching and his appointment as an adjunct professor, McKim states he will send a note to Howell’s students and others who were forwarded his e-mail to students, “disassociating our department, College, and university from the view expressed therein.
In another e-mail, Ann Mester, associate dean for the College of Liberal Arts and Sciences, wrote that she believes “the e-mails sent by Dr. Howell violate university standards of inclusivity, which would then entitle us to have him discontinue his teaching arrangement with us.”
Howell said he and McKim have deep disagreements over religious matters, and his job loss was the result of “just a very, very deep disagreement about the nature of what should be taught and what should not be taught.
In his e-mail to students, Howell wrote: “All I ask as your teacher is that you approach these questions as a thinking adult. That implies questioning what you have heard around you. Unless you have done extensive research into homosexuality and are cognizant of the history of moral thought, you are not ready to make judgments about moral truth in this matter. All I encourage is to make informed decisions.”
Howell was ordained as a Presbyterian minister in 1978. In 1996, he converted to the Catholic faith. He came to the UI in 1998 to teach at the Newman Center.
You know, political correctness and anti-Christianity are beginning to seem pretty similar, aren’t they?
July 11, 2010 at 4:05 am
No, Jeff. I'm saying that same-sex orientation may not be a choice for some. Acting on it, whether it is a genetically-determined predisposition or one's whim, is a free choice. My own personal opinion about homosexuals being born that way or choosing to do so is "yes". It's not an either/or proposition. Some may be born with that predisposition. But I also know women who went into lesbian relationships because of bad experiences with men, or men and women who describe themselves as bisexual. That seems to be "choice" to me.
Lastly, I really don't care what "history" has to say about the Church…
July 11, 2010 at 4:06 am
I'll also refer you to someone who knows quite a bit more on the gay lifestyle than I do. Char at Cheeky Pink Girl will tell you a thing or two about it…
July 11, 2010 at 11:59 am
@ margaret59. "In the US, hate is absolutely a "right"." So your saying the KKK has a "right" to hate black people, and the Catholic Church has the right to "hate" (or at least highly chastise) homosexuals, even if it infringes on human equality?
It seems clear the homosexual agenda has advanced significantly in recent years. And the U.S. has strong and solid history of champion human rights and alleviating discrimination. So yes, you're correct to say the KKK has the right to hate (but it isn't legal any more), as does the Church to discriminate against homosexuals. But it seems like only time will tell if the Church's right to discriminate will continue to be legal in the future.
July 11, 2010 at 12:10 pm
@ Dave P. This doesn't make sense. "Acting on it, whether it is a genetically-determined predisposition or one's whim, is a free choice." Acting on a genetically-determined predisposition is a choice? That's like saying women should act so feminine or African-Americans shouldn't act so black.
Sure some of it like bi-sexuality or sexual experiment with the same sex might be a choice, but if someone is genetically-predetermined to love emotionally (not just have sex) someone of the same sex then why deny them the right? Maybe history was wrong like with slavery and women rights. I don't know, but it seems like the Church is getting portrayed as the bad guy, especially amongst young people. The homosexuality issue seems to have become a generational issue. I don't know for sure, but that's my observation.
July 11, 2010 at 2:07 pm
Yes, it is a choice. I'll give a clear example. It is accepted that alcoholism may be genetically predetermined in many cases. But a person with that tendency still has the freedom to destroy himself with alcohol, or to avoid the stuff altogether and seek help if necessary. It's the same with mental illness. A person afflicted with it can't help being sick. However, the person has the choice to take medication and allow himself to be helped, or not (I've seen firsthand the consequences of the latter).
Lastly, as with Helen, you should really read into what Mosaic Law meant by slavery (as opposed to what the Canaanites and others did), and why women have been treated with more dignity and rights than in, say, the Islamic world. It has a Judeo-Christian basis.
July 11, 2010 at 4:03 pm
@ Dave P. Clearly as you state it homosexuality is a choice as is heterosexuality. You can choose to not have sex with someone from the opposite sex, and settle for just being in love with them. I agree. Just as you can choose not to eat or choose not to drive a car. As I love my wife, I can choose not to have sex with her. You are absolutely correct.
But reading only Mosaic Law's reference's to slavery and ignoring the Canaanites and others did is typically referred to as selective choice. Selective choice to fit my beliefs. Kind of self-fulfilling, no? Besides history is history. And the U.S. has a huge history of slavery and not granting women equal rights. More people believed in the bible back then than they do today. At least that is what my wife says.
July 11, 2010 at 4:42 pm
No, the US was wrong on slavery. It was also an aberration, since race had not been a determining factor before (this is not to say that any other form of lifetime slavery is right). I am also not asking you to ignore what the Canaanites and others did. I'm asking you to compare. As far as the Bible and slavery goes, you might want to read up on the abolitionists. They, too, based their stance on the Bible (as did the leaders of the Civil Rights movement a century later). The whole business of race superiority/inferiority was something that originated from the so-called "enlightened" (supposedly on scientific principles), and adopted by others out of convenience.
And you're dodging the issue with sexuality. If I am an alcoholic, I can choose to abstain from alcohol (which is good in and of itself, but not meant for me), or I can decide to drink myself into oblivion and ruin my life, as well as those around me. If I am a heterosexual with an aberrant sex drive, I can choose to control it by abstaining from sex, or go around promiscuously and ruin my life and those of others, emotionally and (if I catch an STD) physically. If I am someone with same-sex attraction, I can choose to live celibately, or I can descend into the world of rampant promiscuity that is the male gay culture, or into the suffocating relationships often found with lesbians. Like I said before, I know well enough of the gay lifestyle to know it's not healthy, and I can point you to others who know far more than I do.
Bottom line: a genetic predisposition towards a certain behavior, be it alcoholism, mental illness, or same-sex attraction, does not mean someone has no choice on how one behaves, nor does it mean that one is to be enabled in that behavior.
July 11, 2010 at 5:39 pm
Yeah, but if one is predisposed to be an alcoholic or mentally ill, society allows them. Right? It's not illegal. There are even government sponsored houses in Seattle that allow chronic drunks to drink themselves to death, if they wish. Fiscally, it's cheaper than sending them repetitively to jail. And if a mentally ill person wants to be mentally ill, they are allowed to be, as long as they don't harm others. My boss is mentally ill, but i don't stop him. Who am I to judge if someone can or cant' be a drunk, mentally ill or homosexual?
About the relationship stuff, we all know that 50% of all heterosexual marriages end in divorce. All heterosexual relationships can't be healthy either. Maybe there should be laws against both unhealthy homosexual and heterosexual relationships? Unhealthy heterosexual relationships can be good either.
July 11, 2010 at 6:59 pm
As an alumni of this school, I am disgusted. This is the second and most agregious example of anti-Christian and now specifically anti-Catholic action made by the university. The first, a few years back, disallowed Christmas trees in dormatory common areas because of one whining student. This second is beyond belief. What a waste of a university, which at one time I held in high regards both in my memory and my heart. This alumnus shall never again fondly speak of this school much less offer one red cent to any fundraising effort!
July 11, 2010 at 8:22 pm
Dave P. wrote "As far as the Bible and slavery goes, you might want to read up on the abolitionists."
But aren't abolitionist the same as the Episcopalians today. They were the first religious clan to accept homosexuals, while the more conservative sects found obscure verses in the Bible to support and justify slavery. Who knows what's will happen….
July 11, 2010 at 9:04 pm
In addition to promoting social stability and the sanctity of sex within a heterosexual marriage, the Church's position on homosexuality and homosexual acts is one of love and concern for those caught up in this devastating and destructive compulsive disorder. To equate it in any way as a hate crime is to misunderstand authentic compassion. Or to substitute for authentic compassion the kind of cheap, pop sentimentality that permeates
the media and intellectually and morally shallow academia.
Nor does the Church seek to impose her teachings on the legality of these acts within the secular state.
The sheer facts are with the Church. Homosexual behavior among males is perhaps one of the most self-destructive acts in the human spectrum. The life span of practicing homosexual males is greatly reduced, and consequences of
lives of casual sex are replete with disease, mental illness, alcohol and substance abuse, self-hatred, domestic
violence, addiction to pornography, suicidal ideation and attempts.
Our bodies are considered temples of the Holy Spirit and to violate and abuse them is to sin against God, self and others.
Would that those who promote tolerance truly promote the holiness and sanctity of each human being as well as does the
Church founded and sustained by Our Lord, Jesus Christ.
That our institutions of higher learning, and so often our courts, have become Stainist vehicles for the suppression of free speech
and thought are paramount issues in bringing this country out of its saturation of moral depravity and its capitulation to
the true forces of that ancient Evil that seeks to destroy mankind.
July 11, 2010 at 10:12 pm
@ John Hetman: you can also say the same for African Americans back in the day. e.g. "The life span of {African-Americans) is greatly reduced, and consequences of {slavery} are replete with disease, mental illness, alcohol and substance abuse, self-hatred, domestic
violence, suicidal ideation and attempts." It really no difference. When society oppresses a group of people there will be a negative internal reaction. It's taken hundreds of years to reverse the damage.
Sometime you need to ask why homosexuals act the way you describe. Why do gay kids kill themselves because they are told their attraction to the same sex is wrong and they will go to hell. If someone told you your attraction to females was wrong, what would you do?
July 11, 2010 at 10:30 pm
No, the Episcopalians are not the same as abolitionists. And they were not the first to accept homosexual practices as normative. As it is, it hasn't done them much good in packing the churches, as membership has plummeted the last forty years.
Jeff: The choices have consequences. An alcoholic ruins the lives of others through his behavior, be it wrecked relationships or repeated DWIs. A mentally ill person, uncontrolled and out in public, is a walking time bomb. Promiscuous sex, especially if it involves the practices found in the male gay culture, has a high risk of STDs, which condoms do not prevent.
And yes, there are unhealthy straight relationships. That's a whole other discussion as to why that happens. But gay relationships are not set up to be healthy. Among male gay couples, it is common to either cheat or have open relationships. Monogamy is a rare exception. And I've already mentioned the rate of domestic abuse in lesbian relationships…
July 11, 2010 at 10:52 pm
Anonymous, that's utter rot and piffle! There is no group that is more catered to, more pampered, more on a pedestal than the gay community in its many many manifestations of polymorphous perversity and metastasizations (e.g., bi, trans, transbi, bitrans, questioning, etc., ad absurdum.
You are the one who needs to analyze why a self-destructive lifestyle causes self-destruction given that your statement is the perfect example of "the kind of cheap, pop sentimentality" that I mentioned above.
July 12, 2010 at 12:34 am
The pro-gay commentators are emotional moral relativists. Any further argument with them is pointless.
July 13, 2010 at 8:18 pm
Many here have learned everything they know about the Church's teachings from the secular media and dissenters … which is exactly like trying to learn to hunt by watching Elmer Fudd.