“URBANA, Illinois, July 22, 2010 (LifeSiteNews.com) – In response to a lawsuit filed on behalf of a Catholic professor who was barred from teaching after he explained Catholic teaching on homosexuality to the students in a class on Catholicism, the University of Illinois Urbana-Champaign (UIUC) has defended the decision by saying that the professor was not actually “fired” – he’s just not allowed to teach any more classes.
“UIUC administration has reportedly been deluged with outraged emails and phone calls after news broke that Dr. Kenneth Howell was abruptly disallowed to teach after a student complained about an e-mail in which Howell outlined the arguments for how homosexual behavior is contrary to natural moral law – words the student deemed “hate speech.” The remarks were made in the context of an email to students in a class on Catholicism; Howell had taught classes on Catholicism at the school and its Catholic Newman Center for several years.”
Get the rest here
Yesterday I posted on a graduate student in psychology whose faculty are recommending a Maoist reeducation regimen to teach her sensitivity to homosexuals for suggesting that her Christian faith has a different take on the issue.
Today we hear of a professor who simply taught what the Catholic Church teaches about homosexuality in a course on…Catholicism!! For the crime of being intellectually honest about his subject matter, Dr. Howell is being barred from teaching any more classes. Welcome to the age of tolerance and inclusivity, of mutual respect and diversity.
Liberalism is as fascist as Nazi Germany, and Mao’s China. No dissent is tolerated, and all who dare to speak another point of view are crushed. This is what has become of the greatest university system ever known. I’m fortunate enough to say that I am one of the last who was educated when colleges were great intellectual arenas where people came and were free to state and defend any given position.
When talk began in the 1980’s of bringing tolerance and inclusivity to campus, many of us were confused as it already existed. Then came the speech codes, the sensitivity training, and finally the lists of forbidden ideas. It is into this grinder that we feed our children during the most formative years of their lives. In far too many colleges, education died an ugly death twenty years ago. Now what remains is a grotesque parody of all that once was, husks devoid of their seeds. Now what remains is the bastardization of education: Indoctrination.
All of the intellectual heavy lifting today is being done at the think tanks. Increasingly the universities are being filled with third-rate hacks, idealogues whose ideology can not withstand criticism from nineteen year-old students. How are we do address the ethical issues of the Culture of Death when Christian witness is considered hate speech, when natural law is considered hate speech, when the Bible is considered hate speech?
Having knocked theology, philosophy and anthropology out of the conversation, what is left for grounding one’s argument? The dismissal of thousands of years of religious tradition, the distillation of three hundred years of Enlightenment Philosophy, all in the attempt to squelch opposition is the end of the university system.
In all of this it has become abundantly clear that ethical and moral formation must take place in the home and be substantially in place before our children go off to college. Their faith, likewise must be solid as they go off to school.
A hostile faculty, administration and campus culture await all persons of genuine faith.
I almost agreed here — in principle, a professor describing Catholic beliefs (even beliefs that he or she happens to share) should be free to do so, in the interest of academic discourse.
Then I read the email in question in its entirety.
His conclusion seems to go further than describing his Catholic point of view. He seems to me to be directly stating that his is the ONLY morally correct point of view on the subject, and that religion has nothing to do with it:
“As a final note, a perceptive reader will have noticed that none of what I have said here or in class depends upon religion. Catholics don’t arrive at their moral conclusions based on their religion. They do so based on a thorough understanding of natural reality.”
I would say that he went too far.
L.,
Actually, that last paragraph is correct. The Church teaches that faith is guided by reason, and that God not only reveals Himself through Hiss Word, but also through His creation.
That’s where the Natural Law comes in.
I have no problem with anyone teaching, “This is what Catholics (or Hindus or Muslims) believe,” or even respectfully saying, “This is what I believe.”
Dr. Howell’s email crossed the line into, “This is what any rational person SHOULD believe.”
(I am also deeply suspicious of the various interpreations of Natural Law, particularly by other Christian religions. Over the years, it’s been used to justify rules against miscegenation, and rules that stated women’s natural role was ” nurture and rearing of children,” to the exclusion of other roles.)
“women’s natural role was ” nurture and rearing of children,”
Women’s natural role IS the nurture and rearing of children.
It does not mean that is their only role. But it is their natural role, as evidenced by their biology and their emotional make-up.
As for the issue of Dr. Howell stating his was the only correct position:
There can be only one morally correct viewpoint on homosexuality. Either is is morally good or it is morally illicit.
You are demonstrating that you are a product of the culture when you imply that Dr. Howell erred in stating that his was the only correct view.
He took a position on an issue based on rational thinking. If you are engaged in the act of reasoning and are a rational human being you must come to a position on a matter.
How illogical would it be for Dr. Howell to state that after going through the reasoning and rational thought that he has come to a conclusion that is correct only for him?!! That’s moral relativism. He’s not teaching moral relativism. Dr. Howell doesn’t need to – everyone gets a heaping dose of this stuff every day!
“There can be only one morally correct viewpoint on homosexuality. Either is is morally good or it is morally illicit.”
That’s like saying there can only be one morally correct viewpoint on women leaving their babies to work outside the home. Whether it is morally good or it is morally illicit depends entirely on the situation (and there’s certainly no shortage of people ready to argue that both are equally morally illicit).
Is it moral relativism, or is it situational ethics? Is everything either absolutely right under all circumstances, or absolutely wrong, no exceptions ever?
Anyway, the issue isn’t whether or not I agree with Dr. Howell. The issue is that I believe his teaching crossed a line, from saying, “This is what I believe,” into “This is what you should believe, too.”
If he stood in front of a class and attempted to convince students that “There is no God but Allah,” or “A widow needs to burn herself on her husband’s funeral pyre,” I dare say he would have been similarly relieved of his duties.
And yes, I am indeed a “product of my culture” — and so are you. We all are, to some extent, products of our cultures. No man or woman is an island. (And I have lived most of my adult life far outside North America, so “my culture” probably isn’t quite what you think.)
In no way can you compare the homosexual issue with that of women who work or don’t work. Shame on you!
That is like comparing apples and oranges.
Comparing the homosexual act to the act of a woman working outside the home?
A woman working outside the home may be right or wrong depending upon the circumstance. The act of a woman working outside the home is not in itself morally wrong.
Howver, a homosexual sexual act IS morally and intrinsically always wrong. There are no conditions when this act might be morally licit.
Dr. Ken Howell did not tell others what to believe. He said that based on rational thinking this is what the outcome should be. Any rational thinking person, following logical thinking would end up with this result..
Of course,few people reason logically today. People reason mainly with emotions and not with rational thinking.
Otherwise how could a person (to use an example) conclude that an unborn baby is not human, alive nor a person?
“And I have lived most of my adult life far outside North America, so “my culture” probably isn’t quite what you think.”
well if you lived in Europe, your cultural effects would be even worse, judging by the collapse of society there…..:(
I would not compare Liberalism to fascism, that seems too crude to me. I would say some forms of liberalism is like fascism, and indeed I would not be opposed in considering that some forms of conservatism is like fascism. Nevertheless, what is written in this post quite true. I blame the corruption of conscience, and the ignoring of our intuitive moral awareness that seems to protect our conscience from such things. Unfortunately for them, a conscience that errors does not excuse if one is culpable for the error. Seek goodness with all your might.
Cont..
Although one cannot ask someone to adopt a system of protection so extreme as to exclude the possibility of the other side being right. That would seem to be rather dogmatic — rather once should use prudence, and honestly strive to know what is good and what is evil. Or in the case of those who are already Christian, we follow the Divine Law.
“Is it moral relativism, or is it situational ethics? Is everything either absolutely right under all circumstances, or absolutely wrong, no exceptions ever?”
It would seem that the circumstances are only relevant when it is the principle condition that determines the object of the moral action. As it is through the object that the action obtains it’s species. Now a species of action is evil if it is contrary to practical reason, as man is prescribed to do what is good for him as a man. Hence circumstances can sometimes determine if something is good or evil, and other times be irrelevant.
For example, say I took your grandmother’s gold candle from your house without permission. The species of this action is theft, due to the object of the action (the taking of your grandmothers gold candle without permission.) The act would not be morally different if I say took this candle from your brothers house, or your sisters. The circumstances do not determine the object of the moral action, and therefore the species of the moral action remains the same.
Now lets say your grandmother donated this candle to the Church she always went to before she died. Now the circumstance, taking your grandmother’s candle from a church without permission, is the principle condition for object of this action, which is sacrilege, and the moral action obtains it’s species from this object.
In this case the circumstance has change the type of offence, and in this case, the degree of the offence.
Ah, my last comment disappeared. Was it moderated away? If so, sorry if I offended anyone’s sensibilties with my strange sense of humor.
I did say that I didn’t understand the difference between telling others what to believe, and telling them “what the outcome should be.”
“Anyway, the issue isn’t whether or not I agree with Dr. Howell. The issue is that I believe his teaching crossed a line, from saying, “This is what I believe,” into “This is what you should believe, too.””
Why? All moral propositions, if true, prescribe. If Dr. Howells belief is true, then ought follows necessarily.
Why should Dr. Howell be dismissed for admitting the obvious?
Dr. Howell is correct in his belief if and only if the his idea of moral norms represents an objective fact. His idea is like a symbolic link to some objective fact, and is only false if this link incorrectly represents the real world.
Now if Dr. Howell finds subjectively that it is objectively true that homosexuality is morally reprehensible, all he is doing by teaching this is creating another symbolic link from the propositions that he is asserting to his classmates to the ideas in his mind, which are themselves symbolic links to objective facts.
Now if Dr. Howell believes this is true, and legitimately acknowledges this fact, even without him saying that people ought to believe it, the fact that if Dr. Howell’s ideas reflect objective facts entails that they ought to believe it.
As this is a moral proposition remember, so if it is true, it is prescribed because it is apprehended as good via practical reason (The conscience). And this comes about due to the first principle of practical reason, aka conscience, which is that good be done and evil avoided. This is the prescription that is the foundation for the whole science of ethics.
“Dr. Howell is correct in his belief if and only if the his idea of moral norms represents an objective fact. His idea is like a symbolic link to some objective fact, and is only false if this link incorrectly represents the real world. ”
As I understood Dr. Howell, he is saying that homosexuality is objectively wrong because it entails using the human body for purposes for which it was not intended, and therefore goes against Natural Law. But in order for his argument to be linked to “objective fact,” one has to accept his interpretation of Natural Law as objective truth.
As I stated above, I am suspicious of Natural Law, because it has been applied (in my lifetime! in U.S. courts!) against mixed-race relationships. Read some of the cases that led to the ’67 Supreme Court decision in Loving vs. Virginia.
Similarly — is there really always peril in “ignoring of our intuitive moral awareness that seems to protect our conscience from such things?”
Sociologist Calvin Herton wrote in the ’60’s that the vast majority of both blacks and whites alike felt deep down inside that mixed-race relations were wrong, and even sinful. People’s consciences were telling them something, very clearly.
And as a white woman, living in a society with my non-white domestic partner, I can personally attest that such sentiment is alive and well even today.
So I know first hand that people’s “intuitive moral awareness” has its limits, and is a lousy basis on which to determine civil laws, let alone determine what is “intrinsically evil.”
Dr. Howell attempted to teach his subjective interpretation as the ONLY correct objective answer. He could have framed it as, “Here is what I believe and why.” Instead, he framed it as, “Here is the only correct answer according to ‘natural reality.'”
L.,
The deleted comment was a little in poor taste, and I err on the side of civility.
The issue here is one of gays setting out to destroy anyone who differs with them. Tolerance, Inclusivity, Sensitivity, Multiculturalism, Openness in action, eh?
Moral precepts are not open to interpretation when worded negatively…”Thou shalt not”
Precepts such as “Keep holy the Sabbath,” or, “Honor thy mother and father” are open to discussion as to the best way to fulfill the command. Homosexuality is condemned from cover to cover in the Bible, and Howell was quite correct to speak as he did. He spoke in the voice of the Magisterium.
Sorry for my sense of humor. I want to make people chuckle, not grimace, but I guess the subject matter here is quite loaded.
Dr. Howell’s interpretation of the Magisterium was correct. However, he was teaching at a secular institution.
Secular moral precepts are not based on the Magisterium, nor on revealed Scripture — not the Bible, not the Koran, not even the Kama Sutra.
The concept of Natural Law upon which he based his reasoning is in itself a religious concept.
Moral precepts are open to interpretation in a secular society. And thank God for that!
I think an equivalent exampe to Dr. Howell would be gay professor teaching a course in which he stated that same-sex attraction was superior to opposite-sex attraction, and claimed to prove this based on the findings of some limited studies — and then sent an email to his students saying that his was the ONLY correct answer based on “natural reality.”
I would support removing someone like that, too.
L
I see your example as a diversion.
Everyone KNOWS that there is nothing morally wrong about a black man and a white woman marrying. There is nothing unnatural about this or immoral about their relationship.
To compare this situation to homosexuality is again ridiculous.
It is quite evident from all aspects that homosexuality is not in anyway natural.
I fail to see your point at all.
Limited studies – your favorite phrase today.
There is a mountain of evidence proving the unhealthy nature of homosexual relationships.
Like those supporting abortion, no study is good enough for you L.
Why am I not surprised? Yet another secular liberal trick that usually derails discussion.
“Everyone KNOWS that there is nothing morally wrong about a black man and a white woman marrying.”
Not everyone knew this in 1967, which is why the U.S. Supreme Court had to rule on it and overturn Virginia’s Racial Integrity Act.
Homosexuality is perfectly natural for homosexuals. It’s not everyone’s cup of tea, but no one is saying it has to be.
L.,
Your points are well made, but secular college notwithstanding, the course was a course on Catholicism. To politically correct responses for fear of reprisals, or to give incomplete answers to students because some lack the maturity to hear their lifestyle discussed in the objective case, is to do a profound disservice to the questioner. Students pay a king’s ransom in tuition and are entitled to full and truthful answers from their faculty. Students who are not up to hearing how others view their faith, liestyle, philosophy, culture, etc. simply do not belong in college and become the lowest common denominator to which the entire institution sinks, as evidenced in the case before us.
Were a Roman Catholic taking a course on the early reformation and asked a question regarding Luther’s position on Rome, they would have been treated to round denunciations of their faith in response. If that student were to ask an female Episcopalian Priest teaching a course on Anglicanism what her Church taught about Humanae Vitae and Pope John Paul II’s Theology of the Body, said student would be treated to a shredding. That’s as it should be. That’s the purpose of a liberal arts education.
We can’t really know others or where they stand if we are told lies by omission by the very people we are paying to teach us the truth (however inconvenient). Ultimately this is a case over one snot-nosed student who took umbrage at a professor answering a question fully and honestly, both in tone and content. Such students should be shown the door. Instead, we now have the inmates running the asylum.
I agree there is a mountain of evidence proving the unhealthy consequences of promiscuous behavior, gay or straight.
But not all homosexuals engage in such. Instead, their loving, mongamous partnerships contribute to the foundation of healthy families and a stable society.
Gay families pushing strollers and marching in the Gay Pride parade told my children all they needed to know about why their mama supports the gay agenda.
Dr. Nadal, I understand that Dr. Howell correctly interpreted Catholic teaching.
My objection was only that he taught it as an objective truth.
L.,
You must realize that it IS an objective truth for us in light of the deposit of supernatural divine revelation, and God’s revelation of His intent through His created order and its goods. This doesn’t need endless caveats. I took a course on Judaism as an undergrad. It was taught in a Catholic university by an Orthodox Rabbi. He never once qualified a comment by saying “We Jews believe…” That would have been ridiculous. He was an Orthodox Jew, an Orthodox Rabbi teaching a course on Judaism. He spoke with authority and conviction, and through that uncompromising faith, the light of which danced in his eyes, I learned not only the tenets of Judaism, but its heart and soul.
I got more than my money’s worth on that course. Nobody got pissy because he rejected Jesus as Messiah and considered His disciples to be misguided men and women. It was understood. But interestingly, it was THROUGH that unswerving conviction that we came to understand the development of Judaism in the last two thousand years.
Gays and lesbians talk a great game on Tolerance, Inclussivity, Multiculturalism, Sensitivity…
Like Congress, they exempt themselves from the standards they adopt for the rest of us.
Sounds like a great course. Our parish book club is visiting a synagogue this fall, for much the same purpose. But I don’t imagine your Rabbi would have fit in well at a secular university — anymore than some professors of Women’s Studies would fit in at a Catholic University.
Dr. Howell took professing his beliefs a step further when he concluded:
“As a final note, a perceptive reader will have noticed that none of what I have said here or in class depends upon religion. Catholics don’t arrive at their moral conclusions based on their religion. They do so based on a thorough understanding of natural reality.”
He seems to be to be declaring above that his views are not just based on religious faith, but are in fact the only correct ones for the world at large.
I’ll bet academic politics played a big part, too. His story would likely have had a very different ending, if he’d had tenure instead of being merely an adjunct.
“Supernatural divine revelation” is never objective truth in a secular world — nor should it be.
Otherwise, we’d all have to give up meat! 😉
Natural Law is not a religious concept, it is the brain child of the Ancient Greek philosophers.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nicomachean_Ethics
Its adoption by the Catholic Church is threefold. Firstly, our philosophers attest to its truth through objective philosophical analysis. Secondly, it meshes well with Divine Revelation. Thirdly, just as the Jews while leaving Egypt made off with gold and silver, so Christians too, after their persecution, made off with the jewels of Greek and Roman philosophy. (This last point comes from Saint Augustine)
As to the race issues, it can be admitted that Natural Law theory has been used to attempt to justify many immoral things, but all it remains is an attempt.
Some reading:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/G._E._M._Anscombe#Intention
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/After_Virtue
“Supernatural divine revelation” is never objective truth in a secular world — nor should it be.
Do the secular and the religious not live in the same world? The fact is that we live in the same world, and these truths cannot be and not be at the same time, nor is there any intermediate between their truth and falsity. Therefore they must be either true or false. If it is true in our world, it is true in theirs.
Yes, that was my point, exactly. Not all “supernatural divine revelation” is true.
Imagine if we tried to organize society according to all the revelations of all the world’s religions? We would have sacred cows wondering the street, we wouldn’t be able to kill even an insect, women would be required to cover their faces and hair, men would have to grow long beards….
Giving up meat would be the least of our problems.
I just think this whole issue is rather silly. Say if I were taking a class on atheism (God forbid), and the teacher told me that being pro-life was immoral, as it is disregarding the rights of women. I wouldn’t take offence to this comment to a degree that I would complain to the administration. Regardless of the fact that in all likelihood nothing will be done, such a comment is expected of an atheist teacher teaching the position of many of the contemporary atheists. I am against political correctness to the extent that a teacher must live in constant fear of the loss of his livelihood because of such a silly difference as stating as moral proposition directly, rather then stating this proposition is what Catholics assert.
In writing this paragraph, and I hope in reading it you realize too, how we know of an existing doubt standard. Do you think Aaron the pro-life Christian will be heard if he complains of his atheist teacher offending his moral and Christian beliefs? Hardly, he will most likely be ignored and then the teacher will enact retribution, either consciously or unconsciously, come marking time.
At least this is how I see it as a student in my beloved Canada. (I say beloved because the culture of death has not perverted her goodness and beauty)
If I were a college student, and a professor told me that being pro-life (or pro-choice) was immoral, I would complain, both to the administration, and to the teacher directly.
But it’s been a few decades since I was a college student (at U.S. East Coast women’s liberal arts school).
Let’s just say, I wasn’t a “teachers’ pet.”
“Homosexuality is perfectly natural for homosexuals. It’s not everyone’s cup of tea, but no one is saying it has to be.”
I disagree. There is a mounting body of evidence that demonstrates that something traumatic often disrupts the normal psycho-sexual development of a young person, resulting in them remaining stuck in the prepubescent sexual development phase.
There is nothing “perfectly natural” about anal sex L. Absolutely nothing. And if you believe this you are perverted.
It is sterile, physically harmful and certainly not unitive.
As to it being “everyone’s cup of tea”, funny but homosexuals certainly don’t have this attitude. They are intent upon indoctrinating every single last one of us because they can’t bear to hear that what they are doing is immoral or unhealthy.
We have homosexual “re-education” and sensitivity training rammed down our throats. Young children are indoctrinated and confused at an early age about how homosexuality is an OPTION for them.
And certainly, many people are exposed to the idea of it being normal when they might have overcome and moved on from their homosexual inclinations and lived a happy, normal life.
However, they seem to have no problem forcing firefighters to drive a truck in their stupid parade even when these men obviously were very adverse to it. (one example of but many)
They have no problem entering Catholic churches and desecrating them.
And having seen more than a few pride marches, I can say that couples with strollers are few and far between. What i”ve seen is naked men, men in bondage and SM outfits, men performing sexual acts on one another. Yup. Healthy, affirming, socially stabilizing behaviour. 😀
“If I were a college student, and a professor told me that being pro-life (or pro-choice) was immoral, I would complain, both to the administration, and to the teacher directly.”
What a liberal crybaby you are, L. And definitely not Christian because if you were you’d know the state of higher education and it’s attitude towards people with any religious beliefs.
Christians are told and taught on a daily basis in university that their beliefs are a sign of lack of intelligence, intolerance, immorality and stupidity.
Our universities are filled with New Age and atheist instructors who are intent on brow beating and giving the smack down to any student who doesn’t tow the liberal secular-atheist line.
I worked in academia for a year recently and also did a grad degree. The attitude is one of deep-rooted hatred and outright derision towards Christians and Christian conservatives.
Universities are no longer the tolerant, enlightened places of higher learning. They are filled with bigoted stupid people who are convinced they have a corner on the truth.
“Liberal crybaby?” Another nice name. Thanks again.
Did it ever occur to you that people would have more respect for what you’re saying if you don’t call them names?
I am Catholic, and have many devout friends who are pro-life and oppose gay marriage. While I disagree, I respect their opinions and would never call them “prudes,” etc.
Anyway…..as for the fire fighters you mention, I am assuming you mean the four in San Diego who sued, after being forced to march in a gay pride parade as part of the public relations activities that their job requires. I think they should have had the right to opt out, and so far, I believe the courts have agreed with them.
Gays desecrating a church? Sorry, that doesn’t ring a bell. It doesn’t sound very nice, though.
It’s been almost two decades since I was a grad student, even longer since I was an undergrad, so I can’t comment on the state of academia now. All three of my kids are now enrolled in Japanese schools, and sing a hymn to the Emperor at their assemblies. Different cup of tea, I guess.
I’m sorry you seem so angry, Mary Catherine. I have enjoyed speaking with people on this blog, even though I disagree with many of the opinions expressed here.
I think we all probably have more common ground than it seems, though clearly there are a few contentious issues on which we will remain at polar extremes.
For the record, we didn’t see any naked men or men performing sexual acts on one another at the SF parade.
I’m not sure what you mean by “bondage and SM outfits,” but I saw nothing that made me want to cover my children’s eyes. Granted, we watched from a less crowded roadside, and didn’t go to any of the booths at the Civic Center, where I figured there was likely to be more graphic sexual content.
I believe in shielding children from inappropriate content, but I didn’t see anything inappropriate about rainbow banners and balloons, pretty floats, and couples walking hand in hand, pushing strollers.
Ladies,
I offer this blog as a resource not only for adults, but for teens as well. Please bear in mind that we can discuss these topics without a descriptive recitation of particular behaviors. I have therefore undertaken some redacting so as to keep the rating PG-13.
Also, I implore all to refrain from name-calling, or even behaviors that may resemble the same.
L., Yes, gays desecrated St. Patrick’s Cathedral. I wrote a Four part series on it that may be found in the “condoms” section in the Categories Panel:
https://gerardnadal.com/2009/12/23/of-cardinals-cathedrals-condoms-and-cretins-part-i/
Sincerely,
Cotton Mather
“Gays desecrating a church? Sorry, that doesn’t ring a bell. It doesn’t sound very nice, though.”
Try St. Pat’s in New York. 😦
(not the only example but the one I can think of quickly)
You don’t know what bondage and S&M is?
Ok. Please. 😦
You seem very out of touch with what is happening in society based on “rights” .
And you do seem to know little about what the homosexual lifestyle entails L. I suggest you do a little research. Maybe go to a Pride library. Since this is a family blog I can’t go into anymore detail than that.
All you seem to believe is that anyone who doesn’t support gay rights is intolerant.
and angry? Yes L I’m angry because gay activitists are destroying democracy and setting up soft totalitarianism.
And they themselves are intolerant of Christians, often reacting violently and using draconian measures against Christians.
I am quite familiar with S&M and bondage — but I confess I don’t know what counts as an “outfit” of such, unless they are actually holding a whip. I have a studded leather belt myself, and I wear it everywhere — even to mass, come to think of it.
In fact, I think that my years in San Francisco opened my eyes further to what the “homoesxual lifestyle” entails.
As I said, I am not advocating promiscuity for anyone (gay or straight — though I don’t believe in criminalizing it, either), but “the gay agenda” that I support is about equal protection under the law.
Yes, I personally believe that anyone who discriminates against gays is intolerant. However, I have many deeply religious friends who oppose homosexuality — and even consider it a mortal sin to live in an unconsecrated unions such as mine and my partner’s. I understand where their convictions come from, and I don’t condemn them, even though I disagree with them.
You say you believe universities are “filled with bigoted stupid people who are convinced they have a corner on the truth.” I wouldn’t call you stupid, but do you not yourself agree that you are convinced you have a corner on the truth?
And I would call descecrating a church “stupid and bigoted.”
Mary Catherine, what about gay Christians? I know many gay Catholic families.
It appears the University has backed down somewhat:
In a letter to ADF, the Universitystates that Dr. Howell will be asked to teach Introduction to Catholicism this fall. This is a tremendous win for Dr. Howell’s academic freedom and First Amendment rights. However, ADF will continue to monitor the situation.
http://blog.speakupmovement.org/university/freedom-of-speech/university-of-illinois-reinstates-dr-kenneth-howell/
but I wonder just how long it will be before institutions really don’t care anymore and will do what they want…..???
What about gay Christians L? What’s your point?
They should be treated with respect and love. But they cannot “marry” and they should never be allowed to adopt.
They should definitely be helped to live their lives in a compassionate manner. It is not a sin to have homosexual feelings. It is sinful to act on them.
“However, I have many deeply religious friends who oppose homosexuality — and even consider it a mortal sin to live in an unconsecrated unions such as mine and my partner’s.”
ditto.
It is this exact situation that has led to the demise of marriage and the rise and acceptance of homosexual “marriage” and cohabitation (a polite modern term for living in sin).
Really your situation is the root of the problem of marriage today.
The minute divorce was legalized, this was the beginning of the end for marriage. Once the marriage vow could be broken, then marriage was open to anything.
If marriage could be serial, maybe it could be other things too.
Once there was nothing shameful about living together – which is really sexual promiscuity outside of marriage, and this was accepted, gradually a tolerance for other behaviors was formed.
On top of this is the contraceptive mentality.
Your lifestyle is radically different from any type of Christian lifestyle.
I mentioned gay Christians because you said “they themselves are intolerant of Christians, often reacting violently and using draconian measures against Christians.” Some do, yes, and I don’t condone it. But most don’t, and some are even Christians themselves.
You know, I understand why Catholics and some Chrisitians don’t believe in placing children with gay couples, or couples who aren’t married. I understand why adoption agencies who focus on a specific enthnicities or cultures don’t believe in placing children of their group outside their group. I don’t agree with it (I think all adoption placements should be case by case, with no stable families ruled out), but I do understand where this thinking is coming from.
What about lesbians who have children? Do you believe the state has a compelling right to remove them from their mothers’ care? How about children born to single mothers, or to parents in adulterous relationships? Do you think the state should take children away from all mothers who have had abortions, because killing unborn kids make them likely to kill born kids, too? How about parents who admit killing kids with their abortifacient contraception?
And how about children born to parents in unions such as mine?
My lifestyle is certainly “radically different from any tpe of Christian lifestyle” because my partner isn’t a Christian. He rejects Christianity in most forms — it makes him deeply uncomfortable, alas, because of some unfortunate encounters with zealots in the past.
But except for the lack of Christ in our shared life, you’d have trouble telling us apart from any Christian couple. (And actually, we are legally married, just for the purpose of committing immigration fraud. Heh. 🙂 )
We even got married in a Catholic church, by a priest, although it couldn’t be consecrated because 1) I am not in full communion with the Church, and 2) my husband was dead-set against raising his kids Catholic, though he later decided he didn’t really care, one way or the other.
If my situation is the “root of the problem of marriage today,” I honestly don’t think society has anything to worry about.
Also, I admit to a personal bias in favor of legal divorce. Several generations ago, my great-grandmother was able to divorce the husband who was beating her.
However, she was a Polish immigrant who worked in a factory, and was unable to afford an annulment, so the Church still considered her eternally married to her abuser.
L, many homosexuals are deeply disturbed by the radical homosexual movement.
Many feel trapped by the lifestyle you seem intent upon describing as normal. Many many persons are seeking a way out but are unable to get help because radical homosexuals will not allow such treatments to exist. I personally know of homosexuals who have received treatment and are now doing very well. It is tragic that many are simply told that this is the way they were made.
I agree with Pope Benedict that to place children in a situation where the parents are homosexual is a form of child abuse. Children deserve the chance of having two parents. That is where they develop best. There is a reason that nature/God designed a male and a female. Both are needed for the proper development of young.
Personally I am not in favor of children being brought up in single parent homes either. Most of these situations arise from a very disordered lifestyle and the contraceptive mentality. I think young women should be discouraged from keeping their babies. This is part and parcel of the feminist movement that tells women, men are not needed and fatherhood is unimportant. I couldn’t disagree more.
And as for divorce, the Catholic church has never ever been of the opinion that women had to stay with abusive men. Society has changed for the better in this regard. But as with abortion, you and I know that most divorces are for trivial reasons. And couples divorcing often take the same problems that led to the first marriage breakup into other relationships.
I am sad that you have so much disrespect for the Catholic faith that you would have married in a Catholic church with bad intentions and in a dishonest manner before God and your friends. Maybe you thought making a mockery of the sacrament was a cool thing and a way to rebel. Or maybe it was just a way to get what you wanted. Why not simply get a civil marriage?
Sadly, you have also brought a priest into this situation, one who if he knew about your mindset and your partners beliefs, is poorly catechized, has caused scandal and will have to answer for his actions.
L, you seem to take delight in mocking the church, family and religious beliefs.
You remind me of another poster who was banned from here, asitis, who also married in the Catholic church under false pretenses.
I don’t know astis, or why she was banned.
It was very important to my grandmother for me to me married in the Church, which is why we went through with the whole sad charade.
But fear not, we had a meeting with the priest beforehand, and I fully informed him that I was not a Catholic in good standing, and my husband informed him that he was unwilling to allow his children to be Catholic — so we didn’t qualify for the dispensation for the “Disparity of Cult.” We were 100% honest.
The priest said that of course we couldn’t have a mass or communion, but he seemed happy to “marry” us anyway, in the equivalent of a civil ceremony.
However, because I was baptized a Catholic, my partner was still required to take all the premarital classes, which he did (oddly, I was not required to take them with him — perhaps because they were in Japanese, or perhaps they just gave up on me?).
Anyway, there was no “scandal” — we were completely honest with the priest.
But despite the fake ceremony (which was enough to please my grandmother, not to mention the immigration officials), we were not joined in the sacrament of marriage. In the Church’s view, we are not married.
We did receive that beautiful immigration paperwork, though….oh, that part was wonderful. 😉
“Many feel trapped by the lifestyle you seem intent upon describing as normal.” —> No one is ever “trapped” by a “lifestyle.”
A “lifestyle” is chosen. We can’t control our feelings (and I think most gay people are born with their same-sex attractions), but we can control our actions.
I believe people with same-sex attractions should be able to find similiar people, fall in love, raise families….the whole gamut of what most adult humans do. Yes, I would describe that as normal.
But if anyone — gay or straight — thinks the right choice for them is to refrain from acting on their sexual attractions, and instead live lives of chastity, then I believe they should be able to do so. A life of chastity is also normal, for those who choose it.
Many homosexuals are deeply disturbed by the radical homosexual movement?
What exactly IS the “radical” homosexual movement? The people who throw condoms in Churches? Yes, they disturb me, too.
The radical extemes of ANY movement are disturbing, whether it’s homosexuality, breastfeeding, femininism or Catholics who flagellate.
It is only the radical fringes of the feminist movement that tells women that men are not needed and fatherhood is unimportant. Most of us feminists love men very much, and think fatherhood is vital.
L.,
You say:
“Many feel trapped by the lifestyle you seem intent upon describing as normal.” —> No one is ever “trapped” by a “lifestyle.”
A “lifestyle” is chosen. We can’t control our feelings (and I think most gay people are born with their same-sex attractions), but we can control our actions.
There is truth in what you say here, but you also pass over a significant consequence of the choices made. People choose a lifestyle, often not knowing the untoward consequences that await them when they enter into that lifestyle.
Chemical and sexual addictions are some of the cosequences of lifestyles freely chosen, but become traps that keep people locked into a downward spiral.
People freely choose to date/cohabit/marry people who are all wrong for them, e.g., abused women.
I think that MC would stipulate to the lifestyle freely chosen, but she is addressing consequences at a point distant from that choice.
According to news articles, Dr. Howell was paid by the St. John’s Catholic Newman Center and lost his employment there when the University of Illinois barred him from teaching. I wonder what Dr. Howell’s role (if any) will be this Fall with the Newman Center which has had a wonderful reputation up to now.
This looks so much the nazi times. They lost in a military point of view but they were really victorious on the mentality grouds. They rule the world.
I’ve deleted the past several days’ worth of comments. I was away on retreat and checked in to find a mud wrestling match going on. The combox is closed to further comments for a while.