I am proud of you, DI Editorial Board! This is a thoughtful editorial that looks at the facts objectively. Thank you for being fair!

"Natural Moral Law says that Morality must be a response to REALITY," Ken Howell wrote in an e-mail. "In other words, sexual acts are only appropriate for people who are complementary, not the same."

This editorial states, "as an example of Natural Moral Law, utilitarianism and the teachings of the Catholic Church — [this part of the email] fits in the context of the e-mail and the class. Stating that the Catholic Church does not agree with homosexuality is not new, nor incorrect; however, Howell lost his job because he agreed with the views and was perceived to be preaching."

Firing him "because he agreed with the views," abridged his freedom of speech and religion.

Since the University is public, that was not a legal option.

If he was preaching, that may have been another story -- however, being PERCEIVED to be preaching, isn't.

Would a professor teaching that Modern Homosexual Thought is that legalizing gay marriage is "equality" have been fired, had s/he said s/he agreed with that belief -- and was "perceived" to be preaching?

Do they want professors walking on eggshells, afraid to admit what they believe?

They should lose the witch hunt.

If a history teacher was teaching about Nazi Germany and told the class that he agreed that the Jews were an inferior race, he would have been canned for espousing his beliefs. No questions asked.

Sexual Orientation is supposed to have equal protection as Religion and Gender at the University. I have no problems with the former Professor teaching Catholic Morality in a class about Catholicism (as I would have no problem with a history teacher teaching about the beliefs of Nazis); however, if you read the entire email (which the DI has NOT published) he went from teaching the material to espousing his beliefs and implying that all homosexuals are immoral. Not okay.

Lastly, he wasn't fired, he was not re-hired. There's a big difference.

I actually have thoroughly read Dr. Howell's e-mail, and I didn't find him to be overstepping his professional and professorial boundaries anywhere. I realize that the topic itself - what we're actually dealing with here - is the question of whether or not homosexual acts actually fit into logical morality. Obviously, it's a hot-button issue. But Dr. Howell here was simply further explaining and giving examples of what Natural Moral Law says on the subject - therefore doing his job and covering his course material.

"Espousing his beliefs and implying that all homosexuals are immoral"? Definitely not. Dr. Howell was explaining a course concept (which can be summed up as "Natural Moral Law says that Morality must be a response to REALITY" [quote taken from e-mail]), in using a specific and appropriate-to-modern-day example. Whether or not you personally AGREE with Natural Moral Law's assumptions and arguments is your own business, and the e-mail makes that very clear. (In the last paragraph, Dr. Howell says, "All I encourage is to make informed decisions." This course, like every other at our university, is just trying to INFORM students by giving us another point of view.)

The course title was "Intro. to Catholicism" - if Dr. Howell HADN'T talked about this idea of "natural reality" (that is used in, but is not limited to, Catholic thought), his course would have been glaringly incomplete. I don't really understand what this student could have been expecting to be learning about, if not the basis behind Catholic thought.

How can we students learn and grow personally if we're not allowed to grapple with ideas and schools of thought as they actually exist - even the more uncomfortable ones involving morality, like this one?

And yes, it's part of the fabric of higher education today.

It's like "Don't ask, Don't tell" except for academia. If people don't know that you think homosexuality is immoral, then you are safe on campus. But once you make those feelings knows you are crucified at the stake of political correctness.

So much for freedom of speech or even freedom of thought on campus today. So what happens is the person is discriminated against because of their beliefs. (Which by the way are held by over half of the population)

While I'm at it, when did it become "hate speech" to simply believe or say that you think something is immoral? For instance, if you cheat on your wife, in my view that would be immoral. Does that mean I hate you? Nope.

Oh, wait I get it. Some people might not think that cheating on a spouse is immoral at all. In fact, let's encourage it because there is a segment of society that embraces that act. And while we're at it, let's crucify anyone who even dares to think adultery is immoral, let alone speaks it.

Welcome to higher education, 2010.

To begin with, there is an enormous difference between the beliefs of Nazi Germany and the beliefs of the Catholic Church. To compare them is a tad overzealous.

That being said if you read the e-mail he makes very clear that there is a distinct and profound difference between morally wrong and hatred. He simply stated the explanation behind the belief which is his job. He is literally paid to explain that very idea.

To quote the the e-mail directly "In short, to judge an action wrong is not to condemn a person. A person and his/her acts can be distinguished for the purposes of morality." The professor DIRECTLY states that neither he nor the Catholic church are wishing to condemn, harm, restrict, or persecute homosexuals, they just think that what they do is morally wrong.

If anything he should be in trouble for inaccurately displaying the viewpoint of the Catholic church which many times throughout history did persecute, harm, restrict, and condemn all those committing what they believed to be "immoral" acts.

I sincerely hope that the DI will revise its editorial after they consider these recent stories from the Inside Higher Ed (http://www.insidehighered.com/news/2010/07/19/illinois)

And the Chicago Tribune: (http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/education/ct-met-catholic-professor-20100717,0,5015388.story)

They certainly changed my mind on the whole issue.

While I find the articles that you linked to quite well written and well informed it is impossible to say that they can change your opinion on the issue at hand. I say this because the articles do not address the issue at hand. The circumstances of Prof. Howell's employment are not what is up for debate in the editorial, but rather his employment should have been terminated. While the articles you linked to enlightened me and made me think the whole system is dying for an overhaul, that has nothing to do with whether this individual should keep his job. I'm sure he wouldn't mind if his paychecks said Newman Center or U of I as long as they still had money behind them.

From: Kenneth J. Howell

Date: Tue, May 4, 2010 at 9:45 PM

Subject: Utilitarianism and Sexuality (for those in 447 FYI)

Dear Students:

Since there is a question on the final exam about utilitarianism (see the review sheet), I thought I would help with an example. I realized after my lectures on moral theory that even though I talked about the substance of utilitarianism, I did not identify it as such and so you may not have been able to see it.

It turns out that our discussion of homosexuality brings up the issue of utilitarianism. In class, our discussion of the morality of homosexual acts was very incomplete because any moral issue about which people disagree ALWAYS raises a more fundamental issue about criteria. In other words, by what criteria should we judge whether a given act is right or wrong?

Before looking at the issue of criteria, however, we have to remind ourselves of the ever-present tendency in all of us to judge morality by emotion. The most frequent reason I hear people supporting same-sex marriage is that they know some gay couples or individuals. Empathy is a noble human quality but right or wrong does not depend on who is doing the action or on how I feel about those people, just as judging an action wrong should not depend on disliking someone. This might seem obvious to a right thinking person but I have encountered many well-educated people who do not (or cannot?) make the distinction between persons and acts when engaging moral reasoning. I encourage you to read the final essay editorial I sent earlier to reflect on this. In short, to judge an action wrong is not to condemn a person. A person and his/her acts can be distinguished for the purposes of morality.

So, then, by what criterion should we judge whether sexual acts are right or wrong? This is where utilitarianism comes in. Utilitarianism in the popular sense is fundamentally a moral theory that judges right or wrong by its practical outcomes. It is somewhat akin to a cost/benefit analysis. So, when a woman is deciding whether it’s right to have an abortion, the utilitarian says it’s right or wrong based on what the best outcome is. Similarly, a man who is trying to decide whether he should cheat on his wife, if he is a utilitarian, will weigh the various consequences. If the cheating side of the ledger is better, he will conclude that it’s okay to cheat. If the faithful side is better, he will refrain from cheating.

I think it’s fair to say that many, maybe most Americans employ some type of utilitarianism in their moral decision making. But there are at least two problems. One is that to judge the best outcome can be very subjective. What may be judged good for the pregnant woman may not be good for the baby. What may be judged good for the about-to-cheat-husband may not good for his wife or his children. This problem of subjectivity is inherent in utilitarianism for a second reason. Utilitarianism counsels that moral decisions should NOT be based on the inherent meaning of acts. Acts are only good or bad relative to outcomes. The natural law theory that I expounded in class assumes that human acts have an inherent meaning (remember my fist vs. extended hand of friendship example).

One of the most common applications of utilitarianism to sexual morality is the criterion of mutual consent. It is said that any sexual act is okay if the two or more people involved agree. Now no one can (or should) deny that for a sexual act to be moral there must be consent. Certainly, this is one reason why rape is morally wrong. But the question is whether this is enough.

If two men consent to engage in sexual acts, according to utilitarianism, such an act would be morally okay. But notice too that if a ten year old agrees to a sexual act with a 40 year old, such an act would also be moral if even it is illegal under the current law. Notice too that our concern is with morality, not law. So by the consent criterion, we would have to admit certain cases as moral which we presently would not approve of. The case of the 10 and 40 year olds might be excluded by adding a modification like “informed consent.” Then as long as both parties agree with sufficient knowledge, the act would be morally okay. A little reflection would show, I think, that “informed consent” might be more difficult to apply in practice than in theory. But another problem would be where to draw the line between moral and immoral acts using only informed consent. For example, if a dog consents to engage in a sexual act with its human master, such an act would also be moral according to the consent criterion. If this impresses you as far-fetched, the point is not whether it might occur but by what criterion we could say that it is wrong. I don’t think that it would be wrong according to the consent criterion.

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.

Now recall that I mentioned in class the importance of gaining wisdom from the past. One part of wisdom we gain from such knowledge is how people today came to think of their bodies. I won’t go into details here but a survey of the last few centuries reveals that we have gradually been separating our sexual natures (reality) from our moral decisions. Thus, people tend to think that we can use our bodies sexually in whatever ways we choose without regard to their actual structure and meaning. This is also what lies behind the idea of sex change operations. We can manipulate our bodies to be whatever we want them to be.

If what I just said is true, then this disassociation of morality and sexual reality did not begin with homosexuality. It began long ago. But it took a huge leap forward in the wide spread use of artificial contraceptives. What this use allowed was for people to disassociate procreation and children from sexual activity. So, for people who have grown up only in a time when there is no inherent connection between procreation and sex –- notice not natural but manipulated by humans –- it follows “logically” that sex can mean anything we want it to mean.

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.

Kenneth J. Howell Ph.D.

Director, St. John’s Institute of Catholic Thought

Adjunct Associate Professor of Religion, University of Illinois, Urbana-Champaign

Professor Howell didn't merely explain the Catholic church's stance on homosexuality as it relates to Utilitarianism and Natural Law Theory. That would have been entirely in keeping with his role as a professor of a class in modern Catholic thought. Instead, his letter slipped into strange territory where he began to condemn homosexuality altogether, outside of those philosophical systems. He compared homosexuality to bestiality and pedophilia (why choose those other examples if he wasn't trying to classify them together?); made a strange claim that homosexual couples divvy up sex roles, taking on the position of "woman" and "man" (a sweeping generalization unbecoming of a philosopher and a complete misunderstanding of both gender roles and gay sex); and made a claim that "gay sex" is harmful to one's health (and by that, I assume he means anal sex which 1. doesn't harm the body in any way and 2. isn't limited to the gay community ).

While I don't think he should have been fired (I'm a firm believer in academic freedom and shudder to imagine a university if it was eroded), I wish there was more of a discussion about the contents of the letter. Coming from an academic, I find them disturbingly ill-informed.

It may not seem pertinent to the topic, and by keeping this whole issue (the arrangement w/St. John's Newman Center and what they plan to do about it) on the d/l the University is just begging for a publicity nightmare, and they've been starting to get it--they look anti-academic freedom and anti-Catholic. Not a good image. They risk intellectually martyring Howell.

If they are soon open and honest, if this is just the first step in dismantling an arrangement that should have decades ago, then Howell's dismissal will make a hell of a lot more sense.

The source of his paycheck does also seem rather pertinent, when you consider that Howell sought a mandatum from the Church, something practically unheard of for Catholics teaching religious studies at secular colleges. It makes his e-mail, and the way he taught class, make much more sense, and makes these, rather, indicative of the larger issue. Howell does not teach, it seems from his letter, strains of thought that run contrary to orthodoxy, or the logical fallacies inherent in his explanation of NML as we would expect of our religious studies faculty. This is because of his background, how he was hired, where his paycheck comes from and where his loyalty rests. Long story short, had he been hired appropriately, he probably wouldn't have been an instructor who taught the class in a way that got him the boot.

If Howell's dismissal is an isolated incident without proper investigation into his qualifications and contributions to the campus community, then it's wrong. If, however, it is an indication of the direction the University is moving toward, the hopeful termination of St. John's position of academic privilege here, then they're making the first right step.

If, in the future, Howell can pass the test and gain the approval of his colleagues inside religious studies rather than inside the Church, then by all means, reinstate him. If not, then he doesn't belong teaching these classes in the first place, and canning him was the right thing to do; once again, he was an adjunct, not tenured, and so, as long as UIUC follows through as it should, they've acted justly.

This is, however, a pretty big if.

All I'm saying is that this editorial may be a bit hasty given what's beginning to come to light. We need to find out what the University plans to do first before we condemn this action.

The email of "professor" Howell is beyond the pale. No doubt about it. No matter what, sending medieval emails to straight or gay students comparing them to zoophiles and such is unacceptable, period. No amount of spinning can change that.

What I don't understand is why radical Catholic ideologization is singled out, without taking care of many other forms of radicalism, which make uncomfortable *other* students:

- University-associated people who defend Islam as a "religion of peace" - go to Muslim Students Association's website, follow the links they endorse and see what *those* haters (from the Islamic websites linked) propound about homosexuality... it's awful and worse than whatever the more backward among Catholics do nowadays

- radical leftists who teach that all white people are potential racists, all males are potential (or actual!) rapists, all rich people are thieves and so on and so forth

- UIUC administrators who used their position, PAID WITH MILLIONS OF DOLLARS SQUEEZED OUT FROM UIUC STUDENTS, to calumniate and sabotage students who, imagine that, dared to have a different view on a relatively trivial issue such as The Chief.

This is just scratching the surface. However, the University either addresses radicalism in its entirety - far right, far left, radical Islam, etc. - and decides it is not acceptable, or the university accepts the principle of freedom of speech as preeminent and then Howell shouldn't pay a price which Renee Romano or the shrillest among the "queer studies" radicals are never asked to pay.

Just apply a consistent, fair standard!

This is just an example of the intolerant being intolerant of the intolerant while preaching tolerance.

If you don’t agree with us, you’re a bigot and we’re going to silence you by intimidating and/ or destroying you.

There has been a long line of people that gay rights activists have targeted for destruction, for opposing homosexuality -- or at least for opposing special rights for people that copulate with members that are the same gender (if I may speak plainly) -- Anita Bryant, Miss California USA Carrie Prejean, donors to Prop 8, the Mormon Church, etc.

Professor Howell's case was different, though. He was supposed to teach Catholicism, and Catholicism includes things like: >> 2357 [...] Basing itself on Sacred Scripture, which presents homosexual acts as acts of grave depravity, tradition has always declared that 'homosexual acts are intrinsically disordered.' They are contrary to the natural law. They close the sexual act to the gift of life. They do not proceed from a genuine affective and sexual complementarity. Under no circumstances can they be approved. <<

A professor can be fired for incompetence.

Given current events, how was the professor supposed to be a competent professor and not directly teach the Catholic view of homosexuality?

The complaint (that prompted the firing) suggests the professor shouldn't have been allowed to teach that Catholicism considers homosexuality intrinsically disordered, grave depravity -- that cannot be approved of -- because that would constitute hate speech -- and the university suggests that the professor shouldn't have been allowed to have taught it, because it violates the university's policy of inclusivity.

So he should teach Catholicism, just not too much of it, or not certain parts of it?

Aren't professors supposed to profess?

You write about the "letter" (email), expressing your opinions -- going so far as to refer to things you don't quote, and drawing conclusions.

It is crystal clear that many have read the email and posted that they've seen little or nothing wrong with it. So don't make accusations, veiled by posing them as questions -- like, "why choose those other examples if he wasn't trying to classify them together?"

If you have to ask, then you don't know. Neither do I.

You're proceeding from the point of view that the email was only about homosexuality, and therefore references to bestiality and pedophilia must be inappropriate/ hateful comparisons to homosexuality. If the email was about Utilitarianism, Natural Law Theory, and complementary bodies, then there was nothing wrong with writing about all three things.

If the complainer didn't want to experience a professor teaching that Catholicism presents homosexual acts as acts of grave depravity, that tradition has always declared that homosexual acts are intrinsically disordered, and that they are contrary to the natural law -- then s/he shouldn't have taken the class.

If you want more of a discussion about the contents of the email, quote the email, and explain exactly how you feel your quotation establishes "his [email] slipped into strange territory." There's nothing wrong with the teacher teaching that Catholics condemn homosexuality. They do. It's part of Catholicism whether the anyone likes it or not.

We can all post our opinions, but if you think yours are facts, you need to do a better job of establishing that.

Re: "made a strange claim that homosexual couples divvy up sex roles, taking on the position of 'woman' and 'man'"

Obviously when two men copulate, one takes the male role and one takes the female role (the "bottom"). If you're going to prove the professor was a jerk, you're going to do better than that, and to quit fishing.

You're talking about a man's life.

Anal sex may not be limited to gays, but many beieve it "is harmful to one's health" (the bottom's, or the woman allowing it).

Did you know porn stars get paid more for allowing anal sex? Why do you think that is? (A Catholic might refer to "sexual complementarity.")

Re: "The email of 'professor' Howell is beyond the pale. No doubt about it. No matter what, sending medieval emails to straight or gay students comparing them to zoophiles and such is unacceptable, period. No amount of spinning can change that."

Well, I finally broke down and read the whole email.

I now understand it as a coherent whole, rather than isolated excerpts.

The email asks, "by what criteria should we judge whether a given act is right or wrong?"

Professor Howard seems to say that applying the mutual consent criteria, homosexuality, bestiality, and "if a ten year old agrees to a sexual act with a 40 year old" -- per utilitarianism, these acts would be morally OK.

Then he teaches that in applying the criteria of Natural Moral Law, they would be considered immoral.

Nowhere does he compare homosexuals to zoophiles (or pedophiles).

Homosexuality, bestiality, and "if a ten year old agrees to a sexual act with a 40 year old" were just three examples he used to show how while utilitarianism/ mutual consent might define an act as moral, Natural Moral Law might still define it as immoral.

Those that are claiming the professor was comparing homosexuals to pedophiles and zoophiles are being disingenuous at worst, ignorant at best.

Anyone reading Catechisms 2357 and 2333 ( http://www.scborromeo.org/ccc/p3s2c2a6.htm ) can see that what Professor Howard wrote about homosexuality was based on Catholicism, not going off and spewing his own opinions, as more than one post has inaccuately alleged, and "no amount of spinning can change that."

Catholicism rejects homosexuality -- and the "sexual complementarity" and the "connection between procreation and sex" the professor refers to are from Catholicism. Catechism 2333 refers to the "flourishing of family life" and "complementarity". Catechism 2357 states that homosexual acts "are contrary to the natural law. They close the sexual act to the gift of life. They do not proceed from [...] sexual complementarity."

Given what is in these catechisms -- "Sacred Scripture [...] presents homosexual acts as acts of grave depravity, tradition has always declared that 'homosexual acts are intrinsically disordered' " -- I would have to say that Professor Howard's email was relatively tame (maybe toned down).

I think the complainant decided not to tolerate it that the professor taught Catholicism. Catholics believe that "under no circumstances can [homosexual acts] be approved." [Catechism 2357]

The U of I administration should either discontinue the teaching of Catholicism, or provide Catholicism professors with a list of what they're not allowed to teach.

The complainant wanted to silence the professor, and succeeded, because one or more U of I administrators supported the complainant.

I've lost respect for U of I. Assuming I'm not the only one, this affects everyone.

Homosexual rights activists shoot themselves in the foot when they do things that cause them to be perceived as intolerant attackers of people that don't agree with them, and they are undermining their attempt to portray Prop 8 as a result of the Mormon Church. They're revealing just how supportive Catholics must have been, too -- a much bigger share of the electorate.

I just think the professor slipped up a little bit when he wrote things as a Catholic might, rather than prefacing everything with "Catholics believe..." Of course, as a Catholic, he believes Catholicism to be true.

Will the U of I now fire economics professors that believe what Monetarists believe, and that teach that Keynesian economics is simply disordered, depraved, unacceptable -- and that REALITY is that there is no long-term benefit to inflation -- if an offended Keynesian compains that the professor wasn't being inclusive?

"It is crystal clear that many have read the email and posted that they've seen little or nothing wrong with it. So don't make accusations, veiled by posing them as questions -- like, "why choose those other examples if he wasn't trying to classify them together?"

I was actually the one who posted the whole email in the comments section. I didn't want to waste anyone's time re-reading what they could have already read, though I suppose that was my mistake.

"It is crystal clear that many have read the email and posted that they've seen little or nothing wrong with it. So don't make accusations, veiled by posing them as questions -- like, "why choose those other examples if he wasn't trying to classify them together?"

If you have to ask, then you don't know. Neither do I.

You're proceeding from the point of view that the email was only about homosexuality, and therefore references to bestiality and pedophilia must be inappropriate/ hateful comparisons to homosexuality. If the email was about Utilitarianism, Natural Law Theory, and complementary bodies, then there was nothing wrong with writing about all three things."

I wasn't making a veiled accusation. I was using a rhetorical question to make a straight-up accusation. Homosexuality *was* the touchstone through which Howell was teaching about Utilitarianism and Natural Law Theory. Therefor, it wasn't merely coincidental that bestiality and pedophilia entered the picture. Time and time again, homosexuality gets lumped in with deviant practices such as bestiality and pedophilia. This comparison wreaks of intolerance

"If the complainer didn't want to experience a professor teaching that Catholicism presents homosexual acts as acts of grave depravity, that tradition has always declared that homosexual acts are intrinsically disordered, and that they are contrary to the natural law -- then s/he shouldn't have taken the class."

Howell didn't stick to saying the Catholic church condemns homosexuality. This is how he ended his email: "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." That a) is philosophically unsound (of course a Catholic's perception of natural reality will be colored by religion) and b) comes very close to saying that it's simply factual that homosexuality is wrong-- as he claims that nothing in the email depends upon religion, just an understanding "of natural reality."

"Re: "made a strange claim that homosexual couples divvy up sex roles, taking on the position of 'woman' and 'man'"

Obviously when two men copulate, one takes the male role and one takes the female role (the "bottom"). If you're going to prove the professor was a jerk, you're going to do better than that, and to quit fishing."

I'm not saying Howell is a "jerk." I'm saying he makes sweeping assumptions and is misinformed about gay relationships. Gay relationships aren't straight relationships in drag. There are two men-- one does not act as a woman. And in any case, being penetrated is not necessarily a woman's role. Penetrating is not necessarily a man's role. There are way more sexual acts than heterosexual intercourse. (And all of them can be done easily with the body, ergo the bodies must be "fitted" for such a purpose.)

"Anal sex may not be limited to gays, but many beieve it "is harmful to one's health" (the bottom's, or the woman allowing it)."

Not if its practiced safely with condoms and lots of lubrication.

Such a long response to try to spin Howell's CLEAR AND MALEFIC drawing ignorant equivalences between bestiality, pedophilia, and homosexuality.

Too many words for such a thin, unconvincing cover-up.

Catholicism should take care of its own problems, which are huge, not send emissaries of hatred such as "professor" Howell to insult students with his Middle Ages silliness, in a space of learning.

Bye-bye, "professor". Please don't look back.

Next year, U of I should teach another "professor" to teach a class on the "theology" of the Tooth Fairy. Same worth.

Teaching history of religion - even the history of a religion as infantile and confused as christianity - is OK. (Insulting students under the cover of "religious conviction" is not.)

Despite the fact that such religion claims that "god", who used to be "one", suddenly became "three" and, as a sexually rapacious "father", sent via FedEx his "holy spirit" (don't get me started on lewd jokes about this holy gigolo) to impregnate via her ear the controversially virgin fiancé of a hapless carpenter... Why? So that the holy son would be born, grow up as an amateur Jewish rabbi, and let himself be killed so that the world be saved and blah-blah-blah. While the main inheritance of christian missionarism (like that of the islamic one as well) is murder, mayhem, intolerance, destruction of different cultures, and utter ugliness. It all makes sense, right?

Is THIS part of the much-vaunted natural law?

I didn't joke about the "ear pregnancy" of Mary.

Regarding the poor Jewish girl allegedly being "helped to conceive" the Bearded One through the ear, this was a rather commonplace belief among the Syriac writers of the Church. The chief statement to this effect is from St Ephrem:

'Through her ear the Word entered and dwelt secretly in the womb' (attributed to Ephrem, H. Mary 11.6).

It is certainly the vision of the divine conception that is held by Jacob of Serug, who writes:

'See how Eve's ear inclines and hearkens to the voice of the deceiver when he hisses deceit to her. But come and see the Watcher [Gabriel] instilling salvation into Mary's ear and removing the insinuation of the serpent from her and consoling her. [...] Instead of this virgin [Eve] another was chosen: truth was spoken to her in her ear from the Most High. By the door which death entered [i.e. the ear], by it entered life and loosened the great bond which the evil one had bound there' (B. 627-28).

Now let's compare this nonsense with Howell's:

"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."

Apparently Mary consented to the "holy spirit" impregnating her through her ear, despite the fact that she was under-aged (not unlike Muhammad's Aisha in Islam) and therefore what the christian "god" did, consent apart, was statutory rape. (Of course, Howell's response would be that we shouldn't judge the christian god's pedophilia with 20th century standards -- the obvious counter-response would be... OK, but then why judging 20th century sexual morality according to ancient legends of perverted "gods" being attracted by pitifully young Jewish teenagers?)

So, Mr. Howell, is ear sex with a teenager part of the "Natural Law" or perversion?

If freedom of speech is so important to Catholic "professors" at UIUC, let them ALSO speak about these aspects, as well as about the murderous, dark, perverted, despicable history of what they call "the Church".

The Catholic Church's most conservative, most ignorant advocates should always remember the saying about glass houses and stones. They have all reasons to do so.

I did not "to try to spin Howell's CLEAR AND MALEFIC drawing ignorant equivalences between bestiality, pedophilia, and homosexuality."

I read the email to see if it was true, without any hypothesis. I saw that he did not draw "equivalences between bestiality, pedophilia, and homosexuality." My reply took the length that it took.

Like I said:

"Nowhere does he compare homosexuals to zoophiles (or pedophiles). Homosexuality, bestiality, and 'if a ten year old agrees to a sexual act with a 40 year old' were just three examples he used to show how while utilitarianism/ mutual consent might define an act as moral, Natural Moral Law might still define it as immoral."

All of your insults and vitriol aside. This was not a history course. It was a religious studies course. They compare/contrast differing opinions on a religion, and attempt to explain the world from within the context of a given religion. They also use various philosophical and moral arguments to explain why the religion holds the beliefs it does. So, maybe the professor got a little preachy, and you think the religion is retarded, but I don't like transcendentalist authors, does that mean that all the professors who teach (and enjoy/ believe in) Throeau should be fired? You might have a point about discussing the dark side of the religion, but again, human fallibility is about history, not religious belief. Also, how do you know he didn't cover inquisitions/crusades/forcible conversion in another part of the course?

Just because you think a belief is deserving of ridicule does not mean the university should not teach it.

The Daily Illini Editorial Board writes that "firing Howell for teaching the facts was wrong [...] firing a Catholic professor for expressing the beliefs of his religion is a misplaced way to take a stand for homosexual students [...] we do not see enough to warrant the University’s decision [...] Thankfully, the University is taking this issue under review."

A week later, the same board writes, "the University should not let the fallout over Howell’s release dissuade it from hiring someone whose expertise may outweigh any conflicts of interest," ignoring the fact that "the University is taking this issue under review," and that "hiring someone" to replace Professor Howell would turn the action that "was wrong" into a done deed.

It seems the students, if they are, who made the accusation should stand in the daylight and be counted. And their affiliations should be revealed to the same degree as Prof. Howell's have been. There is an agenda underlying this attack on the professor and the Catholic Church. There is an interesting portion of a book titled "School of Darkness" written by a woman who had been an active member of the communist party in America for over 20 years. She related that 'criticism need not be honest or well deserved. Criticism has a disruptive effect all its own.'

Given the ENORMOUS trouble the medieval institution knows as the catholic church (a religion dedicated to god Cathol, etymologically speaking (-: ) finds itself in nowadays, what with trial after trial after trial and billions of dollars in damages, the inadequacy of "father" Howell's ignorant attacks on CONSENSUAL, ADULT sexual behavior are not as much outrageous as amusing. Hypocritical is the second name of the church of Cathol, anyway.

Especially if one considers the proven historical homosexuality of Jesus - the most famous homosexual in the whole history one might say, a nice rabbi, a little lazy (still living with his parents in his 30s, which at the time was like living now with your parents when you're in your 50s) - but kind... a little too kind to too many, according to the followers of Cathol, the hater of Jesus...

In the Gospel according to John, one can find incredibly rich material about Jesus' passionate homosexual propensities: "Now Jesus loved Lazarus" ... "Lazarus, said Jesus, raise it up, loose it and let it go up I beseech you"... [also presumably following Lazarus being in a particularly virile day] "Afterwards (you know what that means) Jesus wept" [quotes are taken from 21st Century Standard Bible, The Gospel Accordding To John]

In Luke 14:26-27 [NO KIDDING] Jesus expresses openly his call to universal homosexual brotherhood: "If any man comes to me, and hate not his (...) wife (...) he cannot be my disciple."

Ouch.

Also, in Luke 18:16, more revelations about Jesus' rather insatiable and not entirely legal propensities are being offered, including: "Let the children come to me. Don't stop them!" (I didn't make this up - look it up!)

There you have it, the recent history of the church of God Cathol, in one nutshell, tribunals, incalculable monetary and image damages and all that.

"Father" Howell, I am looking forward to your next course. I'll be there and raise many such interesting subjects besides the ones already (barely) politely pointed at.

Freedom of speech is good, as long as it is applied consistently. I am looking forward to having an open dialogue with you.