Sunday, March 1, 2015
My posting today follows a thread developed over the past few days by Professors Rick Garnett and Kevin Walsh. Further catalysts for what I present today are the recent deaths of Professor Charlie Rice and Fathers Richard McBrien and Ted Hesburgh who dedicated their lives to the academy that identifies itself as Catholic. Regardless of personal differences on specific issues, we all share a common project of education that uses the principal modifier Catholic. Regardless of the level of education—be it primary, secondary, tertiary, post-graduate, or professional—the Church has had a long history and therefore a long participation in education. In the present political, social, and legal climates, there has been and will likely continue to be a good deal of discussion about Catholic education as Rick’s and Kevin’s postings inform us.
Recent news items have brought up many facets of the central topic of Catholic education. By way of illustration, these subjects include: the tussles between Archbishop Cordileone of San Francisco and various political, social, and cultural interests based in California and elsewhere; the concerns focused on Notre Dame’s review of the core curriculum and the role of the theology (and perhaps philosophy) requirement(s); the ability of any Catholic institution to hire (and fire) for mission; and, the concession by some institutions (e.g., Creighton and Notre Dame) to grant marital and family benefits to faculty and staff who are in same-sex relationships. As I have indicated, this list is not exhaustive, but it covers some of the more prominent and current controversies intersecting the Catholic institution of education.
Today I argue that these and other controversies emerge from a fundamental misconception of the role of the Church in institutions considered by many as a part of the Church. The list of institutions especially includes educational bodies. One major contributing factor to the existence of these disagreements and disputes is a misunderstanding of Conciliar texts of Vatican II that “the Church has always had the duty of scrutinizing the signs of the times and interpreting them in the light of the Gospel.” (Gaudium et Spes, N. 4) The misconstructions of this phrase have led many to think that the Church needs to conform to contemporary norms rather than to study and evaluate carefully and objectively the claims posed by these modern norms. I subscribe to the latter interpretation which I submit is supported by the use of the word scrutinizing and the phrase interpreting them in the light of the Gospel that appears in Gaudium et Spes (the Latin text reads: per omnes tempus Ecclesiae officium incumbit signa temporum perscrutandi et sub Evangelii luce interpretandi) This provision of Gaudium et Spes recognizes that the Church has a fundamental task of continuing the work begun by our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ who “entered this world to give witness to the truth, to rescue and not to sit in judgment, to serve and not to be served” (opus ipsius continuare Christi, qui in mundum venit ut testimonium perhiberet veritati, ut salvaret, non ut iudicaret, ut ministraret, non ut sibi ministraretur). Much attention has been paid to the idea of “who am I to judge?” uttered by Pope Francis and which is suggested in this last passage quoted from Gaudium et Spes. Pope Francis has indeed been the catalyst of some interesting interpretations about not judging others. But any of us, be we clerical, religious, or lay who are or claim to be disciples of Christ have the sacred trust to evangelize the world in an authentic fashion. The objective of this claim is found in our fundamental prayer taught to us by Jesus: it is God’s will, not mine or yours, that is to be done. Doing the will of God is not judging but acting on the commission our Lord gave to us in Baptism. I shall return to this point later.
But I now return to a central matter that Rick and Kevin have introduced. One way of considering an important issue that they have presented is by asking the question: what makes a Catholic school—regardless of the level of education—Catholic?
Continue
reading
Check out this event, featuring Prof. Russell Hittinger, at Lumen Christi, in Chicago. If you can attend, then do!
This lecture will compare the great pontificates that represented two “modern times”: Leo XIII at the end of the 19th century and John Paul II at the end of the 20th. Between Leo’s birth in 1810 to JPII’s death in 2005, the lived experience of these two men encompass all modern times, both secular and ecclesiastical – from Napoleon to the iPhone. What was at stake for the Church over the course of this rapidly changing century? How did the social teaching of these two popes differ in addressing the modern crises of their day?
Picking up on a topic that Michael Moreland addressed a few years ago . . . It's not a surprise, I suppose, that the novel and TV series "Wolf Hall" are popular. Somehow, it had to happen that the Man for All Seasons image of St. Thomas More be torn down. After all, a Catholic who stood up to the overreaching claims of state power, at the cost of his life, could not be allowed to remain a secular hero forever. Still, I hope "Wolf Hall" fans and producers will remember some of the points raised in this piece, about Henry, More, Cromwell, and "the biggest land-grab and asset-strip in English history."
Saturday, February 28, 2015
Prof. Randy Boyagoda is the author of a new biography of Fr. Richard John Neuhaus, A Life in the Public Square. I'm excited to read it. Here is a bit of a preview, which ran the other day in the Wall Street Journal. A taste:
Neuhaus . . . affirmed the core premise of Enlightenment political thought: the differentiation of public authority into separate, autonomous spheres that valued individual rights.
He argued that the strongest support for these rights came from the Judeo-Christian tradition’s foundational conviction: We are made in the image of God. Demanding absolute obedience to political dictates, whether in the name of God or something else, would undo centuries of political progress, and goes against God’s own gift of free will to every human person.
Richard beat me to it, but my friend and colleague Prof. Charles Rice -- a deeply good and generous man -- passed away this week. It's almost as if this Notre Dame Law School legend -- he has probably taught half of our living alumni -- ducked out of the side exit, to avoid making a big scene, overshadowed in the press (though not, I feel confident, among the Heavenly Host) by Fr. Hesburgh's death. (Learn more about his work and life here.)
I first encountered Notre Dame through Charlie. In the 1970s, my father -- then an Alaska lawyer -- attended a seminar at which Charlie presented on defending pro-life protesters. Years later, when I was thinking about law school, Charlie contacted me (I've always assumed at my dad's suggestion) and was (as always) generous and helpful. Later, when I started thinking about the legal academy, some of the most important people who shaped my decision were Charlie and his son-in-law, Seamus Hasson, founder of the Becket Fund and all-around religious-freedom hero.
Charlie was, of course, a titan in the pro-life movement, both locally and nationally. He was also a teacher beloved by many thousands -- some of whom agreed with his politics, many of whom I am sure did not -- who would always go the extra mile to help a student or graduate in any way. He cared much more about decency and solidarity than about prestige and praise. He welcomed me to Notre Dame and supported and encouraged me when I was getting started. He wrote several books and piles of articles for a range of audiences. Often overlooked, unfortunately, is a really good (and prescient!) book he did more than 50 years ago, The Freedom of Association.He was a boxer and a Marine. He helped build a wonderful family. God bless him.
It's really hard to imagine putting the point better. And, talk about timely! Here's Fr. Ted, more than 50 years ago:
Someone asked me recently: "What is the great problem for the Catholic university in our modem pluralistic society?" I was obliged to answer that the modernCatholic university faces a dual problem. First, because everything in a pluralistic society tends to become homogenized, the Catholic university has the temptation to become like all other universities, with theology and philosophy attached to the academic body like a kind of vermiform appendix, a vestigial remnant, neither useful nor decorative, a relic of the past. If this happens, the Catholic university may indeed become a great university, but it will not be a Catholic university.
The second problem involves understanding that while our society is called religiously pluralistic, it is in fact, and more realistically, secularistic—with theology and philosophy relegated to a position of neglect or, worse, irrelevance. Against this strong tide, the Catholic university must demonstrate that all the human problems which it studies are at base philosophical and theological, since they relate ultimately to the nature and destiny of man. The Catholic university must strive mightily to understand the philosophical and theological dimensions of the modern problems that face man today, and once these dimensions are understood, it must show the relevance of the philosophical and theological approach if adequate solutions are to be found for these problems.
