Catholic Professor fired for teaching gay sex is wrong?

Satya

Satya

C'est la vie
Retired Staff
MBTI
INXP
I tend to agree with the author of this blog...

http://www.queerty.com/should-a-cat...er-arguing-gay-sex-is-morally-wrong-20100710/

Kenneth Howell, a nine-year University of Illinois adjunct professor, was just trying to inform his Catholicism course students about the right and wrong way to answer questions about homosexuality on his final exam. He lost his job over it.
In May he sent an email explaining how to use the moral theory of utilitarianism (which he describes as "somewhat akin to a cost/benefit analysis") to decide whether supporting same-sex marriage is right or wrong.
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.
​
Well answer the question, professor! And please don't forget to express your limited knowledge of anal sex.
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.
​
Well, a student (on behalf of a friend in the class who wanted to remain anonymous) complained to the head of the university's religion department, and said that while Howell thinks he was just teaching about what the Catholic Church has to say about homosexual acts, he was really overstepping: "Teaching a student about the tenets of a religion is one thing," read the email. "Declaring that homosexual acts violate the natural laws of man is another. The courses at this institution should be geared to contribute to the public discourse and promote independent thought; not limit one's worldview and ostracize people of a certain sexual orientation."


Howell's response? The church's teachings are based on "natural moral law," and that trumps everything: "My responsibility on teaching a class on Catholicism is to teach what the Catholic Church teaches," he says. ""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.
Click to expand...
 
Did he tell the people specifically that homosexuality is wrong, or that the catholic church says it is wrong.
Two different answers, and one of them is worth firing over.
 
Shai Gar said:
Did he tell the people specifically that homosexuality is wrong, or that the catholic church says it is wrong.
Two different answers, and one of them is worth firing over.
Click to expand...

He argued from "natural moral law" which is the basis of the Church's teaching. So he argued from the same teleological reasoning that the Church uses.
 
I have to agree no matter how much I hate the opinion that He shouldn't be fired. Hes teaching a course. And it follows the churches ideologies. Granted its not something I would ever take but in context he shouldn't have been fired.
 
No such thing as natural morals, let alone that morality is in any way a "law".
Any "Natural Law" is unbreakable in any way. Natural Laws are also known as Scientific Laws.

Those three sentences alone disprove his bullshit.
 
Blind Bandit said:
I have to agree no matter how much I hate the opinion that He shouldn't be fired. Hes teaching a course. And it follows the churches ideologies. Granted its not something I would ever take but in context he shouldn't have been fired.
Click to expand...

Indeed, I would feel like an incredibly gullible idiot if I followed teleological reasoning as the basis of my belief system, but there is no justification for firing someone teaching a course on Catholicism just because he used that incredibly irrational mode of thinking to communicate a political view held by the church. If anything, he should be applauded for doing a public service by demonstrating firsthand how irresponsibly such a means of reasoning can be used.
 
Shai Gar said:
No such thing as natural morals, let alone that morality is in any way a "law".
Any "Natural Law" is unbreakable in any way. Natural Laws are also known as Scientific Laws.

Those three sentences alone disprove his bullshit.
Click to expand...

Only if people accept the premises of your reasoning.
 
My reasoning is undebatable.

Except for people who believe in unicorns creating the universe by punching their horn through a golf ball. Because someone wrote a book saying so.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top