flag and Bible

Discriminatory Blaine Amendment Used Against Education Savings Accounts in Nevada

/in /by

Not long after Nevada created the nation’s first nearly universal education savings account (ESA) program for students last year, two lawsuits were filed to block the program that relied on discriminatory, historically anti-Catholic, provisions in the state constitution. Now the program is on hold following an injunction issued this month by a Nevada district court in one of the cases.

Carson City, Nev., District Judge James Wilson ruled on January 11 that the program “would cause irreparable harm to students in Nevada” by taking public funds out of the current public school system structure to create a “non-uniform system of schools.”

The case, Lopez v. Schwartz, was filed by the Education Law Center (ELC) in September on behalf of several parents. ELC argued that the program violated several provisions of the Nevada constitution, including Article 11, Section 2, which states in part that “any school district which shall allow instruction of a sectarian character therein may be deprived of its proportion of the interest of the public school fund.”

“Article 11, Section 2 suffers from the same anti-Catholic taint that plagues the Blaine Amendment,” argued the Becket Fund for Religious Liberty in an amicus brief. The brief noted: “First, it was passed during a time of sweeping anti-Catholic sentiment and with an intent to remove Catholic influence on public schools, and second, it prohibits ‘sectarian’ influences on schools while leaving unharmed ‘generic’ religious practices in public schools.”

The groundbreaking ESA program, passed into law last summer, creates an account for students in which the state deposits an amount equal to 90 percent of the average amount spent by the state per student during that school year ($5,100 for the 2015-16 school year), or 100 percent for students with a disability or with a household income less than 185 percent of the federal poverty level ($5,700 for the 2015-16 school year).

Funds can be used for a variety of educational expenses, such as private school tuition (including religious schools), tuition at eligible higher education institutions, distance education, curriculum, tutoring, exam fees, transportation and specialized services or therapies for students with a disability.

To be eligible for the program, students must attend a Nevada public or charter school for at least 100 uninterrupted school days immediately prior to submitting an application. The first round of funding to the over 3,500 students who applied for the ESAs was scheduled to be sent out February 1.

Wilson ultimately concluded that plaintiffs “failed to carry their burden of proof” that the ESA program violated Article 11, Section 2, but said the program did violate  Article 11, Sections 6.1 and 6.2, and “irreparable harm will result if an injunction is not entered.”

Nevada Attorney General Adam Paul Laxalt appealed Wilson’s decision to the Nevada Supreme Court: “My Office is working diligently so that parents can enjoy the genuine educational choice envisioned by lawmakers this past legislative session, and remains focused on resolving the matter as quickly as possible to provide families with the certainty they deserve. A ruling from the state Supreme Court will do just that.”

The ACLU of Nevada and Americans United for Separation of Church and State filed a separate lawsuit, Duncan v. Nevada, against the ESA program back in August. In addition to relying on Article 11, Section 2, the lawsuit also argues that the ESA program violates Nevada’s Blaine Amendment found in Article 11, Section 10 of the state constitution: “No public funds of any kind or character whatever, State, County or Municipal, shall be used for sectarian purpose.”

“The education savings account law passed this last legislative session tears down the wall separating church and state erected in Nevada’s constitution,” Tod Story, executive director for the ACLU of Nevada, said at the time.

“To claim that the ESA Program funds ‘sectarian’ purposes is simply a modern spin on the same discrimination that birthed the Blaine Amendments,” the Becket Fund argued in their amicus brief in the case.

Blaine Amendments, named for former Speaker of the House and U.S. Secretary of State James G. Blaine, are provisions currently found in 37 state constitutions prohibiting the use of taxpayer funds at “sectarian” schools. After Blaine’s failed attempt to amend the U.S. Constitution with the proposal in 1875, versions of the amendment were “added to state constitutions in order to enforce the nativist bigotry of the day” against Catholics, according to The Beckett Fund for Religious Liberty. The provisions are now being interpreted to discriminate against non-Catholics as well.

“Activist groups are treating religious schools and the students who choose to attend them like second-class citizens,” said Diana Verm, legal counsel of the Becket Fund. “It is deplorable to see a discriminatory 19th century law being used to prevent children from access to quality education simply because the school may have religious ties.”

The lawsuit brought by the ACLU of Nevada and Americans United for Separation of Church and State is still awaiting a decision by the district court in Clark County, Nev., but the ACLU voiced support for Wilson’s decision in the Lopez case.

“The ACLU of Nevada is still diligently pursuing a permanent remedy to stop this unconstitutional voucher program,” said Amy Rose, legal director of the ACLU of Nevada. “We are pleased to see that another court recognizes that this program runs afoul of the Nevada Constitution.”

Laxalt, who is also defending the ESA program in the Duncan case, stated last week that the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision to hear a case challenging Missouri’s Blaine Amendment was a good sign for Nevada.

“My Office is encouraged by the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision that will be of crucial significance in our defense of Nevada’s Educational Savings Accounts,” he said. “The program is currently being challenged by the American Civil Liberties Union and Americans United for Separation of Church and State, who are asking state courts to twist the Nevada Constitution in ways never imagined, much less intended by our framers, barring parents and private schools with religious affiliations from participating in this important statewide program.

“Nevada’s Constitution does not require religious discrimination,” he continued, “and we are hopeful our nation’s highest Court will confirm that the U.S. Constitution does not allow that either.”

As The Cardinal Newman Society reported last week, a case challenging a discriminatory Blaine Amendment in Missouri’s state constitution will go before the U.S. Supreme Court this year to decide if the state can rely on the historically anti-Catholic constitutional provision in its denial of a grant to a Christian preschool meant to aid in resurfacing the playground with recycled tires.

The U.S. Supreme Court will also make a decision on February 19 to hear a case challenging Colorado’s Blaine Amendment. The Newman Society reported in December that petitioners are challenging a Colorado Supreme Court ruling that blocked scholarship funds to hundreds of families in Douglas County, Colo., who were supposed to be able to use the scholarship to attend a private school of their choice, regardless of a school’s religious identity.

SCOTUS Agrees to Hear Missouri Blaine Amendment Case

/in /by

A case challenging a Blaine Amendment in Missouri’s state constitution will go before the U.S. Supreme Court this year, the Court announced last week, to decide if the state can rely on the discriminatory, historically anti-Catholic, constitutional provision in its denial of a grant to a Christian preschool meant to aid in resurfacing the playground with recycled tires.

“No state can define religious neutrality as treating religious organizations worse than everyone else,” said Alliance Defending Freedom (ADF) Senior Counsel David Cortman in a statement about the Court’s decision to hear the case, Trinity Lutheran Church of Columbia v. Pauley, during its January 15 conference.

“That isn’t neutrality; it’s a hostility to religion that violates the First Amendment,” he continued. “That’s the primary issue that the Supreme Court will address. In this case, the state should not have excluded this preschool from the recycled tire program simply because a church operates the school.”

ADF is representing Trinity Lutheran Church Learning Center in the case. In 2012, Trinity Lutheran applied to Missouri’s Playground Scrap Tire Surface Material Grant Program, which provided funds to schools to resurface playgrounds with the recycled tires, making them safer for children.

Although Trinity Lutheran’s rankings in the application process were high enough to earn the grant, the Missouri Department of Natural Resources denied funding to the preschool because of a section of the state constitution prohibiting government aid to religious institutions, known as a Blaine Amendment.

Blaine Amendments, named for former Speaker of the House and U.S. Secretary of State James G. Blaine, are provisions currently found in 37 state constitutions prohibiting the use of taxpayer funds at “sectarian” schools. After Blaine’s failed attempt to amend the U.S. Constitution with the proposal in 1875, versions of the amendment were “added to state constitutions in order to enforce the nativist bigotry of the day” against Catholics, according to The Beckett Fund for Religious Liberty.

State officials cited the Blaine Amendment in Article 1, Section 7 of the Missouri constitution:

Public aid for religious purposes — preferences and discriminations on religious grounds. — That no money shall ever be taken from the public treasury, directly or indirectly, in aid of any church, sect or denomination of religion, or in aid of any priest, preacher, minister or teacher thereof, as such; and that no preference shall be given to nor any discrimination made against any church, sect or creed of religion, or any form of religious faith or worship.

While the case focuses on a Lutheran preschool, Eric Rassbach, an attorney with The Becket Fund, which filed an amicus brief in the case, told The Cardinal Newman Society that the Supreme Court’s decision “absolutely could have an impact for Catholic schools.”

Rassbach explained that the Missouri state government’s argument could be implemented to mean “that religious entities would not be able to contract with the state. It would mean that religious entities would get no grants, even for completely secular purposes like playground safety.”

If the Supreme Court upheld the state’s argument, “It would be open season on Catholic institutions,” he said.

ADF Senior Legal Counsel Jordan Lorence argued that the state of Missouri’s reasoning was tantamount to saying, “We’re not going to allow the Jewish synagogue to hook up to the sewer system,” or, “We’ll send the police to investigate any burglary unless it’s at the Buddhist monastery.”

“These are just normal, regular governmental services that are available to everybody, and they single out the religious users and say, ‘You cannot participate because of this really extreme and abstract notion of separation of church and state that’s in our constitution,’” he said. “And we’re hoping that the United States Supreme Court will rule in this case that you can’t have such an extreme regime of benefit program under the First Amendment.”

ADF argued in their petition to the Court: “No public benefit could be further removed from the state’s antiestablishment concerns than a grant for safe rubber playground surfaces that serve no religious function or purpose.”

“Children’s safety is just as important on church daycare playgrounds as it is on other daycare playgrounds,” said ADF Senior Counsel Erik Stanley. “Missouri and every state should understand that the U.S. Constitution prohibits religious hostility, which is what Missouri exhibited when it denied Trinity Lutheran’s scrap tire grant application. This case has huge implications for state constitutional provisions across the nation that treat religious Americans and organizations as inferiors solely because of their religious identity.”

Also at issue is the 8th Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals decision last year denying relief for Trinity Lutheran by invoking the Supreme Court’s 2004 decision in Locke v. Davey. In the Locke decision, the Supreme Court held that the state of Washington could deny scholarship funds for the purpose of pursing a degree in devotional theology.

“There is a gap in the constitutional protections between the free exercise of religion and the federal establishment clause,” said Lorence. “There’s some no man’s land legally where a state could, the Supreme Court said in Locke v. Davey back in 2004, single out religious groups and exclude them. … You could study religion but couldn’t study to be a pastor.”

Lorance called the 8th Circuit’s decision “Locke v. Davey gone wild,” and said the Supreme Court’s decision to hear the Trinity Lutheran case is “a good sign” they’re going to rein in the decision.

The Becket Fund’s Rassbach agreed that the Supreme Court is likely to grant a favorable ruling in the Trinity Lutheran case. “I think they’re going to say that the First Amendment and the Fourteenth Amendment don’t allow governments, federal or state, to discriminate against religious institutions merely because they’re religious.”

As the Newman Society previously reported, a challenge to Colorado’s Blaine Amendment is currently awaiting review by the U.S. Supreme Court. In that case, petitioners are challenging a Colorado Supreme Court ruling that blocked scholarship funds to hundreds of families in Douglas County, Colo., who were supposed to be able to use the scholarship to attend a private schools of their choice, regardless of a school’s religious identity. The decision to hear that case will be considered during the Court’s February 19 conference.

The Newman Society also reported last month on families in Montana being denied scholarship funds through a new state school choice program for wanting to send students to private religious schools. The state lawmaker who drafted the legislation for the new program said it was “carefully crafted” to allow funding of private religious schools, but the state, relying on the Blaine Amendment language in the state constitution, will not allow the funds to be used at religious schools.

CNS Joins Amicus Brief Opposing HHS Contraceptive Mandate – Zubik v Burwell, U.S. Supreme Court

/in , /by

Click here to read.

School Choice Threatened by Anti-Catholic Blaine Amendments

/in /by

In an interview last night on EWTN News Nightly, Cardinal Newman Society President Patrick Reilly called attention to the anti-Catholic Blaine Amendments found in many state constitutions that threaten religious freedom and school choice by blocking funds to families who want to send their children to religious schools.

Reilly said it’s “extremely important” for supporters of faithful Catholic education to focus on repealing the Blaine Amendments right now “especially with the push for school choice, and certainly with the secularization in the country.” He noted that in some states “these Blaine Amendments have been used to block any sort of public support that might eventually go to Catholic schools,” such as vouchers and tax credits.

During the interview, Reilly also pointed out that Blaine Amendments “grew out of one of the worst periods of American history.”

“During the 1800s there was a lot of anti-Catholicism, and President Ulysses S. Grant was actually the one who proposed a constitutional amendment that would prevent states from using any funding to support Catholic schools, so it was very much directed at Catholic education,” he said.

Blaine Amendments are named for former Speaker of the House and U.S. Secretary of State James G. Blaine who, following Grant’s lead, attempted to amend the U.S. Constitution to prohibit the use of taxpayer funds at “sectarian” schools in 1875 while he was Speaker. The federal amendment failed, but versions of the amendment were “added to state constitutions in order to enforce the nativist bigotry of the day” against Catholics, according to The Beckett Fund for Religious Liberty, and are currently found in 37 state constitutions.

As the Newman Society reported last week, it’s possible that the U.S. Supreme Court could overturn all state Blaine Amendments if the Court takes a case out of Colorado challenging a Colorado Supreme Court ruling that blocked scholarship funds to families based on Blaine Amendment language in the state Constitution.

The scholarship program was passed unanimously in March 2011 by the Douglas County School District Board of Education, but was almost immediately enjoined following legal challenges by the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU), Americans United for Separation of Church and State, and several local organizations. The program awarded scholarships to approximately 500 students in Douglas County, Colo., who were supposed to be able to use the scholarship to attend a private schools of their choice, regardless of a school’s religious identity.

Three petitions were submitted in October 2015 asking the U.S. Supreme Court to decide on the constitutionality of Colorado’s Blaine Amendment and the school choice scholarship program in the state. The case “will hopefully be going to the Supreme Court,” said Reilly. The decision of the Supreme Court to hear the case could come as early as January after it reconvenes from winter recess on January 11, 2016.

The Newman Society also reported this week on families in Montana being denied scholarship funds through a new state school choice program for wanting to send students to private religious schools. The state lawmaker who drafted the legislation for the new program said it was “carefully crafted” to allow funding of private religious schools, but the state, relying on the Blaine Amendment language in the state Constitution, will not allow the funds to be used at religious schools.

Patrick Reilly’s full interview begins at 13:53:

Books in classroom

The Incredible Shrinking Case for Common Core

/in , /by

Recent statements by Common Core co-author David Coleman about Catholic education have led to a lot of confusion. What’s this about a Common Core advocate urging Catholic educators to have the “moxie” to preserve their incredible heritage and not to worry about changes to standardized tests?

I’ll try to explain. Despite Coleman’s support for the Common Core — which I firmly believe to be inadequate and even harmful to Catholic schools — what he said is good for Catholic families.

Last month, my colleagues and I were dismayed to learn that Coleman, a chief author of the Common Core State Standards, will keynote the National Catholic Educational Association (NCEA) convention in March. The Cardinal Newman Society has raised serious concerns about the Common Core’s impact on Catholic identity and related changes that detract from Catholic schools’ time-proven curricula and methods. The choice of Coleman as keynote speaker suggests support for the Common Core, when what we most need is a frank conversation among Catholic educators and parents about the Common Core and its unsuitability to Catholic education.

In addition, Coleman is president of The College Board, the nonprofit testing company that sponsors the Scholastic Aptitude Test (SAT) and Advanced Placement (AP) tests — and is currently revising them to align to the Common Core. That has caused angst among Catholic families and educators, who wonder if students in non-Common Core schools and homeschools will do poorly on the SAT and have difficulty getting accepted to good colleges.

But when we looked closely at Coleman’s record, we saw some interesting things. For instance, he has a fondness for good literature — precisely what we fear the Common Core might diminish in Catholic school reading curricula — and he studied “classical educational philosophy” at Cambridge University, according to his online biography.

Moreover, last year he penned an outstanding piece for National Review Online, defending the religious freedom of Wheaton College, an evangelical Christian college, and extolling the benefits of a religious liberal arts education. The non-Christian scholar noted that he had been to Wheaton to participate in a conference on the great Christian apologist, C.S. Lewis, and his methods of literary criticism.

This was intriguing. What if the co-author of the Common Core, which was designed for low-performing public schools, would go on record praising the benefits of a truly Catholic, liberal arts education — and even the movement toward more classical education? Could an advocate for the Common Core in public schools appreciate the differences and even the superiority of a Catholic education that rejects the Common Core’s utilitarian emphasis and holds steadfast to its Catholic identity and traditional curricula and teaching methods?

And furthermore, what if the College Board president could assure Catholics that students will continue to do well on the revised SAT and AP exams, even if they have a traditional Catholic education, focused on the liberal arts and not in any way compromised or caught up in the race to become more like public schools? This would, in effect, dispel one of the key arguments for adopting the Common Core simply so that students can “keep up” with the changes to standardized tests.

In essence, Coleman said exactly what we anticipated in his interview released Monday. On the one hand, he still clearly supports the Common Core, which we believe would compromise the traditional methods, curricula and mission of Catholic schools. He argued that the Standards had been misinterpreted and do not necessarily conflict with Catholic education: “The vulgar implementation of anything can have a reductive and destructive effect,” he said. With regard to the Standards’ push for more reading of “informational texts,” Coleman didn’t think that the emphasis necessarily means that schools will assign fewer classics of literature — a point on which we continue to disagree. 

But what Coleman did say is this, quite emphatically: don’t compromise what Catholic schools do well. On that bedrock principle, we seem to agree entirely. If anything — whether the Common Core or another “reform,” changing social mores, threats against religious freedom or another influence — pressures Catholic schools to compromise their mission and abandon the core liberal arts focus of traditional Catholic education, then we should simply refuse to do so. 

“My desire to celebrate, and name and specify some of the beauties and distinctive values of a religious education are precisely to avoid a leveling quality where you forget that there are special gifts that can be lost without attention,” Coleman said. 

He urged educators in the classical and Catholic liberal arts tradition to “have more moxie” and “be proud” of their approach to education. 

“Don’t be in a defensive crouch. I say that to every group I talk to of religious educators,” he said. “I say, share what you do that is beautiful and distinctive. Don’t just defend your right to exist. Be proud of what you have to offer, which is different.” 

Regarding the College Board’s exams, Coleman doesn’t think that students getting a traditional, Catholic liberal arts education — or even a classical-style education focused on the Trivium of grammar, logic and rhetoric — need to be worried about getting lower scores on the SAT and AP tests. He said that Catholic families should “rest assured” that students will continue to do very well on the tests. 

“As president of The College Board, it is my conviction that a child excellently trained in traditional liberal arts will do superbly on relevant sections of the SAT and other aspects of Advanced Placement work,” he told us. We’ll know in time whether that’s true, but I guessed it to be true even before Coleman said it. A student who has a good, non-Common Core education should be able to think through these tests. Some extra preparation may be helpful to get used to the Common Core-style questions, but hasn’t SAT prep always been a boost to students’ scores? 

Ultimately, Coleman’s interview suggests just one more reason why Catholic educators should not be so eager to rush into the Common Core madness. Many parents, teacher unions and state leaders have turned against the Common Core after just a few years in the public schools. There’s been no boost to national test scores. Catholic educators who may be inclined toward the Common Core should acknowledge the warning signs and take their time, observe how the Common Core plays out, and then decide whether there are certain elements in the Standards that may be worth preserving — and in the meantime, protect what we already have. 

Catholic education is good. In earlier times, it was better. The renewal of Catholic education doesn’t need the Common Core — we just need some “more moxie” to defend and celebrate what makes our schools strong. 

This article was originally published by National Catholic Register and is reprinted with permission.

Pope Francis

Did Pope Francis Say ‘Don’t Proselytize’?

/in , /by

Catholic education, done rightly, is a special and important means of evangelization, the mission of the Church. It brings young people to Christ and provides for the integral formation of mind, body and soul.

And so, judging from the reaction that I have been hearing from some parents and educators, there is a bit of consternation over Pope Francis’ strong words last week against “proselytism” in Catholic schools. My colleagues from The Cardinal Newman Society who were present for the Holy Father’s conversation with educators—part of the World Congress on Education, a Vatican conference to address the “educational emergency” that leaves young people ignorant of Christ—also noted the Holy Father’s words with some concern.

The fear is that the Pope’s words could be misused, as his words have been abused in the past, to take Catholic education in a more secular direction. That would be a tragic reversal of the renewal of Catholic identity that is taking hold at all levels of Catholic education, and it would be contrary to the Vatican’s stated goals for Catholic school and colleges.

So what did the Holy Father actually say?

Speaking at the Congress, Pope Francis urged educators “to lead young people, children, in human values in the whole of reality, and one of these realities is transcendence.” What is authentic in this world can increase our awareness of God, His creation and His presence, but Pope Francis lamented that education today is exclusively focused on “immanent things” without introducing students to “the total reality.”

So far, so good. But this statement raised eyebrows:

One cannot speak of Catholic education without speaking of humanity, because, precisely, the Catholic identity is God who became man. To go forward in attitudes, in full human values, opens the door to the Christian seed. Then faith comes. To educate in a Christian way is not only to engage in catechesis: this is one part. It is not only engaging in proselytism—never proselytize in schools! Never!

A couple years ago in an interview, Pope Francis also said that “proselytism is solemn nonsense, it makes no sense.” And in an address to catechists, he cited Pope Benedict’s own concerns about proselytism in a 2007 address to the bishops of Latin America and the Caribbean:

The Church does not engage in proselytism. Instead, she grows by “attraction“—just as Christ “draws all to himself” by the power of his love, culminating in the sacrifice of the Cross, so the Church fulfills her mission to the extent that, in union with Christ, she accomplishes every one of her works in spiritual and practical imitation of the love of her Lord.

These admonitions against proselytizing can seem confusing for American Catholics, who are beneficiaries of the great missionary work of the Church in the New World. The zeal and courage of the early Catholics in America were recently celebrated by the Pope’s nuncio in his address to the U.S. bishops this month—especially in the context of their contributions to Catholic education—and they were celebrated by the Holy Father himself with the canonization of Father Junípero Serra, O.F.M.

Certainly, therefore, Pope Francis could not be condemning catechesis (which he takes care to explicitly reaffirm) or strong Catholic identity in schools—yet even so, problems arise with the term “proselytism,” which can be ambiguous. There’s a negative connotation to proselytizing that’s difficult to pin down, which allows it to be confused with healthy forms of evangelization. As Lawrence Uzzell wrote a decade ago in First Things, “Today’s Christian missionaries often contrast ‘proselytism’ with ‘evangelism’; the former is what they accuse rival denominations of doing, while the latter is what they claim to do themselves.”

In a footnote to its 2007 statement on evangelization, the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith acknowledged the term’s ambiguity but settled on the most negative connotation:

The term proselytism originated in the context of Judaism, in which the term proselyte referred to someone who, coming from the gentiles, had passed into the Chosen People. So too, in the Christian context, the term proselytism was often used as a synonym for missionary activity. More recently, however, the term has taken on a negative connotation, to mean the promotion of a religion by using means, and for motives, contrary to the spirit of the Gospel; that is, which do not safeguard the freedom and dignity of the human person.

So proselytism is seen today by the Church as an abuse of religious freedom, and in the context of education, it is a means of teaching the faith that denies the free use of reason and appeal to conscience. It is nothing that a good catechist or evangelist would do.

Very well. But then we have to ask the questions that my colleague Dr. Dan Guernsey asked, soon after hearing Pope Francis condemn proselytism, “How significantly is this a source of the educational emergency facing Catholic schools? How many universities and high schools seem to be coercing their students with unworthy Catholic propaganda?” It would seem that fidelity and Catholic identity should be greater concerns today.

I suspect the answer is that abusive proselytism is not, in fact, a priority concern for the Holy Father. The point about proselytizing was made off the cuff and was not central to his comments to the Congress.

Taken as a whole, his statements centered on rebuilding a more “human” education—relax the “rigidity” of schools, reach out to the margins of society, decrease the emphasis on intellectual “selectivity” that tends to exclude rather than invite participation, and open young hearts and minds to God:

For me, the greatest crisis of education, in the Christian perspective, is being closed to transcendence. We are closed to transcendence. It is necessary to prepare hearts for the Lord to manifest Himself, but totally, namely, in the totality of humanity, which also has this dimension of transcendence. To educate humanly but with open horizons. Any sort of closure is no good for education.

This closure to transcendence is precisely the educational emergency that has befallen secular education and even many Catholic schools and colleges. The focus on “immanent things” and worldly gain is what concerns so many American Catholics about the Common Core in Catholic schools.

Taken as a whole, the comments by Pope Francis to the Vatican Congress should not be construed as pulling the reins on evangelization in schools. Instead, we should celebrate Catholic education as the Church’s key means of evangelization, in human formation that invites the student to know, love and serve God.

This article first appeared at The National Catholic Register.

St. Peters Square

Vatican Envoy to Jesuits and Bishops: Reform Education

/in , /by

The Vatican ambassador’s message, delivered during Monday’s gathering of U.S. bishops in Baltimore, was crystal clear: place priority on the renewal of Catholic identity in Catholic education and restore the great legacy of Jesuit institutions.

It’s an appeal that should make every Catholic parent stand up and cheer!

When Pope Francis was elected, I openly wondered whether our Jesuit pope would acknowledge the elephant in the room: the crisis of Catholic identity at many of America’s Jesuit colleges, especially the disregard for papal authority and doctrinal fidelity by some professors.

We now seem to have an answer.  While it’s not clear to what extent, if at all, Pope Francis contributed to his envoy’s message to the U.S. bishops, it’s hard to imagine that the apostolic nuncio would make such a forceful and direct appeal without the Holy Father’s consent.

Archbishop Carlo Maria Viganò delivered an address to the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops that was at times both personal and emotionally stirring.  He urged attention to two concerns:

One – the need to give particular attention and care to our Catholic educational institutions so that they would regain the luster of their true identity that has shown forth from them in the past.

Two – that Catholic colleges and universities, renowned for the professional formation of their students, should be encouraged to be faithful to the title of “Catholic” that they bear. …While each college or university has its own particular mission, together they ultimately have the solemn obligation to teach the same doctrine of the universal Church and to define the moral obligations that mark us all as Catholic Christians.

This is as close as the Vatican has come to publicly confronting the crisis of Catholic identity at many American Catholic colleges. Even in elementary and secondary education, Archbishop Viganò indicated that the “true identity” of Catholic schools is not so clear today, as it once was.

Lamenting today’s “secularized and increasingly pagan civilization,” Viganò appealed for “renewed strength” in the New Evangelization—a strength that is “solid and unwavering in its commitment to Truth.”  And this strength, “which should be found in the family and in the schools, will exist only in proportion to its Catholic identity.”

He challenged the bishops to “watch over and protect families, and parishes and schools,” citing Pope St. Gregory the Great: “Imprudent silence may leave in error those who could have been taught. Pastors who lack foresight hesitate to say openly what is right because they fear losing the favor of men.”

But the most striking portion of Cardinal Viganò’s address was his reminiscence about his own years in a Jesuit secondary school and at the Gregorian University in Rome, and the heroic role of the Jesuits in bringing the Faith to the New World. It was a detour that imparted a special challenge:

No doubt that this Order has been the leader of evangelization in North America. …The Society of Jesus has had a long and proud tradition of imparting a rich Catholic faith and a deep love for Christ, which in great part is carried on through their mission of education. It is my hope that, with respect to their great tradition, after the example of our Holy Father, they would take again the lead in re-affirming the Catholic identity of their educational institutions.

The call to “take again the lead” was an acknowledgement that the Jesuits have lost their place of honor at the forefront of Catholic education. Restoring the Jesuits’ “great tradition” of education means reaffirming Catholic identity.

Cardinal Viganò’s recounting of the Church’s history in the United States, which he did at much greater length, was inspiring. He reminded the bishops that their predecessors in the early American Church had also gathered in Baltimore to decide “upon a strategy that would shape the growth and development of the Catholic Church.”

The main tool of this strategy was education, which was accomplished through the building of parishes with their own schools, together with the dedicated support of women religious. A prime example of this is St. Elizabeth Ann Seton, the great pioneer of American Catholic schools.

In the Cardinal’s prepared text, the only words underlined are these: “Education was primary in the Bishops’ minds; it was an essential means for the Gospel message to be woven into the very fabric of our people’s existence. In so doing, they were following the consistent path of evangelization traced centuries before by the monastic orders” and “the Holy See.”

Today, faithful Catholic education remains essential—Pope Francis said it is “key, key, key”—to the New Evangelization. Not only our bishops, but all of our clergy, religious, educators and especially parents need to believe that. Taking up Archbishop Viganò’s timely challenge, we must make it a priority to build and support authentic, formational Catholic education that brings young people to Christ.

Our Church and society depend on it.

This article first appeared at The National Catholic Register.

newspapers

Fire Theologians, Not Columnists

/in , /by

There is more than irony in the recent attempt by several theologians to discredit New York Times columnist Ross Douthat, because he dared to write about the tragic confusion surrounding the Synod on the Family without having a theologian’s “professional qualifications.”

There is great desperation in the move — and hypocrisy.

The hypocrisy lies in the demand for credentials, when the field of theology is itself seriously lacking in that regard.

About half of Douthat’s critics are professors of theology at Catholic colleges and universities. Under canon law, they must have the mandatum, a recognition from their local bishop that they pledge to teach in fidelity to Catholic doctrine. But do they? At least a few seem to be headed in the opposite direction.

Under current policy in the United States, it’s difficult to know whether a theology professor has the mandatum, because most theologians won’t say — and neither will their college employers or their bishops. The mandatum is deemed a private matter between the theologian and the bishop, and even many Catholic colleges do not require the mandatum for employment. Students who need to know whether or not a professor has complied with canon law are in the dark.

In James Caridi’s 2011 survey of U.S. Catholic college and university leaders, 36 percent said they did not know whether their theology professors have received the mandatum, 10 percent said some but not all of their theologians have received it, and another 6 percent said no professors have it. When The Cardinal Newman Society followed in 2012 with a request to America’s 10 largest Catholic universities to disclose which of their theology professors have the mandatum, the few that responded admitted that they do not collect such information.

Pope Benedict XVI pressed the issue in May 2012 during the ad limina visit of several American bishops. Urging “compliance” with Canon 812, which requires the mandatum for teachers of theology, the Holy Father said:

The importance of this canonical norm as a tangible expression of ecclesial communion and solidarity in the Church’s educational apostolate becomes all the more evident when we consider the confusion created by instances of apparent dissidence between some representatives of Catholic institutions and the Church’s pastoral leadership: such discord harms the Church’s witness and, as experience has shown, can easily be exploited to compromise her authority and her freedom.

Cardinal Raymond Burke, when he was prefect of the Apostolic Signatura and Rome’s chief expert on canon law, told the Newman Society that “tangible” means the mandatum should be publicly acknowledged:

It’s tangible in the sense that it’s a public declaration, in writing, on the part of the ecclesiastical authority that a theologian is teaching in communion with the Church, and people have a right to know that so that if you, for instance, are at a Catholic university or parents are sending their children to the Catholic university, they know that the professors who are teaching theological disciplines at the university are teaching in communion with the Church.

There is, of course, no similar requirement in canon law that a New York Times columnist be properly credentialed by the Church to opine on Church matters. So it is preposterous that theologians would demand “professional qualifications” from a journalist, while their own profession apparently lacks compliance with the Church’s canon law.

So why attack Douthat? The answer may lie in the theologians’ second charge, that Douthat favors a “politically partisan narrative that has very little to do with what Catholicism really is.” This seems to be another case of the pot calling the kettle black; the driving motivation behind today’s “progressive” Catholics seems to be quite political and secular, and not rooted in faith. The loosening of Catholic mores with regard to sexuality and marriage for “pastoral” reasons has been a key objective of both political and religious progressives since the 1960s.

That’s where I see desperation in the theologians’ move against Douthat. He has challenged the apparent scheming by some parties to control the outcome of the Synod, which centered on this loosening of attitudes toward marital and sexual sin. Pope Francis had opened the doors wide to frank discussion and debate. The progressives saw the opportunity to bum-rush the Church.

But that largely failed. And now that Douthat is issuing warnings that could help thwart anything they hoped to gain, the ivory-tower theologians have lashed out in despair.

The response of many Catholic pundits has been to rush to Douthat’s defense, and rightly so. But I propose something more:

It’s time for Catholics to demand that those who teach theology in Catholic institutions commit to complete fidelity to Catholic teaching, make that commitment publicly known, and refrain from using their academic prowess to oppose those who faithfully seek the good of the Church.

And if theologians can’t abide by those expectations, they should at least find an ivory tower that doesn’t bear the label “Catholic.” Or become columnists.

This article was originally published by National Catholic Register and is reprinted with permission.

Cardinal Burke Urges Genuine Catholic Education to Renew Culture

/in , /by

Cardinal Raymond Burke last week gave us yet another trove of wisdom to contemplate, just as the Synod on the Family came to a close. This time, it was about Catholic education, and it came with a stern warning.

In prepared remarks last week given to representatives of Voice of the Family, Cardinal Raymond Burke, patron of the Sovereign Military Order of Malta, warned parents about the threats to their children from wayward Catholic schools while arguing that faithful Catholic education at home and in schools is needed to transform the culture. 

“Today, parents must be especially vigilant, for sadly, in some places, schools have become the tools of a secular agenda inimical to the Christian life,” he said. Corrupted Catholic institutions can lead young people “to their slavery to sin … profound unhappiness, and to the destruction of culture.” 

Cardinal Burke has received a lot of attention for his courageous opposition to those who sought to hijack the Synod in support of Communion for remarried, divorced Catholics. So it may seem odd that he chose to focus on Catholic education during the Synod’s last week. The topic of education got surprisingly little attention at the Synod, even after scholars Theresa Farnan and Mary Hasson publicly urged the Synod fathers to devote more time to it. 

But education and the good of the Catholic family are essentially linked, and Catholic education is a key solution to the challenge of secularism. In a lecture last week at the Franciscan University of Steubenville, Ohio — which is a model of faithful education — I expressed my concern that we not limit the New Evangelization to strategies that excite young people about the Faith, but also focus more attention to the renewal of Catholic education. It is in Catholic education that young people experience the deeper formation that prepares them for sainthood in a difficult and often hostile culture. 

The timing of Cardinal Burke’s comments also are relevant to today’s 50th anniversary of the Vatican II declaration on Christian education, Gravissimum Educationis. Next month, the Vatican will celebrate the documents while addressing the “crisis of education” in the modern world, meaning the modern failures to truly bring young people to know, love and serve Jesus Christ. The result is a deep despair and aimlessness in today’s societies — what Cardinal Burke calls a “profound unhappiness.” 

And ultimately, happiness in God is the promise of a genuine Catholic formation. 

It is important that “children know happiness both during the days of their earthly pilgrimage and eternally at the goal of their pilgrimage which is Heaven,” said Cardinal Burke. And it is no contradiction that such happiness means preparing for the Cross. 

“Education, if it is to be sound, that is, for the good of the individual and society, must be especially attentive to arm itself against the errors of secularism and relativism,” Cardinal Burke stated, “lest it fail to communicate to the succeeding generations the truth, beauty and goodness of our life and of our world, as they are expressed in the unchanging teaching of the faith.” 

He addressed particularly the modern confusion in sexuality, including the “so-called ‘gender education’ in some schools, which is a direct attack on marriage at its foundation and, therefore, on the family.” 

“Good parents and good citizens,” said Cardinal Burke, “must be attentive to the curriculum which schools are following and to the life in the schools, in order to assure that our children are being formed in the human and Christian virtues and are not being deformed by indoctrination …Today, for example, we sadly find the need to speak about ‘traditional marriage,’ as if there were another kind of marriage.” 

He referred to Gravissimum Educationis in support of parent-directed education: “As it is the parents who have given life to their children, on them lies the gravest obligation of educating their family.They must therefore be recognized as being primarily and principally responsible for their education.” 

And most profoundly, he reminded his audience of the encyclical by Pope Pius XI, Divini Illius Magistri, and the task of Catholic education to form “the supernatural man who thinks, judges and acts constantly and consistently in accordance with right reason illumined by the supernatual light of the example and teaching of Christ; in other words, to use the current term, the true and finished man of character.”

In light of the confusion surrounding the Synod and the greater confusion in the world about marriage, family and even the value of human life, we are in great need of Catholics with this sort of formation. Renewing Catholic education should be among our highest priorities. 

This article was originally published by National Catholic Register and is reprinted with permission.

Cardinal Burke: Reverent Liturgy Essential To Catholic College Education

/in /by

Properly and beautifully celebrated liturgy is essential to a Catholic college education, said Raymond Cardinal Burke, who headlined the June 2 Cardinal Newman Society event at Sacra Liturgia USA 2015 in New York City.

“If in Catholic education the ultimate goal is to know Christ as deeply and as profoundly as possible, then it can’t be otherwise,” he said, recalling the wonderful liturgies on Catholic campuses until recent decades.

On many Catholic campuses, traditional and reverent liturgy has given way to misguided innovations and musical variations that are thought to appeal to younger audiences.

Cardinal Burke, patron of the Order of Malta and ecclesiastical adviser to the Newman Society, led off a panel discussion on the need for liturgical renewal in Catholic higher education and ways that Catholic colleges can contribute to renewal of the liturgy in parishes and schools.

The event was held at St. Catherine of Siena Church in uptown Manhattan as a special part of the Sacra Liturgia conference, which brought hundreds of priests, seminarians, and lay people together to celebrate and promote sacred liturgy.

Cardinal Burke encouraged Catholic colleges to expose students to reverent liturgy including the Extraordinary Form of the Mass. “If this is a form of the Roman Rite it should be accessible to the faithful,” he said.

He recalled his experience when archbishop of St. Louis, Mo., where he instructed the seminary to implement courses on the Extraordinary Form of the Mass and begin celebrating it. “And I believe too, at the universities, that there will be a response [to the Extraordinary Form],” he said.

Even at colleges like Georgetown University, which has had its share of Catholic identity problems, student initiatives to encourage the Extraordinary Form are gathering momentum, Cardinal Burke said. “I have seen this in other universities too,” he added.

Cardinal Burke noted that such initiatives, while good for the Church and students alike, are sometimes opposed. “These are things that may involve some suffering,” he said.

“But the thing is, if we are doing something that is beautiful for the glory of God and for the salvation of souls, we’ll have to persevere in it and not let ourselves be discouraged by people who do not understand or who might be difficult,” said the cardinal. “The Christian liturgy remains the essential source of our understanding of the faith and of its practice in a good and holy life,” he said.

Leading the panel discussion, Cardinal Newman Society President Patrick Reilly noted that “truth is both the foundation and the objective of Catholic higher education,” and he related that to the need for reverent liturgy in light of Cardinal Burke’s keynote address to the Sacra Liturgia conference the prior evening.

Cardinal Burke spoke of the unity of God’s truth, goodness, and beauty — with the latter essential to sacred art and sacred liturgy. He lamented that, “precisely because we have lost beauty, we have lost goodness and truth.”

“Since the sacred liturgy is the highest and most perfect expression of our life in Christ, we rightly turn to the sacred rites in order to understand more deeply the holiness of the Christian life in all its aspects,” Cardinal Burke said. Yet, in recent years, the attention to liturgy hasn’t always been what it should have been, he continued.

Cardinal Burke explained:

“The pursuit of truth is a particular challenge in our world, which has in great part lost any sense of truth and of the source of truth in God. The sacred liturgy is the participation on Earth in the heavenly wedding feast of the Lamb who alone conquers evil.

“. . . Beauty is revealed most perfectly in the sacred liturgy. The liturgy is inherently linked to beauty. It is a radiant expression of the Paschal Mystery in which Christ draws us to Himself and calls us to communion. We contemplate beauty and splendor at its source. It enables us to emerge from ourselves and drawing us to our true vocation which is love.

“. . . The time has come to re-propose to all Christians this high standard of ordinary Christian life. Our brothers and sisters will discover the great beauty of their own holy life. That beauty is most evident in our participation in the sacred liturgy.”

Sacra Liturgia USA was organized by Dr. Jennifer Donelson, director of sacred music at St. Joseph’s Seminary in Dunwoodie, N.Y., and Fr. Richard Cipolla, pastor of St. Mary’s Church in Norwalk, Conn., together with the international coordinator of Sacra Liturgia conferences, Dom Alcuin Reed.

This June 1-4 event followed upon the high-profile Rome conference in 2013, convened by Bishop Dominique Rey of Fréjus-Toulon, France. The Cardinal Newman Society also cosponsored that conference and funded scholarships for educators and students from the United States.