[Crossposted on “Alas” and on “TADA.”]
An adjunct professor who taught courses on Catholicism at the University of Illinois has lost his teaching job there, and he claims it is a violation of his academic freedom.
Kenneth Howell was told after the spring semester ended that he would no longer be teaching in the UI’s Department of Religion. The decision came after a student complained about a discussion of homosexuality in the class in which Howell taught that the Catholic Church believes homosexual acts are morally wrong.
One thing that makes this story interesting is that we can actually read the email Howell sent his class, which prompted the complaint (which we can also read).
My initial reaction, upon reading this story, was to think the U of I was wrong to fire Howell (technically, Howell wasn’t fired — he was just not asked to return).
After all, the Catholic Church does believe homosexual acts are wrong. A professor should be able to describe the Church’s arguments in a course about Catholicism. And Howell sounds very agreeable when he says things like this:
Howell said he was presenting the idea that the Catholic moral teachings are based on natural moral law, and the Catholic understanding of what that means.
“My responsibility on teaching a class on Catholicism is to teach what the Catholic Church teaches,” Howell said. “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.”
There’s an obvious free speech value in professors being able to state controversial and disliked opinions without being fired. And, as well, an educational value in students encountering a variety of views, including views that I hope most students disagree with.
So Howell’s firing was unjustified, right?
I’m not sure.
1) We don’t actually know that Howell was fired (or not asked back) because of the student complaint. That one event follows another doesn’t prove that one event caused the other.
2) Howell’s account is disputed. Howell claims to run a classroom in which students are encouraged to disagree with Howell’s own views. On the other hand, the letter of complaint claimed Howell “would preach (not teach) his ideology to the class …the teacher allowed little room for any opposition to Catholic dogma.” If that claim is true, then U of I is entirely justified in not asking Howell to return.
Of course, I have no idea if the claim is true or not.
3) Judging from the one example of his teaching we can see — the email — Howell is arrogant, hypocritical, ignorant, and a bad teacher. As PZ says, “I think it entirely reasonable to boot Kenneth Howell out of UI because he’s not very bright and doesn’t meet the intellectual standards I expect of UI professors.”
In his email, Howell wrote:
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.
In context, it’s clear that Howell considers himself to be someone who is ready to make judgments, based on what I can only assume he considers to be his own “extensive research into homosexuality.” Which is laughable, because Howell also wrote:
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.
So Howell is plainly an ignoramus. But worse: He’s the kind of arrogant know-nothing who believes he knows a lot, and presents myths to students as if they were facts. And he presents a terrible example of scholarship for students to emulate (i.e., “a physician has told me” — now there’s a valid academic source!).
If this email is a fair representation of Howell’s abilities as a teacher, then it’s likely that his students become more ignorant, and worse scholars, because they took his class. Frankly, if that’s why Howell was let go, then the only thing I’d ask is “what took them so long?”
The wackiest thing (well, one of the wackier things) is that, prior to the absurd nonsense Amp quotes, Howell claims:
You’d think he’d might strive harder to observe REALITY. Or is REALITY different from reality?
This letter doesn’t merit firing on moral grounds – it is of course Howell’s responsibility to teach various influential points of view, many of which are wrong. It does merit firing on competence grounds.
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.”
Wow.
If the email is typical then he should be not asked back because he’s a bad teacher and not up to the standards of UI. I’d say that if he were advocating the opposite view as well. The email suggests poor teaching technique on a number of levels and I wouldn’t want that in a professor at a university I was in charge of. So I wouldn’t ask him back. OTOH if he already had tenure I would say that this is not the sort of thing that is anywhere near bad enough to get tenure pulled. So, mixed view: they were right to fire him but it should go no further.
OTOH if he already had tenure I would say that this is not the sort of thing that is anywhere near bad enough to get tenure pulled
I don’t even know about that. To pick a few howlers:
This is a basic misunderstanding of utilitarianism. In any form I’ve ever heard it expounded, each viewpoint is treated equally. Using a cost-benefit analysis to work out what’s best for you personally and ignoring everyone else isn’t “utilitarianism”, it’s egoism.
So he allows that a standard of “informed consent” rules out a case of a child consenting to sex, but then says it doesn’t rule out a dog consenting with sex? How can that be the case? A dog is surely less informed than a human.
This is a total non sequitur. I’m trying to reconstruct the logic here, but I’m having trouble. It seems to be something like: in reality, men and women’s sex organs are complementary in that one of their primary functions involves penis-in-vagina sex; morality should respond to reality; the appropriate response is to mandate that penis-in-vagina sex is the only permissible sort of sex. There must be some hefty additional premises to make that work, and I can’t work out what they are. But it’s only in terms of procreation that the penis and vagina are uniquely complementary, and some serious extra work needs to be done to make only procreative sex permissible. If sex for pleasure is permissible, all sorts of body parts are complementary – penis and anus, tongue and clitoris, whatever works. And non-procreative sex is manifestly part of nature: see the bonobo, or almost any animal.
This is not an argument; it is a series of claims, mostly dubious, strung together with some bad inferences. It’s also subject to obvious reductios. “Walking” has as much claim to be the inherent function of my legs as “procreation” does of my penis and testes. Do I, by encouraging activities that violate this basic meaning (kicking the door open when my hands are full, playing soccer), deny something essential about my humanity? Obviously not. So why are my sex organs special? It is extremely suspect that people who hold “natural law” theories are so much more concerned about the “misuse” of sex organs than they are about the “misuse” of every other body part.
Bad argument like this would be troubling from an undergraduate. From a PhD, it’s baffling.
(apologies, blog-ministrators, for the length of this comment)
“He’s the kind of arrogant know-nothing who believes he knows a lot, and presents myths to students as if they were facts. ”
If you were interested, this is actually called the Dunning-Kruger Effect. Literally it means that people who are stupid are, by the very basis of their stupidity, unable to gauge their own stupidity.
@4: Good reasons for denying tenure but if he’d somehow already gotten it then not reasons for withdrawing tenure. Also, to be fair, he may generally be a reasonably good teacher who just massively screwed up this time. Though, as you point out, some of the errors are egregious enough to fair an undergraduate and in a professor they are…grounds for firing.
I guess I should thank him for clearing that up for me, lol. Who knew that my body isn’t REAL because of various medical interventions.
I’m sure this guy is entirely logically consistent and is also against eyeglasses, contacts and LASIK. Because if God wanted us to see, He would have made that part of REALITY and we can’t just go modifying ourselves in whatever way we want.
Also, oral sex was invented by Bill Clinton and certainly doesn’t date back to pre-history. Hence, all sexual activity before Baby Boomers was all missionary position PIV, in order to make babies.
(I guess I should note that I did years of research into homosexual sex. For scholarly purposes of course.)
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.
Ok, Howell’s not a biologist, but really, this is a severe misunderstanding of human sexuality. As should be evident by, for example, the fact that people have sex even when they’re not in esterus, human sexuality is NOT just about reproduction. At least as important, possibly more important to a species as social as H sapiens, is the social aspect: sex has emotional overtones, allows bonding between individuals, and provides entertainment during boring periods. Saying that sex is all about reproduction demonstrates a profound lack of understanding of human anatomy, physiology, and social dynamics. Troubling, to say the least.
Utilitarians also don’t hold consent as the ultimate arbiter of acceptability. They hold utility (hence the name). So, a consistent utilitarian could believe that certain rapes were acceptable if the total benefit outweighed the costs. A classic example would be a case where the victim would be unconscious during; would not be physically harmed (no stds, no pregnancy), and would find no evidence afterwards. There are not many cases like this — but in this case, a utilitarian would believe that the rape was acceptable.
Well yeah. He’s Catholic, and the Catholic understanding of sexual matters is profoundly dysfunctional. It’s anti-science, anti-pleasure, and based on dogma, rather than reality.
It’s sad, too, because there was a time when Catholic thought and philosophy was profoundly intellectual.
As a part-time Utilitarian, I feel compelled to comment. Though as a general matter, your summary is true, the most popular Utilitarian position is that it produces more utility (for all) for us to live in a society in which bodily autonomy is respected than one in which it is not.
J. S. Mill, in On Liberty, wrote a defense of free speech from this position … not that we have a ‘right’ to free speech, but that it’s better for everyone if everyone is free to say what he likes.
—Myca
Following up on what Myca said: most utilitarians these days are preference utilitarians, who define “utility” in terms of preference satisfied. Since on any reasonable weighting a preference not to be raped would outweigh a preference for immediate sexual satisfaction, utilitarians can comfortably refuse to sanction rape in any circumstances.
There are so many things I want to know this guy’s opinion on. Heterosexual anal sex, for a start, and observations of same-sex sexual acts in animals other than humans…
However, his quadruply flawed teaching – that all homosexuals are gay men, that only gay men have anal sex, that all sex between gay men is anal sex, and that anal sex is TOTALLY DAMAGING – is pretty similar to what I heard from my sex ed teacher. It’s like there’s this whole swathe of culture that computes “queer”=”two men having anal sex” without ever putting any actual thought or, god forbid, research into this equation.
It’s ironic because the etymology of the name ‘catholic’ means universal/general.
I read a bit of the article on wiki about catholicism. It seems they base the religion’s growth based on baptism. I personally wouldn’t bet on it. I was baptised by tradition (ie everyone does it), not belief. I’m not catholic now, I’m agnostic. But they wouldn’t know now, would they? I could say I’m ethnically Catholic (French and Irish people, of decent, overwhelmingly are) the way Jewish people are ethnically, but that’s about it.
It’s interesting to read the comments that suggest he should be fired because of his faulty logic and poorly-drawn conclusions. I don’t necessarily disagree, but his viewpoints must be shared by thousands and thousands of faculty members throughout the country–certainly by many Catholic faculty, but also by public school faculty as well.
I always find “natural law” reasoning to be laughable and weird, but it obviously has a lot of adherents. Either we have to accept that there must be some logical, non-fallacious reasoning by which to conclude that gay sex is morally wrong, or we have to accept that a huge percentage of American educators really ought to be fired because of the failure of their logic.
Phil: I don’t think this letter would indicate incompetence in any discipline. For a philosophy teacher, though, an inability to construct a decent argument is surely fatal.
The professor in his letter refers to empathy as being more of a “I like this person” and a “I don’t like this person” being the opposite. I think that’s pretty offtrack, even for someone like me who isn’t capable of expressing much empathy (at least, I understand what it means, unlike him).
Empathy refers to an ability or feeling that comprehends the pain and joy of others relative the other’s position. Sympathy is being able to draw from one’s own experience in order to mentally compare and thus associate how the person’s feeling with one’s own past experience (of say trauma) in a similar if not exact situation. I can do sympathy fine.
His examples seem to refer to empathy as something you associate with acts and people to determine right and wrong (morality).
I think empathy is more something you associate with people’s positions relative harm (and other more positive positions) in under to understand how *I* would feel about it, if it happened to me in the same circumstances. It can be used to determine if action x done against person y (whom we are jauging empathy with) is outrageous or just slightly annoying, and if it should stand or the law against overturned (think DOMA and DADT for example). Empathy is better for cost-benefit analysis in many cases, and can reveal bigotry in a way one can understand. Not that it can always bring about positive change, but it can help understand, which in turn, helps bring change.
Note that empathy doesn’t necessary judge the fairness of laws. It can judge relative fairness (how is this person fairing relative to me), but not absolute.
If anyone else can add on this analysis, I know I haven’t fully explored it, but I’m out of ideas this morning.
You know, offensive and specious as I find a lot of what is in Howell’s email, I have to say that unless there is some evidence either that students suffered real harm for disagreeing with his views–in their grades, in how they were treated in the classroom, etc.–or that Howell’s views on homosexuality, or sexuality in general, created a hostile classroom environment in which it was impossible for gay students, or any other identifiable group of students, to learn, then I don’t think the email alone is grounds for not asking him back as an adjunct instructor, especially given that he’d been teaching for nine years and that he’d been cited for excellence. In other words, it’s not like he was an unknown quantity to the university; someone somewhere was paying attention to what he was doing in the classroom.
I do find troubling that the legal organization he is working with, the Alliance Defense Fund, defines its goal as “provid[ing] the resources that will keep the door open for the spread of the Gospel through the legal defense and advocacy of religious freedom, the sanctity of human life, and traditional family values” not because there is anything wrong with that goal per se, but because it makes me wonder about Howell’s goals as a teacher. If his goal in the classroom is, explicitly, to spread the Gospel, that would be a problem for me, but I see no evidence of this in the news article Amp linked to.
Noted philosopher Brian Leiter comments; his take on this is pretty much the same as mine, that sacking somebody for believing that same-sex sex is immoral is a violation of academic freedom, but that the e-mail is strong evidence of incompetence, and we still do not know how Howell taught:
Richard–
“or that Howell’s views on homosexuality, or sexuality in general, created a hostile classroom environment in which it was impossible for gay students […] to learn”
I was not in his classroom, and I am not a gay man (you know, the ones who perform [commit?] the “injurious” acts–although certainly straight men, and women, and gay women, and all other stripes of sexuality also have anal and oral sex, which is what I assume he was referring to). However, as a gay woman, I would have been extremely uncomfortable in that class knowing his views on gays, period. As a white woman, I would have been extremely uncomfortable had he expressed views like this about interracial sex–which certainly would not have been unheard of not that long ago. Uncomfortable to the point that I would have been unable to learn.
I am a student at a moderately conservative, private, nominally Catholic (founded by nuns, Catholic for years, now officially non-secular but there are still nuns on the board, etc) college. If something like this were sent out to the students, even in the religion department, it would be considered unacceptable. He is not a doctor, and yet he is pontificating about what “a physician” told him is medically dangerous? I’m pretty sure I can find a many more physicians who disagree. He is outside his purview as a religion/philosophy instructor and is pushing his personal (NOT the Catholic Church’s; he isn’t saying “the Church says…”) views–which happen to be, if not hateful, certainly hurtful–on students. All the students, not one; I originally thought this was an email exchange with one student, which is clearly different, speech-wise.
In addition, as the daughter of a professor (not at my school, thank god), I’m well aware that instructors have been not asked back for reasons much flimsier than this. He doesn’t have tenure, and if he ever wants to get it, anywhere, he might be well-advised to simply admit he made a mistake. And publish. Or, I guess, get a job at a religious school (is Liberty University hiring?) that won’t care about his bigotry and will in fact celebrate him as a martyr, and proof that the Commie Left doesn’t *really* care about free speech…
(Not to mention his grasp of utilitarianism seems sketchy, even to me. Where are Bentham and Mill and the greatest good? My religion/philosophy 102 professor would have a heart attack. )
Double post. Sorry.
Abby Spice:
Just to be clear: I do not disagree with a single thing you say and, if you had been in his class and you had filed a formal complaint against him–which an email on behalf of an anonymous third party is not–that would have constituted (ETA: actionable) evidence; and, assuming an investigation demonstrated the validity of your complaint–and my assumption is that it likely would have–then I would have no problem with the college firing him.
However, as someone who teaches at an institution where academic freedom came under serious and pretty high profile attack–including court cases, etc.–from the right, and as someone who has served on my department’s hiring-firing committee (the governance structure at my school gives faculty quite a lot of power that they don’t have at other schools) when we had to deal with a faculty member who was creating a hostile classroom environment around the issue of race, I am very conscious of the need to protect and adhere to due process for all faculty. As an adjunct, Howell may not have been
legallycontractually entitled to due process, but that doesn’t mean it is not disturbing that–as far as we know–he didn’t get it.While I’ve found the conversation on this website to be illuminating, I think that the general glee in being able to lynch this guy has become apparent. I feel the need to chime in, beginning with initial apologies for the length of my post.
First, we will establish that I am a Catholic, which gives me obvious interest in defending Dr. Howell. Take that as you will, since we all have our personal agendas.
Second, I’ll agree that Dr. Howell’s email — taken as a singularity — does not express the best thought of which he was capable.
Yet the first mistake we make is taking Howell’s email and treating it as a singularity, or even expecting it to be something other than a personal email. Howell was clearly referring to issues already discussed in his course. So unless you can establish the context of this email, it is difficult to judge it so harshly.
Our second mistake it to assume that this email is the only public record of Howell’s teaching ability. A quick search on Howell reveals not only multiple teaching awards and high student rankings in the last few years, but a University website that brags of his academic abilities. Had you done a bit of research, you’d see that this man was no shlock.
I will add further evidence: my younger sister — along with several friends — are all former students of Howell’s. They tell me that Howell always had a group of dedicated Catholics in his class, but that the majority of his classes were populated with those who disagreed with his personal beliefs. This did not give him the atmosphere with which to generate a bully pulpit. His reputation is of being fair and thorough, and this reputation (my hearsay evidence) is demonstrated in his numerous teaching awards.
To everyone concerned, why wasn’t the student’s complaint email scrutinized by a single person? It’s really a laughable document.
Now a few individual responses:
@Phil — Why is natural law reasoning “weird?” Is it that “weird” to assume (for instance) that vaginal intercourse is somehow more normal than anal sex? What I find to be “werid” is this biological democracy that people are trying to push, despite what (as Howell expresses) goes against the natural order.
@Myca — You write: “Well yeah. He’s Catholic, and the Catholic understanding of sexual matters is profoundly dysfunctional. It’s anti-science, anti-pleasure, and based on dogma, rather than reality.”
I disagree profoundly, and your statement shows that you know nothing of Catholic thought. I am in a devout Catholic marriage (without contraception) where both partners have read heavily on the subject of Catholic sexology. Our beliefs in the matter lead not to hang-ups or dysfunction, but have rather deepened our mutual self-understanding. I find that “pleasure” is a word which falls short of our general experience, which is mutually-derived ecstasy.
@Abby Spice: As a Catholic, I found about 95% of classrooms I’ve attended over numerous degrees to be hostile to my worldview. Most were so hostile that I was afraid to openly disagree. I’ve also been in numerous classrooms where they gay agenda was peddled as a foregone conclusion with which only idiots would disagree. I’ve been proselytized to more times than I can count, yet emerged the better for it. Therefore I don’t feel for you, not one bit.
With profound apologies for length and thankfulness for being able to air my opinion on the matter,
-Mark
Mark, I remain agnostic on exactly what happened. We just don’t know yet.
That said, it is clear from Dr. Howell’s own account that something changed this past year. According to statements of Howell’s I’ve read in the press, he found this year’s group of students far more skeptical of his teachings, and objecting a lot more, than students have in prior years.
Assuming that’s true, there are two basic possibilities. Either the group of students he had this year are radically different from prior years; or his teaching has suffered a significant decline since prior years. At this point, we don’t know which possibility is true (although the email at least lends credibility to the possibility that, whatever he was in the past, he’s not a very smart teacher now), but we can’t determine which one is true by referencing his successes as a teacher years ago.
(Actually, a third possibility is that both are true; that is, this group of students happened to be very different from those of prior years, and Howell’s teaching has significantly declined.)
Finally, Howell’s email was indeed “something other than a personal email.” It was composed and sent to his students as part of teaching the class. It’s not like this was a leaked private email between two friends; he composed the email intending it to be a teaching tool read by all of his students. You’re right that we can’t assume that the email represents all of his class, but it is part of his class, and it’s not unreasonable that he be criticized for it.
Wait, someone got lynched? That’s really terrible. We need to organize action against that.
If instead you mean someone lost his job, then that may also be horrible, but dude, it’s not the same thing.
Because I have much lower expectations for student emails than I do for an email composed by a Professor as a teaching tool to be read by his entire class. Do you really think that’s unreasonable?
Wow, the economics 101 class at your university must be very weird. “Today, class, I’ll be demonstrating how to draw supply and demand curves, and by the end of class you should be able to draw them yourselves. Also, gay sex is great.”
I just don’t find this statement credible, unless you’ve been deliberately seeking out classes you’d find hostile. The large majority of classes just don’t have any content about Catholicism or homosexuality.
I won’t answer for Phil, but for myself. I didn’t touch the concept of Natural Law before in this thread or elsewhere.
To me something is natural is it occurs in nature.
You can’t say there is an IDEAL stats of affair called natural law where certain things that occur in nature are better than others. Why? Because we don’t know the ‘purpose’ of things.
Say for example, a tree:
Propositions explaining its existence:
1) It simply exists
2) It provides oxygen for non-chlorophyll-based lifeforms, who need oxygen to survive, and exists only for that
3) It exists to be transformed into wood for heating purposes, building purposes, or transformed further into paper for literary purposes
4) It exists to provide shade for other lifeforms
I can’t know WHY it exists, so I go with 1), it’s the simpler explanation and goes with Occam’s Razor.
You can’t know WHY someone or something exists by tautologically deducing from its effects that are visible (ie claiming genitals are for reproduction only). That’s backwards reasoning.
We have a certain drive to seek pleasure and to flee pain (and we adapt our cognitive senses with our experience). Much pleasure is derived from erogenous zones being stimulated, or even being mentally stimulated by other actions (main reason why BDSM exists). That some of those erogenous zones are conducive to reproduction (and those aren’t the ONLY pleasure centers) shows we can experience pleasure in non-reproductive ways.
Evo-psych, which can fall into eugenics sometimes but not always, tries to find reasons for behavior and cognition in today’s world. It has for hypothesis that reproduction is the sole and unique measure of fitness (that non-reproducting organisms are failures as organisms), but it can’t know, at all.
Sure, having a finite lifespan means we have to reproduce to some extent if we want the human race to continue on. Not meaning that those who don’t are bad. Since our replacement rate globally is above 1 (population continues to increase), more reproduction isn’t needed. What we got now is fine as is…and already, maintaining current population isn’t necessary a good goal outside financially (for a government, its bad if pop falls, for humanity maybe not).
Even those who reproduce very oftenly have non-reproductive sex of many kinds. The misguided Christian church (not just Catholics) have judged masturbation and all forms of non-reproductive sex as pathological, leading to having all non-reproductive non-normative sex labeled first perversions and now paraphilias, as mental illnesses, pathologies, “bad things”.
With no reasoning other than “but we need more children!” If you want more children, you’re free to produce them yourselves, don’t force billions to have them for you.
The “gay agenda” is the same as the “interracial agenda”. So yeah, I find it weird when people disagree with the inherent worth of gay, lesbian and bisexual people, their rights and their right to happiness, while cheerfully enjoying it themselves. A bit hypocritical no?
Are you also against the “transgender agenda”? Cause most homophobic people also end up being transphobic, or even thinking the two are one-and-the-same.
I know nothing of Catholic thought? No, that’s untrue. I disagree with it deeply, and I think that it’s less in-tune with natural law theory than it thinks it is.
In specific, I think that the Catholic Church’s teachings on Natural Law are in conflict with their teachings on abstinence, marriage, and monogamy. Now, this conflict is usually resolved by saying, “Oh, when we referred to the ‘natural function’ of something, we meant the ‘natural-function-as-defined-by-God,'” which is all well and good, but then it’s just a divine command argument … which is fine, as long as you accept the underlying premises, but worse than useless if you don’t.
I’m glad that a Catholic understanding of sexuality has deepened your relationship with your wife! That’s really wonderful. I would suggest, though, that your experiences are not universal, and that sexual dysfunction and shame are not-uncommon results. We have quite a few personal accounts testifying to just that.
This applies, of course to GLBTQQ folks, since Catholic doctrine is pretty hostile to any sort of non-heterosexual sexuality, but I think it also applies to even heterosexual folks in many situations. For example, I think that their teachings on the necessary celibacy of priests not only contradict Natural Law, but also lead, inevitably, to the rape of children and the scandal the Church now faces.
Now, we can discuss whether or not abstinence before marriage, priestly celibacy, or compulsory heterosexuality serves a useful purpose (prevention of disease or premarital pregnancy, in the case of abstinence before marriage, for example), but these are utilitarian arguments. We can have them, but they’re not about Natural Law.
—Myca
Indeed, we cannot assume that this e-mail is representative. But we also can’t assume it’s the only black mark against him. From this news article:
Obviously that is only one perspective. But there may be more here than we’re seeing; almost certainly is, in fact. And the Senate’s Committee on Academic Freedom and Tenure is investigating to see if there was a breach of Howell’s academic freedom. So hopefully we shall know more soon.
I was taught religion in elementary school (then a Catholic public school). In high school, I was taught *about* religion, without the teacher taking a “this is right, this is wrong” position.
I learned about Buddhism (technically not a religion, more a philosophy, but meh), Hinduism, Islam, various pagan religions and Christianity (which I knew a lot about already anyways, having been taught in it).
The teacher didn’t condemn belief in reincarnation, didn’t condemn homosexuality (even if, in practice, most great religions do) and didn’t condone any one religion over others. Not her role.
The difference between my elementary and high school classes was that I was expected to agree in elementary, but expected to form reflexive thoughts about it in high school. To think it through. To understand it, not blindly accept it.
I think this is important enough that it needs restating. If he was teaching his religion as objectively true, he was overreaching.
I am ambivalent on whether or not he needed to be fired. The cavalier way in which he alienated GLBTQQ students speaks to his unsuitability to teaching, just as it would if he sent out a mass email on why black people are genetically inferior. Additionally, his summary of the Utilitarian position is shitty and stupid. On the other hand, I do believe that academic freedom is important, and that saying something offensive probably shouldn’t be enough, as a one-off, to cost someone a teaching job.
So I don’t know. I’d need more info.
What I find interesting is that, since he was an at-will employee, many Conservatives are defending him in a position in which they wouldn’t defend any other at-will employee. I mean, let’s say I march into my boss’s office right now and tell him his religion is stupid and he’s a mindless sheep for believing it. I’m an at-will employee. When he fires me, is that wrong?
—Myca
Finally, Mark, I would encourage you to respond to the test we have up on Political Attitudes here.
Since I think you’re to the right of most commenters here, I’d be interested in seeing your score.
—Myca
Thanks for your kind responses. I realize that I am in the minority here and will not convince anybody, but I ask to be able to take issue with a few statements. I apologize in advance for numerous lengthy responses, as many statements have been directed at me which call for a response.
First, @Ampersand: In this case you cannot have that much lower of a standard for the student’s complaint, as it was the material supposedly used to justify the release of this professor. Should not the complaint at least be sensible and well-formulated? The email clearly shows that the whistle-blower had no concept of what was being really discussed, and that the student in question never even took one of Howell’s classes.
As to my own academic experience: being a conservative thinker in the Fine Arts is never a welcome position. I stand by my statement.
@Schala — We can’t compare an analysis of the function of human sexuality with the purpose of the existence of a tree because a.)human beings are conscious beings with free wills. and b.) The tree doesn’t make decisions regarding its reproductive capacity. Furthermore, we CAN know the meaning of certain things through causation. We also cannot compare human sexual patterns with animal sexual patterns for the same reason. Natural Law is concerned with right action; that sex between spouses lead to reproduction is a foregone good for the species. That it lead to pleasure is an accident of the act, but one that intelligent beings can maximize for enjoyment, release of stress, and the shared expression of love. That such an act can maintain adequate meaning and a healthy balance outside of the marital embrace is what is in question here. The Catholic position is intellectually solid, as a thorough reading will reveal. Yet when one considers all available research on the subject, the healthy malleability of sexual expression is far from a foregone conclusion.
I will gently suggest that you do not understand the idea behind Catholic sexual morality, as you lump it together with other “Christian” notions of sexual morality, which can unfortunately differ wildly.
Regarding interracial marriages and gay “marriages,” you cannot make such an assumption, as this is also an error of equivocation. I also take exception to the term “homophobe,” as I have never met one. I have seen claustrophobes go into convulsions and arachnophobes scream at the sight of a spider, yet have never seen a homosexual receive such a callous action. A phobia is a psychological condition, not a consciously chosen moral position based on evidence.
Furthermore, nobody is questioning the worth of homosexual persons. Once again, you show yourself to have a skewed vision of what Catholic teaching on this subject really says.
You know, I figured this sort of response would come up. First, I’m going to pretend that you made your argument without being unnecessarily rude (“I don’t feel for you, not one bit”). Second, when is the last time a Catholic was denied something in America on th basis of his or her Catholicism? Housing, a job, marriage, children–these are all things that can be denied to gays simply because we are gay. When was the last time a Catholic was attacked or brutally murdered because they were Catholic? When is the last time you had to worry about holding your loved one’s hand as you walked down the street, lest you be beaten to death?
Legally, you are protected. Antidiscrimination laws and clauses always include religion. Socially, you are protected. The general public strongly, overwhelmingly, wildly supports your right to marry, to have children, to serve your country, to do anything anyone else does, and to walk around holding hands.
Yes, academia is a more accepting place than most (I’ll refrain from discussing the possible connection between being educated and
not being a bigotbeing accepting). But the rest of the country–the rest of the world–is not, and once I leave that classroom, I am a target. You, sir, are not, and if being in “hostile” classrooms, where you are forced to hear the “gay agenda” (oh, are you up on it? I didn’t get my mandatory copy this month, so I don’t know which innocent children we’ll be trying to recruit, or which particular marriages we’re planning to destroy) and be “proselytized” to is the worst it gets for you with regard to bigotry, well, I would apologize, but I’m too busy laughing and crying all at once.PS Don’t throw “lynch” around like that. It degrades the original meaning of the word, and what happened to yet another group of people who were horrifically mistreated and discriminated against, and makes you look either uneducated or heartless or both.
This is a reply to Mark @33:
You wrote that “Natural Law is concerned with right action; that sex between spouses lead to reproduction is a foregone good for the species. That it lead to pleasure is an accident of the act, but one that intelligent beings can maximize for enjoyment, release of stress, and the shared expression of love.”
My question is regarding why, under Natural Law, when sex leads to both reproduction and to pleasure, one is its raison d’etre, and the other is an accident.
@Myca
There is no research to suggest that celibacy is either an unnatural choice or that it leads to priestly pedophilia. All research suggests that pedophilia in the Priesthood is caused by (gasp!) pedophiles. Also the majority of proven cases involve not children, but young adolescent men, which is known as Ephebophilia (and incidentally pushes the blame closer to many homosexual Priests.) That such men would enter a career path which puts them closer to vulnerable children should be surprising to anybody, as pedophiles are quite well organized. The Church has taken many steps in preventing such folks from entering seminaries.
So no, celibacy does not make straight men into pedophiles.
Mark, you can stop apologizing for the length of your comments. I appreciate your consideration, but if they get too long, I’ll let you know. :-D
As for the student’s complaint, if what’s in the email is the only or primary basis for letting Howell go, then he shouldn’t have been let go. I thought this was made clear in my original post (and so your implication that I had ignored this point wasn’t fair); but maybe it wasn’t clear.
@Abby spice
I will take gentle exception to a few of your assumptions. Firstly, I will present that marriage is defined and protected by the State because of its value to society, not because it is a “right.” I will also submit that many (including myself) see gay “marriage” as an oxymoron, as gays cannot “marry.” The word marriage is a strong term, involving the melding of complementary parts on a biological, psychological, and (many would say) spiritual level. That many folks would oppose gay “marriage” on a civil level should not be surprising, as it is not possible. That those from a theistic religion based on Natural Law would oppose it should surprise nobody.
I will also suggest that had the question remained at the level of “Civil Unions,” the left would have won such rights a long time ago. Most die-hard conservatives and religious fundamentalists I know are willing to concede this point on compassion. People oppose the redefinition of marriage because it does away with complementarity and makes all social and sexual unions equal, without either an adequate argument to support such a radical redefinition and without the studies to prove that it would not be detrimental to society (for those coming from a utilitarian perspective.)
And at @Myca — I’m quite sure that I come to the right of most of you on this quiz, but probably not as far as you’d think. Engage a Catholic on economics, immigration, charity, or academic freedom, and you’d be surprised how “liberal” we can be.
@Ampersand — you did indeed cover it, and I stand corrected on this.
Nice sidestep of my entire argument, Mark, which was not at all about gay marriage but rather about how your discomfort as a Catholic in classrooms is so utterly not even slightly comparable to my discomfort as a gay person in the entire world. Very clever.
Mark, regarding your comment #36, the Church has, beyond any doubt, gone to great efforts to cover up for and to protect priests who sexually abuse minors. That, to me, seems like the Church’s main sin on this issue.
I’ve always assumed that a respected occupation that requires celibacy will naturally attract a disproportionate number of people who have sexual urges they believe are wrong and want to resist.
I don’t have any evidence for this, but it seems like a likely outcome. For one thing, the opportunity cost of celibacy for someone who is trying to resist being sexual is much higher than the opportunity cost of celibacy for someone who really wants to have socially approved sex.
In addition to that factor, insofar as people perceive that the Church covers up for and protects sexually abusive priests, the occupation will logically attract those who wish to be sexual abusers.
This is no way excuses the actions of priests who sexually abuse minors. But it does suggest an explanation for why this seems to be more common in the priesthood than in other occupations.
I’m going to focus on your first claim at the moment.
Natural Law theory suggests that there is a ‘right’ and a ‘wrong’ way for humans to act based on human nature, and that that human nature is knowable through the order of nature.
Therefore, since PIV sex leads to reproduction and the continuation of the species, it’s more ‘natural’, and therefore more moral, than anal sex.
Humans are a thinking, reasoning, rational species, therefore it is ‘natural’, and therefore more moral, for us to reason than it is for us to act in the moment, like animals.
This same line of reasoning applies to vows of celibacy. Priests and nuns have penii and vaginae. They’re not using them, which is like not using your reason as a human. Humans are beings which engage in sexual activity and reproduce, so refusing to engage in sexual activity and reproduce goes against our nature.
Now, of course, there are Catholic answers to this, but they generally (or the ones I’ve heard usually, anyhow) boil down to ‘God said’.
—Myca
I’ve gotta agree with Abby, Mark; you seem to have missed responding to the primary thrust of her comment’s argument. Which is fair — you’re not required to respond to her — but it’s also fair of her to point out that you’ve left her main argument untouched.
As for same-sex marriage (SSM), in civil law, there’s no doubt at all that people have a legal right to marry in many circumstances (there have been several Supreme Court rulings on the matter). What’s at issue is if that already acknowledged right applies to same-sex couples. Which brings up, of course, the right to equal treatment under the law.
That you may choose not to acknowledge same-sex marriages where they are legal isn’t relevant. No one wants a law saying that Mark personally recognizes SSM as legitimate (although if you’re an employer, then you might be forced to recognize SSM to the minimal degree necessary to comply with nondiscrimination laws). The question is one of equal or unequal treatment by the government; regardless of what you choose to acknowledge, the government should acknowledge same-sex marriages equally.
I disagree. There were many years, before the Massachusetts Supreme Court made SSM a live issue, in which die-hard conservatives and religious fundamentalists could have come out in favor of “civil unions.” During that time, conservatives and fundamentalists passionately opposed civil unions. (And even now, many still oppose civil unions.)
So we’re left with two possibilities:
1) Conservatives and fundamentalists suddenly discovered compassion for gays shortly after May of 2004, after never having shown any such compassion before.
Or, 2) Once full marriage equality became a realistic and immediate prospect, in May of 2004, that shifted the playing field on this issue radically to the left. Civil unions became the “moderate” position. As a result, as part of positioning themselves to oppose same-sex marriage, many conservatives and fundamentalists became much more open to the prospect of civil unions than they had previously been.
Since I haven’t noticed any big increase in compassion among conservatives in the past six years (quite the opposite, if you look at issues like extending unemployment benefits), I think that the second explanation is more plausible.
Or, as SeanH said upthread, in reference to the double-standards of Natural Law theories:
—Myca
@Everyone: Perhaps a clarification is in order here, as I think folks have a fundamental misunderstanding of Catholic morality in regards to sexuality. Rather than answer each objection in turn (which would spam this wall), I’ll leave the statement below as my parting words.
The teaching of the Catholic Church on sexuality is a holistic approach based on scripture and natural law, while taking into constant consideration the (scant) prevailing scientific research on the topic which is not politically motivated (the “agenda problem,” as they say.) The modern result of this is the so-called “Theology of the Body.” What I am about to write is a VERY bare-bones explanation… this all goes far deeper, and I’m sure that I’ll miss something.
1.) Catholics believe that the primary purpose of sexuality is not reproduction. Nor is it pleasure. Nor is it an expression of love.
2.) Rather, Catholics believe that a moral sexual expression holds all of the above to be equal, and that all (pleasure, love, and an openness to life) should be present in each sexual act.
2.5.) Based on the above criteria, only sexual union in marriage can bring about these greatest goods. All other acts are “disordered,” as they reject some aspect of this holistic approach.
3.) Catholics also believe that couples have the right to use common sense to space their children, but reject artificial contraception on both a philosophical and a scientific level.
3.5) Nobody uses the “rhythm method” anymore, since it was a joke. Among the numerous methods out there, my wife and I use the Billings Ovulation method, which is statistically just as effective as regular condom use.
4.) To get personal: When applied in my our own life, the Billings method allows for between 17-20 days of free sexual spontaneity between my wife and I. Further it puts me deeply in touch with my wife’s natural cycle, which increases not only love and understanding but also lets me be more attentive to her needs.
4.5.) The reward of a few days of abstinence per month is that my wife is free from chemical contraceptives which have a terribly damaging effect on her body (the research is clear on this), and I do not have to separate myself from my spouse with a piece of plastic.
4.7.) Furthermore (and not surprisingly to us), research shows that couples that practice such short regular periods of abstinence not only have sex more often, but maintain healthy regular sexual relationships far later into life. Sex, like the finest foods, can become boring when gorged upon. The Catholic sexual ethic helps keep things “fresh.”
5.) It is a common lie that Catholics are “not into pleasure.” Karol Wojtyla wrote that a man has the duty to pleasure his wife and bring her to orgasm whenever possible, and he codified this thinking into an extensive philosophy once he became Pope John Paul the Second.
6.) Ultimately, the Catholic sexual ethic is concerned with scripture, what can be deduced as objectively true through natural law, and what has been shown to be true through 2,000 years of pastoral experience in guiding marriages.
6.5) That the teaching often places specific attention on the woman’s role is not sexist in any way, but grows out of a consideration of love: The woman, after all, bears the greater biological consequence of sexual union, and is also more susceptible to objectification (aka “use without love”) from men. The concern in great part is to create a safe, satisfying, and love-based environment for her. Karol Wojtyla wrote scathingly of men who use and abuse women, and provided an alternative worldview to encourage the formation of good husbands.
7.) This is all an ideal, yes, but one which stands in stark contrast to the damages seen in both sexual utilitarianism (in secular society) and fundamentalist prudism (as seen in many Christian denominations as well as Islamic society.) The concern for Catholics is to build an equal partnership of complementary parts, based on a philosophy of love. This is the only sexual worldview which takes into account the meaning of life, the goodness of pleasure, the essence of love, and the specific veneration and protection of woman. As such, I adhere to it proudly.
Many of you ridiculed Dr. Howell for “not researching gay sex,” yet I somehow don’t think that any of these commentators actually have thoroughly researched the Catholic ethic of sexuality. I encourage you to do so, if only for intellectual reasons; you might be surprised at what you find.
Thanks to everyone for letting one of “my kind” in among you.
Mark:
I don’t know if you are going to respond on this thread anymore, but I need to call this out:
This statement is patently, on its face, both ignorant and profoundly offensive and it belies the measured tone you have tried to adopt in most of your comments here.
@Myca — with all due respect, Sean’s comment is ridiculous, since a penis is not a leg, and kicking is not akin to (you know what.)
You still haven’t accounted for the “celibacy makes pedophiles” argument, Myca. Furthermore, your notion that “some sex” is better than “no sex” is not a statement of natural law, but rather a prevailing social opinion. Where Celibacy is concerned, most of my Priest and seminarian friends would say: “It has its challenges, but it is an essential element of my calling, and it’s really not that big of a deal.” Celibacy is a strict discipline (not limited to Catholic circles), and it should not be surprising that our over-sexed culture would find it so shocking or draconian. Thankfully the spiritual practice will outlast the social mores of the time, as it always does.
@Abbyspice — I didn’t sidestep your argument, rather it got lost in the flood of comments directed at my statement. I will answer by saying that Catholics in a secular society are far from “comfortable” in the world on a daily basis. The leftist leanings of education, media, and popular culture as a whole are only two examples of hostile environments. We must also engage in a moment of truthful confrontation here, Abby: As I disagree wholeheartedly that your lifestyle choices are individually healthy or socially safe, I have no interest in reaffirming your lifestyle. Tolerance is one thing, but redefining marriage is a whole other issue.
Richard, thanks for catching that, I meant to respond to it as well. I can’t speak for all religions, but as a specific refutation I clearly remember being taught in Hebrew School that there are Talmudic provisions for how often a man must “please” his wife. (It was high school Hebrew School. It was optional. They had to keep us attending somehow.) Judaism, at least, values pleasure, love, and the woman.
Also, if Mark were correct, that would mean that for millennia sex was essentially meaningless, pleasureless, and one-sided. I suspect that if that were the case, the human race would have died out.
Since you practice (natural) birth control when you have sex with your wife, don’t your sex acts lack ‘an openness to life’?
Do the sex acts of infertile couples lack ‘an openness to life’ ?
If your sex acts (in which you make the conscious choice not to reproduce) are not disordered in this way, and the sex acts of infertile couples (in which reproduction is impossible) are not disordered in this way, what makes homosexual sex acts disordered in this way?
2.5 does not follow from 1 and 2. It seems perfectly possible to have sex which is pleasurable, an expression of love, and open to reproduction outside the bounds of marriage.
If this is true, though, isn’t it a powerful argument for gay marriage?
—Myca
Richard, I apologize for offending you. I am open to being corrected. That being said, I stand by the statement. I will only add this: Similar positions can be found amongst certain Christian, Judaic, and Islamic groups. I include them in my assertion, as such approaches are also (small c) “catholic.”
And yes, I am going to attempt to withdraw from the conversation, as I’ve fallen massively behind today. I have found your comments to be (mostly) edifying and educational, and thank you for the opportunity to state my piece.
I am aware of that (had I not noticed, my sex life would have suffered, although probably not as much as my football ability). I am aware, also, that you do not view the relation of the leg to its function in the same way as you view the relation of the penis to its function. What I am not clear on is why; why is the penis’s function so essential that any use of the penis not involving that function must be banned, yet the leg’s function has no such normative quality? I apologise if the answer to this question is so obvious to you that you consider the question stupid, but I don’t know it.
My goodness, how awful for you, being inundated with “leftist leanings”! The only thing worse would be actual legal barriers to you being employed, finding housing, serving your country, and having relationships and children, and, say, fairly frequently being physically harassed, beaten, and killed in America, as well as even worse in most other countries. Truly, I don’t know how you manage to survive, being forced to live in a world where someone like you is legally protected from discrimination, is allowed to serve in the military, can become president or serve on the Supreme Court, and has no fear about simply being in public. You are inspiring.
But you have no basis other than religion on which to disagree that my “choices” are individually healthy or socially safe. You have no actual science, no studies, no proof. Children of gay parents are consistently proven to be healthy and well-adjusted. Gay relationships have not destroyed society in any of the countries where they are legitimized. AIDS is not a gay disease, can be protected against, and, in any case, affects very few lesbians (really, I’m much less likely to get an STI than the average straight girl).
You are basing your arguments solely on religion, something which, last time I checked, was not supposed to be involved in creating public policy. Actually, it used to be. Remember how well that worked out for the Catholics in the colonies/America for the first couple hundred years?
Mark:
While I appreciate your concern for my feelings, it’s not about my being personally offended. It’s about the ignorance of the statement: You can find worldviews which meet the descriptive criteria you list amongst Buddhists, pagans of various sorts, Native American cultures of various sorts–just to name a few. You may choose not to see it that way because these are not monotheistic religions/cultures, but that is a matter of your perspective, not the qualities of those traditions.
Ok, one more..
@Myca — well, no, because gay couples cannot reproduce, so 2.5 does no such thing. Nor can they express full marital love, as they are dealing in a non-complementary disordered action based in objectification.
By openness to life, it is meant that no thing will be used to obstruct the natural conclusion of the sexual act. The idea here is that children are sometimes spaced, but never avoided or undesired. The desire for life must be always present.
Premarital sex cannot be based solely in love, as (assuming it is contracepted) it rejects a woman’s fertility, and (if not contracepted) risks bringing a child into being outside of a safe family environment. In both cases, egoism is present over fully-giving and committed love.
No more, folks, I have to run. If you’re really so curious/angry/confused about what you’re opposing, I suggest Wojtyla’s intellectual masterpiece, “Love and Responsibility.” You can also download the full text of the Theology of the Body, but that is several years worth of reading.
This isn’t a response. He was making a point about the incoherence and double standards of the Natural Law position as practiced by Catholicism. Either a body part has a ‘purpose’ or it doesn’t. If it has a ‘purpose’ either using that part in a way other than its ‘purpose’ denies the humanity of the individual or it doesn’t. If the principle is logical at all, it shouldn’t matter whether it’s a penis or a leg.
When you say, “a penis is not a leg,” you are making exactly the mistake SeanH was calling out. The Catholic Church is weirdly over-focused on sexual matters, and doesn’t apply the same reasoning elsewhere.
Ah, I’ll defer to Ampersand’s post #41 here, since he argues it better than I could.
No. That’s not something I’m arguing or something I’ve said. I’m arguing that celibacy violates Natural Law by refusing to make use of a natural human faculty … in the same way that acting without reason violates Natural Law.
Let me be clear. I’m not arguing against celibacy. I think that it’s mighty fine for people to have sex or not, as they choose.
I do think that the vow of chastity for priests is unnatural, anti-biblical, unhealthy, and historically of questionable origin, but whatever. Nobody’s making people join.
What I AM saying that the Catholic position on priestly celibacy is incoherent and inconsistent as regards Natural Law.
—Myca
And actually, it’s not like I’m the only one who thinks so. Here’s a post by Ray Grosswirth in which he posts ‘40 Theses on Mandated Clerical Celibacy.’
His second thesis?
—Myca
I’m bowing out. This thread has become quite triggering, and I’ve spent the last hour trying not to write a comment that either, 1) curses to a ridiculous degree or, 2) causes me to burst into tears. Perhaps I’m just not feeling as calloused as normal, but it being said that what I (might) want could never be called a marriage, or that homosexual priests are the ones preying on children (pedophilia != homosexuality) is a little too much for me. And with such polite disregard to all logic or emotional reason!
Myeh. You can’t argue with faith by its very definition. Mark has no factual basis for his opinions other than his faith in what the Church tells him is true. If he’s incapable of arguing outside that framework or you’re incapable of arguing within it (and I even have doubts here), nobody’s going to get anywhere.
Well, except to have Mark explicitly tell most of us that we’re unnatural and abnormal and incapable of love, etc.
And people like Mark wonder why we’re not with them on most things.
Myca
–As to Ampersand’s post #41, I agree entirely on every point. Ampersand is not saying that Celibacy creates pedophiles, but rather that (for numerous reasons) pedophiles may gravitate towards the Priesthood (which has celibacy as a property.)
Consider also, Myca, that a man who enters the Priesthood with pedophile intentions says nothing about Celibacy’s effect on him, since he has never intended to live celibately in the first place.
Regarding your own post, the Church is not “weirdly overfocused” on sexual organs. That is a bold-faced lie. This is an issue of practical application, not philosophical abstraction.
The use of our sexual organs has a profound effect on society as whole, both positive and negative. In our own times, society as a whole has become weirdly overfocused on sexual organs. This overfocus has naturally lead to a questioning of Catholic doctrine, and (for the benefit of Catholics and non-Catholics) alike, the Church has reaffirmed and further clarified her position.
Returning to the leg vs. penis argument. I think it’s absurd to have to explain this, but here we go: the leg is a device of locomotion — that is its purpose. The penis is an organ of reproduction. That is it’s purpose. The associated pleasure that comes with its use is a good thing in the right context, but cannot be disassociated as an isolated a separate event, since it is not. Clearly, a leg kicking (or climbing or swimming) is not the same as a penis ejaculating, and this can be argued on a moral, scientific, psychological, and sociological level. As our sexuality is bound up intimately with our perception of our own personhood, disagreements on the issue are bound to be painful.
Once again, I’d like to withdraw. As there are far better sources than little old me on this subject, I’ve already provided some reading material as a start. Be assured that I regularly read the psychology written on this subject, and I hope that I’ve shown an openness to your perspectives on the issue.
Gay couples may not be able to reproduce by one of them inserting an organ into the other and then dispatching genetic material, to meet with the other’s genetic material, etc, but then, neither can many, many infertile straight couples, who often use the same methods as gays: sperm or egg donors, surrogate mothers, adoption (and let us not forget how many children are up for adoption and often lingering in foster care due to the Church’s opposition to birth control and abortion). Indeed, gay couples have brought into the world and/or raised many children who are wonderful, productive members of society (and often straight).
Of all of the anti-gay arguments, this is, in 2010, one of the silliest.
(Also, we’re not too far from being able to take the DNA of one woman’s egg and put it into another woman’s egg, thereby creating a child who is genetically theirs. They can of course only create daughters, which some might argue isn’t such a bad thing.)
Certainly, though I would ask you to fill out that Political Attitude Test if you get a chance. The more opinions on the right we get, the better.
—Myca
Mark, the way to withdraw from a conversation is to withdraw from the conversation. Saying over and over again that you’re really leaving this time, right after you get in a few more words is not withdrawing. Instead it’s a rather ham-handed attempt to get in the last word: don’t reply to me, you guys, because I’m leaving. Actually withdrawing would mean not feeling the need to respond.
I was under the impression that the penis is a device of urination, and that its purpose is to void waste fluids from the body. Should we then assume that *all* sexual activity involving the penis (regardless of orientation) is unnatural?
Sorry, I’ve been away for a couple of days and I seem to have missed some interesting discussion.
Mark, natural law reasoning is weird because it’s a specific religious belief about non-religious beliefs. It is used by religious persons (such as Catholics) to try to get from point A to point B, using logic, without resorting to supernatural claims.
Unfortunately, “natural law” is not the same as “the laws of nature.” It’s a fake non-religious argument–if it weren’t, it would be a clear example of the is/ought fallacy. Just because a penis can be used in a vagina to reproduce doesn’t mean we ought to. The non-religious take is that we are accidents of evolution–we don’t have an obligation to propagate the species, and our body parts don’t have “purposes,” because they just happened.
“Natural Law” theory is also weird because it makes a series of arbitrary assumptions and presents these as “given.” The “purpose” of a penis is to enter a vagina to impregnate a woman. Ok. The “purpose” of a penis is also to urinate. Okay.
What if the penis is attached to an intersex person? Does it have the same “purpose?” What if the penis is attached to a gay man? Why should we make the arbitrary assumption that, just because one man’s penis is similar to another’s they must therefore have the same “purpose?” If your penis is attached to a nervous system, attached to a brain, and that brain is attached to eyes, and that penis becomes erect when the eyes see an attractive man, why make the unfounded assumption that the penis’ purpose is standardized? Why not make the assumption that the penis’ purpose, in that instance, is to be a source of pleasure with another man? Etc.
I do agree with your suggestion that anal sex and celibacy are exactly equal, morally, since they both lead to the same likelihood of reproduction.
“Closed to life” and “open to life” are two more terms that have specific Catholic meanings. They are used in argument as if they are non-religious terms, when in fact they are based on a series of supernaturalist assumptions. Ejaculating into a vagina that is not attached to a fertile uterus is somehow morally different from ejaculating in an anus only in the mind of someone who adheres to a weird, illogical philosophy.
If by “more normal” you mean “more common,” no. If you mean “more moral,” yes. If you mean “the only acceptable form of sex, even if you are naturally and intrinsically gay,” then it’s extra weird.
I responded before reading every single subsequent post; I don’t want to seem like I’m trying to draw you back in. On the other hand, I don’t mind if you respond. I would rather people with whom I disagree state their disagreements than remain silent.
I’ll let my wife know.
And yet I never see Catholics, Mormons, or anyone else espousing this sort of belief prescribing that post-menopausal women (and their husbands) must not have sex, or couples where one or both partners are infertile should not have sex, or couples should not have sex while the woman is pregnant, because it would be “disordered” to have sex when reproduction is not a possibility. I find that so odd.
As an aside: the propagation of the species is a null point. A sufficient number of humans will reproduce. It is simply not possible – or at least so ludicrously unlikely as to be indistinguishable from an impossibility – that the millions of years of evolution leading to humans in their current form could end in a decision not to reproduce, on a level great enough to threaten the species. A species that would elect not to propagate itself would not evolve in the first place.
This is not to say we can’t have valid worries about the future of our species – catastrophic climate change, thermonuclear warfare, asteroid impact – but any suggestion that we might voluntarily not reproduce is a non-starter. I don’t think this argument has been made explicitly here, but it does seem to be lurking in the background of a lot of “natural function” arguments.
While Mythago will doubtlessly lambast me for this, I’ve returned for another comment. I’d like to leave this alone, but it is difficult not to respond to fallacies.
Regarding Phil’s assertion that Natural Law requires some manner of religious belief, I present the following rebuttal written by an atheist philosopher. It does a much better job than I could:
http://americancreation.blogspot.com/2009/04/primer-on-natural-law.html
Second, to deal with Phil’s penile assertions (and I can’t believe I’m about to write this): Natural Law and the penis is rather self-evident, in that the form and function of the organ is not self-referential. Or, in other words, if (hypothetically) there were only penises in the world, its purpose would not be self-evident. The penis, by its nature, is self-evident because of the presence of the complementary female genitalia. Further explanation in this direction may be found in this short commentary, which is far from exhaustive:
http://theblackcordelias.wordpress.com/2008/05/24/natural-law-and-homosexuality-made-simple/
Both Phil and Elusis have made an invalid argument by isolated the issue of sex and reproduction. Reproduction remains only a part of the holistic equation presented by a natural-law view of human sexuality; removing it does not allow one to justify unnatural acts (in the non-relativistic perspective, of course. A relativist will do as they please.) The whole we are presenting is a unitive-procreative approach; gay sex cannot be unitive because it lacks the biological, psychological, and (some would argue) spiritual complementary parts necessary to do so.
My impression from reading all of your posts is that rather than dealing with what Natural Law IS, you are commenting on what you think it is. In such cases, I’ll leave your funny conclusions alone.
Furthermore there is a clear diversion here, and one that we’ve missed in our debate: Having an absolutist worldview along with a belief in a creator, I feel bound by natural law. To an atheist or relativist, however, the Natural Law can remain true while the person remains free to break it. This may be the unbridgeable gulf in our conversation: absolutism vs. relativism.
Natural Law and the penis is rather self-evident, in that the form and function of the organ is not self-referential. Or, in other words, if (hypothetically) there were only penises in the world, its purpose would not be self-evident.
I suppose if there were literally nothing in the world but penises (an image I find HIGHLY disturbing) then the function would not be self-evident.
The penis, by its nature, is self-evident because of the presence of the complementary female genitalia.
I would think that there are a number of virginal early adolescent boys who would disagree. One need have no experience with a vagina (or any other oriface) to realize that certain types of pressure on the penis feel good*. A hand or just an imagination (ie wet dreams) is quite enough to learn what the penis is good for besides producing urine.
Nor is PVI all there is to sex, even for heterosexuals. Men have prostates. Pressure on the prostate** can feel good as well and putting that together with the penis you get, as in PVI, complementary parts. For men whose partners don’t have penises (ie heterosexual men in relationships with cis or post-op trans women), prostheses can fulfill the same function***.
*Full disclosure: This is hearsay on my part since I don’t have and never have had a penis. However, most men I’ve been close enough to discuss such things with have been pretty convincing on the subject.
**As above: I don’t have a prostate either.
***Who, me? I, um, read about it on the internet once. Yeah, that’s it.
For what? Participating in the discussion? Feel free. If by “this” you mean “making another attempt to get the last word in and shut down disagreement by pretending I’m going to post and run,” then yes, I’m going to point that out.
I anticipate that we will now hear a jargon-laden explanation as to how low-calorie treats are in opposition to Natural Law, because the purpose of the mouth is to prepare food for digestion, not pleasure.
I’d also note that Mark’s explanation (that sex is only for reproduction, nothing more) runs contrary to the Jewish theology from which Catholicism ultimately springs, in which sexual pleasure is not merely a side effect of one’s reproductive duty, but is a positive good and, for married women, a legal right inherent in their marriage contracts; also, the command to be fruitful and multiply is binding only on men, not women (since childbirth endangers a woman’s life).
Mythago writes:
“I anticipate that we will now hear a jargon-laden explanation as to how low-calorie treats are in opposition to Natural Law, because the purpose of the mouth is to prepare food for digestion, not pleasure.
I’d also note that Mark’s explanation (that sex is only for reproduction, nothing more) ”
Mythago’s fun-poking at natural law shows an ignorance of what natural law truly is; Nor do I think he/she read my numerous comments, where the primary importance of pleasure in the natural law view of sex is underlined. Catholics love pleasure. Please, read again.
Love pleasure, and then say that pleasure can’t happen, be accompanied with love etc if the act can’t potentially lead to a baby 9 months down the road.
People can like pleasure for its own sake, without conditions attached to it.
Fulfilling one’s basic needs usually results in some amount of pleasure. Eating is pleasurable and satiation is a desirable state vs being hungry. Voiding bodily fluids can be pleasurable, especially if it is urgent, not voiding can lead to serious health complications.
Self-pleasure is pleasurable, and for many, a need they can hardly ignore for long. Sex for pleasure releases tension and stress, wether alone or with a partner (or whatever genital configuration) and doing whatever act (as long as its consented and provides pleasure to both).
Having stressed people is a problem for society, in as much as stressed people are more probable to be less productive, less polite (affects the moods of others indirectly), have higher risks for health problems (and that costs a lot to all) and may be more impulsive, in the hope of stress relief.
Wether that act leads to reproduction has no bearing at all on the stress relief of the individuals in question, yet it is for the greater good.
Mark:
I think this nails it, Mark. Your position, ultimately, is rooted in faith–as Jake said above–which is by definition beyond reason, and so there is no point in continuing to argue, really, since any discussion will end up with you making absolutist statements and taking absolutist positions that do not admit the validity of reason that is not already rooted in your faith.
And regarding mythago’s point about the difference between the Catholic and Jewish views of sex and pleasure: Judaism values sexual pleasure independently of reproduction, though it certainly values reproductive sex as well, and one knows this from the fact that a man–on whom, as mythago points out, the religious obligation to reproduce falls–is not obliged to divorce his wife if she is infertile (which would obviously prevent him from fulfilling is obligation to reproduce) and he is still obligated, religiously, to satisfy her sexually. I am not saying this to invalidate or poke holes in what you have written about the Catholic position that pleasure, love and reproduction need to be held in balance (if I understood you correctly); I just want to point out that differences do exist between the traditions, and unless you are going to claim that the orthodox Jewish position regarding sex is somehow “overly focused” on sexual organs, I think you might want to pull back a bit on the generalizations in this regard.
Also, I feel the need to say this: I will not pretend to know Natural Law well enough to argue with you about it; I can say, however, that since reason itself, the forms it takes, the purpose it serves, etc. is culturally bound–Western philosophy is not the only one there is–I imagine there could very well be alternative versions of Natural Law that admit all kinds of sexual configurations that you would reject out of hand.
Mark, I’ve got to be blunt with you. You really seem to be playing the martyr, complaining and insulting people just because they disagree with you.
If you really take this natural law concept seriously, you would honestly analyze the point that Mythago made about how the Jewish perspective on sexuality places active value on pleasure. That would actively add an interesting point to this, moreso than when you make a smug comment. Do the former, not the latter.
A question for anyone out there with philosophy training: Why is something as unnatural as someone babbling about how a body part should or shouldn’t be used refered to as “natural law”?
Mark, you have repeatedly refused to explain the difference between gay sex and infertile/menopausal/non-ovulating sex. NONE of these are “open to life.” All of them are equally lacking in your conception of proper sex because they cannot lead to procreation.
My impression from reading this thread is that while others here may not have studied Natural Law as deeply as you have, they are discussing it in a way that actually makes sense and is internally consistent. Your replies, however, have become increasingly inconsistent, and when you are called out on this, you merely make appeals to obviousness, accuse others of fallacious reasoning with no basis, and don’t address the actual inconsistencies that have been pointed out to you.
There are only two conclusions I can draw from this:
Either 1) you do not actually understand Natural Law as well as you think you do
or
2) Natural Law theory is inherently inconsistent and illogical, and therefore a useless philosophy.
Mark @72, what I’m really poking at is your repeated refusal to respond to gaping holes in your logic.
As you say, your belief is rooted in faith. Your arguments for “Natural Law” come across far less as consistent than as an attempt to dress up religious belief in secular drag to make them more attractive to those who don’t buy “God said so” as a guiding principle. This is particularly so as you ignore any information that sex has a “natural” purpose other than direct reproduction.
@Chris — I’ve had a lot of comments thrown at me, and have tried to deal with all of them as adequetly as I can. Sorry if I’ve missed something. Like I’ve said more than once, I’m far from the ultimate authority on such matters.
To answer your question, I have to undermine your assumption. Obviously not all sex can be open to life; yet a state of infertility cannot become the slippery-slope justification for engaging in a perversion of the natural order.
The longer answer comes in the form of Karol Wojtyla’s “Love and Responsibility,” and the further “Theology of the Body.” I personally believe that one cannot understand the modern question of sexuality adequately without reading its most prolific author.
@Mythago — Where do you get such an idea from? I’ve more than emphasized that sex, from the Catholic perspective, has other uses/functions than pure reproduction. Pleasure is PARAMOUNT in moral sexual activity, yet cannot be divorced from the unitive or the procreative realm. I’ve written this on several occasions now, and welcome you to actually read what I’ve said rather than continue to forward the “Catholics hate pleasure” stereotype.
Have you written anything in this thread that is more meaningless than this? I’m pretty sure that you haven’t and that makes it quite an accomplishment.
But, please, clarify. Why can infertility not become the slippery-slope justification for blah, blah, blah? What, precisely, is the slippery-slope justification to which you refer? What is the natural order wrt infertility and sex? What are the perversions of this natural order?
If this doesn’t make clear that “Natural Law”, as Mark names it, is religion, I don’t know what does. As mythago so perceptively wrote in comment # 78, “Your arguments for “Natural Law” come across far less as consistent than as an attempt to dress up religious belief in secular drag to make them more attractive to those who don’t buy “God said so” as a guiding principle.”
Why should anybody with a religious faith different than your own believe a thing that you are claiming? Your claims have no basis in anything other than your own faith.
Mark:
Ah, so we’ve finally reached the inevitable point in the debate. This argument would be shocking in it’s stupidity, were it not the most common anti-gay argument out there.
“Gay sex is against the natural order because it is not open to life, but some sex that is not open to life is fine because it is not against the natural order” is, clearly, circular logic. If this is the type of argument Natural Law theory teaches, then it is a ridiculous, stupid theory, and shouldn’t be taught as logically sound in any respectable academic setting.
@Jake — The majority of Wojtyla’s arguments are made apart from the realm of any religious scripture, and can stand fully on their own outside of the religious realm. As such, they are certainly valid reading material for the non-believer, who might find himself surprised at the content. Wojtyla builds upon natural law.
@Chris — once again, that’s not what I said. The unitive function can exist outside of procreation between a man and a woman outside of the cycle of ovulation, yet it cannot ever be present between homosexual couples, since this is not biologically possible. Is it so difficult to realize that male and female genitalia are not democratic devices, but rather find their purpose defined in the existence of the complementary part? This is clearly verified in the hypothetical argument of absence, as neither part would make sense by itself.
That people would choose different uses for these parts is not the issue here; rather, why do you assume that such choices — or the strong imperative to make them — are natural rather than unnatural? Since every biological and psychological aspect of man is open to malformation and disease and malfunction, why not our sexual faculties?
Furthermore, I think that the burden of proof falls on you to explain why the relativistic “anything goes between consenting adults” sexual worldview is somehow more acceptable than monogamy in traditional marriage. Once you have done this, you should also explain why we should continue to press forward with this worldview into even greater sexual allowances, despite the vast social harm it has already caused since the sexual revolution began in the 1960’s. Please, go for it.
Mark:
Far as I can see, no one said this. You have been arguing that “the relativistic ‘anything goes between consenting adults’ sexual worldview”–and I will leave aside the need to unpack the myriad assumptions embedded in that phrasing–is less valid.
You also wrote:
Here, too, there are all sorts of assumptions that ought to be unpacked before a discussion can even begin. Not my job to do it, though. If you want to have that discussion, you need to lay your cards out on the table, fully, first.
Mark
In one aspect, yes. I don’t see how the clitoris is so complementary; PIV intercourse doesn’t automatically lead to stimulation of this organ.
Do you even know what you’re talking about? The 1960s was far from the first time that sexual values changed – even in the United States, I’d say that the 1920s were a far more sexually “revolutionary” era, even though conventional wisdom overlooks this.
Still, let’s use the decade of the 60s as the cutoff margin. So, with regard to what you refer to as social harm, it’s obviously dependent on where one lives, among other facts. Speaking of just the country I live in, the USA, I think it’s self evident that society is much better off today (as rough as it is) than it was prior to the 1960s. I do not want to return to the Comstock era, put it that way.
Mark:
I find your contention that men and women are “physiologically complementary” very disturbing in its gender essentialism. There is a huge range of human personalities (in fact there are literally billions of unique ones), and many men have very similar personalities to many women. And that is perfectly grand. Furthermore, the gender and sex binaries that you and/or natural law suppose do not accurately reflect reality and humanity in all its wonderful variation, which tends to reduce your/its credibility.
I am really glad that you and your wife find your marriage fulfilling in all ways, and I am incredibly saddened that you can’t/won’t take many others at their word when describing their marriages.
@Mark:
Isn’t “the unitive function” about love and commitment? What in the hell does that have to do with biology? Do you seriously think it is biologically impossible for a homosexual couple to feel the same type of love for each other that a hetero couple does?
So, if I were to use Natural Law reasoning, I guess I’d have to conclude that the dicks of Catholic priests make no sense. Why, without a vagina to stick them in, they must have no purpose whatsoever!
Obviously no one has said anything resembling the idea that our genitals can’t be subject to disease or malfunction.
Another strawman. You’d be surprised by how traditional my views about sex are. I tend not to bring them up here, though, not because I’m afraid of the reactions of most other commenters but because I realize that I have no business butting into anyone else’s sex life.
What about the vast social harm to gay people that was much worse before the 1960s? Do they not matter?
The diseases and malfunctions related to sexuality are called rape and pedophilia and are justly called horrible crimes against a person. Bestiality probably also qualifies, since it involves non-human entities who therefore can’t consent to sexual acts with humans (and I’ve seen animal on animal rape, in my own home – being in heat they seem willing, but it seems to hurt like heck for cats or dogs…especially dogs imo).
This is a classic example of post hoc reasoning.
Conclusion: gay sex is wrong.
Conclusion: women exercising control over their fertility is wrong.
What do these two things have in common? Aha: they take the “natural” “generative function” out of sex.
Proposition: sex must have a “generative function” in order to be “natural.”
Thereby leaving gaping holes you can drive a truck through regarding non-gay, non-fertility-controlled sex that also just happens to lack that same function.
This problem also plagues the anti-gay-marriage people when they make arguments about how the purpose of marriage is to provide intact families for children, but are not out trying to prevent the elderly and infertile from marrying, but do try to prevent gay couples from adopting.
Mark @79, since nobody actually said or implied that “Catholics hate pleasure”, I’d ask you not to insult us by pretending we’re all too stupid to notice such rhetorical tricks. Accusing those who disagree with you of anti-Catholic bigotry for doing so is a pretty pathetic attempt to stave off criticism.
Elusis @88 got it right: you’re starting with a conclusion and trying to work backwards, which is problematic because that takes you to logical results you don’t want.
Mark writes:
Uh, no. If I don’t believe the nature of my penis determines how I must ethically use it, then I don’t believe there is a “law” to be broken. If you remove the notion that there’s an intelligent scorekeeper, then you engage in the is/ought fallacy when you try to apply “laws” to bodily structures. Just because an accident of evolution resulted in a penis that is complementary to other people’s vaginas, doesn’t mean I ought to only use my penis in said vaginas.
And, as I mentioned, Natural Law requires defining objects and structures and ranking their importance in ways that can never be anything other than arbitrary. This is an insurmountable problem with Natural Law, and that’s why it’s laughable and weird. Natural Law accepts that penises exist, and vaginas exist, and therefore certain moral strictures stem from this. But Natural Law (or at least its vocal adherents) does not acknowledge that gay people exist, and therefore assume (as it does with the existence of other things) that gay people must therefore have a purpose.
It’s probably purposeless then.
Responding belatedly to a number of things:
Mark:
So what you’re saying here is that the Pope’s arguments are not, in fact, based on God?
Elusis:
Or try to prevent abortions (through fear, lies, laws) but also prevent gay couples from adopting, even though hundreds of thousands of kids languish in foster care. Not to redirect the conversation to abortion (seriously, no), but how can two people who love each other and want to love and raise an unwanted child, one who was “saved” from abortion, be a bad thing or “unnatural”?
And peer-reviewed, controlled, unbiased scientific studies find gay parents to be just as good or better, so don’t tell me they’ll screw up the kid or something. And is not the urge to parent, to further the species (a child well-raised, rather than shuffled from foster home to foster home, is going to further the species much better), a natural one?
*No idea why my blockquotes are in bold; the html looks normal. Sorry.
yet a state of infertility cannot become the slippery-slope justification for engaging in a perversion of the natural order.
1. Why not? Why is some sex which is not “open to life” better than other sex which is not “open to life”?
2. How can an act indulged in by animals of numerous species and across several families of animals, including humans throughout history and pre-history be characterized as “a perversion of the natural order”?
the vast social harm it has already caused since the sexual revolution began in the 1960’s.
Erm…WHAT “vast social harm”? The 1960s had their silly and excessive moments, especially the bits about the sexual revolution, but overall their effect has been great social improvement. To wit:
1. Divorce is easier. Why, you ask, is that good? Well, easier divorce is associated with lower rates of domestic violence, among other things.
2. Women and men are far more equal now than before the “sexual revolution”.
3. Gays don’t have to fear abuse by authorities or random strangers as much as they did. (Yeah, I know there is still bashing, but it’s no longer the accepted thing. Compare current day to the time of the Stonewall riots, for example.)
4. The increased openness about sex and related dangers probably prevented quite a number of cases of HIV and allowed the push in research that led to effective treatments for the virus. (And before you argue “Yes, but without the sexual revolution there’d be no HIV” look up syphillis in Victorian England.
5. Marital rape is no longer legal.
6. Domestic partnerships (usually in any gender combination) are legal and socially accepted.
7. Indirectly, but related: it’s no longer illegal to marry someone of a different race.
I expect I’m forgetting something, but those are the benefits of the sexual revolution that spring to my mind right now.
I think I read that Catholicism doesn’t recognize divorce as possible (at best you can get an annullment, for say, reasons of infertility). So I guess if you re-marry after a divorce (as a Catholic), the Catholic church doesn’t consider this person your spouse under God.
Even if Catholics don’t, where separation of Church and State are mandatory, they have no power over who is and who isn’t married. They’d only have social (and maybe legal) influence in countries where the church reigns supreme (Ireland is probably a good example). For example, Ireland doesn’t recognize sex change surgery legally, based on some interpretation of Catholic doctrine.
To everyone concerned, while I’ve read all of your heartfelt replies, I still haven’t had my questions answered. Yet in presenting my own admitted assumptions about the so-called sexual revolution, I’ve received a flurry of assumptions in return. We’ve had the conversation veer in the direction of the viability of gay parenting, the morality of abortion and divorce, and the separation of Church and state, among others.
While we can’t seem to agree on anything here, I think you’ll allow me to not open this Pandora’s box. Also, being the minority (single) perspective here, it’s hard to keep up with every question returned to me. So for those of you who actually stuck to the arguments at hand avoided cynicism or crass comments, I thank you for educating me as to your perspective. I’ll respectfully bow out now.
I am sympathetic to how difficult it is to be the only one disagreeing with a large group*, so certainly feel free to bow out.
However if you go, go. If you want to stay and debate, stay.
Stop this in-and-out onesie-twosie ‘I’m going but not really because you said something I disagreed with’ crap. That’s what Mythago has been pointing out.
This is an official warning.
—Myca
* It’s a lot like being gay in America, except that nobody tries to take away your legal rights, and it’s a lot easier to opt out.
I’m in sympathy with feeling dogpiled, too, but in this case it was more a situation where numerous people were asking the same question over and over and getting a nonanswer – ‘you wouldn’t ask that if you understood what I was talking about’ is not a response, it’s a diversion.
I’ve heard the Natural Law argument many, many times over the years, and I have yet to hear a coherent, consistent response independent of faith for why some kinds of nonreproductive sex are more equal than others. The closest thing I’ve heard to an explanation that because reproductive sex is male/female PIV intercourse, any male/female intercourse is ‘good enough’ for natural law; it at least mimics reproduction so it’s sort of OK.
(Of course, the fellow who made this argument then found himself unable to explain why non-PIV intercourse was acceptable, and after a lot of hemming and hawing claimed that yes, he would swear off receiving oral sex from women. I doubt he kept his word, somehow.)
I just got the funniest scenario in my head of that person thinking to himself “Must…resist…must…prove point…to mythago…”
;)
It was even funnier, because it wasn’t just me – there were a bunch of Libertarians piling on him, bless them. I actually think this was a fellow young enough not to have anything to forswear, if you get my meaning, but it was pretty funny watching him squirm and try to explain why fellatio still counted as “generative” if he got it from a woman.