There is an interesting controversy at the University of Illinois where the university has fired adjunct professor Dr. Kenneth Howell for teaching why homosexual acts violate natural moral law under the tenets of the Catholic church. Howell taught courses on the Catholic faith at the St. John’s Catholic Newman Center. He was fired after a student labeled his statements “hate speech.”
In 2000, the University of Illinois’ Department of Religion incorporated Newman courses and Howell (who taught at Newman since 1998) became an adjunct professor. One of his classes, “Introduction to Catholicism,” includes what Howell described as “an explanation of Natural Moral Law as affirmed by the Church as well as an application of Natural Law Theory to a disputed social issue.” Homosexuality was one of the obvious subjects.
Here is how Howell described the statements that led to his firing. He reportedly summed up the position of the Church in the following way:
“A homosexual orientation is not morally wrong just as no moral guilt can be assigned to any inclination that a person has. However, based on natural moral law, the Church believes that homosexual acts are contrary to human nature and therefore morally wrong.”
He says that he sent an e-mail to students to try “to show them that under utilitarianism, homosexual acts would not be considered immoral whereas under natural moral law they would. This is because natural moral law, unlike utilitarianism, judges morality on the basis of the acts themselves.”
A complaint was filed by a student who was not enrolled in his class but insisted that he was writing on behalf of a student who wanted to remain anonymous.
The student objected that “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.”
The school fired Howell who objected on first amendment and academic freedom grounds.
He was also later informed by Msgr. Gregory Ketcham, the Director of the St. John’s Catholic Newman Center, that he was no longer needed at the Center.
It is a troubling case. Illinois should shoulder the burden in showing that academic freedom was not violated in this case. Frankly, I would be a bit concerned over incorporating classes from a religious center to begin with and I believe it is problematic to enlist religious organizations to teach courses on their faith for credit. Indeed, the student’s objection would seem as much to the course as to the professor. However, Illinois decided to offer a course on Catholic values. The question is whether the professor crossed the line between teaching the tenets and proselytizing for the faith. If the statements above were truly the cause for the action against the teacher, it would appear to violate the principles of academic freedom. We simply do not have enough information in the case.
The fact is that I have seen many university courses on feminism, race politics, and other subjects where the professors teach highly controversial views (which they are known to share). It is incumbent on Illinois to distinguish Newman (and his lectures) from those other professors to establish some objective basis for the termination. They may be able to do so, but the record so far is worrisome.
Source: CatholicNewsAgency.
Knowing the number 1 is a true fact. It has a physical tangible underpinning in quantifiable reality. To quote Carl Sagan, “The simplest thought like the concept of the number one, has an elaborate underpinning. The brain has its own language to test the structure and consistency of the world.” A monkey knows the number 1 even if they think of it as “unk”. They just can’t do abstractions like differential equations, which while they may be true are not always true.
Contrast with knowing Sears sells tools. They might today, they might have yesterday, but they may not always. Their status as a tool seller is time sensitive data and a variable. Does it apply to all Sears stores, or only some? What if Sears discontinues their distribution network? It’s simply a fact. Sears sells tools. But Sears won’t always sell tools. Today, it’s a simple fact GoldmanSacks (misspelling intentional) is worth $9B. If they are held accountable for their crimes next month? They won’t be worth dog shit. But . . .
The number 1 will always be the number 1. Just as hydrogen will always have the atomic weight of 1. A true fact is an “indivisible” component of reality.
The goal of science is to quantify true facts and/or build models of how the universe operates based on those true facts. A true fact is a fundamental principle unchanged by anything we can do. A fact is merely data, and as data, mailable.
Buddha:
what is a “true fact” as distinguished from just a fact?
“fact”, pardon the sloppy copy/paste. Eating and typing is a challenge unless one likes a messy keyboard.
Byron,
Again, acts are important, but true facts are of primary importance. One cannot get to true facts without being able to think first. Without thought, one is little more than an animal reacting on instinct. Even monkeys can count, but they can’t do calculus. If you have a hammer and a nail but don’t know how they work together, you’re useless.
Buddha:
you need proper facts to be able to build on your knowledge. If you are told a dog is a table you will never be able to understand the concept of home furnishings. You have to first understand the concept of table to be able to make the leap to furniture. One is a concrete the other is an abstraction. All knowledge builds on other knowledge, if you do not have the basics correct you cannot figure out that the earth revolves around the sun. To be able to add you must first understand numbers and their relation to quantities. Once you figure out that 2 is a symbol for 2 units you can then learn the principle of addition. But if you are told 2 is 4 you can never add properly.
Facts must be correct or you cannot build on what you know. Integration is a long chain that leads back to a basic fact.
Anyway I believe Aristotle had figured that out and Columbus didn’t go too far out on a limb because the world is round was figured out by the Greeks I think.
Byron,
If you teach people how to think, the facts will guide them to what to think or they will become delusional in their beliefs and not a fully conscious human being. Facts are not enough. Facts are merely data. Synthesis, abstraction and correct causal correlation of data is knowledge. This is the difference between smart and intelligent: a smart person knows a lot of facts, but an intelligent person knows how to both find facts and use them. Smart people used to think the Sun revolved around the Earth because ancient philosophers and the Church told them that was the fact. Then two intelligent people (Galileo and Copernicus) took a closer look at factual quantifiable data and figured out the relationship was inverted. The universe went from a geocentric model to a heliocentric model. One cannot know what is real if one cannot think properly. The premise is that learning how to think is more critical to a truthful outcome than the data stores which may be erroneous. A parrot can regurgitate facts. A computer can regurgitate facts. Only the human brain could observe the universe and come to the counterintuitive conclusion that the geocentric model is wrong based on those observations. Facts are important, but true facts are of primary importance. Being able to tell the incorrect from the correct in triaging those facts is where the rubber meets the road – the difference between simply thought and critical thought.
As to your original assertion about natural law, it was unclear that you were taking issue with the sexual teachings of the RCC. Your clarification however makes my rebuke moot.
Buddha:
it does matter what you teach, if I teach you that the sun revolves around the sun when you are young you have no way to know if I am right or wrong. It is not something that most people can “prove” on their own. Teaching what is right is as important as teaching how to think. But even how to think can be taught improperly by employing an improper epistemology.
You have to start somewhere and you have to begin with a fundamental premise. If your fundamental premise is wrong you will learn everything through that “prism”.
Buddha:
I should have expanded a bit. I meant to say that the RCC is indeed trying to subvert the concept of natural law. And by people on this blog deriding natural law they are inadvertently giving intellectual aid to the RCC. If you destroy the concept of natural law you can then destroy the ideas of Jefferson and others. So there should be a distinction made between the natural law of the RCC and the natural law of individuals such as Jefferson.
Jefferson’s ideas and the ideas of the RCC do not seem compatible in my opinion.
Buddha:
I think a bunch of different things ought to be taught and most importantly how to think. But the Jesuits, at least the ones at Tomd’s high school, are teaching what to think as evidenced by the reading list.
I didn’t see Aristotle’s categories in that list nor did I see anything by Bastiat or other laissez faire 19th century economist as a reply to Marx. It seemed pretty one sided to me.
Buddha:
I think you need to reread what I wrote, I am not in favor of the RCC policies. I am trying to say that sex is for more than procreation and that the RCC’s idea of it treats men and women as nothing but reproductive devices like horses or cattle.
“the RCC has attempted”
And “as a further thought being a good educator doesnt necessarily mean you are teaching the right things.”
That shows you are of the “what to think” school of teaching and not the “how to think” school of teaching. There are no good teachers in the “what to think” school.
Byron,
“Since gays do not “procreate” they are subverting the “natural law”.”
How very enlightened of you. Genetics *an expression of nature in action* clearly states at a certain percentage of primate (and other) populations are – by nature – homosexual. I’ve provided links to that information several times now. Nothing unnatural about non-reproductive sex at all, B. Even the dolphins do it. Why? Because sex is fun. Who’d have thunk it!
Did you ever stop to think the RCC was using “natural law” as cover for both their retrograde joint policies of “breed to make more Catholics/keep women in their place” and “keep the homos in their place”? By co-opting the term “natural law”, which by the way they do not use in the same context as Jefferson, the RCC is attempted to be the arbiter of what constitutes natural. Which is only natural of an all too human made and run organization stupid enough to think they solely speak for a God and expect to be taken seriously.
No extra charge for the double entendre.
as a further thought being a good educator doesnt necessarily mean you are teaching the right things.
Swarthmore mom:
I am not a funamentalist and I am saying the RCC wants control of an individuals life through guilt/original sin or whatever you want to call it.
Dominion over man? Those are fundamentalist buzz words. The Jesuits are some of the best educators in the world. They are getting old and are being replaced with idiots like this guy.
Mike A:
Including the RCC, I think that makes 5. If I have correctly applied the laws of addition.
Pick all the nits you wish, no problem here.
How about telling me why you think I am wrong instead of using derision. I can back up why I think I am right.
Byron, I don’t mean to pick nits, but you only identified four, rather than five, “anti-man” philosophers. In addition, I think Plato actually went to a Southern Baptist school so he wouldn’t have to sit next to any of those Macedonian illegals.
gABE:
The RCC is trying to use natural law in regards sexuality, i.e. that men and women use sex for procreation. In other words the farm animal view of man as a stud or brood mare. Since gays do not “procreate” they are subverting the “natural law”. It gives no quarter to choice or to an individuals idea of happiness nor to his own life.
Sex and gravity are natural laws, it doesn’t just apply to physics. I say Freud, Marx, Plato and Sartre are anti-man and it is no surprise they were taught at a RCC high school. Since all 5 either want dominion over man or consider man to be a worm. Erudition is one thing and certainly I was not questioning his ability to learn. I am just questioning what he learned.
Byron,
I doubt Tom was objecting to the laws of physics as applied to gays, so much as to biases presented as “natural law” as applied to morality. Tom’s observations reflect that intelligent high school students can recognize that gravity is a poor model for thinking about ethics. People who pretend that there is a substantive distinction between positive and natural law as applied to morals are, in my experience, usually charlatans, idiots, or selectively obtuse — and frequently all of the above. Tom’s erudition, on the other hand, is a credit to his Jesuit education.