I am shocked, shocked that an adjunct professor
of Catholicism is sacked for teaching Catholicism.
of Catholicism is sacked for teaching Catholicism.
I'm not at all surprised at this story. Having spent many years researching and teaching in academia, I have come to the conclusion that we have appointed as guardians of Western civilisation a load of libertines and bigots who regard our heritage as an embarrassing and inconvenient mess to be disposed of as quickly and quietly as possible.
4 comments:
I love your site, but I'd like to politely take issue with your anger over the fracas with the anti-gay teacher. I read the email that got him into trouble, and it was clear he wasn't just reporting traditional Catholic attitudes, but arguing for their validity. As a gay man myself I couldn't help but be offended by the embarrassing mess this bigot presented as "reason." I don't know if firing him was the right response, but his toxic propaganda needed to be called out. You express frustration with academia, and I know there's plenty of hypocritical nonsense there, but homophobia is not a crown jewel of western civilization that we can't afford to lose. Dropping it doesn't mean we can't honor what's good about the past.
Thank you for your comment. It was very clearly and politely argued and I appreciate the courtesy.
Regarding your choice of words: "Bigot"? "Toxic propaganda"? "Homophobia"? I hardly feel that they are suited to this case. You may not agree with Catholic doctrine, which is what the man was teaching, and had been hired to teach, but to simply dismiss him because you find that doctrine offensive serves no one. I can't open a newspaper without being offended a dozen times over, but that hardly gives me the right to demand that those who offend me be cast into the outer darkness. It would be a very crowded place indeed, if that were so.
What we are faced with in this case is academic freedom (and, indeed a regard for facts), treated as irrelevant in the face of a demand for utter conformity to a particular agenda. As I stated in my comment, I regard the bigotry as residing in university administration, not the professor. Indeed, I feel that the administration fits Chesterton's definition of bigotry quite well.
If you are gay, I would think that you would be aware of the dangerous position that you place yourself in by siding with this secular inquisition. If truth is determined by decree of those in power with no room for dissent, then truth becomes a thing of fashion. Right and wrong are not a matter of natural law, as the professor maintains, but merely that which is imposed from above based upon their needs or even whims. Were I in your position, I would hardly want my status in society dependent on that whim. Pendulums swing, times change, and the very friendly attitude that is held toward homosexuality in society will change with it. Then many people will discover that knocking down the protections of religion, law, tradition, and intellectual integrity is a dangerous game and that they face a two-edged sword that cuts both ways and is frightening when it passes hands.
To quote Robert Bolt:
And when the last law was down, and the Devil turned 'round on you, where would you hide, Roper, the laws all being flat? This country is planted thick with laws, from coast to coast, Man's laws, not God's! And if you cut them down, and you're just the man to do it, do you really think you could stand upright in the winds that would blow then? Yes, I'd give the Devil benefit of law, for my own safety's sake!
Hey, thanks for the serious response. I'd like to answer it....
I was never really comfortable with the firing of the prof., and thinking it thru can't support that action. Academic freedom does indeed give him the right to argue that Catholic "natural law" justifies discrimination against gay men and women. Academic freedom does not exempt him, however, from being roundly criticized for his bigotry and sloppy, fantastical thinking. I feel justified in labeling him a bigot, and his dogma a kind of toxic propaganda. The fact that many people have sincerely believed in it for many years doesn't make it right. I used to be one of those people, and I suffered terribly because of it.
This isn't merely an academic question - right now the legal right for gay men and women to be married is being fought over, and Prof. Howell is laying forth his case on why this civil right should be denied me. Given this context I'm agog at your warning that I should value the "protections" of religion and tradition. People claiming to uphold these are working feverishly to deny me the legal protections that come with full citizenship.
If I get uppity, and publicly debunk the "religious" rational for the contempt that is still often directed at me, will the pendulum swing back and konk me on the head? Quite possibly. No need for your threatening reminder that the Devil might "round on me." But what kind of honor can come to ourselves and to our society if I don't defend myself against Howell and the Catholic Church's accusation of perversion because I fear persecution?
Thanks for providing the forum for this debate.
I'm not going to get into the ins and outs of the gay marriage debate. I never argue the homosexual rights movement simply because I regard the entire topic as wearisome. It's one of those areas where people can't even agree about the definitions and I feel like I'm in a pretend argument.
My main concern is that you misunderstood my warning. I don't believe that you face persecution from the Catholic church (I recommend reading Always Our Children). The Pope, after all, determines doctrine. He cannot alter or create it. At any rate, the idea of Catholic doctrine becoming dominant in these secular times is remote. No, what you face real persecution from is your "protectors". The current trend toward a system of factional pressure groups and patronage means that who holds powers and whose whims prevail becomes paramount. Homosexual groups may hold the whip hand now as to what society should believe about them, but what happens if that changes? What protects you if you're the weakest group in a struggle to catch the king's eye?
I'd far rather rely on my inalienable rights that are literally God-given rather than the caprice of a dictator.
Post a Comment