Mirror of Justice

Charles Dickens begins A Tale of Two Cities with these words:

“It was the best of times, it was the worst of times, it was the age of wisdom, it was the age of foolishness, it was the epoch of belief, it was the epoch of incredulity, it was the season of Light, it was the season of Darkness, it was the spring of hope, it was the winter of despair, we had everything before us, we had nothing before us, we were all going direct to Heaven, we were all going direct the other way—in short, the period was so far like the present period, that some of its noisiest authorities insisted on its being received, for good or for evil, in the superlative degree of comparison only.”

Dickens opening of his great novel could well provide the context in which Archbishop Michael Miller, the Secretary for the Congregation for Catholic Education, addressed audiences at Boston College and Creighton University in the past several days. Unfortunately, neither of his major addresses delivered at those two institutions has been published yet. Only a few news reports presently offer some of the insights that he presented about Catholic higher education—which I venture to say has some bearing on the project of Mirror of Justice. These two speeches of the archbishop follow his earlier foray into an examination of Catholic higher education in the US late last October at Notre Dame, which some of us discussed at that time. One of the key phrases the archbishop used in his previous Notre Dame address was the possibility that institutions that had wandered from their mission of promoting and fostering the Catholic intellect and culture could be candidates for “evangelical pruning.” I do not think he intended to say that these pruned institutions would be closed or that faculty and staff would be dismissed from their posts. Rather, I think he meant that the pruned institutions would be able to go their own way without the ability to assert that they were still a Catholic—or Benedictine, or Dominican, or Franciscan, or Jesuit—institution.

I shall reserve the opportunity to reexamine the archbishop’s text once it becomes available. But it seems that the several news correspondents that were present and reported his address have provided some initial thoughts and questions for our consideration about Catholic higher education, in general, and where it intersects legal education that takes places on campuses identified with Catholic institutions. One way of beginning to assess the impact that his recent series of addresses may have is to consider words that one reporter attributed to the archbishop as he commenced his Boston College address on September 11. It was the opinion of the reporter that the archbishop critiqued American universities, which call themselves Catholic, because of their loss of religious identity. As the archbishop was reported to have said:

“In the U.S, the vast majority of Catholic universities are non-ecclesiastical. Instead they were founded by religious sects and are now run by a board of trustees… [But] I would like to express my support for the endeavors to secure the ecclesial membership of BC and to encourage the ongoing efforts of Boston College in becoming a truly great Catholic university… Catholic universities in the U.S. should be at the forefront of the church’s dialogue with culture.”

I am intrigued by his statement that this particular institution is making efforts to become a truly great Catholic university. But, does mean that this school is not there yet? It seems that in the estimation of the archbishop, there is still work—perhaps much work—to be undertaken for it to become “a truly great Catholic university.” While complimenting some of its endeavors, it is clear that he argues that there is still work to be done. How much work remains to be seen.

He then continued his presentation by advocating that Catholic educational institutions must present their “uncompromising Catholicity” to society. One, but not the only reason for this is that the health of these institutions matters a great deal to the Holy See. As a former university president in the United States, the archbishop also pointed out that for a university to embrace a Catholic identity it must serve as a counterpoint to other universities which fragment the knowledge of an integral, perhaps even Christian, humanism and divorce the pursuit of learning and investigation from any reference to faith. I begin to wonder when Catholic colleges and universities, including their law schools, display pride in being like the “ivies” and other “topped ranked” schools that have largely divorced themselves from integrated and Christian humanism and the nexus between reason and faith? In some instances, it is clear that these “great” institutions are distrustful of religious faith, including Catholicism, and treat religion as one of many elements in a “pluralistic culture”—but often with an abundance of suspicion or criticism. There is no doubt that in his two recent addresses that Archbishop Miller was challenging his audiences and their respective institutions to begin a renewal of Catholic identity, which includes the pursuit of the complementarity of faith and reason. In short, these American institutions of higher learning must chart this course if they are to continue to rely on the moniker “Catholic.” To fail in this endeavor would be an error that may well lead to their “pruning.”

The archbishop was not hesitant to point out that some dimensions of the problems he investigated emerge from the Catholic community itself when it opposes certain teachings of the Church and fails to examine objectively its content. It would seem from the thrust of his remarks that this sort of enterprise is counter-productive to the endeavor of the Catholic renewal he has in mind. It is clear that those who promote these critiques of the Catholic faith and its teachings have found a home in institutions where the vital relationship between faith and reason may receive lip service but not substantive endorsement and support. The institution which chooses to be Catholic, along with the members of its community, must recall that they are a witness for, not an adversary to, the Church and its intellectual tradition. Relying on the cloak of “academic freedom” does little to conceal the reality of the betrayal of the institution’s raison d’être. To be true to its identity, the Catholic institution must be free to pursue the truth—God’s truth—and not a weak human counterpart riddled with subjectivity or the skepticism that this truth cannot be discovered.

With regard to “Jesuit” institutions, Archbishop Miller made the observation that they and their members must not forget the exhortation of St. Ignatius: the institution that is Jesuit and Catholic must “help make God our creator and lord better known and served.” With fidelity to Ignatius’ insight, an institution that claims to be Catholic and Jesuit would be able to “save its place among the best Catholic universities in America and in the world.” It would follow that without this fidelity, the claim to being Catholic and Jesuit, while vigorously proclaimed, is counterfeit.

During his Creighton address, he commented on the vital relationship between the Catholic institution and the local church. Of the local ordinary, Archbishop Miller stated that he is not “an external agent” but must be a participant in and member of the life of the school. I suppose if secular organizations, some of whose missions conflict with that of Church teachings, are welcome on the campus, it should follow that the local bishop and other church leaders should always consider themselves at home at those institutions of higher learning that rely on the term “Catholic” in their name and mission.

Let me end this posting with my reference to Dickens that appeared at the beginning of this presentation. There is some evidence that we live in the best of times in the context of Catholic higher education. There has been a renewal of the vitality of members of academic communities and the institutions of which they are part to engage in the exciting and satisfying pursuit of bringing together the Catholic faith and reason. Some of the recent symposia that other members of MOJ have recently commented on would be a source of evidence demonstrating this. However, we also live in very challenging times in which the heart, soul, and mind of Catholic institutions of higher education are at grave risk. When I see prospective faculty and students who want to be members of these institutions but are rebuffed, I realize we are also in the worst of times—or at least the worst that has happened so far.

If the problems of which Archbishop Miller spoke are of our making (and I am confident that they are), so are the solutions. I look forward to an ongoing discussion about how other MOJ contributors and friends identify the responses that should emerge to address the concerns addressed by the Secretary of the Congregation for Catholic Education. I like to count myself in the group that realizes that, while there is more than some indication that we are surrounded by the season of Darkness and the winter of despair, we are capable of setting our course on the path to Heaven. We have the capacity to labor for the season of Light and the epoch of belief in the one who came to save us al—who is the greatest wisdom and the greatest truth than anyone of us could pursue.

RJA sj