If the University had claimed his actions were not part of the relevant Philosophy curriculum, that all may be true.Where I live, Catholic universities are not just for Catholics nor is adherence to the Catholic faith an expectation or requirement for students. It is not a seminary or anything vaguely resembling that.
We don’t know the full context of this particular man’s actions. It is not sufficient to recognize he spoke the truth we Catholics believe and thus conclude he’s done no wrong. Is it ok to hop up on the soap box and “lecture” on moral ills and present catholic doctrines in the midst of that particular class, should the lecturer feel so inclined?
I took a “philosophy of religion” course once. Had the lecturer exhorted us all to see “the light”, to recognize the “truth of the one true church” - he would also be quite out of line.
I don’t say the university was right to fire him. But it is wrong to conclude (given limited information) that the university erred.
Let’s assume for the moment what you speculated was entirely true. Was it a fireable or dismissal offense? Does this university apply the same severe disciplinary action toward other lecturers who commit the similar offense?There is much speculation here. We don’t have the specifics.
If the lecturer had said: “Let’s consider the position of the Catholic Church. It holds that life begins at conception and…etc etc…abortion is a sin…depriving life from an innocent human…the same species of act as murder…”.
Now I think we can be sure that presenting that information, accurately and dispassionately, could be well in scope for the class and would be no grounds for complaint, let alone disciplinary action.
It seems very likely the lecturer’s behaviour was quite different.
Since we lack detail on both questions, we can’t know.Let’s assume for the moment what you speculated was entirely true. Was it a fireable or dismissal offense? Does this university apply the same severe disciplinary action toward other lecturers who commit the similar offense?
The main problem is that many (if not most) Catholic Colleges / Universities in Europe and the Americas are in open/public dissent to Ex corde Ecclesiae.Where I live, Catholic universities are not just for Catholics nor is adherence to the Catholic faith an expectation or requirement for students. It is not a seminary or anything vaguely resembling that.
We don’t know the full context of this particular man’s actions. It is not sufficient to recognize he spoke the truth we Catholics believe and thus conclude he’s done no wrong. Is it ok to hop up on the soap box and “lecture” on moral ills and present catholic doctrines in the midst of that particular class, should the lecturer feel so inclined?
I took a “philosophy of religion” course once. Had the lecturer exhorted us all to see “the light”, to recognize the “truth of the one true church” - he would also be quite out of line.
I don’t say the university was right to fire him. But it is wrong to conclude (given limited information) that the university erred.
I agree. However, that does not bear directly on whether this lecturer acted improperly or properly. Eg. If he explained the Catholic teaching, that would likely be proper. If he declared in an aggressive tone that “any woman sitting in this lecture theatre who has had an abortion is guilty of murder…”, that would likely be improper (never mind the ambiguity in the reference to murder).…The fundamental purpose of a Catholic college is evangelization, catechesis, and providing a Catholic atmosphere to foster a Catholic worldview in academics.
If a Catholic college does not put these things first, then there is no reason for it to exist.
Sure, Catholic colleges don’t all have to be seminaries; but they should be promoting & supporting the Catholic worldview.
True. But this is Belgium. So I fear that whatever voice inflection, tone, etc that he used was just an excuse to remove a professor that didn’t follow the atheistic and liberal agenda of the secularists in power.I agree. However, that does not bear directly on whether this lecturer acted improperly or properly. Eg. If he explained the Catholic teaching, that would likely be proper. If he declared in an aggressive tone that “any woman sitting in this lecture theatre who has had an abortion is guilty of murder…”, that would likely be improper (never mind the ambiguity in the reference to murder).
I also suspect that the implications of a university being “catholic” are not appreciated by many stakeholders and observers.
Looking at the article, the only clear fact that emerges is that the university justified non-opposition to abortion as it “stressed that abortion was legal in Belgium since 1990 and it respected women’s autonomy to opt for it.”There is much speculation here. We don’t have the specifics.
If the lecturer had said: “Let’s consider the position of the Catholic Church. It holds that life begins at conception and…etc etc…abortion is a sin…depriving life from an innocent human…the same species of act as murder…”.
Now I think we can be sure that presenting that information, accurately and dispassionately, could be well in scope for the class and would be no grounds for complaint, let alone disciplinary action.
It seems very likely the lecturer’s behaviour was quite different.
I think that’s a completely unsafe assumption given the limited fact base.Looking at the article, the only clear fact that emerges is that the university justified non-opposition to abortion as it “stressed that abortion was legal in Belgium since 1990 and it respected women’s autonomy to opt for it.”
It does not give any clear criticism of Mercier’s personal approach which would certainly be expected if he had acted in an unprofessional or unethical manner.
Hence one can assume it to be more likely that the University took exception to Mercier’s pro-lie stance as such rather than the manner in which he disseminated it.
If the law of the land determines one’s moral stance in public then calling abortion ‘wrong’ or ‘evil’ is just as bad as calling it ‘murder’. If the law allows it one cannot oppose it, in this logic. Any kind of pro life stance then becomes objectionable - with practical consequences.I think that’s a completely unsafe assumption given the limited fact base.
It is not a sackable offence to be “pro-life” in any jurisdiction. But to declare abortion “murder” (in the relevant context) - contrary to the law of the land - is asking for trouble, I would think. By all accounts he was not exposing Church teaching (for students to consider), but personal views presented in strident fashion.
Nothing can be concluded from the absence of personal criticism of the lecturer. Such would typically provide additional grounds for the predictable wrongful dismissal lawsuit.
The law of the land does not determine one’s moral stance, however, the lecturer is not (cannot) be in trouble for his personal moral beliefs, any more than the Catholic Bishop’s of Belgium can be in trouble for theirs. He can only be in trouble for his behaviour. It was not the lecturer’s role to “volunteer” (rather bluntly it would seem) his personal moral stance with his Philosophy students - presenting his position as fact given he held a position of educational leadership.If the law of the land determines one’s moral stance in public then calling abortion ‘wrong’ or ‘evil’ is just as bad as calling it ‘murder’. If the law allows it one cannot oppose it, in this logic. Any kind of pro life stance then becomes objectionable - with practical consequences.
Very much the mentality in countries that have a positivist approach to morality - whatever is legal is right, or at least excusable. But a wrong law remains a wrong law, never mind how venerable the buildings in which it is enacted or how august the legislators who enact it.
Keep constantly in mind what the university itself emphasized: it “stressed that abortion was legal in Belgium since 1990 and it respected women’s autonomy to opt for it.” So the university was against the very notion of calling abortion murder, irrespective of the academic context in which it was done.The law of the land does not determine one’s moral stance, however, the lecturer is not (cannot) be in trouble for his personal moral beliefs, any more than the Catholic Bishop’s of Belgium can be in trouble for theirs. He can only be in trouble for his behaviour. It was not the lecturer’s role to “volunteer” (rather bluntly it would seem) his personal moral stance with his Philosophy students - presenting his position as fact given he held a position of educational leadership.
While sharing the lecturers espoused opinion, I take the view he should not have expressed them in the manner and context that he did and I can envisage multiple avenues to articulate the position he did on abortion that would not have landed him in hot water. [Though still not clear how this topic arises in a philosophy class.]
Why don’t we just be honest and say that in most places Catholic universities are simply not Catholic anymore.Where I live, Catholic universities are not just for Catholics nor is adherence to the Catholic faith an expectation or requirement for students. It is not a seminary or anything vaguely resembling that.
rred.
As ugly as it may seem, women do have that autonomy. That fact does not prevent exposing Catholic principles, which only a fool would do in the manner this lecturer appears to have adopted. It is not the usual practice of the Church (charged with moral teaching) to trumpet “abortion is murder and those women who have committed it are murderers”. Perhaps this is because, like this university, the Church is not sufficiently “Catholic”? Or perhaps because the Church recognizes the folly of such an approach?Keep constantly in mind what the university itself emphasized: it “stressed that abortion was legal in Belgium since 1990 and it respected women’s autonomy to opt for it.” So the university was against the very notion of calling abortion murder, irrespective of the academic context in which it was done.
I suppose because that statement is a little unclear.Why don’t we just be honest and say that in most places Catholic universities are simply not Catholic anymore.
What, exactly, was this “folly”? More than likely, the teacher offended the supposed sensibilities of politically-correct feminists. Arguably, he should have known better, presuming he wished to keep his position at the university.As ugly as it may seem, women do have that autonomy. That fact does not prevent exposing Catholic principles, which only a fool would do in the manner this lecturer appears to have adopted. It is not the usual practice of the Church (charged with moral teaching) to trumpet “abortion is murder and those women who have committed it are murderers”. Perhaps this is because, like this university, the Church is not sufficiently “Catholic”? Or perhaps because the Church recognizes the folly of such an approach?
Yes. Do you think he advanced the pro-life cause by calling the relevant women’s Murfderers? Do you see the Church adopt that approach from the pulpit or in other fora.…Arguably, he should have known better…