The Catholic Law School Conundrum

As my co-blogistas know, I have written extensively on the question of what it means for a law school to be Catholic, and presented papers on the topic at conferences and at both secular and Catholic law schools. And as many know, I have been engaged with my faculty colleagues at Villanova in an effort to discover a new Catholic identity for a "Catholic" law schol that had become, like so many others, almost entirely secular. I have been reluctant, however, to jump into the very interesting discussion on this topic that popped up recently. First of all,I imagine that most folks have heard just about enough from me on this topic. Second, as a sitting dean who is not just theorizing about this issue, but trying to actualize it, I have to be very careful about what I say. Despite these reservations, I cannot help commenting on some points that have been made.

1. Amy is correct that the narrative about Catholic legal education is not a "decline from the golden age" narrative. There never was a golden age of Catholic legal education. Before the 60's most Catholic law schools were sociologically Catholic, and served the goal of providing social mobility to the children of the immigrant church (and many Jews who suffered from similar economic and social exclusion), but there was never any attempt (with rare exceptions) to integrate the Catholic intellectual and moral tradition with the study of law. What is happening today in the two new Catholic  law schools and a very small number of old ones is an attempt to find a new type of Catholic identity that never existed before.

2. I agree entirely with Amy that there is some range of possibilities or ways for law schools to be Catholic. We tend to thrust totalizing definitions of what is "Catholic" at each other in a way that is not, well, very Catholic. While I certainly respect what Richard Myers and Kevin Lee have articulated  as a Catholic vision of a faith community, I do not believe that is the only way for an institution that calls itself Catholic to serve the Lord. I have written elsewhere about my concept of an "inclusive" Catholic law school, so will not belabor this point here.

3. That being said, I think I am far less sanguine than Amy about the Catholicity of the great majority of Catholic law schools, including virtually all the Jesuit ones. There are lot of ways to explain this. Anecdotally, I would like to refer to a collection of quotes from the deans of such law schools, to wit: "We are not a Catholic law school; we are a law school in a Catholic university" (showing at least a kind of Catholic capacity for abstraction);"the law school does not support the Catholic mission of the university;" "The priests leave us alone;" and "Well, the Mass schedule is posted, and there are some crucifixes around: that's pretty Catholic!" To continue anecdotally, I have had the occassion to speak to the faculties of three other Catholic law schools in the last year or so about mission. While my message was, I thought, pretty moderate, the atmosphere of hostility, fear (and rudeness) in the room was palpable. These are not places comfortable with the notion that they are or should be any more Catholic than Princeton is Presbyterian, Columia Episcopalian or Harvard Congregationalist. To move beyond anecdote, I can only point at the obvious paucity of Catholic faculty in most "Catholic" law schools and the scarcity of scholarship and teaching emanating from those schools that engages with the tradition .

4. Amy makes an eloquent argument about the need for diversity and ecumenicism in Catholic law schools, and the need for dialogue between colleagues and others, as profoundly expressive of Catholic values. I agree 100%. The problem is that in most schools there is plenty of ecumenicism, diversity and dialogue, but no or very little Catholicism! Not only does Catholicism  not have any privileged or foundational position, it is entirely (or mostly)absent from the dialogue. Indeed, as I suggested above, it is usually shunned, out of fear that it will "take over." I am very fortunate that my colleagues at Villanova have been thoughtful, open-minded and courageous enough to engage positively with the Catholic intellectual and moral tradition, but that is a rare thing. In other words, I don't think a law school that is "diverse" but not committed to any kind of serious engagement with Catholicism can call itself "Catholic" simply because it is diverse!

5. Of course, the usual response is that "we are Catholic because we do clinics and pro bono, teach jurisprudence and emphasize ethics," or that " we honor the Jesuit tradition by instilling in our students a passion for justice." My usual response is that my former employer, the Univ of Maryland, says exactly the same things (and does them very well!). Does that make it Catholic? More important, is there anything in the way those schools do those things that have anything to do with Catholic jurispruidential or ethical concepts, let alone the Catholic (or Jesuit) understanding of what "justice" means? I don't think so. John Breen has written very thoughtfully about this, as have others.

Amy's generosity of spirit and tolerant heart always makes me feel a bit like Sadaam Hussein (or at least Scrooge). And I do agree that the range of models for what constitutes a Catholic law school is broader than some might believe, but I think there is a limit. A school that does not include a vibrant and sustainable collection of Catholic voices, a willingness to express and engage with the Catholic moral and intellectual traditions, and a consciousness of itself as Catholic,may be a perfectly good law school, but not one that is "Catholic" in any meaningful sense.

--Mark