START A PETITION 25,136,189 members: the world's largest community for good
START A PETITION
x
602,674 people care about Civil Rights

Professor Claims He was Fired for Teaching Church’s Stance on Homosexual Acts

Professor Claims He was Fired for Teaching Church’s Stance on Homosexual Acts

A former Instructor of Catholicism at the University of Illinois has claimed that he was unfairly let go from his position at the university after a student complained about a lesson on natural moral law in which the professor outlined why homosexual acts are, according to Catholicism, morally wrong. The teacher in question, Kenneth Howell, claims that his academic and religious freedom has been violated. The complaint against him says that it wasn’t what he was teaching but rather how Howell was teaching it that was the issue.

The Email that Led to Howell Losing His Place at the University

Howell had acted as a non-tenured adjunct lecturer for nine years and taught two courses at the university, Introduction to Catholicism and Modern Catholic Thought. He himself is openly religious and is a director of the on-campus Institute of Catholic Thought which is part of St. John’s Catholic Newman Center.

As part of his introductory class on Catholicism, Howell instructed students on natural moral law and the application of natural law theory. When earlier this year he was preparing one of his classes for an exam, Howell wrote an email that was sent out to students on May 4 in which he detailed how natural law theory and utilitarianism would judge “the morality of homosexual acts.”

The News-Gazette has obtained the email that prompted the complaint (and, for clarity, I recommend you read it in full). Continuing on from an earlier class discussion, Howell outlines in the email the difference between how same-sex acts would be viewed from a utilitarian perspective -  there is no distinct objection so long as both parties consent – and then outlines why theistic natural moral law would differ. I have excerpted parts of the email to illustrate his points below:

… But the more significant problem has to do with the fact that the consent criterion is not related in any way to the NATURE of the act itself. This is where Natural Moral Law (NML) objects. NML says that Morality must be a response to REALITY. In other words, sexual acts are only appropriate for people who are complementary, not the same. How do we know this? By looking at REALITY. Men and women are complementary in their anatomy, physiology, and psychology. Men and women are not interchangeable. So, a moral sexual act has to be between persons that are fitted for that act. Consent is important but there is more than consent needed.

One example applicable to homosexual acts illustrates the problem. To the best of my knowledge, in a sexual relationship between two men, one of them tends to act as the “woman” while the other acts as the “man.” In this scenario, homosexual men have been known to engage in certain types of actions for which their bodies are not fitted. I don’t want to be too graphic so I won’t go into details but a physician has told me that these acts are deleterious to the health of one or possibly both of the men. Yet, if the morality of the act is judged only by mutual consent, then there are clearly homosexual acts which are injurious to their health but which are consented to. Why are they injurious? Because they violate the meaning, structure, and (sometimes) health of the human body.

Natural Moral Theory says that if we are to have healthy sexual lives, we must return to a connection between procreation and sex. Why? Because that is what is REAL. It is based on human sexual anatomy and physiology. Human sexuality is inherently unitive and procreative. If we encourage sexual relations that violate this basic meaning, we will end up denying something essential about our humanity, about our feminine and masculine nature.

I know this doesn’t answer all the questions in many of your minds. 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. 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.

The Complaint that Resulted From Howell’s Email

After receiving the email, a student took offense and a complaint was made to the head of the department Robert McKim. To be clear, the student who made the complaint was writing on behalf of a friend who was a student of Howell’s. That friend wished to remain anonymous. The email notes that both the complainant and the friend self-identify as Catholic.

The complaint, which News-Gazette has also obtained, alleges that Howell took to preaching rather than teaching and that the instructor regularly made “inflammatory” and “downright insensitive” remarks to those who were not Catholic:

It sickens me to know that hard-working Illinoisans are funding the salary of a man who does nothing but try to indoctrinate students and perpetuate stereotypes. Once again, this is a public university and should thus have no religious affiliation. Teaching a student about the tenets of a religion is one thing. 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.

I can only imagine how ashamed and uncomfortable a gay student would feel if he/she were to take this course. I am a heterosexual male and I found this completely appalling. Also, my friend also told me that the teacher allowed little room for any opposition to Catholic dogma. Once again, he is guilty of limiting the marketplace of ideas and acting out of accord with this institution’s mission and principles.

Howell has defended his position saying in this News-Gazette article that, “My responsibility on teaching a class on Catholicism is to teach what the Catholic Church teaches. 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 adds: “I tell my students I am a practicing Catholic, so I believe the things I’m teaching.”

It should be noted that, as he was an adjunct professor, the university rehired Howell on a semester to semester basis, therefore his position at UI was not assured. Department head McKim apparently discussed with Howell how this issue had brought up some concerns and how Howell’s statements in class might be seen to hurt the department. The department then made the decision not to invite Howell back for another semester.

The Alliance Defense Fund, a self described Christian-based legal organization, has started examining the case with an eye toward a lawsuit, saying in a written statement: “A university cannot censor professors’ speech – including classroom speech related to the topic of the class – merely because some students find that speech ‘offensive.’ Professors have the freedom to challenge students and to educate them by exposing them to different views. The Alliance Defense Fund is working with Professor Howell because the defense of academic freedom is essential on the university campus.”

Examining Howell’s Position: Did He Cross A Line?
I am keen to stress that Howell’s email is a continuation of a class discussion on natural moral law verses utilitarianism in which homosexuality was used as an example of the differences between the theories and how they assess morality, and as such must be taken within that context.

In my mind, there are large parts of Howell’s email that seem consistent with a generally accepted theistic definition of natural law. I might not agree with Howell’s offered position, but his conclusions seem germane; in respect of natural moral law, homosexual sexual acts (and, in essence, all sex acts that do not lead to procreation within marriage) do not comport with what is accepted as moral action for the Catholic Church.

That said, how Howell arrives at his conclusions is less agreeable.

Note the following:

One example applicable to homosexual acts illustrates the problem. To the best of my knowledge, in a sexual relationship between two men, one of them tends to act as the “woman” while the other acts as the “man.” In this scenario, homosexual men have been known to engage in certain types of actions for which their bodies are not fitted. I don’t want to be too graphic so I won’t go into details but a physician has told me that these acts are deleterious to the health of one or possibly both of the men.  …Why are they injurious? Because they violate the meaning, structure, and (sometimes) health of the human body.

This goes beyond teaching the approach of natural moral law where it concerns homosexual acts. This is an opinion (an anti-gay opinion at that) presented as evidence to try and support natural moral law. It trades on the misinformation that gay sex is inherently diseased and as such is a poor substitute for a reasoned argument.

Though there are several more issues, for brevity I’ll skip to the closing paragraph:

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. 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.

Here Howell again crosses a line. He states that homosexual acts are against “natural reality” and infers that this is the case even when viewed outside of religious teaching. He himself removes the bounds of the class and the context with this assertion:

“As a final note, a perceptive reader will have noticed that none of what I have said here or in class depends upon religion.”

He then makes this statement:

“Catholics don’t arrive at their moral conclusions based on their religion. They do so based on a thorough understanding of natural reality.”

This is to suggest that theistic natural moral law is objective enough to stand even when one removes the Catholic Church’s perception of God and morality. This is, again, an opinion stated as fact. If this is indicative of how Howell approached teaching the rest of his classes – that Catholicism is “right” – as is alleged in the complaint, I can understand why this would make the learning environment uncomfortable.

Yet, it is worth reminding ourselves that the students joined to take a class on Catholic teaching. To hear views like this on subjects like homosexuality might be uncomfortable, but whatever else Howell might be doing here, he seems to be teaching the subject rather accurately, albeit garnished here and there with his own views. The issue centers on whether he was compromising the quality of his teaching by allowing his personal beliefs to encroach on the substance of the course and therein chilling open discussion.

So far, the university has declined to give any further official explanation as to why Howell was let go beyond saying that staffing decisions are at the discretion of department heads, though the News-Gazette notes that Howell and department chair Robert McKim have, by Howell’s own admission, had a long standing conflict over what is appropriate for the class.

Read more: , , , , , ,


Photo used under the Creative Commons Attribution License with thanks to Fradaveccs.

have you shared this story yet?

some of the best people we know are doing it

142 comments

+ add your own
3:48PM PDT on Apr 29, 2013

Elizabeth - I don't argue that what he is teaching isn't bullshit, it is. However, the Catholic Church's stand on homosexuality is bullshit and that is what the man was hire to teach: Catholic doctrine.

There is very little room between the church's bullshit and his personal bullshit.

3:26PM PDT on Apr 29, 2013

@Kevin B: I agree it's a tough one, but not in regard to whether or not this bigot is allowed to continue to teach his PERSONAL beliefs. The tough part is for the students having to tolerate someone like him when there are obviously so many other qualified teachers out there who would not allow their personal animosities to creep into their instruction. HE was hired to teach Catholicism and made explicit references (as the author of the piece pointed out) to his beliefs that this was 'outside religion'. He can't have it both ways. Can't retreat to hiding behind 'I'm only doing what I was hired to do' while doing quite the opposite.

I'm interested in what his physician friend (must have taken him a while to find one catholic doctor to agree with him, wot?) would have to say about the elephant in the room no one has yet mentioned: husband and wife 'experimentation' within marriage. Surely the doctor is fully aware that many husbands also either expect or demand the very same 'act' of their wives--the one he claims is deleterious to the health of males? Why no mention of the presumably deleterious effect on the health of women, hmm? Or doesn't that come into play because they're within a 'consenting adult heterosexual marriage'? Or could it be (as some of us already believe), that the Catholic church simply doesn't give a rat's ass about women, period?

6:06PM PDT on Apr 9, 2013

This is a tough one, it is a course on Catholicism after all, and the professor should have the academic freedom to teach what falls within that subject. The email stuff about "a physician told me..." is a bit out of line, but enough to cost the man his teaching position. I don't think so.

Basically he was hired to teach about Catholicism, and that includes the bullshit that the church is shoveling. You can't really blame the messenger.

12:10PM PDT on Apr 9, 2013

@ Scot R. "That said, of course you don't need love to have sex, but that's true no matter which sex is involved." Your statement is so true. Just look at all of the catholic pedophile priests. I don't think love is involved when they rape and/or sexually assault the little boys and girls.
According to the catholic church procreation is the reason for marriage and sex. That would mean that all couples who can't or don't want children must have their marriages annulled.

12:49PM PST on Jan 24, 2011

Scot R. : You rule!

11:11AM PDT on Sep 12, 2010

The course itself does not seem to be the issue. It's the professor's personal viewpoint that clouded the lecture/discussion. There is no place for this on the college level, or on any educational level.

3:12AM PDT on Aug 3, 2010

Time we got our noses out of the bedrooms of the world.

3:31AM PDT on Jul 30, 2010

I understood that the purpose of attending university is to form one's own opinions by engaging In open and objective debate based on the knowledge that is imparted by both the trusted and respected aducators and fellow academics, whether we agree with each other or not, thus enabling us to make informed decisions as educated and enlightened adults.

It is clear that there are too many unfortunate souls that have chips on their shoulders, hang-ups, persecution complexes regarding their own sexuality and believe that everything is about "me" and are thereby interefering with the normal educating process. I would vote to have such individuals study via correspondence or some other on-line institutions where contact with people who do not share their opinions is minimised. Otherwise, grow up and deal with it ! It's called life !

12:09PM PDT on Jul 29, 2010

In my growing to adulthood, I've learned that many PHONY individuals exist, that have a tendency to hide behind some cloth.
As for catholics, I've learned the purpose of confession.
The problem I have with it being available is the same problem I have for christians.
It's one thing to honestly try and help or be normal and perhaps, have sex as an adult, for no one can cast a stone and I'm not preaching it for others to practice, for only praying to God about personally issues, do an individual own a conversation about and the asking of forgiveness, but in many religions, the same sin, happens and we all are either not strong enough or are human enough to pray on such issues.
Either way, we all should pray continuously on such matters and look forward to being mature enough NOT to judge others, because they haven't reached that point in their lives yet.
This is where I believe catholics uses the confession box to rationalize their intentional exercising of sin.
In otherwords, I believe that they are using the confession box, as an excuse to sin, which I think, is the wrong reason to acknowledge it..
Many catholics simply accept their sinful behaviors and quickly run to confession, knowing that in most cases (without consideration), that what they are contemplating is sinful, but they do it anyways and quickly run to confession for instant gradification and forgiveness.
I feel that many doing wrong knowingly and rush to ask for forgiveness, should hav

9:28PM PDT on Jul 25, 2010

Here we go again: Tee J writes the same old blather: 'Sorry people, homosexuality is not natural, it is a result of the fall. Should those who live this life style be treated with dignity and respect, of course. Should those who live this life style be tolerated, no the should not, they should be Loved, whether they are in the church or out. But in any Jesus Christ based religion it is sin, no if ands or buts about."

What 'fall' are you talking about? The fairy tale about an apple in that compilation written by men purported to be authored by a god? Sorry, Bub. But YOU don't get to declare whether homosexuality is 'normal' or not for those who are born thusly, any more than anyone has a right to declare you abnormal for having your eye colour. We CAN call you abnormal for espousing neanderthal views, tho. You further state that those who 'live this lifestyle' should not be tolerated? Wha? What WOULD you have gay people do..get themselves to a nunnery, a monastery? I've a better idea: let's be INtolerant for your name and face. That's the ticket: anyone named Tee should be shunned and/or jailed. How would it feel? Hmm? Your last idea 'in any Jesus christ based religion it is a sin'. Aha! There's the crux of your false argument. What makes you think 'JC based religions' are the be-all of life for most of us on this planet? Reality is, thinking people don't hold with scare religionists who declare other people's lives 'sinful'. Basically and in a nutshell, Bull Manure!

add your comment



Disclaimer: The views expressed above are solely those of the author and may not reflect those of
Care2, Inc., its employees or advertisers.

ads keep care2 free

meet our writers

Steve Williams Steve Williams is a passionate supporter of Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual and Trans (LGBT) rights, human... more
Story idea? Want to blog? Contact the editors!

more from causes

Animal Welfare

Causes Canada

Causes UK

Children

Civil Rights

Education

Endangered Wildlife

Environment & Wildlife

Global Development

Global Warming

Health Policy

Human Rights

LGBT rights

Politics

Real Food

Trailblazers For Good

Women's Rights




Select names from your address book   |   Help
   

We hate spam. We do not sell or share the email addresses you provide.