What an uproar has occurred at the University of Illinois over Catholic doctrine. It seems that Kenneth Howell, an adjunct instructor, sent an email to his students at the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign. In the email, Howell was trying to clarify a teaching point about utilitarianism and used the subject of homosexuality to illustrate his point. In the email explanation Howell says, "Before looking at the issue of criteria, however, we have to remind ourselves of the ever-present tendency in all of us to judge morality by emotion. The most frequent reason I hear people supporting same-sex marriage is that they know some gay couples or individuals. Empathy is a noble human quality but right or wrong does not depend on who is doing the action or on how I feel about those people, just as judging an action wrong should not depend on disliking someone. This might seem obvious to a right thinking person but I have encountered many well-educated people who do not (or cannot?) make the distinction between persons and acts when engaging moral reasoning. I encourage you to read the final essay editorial I sent earlier to reflect on this. In short, to judge an action wrong is not to condemn a person. A person and his/her acts can be distinguished for the purposes of morality." He goes on to say, "Natural Moral Theory says that if we are to have healthy sexual lives, we must return to a connection between procreation and sex. Why? Because that is what is REAL. It is based on human sexual anatomy and physiology. Human sexuality is inherently unitive and procreative. If we encourage sexual relations that violate this basic meaning, we will end up denying something essential about our humanity, about our feminine and masculine nature." A student, who is sympathetic to the homosexual lifestyle but was not enrolled in Howell class, became upset and anonymously reported Howell's actions to an administrator at Illinois. Howell has now been releaved of his duties for next semester. He is teaching a class on Catholic belief and has done so for years. But because someone does not like hearing anything that disagrees with their own world view, he is being punished. The bottom line is Howell used the example to illustrate his point in the correct context and his logic was sound. In addition, his interpretation of the doctrine is correct. So the issue becomes one of free speech and more fundamentally, moral truth. We all know that that is a red flag in this climate of political correctness and group-think. Howell is suffering for his Church and more importantly being attacked because of his belief in Jesus Christ. Pray that he be restored to his position and that his example will bring more believers to the salvation offered by Jesus Christ.