Spiritual Poverty

I guess I am a very traditional person, especially when it comes to celebrating Christmas. No artificial Christmas trees permitted in my house. I want the fragrance of real fir that resurrects wonderful memories of Christmases past. Despite my advancing age, I still look forward to the annual airing of Charlie Brown Christmas, even getting a little misty eyed when Linus recites the passage from Luke’s gospel. And like Charlie Brown, I feel a little depressed at times despite the joy of the season. I can’t seek counsel from Lucy and real psychiatric help costs more than five cents, so I will have to bare my soul here.

Last night, I accompanied my wife to a Christmas party for administrators of the school system where she works. I am always a little uncomfortable at such gatherings, but I had a nice time. Much of the conversation centered around education and the problems school officials face on a daily basis. Having never been a teacher, I spent most of the evening listening to others express frustration in dealing with young people, and occasionally, their parents.

Our hostess mentioned her interaction with one student in particular and the challenge she faces trying to keep him in school. She said that some poverty-stricken parents do not want their children to finish school. They may see the lack of an education as ensuring a certain inter-dependence that keeps the family together.

Our school district encompasses an area with an unusually high poverty rate, a rate increasing to the point where the entire student body may soon qualify for free lunches. I couldn’t help but wonder if free lunches don’t perpetuate poverty by encouraging people to depend on entitlements rather than self-sustenance. I read somewhere that the biggest problem facing the impoverished in the United States isn’t hunger, but obesity.

One thing was obvious to me. The educators in our school system are passionate about their profession. They have serious concerns for the well being of the young people they are attempting to prepare for the real world. Discussions centered around trends in education, problems in funding state mandates, and ways of improving instruction. Technology changes so rapidly that small schools have a difficult time keeping up. Money is always an issue, and knowing where to direct it most efficiently can be debated. Measuring student progress can be difficult and administrators are always under pressure to improve test scores.

After public education discussion was exhausted, one of the guests mentioned Christmas plans which included going to an early Vigil Mass where her child would be taking part in a program. As it turned out, several in the group happened to be Catholic. Our hostess mentioned that she attends a parish in her hometown about 30 miles away where she still has family living. She went on to tell about her children attending a youth group in that parish where the priest would not allow the teenagers to attend any off-site activities. Out of frustration, she began allowing them to attend another group which I assumed was affiliated with a non-Catholic ministry. She added that her now grown children were no longer Catholic, but they were very active in another denomination and she was “okay with that”.

Another mother spoke up and complained about the attendance requirements for her children in our local parish religion class. Our priest has mandated that anyone missing five sessions will have to repeat the class which is held on Sunday mornings between the Masses. The mother said they have family spread around different areas of the state and often travel on Sundays to visit. She also mentioned that she cannot drag her husband to Mass here, although he would attend regularly at a former parish they attended where they had a band with drums.

Our hostess asked if anyone was familiar with “Late night Catechism.” (For those who are not, do a search on youtube.) She had attended a Catholic school in the 1960’s and was troubled by some of the things she was taught. Apparently one of the nuns told her that chewing the Eucharistic host will cause it to bleed. She also mused at writing JMJ on all school papers and wearing scapulars. Turning serious, she said there was too much hell and damnation preached. People want to be uplifted.

The conversation quickly turned to other topics, but I was left feeling a little depressed. I never like hearing that people have left the faith or do not understand and appreciate what they have in the Catholic Church. These same school administrators who try so hard to overcome the effects of poverty affecting the education of our youth, do not recognize the spiritual poverty affecting themselves. Which is worse -- being deprived of earthly food or heavenly food?

Those who think they find more spirituality outside the Catholic Church may actually be experiencing a kind of spiritual obesity. In other words, they may be getting the sugar-coated message they crave, but they are missing out on the true heavenly nourishment that comes from Our Lord’s Body and Blood. Think of it as choosing between health food and a happy meal. What is pleasing to the spiritual palate on an emotional level may not be what the souls really needs for eternal life.

The public school system has a tax-funded staff of administrators and qualified teachers to provide the best education possible for our youth, and yet they often fail without parental support. Our parish has one priest and a commission of a few often-reluctant and poorly catechized volunteers to teach the faith. Opportunities for religious education are limited to a few precious hours a year, especially when many Catholic parents balk at committing any faith time beyond Sunday Mass. We should not be surprised that Mass attendance has dwindled.

Our parish school closed in the 1970’s, so this situation has existed for a couple of generations now. We should not be surprised that Mass attendance has dwindled.
Lacking the support of orthodox Catholic parents, good catechesis is difficult. The nuns that taught us fifty years ago may have been a little over zealous at times, but their methods were somewhat effective. I wish we had them back.

Discipline Rules

Last month, I was excited to learn that Father Robert Barron would be hosting a Catholic program on commercial television. He is the first priest to do so since Bishop Fulton Sheen some forty years ago. The program airs Sunday mornings on WGN America at about the same time I am attending Eucharistic Adoration, but thanks to my newly obtained DVR, I have them all recorded.

Father Barron is a very energetic and engaging speaker who relates well to the common man. His messages may reference the Beatles or Bob Dylan, who he calls one of his great heroes, but do not mistake him for one of those new age modern priests. His Catholicism is pristinely orthodox. Every presentation I have seen has given me new perspective.

In a recent talk (10-31-2010), Father Barron talked about laws and freedom. Since he explained the relationship so much more eloquently than I ever could, I hope he won’t mind if I borrow some of his words. He noted that Americans place a premium on autonomy. To most people, freedom means determining their own lives, or setting their own agendas. They view laws as an affront to their freedom.

Fr. Barron says another way of looking at freedom is a “disciplining of desire so as to make the achievement of good possible and then effortless.” He cited several examples. Musicians who approach perfection are free to play any music they desire, yet the freedom to do that came through discipline. Michael Jordan was the freest player to ever play basketball. He was capable of doing most anything he wanted on the basketball court, yet that freedom came through discipline. To achieve perfection, one must first submit to discipline. Discipline is not an affront to freedom. It makes freedom possible.

God’s law is not an obstacle to our freedom. As Father Barron puts it, “What God gives us in the law is a way of disciplining our desires and our bodies that we may become conduits of his love.” By submitting to the law, the achievement of good becomes possible and then effortless. I thought about this idea and I would like to take it a step further.

We know nothing unclean will get to heaven. Matthew 5:48 says, “Be ye perfect as your heavenly Father is perfect.” Our goal is to get to heaven someday. As Catholics, we are on this journey toward perfection. To get to heaven, we must submit to discipline. How is this discipline manifested in our lives? Jesus gave us a Church with the authority to bind and loose. He did this not as an affront to our freedom, but rather to make the achievement of good possible that we may become conduits of His love.

We often hear people complain that the Catholic Church is too encumbered by rules. Is it really a mortal sin to eat a hamburger on a Friday during Lent or to miss Mass on Sunday? Does such a seemingly innocent infraction really suspend our relationship with Our Lord? Suppose Peyton Manning decided he didn’t feel like going to the team practice one day, or decided he was too tired to play football one Sunday, so he just slept in. Do you think he would be penalized? I will guarantee you, if Peyton Manning did not show up for a Colts game simply because he didn’t feel like going, he would face repercussions. He would probably be suspended from the team until he made reparation. Professional athletes are paid big money by the team owners are expected to strive for perfection. Season ticket holders paid a huge price to watch these players give their best effort.

As Catholics, we are members of the team known as the Body of Christ. Certain disciplines are demanded of us, not as affronts to our freedom, but rather to keep us on the path to perfection. Jesus Christ paid a huge price for our sins. We owe Him our best effort. Sleeping in on Sunday because we are too tired to go to Mass is unacceptable and is subject to penalty. Mortal sin suspends us from grace. We are cut off until we make reparation. Which is more important -- getting to the Super Bowl or getting to heaven? Skipping a football game or skipping Mass –- which has greater consequences over the long haul?

There was a time when I thought requiring Catholics to attend Mass under penalty of mortal sin was a counter-productive. We should go to Mass because we want to be there, not because we have to be there. That is true, but I wonder how many people would stay home if they were not obligated to attend every Sunday. How many people would pay their income tax if not for the IRS? How many people would obey the speed limit if there were no fines for not doing so? While some people may submit to self-imposed discipline, the majority may not. Having the majority not paying taxes and driving recklessly could jeopardize the survival of the rest of us. Some imposed discipline is necessary for the benefit of everyone. Children need to understand there are consequences for disobeying their parents. As children of God, the same holds true for all of us.

Wikipedia says the following: “In its most general sense, discipline refers to the systematic instruction given to a disciple. To discipline thus means to instruct a person to follow a particular code of conduct or order.” Therefore, to be true disciples of Christ, we must submit to the divinely authorized discipline prescribed by His Church. Doing so enables us to discipline our desires and our bodies in such a way to allow grace to flow. We become conduits for God's love. Discipline turns us in the direction toward perfection that ultimately sets us free.

Role with the Punches

I share an office with a guy who plays music on his computer every day during our lunch period. Unfortunately, the only songs he has come from a novelty album that he plays repeatedly. Today, we listened to Mr. Custer, a comical song about a reluctant soldier worried about losing his scalp as he heads into battle with the legendary General. Those familiar with Larry Verne’s record probably remember the tag line, “Please Mr. Custer, I don’t wanna go.” It was number one on the Billboard charts in 1960.

These days as a Catholic, I sometimes feel like that soldier. Mention being Catholic and you better be prepared to dodge the arrows that will come flying your way. The Church is under attack, not only because of the sexual abuse crisis, but also for maintaining a stand on moral issues that secular society considers intrusive. I was watching the news Sunday evening when they mentioned Pope Benedict canonizing six new saints, including Mary MacKillop, the first saint from Australia. The entire story of the six saints didn’t last more than twenty seconds, but the newscaster found time to say MacKillop was once excommunicated for reporting a sexually abusive priest. No other details were provided.

There is more to the story, of course. The Josephite order to which Mary MacKillop belonged was already at odds with the local clergy over educational matters. During this time members of the Josephites reported allegations of sexual abuse by a parish priest who was ultimately sent back to Ireland. A colleague of the accused priest was angered by his removal and took it out on the Josephites by convincing the local bishop to change the Joesphite’s constitution. MacKillop apparently opposed the bishop’s order and was excommunicated for insubordination. Eventually, she was completely exonerated and the excommunication was lifted.

We can expect the secular media to paint the Church in a bad light whenever possible, but public criticism is even more painful when leveled by Catholics themselves. Our local newspaper recently published a piece on the editorial page written by a retired lawyer who calls himself a “committed Catholic.” The heading read, “Outdated views on women stunt Catholic Church.” This self-proclaimed “committed Catholic” advocates the ordination of women priests and criticizes the ongoing Vatican Commission investigations of women’s religious orders.

Catholics publicly expressing disdain for magisterial authority is particularly disheartening. I would think a lawyer would have an insightful appreciation for authority. On the other hand, those accustomed to seeking loopholes may carry that inclination beyond the boundaries of their legal profession. This particular lawyer views Catholic women as downtrodden by a remotely connected Vatican hierarchy.

He lauds Pope John XXIII saying he “led a brief Vatican movement when our leaders concluded that ‘we’ are the church and that we can form our own conscience if we are conscientious in our research and seek prudent counsel.” This is the typical liberal spin applied to Vatican II whereby many Catholics thought they could justify most any behavior if their conscience was clear. The key here is determining what constitutes “prudent counsel.” Orthodox Catholic theologians who are faithful to Church teaching are prudent counselors, but that is not what many people want. The tendency among Vatican II liberals is to satisfy their consciences by seeking affirmation for their own self-serving beliefs. Doing this requires venturing outside the boundaries of orthodoxy, seeking heterodox theologians or secular counselors who profess what people want to hear.

The ideas professed by this lawyer and others like him are shortsighted. First and foremost is his lack of respect for the infallible teaching authority of the Church that has existed for two thousand years. The all-male priesthood has been infallibly defined and is therefore unchangeable. Either he does not understand this, or he denies the existence of infallible teaching.

Men and women may be equal, but they are different. We have different roles despite what contemporary society may tell us. We are not all equipped for the same things. God designed us that way on purpose. The lawyer states that “women are smarter and more steeped in common sense and virtues like compassion, humility and care than we men are.” That may be true. The point is that we are not the same.

The role of the priest is to act in persona Christi, that is, in the person of Christ, and Scripture tells us the Church is the Bride of Christ. We have the priest as Father and Holy Mother, the Church. A woman cannot take on the role of Father for Holy Mother, the Church. You would not have a woman in the role of General Custer in a movie about the Battle of Little Big Horn, and a woman cannot act in persona Christi in the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass.

It is easy for us simple-minded folks to sit back and think a woman could stand up there at the altar and do the same things a man does, say the same words, probably give a better homily, and look better in an alb, but theological reasons for the male priesthood are deeply rooted, and should not be dismissed as inconsequential. At some point, Catholics need to acknowledge that, lacking years of study, we do not always understand why things have to be the way they are. We need to trust in the wisdom of our bishops who have been guided by the Holy Spirit. To do so brings great comfort and peace of mind.

Our modern social values seem very confused at times. We preach equality and diversity at the same time. Everyone is equal, but we have to accept differences. I have worked in industrial maintenance for nearly thirty-eight years. The job requires a degree, technical know-how, and is at times, physically demanding. Over the years, I have worked with hundreds of men, and probably fewer than a dozen women. Why so few? That’s a good question. Women are certainly capable of acquiring the same educational background. The position is a union job, meaning it goes to the highest qualified bidder without discrimination. Everyone works under the exact same pay scale regardless of productivity. The opportunity is there for any woman that wants it. Out of about sixteen people currently in the department, the number of women is zero.

The fact is that women are just different from men. This type of job requires a certain savvy that the average woman does not have. Of course there are exceptions, but they are few. Of those women who have tried, none have lasted more than a few years. If you are thinking the men probably made life miserable for them, I would say you are wrong. We have a pretty good group of guys who are generally helpful and accepting. Does this mean women are inferior to men in some way? Not at all. They are not inferior, just different.

I remember reading a column where someone asked why scientists, composers, CEOs and so forth were mostly men when the average intelligence of both sexes is equal. The answer given was that while the average intelligence is equal, the standard deviation among men is much greater. In other words, while the most intelligent people are men, the dumbest people in the world are also men!

What does this have to do with the all male priesthood? The point is that God made men and women for different roles. We are His instruments, put on this earth for a purpose. Our mission should be to conform to His will and not let envy twist us into something we are not. There. I said it. Now, let the arrows fly.

In Days of Old

Yesterday was my sixtieth birthday. Wow! I have a childhood memory of my mother turning forty. At the time I thought she was pretty old and now I have exceeded that number by twenty. My father was only twelve years older than I am when he died.

When I was an adolescent, I remember a certain day when I suddenly became aware of my mortality. The thought of dying brought a feeling of panic over me. Death will eventually come and there is no way to avoid it. At times, I felt that death could come at any minute, but I survived those feelings, at least up to this point.

I remember realizing that even should I avoid accidental death or terminal disease, eventually I will end up knowing I am on my death bed. Having not yet reached my teens, I took some comfort in the hope that dying was many years away. Now that I am sixty, it doesn’t seem so far off.

Three people I know personally died this past week. My Aunt Ethel Mae was my father’s youngest sibling. My family had the privilege of helping her celebrate her one-hundredth birthday in August of 2009. At that time, she appeared to be a great health for her age. She was still extremely active and interested in life until a heart attack slowed her down earlier this year.

The former pastor of our sister parish died on Tuesday. My wife and I attended the visitation for Father Bill earlier yesterday evening. He was a kind and gentle man, eighty-one years old and a priest for over fifty years. In addition to his duties as a parish priest, Father Bill was chaplain of a local health facility for the aged and disabled where he impacted many lives. He was loved and respected by area residents, both Catholic and non-Catholic alike.

A schoolmate a year younger than I also died this week. I did not know him well, but remember him from our high school activities. The circumstances of his death are not known to me, but I find it disconcerting to see obituaries of people younger than me dying of natural causes.

Our faith tells us death is not something to fear. Rather we should be excited at the prospects of eternal life with Our Lord in heaven. Our frail human nature, however, makes us want to put it off as long as possible. A priest giving a homily asked the congregation for a show of hands on how many wanted to go to heaven. Nearly all raised their hands. Then he asked, “Who wants to go right now?” All hands went down.

Comedian George Burns enjoyed some of his greatest success very late in life. He was booked to work on his 100th birthday, although failing health did not allow him to do it. I remember a talk show host, perhaps it was Johnny Carson, asking him about his longevity. As a consummate professional entertainer who prided himself on original material, Burns said he wasn’t going to die because, “it’s been done.” He was certainly right about that. Everyone who has ever lived has either died or will at some point, including George who died in 1996.

The fear of death is shared by many. True faith replaces fear with anticipation, but faith does not always come easy. Our sensual existence does not render clear understanding of spiritual reality. Despite the assurance we receive from the Word of God via the Church, doubt often creeps in. We want to believe, but we are spiritually challenged.

French philosopher Blaise Pascal thought some people do not have the ability to believe. He urged them to live their lives as though they had faith because by doing so, they had nothing to lose and everything to gain. If the possibility of eternal life with God in heaven exists, we need to live our lives in such a manner to get there. If we don’t, the potential loss is beyond measure. On the other hand, if heaven does not exist, and we live as though it does, the loss is minimal.

I wonder how many of us who attend Mass and receive the sacraments faithfully, do so following Pascal’s reasoning. We have doubts, but don’t want to take any chances. The body language of many people in church seemingly demonstrates a disconnect from true belief. They don’t seem to be really tuned in. It is so easy to go through the motions while our thoughts are somewhere else. Without a deep understanding of what the Mass is, the repetitive form of the liturgy can be conducive to wandering minds. To avoid becoming robotic Catholics requires some effort on our part.

Our faith must be nurtured so that it may grow and flourish. Older people may be more inclined to take faith seriously because they begin to think about their mortality. As my ninety-year-old uncle quipped about his regular Mass attendance, he was “cramming for his final exams.” The trick is not to wait for impending death or a serious crisis before turning to God.

Who said that?

Columnist and Grammarian James J. Kilpatrick died on the Solemnity of the Assumption of Mary a couple of weeks ago. I sometimes quote him when trying to explain the benefits of the new translation of the Mass that will come into use Advent of 2011. In one of his columns, he said, “English vocabularies offer abundant opportunities to measure meanings by micrometer.” Perhaps that explains one of the reasons the new translation took so long to render accurately.

Whenever I hear or read a quotation I find interesting, I save it on my computer for future reference. In looking for my Kilpatrick quote, I found others that caught my attention over the years. In his January 16, 2005 column, The Writer’s Art, Kilpatrick wrote about the word ‘any’. He said, “Early in the 18th century, some agnostics were ‘anythingarians.’ The court is not making this up.”

Another man I respected also died recently. Basketball Coach John Wooden, a graduate of my alma mater, Purdue, said, “You cannot live a perfect day without doing something for someone who will never be able to repay you.” I am sitting here trying to think if I have ever done anything for someone who could not repay me. Sometimes I feel so inadequate.

Along the same lines is this quote by PFC Daniel R. Parker. “Let no one ever come to you without leaving better or happier. Be the living expression of God’s kindness in your smile, kindness in your warm smile.” Private Parker died in Iraq in August of 2003.

Archbishop Charles Chaput attended a town hall meeting on immigration on July 18, 2006. Someone tried to trip him up by asking him if the government should listen his church. He replied, “I don’t think the government should listen to the church – the government should listen to the people and the people should listen to the church.” Bullseye.

Father John Corapi said, “God has placed obvious limitations on our intelligence, but no limitations whatsoever on our stupidity.” As evidence of this fact, I present 35th District of California Congresswoman Maxine Waters. At a pro-choice march in Washington DC, she said, “I have to march because my mother couldn’t have an abortion.” Along the same line is one of Murphy’s lesser known laws. “Light travels faster than sound. This is why some people appear bright until you hear them speak.”

Violinist Jascha Heiftz said, “No matter what side of an argument you’re on, you always find some people on your side that you wish were on the other side.” Who hasn’t seen the actions of a fellow advocate prove counterproductive?

I often think of a quotation by George Bernard Shaw when I see some of the entitlement programs our elected officials have enacted. Shaw said, “A government which robs Peter to pay Paul can always depend on the support of Paul.” How true. He also said, “If all economists were laid end to end, they would not reach a conclusion.”

And finally, an unknown author urges us to “Pray for the conversion of Catholics to Catholicism.” Many Catholics do not practice their faith these days and they could certainly use our prayers. On an Internet forum, someone asked, “If you were on trial for being a Catholic, would there be enough evidence to convict you?” We should all give that some serious thought.

Truth AND Consequences

Summer is the time for reruns, so I am going to repeat excerpts from my blog entry of August 29, 2003, titled Sharing the Faith. The events I described that day took place in 1999. One of the persons named in my story is in the news today. I will explain later.

Here is some of what happened eleven years ago:

I have successfully shared my faith with others. This usually happens when the other party or some unusual circumstance leads into the conversation. The strangest example occurred at my place of work several years ago where a roll of pink tape lead to an ongoing email discussion with a professor of theology at the Moody Bible Institute. A contractor I’ll call Dave, was doing an installation which required the use of Teflon pipe tape. (Teflon tape is used to wrap pipe threads before assembly.) All the Teflon tape I had ever previously seen was white in color. Dave had pink tape.

The course of conversation took some bizarre turns. All of this occurred about the time that Evangelist Jerry Falwell was speaking out against a children’s television show called the Teletubbies. One of the Teletubby characters (I think his name was ‘Tinky Winky’) was pink and carried a purse. Falwell criticized the presence of this character on a children’s show because the character appeared to be gay, at least in the eyes of Jerry Falwell. I noted the unusual color of the Teflon tape and wisecracked that Jerry Falwell might jump to a conclusion about Dave’s sexual preference based upon the unusual color of his tape.

Dave happened to be an Evangelical Protestant and a follower of Jerry Falwell. Dave asked me what I thought of Falwell. Not knowing where Dave stood, I tried to indicate respectfully that I thought Falwell’s remarks about the Teletubbies might be a little extreme. In the course of the conversation about Jerry Falwell, I mentioned that I was Catholic. Dave perked up as though he was well prepared to challenge Catholics.

He immediately asked me why so much of what the Catholic Church teaches is not in the Bible. Caught somewhat off guard, I replied that while not every thing the Church teaches is explicitly in the Bible, nothing the Church teaches is in conflict with the Bible. I explained that the Church predates the Bible as we know it and that it was the Bishops of the Catholic Church who determined which of the early Christian writings were inspired by God and therefore, included in the Bible. Dave wasn’t buying that, so I asked him for some specific things he believed the Catholic Church taught that were not biblical.

We discussed several common Protestant objections to Catholic theology, including Mary’s perpetual virginity and the reference to Jesus’ “brothers” in the Bible. I explained how the original Greek word translated to brothers in English, could include extended family such as step-brothers or cousins, and in fact, there was no word specifically for cousin. We briefly discussed the necessity of Baptism and its cleansing of the soul. Dave was unwavering. With our time together growing short, I asked him to give me an opportunity to write down several of his most pressing questions about the Catholic Church, and I would respond to him in detail by a Fax. He left me with two: (1) Why do we pray to Mary instead of going directly to God and (2) Where in the Bible does it say to pray for the dead?

I could tell Dave had been taught how to evangelize Catholics. These are two common objections to the Catholic Faith that are often raised to make unprepared Catholics squirm. I wanted to answer his questions thoroughly and respectfully. Opportunities to share our Catholic Faith do not come often. This could be a life altering experience for Dave and his family – literally a matter of (eternal) life and death!

In the weeks that followed, Dave sent me a couple of essays by contemporary Protestant authors and asked me to respond. I did and faxed them back to Dave. I found out later that Dave had a friend with whom he was sharing my answers. This friend was a professor of theology at the Moody Bible Institute. Eventually, Dave put me in touch with the professor and we began to correspond directly by email.

Our dialogue went on for several months. We touched on many aspects of Catholic theology. I used the Bible and simple logic to back the Catholic position. I saved copies of our correspondence and hope to share it with others someday. As I look back on it now, there are things I would say differently, but overall, I think I held my own. I shared several audio tapes with him, including some by Dr. Kenneth Howell, a convert to the Catholic Faith who became an author and speaker for St. Joseph Communications. After the professor wrote a critique of one of Dr. Howell’s tapes, I requested his permission to share the critique with Dr. Howell, with whom I had also corresponded after he spoke at our parish in 1997. I don’t know whether the two of them had a subsequent conversation. At about the same time, the professor ended our exchange saying he did not have the time to continue our talks.

Now, fast-forward to the present. I would like to report that Dave, along with the professor from Moody, and all their families and friends have converted to Catholicism. I would LIKE to report that, but unfortunately, I don’t know what happened to any of them. My reason for this reprise is the third party in the story, Dr. Kenneth Howell. I do know what happened to him.

According to an article by Jodi Heckel appearing in the July 9, 2010 edition of the News-Gazette, Dr. Howell has been an adjunct lecturer in the Department of Religion at the University of Illinois in Urbana for the past nine years. Until his firing after the spring semester, he taught two courses, Introduction to Catholicism, and Modern Catholic Thought. He was also the director of the Institute of Catholic Thought at the St. John’s Catholic Newman Center on campus. His salary came from the Institute of Catholic Thought.

So, why was Dr. Howell fired? His dismissal apparently resulted from an email he sent to his students prior to final exams. (The News-Gazette article contains links to Dr. Howell’s email and an email complaint from a student who was not even enrolled in the class.) The subject of Dr. Howell’s email was Utilitarianism and Sexuality. In it, he explained the relevance of utilitarianism as applied to moral theory, and specifically in the context of homosexuality.

In the email, Dr. Howell said, “One of the most common applications of utilitarianism to sexual morality is the criterion of mutual consent.” He uses various examples to point out deficiencies in the mutual consent argument. He goes on to say “the more significant problem has to do with the fact that the consent criterion is not related in any way to the NATURE of the act itself. This is where Natural Moral Law (NML) objects.” Again using examples, he explains how homosexual acts are contrary to the laws of nature.

Dr. Howell’s email concludes with the following: “As a final note, a perceptive reader will have noticed that none of what I have said here or in class depends upon religion. Catholics don’t arrive at their moral conclusions based on their religion. They do so based on a thorough understanding of natural reality.”

Nowhere in Dr. Howell’s email does he say we are to hate homosexuals. In fact, he says, “to judge an action wrong is not to condemn a person.” The student complaint purportedly referring to Dr. Howell’s email, accuses him of “hate speech at a public university” and expresses disdain that “hard-working Illinoisans are funding the salary of a man who does nothing but try to indoctrinate students and perpetuate stereotypes.” I see no truth in any of those complaints. Ironically, the student says courses at Illinois should contribute to the public discourse and promote independent thought. Why is it that people who promote independent thought are the first ones to suppress any thought different from their own?

Dr. Howell was doing exactly what he was hired to do in explaining Modern Catholic Thought. This isn’t so much an issue with his conduct. Rather, it is a manifestation of the hatred of the Catholic Church by modern secular academia. So much more could be said about the persecution we find ourselves in today. This story isn’t over. The Alliance Defense Fund may take up Dr. Howell’s case. Stay tuned.


UI v. CC Update

An article published in the Chicago Tribune on July 18, 2010, shed more light on the dismissal of Dr. Kenneth Howell as adjunct instructor of Catholicism at the University of Illinois. While his remarks on homosexuality were cited as an excuse for his firing, the real reason is more complex.

Although the two classes he taught on Catholicism were credit courses, Dr. Howell was employed by St. John’s Catholic Newman Center funded by the diocese of Peoria. Dr. Howell therefore answered to both the church and the university. Being a very orthodox Catholic, he taught Catholicism as absolute truth rather than a mere presentation of the Catholic position. In fact, Dr. Howell sought a mandatum from the local bishop, an acknowledgment by church authority that a Catholic professor of a theological discipline is teaching within the full communion of the Catholic Church. Sadly, even professors at Catholic institutions are often reluctant to seek a mandatum for fear it will compromise their academic credibility.

As a secular institution, it is perhaps understandable why the University of Illinois would be uncomfortable with this arrangement. According to the article, other religious foundations, primarily Protestant, had given up teaching religious courses for credit, but this one remained due to persuasion by Monsignor Edward Duncan over the objections of the university administration. The university feels that they should have control of the content of what is taught as part of the curriculum. Is this need for control limited to religious studies or does it apply in other academic disciplines?

Suppose the University wanted to offer a course on Apple Computers. If the Apple Corporation came forward offering to supply an instructor at no cost in the hope that they might recruit qualified future employees, would the university find this arrangement acceptable? Or, would the administration be concerned that the class would become a commercial for Apple Computers, glossing over any possible flaws in their product? Would potential propagation of the Apple brand concern the administration as much as the potential propagation of the Catholic Faith?

The situation with Dr. Howell and the Catholic Church is really no different. Is he hoping to recruit future Catholics? Of course, he is. So what? In his conversion story, Dr. Howell talks about how his faith perspective changed when he began looking at scripture though Catholic glasses. Once you put those glasses on, your vision improves so dramatically that you never want to take them off. I cannot picture him in the classroom without them. What is wrong with a professor truly believing in the material he is teaching? When an academic makes an exciting discovery, he wants to share it with the world.

The Tribune article quotes Ayesha Khan, legal director for Americans United for the Separation of Church and State as saying “a person hired by the diocese (but) being put in a public institution having, at a minimum, a conflict of interest.” I doubt that Dr. Howell’s interest was conflicted in any way. His loyalty to the Catholic Church is clearly evident. Advocacy groups for the separation of church and state typically concern themselves with keeping religion out of the state when the framers were really intending to keep the state out of religion. We have a situation here where church and state were actually separated. State money was not being used to pay the instructor or influence class content. The extent of state involvement was in providing the class for those who wished to take it. Ironically, what they are apparently advocating is more state control in what is being taught in a religious class.

The UI administration must examine its own objectives. Are they really interested in an accurate presentation of Catholic teaching, or do they want a critique of the Catholic Church? Their actions would seem to indicate the latter, in which case they need to openly describe the class as such, and hire their own instructor.

On the other hand, if the religion department at the University of Illinois is really interested in providing courses called Introduction to Catholicism and Modern Catholic Thought, there is probably no better-qualified person to teach those courses than Dr. Kenneth Howell. Advertise his mandatum as assurance that course material will be an accurate presentation of what the Church teaches, complete with all the politically incorrect facts that should not bother anyone truly open to alternative ideas and academic freedom. There are probably very few secular institutions that can offer courses on Catholicism taught by a professor with a mandatum.

No matter how this turns out, the diocese should continue to make Dr Howell’s class available. If that means moving it to the campus Newman center for non-credit, then so be it. Those truly interested in learning about the Catholic Faith for the right reasons will still seek it out.

Epilogue

On July 29, Dr. Howell was reinstated under pressure from the Alliance Defense Fund. He will now be paid by the university. Whether this situation is resolved remains to be seen.