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.
Saturday, September 25, 2010
Saturday, August 28, 2010
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.
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.
Sunday, July 11, 2010
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.
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.
Saturday, June 12, 2010
Evan and Mary's Wedding Day
The younger of my two sons got married today. Evan and his bride Mary will be living downstate as he prepares to enter grad school continuing his study of organ performance. I always thought Evan would be the last of my three children to marry, but he turned out to be the first. The time leading up to a family wedding is so hectic that one has little time to reflect on the life we brought into the world nearly 23 years ago.
We joke that Evan was never a little baby. He weighed over ten pounds at birth. Soft-spoken and always big for his age, he had a teddy bear-like persona during his formative years. When he was about two years old, I remember my Uncle Cyril saying, “I sure hope you are going to let that boy play football!” I would have gladly let him play sports, but that was never Evan’s thing. We had a piano in our basement family room and Evan began plunking out tunes when he was three or four. Now, I am not talking ‘Mary had a little lamb.’ Evan was experimenting with self-taught cords and harmonies. My wife found a piano teacher willing to give him lessons at the age of five.
My wife is an organist at our parish, and Evan was always fascinated by the pipe organ. On Memorial Day in 1997, he played his first Mass at our parish at the age of nine. I was a nervous wreck that day, but he did just fine. God blessed him with a talent that he developed and continues to develop to this day. Last month, he graduated cum laude from Valparaiso University with a degree in organ performance.
Throughout high school, he played the organ at weekend Masses and other special liturgies at our parish. Those were all volunteer efforts, but he made a few dollars playing at funerals and weddings. During his own wedding rehearsal, our pastor remarked at the detail in which Evan and Mary had planned the liturgy. The fact is, despite his young age, he had many years of experience working with couples preparing wedding music.
When he was a sophomore in high school, a small non-Catholic congregation in a nearby town offered Evan a paying job on Sundays. His relationship with them continued for seven years until his graduation a few weeks ago. Before his departure, the congregation invited our entire family to a carry-in dinner in Evan and Mary’s honor. She often accompanied Evan to their Sunday service. The women of their church got together and made them a beautiful quilt as a going-away present. I will ever forget the kindness of their Christian community.
The wedding today was beautiful despite a few last minute hitches. Our Pastor, Father Terry, had a close family friend pass away earlier this week. Naturally the funeral ended up being scheduled the same day as the wedding. He planned to concelebrate the funeral Mass at a location an hour away and still make it back in time for the wedding, but instead, this gave us an opportunity to ask my cousin, Father Bob, a retired diocesan priest if he could perform the ceremony. He agreed to do it, and it was even nicer having a family member preside. Father Bob gave a lovely homily explaining the covenant between God and Man and how it relates to the Sacrament of Matrimony.
So now the day has ended. My big teddy-bear son is married and entering a new chapter in his life. I love him and his wife dearly and pray they grow in faith together for many years to come. They gave us a beautiful note Evan had written thanking us for all we had done for him over the years. Mary told us not to open it until we got home because she did not want to see any weepy eyes. I am sure glad we heeded her words! I only hope I did enough. May God Bless them richly.
The younger of my two sons got married today. Evan and his bride Mary will be living downstate as he prepares to enter grad school continuing his study of organ performance. I always thought Evan would be the last of my three children to marry, but he turned out to be the first. The time leading up to a family wedding is so hectic that one has little time to reflect on the life we brought into the world nearly 23 years ago.
We joke that Evan was never a little baby. He weighed over ten pounds at birth. Soft-spoken and always big for his age, he had a teddy bear-like persona during his formative years. When he was about two years old, I remember my Uncle Cyril saying, “I sure hope you are going to let that boy play football!” I would have gladly let him play sports, but that was never Evan’s thing. We had a piano in our basement family room and Evan began plunking out tunes when he was three or four. Now, I am not talking ‘Mary had a little lamb.’ Evan was experimenting with self-taught cords and harmonies. My wife found a piano teacher willing to give him lessons at the age of five.
My wife is an organist at our parish, and Evan was always fascinated by the pipe organ. On Memorial Day in 1997, he played his first Mass at our parish at the age of nine. I was a nervous wreck that day, but he did just fine. God blessed him with a talent that he developed and continues to develop to this day. Last month, he graduated cum laude from Valparaiso University with a degree in organ performance.
Throughout high school, he played the organ at weekend Masses and other special liturgies at our parish. Those were all volunteer efforts, but he made a few dollars playing at funerals and weddings. During his own wedding rehearsal, our pastor remarked at the detail in which Evan and Mary had planned the liturgy. The fact is, despite his young age, he had many years of experience working with couples preparing wedding music.
When he was a sophomore in high school, a small non-Catholic congregation in a nearby town offered Evan a paying job on Sundays. His relationship with them continued for seven years until his graduation a few weeks ago. Before his departure, the congregation invited our entire family to a carry-in dinner in Evan and Mary’s honor. She often accompanied Evan to their Sunday service. The women of their church got together and made them a beautiful quilt as a going-away present. I will ever forget the kindness of their Christian community.
The wedding today was beautiful despite a few last minute hitches. Our Pastor, Father Terry, had a close family friend pass away earlier this week. Naturally the funeral ended up being scheduled the same day as the wedding. He planned to concelebrate the funeral Mass at a location an hour away and still make it back in time for the wedding, but instead, this gave us an opportunity to ask my cousin, Father Bob, a retired diocesan priest if he could perform the ceremony. He agreed to do it, and it was even nicer having a family member preside. Father Bob gave a lovely homily explaining the covenant between God and Man and how it relates to the Sacrament of Matrimony.
So now the day has ended. My big teddy-bear son is married and entering a new chapter in his life. I love him and his wife dearly and pray they grow in faith together for many years to come. They gave us a beautiful note Evan had written thanking us for all we had done for him over the years. Mary told us not to open it until we got home because she did not want to see any weepy eyes. I am sure glad we heeded her words! I only hope I did enough. May God Bless them richly.
Friday, May 21, 2010
One Hundred Years Ago Today
As I knelt waiting for Mass to begin on a cold rainy Monday evening, I became aware of the comfort I felt under the shelter of our old church building. Exactly one hundred years ago, my grandfather was a prominent figure in the construction of our church, a beautiful red brick edifice that stands tall as a testament to our Catholic Faith in this small Indiana town. It has weathered many storms over those hundred years while those inside prayed amidst the peaceful glow of candlelight.
The following paragraph is taken from a Diamond Jubilee booklet published by our parish in 1956:
Prior to the spring of 1910, solicitations for the building of the new church and school had been going on for some three or four years, and an accumulative fund of about five thousand dollars had been compiled. The Church committee was comprised of Frank Vessely, Frank Dalka, and Joseph Dolezal [my grandfather], men of good sensible and prudent minds, as can readily be seen by the pretentious edifice that was erected for housing Our Lord. The building of solid brick, was built on the exact site of the old structure. The high ceiling sanctuary and the main body of the church with most elegant stained glass windows, and the front vestibule over which the choir loft was flanked on each side by steeples in which one has the bell, and the other the Baptistry, is the complete floor plan of our church. The school was also started at the same time, consisting of four large classrooms. This tremendous undertaking cost in the vicinity of $45,000, however this does not include the many hours that were donated by all parishioners of labor, as well as their hard worked teams of horses, hauling the sand from the basement, the unloading and hauling of the lumber and brick from railroad cars to the site, the mixing of cement, mortar and plaster. The corner stone for the church was laid on May 21, 1910, by the Very Rev. Louis A. Moench of Mishawaka, delegated by Bishop Alerding to perform the ceremony. On Easter Sunday, April 11, 1911, the church was ready for its first Mass. The church was completely furnished, with the exception of the High Altar and stations of the cross. These buildings carried a $40,000 mortgage. The yoke was of very great weight and it was felt for almost 20 years.
Think of all the things that have occurred in the world while this church building was standing, and how those events affected the thousands of people who sought solace in the real presence of Christ within her walls. Two world wars, the depression, triumphs and tragedies, births and deaths, weddings and funerals, good times and bad. Here in this small town church, the Body of Jesus Christ awaits us daily, offering comfort and forgiveness, peace and tranquility. As the brick walls and slate roof protect us from the elements, Christ’s Church, built upon the Peter the rock, shelters us from the storms we face in everyday life.
Imagine building a church and a school with $5000 down payment and a $40,000 20-year mortgage. It seems funny today, but that was a huge amount of money back then. What faith our Catholic ancestors must have had to even attempt such a project. I pray that their Faith brought them a great reward in heaven, and I hope they are watching over us as we still reap the fruits of their labor.
As I knelt waiting for Mass to begin on a cold rainy Monday evening, I became aware of the comfort I felt under the shelter of our old church building. Exactly one hundred years ago, my grandfather was a prominent figure in the construction of our church, a beautiful red brick edifice that stands tall as a testament to our Catholic Faith in this small Indiana town. It has weathered many storms over those hundred years while those inside prayed amidst the peaceful glow of candlelight.
The following paragraph is taken from a Diamond Jubilee booklet published by our parish in 1956:
Prior to the spring of 1910, solicitations for the building of the new church and school had been going on for some three or four years, and an accumulative fund of about five thousand dollars had been compiled. The Church committee was comprised of Frank Vessely, Frank Dalka, and Joseph Dolezal [my grandfather], men of good sensible and prudent minds, as can readily be seen by the pretentious edifice that was erected for housing Our Lord. The building of solid brick, was built on the exact site of the old structure. The high ceiling sanctuary and the main body of the church with most elegant stained glass windows, and the front vestibule over which the choir loft was flanked on each side by steeples in which one has the bell, and the other the Baptistry, is the complete floor plan of our church. The school was also started at the same time, consisting of four large classrooms. This tremendous undertaking cost in the vicinity of $45,000, however this does not include the many hours that were donated by all parishioners of labor, as well as their hard worked teams of horses, hauling the sand from the basement, the unloading and hauling of the lumber and brick from railroad cars to the site, the mixing of cement, mortar and plaster. The corner stone for the church was laid on May 21, 1910, by the Very Rev. Louis A. Moench of Mishawaka, delegated by Bishop Alerding to perform the ceremony. On Easter Sunday, April 11, 1911, the church was ready for its first Mass. The church was completely furnished, with the exception of the High Altar and stations of the cross. These buildings carried a $40,000 mortgage. The yoke was of very great weight and it was felt for almost 20 years.
Think of all the things that have occurred in the world while this church building was standing, and how those events affected the thousands of people who sought solace in the real presence of Christ within her walls. Two world wars, the depression, triumphs and tragedies, births and deaths, weddings and funerals, good times and bad. Here in this small town church, the Body of Jesus Christ awaits us daily, offering comfort and forgiveness, peace and tranquility. As the brick walls and slate roof protect us from the elements, Christ’s Church, built upon the Peter the rock, shelters us from the storms we face in everyday life.
Imagine building a church and a school with $5000 down payment and a $40,000 20-year mortgage. It seems funny today, but that was a huge amount of money back then. What faith our Catholic ancestors must have had to even attempt such a project. I pray that their Faith brought them a great reward in heaven, and I hope they are watching over us as we still reap the fruits of their labor.
Saturday, April 24, 2010
Stoning the Rock
The Church is in the national news most every day, and none of it is good. Sex abuse allegations, many dating back decades, have resurfaced, bringing out the Church-hating sharks that smell blood in the water. They would like nothing more than to bring down Pope Benedict by somehow connecting him to a cover up. In this age where the Catholic Church stands alone in claiming authority to speak for God in condemning abortion, artificial birth control, and same-sex marriage among other things, secularists are determined to destroy the Church and everything she stands for.
Yes, members of the Church committed grave sins. These things should have never happened. From what I have read, sexual abuse is even more prevalent in Protestant communities and our educational system, but those cases do not get the same media attention as the ones in the Catholic Church. Don’t get me wrong. The Catholic Church should be held to a much higher standard than any other ecclesial community or institution, but these stories do not make the front pages because the media holds the Church in high regard. On the contrary, they despise the Church for having the audacity to claim moral authority while seemingly trying to hide its own indiscretions. This is a natural reaction that we will have to live with.
The Church has put itself in a difficult position. The secular media is not going to present the magisterial side of the story. Not understanding Holy Orders, they do not realize the difficulty in “unlaying” of hands. They will not consider the attitude society had forty or fifty years ago, when counseling was often the prescribed remedy for sex abusers. We will never hear that civil authorities were usually not notified because the alleged victims’ families did not want them notified. Certainly, any of the victims could have called the police at any time. That is not to say everything was handled properly. Terrible mistakes were made. Yet, the lawsuits and other pending actions likely have little to do with aiding the victims, and everything to do with destroying the Church.
The Church is in the national news most every day, and none of it is good. Sex abuse allegations, many dating back decades, have resurfaced, bringing out the Church-hating sharks that smell blood in the water. They would like nothing more than to bring down Pope Benedict by somehow connecting him to a cover up. In this age where the Catholic Church stands alone in claiming authority to speak for God in condemning abortion, artificial birth control, and same-sex marriage among other things, secularists are determined to destroy the Church and everything she stands for.
Yes, members of the Church committed grave sins. These things should have never happened. From what I have read, sexual abuse is even more prevalent in Protestant communities and our educational system, but those cases do not get the same media attention as the ones in the Catholic Church. Don’t get me wrong. The Catholic Church should be held to a much higher standard than any other ecclesial community or institution, but these stories do not make the front pages because the media holds the Church in high regard. On the contrary, they despise the Church for having the audacity to claim moral authority while seemingly trying to hide its own indiscretions. This is a natural reaction that we will have to live with.
The Church has put itself in a difficult position. The secular media is not going to present the magisterial side of the story. Not understanding Holy Orders, they do not realize the difficulty in “unlaying” of hands. They will not consider the attitude society had forty or fifty years ago, when counseling was often the prescribed remedy for sex abusers. We will never hear that civil authorities were usually not notified because the alleged victims’ families did not want them notified. Certainly, any of the victims could have called the police at any time. That is not to say everything was handled properly. Terrible mistakes were made. Yet, the lawsuits and other pending actions likely have little to do with aiding the victims, and everything to do with destroying the Church.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)