Questions and Answers About What the Latest HHS Mandate Rule Means for Catholic Colleges

/in , /by
Click here for PDF

This Issue Brief takes a look at the new1 “Notice of Proposed Rulemaking” issued on February 1, 2013, by the Department of Health and Human Services concerning the federal mandate that health insurance plans, including those provided or arranged by Catholic colleges, must include coverage of early abortion pills, contraception, sterilization, and related education and counseling for women with a reproductive capacity.

What was the government’s intent with the February 1st  “Notice of Proposed Rulemaking”?

The Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (“NPRM”)2 sets forth a proposed (not final) structure for public comment on whether or how the government will respect religious objections to its coverage mandate of early abortion pills, contraception, and sterilization.  It concerns three categories of entities with objections to the mandate.  Generally, these categories are: (1) houses of worship; (2) all other religious non-profits; and (3) all other objectors.

Is this the final rule?

No, it will be finalized by August 1, 2013.  The public may submit comments by April 8, 2013.

Who would be exempt from the mandate under the NPRM?

The NPRM proposes that basically only houses of worship would be exempt from the mandate.  Exempt entities are called “religious employers,” and these must be either “churches, their integrated auxiliaries, and conventions or associations of churches,” or “the exclusively

religious activities of any religious order.” These categories are narrow and well-established in Internal Revenue Code section 6033(a)(3)(A)(i) and (iii). Most Catholic colleges know that they do not fall into these categories.  They should consult with an attorney or tax advisor to review whether or not they qualify.

Is this a change from the existing exemption?

In one respect, the NPRM proposes a change from the existing mandate exemption. Under the existing exemption, houses of worship are still the only entities eligible for an exemption, but in addition those houses of worship must function to inculcate beliefs, and must primarily hire and serve only those of their own faith. The NPRM proposes to remove the latter three requirements from the definition of exempt “religious employers,” but retain the fourth criteria by which the entity must be a house of worship, church, religious order, or the like as listed above.  The NPRM insists that this change is a clarification, not a broadening of the exemption. Since houses of worship are still the only entities that qualify for an exemption, the NPRM’s changes “would not expand the universe of employer plans that would qualify for the exemption beyond that which was intended” in the existing rule.

Is this a very narrow definition of “religious employer,” or one that is used commonly by the federal government?

This definition is extremely narrow compared to other federal laws providing for conscience exemptions.  The 40-year-old bipartisan standard established throughout federal law, including in health and insurance coverage of items such as contraception, is to exempt any person or group with moral or religious objections.  The Religious Freedom Restoration Act in particular requires the federal government to exempt any religious objector from rules such as this Mandate. The administration has instead constrained religious freedom by using a category in tax law that has no relationship to conscience, but instead relates to whether a group files its own 990 tax form. Even within that code section, the administration gerrymandered this rule by selecting subparts (i) and (iii) but not (ii) which includes other nonprofits.  The administration apparently selected a category with the smallest possible scope it could find.  This is consistent with its view that religious freedom really only inheres in worship and not in the exercise of religion outside a house of worship.

How would the NPRM deal with objections from colleges and other non-profits?

The NPRM proposes to apply the coverage mandate to all non-exempt entities, including religious groups. But for some religious non-profit groups, the NPRM proposes to accomplish this through what it calls an “accommodation.” The accommodation is a complex arrangement designed to create the impression that the religious organization is not involved in giving its employees access to objectionable items such as early abortion pills, while at the same time insisting that the employees will receive those items seamlessly with their employer’s own provision of coverage.

Their employees would still receive objectionable coverage from those groups’ own insurers or plan administrators, and would receive it “automatically,” so that the employees could not opt out of the coverage for themselves or their female family members.

What qualifies an organization for this “accommodation”?

The NPRM applies its accommodation to non-exempt “eligible organizations.”  These should not be confused with exempt “religious employers” discussed above.  (Exempt religious employers—houses of worship—are not subject to the accommodation scheme.)  A non-exempt “eligible organization” is one that meets the following criteria:

The organization opposes providing coverage for some or all of the contraceptive services required to be covered under section 2713 of the PHS Act on account of religious objections.

The organization is organized and operates as a nonprofit entity.

The organization holds itself out as a religious organization.

Again, these “religious organizations” are those that do not fall within the exempt category of houses of worship discussed above.

How does the “accommodation” work for non-exempt “eligible organizations”?

The organization must sign a certification asserting that it meets the above-described criteria, keep the certification in its records “for examination upon request so that regulators, issuers, third party administrators, and plan participants and beneficiaries,” and provide the certification to the insurance issuer(s) and/or its self-insurance plan administrator(s) that the group pays for their ordinary duties.

Under the accommodation, once the religious group’s insurer or administrator receives that certification, the insurer or administrator is required to “automatically” provide the religious group’s employees and plan beneficiaries with insurance covering the objectionable items.

If the religious group uses an insurer, that insurer also becomes the insurer for the objectionable items.  The NPRM claims that this insurance plan will be “separate” and will not be charged to the religious group.  But it admits that there are up-front costs to the items, and it claims that these costs will be offset by the benefits of the primary insurance that the religious group is paying for (since, it theorizes, fewer childbirths will lead to lower costs).

What about self-insured non-profit religious groups?

If the religious group is self-insured, the NPRM proposes that it be required to use a plan administrator (even if it does not presently have one).  When that plan administrator receives the certification it will take on the additional duties of finding an external insurance company to “automatically” issue insurance coverage of objectionable items to the religious group’s employees.  The NPRM does not address the privacy implications of releasing employee health information to an insurance company with which the religious group never contracted, for a purpose to which the religious group objects.

The NPRM proposes that the costs of the objectionable items will be offset by rebates that the federal government will offer those insurers in the health “exchanges” otherwise implicated by the Affordable Care Act.

Is the NPRM correct that the “accommodation” does not implicate an objecting entity?

The NPRM imposes what is essentially a moral judgment that the “accommodation” frees objecting entities from culpability for coverage of objectionable items.  Entities are not allowed to disagree with this moral judgment set forth by the government. Several factors might lead objecting entities to differ from the government’s moral viewpoint. Under the accommodation, the Affordable Care Act will still be requiring objecting entities with 50 or more full-time employees to provide health insurance coverage, and that coverage will be the trigger for the objectionable items to flow to its employees.  The objectionable coverage will come from the same insurers or plan administrators that the religious group is paying. The provision of objectionable coverage will be triggered specifically by the religious group’s mandated delivery of its religious certification to its insurer or plan administrator.  For insured entities, the costs of the objectionable items will allegedly be offset by the main plan the objecting entity is buying. For self-insured entities, the NPRM does not fully explain how costs will be offset.  Unprecedented burdens and fiduciary duties will fall on insurers and plan administrators with whom religious groups contract, because of that contract.  The NPRM does not fully explain how these additional burdens will not eventually be reflected in the ability of religious groups to contract with insurers or administrators in the first place.

What religious freedom allowances does the NPRM provide to other objectors?

None.

Neither an exemption nor a feigned accommodation is provided under the NPRM for: employees of religious non-profit groups who do not want free abortion-pill, contraception, sterilization and counseling coverage for themselves, their spouses       or their daughters; non-profit groups that object to abortion-pills or contraception for non-religious reasons; insurance companies or plan administrators that object; religious families that earn a living running a business; or individuals that arrange for their own insurance coverage not through an            employer.

Notably, the Affordable Care Act uses secular reasons to refrain from applying this mandate to tens of millions of other Americans, such as because a plan is “grandfathered” from many ACA regulations.  Yet the government refuses to exempt most religious objectors.

How does the NPRM treat student health plans? 

Student health plans that are arranged by “eligible organizations” are subject to the same “accommodation” that applies to employee health plans established by such organizations.

Is the NPRM still subject to comment?

Yes.  The NPRM is not final and the government will accept public comments until April 8, 2013, about any aspect of the proposal. The Alliance Defending Freedom work with The Cardinal Newman Society to prepare a formal comment and other institutions are welcome to join that comment. Individual organizations may also submit their own electronic comments to www.regulations.gov. All comments should reference file code CMS–9968–P.

If I have more questions, whom do I contact?

General questions can be address to Bob Laird at the Cardinal Newman Society’s Center for the Advancement of Catholic Higher Education, (703) 367-0333 x 106 or blaird@CardinalNewmanSociety.org.  Specific questions about legal actions should be directed to Matt Bowman at Alliance Defending Freedom, 1-800-835-5233.

 

 

 

Hiring for Mission at Catholic Colleges and Universities: A Survey of Current Trends and Practices

/in , /by
Click here for PDF

On the level of higher education, many of you have pointed to a growing recognition on the part of Catholic colleges and universities of the need to reaffirm their distinctive identity in fidelity to their founding ideals and the Church’s mission in service to the Gospel. Yet much remains to be done…

Pope Benedict XVI, Ad limina Address to American Bishops, May 5, 2012

Catholic higher education is heir to the greatest intellectual, moral, and cultural patrimony in human history. It has a deeply satisfying answer to who and why man is. It’s beautiful because it’s true. It has nothing to be embarrassed about and every reason to be on fire with confidence and apostolic zeal. We only defeat ourselves—and we certainly don’t serve God—if we allow ourselves ever to think otherwise.

Archbishop Charles J. Chaput, A Heart on Fire: Catholic Witness and the Next America

Introduction

In the post-Vatican II period, Catholic colleges and universities in the United States have experienced a marked decrease in the numbers of their Catholic faculty. As we read in The Catholic University of America’s ten-year review of its application of the norms first promulgated by the Apostolic Constitution Ex corde Ecclesiae and affirmed by the U.S. Bishops in 19991, the twenty-year period from 1975 to 1995, especially, was a time when the identity of Catholic colleges and universities was undergoing much self-criticism and redefinition. Coupled with the decreased availability of religious and clerical personnel, owing to the vocations crisis, and an increased dependence upon lay faculty, the net result for Catholic University, concludes the University’s report, “was a decrease in hires of committed Roman Catholics as well as a decreased emphasis on formally tracking the religious preference of new faculty hires.” This result was characteristic of most Catholic colleges and universities in this period.2

The promulgation of Ex corde Ecclesiae in 1990 aimed to address this crisis of identity occurring in Catholic institutions of higher learning, and in the twenty-two years since its promulgation much progress has been made toward calling these institutions back to their “privileged task,” as Ex corde puts it, of uniting “existentially by intellectual effort two orders of reality that too frequently tend to be placed in opposition as though they were antithetical: the search for truth, and the certainty of already knowing the fount of truth” (Introduction, no. 1). However, the decline in numbers of Catholic faculty has, by and large, continued unabated. While certain institutions have demonstrated admirable pro-activity in responding  to Ex corde’s norm that Catholic colleges and universities maintain a majority of Catholic faculty, others are struggling to maintain that majority as older and predominantly Catholic faculty retire. The issue, of course, is not simply about numbers; it is about sustaining the very character of Catholic institutions of higher learning. As Richard D. Breslin, professor of leadership and higher education at Saint Louis University, writes: “One can stipulate that if hiring practices are not addressed in the Catholic higher education community, some of these institutions will continue to be called Catholic and to call themselves Catholic, but they will have lost their real identity; they will have lost their souls. They will have done so precisely because their hiring practices failed to support and sustain the mission and philosophy of the university as Catholic.”3

The aim of this report is to survey current efforts by Catholic colleges and universities to avert this danger by means of their hiring practices. The institutions surveyed include twenty-five institutions included in the third edition of The Newman Guide to Choosing a Catholic College (October 2012), as well as selected institutions not in the Guide, including, by way of comparison, some non-Catholic ones. In particular, the report will focus on how Catholic colleges and institutions are going about “hiring for mission,” that is, how they are endeavoring to recruit and hire committed Catholic faculty, faculty who unite in their persons the search for truth within their respective disciplines, and the certainty by faith of already knowing the fount of truth. As a result of this survey, a better understanding will be achieved of the current trends and practices at Catholic colleges and universities when it comes to hiring for Catholic mission. This will help facilitate the later discernment of strengths and weaknesses, and the eventual advocacy of particular policies aimed at encouraging Catholic institutions to realize ever more faithfully their mission “in the heart of the Church.”4

The report will consist of two main parts. After a brief note on sources, the first part of the report will sketch some of the most noteworthy aims and challenges that must be acknowledged by Catholic institutions in forming any robust hiring for mission policy. The second part of the report will then present a variety of specific hiring-for-mission policies, ordered according to the stages of a typical academic hiring process.

A Note on Sources

Much of the research for this report was conducted online, first by surveying the web materials of Newman Guide institutions, as well as additional Catholic and non-Catholic institutions:

Newman Guide Colleges

  1. Aquinas College (Tenn.)
  2. Ave Maria University
  3. Belmont Abbey College
  4. Benedictine College
  5. Catholic Distance University
  6. Catholic University of America
  7. Christendom College
  8. College of St. Mary Magdalen
  9. The College of Saint John Fisher & Thomas More
  10. DeSales University
  11. Franciscan University of Steubenville
  12. Holy Apostles College and Seminary
  13. Holy Spirit College
  14. John Paul the Great Catholic University
  15. Mount St. Mary’s University
  16. Our Lady Seat of Wisdom Academy
  17. Redeemer Pacific College
  18. Saint Gregory’s University
  19. Thomas Aquinas College
  20. Thomas More College of Liberal Arts
  21. University of Dallas
  22. University of Mary
  23. University of St. Thomas (Tex.)
  24. Walsh University
  25. Wyoming Catholic College

Other Catholic Colleges

  1. Canisius College
  2. Creighton University
  3. John Carroll University
  4. LeMoyne College
  5. Loyola Marymount University
  6. University of Notre Dame
  7. University of St. Thomas (Minn.)

Non-Catholic Colleges

  1. Baylor University
  2. Bob Jones University
  3. Brigham Young University
  4. Colorado Christian University
  5. Wheaton College

Personal interviews (all but two of which by telephone) were conducted with the following key administrators and faculty:

  1. Terry Ball, Dean of the College of Religious Education, Brigham Young University
  2. Christopher Blum, Professor of Humanities and Academic Dean, Thomas More College of Liberal Arts
  3. Anne Carson Daly, Vice-President of Academic Affairs, Belmont Abbey College
  4. Michael Dauphinais, Dean of Faculty, Ave Maria University
  5. Rick Garris, Director of Human Relations, Colorado Christian University
  6. Joshua Hochschild, Dean of the College of Humanities, Mount St. Mary’s University
  7. Christopher Kaczor, Professor of Philosophy, Loyola Marymount University
  8. Rev. Wilson D. Miscamble, C.S.C., Professor of History and former chair of the department, University of Notre Dame
  9. Lawrence R. Poos, Dean of the School of Arts and Sciences, The Catholic University of America
  10. Kimberly Shankman, Dean, Benedictine College
  11. Steve Snyder, Vice-President for Academic Affairs, Christendom College

In an email exchange Dr. Don Briel, Director of the Center for Catholic Studies at the University of St. Thomas in St. Paul, furnished his forthcoming essay “Mission and Identity: The Role of Faculty,” discussed below.

At the end of this report is a linked appendix listing the institutions surveyed in the report.

Hiring for Catholic Mission: Aims & Challenges

The very concept of “hiring for mission” entails a clear understanding on the part of an institution of just what its mission is. In the next section of this report we’ll take a look at some specific examples of strong mission statements at Catholic colleges and universities. First, however, it would be useful to establish a more global view of the mission of such institutions, and further, the general sorts of hiring policies and practices entailed by it. In other words, we need to ask: what, generally speaking, is the institutional identity of a Catholic institution of higher learning, and what are the requirements this identity imposes upon the practice of hiring members to its faculty?

The best place to begin articulating an answer to this twofold question is Ex corde Ecclesiae, which outlines four “essential characteristics” of what makes a Catholic college or university truly Catholic:

  1. a Christian inspiration not only of individuals but of the university community as such;
  2. a continuing reflection in the light of the Catholic faith upon the growing treasury of human knowledge, to which it seeks to contribute by its own research;
  3. fidelity to the Christian message as it comes to us through the Church;
  4. an institutional commitment to the service of the people of God and of the human family in their pilgrimage to the transcendent goal which gives meaning to life (no. 13).

A paraphrase of these essential characteristics might read as follows:

A truly Catholic institution of higher learning is a Christian community dedicated, according to the principles and rightful autonomy of the various intellectual disciplines, to the pursuit and transmission of truth, under the inspiration and direction of the teaching authority of the Church, and in service to the Church and to the wider human family.

These four essential characteristics of a genuinely Catholic college or university can be further expounded, in particular the commitment to truth and its relationship to the institution’s evangelical mission. In an important paper addressing this very relationship, Dr. Don Briel, director of the Center for Catholic Studies at the University of St. Thomas in St. Paul, has identified three “concerns” that characterize the pursuit of truth at a Catholic college or university:

  1. a concern for the exploration of and active commitment to the ultimate complementarity of faith and reason;
  2. a sustained examination of the nature of the unity of knowledge in addition to discrete disciplinary research; and
  3. a concern for the exploration of the distinctive character and present implications of the Catholic intellectual tradition.5

Briel here directs our attention to a Catholic institution’s mission to manifest the harmony between faith and reason; the ultimate integrity of the various ways in which truth is pursued; and the need for these various pursuits of truth to take place within the ongoing series of debates and inquiries that constitute the Catholic intellectual tradition.

In order to fulfill its mission, it is evident that a Catholic institution must seek to embody the most famous norm promulgated by Ex corde Ecclesiae: that “the number of non-Catholic teachers should not be allowed to constitute a majority within the Institution, which is and must remain Catholic” (Article 4, no. 4). A Catholic institution of higher learning is, according to Ex corde, a Christian community faithful to the Christian message as it comes to us through the Church. It is a community that seeks to harmonize its pursuit of truth with what is actually accepted by faith, to aim for an integration of its various pursuits so that the unity of truth is put on display, and thus to develop the living tradition of which its efforts form a part. By definition, then, a Catholic college or university requires a largely Catholic faculty. A predominantly Catholic presence on the faculty—a presence that is vigorous and not merely nominal—is essential to the achievement of a Catholic institution’s mission. In this regard Briel cites some trenchant remarks of Rev. James T. Burtchaell:

Every quality that a college or university desires as an institutional characteristic must be embodied in its faculty; they are what most make it what it is. To seek academic excellence would be in vain, for instance, unless at every evaluation of faculty and in every personnel decision this excellence were a quality openly sought after. If an institution professes to be Catholic, not just nominally but in ways that are intellectually inquisitive and morally committed, then it is similarly imperative that faculty and administrators unabashedly pursue and articulate those interests and those commitments in the recruitment and the advancement of colleagues. Neither intellectual excellence nor religious commitment nor any other positive value will exist within an institution unless each of those qualities is candidly recruited and evaluated and preferred in the appointments of its faculty. The result of such a positive process must be a faculty among whom seriously committed and intellectually accomplished Catholics predominate.6

In light of such considerations, many Catholic colleges and universities in the United States, most notably those recommended in The Newman Guide, have in recent decades given their hiring practices a fresh impetus. They have not only striven to establish faculties predominantly comprised, in Burtchaell’s words, of “seriously committed and intellectually accomplished Catholics,” but they have  also worked hard at creating cultures within their institutions that attract and support this kind of scholar. Some institutions, like Thomas Aquinas College, Christendom College, and Thomas More College of Liberal Arts, were responding to the hiring crisis in Catholic higher education long before the promulgation of Ex corde. Others, like Belmont Abbey and the University of Notre Dame, have in recent years adopted new strategies in response to Ex corde. Still others, like Wyoming Catholic College and John Paul the Great Catholic University, have been created within the last decade as direct responses to Pope John Paul II’s call for a New Evangelization of culture.

Even this partial list of Catholic institutions indicates the great variety in kinds of Catholic college and university, a variety of mission that, according to Dr. Christopher Blum, academic dean at Thomas More College of Liberal Arts, impacts the way in which hiring for mission is conducted at different institutions. For example, at Thomas More College, an institution with fewer than one hundred students offering a single bachelor’s degree in the liberal arts, hiring for mission takes on a different shape than it does, say, at Belmont Abbey College, a much larger institution offering a variety of degree programs both inside and outside the liberal arts. At Thomas More, reports Dean Blum, all new hires must be prepared to teach in an interdisciplinary setting in tutorial formats with fewer than twenty students, an expectation that simply is not part of Belmont Abbey’s hiring process, which more conventionally hires to academic specialty. Because of its specific curricular approach, Thomas More—as well as similarly-structured institutions such as Thomas Aquinas College and Wyoming Catholic College—probably relies more than most institutions on an informal network of contacts when it comes to attracting candidates for open positions.

Different curricular approaches—indeed, the very differences between colleges and universities—distinguish the various approaches to Catholic higher education in the United States. For the purposes of this report we will assume that these structural differences in themselves do not negatively impact the pursuit of Catholic mission and the development of robust hiring-for-mission policies.7  A small college and a national research university can each in its own way be exemplary in all that it means to be a truly Catholic institution of higher learning. But other factors do present challenges to the mission of Catholic higher education, and thus to the hiring practices of Catholic institutions. These are challenges that arise from the lived situation of these Catholic colleges and universities: from their histories, their confrontations with and attitudes toward our increasingly secularized culture, even their geographical locations. What challenges are these?

A first and very obvious challenge is a legal one: to what degree, if any, can institutions inquire into the religious affiliation, or lack of it, of prospective candidates? It is a complex question, one outside the scope of this report. But it should be noted, at least, that, according to the Office of General Counsel at The Catholic University of America, “a common point of confusion is the idea that because equal opportunity law prohibits discrimination on the basis of religion, an employer may not exhibit a preference for someone of a certain religion. Many people do not realize that an exception exists for religious employers, including religious educational institutions. Both the United States Constitution and statutory law support this First Amendment right for religious educational institutions to hire members of their own religion on a preferential basis.”8

A second challenge is demographic. In their book, Catholic Higher Education9, Morey and Piderit characterize Catholic colleges demographically according to four models:

The Immersion Model: in which a vast majority of students are Catholic, the vast majority of faculty and administrators are Catholic, there is a broad array of Catholic courses in the academic sector, and a very strong nonacademic Catholic culture.

The Persuasion Model: in which the majority of students are Catholic, a significant number of faculty and administrators are Catholic, there is a small array of Catholic courses in the academic sector, and a strong nonacademic Catholic culture.

The Diaspora Model: in which a minority of students is Catholic, few faculty and administrators are Catholic, there is a minimal number of Catholic courses in academic sector, and a consistent Catholic culture in nonacademic areas.

The Cohort Two-Pronged Model: in which there exists a small cohort of well-trained and committed Catholic students and faculty, and a much larger group of students educated to be sensitive to religious issues with a view to influencing policy.

At first blush, the mission of Catholic institutions would seem to call all Catholic institutions to be classified demographically as (more or less) “immersion” schools. A school with “a small array of Catholic courses in the academic sector,” as in the “persuasion” model, would not appear to satisfy the three criteria of the Catholic pursuit of knowledge identified by Briel10; and the “disapora” and “cohort” models, with their low percentages of Catholic faculty, fall outside the norms of Ex corde. In any event, for any kind of school other than the “immersion” school to increase the numbers of its Catholic faculty it may well court resistance, especially perhaps from those non-Catholic, non-Christian, and non-theist members of the faculty, who may take the new impetus to be a negative comment on their own hires and on the accustomed diversity of the faculty. Peter Steinfels gives voice to this resistance when he writes:

Most major Catholic universities have had religiously diverse faculties for decades now, and many, especially urban universities, have similarly diverse student bodies. Any significant initiative to hire Catholics will prove offensive to non-Catholic members of the community and their Catholic colleagues. It will require a religious test alien to the academic culture of universities and injurious to the religious presence in scholarly life that Catholic universities should represent. It will stir from the get-go a degree of resistance that will be overcome by nothing short of top-down fiat disruptive of the university community.11

While there are things to dispute in this assessment, it at least clarifies the opposition that may well be faced as non-immersive institutions pursue more robust hiring-for-mission policies. Steinfels rightly notes that anxiety about new hiring initiatives will probably be felt especially at urban universities, where a greater demographic diversity is usually to be found, both on the faculty and among the students, than at institutions in less populated areas. Whether a school exists in the South and traditionally employs a large segment of non-Catholic faculty may also present a challenge to new hiring initiatives focused on Catholic mission.

A third challenge arises from what might be termed the concern for excellence. A common objection that arises when hiring-for-mission policies are debated is that such policies, in preferring the hiring of Catholics, jeopardize the institution’s pursuit of academic excellence—which presumably should be sought in whatever scholars may be found, no matter their religious identification or lack of it. John McGreevy, dean of the College of Arts and Letters at Notre Dame, adds the point that even when institutions aim to hire Catholics, they are confronted with a dramatic shortage of Catholic scholars.12 He cites a 2006 study claiming that, when it comes to tenure-track scholars in the arts and sciences and business at the fifty top-ranked research universities, only six percent self-identify as Catholics (McGreevy admits that the percentage is slightly higher at lesser-ranked universities). In response, McGreevy’s colleague in Notre Dame’s history department, the Rev. Wilson Miscamble, C.S.C., argues:

That (6%) figure may seem low relatively—and, incidentally, might prompt a curious person to wonder why Catholics (and religious believers in general) are so under-represented at the supposed top schools—but it actually represents a substantial raw number of faculty who are possible recruits to Notre Dame.  Moreover, [McGreevy] substantially limits the recruiting pool by referencing only these major research schools. First-rate Catholic scholars also ply their trade at fine liberal arts colleges and at so-called second-tier research institutions, a group which includes Notre Dame itself. Furthermore, the community of Catholic intellectuals is hardly limited to the United States. Notre Dame has a valued tradition extending back for decades of recruiting non-American Catholic scholars like Waldemar Gurian and Stephen Kertesz which surely must be continued. (Of course, it still continues the practice of recruiting overseas but one wonders how effectively when the avowed atheist Jill Mann gained an appointment and the renowned Catholic scholar Eamon Duffy did not.) In short, the recruitment pool is significantly larger than [McGreevy] implies.13

Here, Miscamble challenges McGreevy on the fact that the six percent figure represents an actual low number of possible candidates for faculty positions at Notre Dame, while also reminding him that Notre Dame has an established tradition of hiring excellent scholars from abroad. But Miscamble also raises the deeper question of just what excellence means, both in itself and in relation to a particular institution and its academic needs. McGreevy limits the pool of acceptable Catholic scholars to those working at one of the top fifty research universities, assuming without question the criteria of that ranking as well as giving short shrift to scholars at so-called “lesser-ranked” institutions. The takeaway point is the following: when it comes to Catholic hiring, institutions have to decide what counts for them as excellent. In doing so, they must first apply the criteria set forth in Ex corde, as well as discern what sort of scholar is the best fit for their kind of curriculum. A versatile scholar with an interdisciplinary bent and a fondness for Socratic discussion will fit far better at a liberal arts school, for example, than a scholar with a highly specialized expertise.

The issue of specialization brings up a fourth challenge to Catholic hiring. Among the gravest threats to Catholic intellectual life today is the extreme amount of specialization within disciplines, and the compartmentalization that exists between disciplines. Apropos of this threat Alasdair MacIntyre observes:

The conception of the university presupposed by and embodied in the forms and activities of contemporary research universities is not just one that has nothing much to do with any particular conception of the universe, but one that suggests strongly that there is no such thing as the universe, no whole of which the subject matters studied by the various disciplines are all parts or aspects, but instead just a multifarious set of assorted subject matters.14

According to MacIntyre, the institutional form of the contemporary research university threatens the integration of human knowledge, a disintegration that in turn threatens the harmony between faith and reason that, as we have seen, is an essential aim of the Catholic intellectual quest. MacIntyre’s criticism of research universities aside, we can still admit that every institution of higher learning today has to do deal with the threat of specialization and compartmentalization. Hiring practices that seek to counteract this phenomenon must either wholly resist hiring for academic specialty or resist an ideal of academic specialization that favors the narrow intellectual furrow to the exclusion of an integrated view.

Small liberal arts-based institutions will have an easier time combating this threat of specialization and compartmentalization, but even they may well have to take up arms against it. Interestingly, Dr. Steven Snyder, vice-president for academic affairs at Christendom College, believes that when it comes to hiring for mission, the aim of acquiring a predominance of committed Catholic scholars is not enough. It is also important that the faculty share a “habit of communication in regard to common philosophical principles.” Even at a small, ideologically-driven college, remarks Snyder, intellectual divisions can arise, especially between scientists, on the one hand, and philosophers and theologians, on the other, due to their differing educational formations. A member of a biology faculty, for example, may be an exemplary Catholic, but have no sense of, perhaps even reject, the understanding of faith and reason that animates philosophy and theology. Specialization and compartmentalization are a constant, twin-headed threat to the Catholic intellectual life.

A fifth challenge to a renewal of Catholic hiring practices concerns the hiring of non-Catholic faculty. There is no question that non-Catholics can be welcome and productive members of a Catholic institution of higher learning. But there is a danger in assuming that non-Catholic scholars, in particular those whose work in some way impacts the Catholic intellectual tradition, are perfect substitutes for Catholic scholars. In his debate with Fr. Miscamble about Catholic hiring at Notre Dame, John McGreevy argues that “Miscamble’s preoccupation with the numbers also comes at the expense of ideas. Surely one responsibility of the faculty at a Catholic university is to cultivate possible areas of expertise that resonate with the long, rich heritage of Catholic Christianity.” But then McGreevy immediately adds: “This is not a confessional task. An appealing dimension of intellectual life at Notre Dame is that scholars from all backgrounds introduce our students to a range of subjects and areas not studied in such depth at other universities” (emphasis added). For McGreevy, then, as long as there are scholars on the faculty who are experts in fields that in some way “resonate with the long, rich heritage of Catholic Christianity,” then the Catholic research university has discharged its mission. But to call the assemblage of a faculty at a Catholic institution not a confessional task is surely too strong. Granted, a Catholic institution is entitled to make strategic hires of non-Catholics. But to accept a non-Catholic scholar working on a subject related to the Catholic tradition as a perfect substitute for a Catholic scholar, is to deny the supreme importance of the Catholic college or university being a community predominantly of Catholics pursuing their scholarly endeavors within the wider evangelical mission of their shared faith

A sixth and final challenge has to do with how to identify qualified Catholic candidates. Everyone agrees that when it comes to hiring Catholics, mere numbers are not enough. What an institution needs are Burtchaell’s “seriously committed and intellectually accomplished Catholics.” But how does an institution discern the religious commitment of job candidates? By having them check a box? By asking them directly? And how does it ascertain the Catholic commitment of faculty members as their careers proceed

As we turn now in the second part of the report to specific hiring-for-mission policies, it will not be the intention to show how each policy captures the essence of Catholic higher education according to the norms of Ex corde, or how each policy addresses one or more of the challenges just outlined—though much of this will be evident in the policies themselves. It will be enough if this first part of the report clearly frames some of the more important issues for those who will sift through these policies and evaluate those which will contribute to a set of best practices when it comes to hiring for mission.

Further Relevant Literature

1999 promulgation by the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops: The Application of Ex corde Ecclesiae for the United States:

http://old.usccb.org/bishops/application_of_excordeecclesiae.shtml

Highly recommended is Wilson D. Miscamble, C.S.C., “Meeting the Challenge and Fulfilling the Promise: Mission and Method in Constructing a Great Catholic University,” in the Hesburgh volume cited in note 1.

This is an interesting article by Rev. Robert Niehoff, S.J., president of John Carroll University, on the importance of hiring for mission, the need to balance the “ideal” and the “possible” when it comes to mission hiring, and how the issue of mission by itself can never trump the need for excellent academic qualifications:

http://epublications.marquette.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1693&context=conversations

This article by Rev. James Heft, S.M., Alton Brooks Professor of Religion and president of the Institute for Advanced Catholic Studies at the University of Southern California, has a nice section on hiring for mission, exposing the false dichotomy between hiring for diversity and hiring for mission:

http://marianists.com/articles/heft-commonweal-v9-10.pdf

Mission Statements, Vision Statements, and Other Kinds of Statements and
Policies Regarding Institutional Mission

Let us now turn to real initiatives being taken by Catholic colleges and universities that are successfully hiring for mission. As stated earlier, a strong hiring for mission policy presupposes a clear statement of mission as the cornerstone of its structure.

Mission Statements

Many institutions studied in preparation for this report have strong, even exemplary, missions statements. Here are some examples of the best:

Franciscan University of Steubenville Mission Statement:

The complete version of Franciscan’s mission statement is exemplary for its faithfulness to the Magisterium, its commitment to the Catholic liberal arts tradition, and its understanding of how a Catholic university should be a source of evangelical witness. Perhaps too long to quote in full, the last item in the Statement of Convictions that concludes the statement should at least be noted: “Therefore, the administration, faculty, and staff, in fostering an intellectual and faith community, are obligated to serve, lead, and guide the institution in a manner consistent with its overall mission.15

Ave Maria University Mission Statement:

Founded in fidelity to Christ and His Church in response to the call of Vatican II for greater lay witness in contemporary society, Ave Maria University exists to further teaching, research, and learning at the undergraduate and graduate levels in the abiding tradition of Catholic thought in both national and international settings. The University takes as its mission the sponsorship of a liberal arts education curriculum dedicated, as articulated in the apostolic constitution Ex corde Ecclesiae, to the advancement of human culture, the promotion of dialogue between faith and reason, the formation of men and women in the intellectual and moral virtues of the Catholic faith, and to the development of professional and pre-professional programs in response to local and societal needs. As an institution committed to Catholic principles, the University recognizes the importance of creating and maintaining an environment in which faith informs the life of the community and takes expression in all its programs. The University recognizes the central and indispensable role of the Ordinary of the Diocese of Venice in promoting and assisting in the preservation and strengthening of the University’s Catholic identity.

Christendom College Mission Statement:

Christendom College is a Catholic coeducational college institutionally committed to the Magisterium of the Roman Catholic Church.

The College provides a Catholic liberal arts curriculum grounded in natural and revealed truth, the purpose of which at both the undergraduate and graduate levels is to form the whole person for a life spent in the pursuit of truth and wisdom. Intrinsic to such an education is the formation of moral character and the fostering of the spiritual life. This education prepares students for their role as faithful, informed, and articulate members of Christ’s Church and society.

The particular mission of Christendom College, both at the undergraduate and graduate levels, is “to restore all things in Christ,” by forming men and women to contribute to the Christian renovation of the temporal order. This mission gives Christendom its name.

Benedictine College Mission Statement:

Benedictine College is an academic community sponsored by the monks of St. Benedict’s Abbey and the sisters of Mount St. Scholastica Monastery. Heir to the 1,500 years of Benedictine dedication to learning, Benedictine College in its own time is ordered to the goal of wisdom lived out in responsible awareness of oneself, God and nature, family and society. Its mission as a Catholic, Benedictine, liberal arts, residential college is the education of men and women within a community of faith and scholarship.

As a Catholic college, Benedictine College is committed to those beliefs and natural principles that form the framework of the Judeo-Christian tradition, and it is committed further to those specific matters of faith of the Roman Catholic tradition, as revealed in the person of Jesus Christ and handed down in the teachings of the Church. The college embraces students and faculty from all faiths who accept its goals, seeking in its members a personal commitment to the ideals and principles of a spiritual life and the expression of these in worship and action. Benedictine College promotes the growing involvement of religious and laity in the Church’s ministries.

As a college founded on the Benedictine tradition, Benedictine College inherits the themes handed on to us by the Benedictine family: peace, the balance of activity and contemplation, and the glorification of God in all undertakings. With the ideal of a common life vitalized by the spirit of St. Benedict, the members of the Benedictine College community can share work and prayer in common, faithful participation in the life of the community, attentive openness to the Word of God, deep concern for issues of justice and peace, and the pursuit of moderation, hospitality and care for the gifts of creation.

As a liberal arts college, Benedictine College is dedicated to provide a liberal arts education by means of academic programs based on a core of studies in the arts and sciences. Through these programs, the college guides students to refine their capacity for the pursuit and acquisition of truth, to appreciate the major achievements in thought and culture, and to understand the principles that sound theoretical and practical judgment require. In addition, the college provides education for careers through both professional courses of study and major programs in the liberal arts and sciences. As an essential element in its educational mission, Benedictine College fosters scholarship, independent research and performance in its students and faculty as a means of participating in and contributing to the broader world of learning.

As a residential college, Benedictine College supports and encourages the full development of its students through a community life that expresses and proclaims the worth and dignity of each individual. In a caring and supportive atmosphere, students are helped to develop a sense of meaningful purpose in life and encouraged to participate in programs which promote sound bodies, emotional balance and dedication to the welfare of others.

These and other strong mission statements share certain characteristics; they express:

  1. fidelity to the Church’s Magisterium;
  2. commitment to the pursuit of truth within the Catholic intellectual tradition, in particular the liberal arts tradition;
  3. a desire to develop the whole person: intellectually, morally, spiritually;
  4. a spirit of service to the wider culture understood as real Christian renewal; and
  5. where relevant, a desire to promote the particular spiritual tradition of the institution’s founding (for example, the Benedictine tradition at Benedictine College and at Belmont Abbey College).

By way of comparison, it is useful to consider the most relevant portions of the mission statement of Brigham Young University:

The mission of Brigham Young University—founded, supported, and guided by The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints—is to assist individuals in their quest for perfection and eternal life. That assistance should provide a period of intensive learning in a stimulating setting where a commitment to excellence is expected and the full realization of human potential is pursued.

All instruction, programs, and services at BYU, including a wide variety of extracurricular experiences, should make their own contribution toward the balanced development of the total person. Such a broadly prepared individual will not only be capable of meeting personal challenge and change but will also bring strength to others in the tasks of home and family life, social relationships, civic duty, and service to mankind.

To succeed in this mission the university must provide an environment enlightened by living prophets and sustained by those moral virtues which characterize the life and teachings of the Son of God. In that environment these four major educational goals should prevail [of which only the first two will be cited, as being most relevant]:

  • All students at BYU should be taught the truths of the gospel of Jesus Christ. Any education is inadequate which does not emphasize that His is the only name given under heaven whereby mankind can be saved. Certainly all relationships within the BYU community should reflect devout love of God and a loving, genuine concern for the welfare of our neighbor.
  • Because the gospel encourages the pursuit of all truth, students at BYU should receive a broad university education. The arts, letters, and sciences provide the core of such an education, which will help students think clearly, communicate effectively, understand important ideas in their own cultural tradition as well as that of others, and establish clear standards of intellectual integrity…

In meeting these objectives BYU’s faculty, staff, students, and administrators should be anxious to make their service and scholarship available to The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints in furthering its work worldwide. In an era of limited enrollments, BYU can continue to expand its influence both by encouraging programs that are central to the Church’s purposes and by making its resources available to the Church when called upon to do so.

We believe the earnest pursuit of this institutional mission can have a strong effect on the course of higher education and will greatly enlarge Brigham Young University’s influence in a world we wish to improve.

And from the evangelical perspective, there is Wheaton College’s Statement of Faith and Educational Purpose; the Statement of Faith is “reaffirmed annually by its Board of Trustees, faculty, and staff….”16

Vision Statements

It is also worth noting the practice, employed for example by Christendom College and Benedictine College, of appending a vision statement to their statements of mission.

Other Kinds of Statements and Policies Regarding Institutional Mission

Following its vision statement, Christendom provides an eight-part essay that even further amplifies what it means to be a truly Catholic college.

Similarly Michael Dauphinais, dean of faculty at Ave Maria University, has produced the following message, with its accompanying video, explaining the nature of a liberal education in the Catholic tradition.

By way of introducing its faculty on its website, Franciscan University presents an overview of what it means to be a member of its faculty. There we read:

But what truly sets Franciscan’s professors apart from their peers is that they hold teaching and mentoring you as a sacred trust. They care not only about your GPA and your future career but about helping you become the man or woman God has called you to be from all eternity.

Moreover, on its website Wheaton College provides this overview of what a liberal education means in light of that institution’s evangelical mission.

Finally on the issue of mission, vision, and related statements, Dr. Anne Carson Daly, vice-president of academic affairs at Belmont Abbey College, stresses the importance of departmental mission statements being coordinated with the overall mission statement of the college or university. Consider in this light the mission statement of the Department of Biology at Belmont Abbey:

Department Mission: The Biology Department educates students in the discipline within the context of the Benedictine Liberal Arts tradition. In doing so, we understand biology as the study of life and life processes. The Biology Department believes that, in this modern world, knowledge of biological principles is necessary for every educated person. Such knowledge constitutes a vital part of that liberal learning whose goal, as John Henry Newman noted, is “fitness for the world.” We aim for the study of Biology to help students assess the many issues that face today’s world, enabling them to become responsible citizens and to promote the common good.

Departmental Goals: In Ex corde Ecclesiae, John Paul II states, “…a Catholic University is distinguished by its free search for the whole truth about nature, man, and God.” In biology, because of the limitations of the tools of science, we concentrate on the first two, the natural world and humans and our place in the realm of nature. It is the nature of biology to observe the fundamental symmetry of nature and the patterns and tempo in the evolution of organisms. In this way, biologists and scientists in general seek to understand the diversity, commonalities, and evolution of the natural world, and to appreciate the importance of assuming stewardship and preservation of the biological diversity of life….

Consider in this regard, too, the following mission statement of the School of Religious Education at Brigham Young:

The mission of Religious Education at Brigham Young University is to assist individuals in their efforts to come unto Christ by teaching the scriptures, doctrine, and history of the restored gospel of Jesus Christ through classroom instruction, gospel scholarship, and outreach to the larger community.

Identifying Potential Candidates

Now we want to begin to track the typical hiring process at Catholic colleges and universities, and highlight at the various stages of that process some of the more valuable policies and practices when it comes to hiring for mission.

More than one of the administrators spoken to in the preparation of this report argued that the more focused an institution’s mission is, and the more unabashedly Catholic it is, the more the institution is able to attract “seriously committed and intellectually accomplished Catholics.” Fr. Miscamble notes that three of Notre Dame’s recent hires, Bill Evans and Timothy Fuerst in economics and, a little further back, Brad Gregory in history—all top-flight scholars—came to Notre Dame precisely because of its Catholic mission. Gregory even left a tenured position at Stanford in order to do so. He also references Notre Dame’s Law School as a campus unit that over the years has built a superb faculty by aggressively hiring for mission.

Compare with this the situation at Colorado Christian University. With the administration’s support, Colorado Christian University has re-branded as an intensely religious institution, highlighting its Christian identity on its website and on job application materials. According to Rick Garris, director of human relations at CCU, this consistent emphasis on the school’s Christian identity functions as a pre-screening mechanism, attracting religious candidates and dissuading those of different or weak faiths. Applicants are further culled during the online portion of the application, which asks the potential employee to “talk about their faith.” Applicants who don’t provide an answer are automatically removed from the applicant pool.

We see in these examples of Notre Dame and CCU that a strong sense of mission distilled in the mission statement and embodied in the life of the institution is the first and foremost means of indentifying and attracting excellent Catholic job candidates. Responsibility for a strong Catholic culture starts, of course, at the top. Dr. Lawrence Poos, dean of the School of Arts and Sciences at The Catholic University of America, makes this point when he credits a former president of that institution, now Bishop David O’Connell of Trenton, NJ, for changing the culture at CUA by thematizing the issue of hiring for mission. But apart from—or better, given—the existence of a robust commitment to mission on campus, how are strong mission-driven candidates identified?

Most institutions identify potential candidates informally: through professional associations, scholarly publications, the candidate’s being a student of a respected scholar, job postings, and the like.

Notre Dame, however, has gone to uncommon lengths to make the identification of potential candidates more strategic by establishing its Office of Recruitment Support, currently headed by Rev. Robert Sullivan. The primary purpose of this office is to maintain a “database of scholars who have been identified as Catholic, either by the scholars themselves or through public means.” The office makes available an online .pdf brochure that explains the purpose of the database, which is to help “identify for faculty positions academically excellent potential candidates who can advance [Notre Dame’s] Catholic identity.” There is an online signup form for those who would like to contribute their own name; but other names are collected through informal networks of professional and spiritual association.

Terry Ball, dean of the College of Religious Education at Brigham Young University, reports that BYU draws potential faculty candidates either from Church of Latter-day Saints seminary programs, or by attracting recent graduates (some of whom may have enjoyed study grants from BYU) or faculty from other institutions. In the latter case, BYU employs standing search committees to help identify pools of potential candidates. Like other institutions, it also makes use of receptions at major professional meetings. Those candidates the University is especially interested in will often be invited to campus for a trial semester of teaching.

Forming the Search Committee

At some mid-sized to smaller institutions, the college or university president is significantly involved in hiring new faculty. At Christendom, the president even serves on the search committee for each and every new hire, as does the vice-president for academic affairs. Though such a policy would be impracticable at a large research institution such as Notre Dame, it remains imperative, as Fr. Miscamble states, that the president, vice-president for academic affairs or provost, and the deans stay as involved in the hiring process as possible, especially in regard to hiring for mission.

One way for the top administration to stay involved, even if they themselves are not serving on search committees, is for the president and dean to meet with the search committee to discuss mission issues in the context of the relevant discipline, as is done at Benedictine College. Another strategy is for the vice-president for academic affairs to play a significant role in the selection of the search committee, as occurs at Belmont Abbey, where the rules governing searches require the VPAA to appoint the chair of the search committee (usually the chair of the relevant department or division). Carson Daly explains that these rules also require her to pick an additional committee member from the relevant division, as well as to select another member from a pool of three divisional faculty suggested by the search chair. At Christendom, the relevant department chair joins the president and vice-president for academic affairs to make up the trio that is the standard search committee at that institution.

Another excellent practice is found in the School of Arts and Sciences at CUA. Dean Poos requires of each department pursuing a hire to submit to him a “search strategy document,” a written explanation of the department’s reasons for wanting to hire, with emphasis upon how the proposed position relates to the University’s Catholic mission.

As a search gets underway, as Mount St. Mary’s Dean Joshua Hochschild stresses, the importance of hiring for mission must continue to be a theme of conversation in the department itself. The policies and procedures of the institution must inspire water-cooler conversations among faculty about how this charge is to be taken up by the department. Names of potential candidates will no doubt already begin to surface through friendships, associations, and encounters in the field, and discussion of these potential candidates must include how they would fit with the Catholic mission of the institution.

Further Relevant Literature

This essay by Rev. James Heft, S.M. has an interesting section on hiring for mission in which he pursues strategies to enforce the point noted just above, that hiring for mission strategies very much require a “bottom up” approach (i.e., intensive conversations with departments and department chairs about hiring for mission), just as much or more than they require a “top down” approach:

http://www.stthomas.edu/cathstudies/cst/conferences/Dayton/daytondocs/Heftfinalpaper3.pdf

Advertising the Position

Statements of Expectation

When it comes to advertising positions, some schools display a page on their website that serves both as an extension of the mission statement and as a statement of what the school expects from future faculty, such as we find on the site of John Paul the Great Catholic University:

John Paul the Great Catholic University seeks to create a spiritually stimulating campus environment where students learn about Jesus Christ based on sacred Scripture, sacred Tradition, and the Catholic Church’s magisterium (teaching authority). There is a strong emphasis on traditional and time-enduring spiritual, moral, and social values.

All faculty involved with the teaching of the Catholic faith require a mandatum from the Bishop of San Diego. The mandatum documents the professor’s commitment and responsibility to teach authentic Catholic doctrine and to refrain from putting forth as Catholic teaching anything contrary to the Church’s magisterium.

JP Catholic University seeks to effect significant societal change by producing leaders committed to the application of Christ’s principles in the marketplace and in the workplace. JP Catholic seeks to graduate leaders who will passionately implement ethical business and employment practices. Graduates must strive to create workplaces that embody the principles of Jesus Christ in their interactions with all the publics of the enterprise – employees, customers, investors, suppliers, and community.

John Paul the Great Catholic University intentionally seeks to avoid causing controversy and confusion among its students in matters of faith. JP Catholic seeks to shape and form solid Catholic leaders and innovators poised to put into action the teachings of Jesus Christ, and not to become agitators for change on matters of doctrine.

All teaching faculty commit to harmony with Catholic Church teachings (the pope and bishops) in speech and action. Faculty, staff, students or volunteers who knowingly in public speech or actions take positions against the Catholic Church compromise their relationship with JP Catholic. JP Catholic expects all trustees, faculty and staff to celebrate the positive spiritual and entrepreneurial components of its mission and to eschew betraying or obstructing what the institution is striving to build. Students, faculty and staff come from all faiths, and the university has as a fundamental belief of mutual respect for diverse beliefs.

A similar directive to future applicants can be found on the website of Benedictine College:

Our Benedictine 2020: A Vision for Greatness strategic plan has made it a campus wide priority to: “Recruit, retain, and develop one of the great Catholic college faculties in America.”

The plan continues: “We believe that Benedictine College’s educational experience is enhanced by all aspects of our mission: community, faith and scholarship…

“Community: The first step to achieving academic excellence in a community of faith and scholarship is the ongoing development of one of the great Catholic college faculties in America….

“Faith: Benedictine College is committed to sharing with all members of our community the beauty and mystery of the Catholic faith as revealed in the person of Jesus Christ and handed down through the teachings of the Church….

“Scholarship: Academic excellence at Benedictine College is driven by faculty who exhibit strong commitment in their teaching and scholarship to provide an environment that prepares students with the best that has been thought and written.  Faculty will develop graduates who are critical thinkers who read, speak, and write well, and are personally and professionally prepared for life’s challenges on a local and global scale.  As faculty at a Catholic college, we embrace the distinctive challenge of Catholic education articulated by Pope Benedict XVI: to form the will, as well as the mind, of the students within our care.”

Also pertinent are the Collegiate Statutes promulgated by Thomas More College of Liberal Arts, which set up a strong set of expectations for potential faculty:

All Fellows [i.e., faculty members] are required to uphold the teaching and ethical norms of the Roman Catholic Church and to make the annual Profession of Faith and Oath of Fidelity in accord with the Apostolic Constitution Ex corde Ecclesiae. Those Fellows teaching courses in Sacred Scripture or Theology are expected to seek the mandatum from the local ordinary, the Bishop of Manchester, New Hampshire.

At Mount St. Mary’s, all candidates are shown, and told they would be expected to support, the first page of the Mount’s Governing Documents, which state:

The Board of Trustees reasserts the critical importance of the Catholic identity in all operations of the University. A strong Catholic identity is central to the mission of Mount St. Mary’s University. Therefore, all faculty, staff, administrators, executive officers and Trustees are to work in concert with and support this Catholic mission. The basic tenets of this Catholic mission at Mount St. Mary’s include:

  1. The University is committed to the person and Gospel of Jesus Christ as the foundation of our values and attitudes which are reflected in our campus culture, policies and procedures.
  2. The University fully understands, respects and follows the teachings of the Catholic Church.
  3. The University is in full compliance with both the letter and spirit of Ex corde Ecclesiae.
  4. The University recognizes the authority of the Holy See and the authority vested in the Archbishop of Baltimore regarding the Catholic nature and direction of Mount St. Mary’s University.

The School of Religious Education at Brigham Young University has also taken a pro-active approach to stating their expectations of future faculty. When one clicks on the FAQ section of the School’s website and scrolls down, one finds a policy statement regarding Hiring Future Faculty in Religious Education. “What are the criteria to be used in deciding whom to hire?” the statement begins, a question that is then discussed under five headings: Orientation, Gospel Scholarship, Teaching, Training and Credentials, and Citizenship. The first of these headings, Orientation, sets the foundational expectation of all future faculty of the School:

Orientation means having a firm testimony of an unquestioned commitment to the Savior and his gospel, to Joseph Smith, the Restoration, the Church, and the prophetic destiny of Brigham Young University. Other qualifications, no matter how impressive, do not override the necessity of this criterion.

Similarly, too, at Colorado Christian University, both applicants and existing employees are required to affirm their commitment to CCU’s statements of Faith, LifeStyle Expectations, and Strategic Objectives that demonstrate the institution’s evangelical principles.

Job Postings

Turning now to job advertisements themselves, consider this advertisement for a position currently available in Christendom College’s Department of English Language and Literature:

The Department of English Language and Literature at Christendom College seeks a full-time faculty appointment to begin August 15, 2013. This is an entry-level position.

The successful candidate will teach a 4/4 load that may include any of the literature courses in the core curriculum, major-oriented courses in literary criticism and/or poetics, and courses in his field of expertise. The department especially welcomes candidates who specialize in medieval literature. A Ph.D. and teaching experience are preferred, but the department will consider particularly well-qualified ABD candidates.

Christendom College, located in Virginia’s Shenandoah Valley, is a four-year Catholic liberal arts college whose faculty members take an annual, voluntary oath of fidelity to the Magisterium of the Church. Our faculty members enjoy being part of a community of Catholic scholars dedicated to excellence in teaching.  For more information on the Christendom Mission and Vision statements, curriculum, and student life, see www.christendom.edu.

This advertisement is typical of what one tends to find in academic job postings—except for the final paragraph, which not only links the position advertised with the overall mission of the college (“Christendom College…is a four-year Catholic liberal arts college), but also alerts potential candidates that members of the Christendom faculty take a voluntary Oath of Fidelity to the Magisterium of the Church. In alerting potential candidates to this practice, Christendom makes abundantly clear what it expects from its faculty in terms of commitment to the school’s Catholic mission. Steve Snyder, vice-president for academic affairs at Christendom, underscores that the taking of the Oath of Fidelity is voluntary, but by mentioning even this voluntary practice in its job postings, Christendom puts the hiring for mission issue at the forefront and effectively winnows out potential candidates who might apply simply in the interests of finding a job.

A current job posting for a position in the History Department at Franciscan University also “requires support for Mission of the university.”

The Catholic University of America uses similar language in every one of its job postings:

The Catholic University of America is the national university of the Catholic Church and was founded as a center of research and scholarship. We seek candidates who, regardless of their religious affiliation, understand and will make a significant contribution to the university’s mission and goals.

Here, moreover, is a current advertisement produced by Benedictine College for a position available as an experimental physicist. This is a good example of a job posting for a position outside the humanities that strongly ties in the position to the Catholic mission of the college:

The Department of Physics and Astronomy at Benedictine College invites outstanding teacher-scholars to apply for a tenure track position for an Experimental Physicist starting in fall 2012. PhD required. Benedictine is a college growing in enrollment and reputation. The Department offers bachelor degrees in physics, astronomy, engineering physics and physics secondary ed. Nearly ¾ of our graduates go on to graduate or professional schools. The successful candidate should have a strong commitment to undergraduate Liberal Arts education. Teaching areas include introductory courses for the general student body and courses and laboratories at all levels for majors. The successful candidate will be expected to establish on-campus research experiences for students participating in our Discovery Program as well as in departmental research. Candidate’s background should include experience in experimental physics, complementing current faculty strengths in astronomy and theoretical physics.

Benedictine College, which has a full-time undergraduate enrollment of approximately 1600 students, is a mission-centered academic community. Its mission as a Catholic, Benedictine, liberal arts, residential college is the education of men and women within a community of faith and scholarship. Benedictine College provides a liberal arts education by means of academic programs based on a core of studies in the arts and sciences. In addition, the college provides education for careers through both professional courses of study and major programs in the liberal arts and sciences. As an essential element of its mission, Benedictine College fosters scholarship, independent research and performance in its students and faculty as a means of participating in and contributing to the broader world of learning.

Beyond disciplinary expertise, Benedictine College seeks faculty members eager to engage and support our mission. Application materials should discuss how you would contribute to the college’s Catholic, Benedictine, liberal arts identity.

Likewise, Notre Dame’s College of Engineering currently has a notice on its website for prospective applicants during the 2012-13 academic year which exhibits good coordination between the mission of the university and that of the College of Engineering—especially impressive for a discipline outside the humanities:

Notre Dame invites academically gifted applicants supportive of and dedicated to enhancing its mission as a Catholic research university, particularly women, members of historically underrepresented groups, and others who will enhance the diversity of its faculty to apply….

The Application

The most common way that hiring for mission is emphasized at the application stage is in the institution’s request for the applicant to compose a response to the university’s mission statement. Dean Michael Dauphinais at Ave Maria and Dean Christopher Blum at Thomas More College both stressed the need of this statement to convincingly show how the candidate’s teaching and scholarship relate to the Catholic mission of their respective institutions. The key question that Blum likes to see the candidate answer, either in the response to the mission statement or in the on-site interview, is “How do you perceive your own pursuit of wisdom as contributing to the Catholic intellectual tradition?” Steve Snyder likes the candidate’s response to the mission statement to reveal how the mission statement of Christendom aids the scholar in his or her intellectual life.

At Mount St. Mary’s University, application materials invite the candidate to address the mission of the institution in one of three ways:

Beyond disciplinary expertise, Mount St. Mary’s seeks faculty members eager to engage and support our Catholic identity. Application materials should discuss how you might contribute to the University’s Catholic liberal arts mission, how your work engages with the Catholic intellectual tradition, or how your own faith tradition informs your vocation as teacher and scholar.

About this aspect of the application Dean Hochschild remarks:

In addition to providing some sense of what a search committee should look for, it is just fairness and a favor to candidates to invite specific engagement in a cover letter. Without that, given the different types of Catholic universities and the different kinds of views that can be represented on a search committee, it is simply unfair to mention “Catholic identity” in a generic sense and then expect candidates to say anything in a cover letter.

We find that many candidates (and not just Catholics) welcome the opportunity to speak to these issues, and I know of more than one occasion where this language actually prompted someone to apply who wasn’t otherwise going to.

Narrowing the Field

The question of mission fit perhaps comes most forcefully into play in the activities by which the search committee, in conjunction with the upper administration, narrows the field of potential candidates—a field which at least in larger research universities can reach into the hundreds for a single position.

Institutions sometimes employ “first-round” phone interviews, or interviews at meetings of professional associations, in order to help winnow the field of candidates, interviews in which mission questions can play a part. For example, Baylor University in its phone interviews asks candidates specific questions not only about their religious affiliation, but also about the degree of their involvement in their church or parish. In order to help determine a short-list of candidates, The Catholic University of America’s College of Arts and Sciences follows the practice of many institutions in asking candidates to write a response to the university’s mission statement.

On-site interviews, which customarily include a lecture or “job talk,” as well as the teaching of a course, also help manifest the candidate’s serious commitment to, or alliance with, the religious mission of the institution. At this stage of the process various strategies are employed.

The candidate’s discussions with the search committee, for example, will include specific questions on Catholic mission. As Christopher Kaczor, professor of philosophy at Loyola Marymount University, explains about his own department’s procedures:

Our department does a good job hiring for mission by asking open-ended questions like the following, “LMU is a Catholic university. How do you see yourself contributing to the distinctive mission and identity of LMU?” Then, the candidate says whatever they say but it is often revelatory. The follow up questions are key. So, we might follow up with, “Well, how does your answer differ from what might be fitting at a non-Catholic university?” Or, “How does your research/teaching/service contribute to the promotion of justice and service of faith?” We try to get the candidate to talk at length about such questions and we’ve been successful in determining who would be a good fit for us.

At Mount St. Mary’s, Dean Hochschild reviews all the applications that come in for positions available in his school, taking special note of those candidates who write a good letter about Catholic mission. Hochschild underscores that he does not try to force a department into hiring a specific candidate, but he converses with departments before invitations for on-site interviews, and must approve all candidates. In explaining negative decisions to the committee, he harkens back to earlier conversations about the importance of hiring for mission. He also depends upon the support of the president and provost in supporting his decisions (the president, when possible, also interviews all candidates invited to campus for interviews). Usually, if three candidates come to campus for interviews at the Mount, then the president expects at least two to be Catholic. For Hochschild, “it is most important that at least two be well-versed in and show personal investment in the Catholic intellectual tradition, and all three show willingness and ability to engage that tradition.”

The Catholic University of America has a requirement that the president and provost be given an opportunity to review and approve the curriculum vitae of a candidate for a faculty position before that candidate is invited for an on-campus interview. Indeed, Dean Poos meets for an hour and a half with each candidate who interviews on campus for a position in his school, and makes discussion of the University’s mission a main focus of that interview. In these interviews Dean Poos asks the key question: “How would it be different for you to be a faculty member here than at, say, Ohio State?”

Helping narrow the field of job candidates at Ave Maria University is its policy that Catholics must form a majority in every department. At Ave Maria, too, the dean of faculty meets with the search committee to determine which candidates shall be invited for on-site interviews.

At Belmont Abbey, the vice-president for academic affairs as well as the president meet separately with all candidates during their on-site visits, and make a discussion about the mission statement of the college central to those interviews. At Christendom the procedure is the same, as it is, too, at Benedictine College, where the president and dean discuss with the candidate the relevance of mission to his or her daily life as a faculty member, preparing the candidate to integrate faith and reason in the classroom.

Finally, in Brigham Young University’s College of Religious Education, the entire faculty engages in voting on the candidates. The dean, president of the university, as well as the university board of trustees, then must approve the recommended candidate—with the board of trustees, not the president, having the final say. If the recommended candidate fails to win approval from either the dean, president, or the board, then the search committee is charged to recommend another candidate.

The Contract

The issue of the candidate’s commitment to Catholic mission need not end with the offering of a contract. Indeed, the contract itself can contain language that affirms the college’s or university’s expectations of the candidate in this regard. At Christendom, for instance, it is put into the candidate’s contract that public dissent from magisterial teachings is grounds for dismissal from the College. By public dissent is meant more what is published by the scholar than what may be spoken more or less off-hand at a public venue. The school’s procedure in such cases involves a request of judgment from the local ordinary.

Also at Christendom, new hires receive one-year, probationary contracts for each of their first three years of employment, in the midst of which he or she may be dismissed without cause. These probationary years help the school confirm both the scholarly excellence and Catholic commitment of the faculty member.

At The Catholic University of America, formal offers of employment to faculty and staff are accompanied by explicit references to the expectations of employees to respect and support the University’s Catholic mission:

The Catholic University of America was founded in the name of the Catholic Church and maintains a unique relationship with it. The University’s operations, policies and activities reflect this foundation and relationship and are conducted in accordance with its stated mission. Regardless of their religious or denominational affiliation, all employees are expected to respect and support the University’s mission in the fulfillment of their responsibilities and obligations appropriate to their appointment.

Though it is not a contractual component, the statement already alluded to on the website of John Paul the Great Catholic University at least raises the specter of contractual ramifications of public dissent from Magisterial teachings or conduct otherwise undermining of the mission of the University:

All teaching faculty commit to harmony with Catholic Church teachings (the pope and bishops) in speech and action. Faculty, staff, students or volunteers who knowingly in public speech or actions take positions against the Catholic Church compromise their relationship with JP Catholic. JP Catholic expects all trustees, faculty and staff to celebrate the positive spiritual and entrepreneurial components of its mission and to eschew betraying or obstructing what the institution is striving to build.

New Faculty Orientation and Beyond

At the point in which the candidate becomes a new member of the college’s faculty, the process of actually conforming his or her scholarly activities to the college’s specific expression of Catholic mission begins. Most colleges employ some kind of new faculty orientation in which to begin this process. This orientation to mission can be a one-time event, as for example at Baylor University and Benedictine College. At Benedictine the dean makes a presentation that involves discussion of Ex corde along with an introduction to the college’s Benedictine heritage.

But the orientation can also be a longer program. Brigham Young University conducts an eight-week new faculty seminar in which mission issues play a key part. Both BYU and Baylor also assign a faculty mentor to new faculty members in order to help them adapt to the culture of the institution—a practice that was not mentioned in the discussions with Catholic administrators about their new faculty orientation programs

At The Catholic University of America, as well, the provost conducts a mandatory year-long program of orientation and socialization to the academic culture at CUA for new full-time tenure-track and tenured faculty. The program includes a three-day retreat and then six two-hour luncheon meetings spread throughout the academic year. Discussion of Ex corde forms a part of the program.

Even more significantly at Catholic University, Dean Poos meets each semester with every pre-tenured faculty member in his school. In these meetings he takes the opportunity to discuss Ex corde with the faculty member, encouraging him or her to read and study the document, especially the section on characteristics of research at a Catholic university (no. 15). This is particularly important at CUA in that, in their tenure applications, faculty must write a reflection on how their teaching and scholarship relates to the Catholic mission of the institution.

Mount St. Mary’s likewise employs a year-long faculty development seminar for tenure-track faculty, directed by various faculty members (not just deans and theologians), a seminar which involves readings on liberal education and the Catholic university. Dean Hochschild was inspired to launch this kind of seminar by his experience of a similar faculty development seminar at Wheaton College. Belmont Abbey requires that all new faculty attend a presentation on the Benedictine heritage of the College.

As noted earlier, some schools use the Oath of Fidelity and Profession of Faith, along with the mandatum for faculty members teaching theology or Sacred Scripture, as ways of confirming faculty commitment to the purpose of their hire: to adhere whole-heartedly to the Catholic mission of the institution.

Taken together, all of these post-hire practices help cultivate the kind of mission-driven Catholic culture so imperative for a successful hiring-for-mission policy.

Further Relevant Literature

This July 2009 First Things article by John Larivee, F.K. Marsh, and Brian Engelland, “Ex corde and the Dilbert Effect,” lays out some good recommendations for implementing the demands of Ex corde in hiring:

http://www.firstthings.com/onthesquare/2009/07/ex-corde-and-the-dilbert-effect

The article by Richard D. Breslin mentioned in the Introduction outlines several advantages of hiring for mission and maintaining a strong Catholic identity. He asserts that schools which are faithful to their Catholic identity will attract more donors, which will free up capital to attract more students and employ professors with “star power.” However, achieving this “next level” of Catholic identity requires schools to hire candidates who, “establish the necessary linkage between their personal philosophy and the philosophy and mission of the institution.” He also points out that it has become unfashionable for interviews to ask about a candidate’s background, religious beliefs or philosophy. Because of these sloppy hiring practices, Breslin asserts that the institution risks “losing its soul.” Besides the aforementioned discomfort about touching on non-academic job requirements, the author also writes about the narrowness of a university’s personnel search, which is frequently carried out by a single department for a faculty member with a highly specialized skill set without any regard to the “institution as a whole.” After laying out these problems, Breslin goes on to lay out a specific series of “institutional action steps”:

  1. Conduct an internal scan: A self-evaluation, instituted by the president and the board of trustees, which establishes the health of a school’s Catholic identity. It isn’t a “witch hunt;” rather, the purpose is to discover, “whether individual hiring units have taken seriously the responsibility of seeking qualified candidates who embrace or who are respectful of the institution’s mission and philosophy.”
  2. Review Hiring Practices: Ensuring all the literature related to hiring includes a “serious segment associated with the Catholic mission.” Hiring teams should include at least one person who will inform the candidate that they are applying for a position at a Catholic institution, which entails certain responsibilities.
  3. Make a Declaration of Intent: A revised statement about the school’s hiring practices and the community’s role in solidifying an institutional Catholic identity.
  4. Develop Specific Literature: Similar to item 3, the school should revise its mission statement and policy statement to conform with its Catholic philosophy.
  5. Review the Interview Process: The institution should make sure that its dedication to a strong Catholic Identity is reflected in all stages of its hiring process, not as a “litmus test” for candidates but as an informative conversation. Asking questions about a candidate’s philosophy and values emphasizes a school’s dedication to these items.
http://ejournals.bc.edu/ojs/index.php/catholic/article/view/243

Here is a link to a long document on hiring for mission produced by Loyola Marymount University. The document contains many detailed articles pertaining to hiring for mission, ranging from overviews on the importance of hiring for mission to essays explaining the kinds of questions to ask candidates and how to frame those questions. Even more importantly, there is a chart which shows the difference between legally framed questions and questions that could be considered discriminatory and therefore grounds for a lawsuit. There is also a series of questions which Marymount submits to applicants pertaining to Catholic identity.

https://www.lmu.edu/AssetFactory.aspx?vid=43866

This is a link to a 2001 article by Heft and others on hiring for mission and the conflicting attitudes held about it by administrators and faculties at Catholic institutions. (A link to the first part of this two-part article was not available online.)

http://eric.ed.gov/ERICWebPortal/search/detailmini.jsp?_nfpb=true&_&ERICExtSearch_SearchValue_0=EJ629695&ERICExtSearch_SearchType_0=no&accno=EJ629695

Here is a link to Creighton University’s guidelines for hiring for mission. The guidelines mention how the applicant’s interest in Catholic identity and mission is established at each stage of the hiring process (i.e., the listing for the job must mention the school’s Catholic identity, written applications should be screened based on how the candidate characterizes how they will “fit” into the mission of the school, and so on).

http://www.creighton.edu/fileadmin/user/CCAS/docs/2010_Site/Hiring_for_Mission_Guidelines.pdf

Appendix A

Linked Digest of Institutions Surveyed

Newman Guide Colleges

Aquinas College

Mission Statement: http://www.aquinascollege.edu/welcome/vision-values.php

Norms related to Ex corde Ecclesiae: http://www.aquinascollege.edu/academics/index.php

Online Application Form For Faculty:  http://www.aquinascollege.edu/main/employmentDetails.php?employmentID=36

Legal Hiring Disclaimer: http://www.aquinascollege.edu/main/legal.php

Job Listing (nursing faculty): http://www.aquinascollege.edu/main/employmentDetails.php?employmentID=36

Ave Maria University

Mission Statement: http://www.avemaria.edu/AboutAveMaria/OurCatholicIdentityandMission.aspx

Online Application Form for Faculty: http://www.avemariahr.org/docs/file/Application%20for%20Employment%20edited.pdf

Instructions to Faculty Applicants (education): http://www.avemaria.edu/Jobs/FacultyPosition.aspx

–

Belmont Abbey College

Mission Statement:  http://www.belmontabbeycollege.edu/Visionstatement/mission-statement.aspx

Belmont vs EEOC Details: http://www.belmontabbeycollege.edu/eeoc/

–

Benedictine College

Mission Statement: http://www.benedictine.edu/about/missionvalues

Norms related to Ex corde Ecclesiae:  http://www.benedictine.edu/about/missionvalues/ex-corde-ecclesiae

Online Applications Form: http://www.benedictine.edu/sites/default/files/application_benedictine_employment_fbd_072808.pdf

Instructions to Faculty Applicants (English):  http://www.benedictine.edu/english-faculty

–

Catholic Distance University

Mission Statement (page 2): http://www.cdu.edu/images/currentCDUcatalog.pdf

Ex corde: http://www.cdu.edu/documents/welcome/ex-corde.html

–

Catholic University of America

Mission Statement: http://www.cua.edu/about-cua/mission-statement.cfm

Faculty Job Description (Health Information Technology/Intelligence Analysis): http://slis.cua.edu/about/employment.cfm#Faculty

Norms related to Ex corde Ecclesiae: http://www.pageturnpro.com/The-Catholic-University-of-America/26705-Ex-Corde/index.html#1

–

Christendom College

Mission Statement: http://www.christendom.edu/about/mission.php

Faculty Job Description (English): http://www.christendom.edu/about/job-pdfs/job%20announcement%202013.pdf

Online Application Form: http://www.christendom.edu/about/CCapplication.pdf

College of St. Mary Magdalen

Mission Statement: http://www.magdalen.edu/about-us/mission-statement.asp

–

The College of Saints John Fisher & Thomas More

Coat of Arms: http://www.fishermore.edu/the-fisher-more-college-coat-of-arms/

–

DeSales University

Mission Statement:  http://www.desales.edu/home/about/academic-excellence/philosophy-mission

Employment Mission: http://www.desales.edu/home/about/people/employment

Catholic Identity: http://desales.edu/home/about/our-heritage/catholic-identity

Faculty Job Descriptions (bottom of page): http://www.desales.edu/home/about/people/employment

–

Franciscan University of Steubenville

Mission Statement: http://www.franciscan.edu/AboutFUS/Mission/

Norms Related to Ex corde Ecclesiae: http://www.franciscan.edu/PassionatelyCatholic/

Instructions for Faculty Applicants (History): http://www.franciscan.edu/EmploymentListings/History/August2013/

Passionately Catholic: http://www.franciscan.edu/PassionatelyCatholic/

–

Holy Spirit College

Mission Statement: http://www.holyspiritcollege.org/mission.html

Hiring for mission and Ex corde Info: http://www.holyspiritcollege.org/authentic-catholic-college.html

–

John Paul the Great Catholic University

Mission Statement: http://www.jpcatholic.com/about/vision.php

Online Applications: http://www.jpcatholic.com/academics/openings.php

Instructions for Faculty Applicants/Job descriptions: http://www.jpcatholic.com/about/fidelity.php

–

Mount St. Mary’s University

Mission Statement: http://www.msmary.edu/presidents_office/mission-statement/

Ex corde Norms: http://www.msmary.edu/presidents_office/docs/2006-07_Catholic_Iden_Mission.pdf

Hiring Guidelines: http://www.msmary.edu/administration/human-resources/pdfs2/Professional-Search_Procedures_rev%20Aug%2007.pdf

–

Our Lady Seat of Wisdom

Mission Statement: http://seatofwisdom.org/about_us/about_us/vision-and-values.html

Oath of Fidelity: http://seatofwisdom.org/news/latest/bishop-mulhall-presides-over-opening-mass-and-faculty-oath-of-fidelity.html

–

Redeemer Pacific College

Mission Statement: http://twu.ca/academics/calendar/2012-2013/affiliate-institutions/redeemer-pacific-college/purpose.html

–

Thomas Aquinas College

Mission Statement: http://www.thomasaquinas.edu/about/mission-history

Norms Related to Ex corde Ecclesiae: http://www.thomasaquinas.edu/a-catholic-life

Oath of Fidelity for Faculty: http://www.thomasaquinas.edu/catholic-life/oath-fidelity

Profession of Faith: http://www.thomasaquinas.edu/catholic-life/oath-fidelity

–

Thomas More College of Liberal Arts

Mission Statement/ President’s Message: http://www.thomasmorecollege.edu/about/mission/

Ex corde info: http://www.thomasmorecollege.edu/about/commitment-to-the-church/ex-corde-ecclesiae/

Fidelity to Faith: http://www.thomasmorecollege.edu/about/commitment-to-the-church/

Hiring For mission: http://www.thomasmorecollege.edu/about/commitment-to-the-church/mandatum/

–

University of Dallas

Mission Statement: http://www.udallas.edu/about/mission.html

Hiring for mission: http://www.udallas.edu/offices/provost/missionandvision.html

Online Application Form: http://www.udallas.edu/offices/hr/employmentapplication.html

–

University of Mary

Mission Statement: http://www.umary.edu/about/mission/missionidentity.php

Hiring for mission: http://www.umary.edu/jobs/

Applicant Info Packet About Mission Hiring: http://www.umary.edu/pdflibrary/applicantinfopacket.pdf

–

University of Saint Thomas

Mission Statement: http://www.stthom.edu/About_UST/Our_Story/Index.aqf

Norms Related to Ex corde Ecclesiae: http://www.stthom.edu/Public/index.asp?Friendly_Flag=1&page_ID=3778

Online Application for Faculty (theology position): http://www.stthom.edu/Offices_Services/Offices/Human_Resources/Employment/FullTime_Faculty/School_of_Theology.aqf

–

Walsh University

Mission Statement: http://www.walsh.edu/our-mission2

Hiring Samples: http://www.walsh.edu/faculty18

–

Wyoming Catholic College

Mission Statement: http://www.wyomingcatholiccollege.com/about-wcc/index.aspx

Hiring for mission: http://www.wyomingcatholiccollege.com/about-wcc/education/index.aspx

Oath of Fidelity / Profession of Faith: http://www.wyomingcatholiccollege.com/about-wcc/ex-corde-ecclesiae/index.aspx

Norms Related to Ex corde Ecclesiae: http://www.wyomingcatholiccollege.com/about-wcc/ex-corde-ecclesiae/index.aspx

Non-Guide Schools Surveyed

Bob Jones University

Doctrinal Statement: http://www.bju.edu/about-bju/creed.php

–

Brigham Young University

Mission Statement: http://aims.byu.edu/

Hiring for mission: http://www.byu.edu/hr/?q=job-seekers/faq/ecclesiastical-questions

Online Application for Faculty: https://yjobs.byu.edu/applicants/jsp/shared/frameset/Frameset.jsp?time=1348493161821

Liberal Arts Applications: https://yjobs.byu.edu/applicants/jsp/shared/frameset/Frameset.jsp?time=1348493161821

Job Description – English Department: http://english.byu.edu/jobs/

School of Religious Education Policy for Future Faculty: http://religion.byu.edu/questions-and-policies

–

Baylor University

Mission Statement: http://www.baylor.edu/profuturis/

Hiring for mission: http://www.baylor.edu/hr/index.php?id=79065

Online Liberal Arts Application: http://www.baylor.edu/hr/index.php?id=91190

http://www.baylor.edu/hr/index.php?id=81291
http://www.baylor.edu/hr/index.php?id=81295

–

Canisius College

Mission Statement: http://www.canisius.edu/about-canisius/mission/

Hiring for Mission: http://www.canisius.edu/about-canisius/mission/hiring/

Online Application: http://www.canisius.edu/dotAsset/4346d10f-a0b8-4bc9-83d3-7d523698c465.pdf

Job Description – Faculty Position (organizational studies): https://www.google.com/url?q=http://www.canisius.edu/dotAsset/f6541fdc-7b5a-47e5-a021-ee8cde5a87a8.doc&sa=U&ei=0MltUIC5OrG70AH_xIHoAg&ved=0CAcQFjAA&client=internal-uds-cse&usg=AFQjCNE6I6yF4XthmMXmXwbTV1HCKC89ZQ

–

Colorado Christian University

Mission Statement: http://www.ccu.edu/welcome/mission.asp

“About Us”: http://www.ccu.edu/employment/about/

Job Description – Event Manager: https://ch.tbe.taleo.net/CH10/ats/careers/requisition.jsp?org=CCU&cws=1&rid=1036

Job Description – English Affiliate Faculty: https://ch.tbe.taleo.net/CH10/ats/careers/requisition.jsp?org=CCU&cws=1&rid=858

Behavior Expectations: http://www.ccu.edu/employment/lifestyle.asp

Statement of Faith (required to ‘affirm their commitment’ to this): http://www.ccu.edu/welcome/webelieve.asp

Strategic Objectives: http://www.ccu.edu/strategicobjectives/default.asp

–

Creighton University

Mission Statement: http://www.creighton.edu/mission/

Hiring for mission: https://www.creighton.edu/ccas/facultyandstaff/hiringformission/index.php

Online Application for Faculty: https://careers.creighton.edu/applicants/jsp/shared/frameset/Frameset.jsp?time=1348499028750

–

John Carroll University

Job Description – Assistant Professor of Strategic Management: http://sites.jcu.edu/facultypositions/home-page/john-m-and-mary-jo-boler-school-of-business/assistant-professor-of-strategic-management/

Online Application: http://webmedia.jcu.edu/hr/files/2011/02/Application.pdf

Mission and Identity Statement: http://sites.jcu.edu/mission/pages/vision-mission-core-values-and-strategic-initiatives-statement/

Catholicity Statement: http://sites.jcu.edu/mission/pages/catholicity-statement/

–

Leymone College

Mission Statement: http://lemoyne.edu/tabid/482/Default.aspx

Hiring for Mission: http://lemoyne.edu/tabid/2264/default.aspx

Job Description (Director, Office for Career Advising): http://lemoyne.interviewexchange.com/jobofferdetails.jsp;jsessionid=49964936D123D9D88C45E9F98C1D8D4C?JOBID=32412

Online Job Application (Personal Info Form): http://lemoyne.edu/AZIndex/HumanResources/FacultyStaff/PersonalDataForm/tabid/3039/e/1/Default.aspx

–

Loyola Marymount University

Mission Statement: http://www.lmu.edu/about/mission/Mission_Statement.htm

Statement of Non-Discrimination: http://www.lmu.edu/Assets/Statement+of+Non-Discrimination.pdf

Faculty Job Description (Law Professor): https://jobs.lmu.edu/postings/8085

Hiring for Mission best practices document: http://www.lmu.edu/AssetFactory.aspx?vid=43866

–

University of Notre Dame

Mission Statement: http://www.nd.edu/about/mission-statement/

Description of hiring practices: http://hr.nd.edu/nd-faculty-staff/forms-policies/applicant-screening/

Norms Related to Ex corde Ecclesiae: http://catholicmission.nd.edu/

Faculty Position Description (photography): https://jobs.nd.edu/applicants/jsp/shared/position/JobDetails_css.jsp?postingId=204215

Equal Opportunity Statement: http://hr.nd.edu/nd-faculty-staff/forms-policies/about-notre-dame/

–

University of St. Thomas (Minn.)

Faculty Position Description (Assistant Professor, German): https://jobs.stthomas.edu/postings/13692

Mission, Vision and Convictions: http://www.stthomas.edu/aboutust/mission/

Center for Catholic Studies: http://www.stthomas.edu/cathstudies/about/director/default.html

–

Wheaton College

Statement of Faith and Educational Purpose: http://www.wheaton.edu/About-Wheaton/Statement-of-Faith-and-Educational-Purpose

The liberal arts in the evangelical Christian tradition: http://www.wheaton.edu/Academics/Liberal-Arts

 

 

 

 

The NLRB’s Assault on Religious Liberty

/in , /by
Click here for PDF

In January 2011, an acting regional director of the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) sparked a national outcry with his ruling requiring Manhattan College, a Christian Brothers institution, to recognize a faculty union and comply with federal labor law despite the College’s religious identity.  The Board’s pending review of that decision could have a far-reaching impact on religious liberty in the United States and the future of unionization at Catholic colleges and universities.

When the ruling was issued, it received significant media attention for the wrong reasons.  The case was portrayed as a sudden turn against Catholic colleges’ religious liberty.  One national newspaper reported that it was “the first time an NLRB body has tried to force a religious institution to allow unions.”

In fact, the NLRB has claimed jurisdiction over Catholic colleges and universities for decades, forcing institutions to recognize faculty unions despite the potential interference with their ability to enforce their religious missions—a violation of religious liberty under the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.

Because the evolution of the Board’s reasoning is essential to understanding the impact of the Manhattan College case, this paper summarizes key NLRB and federal court decisions since the 1979 Supreme Court ruling in NLRB v. The Catholic Bishop of Chicago, et al.  It should be noted that this paper addresses only the matter of NLRB jurisdiction over Catholic colleges and universities, but not arguments for and against unions outside the purview of federal law.

NLRB v. The Catholic Bishop of Chicago (1979)1

Catholic Bishop was a watershed moment in the protection of religious institutions from undue government intrusion.  It has served as the primary basis upon which the NLRB evaluates requests from Catholic colleges and universities for exemptions from the Board’s jurisdiction and from collective bargaining with faculty.

But in the NLRB’s early years of enforcing the National Labor Relations Act of 1935, the question of Catholic schools and colleges was moot.  The NLRB declined to assert jurisdiction over any nonprofit educational institution, arguing that the nonprofit status precluded substantial commercial activity.  It was not until 1970 that the NLRB reversed its position in response to the growing influence of leading universities, claiming jurisdiction over Cornell University2 as well as other schools, colleges and universities.

Still through most of the 1970s, the NLRB did not consider whether the agency might be intruding on the First Amendment rights of Catholic colleges and universities.  The Board asserted jurisdiction over Catholic institutions including Fordham University in New York City;3 Manhattan College in Riverdale, New York;4 Seton Hill College in Greensburg, Pennsylvania;5 Saint Francis College in Loretto, Pennsylvania;6 and even the U.S. bishops’ national university, The Catholic University of America in Washington, D.C.7  In all of these cases, the bargaining units included teaching faculty.

The question of religious liberty was raised, however, by Catholic parochial schools.  In 1975, the NLRB established a “completely religious” test8 that exempted only Catholic schools with no secular education, such as seminaries to train young men for the priesthood.  Even when a school was owned and operated by the Catholic Church, the NLRB determined that:

Regulation of labor relations does not violate the First Amendment when it involves a minimal intrusion on religious conduct and is necessary to obtain [the National Labor Relations Act’s] objective.9

It required the Supreme Court in the 1979 case NLRB v. The Catholic Bishop of Chicago, et al. to introduce the concept of religious freedom to the NLRB.  Under consideration were lay faculty unions at Catholic parochial schools in the dioceses of Chicago and Fort Wayne-South Bend.  The federal Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit had ruled that both the Free Exercise Clause and the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment prevented the NLRB from asserting jurisdiction over a Catholic school with regard to teachers, and it dismissed the NLRB’s “completely religious” test for exemption:

We find the standard itself to be a simplistic black or white, purported rule containing no borderline demarcation of where ‘completely religious’ takes over or, on the other hand, ceases.  In our opinion the dichotomous ‘completely religious-merely religiously associated’ standard provides no workable guide to the exercise of discretion.  The determination that an institution is so completely a religious entity as to exclude any viable secular components obviously implicates very sensitive questions of faith and tradition.10

Agreeing that the NLRB’s jurisdiction over Catholic schools with regard to faculty unions posed significant First Amendment concerns, and finding that Congress had not clearly expressed its intent that teachers in church-operated schools would be covered by the National Labor Relations Act, the Supreme Court upheld the Circuit Court ruling.  How this might impact Catholic colleges and universities, however, was a matter left to the NLRB and lower courts.

College of Notre Dame (1979)11

In September 1979, the NLRB considered an appeal from the College of Notre Dame in Belmont, California, to a regional director’s assertion of jurisdiction over the Catholic college.  It was the first case before the Board in which a Catholic college claimed a right to refuse collective bargaining according to the Supreme Court ruling in Catholic Bishop.

The regional director had asserted that the Supreme Court’s First Amendment concerns in Catholic Bishop were irrelevant to the College’s interests, because the Court had been concerned only with lay teachers in “church-operated” elementary and secondary schools.  This limited the effective reach of Catholic Bishop in three ways: it could be applied only to elementary and secondary schools, not colleges or other institutions; it applied only to schools deemed to be “church-operated,” as distinct from schools that were church-affiliated but legally independent from an established church; and it applied only to bargaining units of teachers, not non-teaching employees.

The NLRB agreed with the regional director’s first restriction, contending that a college education does not typically involve “substantial religious activity and purpose” like the Catholic schools involved in Catholic Bishop, even at a religious college.  Therefore the government would not become entangled in religious matters if a college were subjected to NLRB oversight.  The Board cited the Supreme Court ruling in Tilton v. Richardson:

There are generally significant differences between the religious aspects of church-related institutions of higher learning and parochial elementary and secondary schools. …Since religious indoctrination is not a substantial purpose or activity of these church-related colleges and universities, there is less likelihood than in primary and secondary schools that religion will permeate the area of secular education.”12

The NLRB also agreed that the College was not controlled by the Catholic Church:

Because an independent board of trustees, not the diocese or the Order, controls the institution, and because there is no administrative or financial connection at all between the diocese or the Order and the school, the College of Notre Dame is not church-operated within the meaning of Catholic Bishop.

The NLRB acknowledged that the College of Notre Dame had clear ties to the Catholic Church.  The college was established in 1851 by the Order of Sisters of Notre Dame de Namur.  At the time of the NLRB’s review, nine of the college’s fifteen trustees were Sisters of Notre Dame, and one-third of the faculty was affiliated with religious orders.  The college required that the president, an ex officio member of the board of trustees, belong to the founding Order.

But this was insufficient for the NLRB to regard the College as church-controlled.  Legal ownership of the college had been transferred from the Sisters of Notre Dame de Namur to a board of trustees independent of the Order and the Archdiocese of San Francisco.  The NLRB found no evidence of property owned or funds contributed by the Sisters or the Archdiocese.

The regional director’s third limitation on Catholic Bishop—that it did not apply to non-teaching employees, such as the service and maintenance employees who were the focus of this particular case—was not taken up by the NLRB, which said the issue was moot since it had determined that Catholic Bishop did not apply to the College for other reasons.  Nevertheless, the teachers-only restriction would be cited in future cases.

Having rejected the College’s standing for exemption from the National Labor Relations Act under Catholic Bishop, the NLRB could have ended its deliberations.  Instead the Board proceeded to consider whether the College was sufficiently religious to pose a risk of government entanglement with religion by forcing collective bargaining and asserting NLRB jurisdiction over the College—the Supreme Court’s primary concern in Catholic Bishop.  The further investigation was clearly unnecessary after the Board had already determined that Catholic Bishop was not relevant.  But the NLRB may not have been confident of its limited application of Catholic Bishop and may have wanted to insure that its ruling was not overturned by a federal court.  The NLRB continued to devote substantial time and effort to such evaluations in future cases.

The Board’s investigation turned up some positive signs of Catholicity.  According to the student handbook, the college aimed “to assist the student to acquire a deeper understanding of Christianity in its Catholic interpretation, to live and experience it relevantly, and to provide knowledge of other Christian and non-Christian religions.”  Crucifixes hung in most classrooms.

But the NLRB also found evidence of secularization underneath the Catholic trappings.  It described the undergraduate curriculum as “nonsectarian,” requiring only two general religion courses in a wide variety of subjects including Judaism and Islam.  And the Board reported that faculty were hired “without regard to religious preference,” the school calendar listed no religious holidays, and students were never required to attend Mass.

Interestingly, the NLRB found it relevant that the College received federal grants and participated in federal and state student aid programs.  The concern might reasonably have been related to the question of church control over the College, in which regard the NLRB has established a pattern of examining whether an employer is substantially funded by the Catholic bishops or a religious order.  But here—and in future rulings—the Board seemed to imply that acceptance of government assistance is a sign that a college or university lacks a strongly religious purpose.

Lewis University (1982)13

Three years later in 1982, Lewis University in Romeville, Illinois, unsuccessfully opposed a faculty union and challenged the NLRB’s application of Catholic Bishop.  The NLRB held firmly to its position that “Catholic Bishop applies only to parochial elementary and secondary schools, not to institutions of higher learning such as Lewis University.”  The Board cited both College of Notre Dame and another 1979 ruling against Barber-Scotia College,14 which was affiliated with the United Presbyterian Church.

Lewis University had clear ties to the Catholic Church.  It was founded in 1930 by the Archdiocese of Chicago, which later transferred ownership to the newly formed Diocese of Joliet.  The Brothers of the Christian Schools were asked to handle day-to-day management, and their involvement with the University continued even after 1974, when control shifted to an independent board of trustees.  The NLRB found that more than a third of the trustees, seven out of nineteen, were Christian Brothers at the time of its review, and the chairman was the order’s provincial.

Nevertheless, the NLRB determined that Lewis University was not church-operated.  Although seven trustees were Christian Brothers, the University’s bylaws required that a majority (ten) of the trustees must be members of the order, and the NLRB looked unfavorably at the order’s failure to exercise its right of control.  The Board also noted the lack of control by the Diocese of Joliet and the University’s acceptance of state and federal aid.

With regard to the University’s religious identity, the NLRB found that courses available to fulfill students’ required six credits of “religious studies” were “not limited to Catholicism.”  Faculty members were not required to be Catholic.

In addition to pleading for an exemption under Catholic Bishop, Lewis University tried a new argument that had been successful just months earlier for Duquesne University of the Holy Ghost in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania.15  Although Duquesne had initially contested a regional director’s assertion that Catholic Bishop does not apply to colleges, the University dropped the argument on appeal before the NLRB, instead relying on a new Supreme Court ruling in NLRB v. Yeshiva University.16  The Court had ruled that full-time professors at Yeshiva were “managerial” employees who had a significant role in management of the University, and therefore they could be excluded from collective bargaining.  The strategy worked for Duquesne, and the NLRB ruled that the University was exempt from recognizing a union of full-time members of its law faculty.

Lewis University was not so successful.  The NLRB ruled that its full-time professors were not managerial employees as in Yeshiva University, because at Lewis they did not have final authority over significant University operations and did not “effectively formulate and effectuate the policies of the Employer.”

Universidad Central de Bayamon (1984)17

The 1984 case of the Universidad Central de Bayamon, a historically Dominican university in Puerto Rico, introduced a new dilemma for the NLRB: if Catholic Bishop exempted parochial elementary and secondary schools but not colleges from the National Labor Relations Act, how should the Board regard a Catholic university that operates a Catholic school?  Also, was there a possibility of entanglement with religion if the NLRB claimed jurisdiction over a university that operated a program to prepare seminarians for the priesthood?

Although the Universidad Central de Bayamon could claim both situations—with a seminarian program and two Catholic schools—the NLRB determined that the University must recognize a union of full-time teaching personnel.

Among the University’s programs was the Center for Dominican Studies in the Caribbean (CEDOC), a two-year Master of Divinity program that was open to lay students, especially those who intended to teach in Catholic schools, but was primarily intended to partially prepare seminarians for the priesthood.  The NLRB found that the curriculum was “primarily religious in content,” and that the Center required all courses to be taught “within the limits of the Roman Catholic tradition.”  To claim jurisdiction over CEDOC would unconstitutionally involve the NLRB in religious matters pertaining to CEDOC’s faculty.

But rather than exempt the entire University from collective bargaining, the NLRB ruled that only CEDOC employees could be excluded from the faculty union.  This was possible, the Board decided, because CEDOC had its own director and hired and paid for its own professors; it was “not wholly and structurally integrated with Respondent.”

The University also owned a Catholic elementary school and a Catholic elementary/secondary school, in part to offer teacher-training to the University’s students.  The schools were governed by the University’s board of trustees and president, and their director was vice president of the University.  Despite this formal oversight, however, the NLRB concluded that the schools operated largely independent of the University and the Catholic Church, with their own principals, budgets and authority to hire teachers.

Both schools required their teachers to “keep those norms of behavior which are dictated by the School and the Catholic Church.” Like CEDOC, the NLRB determined that the schools were thoroughly Catholic, and it would be “an impermissible entanglement between government and religion” to require the University to bargain with the schools’ teachers.  But because of the schools’ operational independence, a union of full-time University faculty would not interfere with religious education at the schools.  The University could exclude the schools’ teachers from collective bargaining, but still had to recognize a faculty union.

As for Central de Bayamon’s standing with regard to Catholic Bishop, the NLRB repeated its argument that the Supreme Court had focused narrowly on union organization of Catholic elementary and secondary school teachers, not colleges.  Also, the Board concluded that the University was not “owned, financed or controlled by the Dominican Order or by the Roman Catholic Church, and that the University’s academic mission is secular.”

Central de Bayamon was founded by the Order of the Dominican Fathers in 1961 but became independent in 1970.  The NLRB noted that the local Archdiocese of San Juan had no “administrative nor secular control over the institution,” owned no University property and contributed no funds as of 1984.  The only assistance from the Order was an interest-free mortgage on certain property.  Although six of the University’s ten trustees were Dominicans, the NLRB reported the president’s testimony that the board of trustees “does not consult with or report to the Order.”

The NLRB concluded: “There is no dispute that Respondent has been recognized as a Catholic university, but this recognition has had no effect on the manner that the University has been administered or on its curriculum offerings.”  But in fact there did seem to be some dispute about the University’s recognition by the Church, even according to the Board’s findings.  The NLRB reported, presumably referring to the Archbishop of San Juan:

Indeed, the highest ranking official in the Catholic Church in San Juan testified, without contradiction, that as the Employer does not comply with any of the requisites set forth by the Catholic Church, the Employer is not a Catholic university and that it has repeatedly refused to submit to any direction or control by the Catholic Church.

But to the contrary, the University claimed that it had been “recognized by and affiliated with the Sacred Congregation of Catholic Education in Rome as a Catholic institution.”  And the NLRB acknowledged a formal agreement between the University and the Church:

The recognition agreement vests on the Bishop of San Juan only the authority to oversee those aspects of university life and functions dealing with pastoral or religious matters and is specific in adding: “This right to oversee is understood not to extend to matters which usually fall within the university administration competency.”  Although the agreement grants the Bishop the right to attend meetings of the board of trustees where pastoral matters are going to be discussed, no such meetings have been held and the Bishop has not attended any meetings, nor has he been invited to them or solicited an invitation.

As in College of Notre Dame and Lewis University, the NLRB proceeded to evaluate the Catholic identity of the Universidad Central de Bayamon.  The University’s education, argued the NLRB, was “entirely secular.”  The Articles of Incorporation defined the University’s purpose as providing “a humanistic education at an academic level.”  The Board found that students were not required to attend Mass or study the Catholic religion; a required three-credit course offered “a comparison of various religions.”  The Catholic Church was not involved with student admissions or faculty hiring, neither students nor professors had to be Catholic, and professors “do not have to commit themselves in writing to support the mission of the Church.”

The NLRB repeatedly noted the University’s participation in federal aid programs.  At the conclusion of its argument that the University is primarily secular, the Board admonished: “Respondent’s posture regarding its religious affiliation is hardly consistent with its demonstrated, repeated attempts, often successful, to receive Federal grants for its programs.”

As in Lewis University, the NLRB also considered whether Central de Bayamon University’s full-time professors were managerial employees and therefore ineligible for unionization, according to the Supreme Court ruling in Yeshiva University.   The NLRB ruled that the University’s professors had insufficient control over operations and therefore were not managerial.

But the NLRB did not have the last word.  Central de Bayamon University refused to comply with the ruling, and the Board petitioned the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit to enforce its directives.  In the Court’s ruling in 1986, it split evenly on whether the NLRB correctly applied Catholic Bishop.  The split ruling meant that the Court was unable to enforce the NLRB’s jurisdiction over the University, and so the University was not forced to bargain with its employees.

In an opinion written by future Supreme Court Justice Stephen Breyer, which proved influential in future court cases, three of the Circuit Court judges argued that the very act of inquiring whether an employer was sufficiently religious was contrary to the First Amendment concerns in Catholic Bishop.  They were satisfied that the University was not church-controlled within the meaning of Catholic Bishop, even though it demonstrated a secular purpose with a “subsidiary religious mission.”

The judges also rejected the NLRB’s position that Catholic Bishop did not apply to colleges and universities.  They argued that Catholic Bishop did not clearly distinguish Catholic colleges from Catholic schools, and that the National Labor Relations Act did not explicitly contemplate jurisdiction over religious employers regardless of whether they are schools, colleges or other institutions.  Moreover, they asserted that the risk of “state/religion entanglement” in a Catholic university was comparable to that of a Catholic elementary or secondary school under the jurisdiction of the NLRB.

But with a split court and no clear court precedent on these questions, the judges invited confirmation: “Whether this kind of institution of higher education falls within the strictures of Catholic Bishop is, in our view, an important, likely recurring, question that calls for Supreme Court guidance.”

St. Joseph’s College (1986)18

A 1986 case concerning St. Joseph’s College in Standish, Maine, brought about an important reversal by the NLRB.  The Board consented to apply the Supreme Court ruling in Catholic Bishop to colleges and universities as well as elementary and secondary schools:

After careful consideration, we are now of the opinion that the Supreme Court’s holding in Catholic Bishop is not limited to parochial elementary and secondary schools, but rather applies to all schools regardless of the level of education provided.  There is no language in Catholic Bishop limiting the Court’s holding to parochial elementary and secondary schools. …we find that we can more properly accommodate first amendment concerns by considering the application of Catholic Bishop to all educational institutions on a case-by-case basis.

Given the timing of the D.C. Circuit Court’s split ruling in the case of Central de Bayamon University, which had been issued nearly five months earlier, it seems possible that the NLRB’s turnabout was influenced by Judge Breyer’s opinion in that case.  But nowhere in the Board’s new ruling was the Circuit Court referenced.

Although the reversal meant that prior cases including those cited above were partially overruled, the NLRB stood behind its findings that the College of Notre Dame, Lewis University and the Universidad Central de Bayamon were not church-operated.  But for St. Joseph’s College, it was a different story.  The NLRB found that the College was, in fact, “church-operated within the meaning of” Catholic Bishop and therefore could refuse to recognize a faculty union.

Key to this ruling was the significant involvement of the College’s founding religious order, the Sisters of Mercy.  The Sisters founded St. Joseph College in 1912 and maintained control over the institution with a two-tiered governance.  The board of trustees, always chaired by the Mother General of the Sisters of Mercy, had final authority over the College.  The Mother General selected the other six trustees; at the time of the NLRB review, all were Sisters of Mercy.  The trustees controlled the corporation’s investments and assets and appointed the College president.

A second body, the board of governors, managed day-to-day operations of the College.  Composed of 24 to 36 members, at least one-third of the governors had to be members of the founding Order.  The governors were required to ensure that College policies were consistent with the Catholic faith and the College’s mission.  The board included a representative of the Bishop of Portland:

…whose responsibility is to insure that the College, in its teachings, does not contradict the teachings of the Catholic Church with respect to faith and morals.  According to the chairman of the board of trustees, if the Bishop finds such a contradiction, he can take appropriate action, including asking for the discharge of the faculty member involved and/or making a determination as to which books shall be used by the College.  There is no evidence, however, that the Bishop has ever exercised this power.

The NLRB found that the Sisters of Mercy held low-interest and interest-free loans to the College totaling approximately $1,765,000.  Administrators told the Board that “the College could not survive without the financial support of the Order.”

Selection criteria for the president, as described by the NLRB, included: “be a practicing Catholic, have a valid marriage, be pro Church, religion, and the mission of St. Joseph’s College, and to accept and support the objectives of the ‘sponsoring body.’”

Sisters of Mercy held 18 teaching and administrative positions at the College, including dean and treasurer of the College.  The NLRB noted that, since 1981, new professors were required to sign a statement that the professor “considers it a part of his duty to promote the objectives and goals of the College… the Sisters of Mercy of Maine.”

The NLRB also found a strong Catholic identity at St. Joseph’s College.  Promoted as “the Catholic College of Maine,” the College attracted Catholics who comprised 80 percent of the student body.  Mass was voluntary, but for Catholic students, the six required credits in religious studies had to concern Catholicism.  The NLRB concluded, but did not seem concerned, that the remaining subjects were taught in a manner comparable to secular colleges.

Teachers were forbidden to “inculcate ideas contrary to the official position of the Pope with the Bishops in matters of Faith and Morals.”

Although there is no evidence of any faculty discharges for any reason, the president of the College testified that faculty could and would be dismissed if their personal lives were not in harmony with the teachings of the Catholic Church or if they advocated ideas, in or out of the classroom, which were contrary to Catholic beliefs.

Based on these findings, the NLRB concluded that by asserting jurisdiction over St. Joseph’s College, it would violate the warning in Catholic Bishop that government must avoid entanglement with religion, thereby presenting “a significant risk that the First Amendment will be infringed.”

We particularly find that the College’s requirement that faculty members conform to Catholic doctrine and agree on hire “to promote the objectives and goals… of the Sisters of Mercy of Maine,” not merely the objectives and goals of the College itself, would necessarily involve the Board in an “inquiry into the good faith of a position asserted by the clergy-administrators” in the resolution of common unfair labor practices involving discipline or discharge, a result clearly disapproved of by the Court in Catholic Bishop.

University of Great Falls (1997, 2000)19

The Religious Freedom Restoration Act of 1993 (RFRA)20 introduced a new factor into NLRB rulings on the exemption of religious employers from the National Labor Relations Act.  RFRA states, “Government shall not substantially burden a person’s exercise of religion even if the burden results from a rule of general applicability,” unless the burden is necessary for the “furtherance of a compelling government interest” and is the least restrictive means of serving that interest.

In 1996, the University of Great Falls in Great Falls, Montana, argued that the Catholic university was exempt from recognizing a faculty union according to Catholic Bishop, and also that the NLRB’s jurisdiction over the University would violate the Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA).  Without comment, the Board declined to reconsider a regional director’s decision to reject the argument with regard to Catholic Bishop.

As for RFRA, the NLRB initially agreed to consider the University’s arguments.  But just prior to the Board’s ruling, in the 1997 case City of Bourne v. Flores,21 the Supreme Court invalidated a portion of RFRA as it applied to state and local governments, finding that it violated the separation of powers in the Fourteenth Amendment.  Although the Court’s ruling did not invalidate the law as it pertains to the federal government, the NLRB inexplicably declared moot the University’s argument with regard to RFRA following the Flores decision.

The NLRB therefore dismissed the appeal, upholding the regional director’s claim of jurisdiction over the University and rejecting the University’s additional claim that its faculty members were not managerial.

But it did not end there.  The University of Great Falls continued to refuse collective bargaining with its professors and was ordered to report again to the NLRB in the year 2000.  This time the Board acknowledged that the Supreme Court had not rendered RFRA moot with regard to the federal government, and so the Board addressed for the first time the impact of RFRA on the National Labor Relations Act’s jurisdiction over a Catholic university.

A violation of RFRA must constitute a substantial burden on religious practices.  The NLRB noted that the legislative intent behind RFRA was to restore legal standards of religious liberty that existed prior to the Supreme Court’s 1990 decision in Employment Division v. Smith.22  The Board therefore reasoned that it could continue to rely on Catholic Bishop as it had done prior to RFRA, and that its standard of avoiding even a “substantial risk of infringement” on religious activity was well within RFRA’s prohibition on an actual “substantial burden.”  So while the NLRB acknowledged the applicability of RFRA to its jurisdiction over Catholic employers, it decided that the law had no practical impact on its deliberations.

Returning, then, to Catholic Bishop, the NLRB ruled that the University of Great Falls was not church-controlled.

In making this finding, the regional director examined and relied on a number of factors.  The regional director found that neither the Order nor the Catholic Church is involved directly in the day-to-day administration of the University, including such matters as hiring and firing of faculty, modifying the curriculum, and purchasing educational supplies and materials.  In this regard, the Respondent’s board of trustees, which is overwhelmingly composed of lay persons, possesses the final approval authority on such personnel matters as faculty sabbaticals, tenure, and promotions, as well as on financial, academic, and student affairs issues.  Further, the evidence shows that the Respondent is not financially dependent on the Order or the Church.

And according to form, the NLRB also considered the extent of the University’s religious identity, echoing the regional director’s finding that “the University’s purpose and function are primarily secular.”  Here the regional director helpfully summarized eight tests of a “substantial religious character” (numbering added to original text):

The Board has not relied solely on [1] the employer’s affiliation with a religious organization, but rather has evaluated [2] the purpose of the employer’s operations, [3] the role of the unit employees in effectuating that purpose, and [4] the potential effects if the Board exercised jurisdiction.  The Board considers such factors as [5] the involvement of the religious institution in the daily operation of the school, the degree to which the school has [6] a religious mission and [7] curriculum, and [8] whether religious criteria are used for the appointment and evaluation of faculty.

Without undertaking its own review of the University of Great Falls, the NLRB concluded that the regional director had “ample grounds” for determining that the University was “primarily secular.”  Although the University had been associated with the Sisters of Providence since its founding in 1932:

…the regional director relied, among other things, on the following: (1) the curriculum does not require the Catholic faith to be emphasized, nor is there in fact a particular emphasis on Catholicism; (2) the Respondent’s board of trustees is not required to establish policies consistent with the Catholic religion; (3) the University’s president and other administrators are lay persons who need not be members of the Catholic faith; (4) faculty members are not required to be Catholics, to teach Catholic doctrine, or to support the Church or its teachings; (5) students may come from any religious background, and no preference is given to applicants of the Catholic faith; of approximately 1,450 students, only about 32 percent are Catholic; and (6) although undergraduate students are required to take one course in religious studies, the course does not have to be one involving Catholicism.

Again, despite the finding against the University of Great Falls, the NLRB did not have the last word.  The University petitioned the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit for review in September 2000.23  The University argued not only that the NLRB had no jurisdiction over the University under Catholic Bishop, but also that the Board’s investigation of the University’s religious character was itself a violation of its First Amendment rights under Catholic Bishop.  The University also repeated its argument that it was exempt from NLRB jurisdiction under RFRA.

The University was joined in its struggle by three Catholic universities which filed amicus briefs, including The Catholic University of America, the University of the Incarnate Word and Saint Leo University—but not the Association of Catholic Colleges and Universities, the National Conference of Catholic Bishops, or any individual bishop.  Supporting briefs were filed by several Seventh-Day Adventist organizations and universities, the Association of Southern Baptist Colleges and Schools, the Association of Christian Schools International, Baylor University (Baptist) and Brigham Young University (Mormon).

The Circuit Court’s 2002 ruling repudiated the NLRB’s past 23 years of intruding on the religious freedom of Catholic colleges.  The Court agreed with the University of Great Falls that the NLRB should never have investigated the University’s policies and activities in an attempt to judge its religious character.  “The Board reached the wrong conclusion because it applied the wrong test,” the Court reasoned.  It noted that while the federal courts usually defer to agencies’ interpretations of “ambiguous statutory language,” the courts place a higher priority on “constitutional avoidance”—meaning they will try to avoid constitutional questions when it is reasonable to do so.

According to the Circuit Court, the NLRB had improperly interpreted Catholic Bishop as inviting the agency’s judgment as to whether an employer is religious according to certain standards.  Instead, the Supreme Court in Catholic Bishop was primarily interested in avoiding unnecessary conflict with the First Amendment, which was possible because the National Labor Relations Act did not explicitly place religious employers under its jurisdiction or specify criteria by which a religious institution could seek an exemption to the law.  It could simply be assumed that First Amendment concerns prevail when an employer sincerely claims a religious mission and identity.

In Catholic Bishop, the Supreme Court was concerned that NLRB jurisdiction over Catholic schools:

…will necessarily involve inquiry into the good faith of the position asserted by the clergy administrators and its relationship to the schools’ religious mission.  …It is not only the conclusions that may be reached by the Board which may impinge on rights guaranteed by the Religion Clauses, but also the very process of inquiry leading to findings and conclusions.

By evaluating whether a Catholic university was sufficiently religious, the Circuit Court ruled, the NLRB “has engaged in the sort of intrusive inquiry that Catholic Bishop sought to avoid.”  The Court cited the plurality opinion in the Supreme Court case Mitchell v. Helms,24  rejecting “inquiry into… religious views” as “not only unnecessary but also offensive,” and declaring that “[i]t is well established, in numerous other contexts, that courts should refrain from trolling through a person’s or institution’s religious beliefs.”

Rejecting the NLRB’s intrusive test of an employers’ religiosity, the Court prescribed a three-part test for exemption from the National Labor Relations Act, drawn partly from Judge Breyer’s opinion in Universidad Central de Bayamon v. NLRB:

  1. The institution “‘holds itself out to students, faculty and community’ as providing a religious educational environment.”
  2. The institution “is organized as a ‘nonprofit’.”
  3. The institution “is affiliated with, or owned, operated, or controlled, directly or indirectly, by a recognized religious organization, or with an entity, membership of which is determined, at least in part, with reference to religion.”

The Court was confident that this test “avoids the constitutional infirmities” of the NLRB investigations of religious character:

Our approach… does not intrude upon the free exercise of religion nor subject the institution to questioning about its motives or beliefs.  It does not ask about the centrality of beliefs or how important the religious mission is to the institution.  Nor should it.

The Court was not concerned that exempting institutions simply because they claim a religious identity would invite fraudulent claims by secular institutions.  It cited the Supreme Court ruling Boy Scouts of America v. Dale,25 in which the Court found that if an institution publicly holds itself out to be religious, the Court “cannot doubt that [it] sincerely holds this view.”

While public religious identification will no doubt attract some students and faculty to the institution, it will dissuade others.  In other words, it comes at a cost.  Such market responses will act as a check on institutions falsely identify [sic] themselves as religious merely to obtain exemption from the NLRA.  Thus, the requirement of public identification helps to ensure that only bona fide religious institutions are exempted.

Because the Court found that the University of Great Falls easily met its three-part test and was therefore exempt from NLRB jurisdiction, it did not consider the University’s exemption under RFRA.  But the Court did criticize the NLRB’s reliance on Catholic Bishop as sufficient for meeting the standards of RFRA.  An institution that is not exempt from collective bargaining under Catholic Bishop, the Court reasoned, might still endure a “substantial burden” on its “exercise of religion” because of collective bargaining generally or because of a particular remedy imposed by the NLRB.

Manhattan College (Pending)

Despite the D.C. Circuit Court’s repudiation of the NLRB’s religious character test, the Board has not yet embraced the Court’s three-part test prescribed in University of Great Falls v. NLRB, leaving staff to follow Board precedent with the religious character test.  In 2003, the NLRB’s general counsel advised Barry University in Miami Shores, Florida, that it was exempt from NLRB jurisdiction under Catholic Bishop—but only after concluding that “the University’s board of trustees and administration adhere to and seek to fulfill a stated religious mission.”26  In 2008, a NLRB regional director decided that the University of Detroit Mercy in Detroit, Michigan, is not exempt from NLRB jurisdiction because neither of the University’s two sponsoring religious orders, the Society of Jesus and the Sisters of Mercy, “or the Catholic Church, is involved in its day-to-day operations.”

In 2008 the D.C. Circuit Court chastised the NLRB for continuing to violate the First Amendment with its investigations into whether colleges were “religious” enough.  In this case, the Board refused to exempt a Presbyterian college—Carroll College of Waukesha, Wisconsin—under RFRA.  The College’s attorneys had conceded NLRB jurisdiction under Catholic Bishop, but then changed their minds when they appealed the case to the Circuit Court.  The Court ruled in favor of the College:

After our decision in Great Falls, Carroll is patently beyond the NLRB’s jurisdiction.  Great Falls created a bright-line test of the Board’s jurisdiction according to which we ask three questions easily answered with objective criteria.

From Carroll’s public representations, it is readily apparent that the college holds itself out to all as providing a religious educational environment.  That it is a nonprofit affiliated with a Presbyterian synod is beyond dispute.  From the Board’s own review of Carroll’s publicly available documents, see Carroll Coll., 345 N.L.R.B. at 254–55, it should have known immediately that the college was entitled to a Catholic Bishop exemption from the NLRA’s collective bargaining requirements.27

Still, NLRB staff employees continue to apply the Board’s religious character test absent a clear Board ruling that embraces the D.C. Circuit Court’s more lenient three-part test for exemption.  In 2010, the NLRB general counsel rejected a request by Marquette University in Milwaukee, Wisconsin, for exemption from recognizing a union of security guards—not only because the unit did not include teaching faculty, but because “the Board has not adopted the D.C. Circuit’s three-part test for determining whether to assert jurisdiction over religiously-operated employers.”28  Revealing a clear preference on the matter, the general counsel contrasted the Board’s “thorough” religious character assessment with the Court’s “superficial” test.

This year the NLRB has an opportunity to accept the Circuit Court’s three-part test, if it so chooses.  The Board has agreed to consider an appeal of an acting regional director’s ruling against Manhattan College in Riverdale, New York, which contends that the acting director inappropriately asserted jurisdiction over the Christian Brothers institution, citing the Circuit Court ruling in Great Falls.

But even as Catholic educators hope for an end to more than three decades of federal intrusion under the NLRB’s religious character test, the Manhattan case poses a new difficulty.  Not only did the acting director find that Manhattan College failed the Board’s religious character test, but he also anticipated Circuit Court review and concluded that the College failed to meet a strict interpretation of the Court’s three-part test.  Catholic educators and religious liberty advocates will be watching closely to see whether the NLRB or the Circuit Court, should the case be appealed, will accept the acting director’s interpretation and thereby limit exemptions from the National Labor Relations Act even if Great Falls becomes precedent.

With regard to Catholic Bishop, Manhattan College began its dispute with the NLRB more than a decade ago.  In 1996 a regional director concluded that the College was “a Church-sponsored institution within the meaning of Catholic Bishop” and dismissed a petition from full-time and part-time faculty seeking to unionize.  But the faculty appealed, and the director reversed her decision in a 1999 ruling, finding also that the College’s professors were not “managerial.”  The victory for the union organizers was short-lived; in 2000 the faculty voted against forming a union.

In 2010 the College’s adjunct faculty petitioned the NLRB to force the College to recognize its union.  The acting regional director, noting the Board’s 1999 decision that the College was not “church-operated,” considered whether anything significant had changed at the College.  In so doing, he conducted the sort of investigation of the College’s religious character that the D.C.  Circuit Court had found to be unconstitutional.

The acting director found much at Manhattan College that clearly distinguished it as Catholic.  It was listed in the U.S. bishops’ Official Catholic Directory as a Catholic institution in the Archdiocese of New York.  The bylaws required that the Brother Provincial of the District of Eastern North America of the Christian Brothers (or his designee) and at least five Christian Brothers “to the extent one is available” serve on the Board of Trustees.  The Provincial was designated vice-chairman and served on the Executive Committee.

In December 2002, the College and the Christian Brothers had agreed to a “Sponsorship Covenant” celebrating the two parties’ “intertwined history” since 1853.  The Covenant established the position of Vice President of Mission, asserting that the College was “[f]irst and foremost… a Catholic institution” that “has always been sponsored by the Christian Brothers.”  It required the College, when hiring new employees, to “discuss the mission statement, the College’s Catholic identity, and its Lasallian tradition” and to favor Christian Brothers as candidates.  The president had to be someone “strong in the knowledge and in the practice of the Catholic faith and who understands and values the Lasallian Tradition.”

Nevertheless, the acting regional director determined that the College was “owned, operated and controlled by an independent Board of Trustees, not by the Catholic Church or any religious entity.”  Despite assigning six trustee positions to Christian Brothers, the College’s bylaws allowed for up to 37 trustees, including no fewer than 10 lay alumni.  And although Christian Brothers had traditionally served as president, the 2002 Covenant allowed for a layman—and in 2009, the first lay president was appointed.

And despite the required discussions of the College’s Catholic identity with new hires, “it is also clear that it is not a requirement that candidates be Catholic or have a belief in God in order to be hired.”  The application for adjunct faculty required applicants to attest that they have read and will “abide by” the College’s mission statement, but assured them that it placed “no obligation whatsoever on anyone as far as their personal beliefs or religious practices are concerned.”

As for financial control, half the assets of the College were designated to the Christian Brothers upon dissolution of the College, and the acting regional director estimated that the Brothers contributed about $100,000 per year to the institution.  But the College also received about $350,000 per year from the State of New York toward its $84 million budget.

The acting director found that students at Manhattan College were required to complete three courses in Religious Studies, including one in Catholic Studies—“an academic course on the Catholic intellectual tradition and does not require students to learn prayers, learn Catholic rituals, or express Christian faith.”  Students did not have to be Catholic to be admitted.

The mission statement identified the College as an “independent Catholic institution of higher learning” but described its purposes in largely secular terms:

Established in 1853, the College is founded upon the Lasallian tradition of excellence in teaching, respect for individual dignity, and commitment to social justice inspired by the innovator of modern pedagogy, John Baptist de la Salle.  The mission of Manhattan College is to provide a contemporary, person-centered educational experience characterized by high academic standards, reflection on faith, value and ethics, and life-long career preparation.  This is achieved in two ways: by offering students programs which integrate a broad liberal education with a concentration in specific disciplines in the arts and sciences or with professional preparation in business, education and engineering; and by nurturing a caring, pluralistic campus community.

Other documents reviewed by the acting regional director found repeated affirmations of the College’s Catholic character—but independent of Catholic Church control, without indoctrination or any imposition on students and faculty, and recognizing professors’ academic freedom.  A 1999 “Trustees Report” provided to faculty applicants stated:

There is no intention on the part of the Board, the administration, or the faculty to impose Church affiliation and religious observance as a condition for hiring or admission, to set quotas based on religious affiliation, to require loyalty oaths, attendance at religious services, or courses in Catholic theology.

The acting regional director determined that the College was not church-controlled within the meaning of Catholic Bishop, and the role of adjunct faculty did “not involve propagating religious faith in any way.”  But he went beyond the NLRB’s religious character test to apply the D.C. Circuit Court’s three-part test for exemption from NLRB jurisdiction, despite noting that the Board had not yet adopted the Court’s test.  “Even applying the D.C. Circuit test here,” he concluded, “jurisdiction would still be proper.”

Whether the Circuit Court would agree is doubtful.  In Great Falls and in Carroll College, the Court seemed content to accept a stated religious affiliation as sufficient to meet the first prong of its test, that the college or university “‘holds itself out to students, faculty and community’ as providing a religious educational environment.”  Manhattan College clearly identifies itself as a Catholic institution, albeit without the sort of religious criteria for admission, hiring and coursework that might be found elsewhere.

Instead, the acting regional director took on the task of determining whether the College offered a genuine “religious educational environment,” entering into the sort of judgment about religious character that the Circuit Court sought to avoid.  In so doing, the director concluded that Manhattan College did not offer a religious environment despite claiming a Catholic identity.

The ruling cites a number of College materials in support of this conclusion.  A student admissions brochure, for instance, “makes certain references to St. John Baptist de La Salle, but does not include any reference to the Catholic Church or Catholicism.”  It described Lasallian education in largely secular terms:

Learning De La Salle style means that your teachers are exceptional, devoted to a personal approach that centers on you and your success.  That what you learn is both practical and cutting-edge.  That values and compassion lie at the heart of whatever you do. …The Lasallian education is about embracing a full, caring and meaningful life.

Likewise the Application for Admission “contains no reference whatsoever to religion, faith, or the Church” and required an essay describing career and educational goals.

An employee recruitment brochure listed the “LaSallian Core Principles: including ‘Faith in the Presence of God,’ as well as ‘Respect for all Persons,’ ‘Quality Education,’ ‘Inclusive Community,’ and ‘Concern for the Poor and Social Justice.’”  The acting regional director argued that the repeated references to LaSallian education did not seem to indicate a particularly religious environment that would lead to First Amendement conflicts with NLRB jurisdiction.

While the College may well be affiliated with the Church and take pride in its historical relationship with the Church, the College’s public representations clearly demonstrate that it is not providing a ‘religious educational environment’ and therefore, even under the D.C. Circuit test, the Board should exercise jurisdiction over the College.

In its pending appeal to the NLRB, Manhattan College argues that the acting regional director ignored numerous examples of how the College lives out its Catholic identity and professes it to prospective students and faculty.  The College argues that the director improperly defined the LaSallian heritage as largely secular.

Most importantly, however, the College challenges the acting regional director’s examination of its materials for evidence of a truly “religious educational environment” as itself a violation of the College’s religious liberty and the D.C. Circuit Court’s rulings.

The federal appellate courts have followed Catholic Bishop with a consistent series of decisions which set out parameters for the NLRB’s permissible inquiry and the application of the First Amendment jurisdictional bar to religious colleges. …Those proscriptions and limitations were pervasively ignored by the Region in this case.

Facing the Future

Manhattan College’s prospects on appeal to the NLRB are not certain.  The Board is faced with three crucial choices: 1) follow the Circuit Court’s apparent direction by declining jurisdiction over Manhattan College and any institution that simply claims a religious identity, according to the Court’s three-part test; 2) interpret the Court’s test in such a way as to assert jurisdiction over Manhattan College and other religious institutions that are judged to offer something less than a “religious educational environment;” or 3) ignore the Circuit Court and continue to apply the Board’s intrusive religious character test.

The third option is a real possibility, even though the NLRB knows that rulings appealed to the D.C. Circuit Court are likely to be overturned.  That awkward situation could only be remedied by a new Supreme Court decision.  As stated in 1957, it has been

…the Board’s consistent policy for itself to determine whether to acquiesce in the contrary views of a circuit court of appeals or whether, with due deference to the court’s opinion, to adhere to its previous holding until the Supreme Court of the United States has ruled otherwise.29

If the NLRB persists with its religious character test, it will at least be helpful if the Board offers some clarification of what it is looking for.  As indicated in Table 1, the Board has not always been consistent in the aspects of a college’s Catholic identity which it considers when evaluating the degree of church control and religious character.  This paper considers only rulings by the NLRB and not its regional staff prior to the Manhattan College case; different factors may be considered or disregarded by NLRB staff in regional decisions.

So there remains much uncertainty in rulings involving Catholic colleges, although the final standard seems to be that staff cannot overrule Board precedent.  Until the Board explicitly accepts the Circuit Court’s Great Falls test, regional directors and the general counsel are bound to assess a college’s religious character on a case-by-case basis.

And yet, adding to the confusion is a single exception.  In a 2005 ruling concerning non-teaching employees of The Salvation Army, the NLRB determined:

For the purposes of this case, we assume that the [D.C. Circuit] Court’s test governs the exercise of the Board’s jurisdiction over religiously affiliated educational institution [sic].30

The ruling provides no explanation for why the Great Falls test was applied “for the purposes of this case.”  Nevertheless, the Board asserted jurisdiction because The Salvation Army is not an educational institution according to Catholic Bishop.  Subsequent decisions by regional staff—even in cases concerning educational institutions, including the University of Detroit Mercy, Manhattan College and Marquette University—have simply disregarded Salvation Army, even while claiming that staff must follow NLRB precedent in applying its religious character test.

The response of the D.C. Circuit Court, should a NLRB ruling in the Manhattan College case be appealed, is rather easy to predict if the Board chooses option one or three—following the Court’s lead or outright rejecting it.  But should the Board accept the argument of its acting regional director, limiting the ability of religious colleges and universities to meet the Great Falls test, it will be interesting to see how the Circuit Court responds.

The outcome of the Manhattan College case is likely to have a profound impact on Catholic higher education.  It could determine the future of faculty unions.  It may free Catholic colleges and universities from NLRB jurisdiction, or it may be a significant setback for the religious liberty of Catholic educators.  And it could impact other college relations with the federal government if the same First Amendment concerns are applied to requests for exemption from federal law.

Meanwhile, legal experts have advised The Center for the Advancement of Catholic Higher Education that a Catholic college or university’s best protection from religious liberty violations is to faithfully follow the guidelines established by the Catholic Church for Catholic higher education.  The norms of Ex corde Ecclesiae, if followed in both letter and spirit, should be sufficient in most cases to claim a religious identity that impacts curriculum, personnel, campus life, and all activities of the institution.  A new assessment guide published by The Center31 may be helpful to college leaders in self-evaluating their religious identity and preparing for any challenge from a federal agency or court.

The Becket Fund for Religious Liberty warns that Catholic institutions must be able to demonstrate that their religious identity is “bona fide” and “sincerely held,” or they may be unable to claim religious exemptions to federal law.32  Kevin Theriot, Senior Counsel for the Alliance Defense Fund, believes the Vatican and bishops have made this easier with clear standards of Catholic identity: “Catholic colleges and universities have an advantage over other religious institutions in that the Catholic Church’s Canon Law and the Apostolic Constitution Ex corde Ecclesiae lay out the requirements for a college to be considered Catholic.”33

Moreover, an appropriate easing of NLRB jurisdiction over Catholic institutions does not lessen the reality of the “market check” cited by the D.C. Circuit Court.  There is reason to ask not only whether the NLRB should be evaluating a college’s Catholic identity, but also why the NLRB or anyone else who conducts a reasonable evaluation could conclude that the Catholic identity is not strong.  If the public perception is that the fact of a Catholic label is not indicative of a pervasive Catholic identity, then that is a far more important matter than whether to recognize a faculty union—and the question of protecting religious liberty is essentially moot.

(Click to enlarge)

About the Author

Patrick Reilly is the founder and president of The Cardinal Newman Society. He has written numerous articles and is a frequent commentator on Catholic higher education for the media. He is a co-editor of The Newman Guide to Choosing a Catholic College, The Enduring Nature of the Catholic University and Newman’s Idea of a University: The American Response. He has served as editor and researcher for the Capital Research Center, executive director of Citizens for Educational Freedom, higher education analyst for the U.S. House of Representatives education committee, program analyst for the Postsecondary Division of the U.S. Department of Education, and media consultant to the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops.

 

 

 

Assessing Catholic Identity: A Handbook for Catholic College and University Leaders

/in , /by
Click here for PDF

Contents:

Assessing Catholic Identity

Institutional Identity
Mission Statement, Governing Documents & Statutes
Policies, Programs & Commitments
Relationship with Diocesan Bishop
Cooperation

Leadership & Administration
Board of Trustees
Administration and Non-Faculty Employees

Faculty & Academics
Faculty
Curriculum
Theology
Research

Students & Campus Life
Pastoral Ministry
Student Life

Assessing Catholic Identity

It is important that Catholic colleges and universities develop means of assessing their Catholic identity in conformity to common and essential elements of Catholic higher education.  Because of increasing threats to the religious liberty of Catholic institutions by secular regulators, judges and legislators, it is also urgent that Catholic colleges and universities clearly document and defend their Catholic identity.

As the U.S. bishops and Catholic college and university leaders work toward full implementation of the Apostolic Constitution for Catholic Universities, Ex corde Ecclesiae, they are faced with great inconsistencies in how American colleges and universities live out their Catholic identity.  There is a healthy diversity of Catholic institutions in the United States, each with a distinct identity and charism, suggesting different ways of providing a Catholic higher education.  But there are also essential, core elements of any Catholic higher education.  A college or university that is committed to a strong Catholic identity will regularly self-evaluate its success in meeting both shared and particular standards.

This handbook summarizes magisterial guidance on Catholic higher education and proposes self-assessment review questions that college and university leaders may use to help strengthen their institutions’ Catholic identity, with regard to the core elements of Catholic higher education.

“To date, the Holy See’s primary concern at every level is encouraging the fostering and, if necessary, the reclaiming of the Catholic identity of institutions of higher learning,” explained Archbishop J. Michael Miller, then Secretary for the Vatican Congregation of Catholic Education, to American college and university leaders in 2005.1 “It does this, as we shall see, by insisting, first, on the university’s institutional commitment to the Church and, second, on its fidelity to the Catholic faith in all its activities.”

Archbishop Miller framed the issue like this:

Perhaps now is the time to move the debate over the Catholic identity of institutions of higher education to a different level.  Instead of sterile arguments over how “Catholic-lite” a university can be and still be “Catholic,” the question to be engaged becomes: how does a Catholic university honestly and effectively provide a Christian presence in the world of higher education?  The burden of proof now falls on the university itself.  The challenge thus becomes whether a Catholic university can develop the institutional arrangements that clearly demonstrate its willingness to participate in the Church’s evangelizing mission as well as to serve the common good.2

How does a Catholic college or university assess whether it is meeting this “burden of proof”?

Earlier that year during a meeting at the Vatican, Archbishop Miller encouraged American college and university leaders to identify and measure “benchmarks of Catholicity” such as:

Concern for social justice

Sacramental and devotional life

Curriculum – are theology and the Christian tradition core elements?

Percentage of Catholics among faculty, trustees, and staff

Religious and doctrinal attitudes of students over time

Practice of the faith – do students pray, go to Mass, express an interest in religious vocations, etc.?3

These “benchmarks” reflected not the vision for Catholic higher education of a single Vatican official, but instead were drawn directly from the Church’s definition of Catholic higher education in  Ex corde Ecclesiae and forged into a set of practical objectives that would be appropriate for self-assessment.  Archbishop Miller further explained the concept in a 2007 address at the Franciscan University of Steubenville:

Assessment is not an end in itself but should be directed toward enhancing the university’s Catholic identity.  It is of little use to draw up a list of markers of Catholicity that are then ticked off to show the institution’s compliance.  Rather, I would suggest, measurable strategies should be put in place that require the university to deepen its Catholic character, moving it from where it is now to where it wishes to be in the future.4

In January 2006, The Cardinal Newman Society convened a private meeting with presidents and trustees of more than a dozen Catholic colleges and universities to discuss how self-assessment could help Catholic institutions protect and strengthen their Catholic identity.  This and subsequent meetings led to the creation of The Cardinal Newman Society’s Center for the Advancement of Catholic Higher Education, which in part provides an annual forum for presidents of faithful Catholic colleges and universities to collaboratively face the challenges of Catholic higher education.

These and other Catholic colleges and universities have embraced the task of renewing and strengthening their Catholic identity, with encouragement and a growing sense of urgency from the Vatican, Catholic bishops, Catholic families and educators.  But without a process of self-evaluation, it will be difficult if not impossible for Catholic college leaders to effectively assess, document and strengthen the Catholic identity of their institutions.

The Church’s call to embrace the authentic mission of Catholic higher education is reason enough for colleges and universities to begin self-evaluation.  In addition, the Catholic bishops and Catholic families—a key market for student recruits and donations—are increasingly aware of the great diversity among Catholic colleges and universities, and many want evidence of

Catholic identity.  There are also growing external threats to Catholic institutions that provide an urgent reason for them to proactively tend to their Catholic identity.

For instance, Catholic identity takes on added importance as courts, regulators and legislators are using the law to pressure colleges and universities to compromise their Catholic mission.  Threats to Catholic identity include laws mandating student and employee health insurance coverage for prescription contraceptives and employee benefits for same-sex couples.  Catholic educators’ best, and maybe only, protection against such laws may be exemptions for religious organizations as required by the First Amendment to the Constitution.

In two studies commissioned by The Cardinal Newman Society’s Center for the Advancement of Catholic Higher Education, legal experts in religious freedom advise Catholic colleges and universities that their legal status as “religious” institutions requires consistent adherence to religious principles.  The Becket Fund for Religious Liberty warns that Catholic institutions must be able to demonstrate that their religious identity is “bona fide” and “sincerely held,” or they may be unable to claim religious exemptions to offensive laws.5  Kevin Theriot of the Alliance Defense Fund believes the Vatican has made this easier with clear standards of Catholic identity: “Catholic colleges and universities have an advantage over other religious institutions in that the Catholic Church’s Canon Law and the Apostolic Constitution Ex corde Ecclesiae lay out the requirements for a college to be considered Catholic.”6

Recent adverse rulings from the federal Equal Employment Opportunities Commission and National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) regarding the religious freedom of Belmont Abbey College and Manhattan College, respectively, are but two examples of the dangers facing Catholic institutions.  In the latter case, NLRB staff refused to recognize Manhattan College as a religious employer for reasons that echo the norms of Ex corde Ecclesiae.

In order to protect their religious liberty and their Catholic identity, Catholic colleges and universities must be able to demonstrate institutional commitment to their Catholic mission and compliance with the provisions of Church law.  A regular process of self-evaluation will help them document and defend their Catholic identity.

So the need for self-assessment is clear.  But how might leaders of Catholic colleges and universities begin an assessment of Catholic identity?  This paper will propose one option.

For each practical subject area, The Center for the Advancement of Catholic Higher Education offers first a summary of magisterial guidance on the question of Catholic identity and second proposes review questions to help college and university leaders develop instruments for self-evaluation of Catholic identity.  This paper builds from discussions at our annual meetings with presidents and the 2007 lecture by Archbishop Miller delivered at the Franciscan University of Steubenville, during which he proposed specific “benchmark” questions in the same manner that we have replicated here.

The proposed review questions are carefully selected to accurately reflect both the letter and the spirit of Ex corde Ecclesiae and key Church documents.  There are other important Church documents and instructions that might prove useful—for instance, Pope Benedict XVI’s address to Catholic educators at The Catholic University of America in 2008.  We decided to emphasize only clear mandates from the Vatican and the U.S. bishops, under the authority of Canon Law, so as to avoid subjectivity when choosing other sources for reflection.  Institutions may, and indeed probably should, go beyond the Church’s juridical guidelines when developing their self-assessment questions, but institutional obligations under Church law provide a good baseline.  Each college or university will also want to take into account its mission statement, founding documents, the charism and educational approach of an affiliated religious order, and similar guidance.

Pope John Paul II issued Ex corde Ecclesiae, the Apostolic Constitution on Catholic Universities, more than twenty years ago.  The constitution and the U.S. bishops’ 1999 Application of Ex corde Ecclesiae to the United States give full definition to the Catholic college or university for the first time in the long history of Catholic higher education.  Both the Application and the Apostolic Constitution with its lengthy discussion of Catholic identity are instructive for the purposes of assessing the Catholic college or university.  In respect to the core elements of Catholic higher education, these two documents and the Code of Canon Law from which they proceed suggest universal standards applicable to every institution.

Ex corde Ecclesiae assigns primary responsibility for maintaining and strengthening Catholic identity to the board of trustees or similar governing body—but shared in appropriate respects by the administrators, faculty, staff and students, and under the essential oversight of the local bishop.  It therefore seems appropriate and necessary that trustees initiate regular and comprehensive internal evaluations of an institution’s Catholic identity, welcoming the input and questions of the local bishop.  Such evaluations should inform all policies and activities and should engage the entire community of employees and students.  The results should be communicated in appropriate ways, so as to be useful to every member of the college or university community.

A periodic self-evaluation can be helpful in other ways.  Ex corde Ecclesiae expects that a Catholic college or university will clearly convey its Catholic identity in a public manner, and results from an internal review of Catholic identity can help explain and promote the unique benefits of a Catholic education.  The president and trustees of a Catholic college or university are also expected to maintain close and frequent communication with the local Catholic bishop, periodically reporting to him on matters of Catholic identity; an internal review could be an ideal opportunity to document such matters and to establish a framework for continuing dialogue.

There are, no doubt, many reasonable ways a Catholic college or university could assess its Catholic identity.  An assessment might be in written form, or it might engage the community in dialogue.  It might be measurable according a strict scale, or it might encourage nuanced responses to open-ended questions.  It might focus on identifying shortcomings, or it might conform to institutional objectives for progress.

What seems essential to any self-evaluation is that it conforms fully and accurately to the Church’s definition of a Catholic college or university, as presented in Ex corde Ecclesiae and related magisterial documents—most importantly, the U.S. bishops’ Application of Ex corde Ecclesiae to the United States and the Code of Canon Law.

We pray that the following summary of magisterial guidance and proposed questions will help Catholic college and university leaders ensure “a Christian presence in the university world”7 where “each and every aspect of your learning communities reverberates within the ecclesial life of faith.”8

Institutional Identity

Mission Statement, Governing Documents & Statutes

Ex corde Ecclesiae General Norms, Art. 1, §3

“A University established or approved by the Holy See, by an Episcopal Conference or another Assembly of Catholic Hierarchy, or by a diocesan Bishop is to incorporate these General Norms and their local and regional applications into its governing documents, and conform its existing Statutes both to the General Norms and to their applications, and submit them for approval to the competent ecclesiastical Authority.  It is contemplated that other Catholic Universities, that is, those not established or approved in any of the above ways, with the agreement of the local ecclesiastical Authority, will make their own the General Norms and their local and regional applications, internalizing them into their governing documents, and, as far as possible, will conform their existing Statutes both to these General Norms and to their applications.”

Ex corde Ecclesiae General Norms, Art. 2, §1

“A Catholic University, like every university, is a community of scholars representing various branches of human knowledge.  It is dedicated to research, to teaching, and to various kinds of service in accordance with its cultural mission.”

Ex corde Ecclesiae General Norms, Art. 2, §2

“A Catholic University, as Catholic, informs and carries out its research, teaching, and all other activities with Catholic ideals, principles and attitudes.  It is linked with the Church either by a formal, constitutive and statutory bond or by reason of an institutional commitment made by those responsible for it.”

Ex corde Ecclesiae General Norms, Art. 2, §3

“Every Catholic University is to make known its Catholic identity, either in a mission statement or in some other appropriate public document, unless authorized otherwise by the competent ecclesiastical Authority.  The University, particularly through its structure and its regulations, is to provide means which will guarantee the expression and the preservation of this identity in a manner consistent with §2.”

Ex corde Ecclesiae General Norms, Art. 3, §§1-4

“A Catholic University may be established or approved by the Holy See, by an Episcopal Conference or another Assembly of Catholic Hierarchy, or by a diocesan Bishop.

“With the consent of the diocesan Bishop, a Catholic University may also be established by a Religious Institute or other public juridical person.

“A Catholic University may also be established by other ecclesiastical or lay persons; such a University may refer to itself as a Catholic University only with the consent of the competent ecclesiastical Authority, in accordance with the conditions upon which both parties shall agree.

“In the cases of §§1 and 2, the Statutes must be approved by the competent ecclesiastical Authority.”

Ex corde Ecclesiae, §1

“By vocation, the Universitas magistrorum et scholarium is dedicated to research, to teaching and to the education of students who freely associate with their teachers in a common love of knowledge.  With every other University it shares that gaudium de veritate, so precious to Saint Augustine, which is that joy of searching for, discovering and communicating truth in every field of knowledge.  A Catholic University’s privileged task is ‘to unite existentially by intellectual effort two orders of reality that too frequently tend to be placed in opposition as though they were antithetical: the search for truth, and the certainty of already knowing the fount of truth’.”  (Citation from Pope John Paul II, “Discourse to the Institut Catholique de Paris,” June 1, 1980)

Ex corde Ecclesiae, §4

“It is the honour and responsibility of a Catholic University to consecrate itself without reserve to the cause of truth. …Without in any way neglecting the acquisition of useful knowledge, a Catholic University is distinguished by its free search for the whole truth about nature, man and God. …By means of a kind of universal humanism a Catholic University is completely dedicated to the research of all aspects of truth in their essential connection with the supreme Truth, who is God.  It does this without fear but rather with enthusiasm, dedicating itself to every path of knowledge, aware of being preceded by him who is ‘the Way, the Truth, and the Life’, the Logos, whose Spirit of intelligence and love enables the human person with his or her own intelligence to find the ultimate reality of which he is the source and end and who alone is capable of giving fully that Wisdom without which the future of the world would be in danger.”

Ex corde Ecclesiae, §12

“Every Catholic University, as a university, is an academic community which, in a rigorous and critical fashion, assists in the protection and advancement of human dignity and of a cultural heritage through research, teaching and various services offered to the local, national and international communities.”

Ex corde Ecclesiae, §§1­3-14

“Since the objective of a Catholic University is to assure in an institutional manner a Christian presence in the university world confronting the great problems of society and culture, every Catholic University, as Catholic, must have the following essential characteristics: ‘(1) a Christian inspiration not only of individuals but of the university community as such; (2) a continuing reflection in the light of the Catholic faith upon the growing treasury of human knowledge, to which it seeks to contribute by its own research; (3) fidelity to the Christian message as it comes to us through the Church; (4) an institutional commitment to the service of the people of God and of the human family in their pilgrimage to the transcendent goal which gives meaning to life.

“In the light of these four characteristics, it is evident that besides the teaching, research and services common to all Universities, a Catholic University, by institutional commitment, brings to its task the inspiration and light of the Christian message.  In a Catholic University, therefore, Catholic ideals, attitudes and principles penetrate and inform university activities in accordance with the proper nature and autonomy of these activities.  In a word, being both a University and Catholic, it must be both a community of scholars representing various branches of human knowledge, and an academic institution in which Catholicism is vitally present and operative.’”  (Citation from L’Université Catholique dans le monde moderne. Document final du 2ème Congrès des Délégués des Universités Catholiques, Rome, Nov. 20-29, 1972)

Ex corde Ecclesiae, §27

“One consequence of its essential relationship to the Church is that the institutional fidelity of the University to the Christian message includes a recognition of and adherence to the teaching authority of the Church in matters of faith and morals.”

Ex corde Ecclesiae, §30

“The basic mission of a University is a continuous quest for truth through its research, and the preservation and communication of knowledge for the good of society.  A Catholic University participates in this mission with its own specific characteristics and purposes.”

Application of Ex corde Ecclesiae for United States Particular Norms, Art. 1, §2

“Those universities established or approved by the Holy See, by the NCCB [now USCCB], by other hierarchical assemblies, or by individual diocesan bishops are to incorporate, by reference and in other appropriate ways, the general and particular norms into their governing documents and conform their existing statutes to such norms.  Within five years of the effective date of these particular norms, Catholic universities are to submit the aforesaid incorporation for review and affirmation to the university’s competent ecclesiastical authority.

“Other Catholic universities are to make the general and particular norms their own, include them in the university’s official documentation by reference and in other appropriate ways, and, as much as possible, conform their existing statutes to such norms.  These steps to ensure their Catholic identity are to be carried out in agreement with the diocesan bishop of the place where the seat of the university is situated.

“Changes in statutes of universities established by the hierarchy, religious institutes or other public juridic persons that substantially affect the nature, mission or Catholic identity of the university require the approval of competent ecclesiastical authority.”

Application of Ex corde Ecclesiae for United States Particular Norms, Art. 1, §3

“Those establishing or sponsoring a Catholic university have an obligation to make certain that they will be able to carry out their canonical duties in a way acceptable under relevant provisions of applicable federal and state law, regulations and procedures.”

Application of Ex corde Ecclesiae for United States Particular Norms, Art. 2, §1

“The purpose of a Catholic university is education and academic research proper to the disciplines of the university.  Since it enjoys the institutional autonomy appropriate to an academic institution, its governance is and remains internal to the institution itself.  This fundamental purpose and institutional autonomy must be respected and promoted by all, so that the university may effectively carry out its mission of freely searching for all truth.”

Application of Ex corde Ecclesiae for United States Particular Norms, Art. 2, §5

“A responsibility of every Catholic university is to affirm its essential characteristics, in accord with the principles of Ex corde Ecclesiae, through public acknowledgment in its mission statement and/or its other official documentation of its canonical status and its commitment to the practical implications of its Catholic identity, including but not limited to those specified in Part One, Section 7 of this document.”

Application of Ex corde Ecclesiae for United States, §7

“In order to maintain and safeguard their freely-chosen Catholic identity, it is important for Catholic universities to set out clearly in their official documentation their Catholic character….”

Questions for Self-Assessment

How do the institution’s mission statement and/or governing documents:

  1. make known the institution’s Catholic identity and canonical status?9
  2. include or reference the General Norms of Ex corde Ecclesiae and the Particular Norms of the Application of Ex corde Ecclesiae for the United States?10
  3. ensure compliance with each of these Norms?11
  4. explain the mission of the institution in accord with the purposes of a Catholic university as described in Ex corde Ecclesiae12, especially the following essential characteristics:13
    1. a Christian inspiration not only of individuals but of the university community
      as such;
    2. a continuing reflection in the light of the Catholic faith upon the growing treasury of human knowledge, to which it seeks to contribute by its own research;
    3. fidelity to the Christian message as it comes to us through the Church; and
    4. an institutional commitment to the service of the people of God and of the human family in their pilgrimage to the transcendent goal which gives meaning to life?
  5. express the institution’s recognition of the teaching authority of the Catholic Church on matters of faith and morals?14
  6. express the institution’s commitment to the practical implications of its Catholic identity, including but not limited to:
    1. commitment to Catholic ideals, principles, and attitudes in carrying out research, teaching, and all other university activities, including activities of officially-recognized student and faculty organizations and associations, and with due regard for academic freedom and the conscience of every individual?15
    2. commitment to serve others, particularly the poor, underprivileged, and vulnerable members of society?16
    3. commitment of witness of the Catholic faith by Catholic administrators and teachers, especially those teaching the theological disciplines, and acknowledgment and respect on the part of non-Catholic teachers and administrators of the university’s Catholic identity and mission?17
    4. commitment to provide courses for students on Catholic moral and religious principles and their application to critical areas such as human life and other issues of social justice?18
    5. commitment to care pastorally for the students, faculty, administration, and staff?19
    6. commitment to provide personal services (health care, counseling, and guidance) to students, as well as administration and faculty, in conformity with the Church’s ethi-
    7. cal and religious teaching and directives?20
    8. commitment to create a campus culture and environment that is expressive and supportive of a Catholic way of life?21

Policies, Programs & Commitments

Ex corde Ecclesiae General Norms, Art. 2, §2

“A Catholic University, as Catholic, informs and carries out its research, teaching, and all other activities with Catholic ideals, principles and attitudes.”

Ex corde Ecclesiae General Norms, Art. 2, §3

“The University, particularly through its structure and its regulations, is to provide means which will guarantee the expression and the preservation of this identity in a manner consistent with §2.”

Ex corde Ecclesiae General Norms, Art. 2, §4

“Catholic teaching and discipline are to influence all university activities, while the freedom of conscience of each person is to be fully respected.  Any official action or commitment of the University is to be in accord with its Catholic identity.”

Ex corde Ecclesiae, §21

“[T]he community is animated by a spirit of freedom and charity; it is characterized by mutual respect, sincere dialogue, and protection of the rights of individuals.”

Ex corde Ecclesiae, §27

“Catholic members of the university community are also called to a personal fidelity to the Church with all that this implies.  Non-Catholic members are required to respect the Catholic character of the University, while the University in turn respects their religious liberty.”

Ex corde Ecclesiae, §34

“Every Catholic University feels responsible to contribute concretely to the progress of the society within which it works: for example it will be capable of searching for ways to make university education accessible to all those who are able to benefit from it, especially the poor or members of minority groups who customarily have been deprived of it.”

Application of Ex corde Ecclesiae for United States Particular Norms, Art. 2, §4

“Recognizing the dignity of the human person, a Catholic university, in promoting its own Catholic identity and fostering Catholic teaching and discipline, must respect the religious liberty of every individual, a right with which each is endowed by nature.”

Application of Ex corde Ecclesiae for United States Particular Norms, Art. 5, §1

“The university shall develop and maintain a plan for fulfilling its mission that communicates and develops the Catholic intellectual tradition, is of service to the Church and society, and encourages the members of the university community to grow in the practice of the faith.  The university plan should address intellectual and pastoral contributions to the mission of communicating Gospel values, service to the poor, social justice initiatives, and ecumenical and inter-religious activities.”

Application of Ex corde Ecclesiae for United States, §7

“In order to maintain and safeguard their freely-chosen Catholic identity, it is important for Catholic universities… to implement in practical terms their commitment to the essential elements of Catholic identity, including the following: Commitment to be faithful to the teachings of the Catholic Church; Commitment to Catholic ideals, principles and attitudes in carrying out research, teaching and all other university activities… and with due regard for academic freedom and the conscience of every individual; Commitment to serve others, particularly the poor, underprivileged and vulnerable members of society….”

Vatican Council II, Declaration on Christian Education Gravissimum Educationis, §32

“Matriculation should be readily available to students of real promise, even though they be of slender means, especially to students from the newly emerging nations.”

United States Conference of Catholic Bishops, Catholics in Political Life

“The Catholic community and Catholic institutions should not honor those who act in defiance of our fundamental moral principles.  They should not be given awards, honors, or platforms which would suggest support for their actions.”

Questions for Self-Assessment

How are each of the institution’s distinct programs, activities, and commitments informed and carried out with Catholic ideals, principles, and attitudes?22

How are each of the institution’s academic, personnel, student, and other policies informed and carried out with Catholic ideals, principles, and attitudes?23

How do the institution’s academic, personnel, student, and other policies:

  1. ensure that members of the college or university community relate to each other with mutual respect and sincere dialogue?24
  2. protect the individual rights and religious liberty and conscience of all members of the college or university community?25
  3. ensure that Catholic members of the college or university community demonstrate fidelity to the Catholic Church in all their activities?26
  4. ensure that non-Catholic members of the college or university community respect the Catholic character of the institution?27
  5. help make education at the college or university available to students from low-income families, minority groups who customarily have been deprived of an equivalent education, and students from newly emerging nations?28
  6. implement in practical terms the institution’s commitment to be faithful to the teachings of the Catholic Church?29
  7. implement in practical terms the institution’s commitment to serve others, particularly the poor, underprivileged, and vulnerable members of society?30
  8. ensure that individuals who act in defiance of the Catholic Church’s fundamental moral principles are not honored, including awards, honors, or platforms which would suggest support for their actions?31

Has the institution developed a plan for fulfilling its mission that communicates and develops the Catholic intellectual tradition, is of service to the Church and society, and encourages the members of the university community to grow in the practice of the faith?32

How does the plan address these concerns?33

How does the plan address intellectual and pastoral contributions to the mission of communicating Gospel values, service to the poor, social justice initiatives, and ecumenical and inter-religious activities?34

How does the institution maintain this plan and prescribed activities?35

Relationship with Diocesan Bishop

Code of Canon Law, Canon 808

“Even if it really be Catholic, no university may bear the title or name Catholic university without the consent of the competent ecclesiastical authority.”

Code of Canon Law, Canon 809

“If it is possible and advantageous the conferences of bishops are to see to it that universities or at least faculties are established, suitably distributed throughout their territory, in which the various disciplines are to be investigated and taught with due regard for their academic autonomy, and with due consideration for Catholic doctrine.”

Code of Canon Law, Canon 810, §2

“The conference of bishops and the diocesan bishops concerned have the duty and right of being vigilant that in these universities the principles of Catholic doctrine are faithfully observed.”

Code of Canon Law, Canon 812

“It is necessary that those who teach theological disciplines in any institute of higher studies have a mandate from the competent ecclesiastical authority.”

Code of Canon Law, Canon 813

“The diocesan bishop is to have serious pastoral care for students by erecting a parish for them or by assigning priests for this purpose on a stable basis; he is also to provide for Catholic university centers at universities, even non-Catholic ones, to give assistance, especially spiritual to young people.”

Ex corde Ecclesiae General Norms, Art. 3, §§1-4

“A Catholic University may be established or approved by the Holy See, by an Episcopal Conference or another Assembly of Catholic Hierarchy, or by a diocesan Bishop.

“With the consent of the diocesan Bishop, a Catholic University may also be established by a Religious Institute or other public juridical person.

“A Catholic University may also be established by other ecclesiastical or lay persons; such a University may refer to itself as a Catholic University only with the consent of the competent ecclesiastical Authority, in accordance with the conditions upon which both parties shall agree.

“In the cases of §§ 1 and 2, the Statutes must be approved by the competent ecclesiastical Authority.”

Ex corde Ecclesiae General Norms, Art. 5, §§1-3

“Every Catholic University is to maintain communion with the universal Church and the Holy See; it is to be in close communion with the local Church and in particular with the diocesan Bishops of the region or nation in which it is located….

“Each Bishop has a responsibility to promote the welfare of the Catholic Universities in his diocese and has the right and duty to watch over the preservation and strengthening of their Catholic character.  If problems should arise concerning this Catholic character, the local Bishop is to take the initiatives necessary to resolve the matter, working with the competent university authorities in accordance with established procedures and, if necessary, with the help of the Holy See.

“Periodically, each Catholic University, to which Article 3, 1 and 2 refers, is to communicate relevant information about the University and its activities to the competent ecclesiastical Authority.  Other Catholic Universities are to communicate this information to the Bishop of the diocese in which the principal seat of the Institution is located.”

Ex corde Ecclesiae General Norms, Art. 6, §2

“A sufficient number of qualified people—priests, religious, and lay persons—are to be appointed to provide pastoral ministry for the university community, carried on in harmony and cooperation with the pastoral activities of the local Church under the guidance or with the approval of the diocesan Bishop.”

Ex corde Ecclesiae, §27

“Every Catholic University, without ceasing to be a University, has a relationship to the Church that is essential to its institutional identity. …One consequence of its essential relationship to the Church is that the institutional fidelity of the University to the Christian message includes a recognition of and adherence to the teaching authority of the Church in matters of faith and morals.”

Ex corde Ecclesiae, §28

“Bishops have a particular responsibility to promote Catholic Universities, and especially to promote and assist in the preservation and strengthening of their Catholic identity, including the protection of their Catholic identity in relation to civil authorities.  This will be achieved more effectively if close personal and pastoral relationships exist between University and Church authorities, characterized by mutual trust, close and consistent cooperation and continuing dialogue.  Even when they do not enter directly into the internal governance of the University, Bishops ‘should be seen not as external agents but as participants in the life of the Catholic University’.”  (Citation from Pope John Paul II, “Address to Leaders of Catholic Higher Education,” Xavier University of Louisiana, U.S.A., Sept. 12, 1987)

Ex corde Ecclesiae, §29

“Because of their interrelated roles, dialogue between Bishops and theologians is essential; this is especially true today, when the results of research are so quickly and so widely communicated through the media.”

Application of Ex corde Ecclesiae for United States Particular Norms, Art. 2, §5

“With due regard for the common good and the need to safeguard and promote the integrity and unity of the faith, the diocesan bishop has the duty to recognize and promote the rightful academic freedom of professors in Catholic universities in their search for truth.”

Application of Ex corde Ecclesiae for United States Particular Norms, Art. 3, §1-4

“A Catholic university may be established, or an existing university approved, by the Holy See, the National Conference of Catholic Bishops, other hierarchical assemblies, or individual diocesan bishops.  It may also be established by a religious institute or some other public juridic person, or by individual Catholics, acting singly or in association, with proper ecclesiastical approval.  At the time of its establishment the university should see to it that its canonical status is identified, including the ecclesiastical authority by which it has been established or approved or to which it otherwise relates.  The statutes of Catholic universities established by hierarchical authority or by religious institutes or other public juridic persons must be approved by competent ecclesiastical authority.  No university may assume the title Catholic without the consent of the competent ecclesiastical authority.”

Application of Ex corde Ecclesiae for United States Particular Norms, Art. 4, §2

“The board [of trustees] should develop effective ways of relating to and collaborating with the local bishop and diocesan agencies on matters of mutual concern.”

[Footnote reads: “In individual situations, it may be possible and appropriate to invite the diocesan bishop or his delegate to be a member of the board itself. In other cases, arranging periodic meetings to address the university’s Catholic identity and mission may prove more practical and effective.”]

Application of Ex corde Ecclesiae for United States Particular Norms, Art. 4, §3

“The administration should be in dialogue with the local bishop about ways of promoting Catholic identity and the contribution that the university can make to the life of the Church in the area.”

Application of Ex corde Ecclesiae for United States Particular Norms, Art. 4, §4

“Both the university and the bishops, aware of the contributions made by theologians to Church and academy, have a right to expect them to present authentic Catholic teaching.  Catholic professors of the theological disciplines have a corresponding duty to be faithful to the Church’s magisterium as the authoritative interpreter of Sacred Scripture and Sacred Tradition.  Catholics who teach the theological disciplines in a Catholic university are required to have a mandatum granted by competent ecclesiastical authority.

“i.  The mandatum is fundamentally an acknowledgment by Church authority that a Catholic professor of a theological discipline is a teacher within the full communion of the Catholic Church.

“ii.  The mandatum should not be construed as an appointment, authorization, delegation or approbation of one’s teaching by Church authorities.  Those who have received a mandatum teach in their own name in virtue of their baptism and their academic and professional competence, not in the name of the Bishop or of the Church’s magisterium.

[Footnote reads: “[I]t is not the responsibility of a Catholic university to seek the mandatum; this is a personal obligation of each professor.  If a particular professor lacks a mandatum and continues to teach a theological discipline, the university must determine what further action may be taken in accordance with its own mission and statutes (see canon 810, §1).”]

“iii.  The mandatum recognizes the professor’s commitment and responsibility to teach authentic Catholic doctrine and to refrain from putting forth as Catholic teaching anything contrary to the Church’s magisterium.

“iv.  The following procedure is given to facilitate, as of the effective date of this Application, the process of requesting and granting the mandatum.  Following the approval of the Application, a detailed procedure will be developed outlining the process of requesting and granting (or withdrawing) the mandatum.

“1.  The competent ecclesiastical authority to grant the mandatum is the bishop of the diocese in which the Catholic university is located; he may grant the mandatum personally or through a delegate.

[Footnote reads: “The attestation or declaration of the professor that he or she will teach in communion with the Church can be expressed by the profession of faith and oath of fidelity or in any other reasonable manner acceptable to the one issuing the mandatum.”]

“2.  Without prejudice to the rights of the local bishop, a mandatum, once granted, remains in effect wherever and as long as the professor teaches unless and until withdrawn by competent ecclesiastical authority.

[Footnote reads: “Although the general principle is that, once granted, there is no need for the mandatum to be granted again by another diocesan bishop, every diocesan bishop has the right to require otherwise in his own diocese.”]

“3.  The mandatum should be given in writing.  The reasons for denying or removing a mandatum should also be in writing.”

[Footnote reads: “Administrative acts in the external forum must be in writing (c. 37).  The writing not only demonstrates the fulfillment of canon 812, but, in cases of denial or removal, it permits the person who considers his or her rights to have been injured to seek recourse. See canons 1732-1739.”]

Application of Ex corde Ecclesiae for United States Particular Norms, Art. 5, §2

“In accordance with Church teaching and the universal law of the Church, the local Bishop has a responsibility to promote the welfare of the Catholic universities in his diocese and to watch over the preservation and strengthening of their Catholic character.  Bishops should, when appropriate, acknowledge publicly the service of Catholic universities to the Church and support the institution’s Catholic identity if it is unjustifiably challenged.  Diocesan and university authorities should commit themselves mutually to regular dialogues to achieve the goals of Ex corde Ecclesiae according to local needs and circumstances.  University authorities and the local diocesan bishop should develop practical methods of collaboration that are harmonious with the university’s structure and statutes. Similar forms of collaboration should also exist between the university and the religious institute to which it is related by establishment or tradition.”

[Footnote reads: “The following are some suggestions for collaboration: (a) Arranging for the diocesan bishop or his delegate and members of the religious institute to be involved in the university’s governance, perhaps through representation on the board of trustees or in some other appropriate manner.  (b) Sharing the university’s annual report with the diocesan bishop and the religious institute, especially in regard to matters affecting Catholic identity and the religious institute’s charism.  (c) Scheduling regular pastoral visits to the university on the part of the diocesan bishop and the religious institute’s leadership and involving the members of the diocese and the institute in campus ministry.  (d) Collaborating on evangelization and on the special works of the religious institute.  (e) Conducting dialogues on matters of doctrine and pastoral practice and on the development of spirituality in accordance with the religious institute’s charism.  (f) Resolving issues affecting the university’s Catholic identity in accordance with established procedures. (See ECE, II, Art. 5, §2 and ECE footnote 51.)  (g) Participating together in ecumenical and inter-faith endeavors.  (h) Contributing to the diocesan process of formulating the quinquennial report to the Holy See.”]

Application of Ex corde Ecclesiae for United States Particular Norms, Art. 5, §2

“Doctrinal Responsibilities: Approaches to Promoting Cooperation and Resolving Misunderstandings between Bishops and Theologians, approved and published by the National Conference of Catholic Bishops, June 17, 1989, can serve as a useful guide for diocesan bishops, professors of the theological disciplines and administrators of universities to promote informal cooperation and collaboration in the Church’s teaching mission and the faithful observance within Catholic universities of the principles of Catholic doctrine.  Disputes about Church doctrine should be resolved, whenever possible, in an informal manner.  At times, the resolution of such matters may benefit from formal doctrinal dialogue as proposed by Doctrinal Responsibilities and adapted by the parties in question.”

[Footnote reads: “When such disputes are not resolved within the limits of informal or formal dialogue, they should be addressed in a timely manner by the competent ecclesiastical authority through appropriate doctrinal and administrative actions, taking into account the requirements of the common good and the rights of the individuals and institutions involved.”]

Application of Ex corde Ecclesiae for United States Particular Norms, Art. 5, §2

“The National Conference of Catholic Bishops [now USCCB], through an appropriate committee structure, should continue to dialogue and collaborate with the Catholic academic community and its representative associations about ways of safeguarding and promoting the ideals, principles and norms expressed in Ex corde Ecclesiae.”

Application of Ex corde Ecclesiae for United States Particular Norms, Art. 6, §§1-5

“The diocesan bishop has overall responsibility for the pastoral care of the university’s students, faculty, administration and staff.

“The university, in cooperation with the diocesan bishop, shall make provision for effective campus ministry programs, including the celebration of the sacraments, especially the Eucharist and penance, other liturgical celebrations, and opportunities for prayer and spiritual reflection.

“When selecting pastoral ministers—priests, deacons, religious and lay persons—to carry on the work of campus ministry, the university authorities should work closely with the diocesan bishop and interested religious institutes.  Without prejudice to the provision of canon 969, §2, priests and deacons must enjoy pastoral faculties from the local ordinary in order to exercise their ministry on campus.

“With due regard for religious liberty and freedom of conscience, the university, in cooperation with the diocesan bishop, should collaborate in ecumenical and interfaith efforts to care for the pastoral needs of students, faculty and other university personnel who are not Catholic.

“In these pastoral efforts, the university and the diocesan bishop should take account of the prescriptions and recommendations issued by the Holy See and the guidance and pastoral statements of the National Conference of Catholic Bishops.”

Application of Ex corde Ecclesiae for United States, §2

“The richness of communion illuminates the ecclesial relationship that unites the distinct, and yet complementary, teaching roles of bishops and Catholic universities.  In the light of communion, the teaching responsibilities of the hierarchy and of the Catholic universities retain their distinctive autonomous nature and goal but are joined as complementary activities contributing to the fulfillment of the Church’s universal teaching mission.  The communion of the Church embraces both the pastoral work of bishops and the academic work of Catholic universities, thus linking the bishops’ right and obligation to communicate and safeguard the integrity of Church doctrine with the right and obligation of Catholic universities to investigate, analyze and communicate all truth freely.”

Application of Ex corde Ecclesiae for United States, §4

“Mutual trust goes beyond the personalities of those involved in the relationship.  The trust is grounded in a shared baptismal belief in the truths that are rooted in Scripture and Tradition, as interpreted by the Church, concerning the mystery of the Trinity: God the Father and Creator, who works even until now; God the Son and incarnate Redeemer, who is the Way and the Truth and the Life; and God the Holy Spirit, the Paraclete, whom the Father and Son send.  In the spirit of communio, the relationship of trust between university and Church authorities, based on these shared beliefs with their secular and religious implications, is fostered by mutual listening, by collaboration that respects differing responsibilities and gifts, and by a solidarity that mutually recognizes respective statutory limitations and responsibilities.”

Application of Ex corde Ecclesiae for United States, §5

“It is highly desirable that representatives of both educational institutions and Church authorities jointly identify, study, and pursue solutions to issues concerning social justice, human life and the needs of the poor.”

Application of Ex corde Ecclesiae for United States, §5

“A structure and strategy to insure ongoing dialogue and cooperation should be established by university and Church authorities.”

Application of Ex corde Ecclesiae for United States, §7

“Catholic universities should make every effort to enhance their communion with the hierarchy so that through this special relationship they may assist each other to accomplish the mission to which they are mutually committed.”

Questions for Self-Assessment

How has the institution ensured that the local diocesan bishop consents to its identification as a “Catholic” college or university?36

How has the institution ensured that the institution’s governing documents have been reviewed and/or approved by the local diocesan bishop, if required according to the institution’s canonical status and method of establishment?37

How does the institution periodically communicate relevant information about the Catholic character of the institution and its activities to the local diocesan bishop or other competent ecclesiastical authority under Canon Law?38

How does the institution strive to develop a close personal and pastoral relationship with the local diocesan bishop—characterized by mutual trust, close and consistent cooperation, and continuing dialogue—such that the bishop is seen as a participant in the life of the institution?39

How does the institution ensure dialogue between the local diocesan bishop and those who teach theological disciplines?40

How does the institution ensure regular dialogue with the local diocesan bishop and diocesan authorities about ways of promoting Catholic identity, how to achieve the goals of Ex corde Ecclesiae according to local needs and circumstances, and the contribution that the institution can make to the life of the Church in the area?41

How does the institution ensure regular dialogue on these matters with the religious institute to which it is related by establishment or tradition, if applicable?42

How does the institution defer in practical ways to the authority of the local diocesan bishop and the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops to remain vigilant that the principles of Catholic doctrine are faithfully observed at the institution?43

How does the institution defer in practical ways to the authority of the local diocesan bishop to watch over the preservation and strengthening of the Catholic character of the institution, including any initiative of the bishop to resolve problems?44

How does the institution defer in practical ways to the authority of the local diocesan bishop over the pastoral care of the college or university community, including campus ministry programs, liturgical activities, and the appointment of pastoral ministers?45

How does the institution ensure that those who teach theological disciplines have a mandatum according to the procedures established by the local diocesan bishop?46

How does the institution work jointly with Catholic Church authorities to jointly identify, study, and pursue solutions to issues concerning social justice, human life, and the needs of
the poor?47

Cooperation

Ex corde Ecclesiae General Norms, Art. 7, §1

“In order better to confront the complex problems facing modern society, and in order to strengthen the Catholic identity of the Institutions, regional, national and international cooperation is to be promoted in research, teaching, and other university activities among all Catholic Universities, including Ecclesiastical Universities and Faculties.  Such cooperation is also to be promoted between Catholic Universities and other Universities, and with other research and educational Institutions, both private and governmental.”

Ex corde Ecclesiae General Norms, Art. 7, §2

“Catholic Universities will, when possible and in accord with Catholic principles and doctrine, cooperate with government programmes and the programmes of other national and international Organizations on behalf of justice, development and progress.”

Ex corde Ecclesiae, §35

“[S]ince the economic and personal resources of a single Institution are limited, cooperation in common research projects among Catholic Universities, as well as with other private and governmental institutions, is imperative.  In this regard, and also in what pertains to the other fields of the specific activity of a Catholic University, the role played by various national and international associations of Catholic Universities is to be emphasized.  Among these associations the mission of The International Federation of Catholic Universities, founded by the Holy See, is particularly to be remembered.”

Ex corde Ecclesiae, §37

“In its service to society, a Catholic University will relate especially to the academic, cultural and scientific world of the region in which it is located.  Original forms of dialogue and collaboration are to be encouraged between the Catholic Universities and the other Universities of a nation on behalf of development, of understanding between cultures, and of the defence of nature in accordance with an awareness of the international ecological situation.”

Ex corde Ecclesiae, §41

“Close cooperation between pastoral ministry in a Catholic University and the other activities within the local Church, under the guidance or with the approval of the diocesan Bishop, will contribute to their mutual growth.”

Application of Ex corde Ecclesiae for United States Particular Norms, Art. 7, §§1-2

“Catholic universities should commit themselves to cooperate in a special way with other Catholic universities, institutions and professional associations, in the United States and abroad, in order to build up the entire Catholic academic community.

“In collaborating with governmental agencies, regional associations, and other universities, whether public or private, Catholic universities should give corporate witness to and promote the Church’s social teaching and its moral principles in areas such as the fostering of peace and justice, respect for all human life, the eradication of poverty and unjust discrimination, the development of all peoples and the growth of human culture.”

Questions for Self-Assessment

How does the institution cooperate with other Catholic colleges and universities in research, teaching, and other activities to strengthen the Catholic identity of the institutions and confront problems facing modern society?48

How does the institution, in accord with Catholic principles and doctrine, cooperate with non-Catholic colleges and universities in research, teaching, and other activities to confront problems facing modern society?49

How does the institution dialogue and collaborate with other colleges and universities in the United States on behalf of development, understanding between cultures, and defense of nature in accordance with an awareness of the international ecological situation?50

How does the institution, in accord with Catholic principles and doctrine, cooperate with government programs and the programs of other national and international organizations on behalf of justice, development, and progress?51

In its cooperative activities with other entities, how does the institution give witness to the Church’s social teaching and its moral principles in areas such as the fostering of peace and justice, respect for all human life, the eradication of poverty and unjust discrimination, the development of peoples, and the growth of human culture?52

How does the institution ensure close cooperation between the institution’s pastoral ministry and the other activities within the local Church, under the guidance or with the approval of the local diocesan bishop?53

Leadership & Administration

Board of Trustees

Ex corde Ecclesiae General Norms, Art. 4, §1

“The responsibility for maintaining and strengthening the Catholic identity of the University rests primarily with the University itself.  …[T]his responsibility is entrusted principally to university authorities (including, when the positions exist, the Chancellor and/or a Board of Trustees or equivalent body)… The identity of a Catholic University is essentially linked to the quality of its teachers and to respect for Catholic doctrine.  It is the responsibility of the competent Authority to watch over these two fundamental needs in accordance with what is indicated in Canon Law.”

Application of Ex corde Ecclesiae for United States Particular Norms, Art. 2, §6

“The university (in particular, the trustees, administration, and faculty) should take practical steps to implement its mission statement in order to foster and strengthen its Catholic nature and character.”

[Footnote reads: “In this regard, the university may wish to establish a ‘mission effectiveness committee’ or some other appropriate structure to develop methods by which Catholics may promote the university’s Catholic identity and those who are not Catholic may acknowledge and respect this identity.”]

Application of Ex corde Ecclesiae for United States Particular Norms, Art. 4, §2

“Each member of the board must be committed to the practical implications of the university’s Catholic identity as set forth in its mission statement or equivalent document.  To the extent possible, the majority of the board should be Catholics committed to the Church.  The board should develop effective ways of relating to and collaborating with the local bishop and diocesan agencies on matters of mutual concern.

[Footnote reads: “In individual situations, it may be possible and appropriate to invite the diocesan bishop or his delegate to be a member of the board itself. In other cases, arranging periodic meetings to address the university’s Catholic identity and mission may prove more practical and effective.”]

Application of Ex corde Ecclesiae for United States Particular Norms, Art. 4, §2

“The board should analyze ecclesiastical documents on higher education, such as Ex corde Ecclesiae and this Application, and develop specific ways of implementing them appropriate to the structure and life of the university.  The board should see to it that the university periodically undertakes an internal review of the congruence of its mission statement, its courses of instruction, its research program, and its service activity with the ideals, principles and norms expressed in Ex corde Ecclesiae.”

Questions for Self-Assessment

How are prospective and current members of the Board of Trustees and other governing boards informed of their responsibility for maintaining and strengthening the Catholic identity of the institution?54

How does the institution ensure that a majority of the members of the Board of Trustees and other governing boards are Catholics who are committed to the Catholic Church?55

How have the Board of Trustees and other governing boards:

  1. developed and implemented effective ways of relating to and collaborating with the local diocesan bishop and diocesan agencies on matters of mutual concern?56
  2. analyzed ecclesiastical documents on higher education, including Ex corde Ecclesiae and the Application of Ex corde Ecclesiae for the United States, and developed and carried out specific ways of implementing them appropriate to the structure and life of the university?57
  3. developed and implemented a plan to undertake a periodic review of the congruence of the institution’s mission statement, courses of instruction, research program, and service activity with the ideals, principles, and norms expressed in Ex corde Ecclesiae?58

Administration & Non-Faculty Employees

Code of Canon Law, Canon 833

“The following persons are obliged to make a profession of faith personally in accord with a formula approved by the Apostolic See: …in the presence of the grand chancellor or, in his absence, in the presence of the local ordinary, or in the presence of their delegates, the rector of an ecclesiastical or Catholic university at the beginning of the rector’s term of office….”

Ex corde Ecclesiae General Norms, Art. 4, §1

“The responsibility for maintaining and strengthening the Catholic identity of the University rests primarily with the University itself.  [T]his responsibility is entrusted principally to university authorities (including, when the positions exist, the Chancellor and/or a Board of Trustees or equivalent body), it is shared in varying degrees by all members of the university community, and therefore calls for the recruitment of adequate university personnel, especially teachers and administrators, who are both willing and able to promote that identity.  The identity of a Catholic University is essentially linked to the quality of its teachers and to respect for Catholic doctrine.  It is the responsibility of the competent Authority to watch over these two fundamental needs in accordance with what is indicated in Canon Law.”

Ex corde Ecclesiae General Norms, Art. 4, §2

“All teachers and all administrators, at the time of their appointment, are to be informed about the Catholic identity of the Institution and its implications, and about their responsibility to promote, or at least to respect, that identity.”

Ex corde Ecclesiae General Norms, Art. 4, §4

“Those university teachers and administrators who belong to other Churches, ecclesial communities, or religions, as well as those who profess no religious belief, and also all students, are to recognize and respect the distinctive Catholic identity of the University.”

Ex corde Ecclesiae, §24

“Directors and administrators in a Catholic University promote the constant growth of the University and its community through a leadership of service; the dedication and witness of the non-academic staff are vital for the identity and life of the university.”

Ex corde Ecclesiae, §27

“Catholic members of the university community are also called to a personal fidelity to the Church with all that this implies.  Non-Catholic members are required to respect the Catholic character of the University, while the University in turn respects their religious liberty.”

Application of Ex corde Ecclesiae for United States Particular Norms, Art. 2, §6

“The university (in particular, the trustees, administration, and faculty) should take practical steps to implement its mission statement in order to foster and strengthen its Catholic nature and character.”

[Footnote reads: “In this regard, the university may wish to establish a ‘mission effectiveness committee’ or some other appropriate structure to develop methods by which Catholics may promote the university’s Catholic identity and those who are not Catholic may acknowledge and respect this identity.”]

Application of Ex corde Ecclesiae for United States Particular Norms, Art. 4, §3

“The university president should be a Catholic.”

[Footnote reads: “Upon assuming the office of president for the first time, a Catholic should express his or her commitment to the university’s Catholic identity and to the Catholic faith in accordance with canon 833, §7 (see also Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, Formula Professio Fidei et Iusiurandum, July 1, 1988, AAS 81 [1989] 104-106; and Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, Rescriptum ex audientia SS. mi Quod Attinet, September 19, 1989, AAS 81 [1989] 1169).  When a candidate who is not a Catholic is being considered for appointment as president of a Catholic university, the university should consult with the competent ecclesiastical authority about the matter.  In all cases, the president should express his or her commitment to the university’s Catholic mission and identity.”]

Application of Ex corde Ecclesiae for United States Particular Norms, Art. 4, §3

“The administration should inform faculty and staff at the time of their appointment regarding the Catholic identity, mission and religious practices of the university and encourage them to participate, to the degree possible, in the spiritual life of the university.”

Application of Ex corde Ecclesiae for United States, §7

“In order to maintain and safeguard their freely-chosen Catholic identity, it is important for Catholic universities… to implement in practical terms their commitment to the essential elements of Catholic identity, including the following: …Commitment of witness of the Catholic faith by Catholic administrators and teachers, especially those teaching the theological disciplines, and acknowledgment and respect on the part of non-Catholic teachers and administrators of the university’s Catholic identity and mission….”

Questions for Self-Assessment

How does the institution ensure that the president (or equivalent executive official) is a Catholic?59

How does the institution ensure that the president (or equivalent executive official) expresses commitment to the institution’s Catholic identity and (if Catholic) makes the Vatican-approved profession of faith at the beginning of the president’s term of office?60

How does the institution ensure that each official and non-faculty employee is informed at the time of their appointment about the Catholic identity of the institution and its implications, and their responsibility to promote—or if not Catholic, to at least respect—that Catholic identity?61

How does the institution ensure that each official and non-faculty employee is both willing and able to maintain and strengthen the Catholic identity of the institution, under the direction of the governing board(s)?62

How does the institution ensure that each official and non-faculty employee implements
in practical terms the commitment to maintain and strengthen the Catholic identity of the institution?63

How does the institution invite official and non-faculty employees to participate in the spiritual life of the institution?64

How does each Catholic official and non-faculty employee witness to the Catholic faith?65

Faculty & Academics

Faculty

Code of Canon Law, Canon 810, §1

“It is the responsibility of the authority who is competent in accord with the statutes to provide for the appointment of teachers to Catholic universities who besides their scientific and pedagogical suitability are also outstanding in their integrity of doctrine and probity of life; when those requisite qualities are lacking they are to be removed from their positions in accord with the procedure set forth in the statutes.”

Ex corde Ecclesiae General Norms, Art. 2, §5

“Freedom in research and teaching is recognized and respected according to the principles and methods of each individual discipline, so long as the rights of the individual and of the community are preserved within the confines of the truth and the common good.”

Ex corde Ecclesiae General Norms, Art. 4, §1

“The responsibility for maintaining and strengthening the Catholic identity of the University rests primarily with the University itself.  While this responsibility is entrusted principally to university authorities (including, when the positions exist, the Chancellor and/or a Board of Trustees or equivalent body), it is shared in varying degrees by all members of the university community, and therefore calls for the recruitment of adequate university personnel, especially teachers and administrators, who are both willing and able to promote that identity.  The identity of a Catholic University is essentially linked to the quality of its teachers and to respect for Catholic doctrine.  It is the responsibility of the competent Authority to watch over these two fundamental needs in accordance with what is indicated in Canon Law.”

Ex corde Ecclesiae General Norms, Art. 4, §2

“All teachers and all administrators, at the time of their appointment, are to be informed about the Catholic identity of the Institution and its implications, and about their responsibility to promote, or at least to respect, that identity.”

Ex corde Ecclesiae General Norms, Art. 4, §3

“In ways appropriate to the different academic disciplines, all Catholic teachers are to be faithful to, and all other teachers are to respect, Catholic doctrine and morals in their research and teaching.”

Ex corde Ecclesiae General Norms, Art. 4, §4

“Those university teachers and administrators who belong to other Churches, ecclesial communities, or religions, as well as those who profess no religious belief, and also all students, are to recognize and respect the distinctive Catholic identity of the University.  In order not to endanger the Catholic identity of the University or Institute of Higher Studies, the number of non-Catholic teachers should not be allowed to constitute a majority within the Institution, which is and must remain Catholic.”

Ex corde Ecclesiae, §12

“Every Catholic university… guarantees its members academic freedom, so long as the rights of the individual person and of the community are preserved within the confines of the truth and the common good.”

[Footnote reads: “‘[A]cademic freedom’ is the guarantee given to those involved in teaching and research that, within their specific specialized branch of knowledge, and according to the methods proper to that specific area, they may search for the truth wherever analysis and evidence leads them, and may teach and publish the results of this search, keeping in mind the cited criteria, that is, safeguarding the rights of the individuals and of society within the confines of the truth and the common good.”]

Ex corde Ecclesiae, §22

“University teachers should seek to improve their competence and endeavour to set the content, objectives, methods, and results of research in an individual discipline within the framework of a coherent world vision.  Christians among the teachers are called to be witnesses and educators of authentic Christian life, which evidences attained integration between faith and life, and between professional competence and Christian wisdom.  All teachers are to be inspired by academic ideals and by the principles of an authentically human life.”

Ex corde Ecclesiae, §27

“Catholic members of the university community are also called to a personal fidelity to the Church with all that this implies.  Non-Catholic members are required to respect the Catholic character of the University, while the University in turn respects their religious liberty.”

Application of Ex corde Ecclesiae for United States Particular Norms, Art. 2, §2

“Academic freedom is an essential component of a Catholic university.  The university should take steps to ensure that all professors are accorded ‘a lawful freedom of inquiry and of thought, and of freedom to express their minds humbly and courageously about those matters in which they enjoy competence.’  In particular, ‘[t]hose who are engaged in the sacred disciplines enjoy a lawful freedom of inquiry and of prudently expressing their opinions on matters in which they have expertise, while observing the submission [obsequio] due to the magisterium of the Church.’”  (Citation in first instance from Vatican Council II, Pastoral

Constitution on the Church in the Modern World Gaudium et Spes, 62; second instance from Code of Canon Law, Canon 218.)

Application of Ex corde Ecclesiae for United States Particular Norms, Art. 2, §6

“The university (in particular, the trustees, administration, and faculty) should take practical steps to implement its mission statement in order to foster and strengthen its Catholic nature and character.”

[Footnote reads: “In this regard, the university may wish to establish a ‘mission effectiveness committee’ or some other appropriate structure to develop methods by which Catholics may promote the university’s Catholic identity and those who are not Catholic may acknowledge and respect this identity.”]

Application of Ex corde Ecclesiae for United States Particular Norms, Art. 4, §3

“The administration should inform faculty and staff at the time of their appointment regarding the Catholic identity, mission and religious practices of the university and encourage them to participate, to the degree possible, in the spiritual life of the university.”

Application of Ex corde Ecclesiae for United States Particular Norms, Art. 4, §4

“In accordance with its procedures for the hiring and retention of professionally qualified faculty and relevant provisions of applicable federal and state law, regulations and procedures, the university should strive to recruit and appoint Catholics as professors so that, to the extent possible, those committed to the witness of the faith will constitute a majority of the faculty.  All professors are expected to be aware of and committed to the Catholic mission and identity of their institutions.  All professors are expected to exhibit not only academic competence and good character but also respect for Catholic doctrine.  When these qualities are found to be lacking, the university statutes are to specify the competent authority and the process to be followed to remedy the situation.”

Application of Ex corde Ecclesiae for United States, §7

“In order to maintain and safeguard their freely-chosen Catholic identity, it is important for Catholic universities… to implement in practical terms their commitment to the essential elements of Catholic identity, including the following: …Commitment to Catholic ideals, principles and attitudes in carrying out research, teaching and all other university activities, including activities of officially-recognized student and faculty organizations and associations… Commitment of witness of the Catholic faith by Catholic administrators and teachers, especially those teaching the theological disciplines, and acknowledgment and respect on the part of non-Catholic teachers and administrators of the university’s Catholic identity and mission….”

Questions for Self-Assessment

How does the institution ensure that at least a majority of faculty members are Catholics who are committed to the witness of the faith?66

How does the institution ensure that each faculty member is informed at the time of their appointment about the Catholic identity of the institution and its implications, and their responsibility to promote—or if not Catholic, to at least respect—that Catholic identity?67

How does the institution ensure that each faculty member is both willing and able to maintain and strengthen the Catholic identity of the institution, under the direction of the governing board(s) and administrative officials?68

How does the institution ensure that each faculty member implements in practical terms the commitment to promote—or if not Catholic, to at least respect—the Catholic identity of the institution?69

How does the institution ensure that each faculty member implements in practical terms the commitment to maintain and strengthen the Catholic identity of the institution?70

How does the institution ensure the appointment of faculty members who, besides their professional suitability, are also outstanding in their integrity of doctrine and probity of life?71

When these qualities are lacking, how does the institution ensure that faculty members are removed from their positions?72

How does the institution invite faculty members to participate in the spiritual life of the institution?73

How does each Catholic faculty member witness to the Catholic faith and authentic Christian life, demonstrating integration between faith and life and between professional competence and Christian wisdom?74

How does each faculty member demonstrate commitment to academic ideals and the principles of an authentically human life?75

How does each faculty member strive to improve their competence and endeavor to set the content, objectives, methods, and results of research in their particular discipline within the framework of a coherent world vision which conforms to Catholic teaching?76

How does the institution ensure that officially recognized faculty organizations and associations conform to Catholic ideals, principles, and attitudes?77

How does the institution guarantee its faculty members a freedom of inquiry and of prudently expressing their opinions on matters in which they have expertise, while observing the submission due to the magisterium of the Church, the rights of individuals and the community, the confines of the truth and the common good, and the methods proper to their particular discipline?78

How does the institution respond to violations and abuses of academic freedom?79

Curriculum

Ex corde Ecclesiae General Norms, Art. 4, §5

“The education of students is to combine academic and professional development with formation in moral and religious principles and the social teachings of the Church; the programme of studies for each of the various professions is to include an appropriate ethical formation in that profession.  Courses in Catholic doctrine are to be made available to all students.”

Ex corde Ecclesiae, §7

“Scientific and technological discoveries create an enormous economic and industrial growth, but they also inescapably require the correspondingly necessary search for meaning in order to guarantee that the new discoveries be used for the authentic good of individuals and of human society as a whole. If it is the responsibility of every University to search for such meaning, a Catholic University is called in a particular way to respond to this need: its Christian inspiration enables it to include the moral, spiritual and religious dimension in its research, and to evaluate the attainments of science and technology in the perspective of the totality of the human person.”

Ex corde Ecclesiae, §9

Ex corde Ecclesiae intends “that the students of these institutions become people outstanding in learning, ready to shoulder society’s heavier burdens and to witness the faith to the world.”

Ex corde Ecclesiae, §20

“Given the close connection between research and teaching, the research qualities indicated above will have their influence on all teaching.  While each discipline is taught systematically and according to its own methods, interdisciplinary studies, assisted by a careful and thorough study of philosophy and theology, enable students to acquire an organic vision of reality and to develop a continuing desire for intellectual progress.  In the communication of knowledge, emphasis is then placed on how human reason in its reflection opens to increasingly broader questions, and how the complete answer to them can only come from above through faith.  Furthermore, the moral implications that are present in each discipline are examined as an integral part of the teaching of that discipline so that the entire educative process be directed towards the whole development of the person.  Finally, Catholic theology, taught in a manner faithful to Scripture, Tradition, and the Church’s Magisterium, provides an awareness of the Gospel principles which will enrich the meaning of human life and give it a new dignity.  Through research and teaching the students are educated in the various disciplines so as to become truly competent in the specific sectors in which they will devote themselves to the service of society and of the Church, but at the same time prepared to give the witness of their faith to the world.”

Ex corde Ecclesiae, §23

“Students are challenged to pursue an education that combines excellence in humanistic and cultural development with specialized professional training.  Most especially, they are challenged to continue the search for truth and for meaning throughout their lives, since ‘the human spirit must be cultivated in such a way that there results a growth in its ability to wonder, to understand, to contemplate, to make personal judgments, and to develop a religious, moral, and social sense.’  This enables them to acquire or, if they have already done so, to deepen a Christian way of life that is authentic.  They should realize the responsibility of their professional life, the enthusiasm of being the trained ‘leaders’ of tomorrow, of being witnesses to Christ in whatever place they may exercise their profession.”

Ex corde Ecclesiae, §31

“Through teaching and research, a Catholic University offers an indispensable contribution to the Church.  In fact, it prepares men and women who, inspired by Christian principles and helped to live their Christian vocation in a mature and responsible manner, will be able to assume positions of responsibility in the Church.”

Ex corde Ecclesiae, §34

“The Christian spirit of service to others for the promotion of social justice is of particular importance for each Catholic University, to be shared by its teachers and developed in its students.  The Church is firmly committed to the integral growth of all men and women.  The Gospel, interpreted in the social teachings of the Church, is an urgent call to promote ‘the development of those peoples who are striving to escape from hunger, misery, endemic diseases and ignorance; of those who are looking for a wider share in the benefits of civilization and a more active improvement of their human qualities; of those who are aiming purposefully at their complete fulfilment’. …A Catholic University also has the responsibility, to the degree that it is able, to help to promote the development of the emerging nations.”  (Citation from Pope Paul VI, Encyclical Letter Populorum Progressio)

Ex corde Ecclesiae, §36

“Through programmes of continuing education offered to the wider community, by making its scholars available for consulting services, by taking advantage of modern means of communication, and in a variety of other ways, a Catholic University can assist in making the growing body of human knowledge and a developing understanding of the faith available to a wider public, thus expanding university services beyond its own academic community.”

Ex corde Ecclesiae, §49

“[A]ll the basic academic activities of a Catholic University are connected with and in harmony with the evangelizing mission of the Church: …education offered in a faith-context that forms men and women capable of rational and critical judgment and conscious of the transcendent dignity of the human person; professional training that incorporates ethical values and a sense of service to individuals and to society….”

Application of Ex corde Ecclesiae for United States Particular Norms, Art. 4, §5

“With due regard for the principles of religious liberty and freedom of conscience, students should have the opportunity to be educated in the Church’s moral and religious principles and social teachings and to participate in the life of faith.  Catholic students have a right to receive from a university instruction in authentic Catholic doctrine and practice, especially from those who teach the theological disciplines. …Courses in Catholic doctrine and practice should be made available to all students.  Catholic teaching should have a place, if appropriate to the subject matter, in the various disciplines taught in the university.  Students should be provided with adequate instruction on professional ethics and moral issues related to their profession and the secular disciplines.”

Questions for Self-Assessment

How does the education for each student:

  1. combine academic and professional development with formation in moral and religious principles, the social teachings of the Catholic Church, and their application to critical issues such as human life and other issues of social justice?80
  2. include instruction in authentic Catholic doctrine and practice?81
  3. include interdisciplinary studies, assisted by a careful and thorough study of philosophy
    and theology, helping students acquire an organic vision of reality?82
  4. consider the moral implications that are present in each discipline?83
  5. develop the Christian spirit of service to others for the promotion of social justice?84
  6. prepare the student to be outstanding in learning, ready to shoulder society’s heavier burdens and to witness the faith to the world?85

How does each program of professional studies include appropriate Catholic ethical formation in that profession and develop a sense of service to individuals and society?86

How do programs in science and technology evaluate the attainments of science and technology in the perspective of the totality of the human person?87

How does the institution offer its services and make knowledge and understanding of the faith available to the public beyond its own academic community?88

Theology

Code of Canon Law, Canon 811, §§1-2

“The competent ecclesiastical authority is to provide that at Catholic universities there be erected a faculty of theology, an institute of theology, or at least a chair of theology so that classes may be given for lay students.  In the individual Catholic universities classes should be given which treat in a special way those theological questions which are connected with the disciplines of their faculties.”

Code of Canon Law, Canon 812

“It is necessary that those who teach theological disciplines in any institute of higher studies have a mandate from the competent ecclesiastical authority.”

Code of Canon Law, Canon 833

“The following persons are obliged to make a profession of faith personally in accord with a formula approved by the Apostolic See: …in the presence of the rector, if the rector is a priest, or the local ordinary, or their delegates and at the beginning of the rector’s term of office, teachers in any universities whatsoever who teach disciplines which deal with faith or morals….”

Ex corde Ecclesiae General Norms, Art. 4, §3

“In ways appropriate to the different academic disciplines, all Catholic teachers are to be faithful to, and all other teachers are to respect, Catholic doctrine and morals in their research and teaching.  In particular, Catholic theologians, aware that they fulfil a mandate received from the Church, are to be faithful to the Magisterium of the Church as the authentic interpreter of Sacred Scripture and Sacred Tradition.”

Ex corde Ecclesiae General Norms, Art. 4, §5

“The education of students is to combine academic and professional development with formation in moral and religious principles and the social teachings of the Church; the programme of studies for each of the various professions is to include an appropriate ethical formation in that profession.  Courses in Catholic doctrine are to be made available to all students.”

Ex corde Ecclesiae, §19

“Theology plays a particularly important role in the search for a synthesis of knowledge as well as in the dialogue between faith and reason.  It serves all other disciplines in their search for meaning, not only by helping them to investigate how their discoveries will affect individuals and society but also by bringing a perspective and an orientation not contained within their own methodologies.  In turn, interaction with these other disciplines and their discoveries enriches theology, offering it a better understanding of the world today, and making theological research more relevant to current needs.  Because of its specific importance among the academic disciplines, every Catholic University should have a faculty, or at least a chair, of theology.”

Ex corde Ecclesiae, §20

“Catholic theology, taught in a manner faithful to Scripture, Tradition, and the Church’s Magisterium, provides an awareness of the Gospel principles which will enrich the meaning of human life and give it a new dignity.”

Ex corde Ecclesiae, §29

“Theology has its legitimate place in the University alongside other disciplines.  It has proper principles and methods which define it as a branch of knowledge.  Theologians enjoy this same freedom so long as they are faithful to these principles and methods. …[S]ince theology seeks an understanding of revealed truth whose authentic interpretation is entrusted to the Bishops of the Church, it is intrinsic to the principles and methods of their research and teaching in their academic discipline that theologians respect the authority of the Bishops, and assent to Catholic doctrine according to the degree of authority with which it is taught.  Because of their interrelated roles, dialogue between Bishops and theologians is essential; this is especially true today, when the results of research are so quickly and so widely communicated through the media.”

Application of Ex corde Ecclesiae for United States Particular Norms, Art. 2, §2

“In particular, ‘[t]hose who are engaged in the sacred disciplines enjoy a lawful freedom of inquiry and of prudently expressing their opinions on matters in which they have expertise, while observing the submission [obsequio] due to the magisterium of the Church.’”  (Citation from Code of Canon Law, Canon 218)

Application of Ex corde Ecclesiae for United States Particular Norms, Art. 4, §4

“Catholic theology should be taught in every Catholic university, and, if possible, a department or chair of Catholic theology should be established.  Academic events should be organized on a regular basis to address theological issues, especially those relative to the various disciplines taught in the university.  Both the university and the bishops, aware of the contributions made by theologians to Church and academy, have a right to expect them to present authentic Catholic teaching.  Catholic professors of the theological disciplines have a corresponding duty to be faithful to the Church’s magisterium as the authoritative interpreter of Sacred Scripture and Sacred Tradition.  Catholics who teach the theological disciplines in a Catholic university are required to have a mandatum granted by competent ecclesiastical authority.

“i.  The mandatum is fundamentally an acknowledgment by Church authority that a Catholic professor of a theological discipline is a teacher within the full communion of the Catholic Church.

“ii.  The mandatum should not be construed as an appointment, authorization, delegation or approbation of one’s teaching by Church authorities.  Those who have received a mandatum teach in their own name in virtue of their baptism and their academic and professional competence, not in the name of the Bishop or of the Church’s magisterium.

[Footnote reads: “[I]t is not the responsibility of a Catholic university to seek the mandatum; this is a personal obligation of each professor.  If a particular professor lacks a mandatum and continues to teach a theological discipline, the university must determine what further action may be taken in accordance with its own mission and statutes (see canon 810, §1).”]

“iii.  The mandatum recognizes the professor’s commitment and responsibility to teach authentic Catholic doctrine and to refrain from putting forth as Catholic teaching anything contrary to the Church’s magisterium.

“iv.  The following procedure is given to facilitate, as of the effective date of this Application, the process of requesting and granting the mandatum.  Following the approval of the Application, a detailed procedure will be developed outlining the process of requesting and granting (or withdrawing) the mandatum.

“1.  The competent ecclesiastical authority to grant the mandatum is the bishop of the diocese in which the Catholic university is located; he may grant the mandatum personally or through a delegate.

[Footnote reads: “The attestation or declaration of the professor that he or she will teach in communion with the Church can be expressed by the profession of faith and oath of fidelity or in any other reasonable manner acceptable to the one issuing the mandatum.”]

“2.  Without prejudice to the rights of the local bishop, a mandatum, once granted, remains in effect wherever and as long as the professor teaches unless and until withdrawn by competent ecclesiastical authority.

[Footnote reads: “Although the general principle is that, once granted, there is no need for the mandatum to be granted again by another diocesan bishop, every diocesan bishop has the right to require otherwise in his own diocese.”]

“3.  The mandatum should be given in writing.  The reasons for denying or removing a mandatum should also be in writing.”

[Footnote reads: “Administrative acts in the external forum must be in writing (c. 37).  The writing not only demonstrates the fulfillment of canon 812, but, in cases of denial or removal, it permits the person who considers his or her rights to have been injured to seek recourse. See canons 1732-1739.”]

Application of Ex corde Ecclesiae for United States Particular Norms, Art. 4, §5

“With due regard for the principles of religious liberty and freedom of conscience, students should have the opportunity to be educated in the Church’s moral and religious principles and social teachings and to participate in the life of faith.  Catholic students have a right to receive from a university instruction in authentic Catholic doctrine and practice, especially from those who teach the theological disciplines. …Courses in Catholic doctrine and practice should be made available to all students.”

Application of Ex corde Ecclesiae for United States Particular Norms, Art. 5, §2

“Doctrinal Responsibilities: Approaches to Promoting Cooperation and Resolving Misunderstandings between Bishops and Theologians, approved and published by the National Conference of Catholic Bishops, June 17, 1989, can serve as a useful guide for diocesan bishops, professors of the theological disciplines and administrators of universities to promote informal cooperation and collaboration in the Church’s teaching mission and the faithful observance within Catholic universities of the principles of Catholic doctrine.  Disputes about Church doctrine should be resolved, whenever possible, in an informal manner.  At times, the resolution of such matters may benefit from formal doctrinal dialogue as proposed by Doctrinal Responsibilities and adapted by the parties in question.”

Application of Ex corde Ecclesiae for United States, §5

“Within their academic mission of teaching and research, in ways appropriate to their own constituencies and histories, including their sponsorship by religious communities, institutions offer courses in Catholic theology that reflect current scholarship and are in accord with the authentic teaching of the Church.”

Application of Ex corde Ecclesiae for United States, §7

“In order to maintain and safeguard their freely-chosen Catholic identity, it is important for Catholic universities… to implement in practical terms their commitment to the essential elements of Catholic identity, including the following: …Commitment of witness of the Catholic faith by Catholic administrators and teachers, especially those teaching the theological disciplines, and acknowledgment and respect on the part of non-Catholic teachers and administrators of the university’s Catholic identity and mission; …Commitment to provide courses for students on Catholic moral and religious principles and their application to critical areas such as human life and other issues of social justice….”

Vatican Council II, Declaration on Christian Education Gravissimum Educationis, §32

“In Catholic universities where there is no faculty of sacred theology there should be established an institute or chair of sacred theology in which there should be lectures suited to lay students.”

Questions for Self-Assessment

How does the institution maintain a faculty, institute, or chair of Catholic theology with courses for lay students?89

How does the institution ensure that students have access to courses which treat in a special way those theological questions with are connected with each particular discipline?90

How does the institution provide academic events on a regular basis to address theological issues, especially those relative to the various disciplines taught in the university?91

How does the institution ensure that each individual hired to teach a theological discipline:

  1. has a mandatum according to the procedures established by the local diocesan bishop?92
  2. makes the Vatican-approved profession of faith at the beginning of the individual’s employment?93
  3. is faithful to the Magisterium of the Catholic Church as the authentic interpreter of Sacred Scripture and Sacred Tradition and assents to Catholic doctrine according to the degree of authority with which it is taught?94
  4. teaches in a manner faithful to Scripture, Tradition, and the Catholic Church’s Magisterium?95
  5. remain faithful to the principles and methods proper to Catholic theology?96

Research

Ex corde Ecclesiae General Norms, Art. 5, §1

“In ways consistent with its nature as a University, a Catholic University will contribute to the Church’s work of evangelization.”

Ex corde Ecclesiae, §7

“Scientific and technological discoveries create an enormous economic and industrial growth, but they also inescapably require the correspondingly necessary search for meaning in order to guarantee that the new discoveries be used for the authentic good of individuals and of human society as a whole. If it is the responsibility of every University to search for such meaning, a Catholic University is called in a particular way to respond to this need: its Christian inspiration enables it to include the moral, spiritual and religious dimension in its research, and to evaluate the attainments of science and technology in the perspective of the totality of the human person.”

Ex corde Ecclesiae, §15

“A Catholic University, therefore, is a place of research, where scholars scrutinize reality with the methods proper to each academic discipline, and so contribute to the treasury of human knowledge.  Each individual discipline is studied in a systematic manner; moreover, the various disciplines are brought into dialogue for their mutual enhancement.  In a Catholic University, research necessarily includes (a) the search for an integration of knowledge, (b) a dialogue between faith and reason, (c) an ethical concern, and (d) a theological perspective.”

Ex corde Ecclesiae, §16

“[A] University, and especially a Catholic University, ‘has to be a ‘living union’ of individual organisms dedicated to the search for truth.  …It is necessary to work towards a higher synthesis of knowledge, in which alone lies the possibility of satisfying that thirst for truth which is profoundly inscribed on the heart of the human person.’  Aided by the specific contributions of philosophy and theology, university scholars will be engaged in a constant effort to determine the relative place and meaning of each of the various disciplines within the context of a vision of the human person and the world that is enlightened by the Gospel, and therefore by a faith in Christ, the Logos, as the centre of creation and of human history.”  (Pope John Paul II, “Allocution to the International Congress on Catholic Universities,” April 25, 1989)

Ex corde Ecclesiae, §17

“In promoting this integration of knowledge, a specific part of a Catholic University’s task is to promote dialogue between faith and reason, so that it can be seen more profoundly how faith and reason bear harmonious witness to the unity of all truth.”

Ex corde Ecclesiae, §18

“Because knowledge is meant to serve the human person, research in a Catholic University is always carried out with a concern for the ethical and moral implications both of its methods and of its discoveries.”

Ex corde Ecclesiae, §32

“A Catholic University, as any University, is immersed in human society; as an extension of its service to the Church, and always within its proper competence, it is called on to become an ever more effective instrument of cultural progress for individuals as well as for society.  Included among its research activities, therefore, will be a study of serious contemporary problems in areas such as the dignity of human life, the promotion of justice for all, the quality of personal and family life, the protection of nature, the search for peace and political stability, a more just sharing in the world’s resources, and a new economic and political order that will better serve the human community at a national and international level.  University research will seek to discover the roots and causes of the serious problems of our time, paying special attention to their ethical and religious dimensions.

“If need be, a Catholic University must have the courage to speak uncomfortable truths which do not please public opinion, but which are necessary to safeguard the authentic good of society.”

Ex corde Ecclesiae, §33

“A specific priority is the need to examine and evaluate the predominant values and norms of modern society and culture in a Christian perspective, and the responsibility to try to communicate to society those ethical and religious principles which give full meaning to human life.  In this way a University can contribute further to the development of a true Christian anthropology, founded on the person of Christ, which will bring the dynamism of the creation and redemption to bear on reality and on the correct solution to the problems of life.”

Ex corde Ecclesiae, §34

“The Christian spirit of service to others for the promotion of social justice is of particular importance for each Catholic University, to be shared by its teachers and developed in its students.  The Church is firmly committed to the integral growth of all men and women.  The Gospel, interpreted in the social teachings of the Church, is an urgent call to promote ‘the development of those peoples who are striving to escape from hunger, misery, endemic diseases and ignorance; of those who are looking for a wider share in the benefits of civilization and a more active improvement of their human qualities; of those who are aiming purposefully at their complete fulfilment’.”  (Citation from Pope Paul VI, Encyclical Letter Populorum Progressio)

Ex corde Ecclesiae, §35

“In its attempts to resolve these complex issues that touch on so many different dimensions of human life and of society, a Catholic University will insist on cooperation among the different academic disciplines, each offering its distinct contribution in the search for solutions….”

Ex corde Ecclesiae, §45

“A Catholic University must become more attentive to the cultures of the world of today, and to the various cultural traditions existing within the Church in a way that will promote a continuous and profitable dialogue between the Gospel and modern society.  Among the criteria that characterize the values of a culture are above all, the meaning of the human person, his or her liberty, dignity, sense of responsibility, and openness to the transcendent.  To a respect for persons is joined the preeminent value of the family, the primary unit of every human culture.  Catholic Universities will seek to discern and evaluate both the aspirations and the contradictions of modern culture, in order to make it more suited to the total development of individuals and peoples.  In particular, it is recommended that by means of appropriate studies, the impact of modern technology and especially of the mass media on persons, the family, and the institutions and whole of modem culture be studied deeply.  Traditional cultures are to be defended in their identity, helping them to receive modern values without sacrificing their own heritage, which is a wealth for the whole of the human family.  Universities, situated within the ambience of these cultures, will seek to harmonize local cultures with the positive contributions of modern cultures.”

Ex corde Ecclesiae, §46

“An area that particularly interests a Catholic University is the dialogue between Christian thought and the modern sciences.  …Such dialogue concerns the natural sciences as much as the human sciences which posit new and complex philosophical and ethical problems.  The Christian researcher should demonstrate the way in which human intelligence is enriched by the higher truth that comes from the Gospel: ‘The intelligence is never diminished, rather, it is stimulated and reinforced by that interior fount of deep understanding that is the Word of God, and by the hierarchy of values that results from it… In its unique manner, the Catholic University helps to manifest the superiority of the spirit, that can never, without the risk of losing its very self, be placed at the service of something other than the search for truth.’”  (Citation from Pope Paul VI, to the Delegates of The International Federation of Catholic Universities, Nov. 27, 1972)

Ex corde Ecclesiae, §47

“Besides cultural dialogue, a Catholic University, in accordance with its specific ends, and keeping in mind the various religious-cultural contexts, following the directives promulgated by competent ecclesiastical authority, can offer a contribution to ecumenical dialogue.  It does so to further the search for unity among all Christians.  In inter-religious dialogue it will assist in discerning the spiritual values that are present in the different religions.”

Ex corde Ecclesiae, §49

“[A]ll the basic academic activities of a Catholic University are connected with and in harmony with the evangelizing mission of the Church: research carried out in the light of the Christian message which puts new human discoveries at the service of individuals and society; …the dialogue with culture that makes the faith better understood, and the theological research that translates the faith into contemporary language.”

Application of Ex corde Ecclesiae for United States, §5

“It is highly desirable that representatives of both educational institutions and Church authorities jointly identify, study, and pursue solutions to issues concerning social justice, human life and the needs of the poor.”

Vatican Council II, Declaration on Christian Education Gravissimum Educationis, 32

“Since science advances by means of the investigations peculiar to higher scientific studies, special attention should be given in Catholic universities and colleges to institutes that serve primarily the development of scientific research.”

Questions for Self-Assessment

How does the institution ensure that research and other academic activities of the institution and its faculty include the following necessary characteristics:

  1. the search for an integration of knowledge, by determining the relative place and meaning of each of the various disciplines in relation to Christ as the center of creation and human history?97
  2. dialogue between faith and reason?98
  3. concern for the ethical and moral implications of its methods and discoveries?99
  4. a moral, spiritual, and religious dimension from a Catholic theological perspective?100

How do research and other academic activities of the institution and its faculty:

  1. serve the development of scientific knowledge?101
  2. evaluate the attainments of science and technology in the Christian perspective of the totality of the human person and the higher truth that comes from the Gospel?102
  3. study the roots and causes of serious contemporary problems, paying special attention to their ethical and religious dimensions, in areas such as the dignity of human life, the promotion of justice for all, the quality of personal and family life, the protection of nature, the search for peace and political stability, a more just sharing in the world’s resources, and a new economic and political order that will better serve the human community at a national and international level?103
  4. examine and evaluate from a Christian perspective the predominant values and norms of modern society and culture, including the impact of modern technology and the mass media?104
  5. help communicate to society the ethical and religious principles which give full meaning to human life?105
  6. contribute to ecumenical dialogue, according to the directives of ecclesiastical authority?106
  7. otherwise contribute to the Catholic Church’s work of evangelization?107

How does the institution ensure cooperation among the different academic disciplines in research and other academic activities?108

Students & Campus Life

Pastoral Ministry

Code of Canon Law, Canon 813

“The diocesan bishop is to have serious pastoral care for students by erecting a parish for them or by assigning priests for this purpose on a stable basis; he is also to provide for Catholic university centers at universities, even non-Catholic ones, to give assistance, especially spiritual to young people.”

Ex corde Ecclesiae General Norms, Art. 6, §1

“A Catholic University is to promote the pastoral care of all members of the university community, and to be especially attentive to the spiritual development of those who are Catholics.  Priority is to be given to those means which will facilitate the integration of human and professional education with religious values in the light of Catholic doctrine, in order to unite intellectual learning with the religious dimension of life.”

Ex corde Ecclesiae General Norms, Art. 6, §2

“A sufficient number of qualified people—priests, religious, and lay persons—are to be appointed to provide pastoral ministry for the university community, carried on in harmony and cooperation with the pastoral activities of the local Church under the guidance or with the approval of the diocesan Bishop.  All members of the university community are to be invited to assist the work of pastoral ministry, and to collaborate in its activities.”

Ex corde Ecclesiae, §§38-39

“Pastoral ministry is that activity of the University which offers the members of the university community an opportunity to integrate religious and moral principles with their academic study and non-academic activities, thus integrating faith with life.  It is part of the mission of the Church within the University, and is also a constitutive element of a Catholic University itself, both in its structure and in its life.  A university community concerned with promoting the Institution’s Catholic character will be conscious of this pastoral dimension and sensitive to the ways in which it can have an influence on all university activities.

“As a natural expression of the Catholic identity of the University, the university community should give a practical demonstration of its faith in its daily activity, with important moments of reflection and of prayer.  Catholic members of this community will be offered opportunities to assimilate Catholic teaching and practice into their lives and will be encouraged to participate in the celebration of the sacraments, especially the Eucharist as the most perfect act of community worship.  When the academic community includes members of other Churches, ecclesial communities or religions, their initiatives for reflection and prayer in accordance with their own beliefs are to be respected.”

Ex corde Ecclesiae, §§40-42

“Those involved in pastoral ministry will encourage teachers and students to become more aware of their responsibility towards those who are suffering physically or spiritually.  Following the example of Christ, they will be particularly attentive to the poorest and to those who suffer economic, social, cultural or religious injustice.  This responsibility begins within the academic community, but it also finds application beyond it.

“Pastoral ministry is an indispensable means by which Catholic students can, in fulfilment of their baptism, be prepared for active participation in the life of the Church; it can assist in developing and nurturing the value of marriage and family life, fostering vocations to the priesthood and religious life, stimulating the Christian commitment of the laity and imbuing every activity with the spirit of the Gospel.  Close cooperation between pastoral ministry in a Catholic University and the other activities within the local Church, under the guidance or with the approval of the diocesan Bishop, will contribute to their mutual growth.

“Various associations or movements of spiritual and apostolic life, especially those developed specifically for students, can be of great assistance in developing the pastoral aspects of university life.”

Application of Ex corde Ecclesiae for United States Particular Norms, Art. 4, §5

“With due regard for the principles of religious liberty and freedom of conscience, students should have the opportunity to be educated in the Church’s moral and religious principles and social teachings and to participate in the life of faith.  Catholic students… have a right to be provided with opportunities to practice the faith through participation in Mass, the sacraments, religious devotions and other authentic forms of Catholic spirituality.”

Application of Ex corde Ecclesiae for United States Particular Norms, Art. 6, §§1-5

“The diocesan bishop has overall responsibility for the pastoral care of the university’s students, faculty, administration and staff.

“The university, in cooperation with the diocesan bishop, shall make provision for effective campus ministry programs, including the celebration of the sacraments, especially the Eucharist and penance, other liturgical celebrations, and opportunities for prayer and spiritual reflection.

“When selecting pastoral ministers—priests, deacons, religious and lay persons—to carry on the work of campus ministry, the university authorities should work closely with the diocesan bishop and interested religious institutes.  Without prejudice to the provision of canon 969, §2, priests and deacons must enjoy pastoral faculties from the local ordinary in order to exercise their ministry on campus.

“With due regard for religious liberty and freedom of conscience, the university, in cooperation with the diocesan bishop, should collaborate in ecumenical and interfaith efforts to care for the pastoral needs of students, faculty and other university personnel who are not Catholic.

“In these pastoral efforts, the university and the diocesan bishop should take account of the prescriptions and recommendations issued by the Holy See and the guidance and pastoral statements of the National Conference of Catholic Bishops.”

Application of Ex corde Ecclesiae for United States, §5

“Allocation of personnel and money to assure the special contributions of campus ministry is indispensable.  In view of the presence on campus of persons of other religious traditions, it is a concern of the whole Church that ecumenical and inter-religious relationships should be fostered with sensitivity.”

Application of Ex corde Ecclesiae for United States, §7

“In order to maintain and safeguard their freely-chosen Catholic identity, it is important for Catholic universities… to implement in practical terms their commitment to the essential elements of Catholic identity, including the following: …Commitment to care pastorally for the students, faculty, administration and staff….”

Questions for Self-Assessment

How does the institution promote the pastoral care of all members of the college or university community, with special attention to the spiritual development of Catholics?109

How does the institution strive to unite intellectual learning with the religious dimension of life?110

How does the institution ensure sufficient resources and the appointment of sufficient priests, deacons, religious, and lay people to provide pastoral care for the college or university community?111

How does the institution give practical demonstrations of the Catholic faith in daily activity, including important moments of reflection and prayer?112

How does the institution ensure respect for non-Catholic members of the college or university community and their initiatives for reflection and prayer in accordance with their own beliefs?113

How does the institution collaborate in ecumenical and interfaith efforts to care for the pastoral needs of non-Catholic students?114

How do the institution’s pastoral ministers:

  1. invite all members of the college or university community to assist the work of pastoral ministry and collaborate in its activities, including the sacraments (especially the Mass and Penance), religious devotions, and other authentic forms of Catholic spirituality?115
  2. encourage faculty members and students to become more aware of their responsibility toward those who are suffering physically or spiritually, with particular attention to the poor and victims of economic, social, cultural, or religious injustice?116
  3. help develop and nurture in students the value of marriage and family life?117
  4. foster vocations to the priesthood and religious life?118

Student Life

Ex corde Ecclesiae General Norms, Art. 4, §4

“Those university teachers and administrators who belong to other Churches, ecclesial communities, or religions, as well as those who profess no religious belief, and also all students, are to recognize and respect the distinctive Catholic identity of the University.”

Ex corde Ecclesiae, §42

“Various associations or movements of spiritual and apostolic life, especially those developed specifically for students, can be of great assistance in developing the pastoral aspects of university life.”

Application of Ex corde Ecclesiae for United States, §7

“In order to maintain and safeguard their freely-chosen Catholic identity, it is important for Catholic universities… to implement in practical terms their commitment to the essential elements of Catholic identity, including the following: …Commitment to Catholic ideals, principles and attitudes in carrying out research, teaching and all other university activities, including activities of officially-recognized student and faculty organizations and associations… Commitment to provide personal services (health care, counseling and guidance) to students, as well as administration and faculty, in conformity with the Church’s ethical and religious teaching and directives …Commitment to create a campus culture and environment that is expressive and supportive of a Catholic way of life.”


Questions for Self-Assessment

How does the institution ensure that students recognize and respect the Catholic identity of the institution?119

How does the institution ensure a campus culture and environment that is expressive and supportive of a Catholic way of life?120

How does the institution promote student participation in associations of spiritual and apostolic life, especially those developed especially for students?121

How does the institution ensure that officially recognized student organizations and associations conform to Catholic ideals, principles, and attitudes?122

How does the institution provide personal services like health care, counseling, and guidance for students, in conformity with the Catholic Church’s ethical and religious teaching and directives?123

 

 

 

Protecting Catholic Colleges from External Threats to Their Religious Liberty

/in , /by
Click here for PDF

Federal and state laws are increasingly being used to coerce religious institutions into actions and commitments that violate deeply held religious convictions and moral principles.1  Some of these laws require employee and student health insurance that covers contraception, and mandate employee benefits for same sex couples.

Catholic colleges and universities and other Catholic organizations are not immune from emerging threats to their religious liberty and Catholic identity, but can take steps to minimize the danger.

This paper will briefly outline some of the major forms of these threats related to:

  • acceptance of federal student aid and grants, thus triggering federal Title IX’s sex discrimination prohibitions and federal research grant conditions;
  • Title VII’s prohibitions on employment discrimination;
  • the recently enacted Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act healthcare overhaul; and
  • various state-level laws and regulations.

After explaining the ways the application of these laws and regulations can threaten a Catholic college or university’s Catholic identity, the paper will propose steps each institution may take to mitigate the danger.

It must be noted, however, that any available exemptions for religious institutions will not apply if a college that was founded as a religious institution has become largely secular.  It is therefore vital that Catholic colleges and universities maintain their Catholic identity in all of their programs in order to best protect their religious character and mission.

Catholic colleges and universities have an advantage over other religious institutions in that the Catholic Church’s Canon Law and the Apostolic Constitution Ex corde Ecclesiae lay out the requirements for a college to be considered Catholic.  While Church law is beyond the purview of this paper, it should be noted that a college that does not faithfully adhere to and apply the Catholic Church’s own law might find it difficult if not impossible to convince a secular court that it is a Catholic institution deserving protection.

THREATS TO THE RELIGIOUS IDENTITY OF CATHOLIC HIGHER EDUCATION

Accepting Federal Funding

Federal funding generally takes the form of research grants or student financial aid.  The laws and regulations governing these funds prohibit discrimination based on sex, which may require insurance plans to cover prescription contraception.  But there is an exemption for religious organizations.

Research Grant Conditions

Religious discrimination is conspicuously absent from a list of prohibitions on discrimination that circumscribes the actions of grantees of direct grant programs from the Department of Education.  Religious institutions’ ability to receive such grants is conditioned on their compliance with the following:  Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, Title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972, Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, and the Age Discrimination Act.  Thus, grantees cannot discriminate on the basis of:  race, color, national origin, sex, handicap, or age.2  A direct grant is broadly conceived, and eligibility for each individual grant is governed by its particular authorizing statute and implementing regulations.3

Faith-based organizations are eligible to receive the direct grants, and the Code clearly establishes that the Department of Education awarding these grants will not discriminate against faith-based organizations.  These organizations are not forced to abandon their religious character, expression, or autonomy in order to receive these funds.4 To the extent that a religious educational institution seeks to provide a program or service for which a direct grant is available, the Department extends this opportunity to receive aid without compromising the school’s distinctively religious mission.  But religious educational institutions must carefully examine the procurement criteria for any particular research grant in order to determine whether accepting the federal funds will adversely affect their particular religious mission.

Federal Title IX’s Prohibition on Sex Discrimination in Education

Although Title IX prohibits sex discrimination5 in schools that receive federal financial assistance, it has an exemption for religious organizations.6  If an educational institution is both “controlled by a religious organization” and if prohibiting sex discrimination would “not be consistent with the religious tenets of such organization,” then the school may be able to discriminate.7  But it is clearly limited to differentiating on the basis of sex.8Title IX only applies to schools that receive federal financial assistance. Most Catholic colleges and universities receive federal financial assistance in the form of Federal Student Aid,9 which enables students10 to afford expensive post-secondary education.  Students apply for this aid by completing the Free Application for Federal Student Aid (FAFSA).  Formerly, student loans were offered under both the Federal Family Education Loan (FFEL) Program and the William D. Ford Federal Direct Loan (Direct Loan) Program.  FFEL loans involved the federal government guaranteeing the loans of private lenders, but with Direct Loans, students borrow directly from the U.S. Department of Education.  In 2010, among other changes,11 the Health Care and Education Reconciliation Act (“Reconciliation Act”)12 eliminated the FFEL Program, and now these loans13 will all be funded by the Direct Loan Program.

The Code of Federal Regulations, which governs the interpretation of Title IX, defines federal financial assistance in the context of student loans broadly.14  The Supreme Court has likewise concluded that the definition of federal financial assistance includes both direct and indirect student loans.15

An institution’s receipt of federal funds actually subjects the entire institution to government regulation under Title IX.16  If federal financial assistance is actually received, subjecting the school to Title IX, there are virtually no methods of institutional structuring which will allow it to maneuver around these regulations.17

Two additional notes for educational institutions attempting to determine if they are receiving federal financial assistance:  (1) it appears that tax exempt status does not constitute receiving federal funds;18 and (2) use of small amounts of federal funds has been held to not be enough to classify the school as a recipient of federal financial assistance under Title IX.19

But if an institution does receive federal funds, Title IX has an exemption for religious organizations.20  The procedure for obtaining this exemption requires the highest ranking official of the educational institution seeking the exemption to submit a written statement to the Director of the Department of Education “identifying the provisions of this part [Title IX] which conflict with a specific tenet of the religious organization.”21

In order to qualify for this exemption, an educational institution must be “controlled by a religious organization.”  An educational institution that could be classified as a religious institution itself would also meet this requirement.22

On one end of the spectrum, a religious educational institution which is in fact a seminary will generally be considered controlled by a religious organization (or actually may be a religious organization) for the purposes of Title IX exemption.  Such a school would then need to establish that, according to its religious tenets, sex discrimination was necessary.  Many religious faiths believe in either differing vocational roles for men and women generally or at least, reserve ministerial ordination for men only.  These faiths can establish their beliefs based on their interpretation of their sacred texts and foundational documents.23  These clearly qualify for the exemption.24  To the extent that an educational institution which trains religious leaders can establish that its faith does differentiate in particular ways based on sex, it should be able to allow its students to receive federal financial assistance without coming under the sway of government regulations prohibiting the type of role differentiation it practices.

Catholic schools that do not train priests and other ministers should also be concerned about Title IX’s prohibition on sex discrimination.  For instance, schools that provide medical insurance for students may violate Title IX if they fail to provide coverage for prescription contraception coverage.  Failure to do so has been ruled sex discrimination.25  Schools could also face complaints about single-sex residence halls and related activities restricted to hall residents of the same gender.

So qualifying for the religious exemption to Title IX is important for all Catholic colleges and universities.  Although this exemption is narrow,26 Catholic schools stand the best chance of qualifying because they are institutionally connected to a particular religious denomination.27

Courts apply religious exemptions by weighing the facts carefully, not merely taking a school’s assertion that it is religious at face value.28  Importantly, a religious past does not speak for a religious present.  Straying from an historic religious character cuts decisively against being regarded as religious or controlled by a religious organization.

Prohibition on Discrimination in Employment Pursuant to Federal Title VII

Catholic colleges and universities, regardless of whether they receive federal funds, may be subject to federal laws prohibiting discrimination in the workplace.  Despite the law’s broad exemption for religious organizations, the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (“EEOC”) is increasingly inclined toward regulating Catholic employers without due consideration for religious liberty, especially with regard to health insurance mandates that conflict with Catholic morality.  For instance, Belmont Abbey College in North Carolina is currently being investigated by the EEOC because its health insurance does not cover prescription contraception for its female employees.

Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 prohibits employers of 15 or more employees from discriminating in hiring and firing employees on the grounds of race, color, religion, sex, or national origin.29  Unlike Title IX, the application of Title VII does not depend on whether or not an employer receives federal funds.  But Title VII includes a broader exemption for religious organizations.30

Title VII does not statutorily define what constitutes a religious educational institution or religious organization, but the exemption is broad: all of a religious organization’s activities are exempt, not just those activities that are specifically religious.  General principles of interpretation of the exemption caution that it is fact specific.31  Because of the sparse nature of the statute, courts have varied not only in their decisions about whether certain organizations are religious but also in the factors they apply.

In a case particularly relevant to the religious nature of educational institutions, the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals concluded that Samford, a Baptist university, was a religious educational institution which can consider religion when making employment decisions.  The court described the following as relevant to its conclusion:  (1) Samford was originally founded as a theological institution by the Alabama Baptist State Convention; (2) The vast majority of its trustees had been Baptist; (3) The Baptist convention contributed over four million dollars to Samford; (4) All Samford’s faculty who taught religion were required to subscribe to a particular Baptist statement of faith; and, (5) Samford’s charter described its purpose in explicitly religious terms.32

If a Catholic college or university qualifies for the religious exemption, it may require its employees to all be Catholic and live a life consistent with Catholic teaching.  If the school does not qualify for a religious exemption, it can still consider religion for certain positions that require someone of a particular faith, often referred to as a bona fide occupational qualification.  For instance, being Jesuit was considered a bona fide occupational qualification for a full-time faculty position at Loyola University of Chicago.33

The Pregnancy Discrimination Act

Title VII was amended in 1978 to prohibit discrimination against pregnant women  – often referred to as the Pregnancy Discrimination Act.34  This was interpreted by the EEOC in 2000 as requiring employers to provide prescription contraception coverage in health insurance plans that include prescriptions.35 This mandate neglects the First Amendment rights of Catholic employers who must be faithful to Catholic teaching on the immorality of artificial contraception.

In 2009, the EEOC District Office in Charlotte, N.C., charged Belmont Abbey College in North Carolina with discrimination for not covering birth control pills in its employee health plan, which would compromise the college’s Catholic mission.  The college has filed an appeal with the EEOC national office in Washington, D.C., but has not received a reply.

The EEOC appears to be headed toward additional conflicts with religious employers.  Newly appointed EEOC commissioner Chai Feldblum, a former professor at Georgetown University Law Center and advocate for same-sex marriage, has argued that “sexual rights” should trump First Amendment religious rights when the two conflict.

The EEOC action against Belmont Abbey College indicates the extent to which Title VII can be used to impose personnel policies that may conflict with Catholic identity.  Contraception mandates could lead to abortion mandates in employee health insurance.  Antidiscrimination measures regarding sexual orientation could force benefits for same-sex couples and recognition of same-sex unions.  Catholic colleges and universities must be careful to require their employees to subscribe to the Catholic teaching on contraception if they do not want to be forced to provide similar coverage to their employees.

Employment Non-Discrimination Act

Another potential threat to Catholic colleges and universities is the continued effort in Congress to amend Title VII by passing some form of the Employment Non-Discrimination Act (ENDA).  By designating “sexual orientation” a protected class under Title VII, ENDA could pose problems for Catholic institutions when hiring or firing employees by limiting employers’ ability to consider homosexual activity or activism that is opposed to Catholic doctrine.  It may also limit employers’ ability to enforce dress codes, and could require employers to provide benefits to same-sex couples.  Some observers also note that ENDA may be a first step toward federal redefinition of marriage to include same-sex unions, which could further pose conflicts with personnel policies at Catholic colleges and universities.  As with sex discrimination, the best defense against this is to qualify for the religious organization exemption and require all employees to subscribe to Catholic teaching.

Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act

The recently passed Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (PPACA) may pose a serious threat to conscience rights of Catholic colleges and universities.  But the manner in which PPACA will be implemented is confusing and indeterminate.  PPACA generally mandates that employers provide one of several options of health insurance to their employees.  But PPACA also grants sweeping powers to the Secretary of the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) and other administration agencies, making it distinctly possible that they may mandate coverage of contraception, in vitro fertilization, and even abortion in an employer’s coverage options.  Institutions opting to simply not provide health coverage for their employees will face stiff tax consequences.  This paper below discusses religious schools’ options for avoiding the requirements of the PPACA as well as potential grounds for protecting religious freedom through litigation.

General State-Level Threats

Some states such as Wisconsin have begun mandating contraception coverage in employee health insurance plans.  Not all of them have exceptions for religious organizations and when they do, it is sometimes unclear how to qualify as a religious organization.  A thorough analysis of the various and differing state laws is beyond the limited scope of this paper.  The Becket Fund for Religious Liberty has an excellent analysis of this issue with proposals for protecting Catholic institutions from this threat titled, Implications of Mandatory Insurance Coverage of Contraceptives for Catholic Colleges and Universities.  It is available at www.CatholicHigherEd.org.  A summary of state contraception mandates titled Contraceptive Mandates and Immoral Cooperation can also be found at the same site.

Some states also have constitutional provisions called “Blaine Amendments” that prohibit any state funds from being used by pervasively religious organizations.  At least four Supreme Court Justices have opined that Blaine Amendments – originally enacted as a result of anti-Catholic bigotry – are unconstitutional and the use of “pervasively sectarian” is outdated.36  Moreover, the Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals in Denver ruled that making distinctions between schools for purpose of state scholarship funding based on whether they are “pervasively sectarian” or merely “sectarian” actually violates the First Amendment Establishment Clause due to excessive entanglement of government with religion.37   This case may be the beginning of a successful effort to eliminate Blaine Amendments.  Nevertheless, Catholic schools should be aware that emphasizing their religious mission and theology may result in disqualification for some state funding programs until provisions that discriminate against pervasively sectarian organizations can be successfully challenged in court.

Potential Threats on the Horizon

The future may bring additional government threats to the religious liberty of Catholic colleges and universities.  While their scope and impact are yet uncertain, recent developments suggest the added importance of protecting against potential threats as well as current realities.

On October 29, 2010, the U.S. Department of Education issued new regulations on student aid that encourage tighter state controls over higher education.  The Higher Education Act requires state authorization of colleges and universities that participate in federal student aid programs, which until this year was often assumed absent an adverse ruling by a state agency.   The Education Department now expects state approval of institutions “by name” and a state process “to review and appropriately act on” complaints about any approved institution.

Associations concerned with religious higher education – including The Cardinal Newman Society, the Association of Jesuit Colleges and Universities, and the Council of Christian Colleges and Universities – have raised concerns about expanded state oversight which could be politicized and could erect barriers to religious colleges seeking state charters and access to federal student aid.  The Education Department acknowledged that it had received complaints from college leaders that “a State’s role may extend into defining, for example, curriculum, teaching methods, subject matter content, faculty qualifications, and learning outcomes.”  Others feared that states might “impose homogeneity upon institutions that would compromise their unique missions.”  In response, federal officials agreed that the new regulations do “not limit a State’s oversight of institutions.”

In a July 30, 2010, letter to the Education Department, William Armstrong, former U.S. Senator from Colorado and now President of Colorado Christian University, warned that the new rules would “almost guarantee that states will have to cope with noisy arguments over teaching methods, degree requirements and culture wars over textbooks, evolution versus Intelligent Design, phonics versus whole language, campus ROTC, climate change, family policy, abortion, race, gender, sexual orientation, etc.”

It should be noted that the law does not prevent the federal government from also imposing restrictions on Catholic colleges and universities that participate in federal student aid programs.  Regulations that could be tied to federal aid might affect employee benefits, hiring policies, accreditation practices, and other unforeseen areas that potentially conflict with religious identity.  Thus far the federal government has been notably restrained in interfering with higher education.

STEPS TO PROTECT CATHOLIC COLLEGES AND UNIVERSITIES

Demonstrating a College is Religious

In short, many religious educational institutions, particularly colleges and universities which were founded on purposes tied to goals of educating in conformity to religious teaching –especially when the ties are denominationally specific or to an individual church – should be exempted from federal prohibitions on sex and religious discrimination.  But an educational institution that veers from a religious founding will probably not be able to demonstrate it is a religious organization.38  It will therefore not be able to require that its staff, faculty, and student body agree with, and abide by, its religious mission and theology.

Some Catholic schools have purposely minimized their religious ties for fear of being considered “pervasively sectarian,” and being disqualified for state funding by Blaine Amendments as indicated above.  Emphasizing their religious mission and theology is helpful for avoiding federal regulation, but it may adversely affect the school’s ability to participate in state scholarship programs – at least until those discriminatory provisions can be eliminated.

The cases indicate courts will consider 10 factors when determining whether a school is a religious organization.39  A college or university is much more likely to be able to qualify for an exemption to anti-discrimination laws if it satisfies all of them.  They are:

1. Whether the entity operates for a profit

This factor is not an issue for most secondary schools, but there are some for-profit colleges and universities.  “Nothing in the statute or case law says a for-profit corporation can not [sic] be a ‘religious corporation,’ but every reported claim for that status by a for-profit corporation has been denied.”  Dent, supra note 25, at 563.  Non-profit status definitely weighs in favor of being considered a religious organization.

2. Whether it produces a secular product

Many religious schools offer secular degrees in addition to religious.  This does not preclude them from being considered religious institutions.  For instance, Samford University offers a plethora of secular degrees,40 but was still considered a religious institution because, among other things, its chief purpose was “the promotion of the Christian Religion throughout the world by maintaining and operating … institutions dedicated to the development of Christian character in high scholastic standing.”41

3. Whether the entity’s articles of incorporation or other pertinent documents state a religious purpose

All indications are that the governing documents of an organization are important to it being considered religious.  No cases were found where an organization was deemed religious even though no religious purpose was stated in its founding documents.42  On the other hand, Samford’s charter reflected its chief purpose of promoting the Christian Religion throughout the world, and that was a significant factor in the court’s determination that the university was religious.43

4. Whether it is owned, affiliated with or financially supported by a formally religious entity such as a church or synagogue

Though not determinative, this factor certainly figures strongly into the calculation when assessing whether a school is religious.  The Court found it significant that Samford University received seven percent of its annual budget from the Southern Baptist Convention.44

5. Whether a formally religious entity participates in the management, for instance by having representatives on the board of trustees

This factor is very helpful for determining a school is religious if it is not directly affiliated with a church or other religious body.  For instance, in LeBoon, a Jewish Community Center was considered a religious organization even though it was not directly affiliated with any synagogue, because several rabbis were advisory, non-voting members of its board.45

6. Whether the entity holds itself out to the public as secular or sectarian

This is one of the most important factors.  A school in Hawaii that required its teachers to be Protestant was not religious, due in part to the fact that the school’s introductory pamphlet and course catalogue did not list any religious purpose of the school.46  Conversely, another court found it significant that “Samford’s student handbook describes Samford’s purpose this way: ‘to foster Christianity through the development of Christian character, scholastic attainment, and a sense of personal responsibility, ….’”47

7. Whether the entity regularly includes prayer or other forms of worship in its activities

Students at Samford University are required to attend chapel – which figured favorably in the court’s determination that it is a religious organization.48  But this factor did not help a school in Hawaii due in large part to the fact that most of the religious activities were optional for students.49

8. Whether it includes religious instruction in its curriculum, to the extent it is an educational institution

Sectarian schools must be careful to ensure that religious courses do something more than just teach about religion – which is allowed even in public schools.  For instance, this factor weighed against the Hawaii school that was found not to be religious because its curriculum “consist[s] of minimal, largely comparative religious studies….”50  Whereas, Samford University actually has a divinity school that trains clergy.

9. Whether its membership is made up by coreligionists

In the school context, this factor obviously has to do with the composition of the student body and faculty.  It is not necessary that students and teachers be limited to individuals of a particular religion.  Although Samford students are required to attend chapel, the court made no mention of a requirement that they be Southern Baptist, and determined the school was religious anyway.  And only instructors who taught religion courses were required to subscribe to a particular statement of faith.51  The court did favorably mention another case where the fact that 88% of the student body and 95% of the faculty were Baptist was significant in determining the school was religious.52

10. Consistent compliance with religious beliefs

Courts have held that a school or entity is no longer religious, even though it once was, because of lack of effort to comply with its original religious teachings.  For instance a court found that a home for troubled youth originally established with a religious purpose and governed by church-member trustees was presently secular because it no longer included religion in its programming and attendance at religious services was optional.53  Likewise, a school in Hawaii originally established as a Protestant institution was not religious because “the record reveals the purpose and emphasis of the School[] have shifted over the years from providing religious instruction to equipping students with ethical principles that will enable them to make their own moral judgments.”54

This factor may be particularly significant for universities and colleges that are affiliated with a particular denomination that specifically proscribes religious tenants that must be followed.  For instance, Catholic schools should adhere to the Canon Law requirements for their institutions, including the Church’s Apostolic Constitution Ex corde Ecclesiae, which applies directly to Catholic universities.55

Protection from PPACA

This section discusses religious schools’ options for avoiding the requirements of the Patient Protection and Affordable care Act (“PPACA”) as well as potential grounds for protecting religious freedom through litigation.  Schools should consult legal counsel to determine what their specific options will be under the PPACA regime.  Some potential options are as follows:

Lobby for amendments addressing conscience protection issues

Members of Congress are aware of the deficiencies in the PPACA, and several are proposing amendments to fix the shortcomings.  Representative Joseph Pitts (R-PA) introduced H.R. 5111, which would close the loopholes threatening to make abortion coverage mandatory.  Various proposed amendments would protect against requisite coverage of objectionable services in general.  Institutions concerned about the formidable new threats to their conscience rights must lobby for broad protection at both the federal and state levels.

Sue HHS under the Religious Freedom Restoration Act

In a specific case where all of an institution’s options for fulfilling PPACA’s employee-coverage mandate substantially burden its religious beliefs by forcing it to cover objectionable practices, the institution may be able to file a lawsuit alleging that PPACA’s mandate as applied to them violates the federal Religious Freedom Restoration Act (“RFRA”).   The act prohibits the government from “substantially burden[ing] religious exercise without compelling justification.”  Health coverage is an important employee recruiting and retention tool for employers.  Having to choose between not providing health coverage and compromising religious values is likely the type of burden RFRA was meant to protect against.  The success of any such claim will depend on the specific facts of an institution’s circumstances.  The institution should be able to assert that it actually has a sincere religious belief against providing coverage for certain objectionable practices, and that forcing it to do so will substantially burden its belief because it would select non-objectionable health coverage if it could.

Conclusion

Religious colleges and universities are prohibited from discriminating on sex and religion by Title IX and Title VII.56  There are exemptions for religious organizations in both of these statutes, but schools can only take advantage of these exemptions if they satisfy multi-factored tests that require them to consistently follow their religious convictions.  To the extent that a religious college departs from its historic religious ties, it may be in danger of losing its ability to claim that it is a religious employer exempted from civil rights legislation disallowing even religious discrimination.  To minimize regulation, such institutions should firmly maintain their religious identities and should exercise caution when accepting federal funds or allowing their students to accept federal financial assistance.

Religious schools are also subject to new requirements for providing health insurance to employees.  It is unclear how this new law will affect schools and other religious organizations that object to certain types of healthcare, such as abortion and in vitro fertilization.  But school officials should begin consulting with counsel as soon as possible to determine if there will be any conflict between this law and the school’s religious teachings.

Finally, direct funding from the federal government may contain some prohibitions on a school’s ability to hire faculty and recruit students that agree with its religious teachings.  The procurement criteria for each direct grant should be examined closely to be sure the school is not foregoing its ability to maintain its religious character.

 

 

 

How to Keep Your University Catholic

/in , /by
Click here for PDF

Dedication: To Father Michael Scanlan, T.O.R. President Emeritus, Franciscan University of Steubenville:
Who has shown that it can be done.

Table of Contents

Foreword
“Stewards of a Heritage, Bearers of Hope”
by Rev. Msgr. Stuart Swetland, S.T.D.
Preface to the Third Printing
Preface to the First Printing
Author’s Note
Chapter 1: A Case Study
Chapter 2: The Bishop
Chapter 3: The Trustees
Chapter 4: The Administration and Faculty
Chapter 5: The Students
Chapter 8: The Curriculum
Chapter 9: Academic Freedom
Chapter 10: “Indoctrination”
Chapter 11: Federal Aid
Chapter 12: Afterword
Authors

Foreword

Stewards of a Heritage, Bearers of Hope
Rev. Msgr. Stuart Swetland, S.T.D.
Vice President for Catholic Identity and Mission
Mount St. Mary’s University

Every person who is privileged to have the vocation as an administrator and/or educator at a Catholic college or university is both a steward of a heritage received from past generations and a bearer of hope to the current and future generations.1  Catholic universities are charged to “hand on what has been received.”2  We receive from above the supernatural gift of faith which we are called to preserve, explore, explain, live and faithfully hand on.  In bearing witness to the traditio of faith, Catholic universities are also privileged to be a source of light and hope for the world—a privileged place for an authentic encounter with God.  As His Holiness Benedict XVI said to Catholic educators at The Catholic University of America in Washington, D.C., on April 17, 2008:

Education is integral to the mission of the Church to proclaim the Good News.  First and foremost every Catholic educational institution is a place to encounter the living God who in Jesus Christ reveals his transforming love and truth.

An encounter with Christ and His teaching leads to a genuine desire to deepen one’s knowledge and understanding of the One who reveals the merciful love of the Father.

When this pamphlet was first produced in 1992, and even when re-issued in 1997, much was “up for grabs” in the world of Catholic higher education.  There had been, for a variety of societal and ecclesial reasons, a widespread loss of confidence in the Catholic nature, identity and mission of Catholic higher education.  Much of the general upheaval in our society about fundamental truths or even the possibility of there being truth was reflected in the life of the university.  Many of our Catholic colleges and universities were caught up in the spirit of this age and gradually (or sometimes, sadly, rapidly) “drifted” towards a more secular vision of the university’s mission and identity.

Much has changed since the last quarter of the 20th century.  In many places, especially among the young, there is a new confidence in the Church’s teaching office.  With the publication of the Catechism of the Catholic Church, the full implementation of the 1983 Code of Canon Law, the general reception of the teaching office of John Paul II and Benedict XVI (including such seminal documents as Fides et Ratio, Veritatis Splendor, Ex corde Ecclesiae, Deus Caritas Est and Spe Salvi) and the clarification of the role of the local ordinary vis-a-vis institutes of Catholic higher education, there has been a renewed focus and vigor brought to our campuses.  Thus, despite the scandals in the Church and the general loss of a religious sense in some sections of our society, there is no better time than now to focus on the nature and purpose of Catholic higher education.

The magnificent leadership of John Paul II and Benedict XVI has helped bring a renaissance to many Catholic colleges and universities.  Coupled with a growing demand for spiritual substance and depth emanating from the current generation of college-age students3 and the appropriate emphasis on mission required by many accreditation agencies, there is a growing sense that Catholic universities are extremely well situated to serve the holistic needs—spiritual, intellectual, moral, physical—of a demanding and discerning population of college-age students and their parents.

The times call for clarity.  Institutions and their leaders must know who they are and why they are.  At Mount St. Mary’s University, we are unapologetically committed to being a proud and robust Catholic university preparing young men and women for the challenges facing them in the contemporary world.  This is reflected in our governing documents where our Trustees committed the University to fidelity to its Catholic mission:

The Board of Trustees reasserts the critical importance of the Catholic identity in all operations of the University.  A strong Catholic identity is central to the mission of Mount St. Mary’s University.  Therefore, all faculty, staff, administrators, executive officers and Trustees are to work in concert with and support this Catholic mission.

The basic tenets of this Catholic mission at Mount St. Mary’s include:

  1.  The University is committed to the person and Gospel of Jesus Christ as the foundation of our values and attitudes which are reflected in our campus culture, policies and procedures.
  2.  The University fully understands, respects and follows the teachings of the Catholic Church.
  3.  The University is in full compliance with both the letter and spirit of Ex corde Ecclesiae.
  4.  The University recognizes the authority of the Holy See and the authority vested in the Archbishop of Baltimore regarding the Catholic nature and direction of Mount St. Mary’s University.4

This statement, like any governing document or mission statement, is only effective if it is rigorously put into action in the day-to-day running of the university.  This takes a commitment, a “mission centeredness,” as Father Kennedy observes, from the entirety of the university community.  Beginning with the Trustees and Administration but continuing through the faculty, staff and students, the institutional and personal commitment to the mission must be absolute.  More than likely, not everyone will share the fullness of the Catholic faith on campus; but everyone working on behalf of the university ought to be dedicated to its mission.

This means, among other things, that there is a critical need for well-formed Catholics who know and live their faith and who are willing to serve at every level at Catholic universities.  There is a need for accomplished men and women who will be willing to place their managerial and leadership skills at the service of Catholic higher education as trustees.  There is an acute need for well-formed Catholic academics who are committed to integrating their faith, their lives, their research and their teaching into a unity of life.  Especially needed are those who are willing to engage both their academic discipline and the Catholic intellectual heritage at the highest level to help in the great task of integrating faith and life.  There is a need for administrators who can place their faith and leadership experience at the service of the community of learners that is the university.  Staff members, with various skills and vocations, aid in the building of an authentic community centered in Christ.  Clergy and religious, especially the Chaplain and his staff, must provide the “daily bread” of Word and Sacrament necessary for personal and spiritual growth and renewal.  Other interested members of the greater community and Church can aid the university in its mission.

As college administrators, we cannot overlook the vital role that the President and his or her cabinet play in keeping a university robustly Catholic.  Presidents have the most central role.  They must never waiver from “blowing the certain trumpet” for Catholicism and keeping the campus focused on Christ.  Their cabinets, especially the recently developed idea of mission officers and/or Vice Presidents for Catholic Identity, aid them in the task of “setting the tone.”  Obviously, the role of mission officers or Vice Presidents for Catholic Identity and Mission will need further development.  There is a vital need for ongoing formation and development of faculty, staff, trustees and administration.  There is also a need for liaison with the local church and the local shepherd, the bishop.

Indeed, the bishop’s role is vital.  College presidents rightly expect that the relationship with their ordinary will be a fruitful one.  But the relationship must be a two-way street.  Catholic universities are called to be faithful to the Church and to serve Her mission.  But the Church, especially in the person of the Bishop, must serve the University as well.  Universities attempt to teach and model “servant leadership.”  We ask of our bishops to do likewise by providing a clear vision of how we can help serve one another.  Unlike what was stated at Land O’Lakes in 1967, we know that the Catholic university is only one of the places where the Church does its thinking; but we also know that it should be a privileged place of research, discovery and instruction.  As Pope John Paul II wrote in Ex corde Ecclesiae:

Every Catholic University, as a university, is an academic community which, in a rigorous and critical fashion, assists in the protection and advancement of human dignity and of a cultural heritage through research, teaching and various services offered to the local, national and international communities. It possesses that institutional autonomy necessary to perform its functions effectively and guarantees its members academic freedom, so long as the rights of the individual person and of the community are preserved within the confines of the truth and the common good.5

The university serves the common good by its rigorous pursuit of the truth.

An important point must be made here. Academic freedom is not an absolute right—it is a means to assure that the University can pursue the truth and serve the common good. No university, Catholic or not, will allow an absolute license to say or do everything or anything on campus. No one would tolerate overt racism, a “holocaust
denier” or an advocate for the violent overthrow of the government (or campus administration for that matter!). Academic freedom ought not to be confused with freedom of speech. The latter is a political right guaranteed in our constitutional system for citizens. The former is one necessary condition for the free and rigorous pursuit of truth in accordance with the appropriate academic standards of each discipline. The Church protects and promotes a “right” or “just” autonomy of earthly affairs. But a rightful autonomy is not an absolute autonomy. As the Second Vatican Council taught:

There seems to be some apprehension today that a close association between human activity and religion will endanger the autonomy of man, of organizations and of science. If by the autonomy of earthly affairs is meant the gradual discovery, exploitation, and ordering of the laws and values of matter and society, then the demand for autonomy is perfectly in order: it is at once the claim of modern man and the desire of the creator. By the very nature of creation, material being is endowed with its own stability, truth and excellence, its own order and laws. These man must respect as he recognizes the methods proper to every science and technique. Consequently, methodical research in all branches of knowledge, provided it is carried out in a truly scientific manner and does not override moral laws, can never conflict with the faith, because the things of the world and the things of the faith derive from the same God.  The humble and persevering investigator of the secrets of nature is being led, as it were, by the hand of God in spite of himself, for it is God, the conserver of all things, who made them what they are. We cannot but deplore certain attitudes (not unknown among Christians) deriving from a shortsighted view of the rightful autonomy of science; they have occasioned conflict and controversy and have misled many into opposing faith and science.

However, if by the term “the autonomy of earthy affairs” is meant that material being does not depend on God and that man can use it as if it had no relation to its creator, then the falsity of such a claim will be obvious to anyone who believes in God. Without a creator there can be no creature. In any case, believers, no matter what their religion, have always recognized the voice and the revelation of God in the language of creatures. Besides, once God is forgotten the creature is lost sight of as well.6

Autonomy and academic freedom must be placed at the service of truth.

This is particularly true in the discipline of theology. Catholic theology properly understood is “faith seeking understanding” (fides quaerens intellectum). For the theologian, the starting point is faith. Catholic faith is to the Catholic theologian what the periodic table is to the chemist. The chemist may be “free” to reject the periodic table as an “external constraint” to his or her free inquiry. But with this the chemist ceases, in any meaningful way, to be a chemist. He or she may be practicing some kind of discipline, but it will look a lot more like alchemy than chemistry. Similarly, the Catholic theologian who rejects the faith of the Church as interpreted and handed on by the Magisterium of the Church ceases in any meaningful way to be a Catholic theologian.

The Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith stated this in its Instruction on the Ecclesial Vocation of the Theologian:

Among the vocations awakened in this way by the Spirit in the church is that of the theologian.  His role is to pursue in a particular way an ever deeper understanding of the Word of God found in the inspired Scriptures and handed on by the living Tradition of the Church.  He does this in communion with the Magisterium which has been charged with the responsibility of preserving the deposit of faith.7

This wonderfully describes the vocation of the theologian.

Even secular sources recognize that academic freedom is not an absolute.  In a provocative editorial in The Chronicle of Higher Education entitled “Academic Freedom is Not a Divine Right,” scholar Stanley Fish states that academic freedom is a freedom limited to the task at hand—what he calls “freedom for academics—that is, for those engaged in a certain task.”  Fish writes:

It is the nature of that task and not any large abstraction like freedom or freedom of speech that determines the range of permissible and prescribed behavior.  You start with the idea of pursuing a line of inquiry to whatever conclusion it brings you, and then you ask for the freedom to engage in that pursuit without interference from external forces that would tie
you to the agenda of another enterprise.  The freedom you ask for is not added on to the project; it is constitutive of it, for you can’t follow where an inquiry takes you if obstacles are constantly put in your way.  When all is said and done, academic freedom is just a fancy name for being allowed to do your job, and it is only because that job has the peculiar feature of not having a pre-stipulated goal that those who do it must be granted a degree of latitude and flexibility not granted to the practitioners of other professions, who must be responsive to the customer or to the bottom line or to the electorate or to the global economy.  (That’s why there’s no such thing as “corporate-manager freedom” or “shoe-salesman freedom” or “dermatologist freedom.”)8

Indeed, academic freedom is ultimately about the freedom to do one’s job.

Ultimately, the idea of a Catholic University is about the mission to form students to become holy, saintly, well-educated, productive members of the Church and society. The essential characteristics necessary for this task are well laid out in Ex corde Ecclesiae:

  1. A Christian inspiration not only of individuals but of the university community as such;
  2. a continuing reflection in the light of the Catholic faith upon the growing treasury of human knowledge, to which it seeks to contribute by its own research;
  3. fidelity to the Christian message as it comes to us through the Church;
  4. an institutional commitment to the service of the people of God and of the human family in their pilgrimage to the transcendent goal which gives meaning to life. 9

These characteristics have not changed and will not change.  All are necessary if a college or university is to fulfill its mission as a Catholic institution of higher learning.

Father Kennedy’s essay contains many important points, some of which are absolutely essential for Catholic identity.  It also contains criticism of institutions and persons that, at the safe distance of time and space, may seem outdated.  We do not presume to be able to judge these persons and institutions.  Neither would we want to try.  We assume that the men and women of these earlier times were doing the best they could at the time with the lights they had.  Some documents, decisions and approaches obviously did not work to enhance the authentic Catholic witness of our colleges and universities.  Hopefully, we have learned much from these false starts and failed experiments.  Knowing most of the institutions described and most of the major players involved, we believe that, on the whole, these were good-willed and well-intentioned attempts to advance the Catholic intellectual apostolate.  With 20/20 hindsight it is easier now to recognize the failures and mistakes that others have made.

But dwelling on these past problems will not necessarily make the future brighter.  This will come only when we who are now entrusted with the stewardship of our Catholic universities hear the clarion call to fulfill our vocations in Christ.  We must hear and heed the call to what Pope Benedict XVI calls “intellectual charity”:

This aspect of charity calls the educator to recognize that the profound responsibility to lead the young to truth is noth ng less than an act of love. Indeed, the dignity of education lies in fostering the true perfection and happiness of those to be educated. In practice “intellectual charity” upholds the essential unity of knowledge against the fragmentation which ensues when reason is detached from the pursuit of truth. It guides the young towards the deep satisfaction of exercising freedom in relation to truth, and it strives to articulate the relationship between faith and all aspects of family and civic life. Once their passion for the fullness and unity of truth has been awakened, young people will surely relish the discovery that the question of what they can know opens up the vast adventure of what they ought to do. Here they will experience “in what” and “in whom” it is possible to hope, and be inspired to contribute to society in a way that engenders hope in others.10

It is this commitment to charity grounded in the Gospel of Jesus Christ that requires of us that we be faithful stewards of our great heritage and bearers of hope to those entrusted to our care.

Preface to the Third Printing

The Apostolic Constitution on Catholic Universities is the official document of the Catholic Church dealing with Catholic universities.  It is known from its opening words in Latin as Ex corde Ecclesiae.  Issued in 1990, it still has not been fully accepted by most of the Catholic universities of the United States. A complex and protracted document history eventually resulted in The Application of Ex corde Ecclesiae for the United States, which became particular law in 2001 through the action of the American bishops.

Years earlier, the American bishops had appointed a committee to recommend national directives for the application of Ex corde Ecclesiae to the United States.  This committee met with a committee appointed by the Association of Catholic Colleges and Universities, but substantial agreement was difficult to obtain. A pro-tem agreement was signed in June 1996, but many competent observers considered this to have been simply a papering over of substantial disagreement. Further re-workings were required to obtain final Vatican approval. The intransigence of American Catholic universities continues to have a great effect on the Canadian situation. It was not until 2006 that ordinances approved by the Canadian bishops for the implementation of Ex corde Ecclesiae took force.

Charles Rice, now an emeritus professor of the University of Notre Dame Law School, believes that several Catholic universities are past the point of no return, and has listed the three most contentious requirements of the Apostolic Constitution: (1) those teaching theology must have a mandate from the bishop of the diocese in which the university is located; (2) the university should adhere to the teaching of the Church’s Magisterium; and (3) the majority of the faculty must be Catholic.11

Concerning the first point, Kenneth Whitehead has traced the history of contemporary negotiations between Catholic universities and the Holy See back to their beginning in 1968 and the founding of the International Federation of Catholic Universities (IFCU); in its 1972-74 document the IFCU said that bishops have both the right and the duty to intervene in university matters, even to the point of declaring teachings to be incompatible with Catholic doctrine.  And Whitehead points out that the 1983 Code of Canon Law requires teachers in the theological disciplines to have a teaching mandate from the competent ecclesiastical authority (canon 812).12 In 2001, the American bishops authorized publication of Guidelines Concerning the Mandatum in Catholic Universities, intended “to explain and serve as a resource for the conferral of the mandatum” according to the binding ordinances of The Application.

Concerning the second point, Gerald Bradley, another Notre Dame Law School faculty member, states that “our university theological establishment is neck deep in dissent from authoritative church teaching,” and Ralph McInerny, also of Notre Dame, claims that, for American universities, “The enemy is no longer a Vatican bureaucracy but the faith itself.” A quote from the late Archbishop Fulton Sheen is still instructive: “I tell my relatives to send their college-age children to secular institutions where they will have to fight for their faith, rather than to Catholic institutions, where it will be stolen from them.”13

The late Monsignor Terry Tekippe of Notre Dame Seminary in New Orleans studied the declaration of the Catholic Theological Society of America on this matter, and said that its “statement appears aggressively to separate the Catholic college or university from any connection or responsibility to the larger Church.”14

Concerning the third point, McInerny laments: “A laicized priest, a former religious, a fallen-away Catholic, or a Protestant may be at the front of the classroom. Recently a student told me that, in his biology course, the assigned content was tossed out in favor of prolonged bull sessions on women’s ordination. The student, having noted that several recent magisterial documents dealt with the matter, suggested that these be read and studied. The suggestion was laughed away. The instructor was Lutheran. This is far from being an isolated incidence.”15

Tekippe believed that “the question of the future of the Catholic university in the United States, then, becomes the question whether a critical mass of faculty and administrators, committed to the Catholic model of the university, is present, or can be hired in the foreseeable future.”  “In my sober estimate,” he wrote, “that is likely in a minority of universities…but not in a majority.”16 One example of the decline of Catholic faculty in Catholic universities is the University of Notre Dame. The Sycamore Project reports in 2008 only about 52 percent of the faculty are Catholics, down from 85 percent in the 1970s.17 Project President William Dempsey concludes, “Worse, with a reduction to account for dissident and nominal Catholics, there is no longer a faculty sufficiently Catholic to sustain the school’s historic claim to Catholic identity.”18

An organization dedicated exclusively to the re-Catholization of de-Catholicized universities in the United States, The Cardinal Newman Society, began in 1993.  It contacts administrators, faculty, students and alumni of American Catholic universities in an effort to improve the faith commitment of these universities in the short run and to save the universities for the Church in the long run.  I am pleased that this organization through its research division, The Center for the Study of Catholic Higher Education, is republishing this book.

How to Keep Your University Catholic has been written in the hope that at least some of the many Catholic colleges and universities of the United States and Canada may be saved for the Faith.

Preface to the First Printing

Two words in the title of this book should be explained at the outset. For the sake of simplicity, and with only a few obvious exceptions, “university” stands for
college or university. “Catholic” implies “loyal to the teachings of Christ as proposed by the Catholic Church’s Magisterium.” Today, many load this word with various unorthodox meanings, but I have no desire to preserve inauthentic Catholicism in our institutions.

It is my contention that Catholic universities in the United States are not healthy. This book is based on the premise that the condition of these universities can be improved. Perhaps other denominations will find it useful also. The basic problem in nearly all our Catholic universities is not financial, but whether or not to be truly Catholic. Many persons believe that, if the financial problem were solved, all would be well. This delusion is widespread, despite the fact that some of our universities are flourishing financially and close to bankruptcy religiously. The late writer Christopher Derrick states:

Within American higher education today, it is becoming increasingly unreal to apply the objective “Catholic” to institutions which once claimed it proudly and with good reason….In a number of cases, the college has frankly renounced its claim to have a distinctively Catholic character, usually in return for government money. This was at least honest. But that claim often continues to be made even where it has lost all plausibility.19

Ralph McInerny writes:

Unless we say our prayers and God is merciful there will be no colleges or universities worthy of the name Catholic before many years have passed. Except for the new ones, like Thomas Aquinas, Thomas More, Christendom.20

Alice von Hildebrand says:

The sight that confronts us is a pitiful one….Wherever we look, we see only ruins: many Catholic universities have been closed; others have betrayed their Catholicism and are vying with secular universities in their secularism….Catholic schools, colleges, and universities have been sold to the “spirit of the time”; they have caught the “ism” disease, succumbing to subjectivism, relativism, historicism, or idealism. For all practical purposes, in several of these schools, God is dead.21

And we have an equally dismal picture from a special committee struck by the American Philosophical Association to examine the teaching of philosophy in Catholic universities. Claiming that Catholic universities “are vague and confused about their objective and their nature,” the committee says:

In many “Catholic” colleges, a good number of professors are either not basically committed to passing on a Catholic tradition in any definable sense of the term or, if they are, they find their own work…not relevant to any properly Catholic objective….Some “Catholic” colleges…judged “the Catholic philosophical tradition to be either of small or of no relevance whatever to their teaching.” The chairman of philosophy in one large “Catholic” university replied that none of almost a dozen full-time philosophers found the Catholic philosophic tradition relevant to their teaching.22

My own study will not be exhaustive; it is not the result of surveys based on questionnaires sent to all Catholic universities. Such a study would have its value, but more needed is a modest program for immediate implementation. The program presented here, and its practicability, have to recommend them actual participation in, and reading about, the life and difficulties of Catholic universities over many years. I have been dean of philosophy in an American Catholic university and president of two Catholic colleges in Canada. Most of the problems of being Catholic are common to the universities in both these countries.

How to Keep Your University Catholic

Author’s Note

This publication is a straightforward guide to help those committed to promoting a true Catholic identity at Catholic colleges and universities. This prescription covers the role of bishops, trustees, administrators, faculty members and students, as well as the impact of the curriculum, academic freedom, “indoctrination” and federal aid.

A Case Study

One common reason for Catholic institutions diluting their Catholicity has been a real or imagined threat of going bankrupt, a fear intensified by the realization that the number of priests and religious on the faculty is steadily decreasing. This fear is the reason for all but one of the Catholic universities of New York State accepting state money on condition that they restrict their Catholicity.

Foreseeing that situation, Fordham University in New York commissioned two lawyers to determine what changes would have to be made if Fordham were to cease being Catholic and so become eligible for state funds as a private university.

Their report, published in 1970,23 is thorough, well-written, and includes an excellent summary of the state-church relations with regard to education. The report notes that New York State forbids aid to universities “in which any denominational tenet or doctrine is taught.” In another state the report’s recommendations may have been in degree rather than in kind. According to the report, courts and judges would consider a university non-sectarian only after considering many aspects of the institution, such as:

  1. Its description of itself.
  2. The manner of selecting the governing board.
  3. The manner of selecting administrators, faculty, and students.
  4. The university’s ties with a religious community, or its financial arrangement with a church or body affiliated with a church.
  5. Associations in which the university holds membership.
  6. Religious symbols.
  7. Whether Catholic religious observances are required, facilitated, or suggested.
  8. Whether religious activities of non-Catholic groups are encouraged or allowed.
  9. The place of religion in the curriculum.
  10. Extracurricular religious activities.

The suggested changes for Fordham to achieve a nonsectarian status were sweeping. Some of them were:

  1. It should not call itself Catholic and should, in its self-description, sound as secular as possible.
  2. The Jesuit monopoly of legal power should be terminated.
  3. The president should not have to be a Jesuit; faculty should not have to be Catholic or even sympathetic toward Catholic principles or committed to the Christian way of life.
  4. The university should distance itself from parts of it that are too obviously Catholic: its preparatory school, the John XXIII Center for Eastern Christian Studies, the main chapel, the Jesuit residence, and the graduate theology section.
  5. Some non-Catholics, or at least “Catholics who have had a nonsectarian education experience,” should be hired to teach theology.
  6. The university should discontinue membership in organizations whose members must be distinctly Catholic.
  7. Most of the crucifixes should be removed.
  8. The Cardinal Bea Institute (which studies the relevance of religion to contemporary life) should become less distinctively Catholic.
  9. There should be “a greater infusion of…secular and non-denominational activities on the summer-time campus.”
  10. Non-Catholic religious groups should be allowed use of one or more of the university’s chapels.
  11. No Catholic “tenet or doctrine” should be taught.

We would hardly believe that Fordham could have contemplated taking any such steps until we discover, however, that some of the more unpalatable ones had already been taken and more were on the way. In its advertising, for example, Fordham was hiding its Catholicity. An official in the Admissions Office said: “We make a secular university pitch, never a religious one. We don’t sell Fordham as a place where you can save your soul. The kids to whom we are talking want to know whether they can get a good education at Fordham—and a good job afterward.” Already somewhat tolerant of non-Catholic teaching in the theology and philosophy departments, Fordham was slowly to become more indifferent: “Fordham, has done enough—and will no doubt in time do even more—to show persuasively that…faculty members who are theologians and philosophers…are not doctrinally shackled.” A newly proposed statement of academic freedom dropped this sentence: “The teacher in entitled to freedom…but he should be careful not to introduce into his teaching controversial matter which…is contrary to the religious…aims of the institution.” If religious aims remained at the end of its transformation, Fordham professors would not have to respect them.

The authors found that the theology department had already dropped any concern about being “a place where you can save your soul.” Indeed, according to the authors, “the Department of Theology declares purposes in terms that might readily be adopted by any of the scientific or humanistic departments of the University.” And the students’ code, they note approvingly, was already “completely secular in tone.”

It is clear that Fordham had lost much of its Catholic nature before it commissioned a study of how it could cease to be Catholic to the extent necessary for receiving government funding. Did a desire for government aid come after the Catholicity had waned?

That secularization and government aid are two different issues is more easily seen in Canadian Catholic colleges. In Canada the state may help religious institutions provided it does not favor one denomination. The execution of this principle belongs to the ten provinces individually, each of which is in charge of its own educational policies. In some of these provinces at the present time, Catholic elementary and secondary schools are fully funded for both capital and operational expenses; in some, Catholic and other denominational colleges, as part of the provincial universities, are fully funded operationally, but are responsible for their own capital expenditures such as construction. Better funded by the government than their counterparts in the United States, these Catholic colleges are not all doing well with regard to their Catholicity, however.

Fordham University, one surmises, hoped to balance being Catholic against being non-sectarian in order to gain sufficient state aid and continue to exist. But how is it possible to be Catholic and non-Catholic? If New York State cannot give aid to a university which teaches Catholic doctrine, and a university which does not teach Catholic doctrine cannot be a Catholic university, how can aid be received without the university foregoing its Catholic identity? Even the authors of the Fordham study advert to this danger: “…public aid is not worth having if it can be gained only by ignoring the goal a college or university is striving to attain.”

At any rate, Fordham applied for nonsectarian status and state aid, and on February 19, 1970, the State of New York decreed “that Fordham was no longer a sectarian institution.” Now, if it is not sectarian, how can it be Catholic? And, if it is not Catholic, how can it be Jesuit?

The amount of money received from New York State is comparatively little. A colege in Rochester formerly conducted by my own religious community, which made itself non-sectarian, receives only four percent of its budget from New York State.

One might expect some of these universities to have realized their mistake, but a certain internal logic works against reversing such a step. First, people do not like to admit that they have been wrong. Second, the institutions become dependent on the money, however small the amount. Third, one step involves others, so that extrication becomes almost impossible. After all, once there is a secular definition of academic freedom, the institution is very soon practically a secular university.

Fordham provides a convenient example: In the 1980s it was charged by the State of New York with religious discrimination, being sued by Dr. Phyllis Zagano for not reappointing her to the faulty of the Department of Communication because she was “too Catholic”; the head of the department who opposed her reappointment wrote for a pornographic magazine; and Fordham’s Jesuit president defended the department head’s doing so.24 Decisions, after all, have consequences.

The Bishop

Who is the “your” in How to Keep Your University Catholic? A professor? A group of professors? The president? An alumni organization? A religious community? It may be any and all of these, but ultimately the bishop and the trustees (or directors, or regents, as they may be called) must be won over. It is to them, therefore, that this book is primarily addressed.

In some diocesan universities the bishop is chairman of the trustees, in others simply a member of the trustees, and in others not a trustee. But is should make no difference. And it should make little difference whether a university is conducted by a diocese, a group of Catholic laity, a religious congregation, or a board of trustees set up by a religious congregation; for, according to the 1983 Code of Canon Law, a bishop has the duty and right to see that the principles of Catholic doctrine are faithfully observed in all institutions of higher studies in his diocese which call themselves Catholic (canons 810, 814). He can declare a university to be Catholic or no longer Catholic (canon 808) and can withdraw from anyone teaching theological subjects the mandate to do so (canon 812). No doubt these powers should be exercised only after other means of dealing with difficulties are exhausted; these canons are first of all intended to ensure that a Catholic university will consult with the local bishop. Of course, if a bishop has a diocesan university, he could influence it more readily than otherwise.

The chief barrier to bishops exercising, or trying to exercise, effective influence over universities in their dioceses is one of attitude. Up to 1960 Catholic universities transmitted the faith, and bishops could follow a policy of benign neglect. But, although the faith has not been transmitted well since 1960, the bishops have continued their policy of neglect to the point that some are encouraging universities to become independent of bishops and the Pope. Both an archbishop and an auxiliary bishop signed the Land O’Lakes (Wisconsin) document of 1967, advocating that Catholic universities be free of church authority.25 And, in the bishops’ only pastoral letter on Catholic higher education,26 there was no mention of episcopal rights vis-à-vis theologians, but simply a wish that there be “a fruitful cooperation with theologians” and that a “delicate balance” be maintained. An archbishop gave an imprimatur to the American commentary on the new Code of Canon Law27which states that the Code does not apply to North American universities.28 And a president of the National Conference of Catholic Bishops has stated that “there is no reason in principle that the accepted standards of academic freedom should not be accepted in the study of Catholic theology,” thus accepting a definition of academic freedom which is opposed to canon law.29 Then, too, the bishops’ own university, The Catholic University of America, was a hotbed of dissent in the 1980s, its then-president pushing for a secular definition of academic freedom in the university’s own publication.30 And action against its dissent came, finally, from the Vatican rather than from the American bishops.

If the identity of Catholic universities is to be preserved, bishops will have to exercise their authority, a task best done through the trustees. For since any institution calling itself Catholic must follow Canon Law, those who legally control it, the trustees, are likewise bound by Canon Law. Nevertheless there remain those like Father Hesburgh, C.S.C., a former president of Notre Dame, who once said that the university’s trustees would not obey the local bishop because they are bound by the articles of the board of trustees.31 This is to deny the right of the Church to tell a Catholic university what the Board’s articles should say. As long as Notre Dame calls itself Catholic, its trustees are bound by Canon Law and therefore required to see that the principles of Catholic doctrine are faithfully observed at Notre Dame. If the present articles of the Board do not provide for such observance, they should be revised to accord with the sacred canons and to facilitate the bishop’s supervision of the university.

Ex corde Ecclesiae, issued by Pope John Paul II,32 has made this matter clear: “Every Catholic university…has a relationship to the Church that is essential to its institutional identity. As such, it participates most directly in the life of the local Church in which it is situated. At the same time…each institution participates in and contributes to the life and the mission of the universal church…One consequence of its essential relationship to the Church is that the institutional fidelity of the university to Christian message includes a recognition of and adherence to the teaching authority of the Church in matters of faith and morals” (27).

Ex corde says that bishops “should be seen not as external agents but as participants in the life of the Catholic university”(28), and that “a Catholic university is linked with the Church either by a formal, constitutive, and statutory bond or by reason of an institutional commitment made by those responsible for it” (Norm 2, 2). It also states that “a university…is to incorporate these general Norms…into its governing documents and conform its existing statutes both to the general Norms and to their applications and submit them for approval to the competent ecclesiastical authority” (Norm 1, 3). A university is also required “to make known its Catholic identity” and, “particularly through its structure and its regulations, is to provide means which will guarantee the expression and the preservation of this identity…” (Norm 2, 3). If a problem arises concerning a university’s Catholic character, “the local bishop is to take the initiatives necessary to resolve the matter…, if necessary with the help of the Holy See” (Norm 5, 2).

We can see from these provisions of Ex corde that bishops are empowered to recognize as Catholic only those universities which require of the Board of Trustees, the administrators, and the faculty, a formal institutional commitment to the truth of the Catholic faith and to the authority of the Church’s Magisterium, and whose curriculum and organization of student life reflect this commitment.

In the present crisis in Catholic universities, many bishops will have to act. Prudence dictates strong action in critical situations. Why, then, cannot each bishop ask universities within his jurisdiction to have the articles of the board of trustees explicitly accept the teaching of the Church and the canonical authority of the bishop? Such a request could uncover unresolved problems in the relations between a bishop’s universities and the Church.

Unfortunately, ambivalence over dissent has kept many bishops from acting against their universities.  We must ask,“If the trumpet give forth an uncertain sound, who will prepare for battle?”  The disorder in our universities is a continuing cause of disorder in the Church, but it is also, at a deeper level, a result of it.  For this reason, a diocese which has not decided to reform dissent in general cannot hope to reform dissent in its universities.

The Trustees

According to civil law, the board of trustees has ultimate authority over a Catholic university. We have examined the board’s duty to have the statutes of the university recognize Church law. Now let us look at the composition of the board. In the euphoric atmosphere of the last twenty-five or more years, many religious communities felt guilty about owning universities. There was a vague feeling that it was more appropriate to surrender control of them, with the result that many religious orders, acting rather imprudently, gave their control away. They did not consider setting up a purely advisory board, whose advice would always be followed except in decisions detrimental to the religious nature of the institution; or a board with full power but whose members were chosen by, and held office at the pleasure of, the religious community or episcopal corporation. Nor did they limit membership on the board to Catholics. In many cases, then, Catholics were chosen initially, but later appointments included non-Catholics or nominal Catholics. Often, too, members of the religious community or episcopal corporation on the board were in the minority.

Most boards, in religious matters as in academic ones, follow the wishes of the president and faculty. In other words, except in financial matters, boards do not formulate policy. Consequently many boards do not concern themselves with the preservation and improvement of the university’s religious goals. Once this situation develops, the Catholicity of such institutions is in jeopardy. And, indeed, once the trustees accept, explicitly or implicitly, that first step towards de-Catholization, the slope downward is slippery indeed.

In a Catholic institution, the board’s chief responsibility is to safeguard its religious nature. Ex corde says that “the responsibility for maintaining and strengthening the Catholic identity of the university…is entrusted principally to…the chancellor and/or a board of trustees or equivalent body…” (Norm 4, 1). And, unless the board is composed mainly of committed Catholics, it is simply unrealistic to think that it can carry out its task. How can a board preserve an institution as Catholic if the board itself is not thoroughly Catholic? The Association of Catholic Colleges and Universities has been lyrical in its praise of appointing non-Catholics as members of boards.33 My own experience has been that the scholastic adage operatio sequitur esse (“a thing acts in accordance with its nature”) is as valid here as anywhere and admits of no exceptions.

Assuming, however, that we have a board that wishes to maintain a Catholic university loyal to the Magisterium, we must next explore the wording of its statutes and by-laws. Legal assistance should of course be sought, but the lawyers themselves will need guidance in their task.  The final arbiter as to what is, or is not, the teaching of the Magisterium should be the local bishop. An alternative would be to make the arbiter a small committee composed of, say, the bishop, the chairman of the board of trustees, and the archbishop of the ecclesiastical province concerned (or a neighboring archbishop if the university is in an archepiscopal see). No doubt the law will require some concrete arbitration procedure and a concrete arbitrator or arbitration panel, and such can be arranged.

This matter of statutes and by-laws is extremely important: everything should be set down in writing and approved by the board. At the time of their founding most Catholic institutions had so clear a purpose and nature that the principles and details of operation were seldom committed to writing or explicitly approved. The situation is different today. The university’s policies on all matters must be put in writing and be approved by the highest governing body. In this way the policies can shape the institution, and be less threatened when disputes arise.

I repeat: the Catholicity of a university rests with the board of trustees. If the board does its work well, receiving direction from canon law and working in harmony with the bishop, the institution will retain its authentic religious nature. Perhaps the most significant passage in Ex corde is this: “The identity of a Catholic university is essentially linked to the quality of its teachers and to respect for Catholic doctrine. It is the responsibility of the competent authority to watch over these two fundamental needs in accordance with what is indicated in Canon Law” (Norm 4, 1).

The Administration and Faculty

Since we are dealing in this book with only one point—the Catholicity of our universities—we must take for granted that, in appointing administrators and faculty, the board will assure itself that candidates have sufficient training, competence and experience to fill job requirements other than those required by the religious nature of the institution. The point here is that the religious character of the university determines the most important requirements for administrators and faculty. The religious dimension of the university has as its goal the religious formation of the students, a goal which will be achieved primarily through the influence of administrators and faculty for, although the functions of the university chaplaincy are important, they can only supplement the influence of administrators and faculty; they cannot equal it. For example, on a secular campus, as much as a chaplain might try to counteract this influence, his success will be limited. At worst, unsuitable administrators or faculty members may thoroughly undo the work of the chaplaincy; at best they will lessen it.

Administrators are no less important in Catholic universities than elsewhere: they set the tone for faculty and students, and they have great influence in appointments of faculty. Great care is required therefore in the appointment of the president and other administrators. They should be committed Catholics, with a thorough knowledge of Catholic theology and Church history, convinced of the importance of Catholic universities and what is required to keep them Catholic. The president, in particular, will be the instrument through whom the trustees will implement many of their decisions. The Ex corde says that “the responsibility for maintaining and strengthening the Catholic identity of the university…calls for the recruitment of…administrators who are both willing and able to promote that identity” (Norm 4, 1).

I never cease to be surprised at the lack of concern in some administrators about appointing committed Catholics. They may admit that a certain number of the faculty should be such Catholics, but no more. Rarely is such a qualification a sine qua non of appointment. Yet the Code of Canon Law reads: “It is the duty of the competent statutory authority to ensure that there be appointed teachers who are not only qualified in scientific and pedagogical expertise but also outstanding in their integrity of doctrine and uprightness of life (canon 810). It is thought fanatical to suggest that all faculty members should be good Catholics. What was taken for granted some decades ago is now denied without an argument. And, should administrators deign to argue the matter, they always raise the same eleven points:

  1. It would not be possible for us to discontinue the contracts of a large number of people, many of whom have tenure.

To this I reply that there is a difference between hiring and firing. We are not recommending an undoing of the past but a fresh start for the future. There are obvious obligations to present faculty, who will understandably be afraid of being let go. If job security is not assured at the outset, nothing will be accomplished.

2. There are many Catholics whom I would not want on the faculty.

Strange to say, this argument is frequently encountered. Of course, no one is suggesting that faculty be hired solely on the basis of their being Catholic. The principle is that, in addition to being competent teachers, in addition to being congenial and hardworking, faculty members should be good Catholics.

3. No one can say whether a person is a good Catholic.

This statement can be interpreted in two ways. It may imply that the Catholic faith is so amorphous that practically anyone calling himself a Catholic must qualify as a good one. What an institution needs, then, is an objective criterion, and an effective one is at hand: does the person wish to be loyal to the Church’s Magisterium? If so, the understanding of the faith is clear enough, since it can be found in the 1994 Catechism of the Catholic Church. If not, the very notion of a test of Catholicity has been abandoned, and the institution can only end up being of disservice to the Church. The second meaning of the statement is that a person’s faith and religious practice cannot be determined. But this is simply erroneous; determining it is as easy or as difficult as learning what the person’s teaching competence is. A diligent inquiry may be required in either case, but it is equally possible in both.

4. Seeking information of this type is illegal.

Legal matters can be settled by consulting a competent lawyer. And consultation shows that such information may be asked for. Federal and state (or, in Canada, provincial) laws allow religious educational institutions to use religious faith and practice as a criterion in appointments as long as the criterion is publicly stated. It is therefore as alarming as it is revelatory to see Catholic colleges advertising without reference to their religious commitment, or even stating that they hire without discrimination as to creed.

5. At our particular institution we have accepted state aid and have given up the right to prefer Catholics.

To this I say that it would be better to refuse state aid and save the nature of your institution.

6. There are some wonderful people on our faculty who are not Catholics. They are good teachers, congenial, and dedicated to the purpose of the institution.

Of course, we all know such persons and are thankful for them; but we should not argue by exceptions. We want the ideal professors. If one is not available in a given case, we have to approximate to the ideal. Most of the time this will still result in appointing someone who is a good Catholic, though it may be that a devout Protestant Christian would be hired.

7. We shouldn’t live in a ghetto.

This slogan is often used. There are two replies. The first is that no ghetto could survive in the modern world, even if it wanted to. Students view television and films, read newspapers and magazines, and meet every kind of person. This leads to the second and the real reply to this slogan; that is, that in one sense we do want a “ghetto” as an oasis where Catholics can be Catholics, where the faith can be expressed, discussed, and developed. Only with this kind of help will they be able to remain committed Christians in a secular world.

8. The Church wants its institutions to be ecumenical.

Correct. But true ecumenism is an attitude of understanding joined to charity, not of indifferentism. In Catholics it requires a thorough knowledge of their faith. To turn out graduates who do not know their own religious tradition is to be anti-ecumenical at the most fundamental level. The ecumenical orientation of our colleges would be better expressed by dialogue with other religious institutions, not by confusion at home. Furthermore, faculty hired today will often be on staff for thirty or forty years. An institution could easily become more “ecumenical” than Catholic.

9. Hiring good Catholics is important in the theology department, but it is not necessary for other departments.

If only our colleges would hire, for their theology departments, Catholics loyal to the Magisterium! We would then see more clearly that all the departments of the university should contribute to the Catholicity of the students’ education. If these latter departments were to present their subject in a framework of faith, they would deepen the students’ ability to integrate their knowledge and their religious belief. Why should a Catholic college not use all its resources? And what type of person can best help in this work of integrating knowledge and the Catholic faith? An agnostic? Certainly not; this is work for a committed Catholic. Ex corde  states: “Aided by the specific contributions of philosophy and theology, university scholars will be engaged in a constant effort to determine the relative place and meaning of each of the various disciplines within the context of a vision of the human person and the world that is enlightened by the Gospel and therefore by a faith in Christ…” (16).

10. To follow this principle in hiring would be insular and intolerant.

A Catholic university has a definite aim. Achieving it requires appropriate means. The Catholic university cannot achieve its aim without hiring good Catholics, any more than a French-speaking university can attain its goal without hiring French-speaking professors. A Catholic university need not apologize for preferring Catholics any more than does a French-speaking university for preferring faculty who speak French. One could not imagine an American Jewish community allowing a professor to teach anti-Semitism, nor could one imagine the American public faulting the university for not hiring the professor. Similarly Catholic universities should not hire professors whose religious orientation is at variance with Catholicism.

11. Many of our students are not Catholic.

The primary purpose of a Catholic university is to produce Catholic leaders. To form them requires using all the university’s resources. And the primary resource of the university is the faculty. The faculty therefore should be thoroughly Catholic. If non-Catholic students come to a Catholic university, they should do so because it is Catholic. If this is not their motivation they should not be admitted. The presence of non-Catholic students is therefore no reason for making the university less Catholic by hiring non-Catholics.34

If possible, then, all the administrators and faculty in a Catholic university should be practicing Catholics. Why settle for less? Perhaps, in a given case, it may not be possible to find the right person, but one can wait for the right person by making temporary arrangements with the best approximation to the ideal. After all, a Catholic university has the right to be Catholic and therefore the right to use the means necessary to guarantee, and enhance, its Catholicity.

Taking religious commitment as the basic criterion for appointment, the same holds for promotion and for the granting of tenure. A university lax in hiring will be forced to continue in the same lax mode. On the other hand, it could be made clear to professors applying for tenure or promotion that a basic criterion by which they will be judged is their incorporation of religion into their work. It is unfair to bring in new criteria after they are hired. They should know, therefore, from the start, that a deficiency in this matter papered over at the time of their hiring can be grounds for denying promotion or tenure. Ex corde Ecclesiae says that “all teachers…, at the time of their appointment, are to be informed about the Catholic identity of the institution and its implications, and about their responsibility to promote, or at least respect, that identity” (Norm 4, 2), and that “all Catholic teachers are to be faithful to, and all other teachers are to respect, Catholic doctrine and morals in their research and teaching” (Norm 4, 3). Also, “in particular, Catholic theologians, aware that they fulfill a mandate received from the Church, are to be faithful to the Magisterium of the Church as the authentic interpreter of Sacred Scripture and sacred tradition” (Norm 4, 3).

Something similar holds even for tenured professors. Even after receiving tenure they too will know that the religious dimension of their teaching is of prime concern. It is unfair to dismiss them for what was present and known at the time they were given tenure, but not for changes after they are tenured. A Catholic university should not allow teaching opposed to the Magisterium of the Church at any time, whether before or after tenure. The university should be serious and adamant in this matter. Of course,
especially in the case of a tenured professor, the matter must be important and there must be a refusal to correct it, a refusal given in words or deeds. The university’s statutes should state this plainly, and list the steps to be taken in a case of dismissal.

Everyone knows how upsetting and unpleasant a dismissal is. All the more need for care to be taken at the time of appointment, promotion, and the granting of tenure! The words of The Imitation of Christ come to mind: “Resist beginnings; all too late the cure when habit has gained strength by long delay.”

A committee of the American Catholic Philosophical Association, the committee mentioned earlier, warns us of the dangers of appointing faculty who are unsuitable from a religious point of view:

It is foolish not to take into consideration the moral character of a candidate for faculty membership. When a scholar becomes a member of a university faculty, he becomes part of a collegium, a collegium that he will in due course come to influence, whose tone he will help to establish.35

Yet we find universities which do not mention specifically Catholic or even Christian qualities as being normative for faculty. Take, for instance, this statement from St. Norbert College:

Within the academic program the college considers it the responsibility of all members of the faculty to embrace such personal values as integrity, honesty, and concern for others as well as such societal values as a commitment to thoughtful citizenship, social justice, and peace….Some faculty, while neither sharing the Catholic tradition nor the Christian faith, remain at St. Norbert’s because they lead lives of inquiry that support a commitment to the realm of moral value.36

One wonders what “moral value” is envisioned here. Is it: Love of God? Or the Catholic teaching related to the family? Or is it the condemnation of contraception, abortion, homosexual activity and remarriage after divorce? Under so vague a clause Karl Marx and Sigmund Freud would have qualified for appointment. One suspects that this institution’s commitment to Catholicism has already been so diluted by the presence of non-Catholic faculty that the institution is no longer able to state what a Catholic university stands for.

At the heart of Catholic education are good, learned, Catholics, who love God and their faith, and share this love and this faith with the younger members of the university community. Pope John Paul II is certainly convinced of this:

The purpose of a Catholic university lies in the pursuit of research and instruction but such a university must likewise allow the students to carry on their studies in an atmosphere consistent with the faith, to find the means to deepen this faith, to learn the rudiments of the spiritual life and Christian activity….Such a demand concerns first of all the professors on the staff, who must not be afraid of bearing witness to the faith which motivates them, to their ethical reflection in the light of the Church’s teaching.37

I remember few incidents in my undergraduate days that impressed me as much as one of my chemistry teachers marveling in front of the class at the divine wisdom after he had taught us the laws of thermodynamics. I have forgotten the laws of thermodynamics, but not his love of God.

The Students

The primary purpose of a Catholic university is to produce well-trained Catholics who will occupy influential places in society as clerics, lawyers, doctors, nurses, judges, businessmen, educators, and so on, as well as influence others through their roles as spouses, parents, and parishioners. According to Ex corde, students “should realize the responsibility of their professional life, the enthusiasm of being the trained ‘leaders’ of tomorrow, or being witnesses to Christ in whatever place they may exercise their profession” (23).

Most of our universities have enrolled non-Catholics, many in large numbers. Non-Catholics may be enrolled if their purpose is to obtain the special benefits Catholic universities offer, and if suitable Catholics are not thereby prevented from attending. Ex corde states that “the education of students is to combine academic and professional development with formation in moral and religious principles,” and that “courses in Catholic doctrine are to be made available to all students” (Norm 4, 5). In many Catholic universities, however, there are no requirements for the moral or religious education of all students, even of all Catholic students.

Many non-Catholics register in Catholic universities for other reasons: The universities are closer, they are less expensive, a friend is going, the entrance standards are lower, the entrance standards are higher and so on. One might hope that the Catholic environment will have a beneficial effect on such persons, and no doubt it sometimes does. But, to the extent that they really do not want what is distinctive in a Catholic university, they are dead weight at best; at worst they are influences counter to the university’s primary work. It is unfortunate that so many of our universities accept these extra students to balance the books. The temptation to solve a financial problem in this way is strong, and, once given in to, tends to become habitual. Our universities would do better to become smaller, and establish a lower quota, so that they might admit only Catholics and a few special non-Catholics.

Ex corde Ecclesiae declares that, “in a Catholic university,…Catholic ideals, attitudes, and principles penetrate and inform university activities” (14). But how can this be done unless Catholic dogma and morality are omnipresent? And how can they be omnipresent unless the students either are Catholic or are sincerely interested in learning about Catholicism? Ex corde also states that “everyone in the [university] community…contributes…toward maintaining and strengthening the distinctive Catholic character of the institution” (21). To admit students who are not really interested in Catholicism is to make a mockery of such statements.

A fair number of non-Catholics will change the climate of a Catholic university. Crucifixes and other religious symbols will disappear, prayers before class will be eliminated, specifically Catholic topics and teachings will be avoided. A good test of whether non-Catholic students are being admitted for the right reasons and in the right numbers is the continuing Catholicity of the university. And a good indication of admissions policies is the promotional literature of the university. Is the institution called Catholic? Is its Catholicity highlighted? Is the religious purpose of all instruction mentioned?

The Curriculum

We are not concerned here with all aspects of the curriculum but only those involved in the Catholicity of an institution. To simplify our presentation we will also leave graduate programs out of consideration.

A university is not truly Catholic unless it both teaches theology and requires theology classes of all its undergraduate students, no matter what their program. Many Catholic young people emerging from high school are badly informed about their faith; and all need a more mature treatment of their religion during the undergraduate years since, when the dichotomy between what they believe and what they see in the secular world around them strikes home, students often question their beliefs in an adult fashion.

There is much to learn because, while the Catholic faith is simple enough for a child to believe, it is also complex enough to allow a lifetime of study. Undergraduate students therefore need a thorough presentation of the articles of their faith, of the history of Catholicism, of the Old and New Testaments, of the sacraments and the liturgy, of moral theology and spirituality. This is not religious studies, but the study of our faith based on an acceptance of fundamental revealed doctrines. Religious studies examine from the outside the content, history, and present status of various religious traditions. In Catholic theology, the content of faith is accepted as true; in religious studies it is viewed as an historical phenomenon. Catholic universities should teach Catholicism as theology and other religions as religious studies.

The minimum amount of theology required of all students should not be set at less than twelve semester hours. A good selection of courses would be: Dogma; Scripture; Moral Theology and Spirituality; the Sacraments and Liturgy. Of course, there is room for variety here, and perhaps some choice might be allowed, particularly in the later years. But the minimum number of semester-hours should never be reduced.

Should theology courses be required for non-Catholics? It would be unwise to require such courses for Catholics only, for several reasons. First of all, Catholics might see this as “laying a burden” on them from which others are exempt. Second, non-Catholics need theology as much as Catholics do. Third, we have already established the principle that non-Catholics should not be accepted unless they apply because the university is a religious university.

Non-Catholics should therefore be required to take the same number of semester-hours in theology as Catholics. Some universities will also require that they study Catholic theology as well as Scripture and Apologetics, not to require them to accept it as true but to instruct them in this important area of thought and history. If the curriculum is thoroughly influenced by the Catholic faith, as it should be, students should know about this faith in some depth. Other universities will leave the study of the Catholic faith as an option for non-Catholics, and will devise special courses for the ones who do not exercise this option. No doubt most of the non-Catholics will be Protestants; most will probably be poorly informed even about their own religious tradition. Courses in Scripture, in the history and forms of Protestantism, or in issues of morality, would be suitable. No doubt more choice should be allowed in these matters than for Catholics if the number and variety of non-Catholics is great.

However, even courses in the core curriculum designed specifically for non-Catholics should be taught by Catholics. There are three reasons for this. First, it will happen, for one reason or another, that some Catholics will take these courses, if perhaps only for extra theology credits. Second, the variety of students in them does not justify the choice of any one denomination rather than any other. There will probably be atheists, agnostics, Jews, Moslems, Baptists, Lutherans, Episcopalians and so on. There is then no need for any particular non-Catholic professor rather than a Catholic one. Third, professors once hired tend to be on the staff for thirty or forty years. It is no small matter to hire a non-Catholic these days. It would be preferable to hire someone on a temporary or part-time basis if need be. Such a temporary arrangement should, of course, in justice, be made clear, and the person should be properly paid so that a good job will be done.

Philosophy is as important as theology in a Catholic university because it provides an underpinning of faith. It is true that philosophy can be required in universities because it trains students to think clearly and because it studies the history of highly influential ideas. Certainly these reasons are good ones for insisting on philosophy in a humanities program or a liberal arts program but, when we are speaking of a philosophy requirement for all undergraduate students in the university, whether they are in business, nursing, pre-medicine, education, or any program whatever, the only argument is its necessity for developing an educated believer. Philosophy deals in great part with the same matters as theology—the origin of the universe, its purpose of human life, and how that purpose is attained. It can therefore contribute immeasurably to the believer’s appreciation of divine revelation.

Theology never replaces philosophy. It is true that a Catholic, by his faith, knows the truth about these matters, by revelation, but a mature person will always ask for rational, philosophical answers as well, and will not be satisfied until they are given.

The objection is bound to rise that there are many philosophies, frequently contradicting one another in important areas. To simply require courses in philosophy, then, will not achieve the intended purpose. This objection leads however, not to the conclusion that philosophy should not be required, but that the right philosophy should be required.

What is the right philosophy? Obviously it must be a Christian philosophy. A minimum requirement of a Christian philosophy is that it not be in conflict with Christian faith. A non-Christian philosophy cannot be true on the points on which it disagrees with the faith. The choice then narrows down to a decision for one Christian philosophy or for an eclectic selection from several Christian philosophies. Do we have a way of deciding? We cannot simply assume that all Christian philosophies are correct and simply because they do not contradict the Catholic faith.

This is a problem Christians have dealt with since the second century, though most attempts ended ultimately in failure. But there is one philosophy the Church explicitly approves and asks scholars to cultivate—that of St. Thomas Aquinas. To require philosophy of students in Catholic universities while denying them the study of Thomism is to commit an injustice. We must remember that we are speaking here of the courses required of all students and therefore relatively few. It would be a wasted opportunity if all the required courses did not present the philosophy of Aquinas. The time is so short, the object so important, that such a course of action is called for. Of course Thomism
cannot be well taught without other major philosophical systems being studied.  What Thomism would provide would be the core of the program.38

How much philosophy should be required? The minimum should be the same as for theology, twelve semester-hours. Again, there is so much to cover: the existence of God, the nature of God, freedom of the will, the immortality of the human soul, the purpose of human life, and the means by which this purpose is obtained. A good choice of courses might be: The Philosophy of the Human Person; Ethics; Metaphysics; and Epistemology. And these courses might well be taken in that order. Ethics should follow the philosophy of the human person. Ideally it should also follow metaphysics but, being less abstract, it is better taken before metaphysics. Epistemology, theoretically, could well precede ethics and metaphysics but, since it is a second-order science, dealing with knowledge and not directly with reality, it requires knowledge of reality. Consequently it is better taken last. But it certainly should be studied, because our world is rampant with relativism, subjectivism, and skepticism, which must be dealt with head-on at some stage in a student’s career.

With the amount of knowledge students must acquire constantly increasing, and especially with growing demands on major requirements, there will always be agitation among some faculty to decrease the requirements in theology and philosophy, but theology and philosophy must hold pride of place in a Catholic university.

We find a strong statement concerning the importance of philosophy in an address by Alice von Hildebrand, wife of the late Dietrich von Hildebrand and herself a noted philosophy professor:

…[I]t should now be clear that philosophy must play a crucial role in Catholic education….I grant that it is better to study no philosophy than bad philosophy, and that, today, people who have no philosophy at all are usually better off than those whose training is based on the thought of a Russell, a Heidegger, a Sartre (to name but a few). But the fact remains that true philosophy is indispensable for a true Catholic education and, in particular, has crucial importance for theology. My husband used to say that the catastrophic theological systems which are proliferating today are to be traced back to the wrong philosophy on which they are based. Philosophy is so crucial in man’s intellectual life that everyone necessarily has a philosophy of life—and, if this philosophy is not sound, it has a devastating effect on man’s intellectual life. Therefore, it is absolutely essential that a Catholic university embrace and form its students in true philosophy, i.e., in an objectivistic philosophy exclusively based on rational arguments and at the same time in perfect harmony with faith.39

This matter of the amount of theology and philosophy required of all students is one that should be committed to writing by the board of trustees, and any change should require its approval.

We now leave the consideration of theology and philosophy and turn to the other subjects, all of which should be taught from a Catholic point of view. Ex corde teaches that “a Catholic university, as Catholic, informs and carries out its…teaching…with Catholic ideals, principles, and attitudes” (Norm 2, 2). Would that Catholic universities were as serious about this as the evangelical colleges are about coordinating with their curriculum. The president of the evangelical Christian College Coalition (now the Council for Christian Colleges and Universities), wrote:

The stand of our schools is: if you’re earnest about your faith, you can’t compartmentalize it. It weaves through everything you do.40

Obviously some subjects are less connected with the faith than others. But none of them should be taught in such a way as to contradict the faith. And many courses, such as history, psychology, sociology, and literature, touch on religion at every turn. But this is a question of who teaches these subjects rather than of their place in the curriculum, and we have dealt with this already.

A word might be added here concerning residence arrangements. A university which allows students to visit bedrooms of persons of the opposite sex fails in its duty to assist its students to live chastely. Such a disorder parallels in extracurricular matters the curricular disorders with which we are here primarily concerned.

Academic Freedom

The most important issue in Catholic universities at the present time is academic freedom. There are two possible definitions of it. A secular definition would be “the freedom of academic faculty to search for truth in accordance with the canons of their particular scholarly disciplines and to expound the results of this search for truth without undue restrictions being placed on them by university or outside authorities, or, more especially, without jeopardizing their academic positions and their tenure in these positions.”41 A definition suitable for a Catholic university would be the same except for this restrictive addition: “It is understood that faculty are not allowed to teach or write in such a manner as to oppose the religious purposes of their university.” Such a definition is vehemently opposed by the Association of Catholic Colleges and Universities (ACCU)42 of the United States and by several presidents of institutions in the Association, but is required by the Code of Canon Law. Though the ACCU fears more than anything else an effective episcopal presence in our universities, it also opposes any boards of trustees that would safeguard Catholic doctrine.

The freedom of one person or group cannot be absolute but must be exercised in such a way as to respect the freedom of other persons or groups. For example, my freedom to smoke in a public place may legitimately be restricted by the rights of non-smokers who would suffer harm or discomfort from smoke. Now, there is more than one freedom involved in academic freedom. Besides the freedom of the professor there is that of the institution and that of the students. An institution should be free to pursue its goal—in this case to provide Catholic education—and students should be free to receive a Catholic education in a Catholic university. When a professor attacks the religious purpose of his university, he offends against both its freedom and that of its students. What is needed, then, is a means of balancing these freedoms.

A professor who publicly and unrepentantly promotes doctrines opposed to Catholic beliefs is, in the name of his freedom opposing the university’s freedom. Yet, since he is a member of a Catholic university and was aware of its beliefs when he was hired, it is clear whose freedom must give way. This becomes even more cogent given that the freedom of the university exists for the sake of the students’ freedom to obtain a Catholic education. The freedom of both the faculty and the university is ordered to the students’ freedom.

We must remember also that the professor was hired by the institution to help it in its aims, not to oppose these aims. It is consequently an implicit condition of his appointment that he not do so. It would be better, of course, to make such a condition explicit, as well as the procedure to be taken against offenses in this matter.

Most Catholic universities in the United States were founded by bishops, directly or through religious orders, to provide a Catholic education. Benefactors supported these universities because of their religious purpose. The universities, then, have a publicly known purpose that is recognized by canon and secular law. There is no need for these universities to be defensive about their position. Why is it, then, that they are defensive, or even willing to forego their rights?

The National Catholic Educational Association (NCEA) in 1976 provided three answers to these questions. The first is a fear that enemies of the Church:

will contend derisively that truth cannot be upheld and defended without resort to penalties and outside sanctions, confirming for some the suspicion that Catholic institutions cannot be true universities.

The second and third are:

Catholic colleges and universities in the United States cannot deprive faculty members of their civil right as defined by American law, nor limit their academic rights which are supported by accrediting and otherprofessional associations, without severe penalty to the institution, not least of which would be the loss of prestige and influence in American society and particularly in the American intellectual community.43

Apparently the NCEA agrees that Catholic universities are not true universities if they have a religious definition of academic freedom. The fact is, however, that Catholic universities that have adopted a secular definition of academic freedom have not remained substantially Catholic. And the reasons are not hard to find: they cannot defend their nature; they cannot keep their enemies outside; they must fight for their existence with their gates wide open to attack. It is not too much to say that a Catholic university with a secular definition of academic freedom cannot remain Catholic.

My own opinion is that the administrators in these institutions fear that secular colleagues will think less well of them or their institutions if they do not act as secular administrators or universities do. In effect, they share the secular assumption that the Catholic faith is a hindrance to the search for truth. The reason given for accepting a secular definition of academic freedom is that it enables professors to search for truth wherever it may be found, and this includes a search among doctrines opposed to Catholic teaching. But, if Catholic teaching is true, the search for truth among doctrines opposed to it is bound to be fruitless and, usually, harmful. A Catholic university is therefore justified in forbidding the teaching of doctrines opposed to the Catholic faith; indeed, it is required to forbid it. The Catholic faith is to Catholic theology what empirical data are to the natural sciences. Certainly no university would allow its natural scientists to reject or falsify the raw data of science.

The Ex corde says that an “essential characteristic” of a Catholic university is “fidelity to the Christian message as it comes to us through the Church” (13), and that the “institutional fidelity of the university to the Christian message includes a recognition of and adherence to the teaching authority of the Church in matters of faith and morals. Catholic members of the university community are also called to a personal fidelity to the Church with all that this implies. Non-Catholic members are required to respect the Catholic character of the university…” (27). And this applies especially to theologians: “Since theology seeks an understanding of revealed truth whose authentic interpretation is entrusted to the bishops of the Church, it is intrinsic to the principles and methods of their research and teaching in their academic disciplines that theologians respect the authority of the bishops and assent to Catholic doctrine…” (29).

No doubt some of the Catholics who want to have a secular definition of academic freedom in a Catholic university do accept the teaching of the Church’s Magisterium. Yet the logic of their position is faulty. They do not wish to deny their own faith, but the do not mind if their university denies its faith, as it must when its faculty teach what is contrary to the Church’s Magisterium.

The history of the very recent demand for a secular definition of academic freedom in Catholic universities is instructive. It began with the Land O’Lakes document of August 1, 1967, signed by representatives from a number of Catholic universities, including Georgetown, Boston College, Catholic University of America, St. Louis, Fordham, Laval, and Notre Dame. The document claimed “the Catholic university must have a true autonomy and academic freedom in the face of authority of whatever kind, lay or clerical, external to the academic community itself.”44 This was a demand for freedom from episcopal and papal authority. On the other hand, at his meeting with Catholic university leaders in New Orleans in September, 1987, Pope John Paul II stressed that the influence of bishops and the pope is not external to Catholic institutions, but intrinsic to them. The position of the Land O’Lakes signers was adopted by the NCEA in 1976.45 Speaking for 223 Catholic universities of the United States, the NCEA stated that “a juridical relationship between the Church and Catholic institutions in the exercise of their proper autonomy” is not “desirable or even possible….” It patronizingly granted that “bishops and other church leaders can provide significant insights into the particular needs of service to the local Church,” but added: “We believe the word ‘cooperation’ or the phrase ‘mutual respect and support’ best characterizes the kind of relationship that should exist between institutions and Church.”

Furthermore, no American has a civil right to teach what is contrary to Catholic teaching in a Catholic university. Nor do accrediting and other professional associations limit the rights of Catholic universities to be Catholic. So what the Association really fears is “the loss of prestige and influence…in the American intellectual community.”46

Opposed to the Land O’Lakes statement and the NCEA paper is the Code of Canon Law. The Code teaches that bishops have the duty and right to see that principles of Catholic doctrine are faithfully observed in their universities (canon 812); the right to bestow or withdraw the designation “Catholic” (canon 808); and the authority to see that teachers lacking integrity of doctrine are removed from office (canon 810).

Episcopal powers in a Catholic university would be completely stymied by a secular definition of academic freedom, and the university could not long continue as Catholic. That is why the Code implicitly demands a religious definition of academic freedom in Catholic universities.

Much of what has been said so far is justified by the Charles Curran case. Father Curran sued The Catholic University of America because it had refused to let him continue to teach theology.47 The judge recognized that Catholic University “shares with the Roman Catholic Church a common bond of faith and mission to preserve and protect the church’s doctrine,” and that the University aims, at the same time, at “the goal of unfettered and robust academic inquiry.” He saw that this was bound to raise problems but that is was for the University to decide how to resolve them: “On some issues—and this case certainly presents one of them—the conflict between the University’s commitment to academic freedom and its unwavering fealty to the Holy See is direct and unavoidable. On such issues, the University may choose for itself on which side of that conflict it wants to come down…”

What decided the issue was the civil law of contracts: “It is the law of contracts which must govern the decision.” In other words, since the University’s statutes stated that theology professors must have canonical mission, the University can dismiss a professor who loses his: “The court prefers…to rest its decision on the canonical mission requirement incorporated into the contract by the…statutes….” The judge declared that the professors of the University were aware of the relationship between the University and the Church: “no one…could have contracted with the Catholic University of America without understanding the university’s special relationship with the Roman Catholic Church, with all of the implications and obligations flowing from that relationship.”

We thus see that, as far as civil law goes, what a university’s statutes state concerning academic freedom will be upheld in a civil court. The Curran case will be a landmark case. Those administrators in Catholic universities who have been defending a secular definition of academic freedom in Catholic institutions by threatening legal difficulties will now have to rethink their position.

“Indoctrination”

There are those, even among Catholics, who claim that Catholic universities that follow canon law do not teach but rather indoctrinate. This claim is made chiefly with regard to the teaching of theology, but the argument here applies to every subject in the curriculum. Father Hesburgh worries about indoctrination wherever a bishop can require a Catholic university to forbid a professor to teach theology judged to be contrary to Catholic faith.  A generation ago, he wrote:

Obviously, if [the] church…can dictate who can teach…, the university is not free and, in fact is not a true university where the truth is sought and taught. It is rather, a place of…religious indoctrination.48

Father Hesburgh would be right if we did not know that the Catholic faith is true. But a university which does not accept it as true is not Catholic. Why, then, should a Catholic university allow teachers to claim that it is false? We might worry about a bishop making a mistake in judgment, but this worry cannot invalidate the bishop’s right or the university’s duty in general. Of course, provisions have to be made for a proper procedure which will reduce the number of mistakes, but this is a different matter from Father Hesburgh’s denying the general principle altogether.

Is it indoctrination when a Catholic university appoints a committed Catholic to teach theology, or any other subject? “Indoctrination” usually has the pejorative meaning of “induction of convictions by improper means.” Now, any subject taught improperly can become indoctrination. Teaching history is indoctrination if evidence is suppressed; teaching mathematics is indoctrination if students are led to memorize rather than understand; and teaching psychology and sociology is indoctrination if the principles underlying them are passed on by repetition, rather than made explicit and examined. But, just as any subject can become indoctrination, so any subject can avoid this pitfall. Theology can be taught objectively, making clear why it accepts divine revelation and only then interpreting and building on it. Once this principle is publicly stated, to act in accord with it is no longer indoctrination. The professor of theology need not disbelieve what he is teaching or disguise his faith, any more than a mathematics professor need deny the laws of logic. Why should a Catholic university
be allowed to teach mathematics or physics or history as true, and not be allowed to teach Catholicism as true? Not to present Catholic theology as true would be contrary to a Catholic university’s nature.

We find Catholic universities bending over backwards to avoid “indoctrination” in Catholicism. Some teach not morality but “values clarification.” A midwestern Catholic college, for example, wants to avoid a “prescriptive model” of teaching the faith, which would have the teachers “dictating” this faith to their pupils. Instead there is a pursuit of truth: “the pursuit of wisdom and truth, the very reason for the existence of St. Norbert, is manifested…in the curriculum.” This pursuit of truth, we are told, demands that some non-Catholic, even some non-Christian, faculty be appointed:

Some faculty, while sharing neither the Catholic tradition nor the Christian faith, remain at St. Norbert because they led lives of inquiry that support a commitment to the realm of moral values. This pluralism is demanded by the conscientious pursuit of truth in personal freedom by a diverse group of people.49

There are no theology courses, only religious studies courses, none of which are required. Furthermore, the “Values Program” does not mention anything Catholic or even Christian in its objectives.

…The program proposed as its objective several things: [to] help students become explicitly aware of their own value systems and give them the opportunity to compare these to the value systems of others; [to] help students identify their own objectives and their value systems…

From the experience gained thus far, it is evident that the students who have participated in the program have indeed become more conscious of
their own values and more aware of the value component in every decision.

And what has replaced required classes in Scripture, Catholic dogma, and Catholic moral theology? A “religiosity” is fostered by “people processes,” “process-oriented counselor functions,” and “the advisement system.”

We find another example of the avoidance of indoctrination at Loyola University of Chicago. Loyola, to judge by the papers in its symposium on ethics,50 avoids indoctrination in Catholic morality by teaching non-Catholic morality. One speaker says that students should be made “more aware of the moral questions that there are, waiting to be addressed,” but warns against “final answers to moral questions,” as if there were no clear Catholic positions on such topics as abortion, contraception, homosexuality, or marriage after divorce. Indeed, although the editor says that “the panelists presented views that showed that we are not always certain what the norms are,” it would be truer to say that their views claim that we are never certain what the norms are.

Many pages of talks given at this symposium are given over to a presentation and discussion of the “values clarification” teachings of Kohlberg, who, as one of the questioners pointed out, has little to offer Catholic ethicists.51 And, though advertising for the book claims that it contains “a discussion of all aspects of ethics in higher education” (emphasis added), many important aspects are omitted:

  1. What is the relationship between the ethics advocated at the symposium and Catholic teaching? Is Catholic ethics being discussed when the keynote speaker defines ethics as “our relationship to other persons in this world and to ourselves as persons in this world,” with no mention of our relationship to God?
  2. There is no discussion of whether ethics is to be required of some or all students. Actually one hopes that the type of ethics presented here is not required at all. On the other hand, why should a proper ethics not be required, and of all students?
  3. What are the prerequisites for the study of ethics? Can it be studied properly without a knowledge of God and His attributes, without a knowledge of the immortality of the human soul? And where should this prior knowledge come from? From required courses in theology or philosophy, or in both?
  4. Who are to teach these ethics courses? We have shown earlier that they must be taught by committed Catholics, but there is no discussion here of this aspect of the topic.

There is certainly no danger of indoctrination in Catholic thought envisioned by the speakers at this symposium; one would think they were discussing ethics in a secular university. It seems that Catholicism is so carefully handled in this Catholic university that it is less in evidence than other religious traditions:

…in some areas we don’t do as much as other, non-Catholic institutions do, and we are more shy about expressing our religious ethos than our co-religionists, even those here at Loyola, are.

That a Catholic university should publish the papers of such a symposium is an indication of how far down the road to non-Catholicism some “Catholic” universities are.

Federal Aid

The Association of Catholic Colleges and Universities (ACCU), in opposing the Vatican schema, has said that a Catholic university that is too Catholic will be denied federal funds. The claim, worded a little differently, is that Catholic universities not accepting a secular definition of academic freedom, or teaching the Catholic religion as true (“proselytizing”), or following Canon Law, will lose their accreditation and their federal aid. Sister Alice Gallin, O.S.U., then the ACCU’s executive director, said:

Catholic institutions…must meet the standards for accreditation by regional accrediting agencies recognized by civil authorities…Such accreditation, as well as the federal and state funding that accompanies it, requires that institutions respect academic freedom and that the curriculum not be used for proselytizing on behalf of any religion.52 It is virtually certain that such aid would be withdrawn if it could ever be shown that Catholic colleges and universities were “controlled” by the Catholic Church.53 It is clear that the favorable decisions regarding public aid to Catholic colleges or universities are founded on a perception by the court that the church does not control them.54

And Father Theodore Hesburgh, then president of the University of Notre Dame, agreed: “We would stand to lose a lot if we conformed to the dictates of the church.”55
But his view has been denied by Kenneth Whitehead, a former Deputy Assistant Secretary for Postsecondary Education at the U.S. Department of Education.56

Sister Gallin and Father Hesburgh were simply wrong in their contention that accreditation requires a secular definition of academic freedom, and avoidance of the teaching of the Catholic faith, and an avoidance of the effective presence of bishops.

As regards academic freedom, “a religiously affiliated institution requiring a certain standard of doctrinal ‘orthodoxy’ on the part of its faculty…would not jeopardize its accreditation, provided it plainly announces beforehand its requirements in this regard. In practice, the same thing would be true of requirements regarding the moral behavior expected of faculty members of students at the institution.”57 The Northwest Association, for example, an accrediting agency, “specifically affirms that ‘intellectual freedom does not rule out commitment…Institutions may hold to a particular…religious philosophy.’”58

The same applies, of course, to a university’s teaching a specific body of religious doctrines as true: “…if the stated purpose of a religiously affiliated college or university is to provide a higher education within the specific context of the teachings of a given religion or denomination, carrying out this stated purpose would in no way constitute a bar to accreditation….”59

The same is true of a particular church having a great deal of influence over a university:

…neither the accrediting agencies nor the Supreme Court…seem to object to sponsoring church representation on college governing boards. Yet such representation is normally all that a church might require to ensure that a school it sponsors remains authentic from the point of view, for example, of the theology taught there.60

Whitehead also points out that, even if existing accrediting agencies refused to accredit Catholic universities loyal to their Catholicism, these universities could form their own accrediting agency which would be acceptable to the Federal Government provided it met the criteria required of such agencies.61

Some Catholic university authorities have stated that, unless their institutions conform to the secular definition of the Association of American University Professors (AAUP), their institutions will lose their federal grants. But Whitehead has shown that the AAUP does not have a secular definition of academic freedom and, further, that institutions censured by it “go right on being accredited and go right on receiving federal aid.”62

How ironic that it is not the Federal Government but Catholic universities themselves which envisage a withdrawal of federal aid because these universities are religious.

The conclusion is inescapable: “institutional autonomy” and “academic freedom” are defined to permit wider variations in practice. They clearly allow for institutional freedom of religion. Narrowly defined as the freedom of professors to teach what they want or as the freedom of an institution to be free of any constraints from its sponsoring church or other body they are clearly not requirements for accreditation (and hence for federal aid).63

The real danger to Catholic universities, Whitehead points out, is that they might lose their privileges as religious institutions if they become only half-Catholic by divesting themselves of the legitimate control of the church. A university hospital, for example, might be forced to either allow abortions or close up.64

Whitehead asks an embarrassing question of the Catholic universities which claim that federal aid would be lost if the universities accepted Canon law:

What is the real motive and origin of the claim that Catholic colleges and universities must have “institutional autonomy” and “academic freedom”? This inquiry has demonstrated that these things are not strict requirements of the federal or state governments, of the accrediting agencies, or even of the AAUP.65

The answer seems to be that these universities were deceitful: they wanted a secular definition of academic freedom, they wanted freedom from church “control,” and so they proceeded to bully the bishops into accepting half-Catholic universities:

As far as Catholic colleges and universities are concerned, the evidence examined in this enquiry suggests that these colleges first decided they wanted to have “institutional autonomy” and “academic freedom”—and only then decided to adduce supposed government requirements for giving out aid as a principal reason they needed to have these two things.66

If it were actually the case that federal funds would be available only if a Catholic university ceased to be truly Catholic, the fitting reaction of Catholic universities would be to change the system or to forego federal funds. The universities of which we have been speaking, then, which allege that federal funds would be unavailable except to watered-down Catholic institutions, have been wrong not only on a matter of fact but on a matter of principle. It would be crippling to American Catholicism if her
universities were to cease being truly Catholic; and they certainly will cease being so if they accept a secular definition of academic freedom, if they cease to proclaim Catholic truth “with unmistakable clarity,”67 and if they reject that part of canon law which applies to Catholic universities.

Whitehead is convinced that, even if federal funding were denied openly religious universities, it would be possible for Catholics to have the policy changed.

It is fair to say that no public policy opposed with cogent and persuasive reasons by a united Catholic community both knowledgeable and determined about its rights and responsibilities could long survive in the United States. Once again, one has to wonder where American blacks, far fewer in number than Catholics, would be today if they had simply continued to acquiesce in the various kinds of disabilities that a number of courts and state governments had tried to impose of them.68

Certainly the first instinct of any Catholic university should be to oppose unjust laws rather than give in to them. It is, however, an unfortunate characteristic of so many Catholics today to give in to secular pressures rather than to fight them.

Of course, it is quite possible that problems will arise concerning government funding or concerning other sources of financial assistance. But the answer to such problems will be to solve them in such a way that the Catholic university keeps its Catholicism intact.

Afterword

Many persons, on reading this little book, will think it too idealistic, perhaps fanatical, in making its case. They will respond immediately that life is too full of compromises to expect perfection. Now, life is full of compromises, and we are well advised not to expect perfection, but it would be a serious mistake not to know what perfection is, and not to strive for it. To become so accustomed to second-best that one takes it for granted is to make an ideal of the status quo. And to do this is to court disaster.

What has been recommended is, in most cases, a return to the practice of a few decades ago, when many principles questioned today were taken for granted. Some will think this is a step backward, but others will see it as a return, after a failed experiment, to what was good, just as the present liberalism in the Church will finally burn itself out and leave the old orthodoxy intact.

A final point: Perhaps most important for keeping a university Catholic is courage. Of course, knowledge of the importance of a university’s fidelity to the Magisterium, and of the means to bring this about and preserve it, is imperative, but, without firm commitment despite all the difficulties that arise, efforts are useless and the best intentions cave in under pressure.

There should be no compromise on essentials. I know that those who insist on this will be crucified, but the line has to be held. No university administrator or member of a board of trustees can afford to be thin-skinned in our day. The former Rule of my religious community said that no one should accept the post of Superior unless he could steel himself to discipline others when it was needed. And I say that no one should accept the post of Catholic university trustee or administrator unless he can steel himself against all the attempts to dilute his institution’s religious character. To settle for less might give the university the whole world, but only at the loss of its very self.

 

 

 

Crafting Employee Health Plans for Catholic Institutions

/in , /by
Click here for PDF

In the last few years, the Catholic Church and its Catholic institutions have faced attacks through legislation and judicial activism, which are increasingly coming in the form of mandates for health insurance “benefits” that support immoral behavior but not medical necessities. The most recent instances in the news include the federal Equal Opportunity Employment Commission’s (EEOC) ruling against Belmont Abbey College and Wisconsin’s mandate forcing even Catholic employers to provide contraception coverage. Both are extremely troubling though not unexpected in to- day’s increasingly secular environment.

This paper is written from my experience building employee health plans for more than 50 Catholic employers, including several dioceses and religious orders. I do not write from a legal perspective. My concern is finding insurance solutions that avoid the problems of religious discrimination and violations of conscience—“real world” solutions that can be implemented today. Legal advice is also important, but it often only answers one question without examining the non-legal consequences of recommended actions. Health insurance experts like me who work every day with the Church must be concerned with reality and practicality, and not only what is permissible under the law.

The State of Affairs

Let us first consider the moral issues on which Catholic institutions are being at- tacked and which have a current or potential impact on medical insurance. These are many and growing: contraception, abortion, domestic partners, same-sex marriages, “gender reassignments,” sex-change operations, sterilization, stem cell research, in vitro fertilization and several other issues.

The attacks come primarily from two fronts, legislation and judicial activism. The activism is often coordinated and well-funded by Planned Parenthood, the American Civil Liberties Union and others who view the Church and its moral principles as dangerous obstacles that must be eliminated from public policy decisions.

In response to these attacks, the Church’s lawyers typically argue that the constitutional right of religious freedom should protect “religious” institutions from new laws and lawsuits. However, the reality is that it is very expensive to defend an institution in court, and there is significant risk of losing a court battle. The Supreme Courts of California and New York have issued rulings that are very troubling for Catholic institutions, and thus far the U.S. Supreme Court has not enforced First Amendment rights in these situations.

How “Catholic” must a college, hospital or other entity be to qualify for religious exemptions from health insurance mandates? Unfortunately several laws and rulings have denied a religious exclusion because of things like:

  1.  Too many employees are not Catholic.
  2.  Too many people served are not Catholic.
  3.  The institution takes federal funds.

This may be oversimplified, but it makes the point. Catholic charities, hospitals and colleges are going to be in great difficulty with these rulings, even in states that have religious exemptions written into the laws. The courts are defining religious institutions so narrowly, it sometimes seems only a cloistered convent might qualify.

A particularly dangerous line of attack is employee complaints and “discrimination” lawsuits, alleging that by not providing morally offensive “benefits,” employers are discriminatory to women. This is the heart of the Belmont Abbey case. The argument is that by not covering contraception, an employer discriminates against women since they bear a higher burden and cost for birth control. There have been several rulings by the EEOC along these lines, and it is likely that in the current political climate there will be more of this, not less.

Additionally, Catholic institutions can anticipate great difficulties with regard to insuring legally married same-sex couples. While many have argued that the Defense of Marriage Act provides some protection, this law is being challenged on many levels, and Catholic employers should plan for the worst and expect lawsuits in this area.

Designing Catholic Health Plans

The Catholic Church and its institutions will inevitably and increasingly face legal battles, but must act now to make changes that help protect health plans. At the risk of oversimplifying a complex task that requires professional advice, what follows are a few recommendations for Catholic employers.

Plan ahead and stop being reactionary with regard to health insurance. Assume that your institution’s Catholic principles will be challenged eventually; it is not a matter of “if ” but “when” in today’s increasingly secular society. To be safe your institution must have a specifically Catholic health plan in place, not an off-the-shelf product.

Commit today to take a few hours up front dealing correctly with health insurance, first by reading and understanding what your existing policy actually covers. Many Catholic institutions will be surprised by what they find. It helps to have professional assistance, because often the offensive benefits are hidden in vague language and technical insurance terms.

Consider the Belmont Abbey situation. Their health insurer reportedly added contraception coverage without their knowledge, which was readily apparent when officials read the plan documents. However, to be honest, officials and even human resources staff often fail to read such documents in their entirety. The documents are dry and boring and have paragraph after paragraph of highly technical insurance contract language. Unfortunately the consequence of a mistake could be spending hundreds of hours playing defense in a legal system that is not always friendly to Catholic concerns.

When designing or revising your employee health plan, ensure that it is regulated by federal law and not state law, by “self-funding” if at all possible. Almost all state- regulated, fully insured plans are deficient in protecting Catholic institutions. Currently 23 states have mandated contraception coverage. When provisions for abortion, sterilization, in vitro fertilization and same-sex couples are considered, more than half of the states have morally objectionable mandates. The remaining states are constantly moving in the same secular direction. Even in states that do not have these morally objectionable mandates, Catholic institutions are not likely to be safe for the long term in state-regulated insurance plans.

Federal regulation of medical insurance began in 1974 with the Employment Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA), which covers “self-funded” insurance. A section of ERISA specifically provides for “church plans” that generally do not have to pay for morally objectionable “benefits.”

To avoid state regulation, the real-world answer is to “self fund.” That means that instead of paying a fixed premium every month to an insurance company that accepts all the risk of claims, the employer agrees to share the risk. The employer financially “participates” in the cost of the employees’ medical claims. Does this mean that a self- funded plan is riskier than the alternative? Not necessarily. Any insurance plan can have zero risk or a large amount of risk—the latter can include a fully insured plan with a high deductible that the employer reimburses. But many Catholic institutions do not have the resources to gamble on high-risk plans.

In layman’s terms, here is how self-funding works. A plan document is written specifying what the plan pays for. The employee has a plastic card that looks and works just like a fully insured plan. A hired third-party administrator receives and pays claims from the doctors and other health care providers. In a “pure” self funded plan, the administrator would simply bill the employer for the cost of claims plus administrative costs, but few have a plan like that.

More commonly, an employer will purchase an insurance contract to limit the risk per insured on the plan. The employer is now responsible for only the first “X” dollars in claims per person, called the “stop loss” deductible. A large conglomerate might have a $100,000 stop loss deductible; but a smaller organization may have a risk as low as $25,000 a person. Even then, an institution of 100 employees cannot afford $2.5 million in risk, so they buy another type of stop loss insurance called “aggregate stop loss” to limit the maximum claims of the entire group. Aggregate allows the institution to budget, since it now has a firm cap and maximum risk if claims go out of control. If claims are less than the maximum, the employer keeps the funds instead of the insurer.

The bottom line is that self funded does not have to mean unlimited risk. With careful planning many if not most Catholic organizations should be able to find a way to do this.

Getting It Right

Even though I recommend getting out from under state regulation if possible, Catholic employers should not run out and self-fund unless they do it correctly. Many dioceses have had very bad experiences with self-funding, because their advisors were not sufficiently knowledgeable about “church plans,” how to use appropriate language and structure, and other practical details. Self-funding is not bad by itself, but every detail must be considered to avoid serious difficulties.

For instance, consider cash flow: many Catholic institutions are not wealthy, but most stop loss insurance requires them to pay the costs up front and get reimbursed at a later date. For institutions in this position, a third type of insurance, “cash flow protection,” is available to limit employer up-front costs to an annual cap divided by 12 months. It is added protection that many insurance advisors are not always aware of, because their experience with self-funded plans may have been primarily with larger corporations where cash flow is not a primary consideration.

In addition, a “church plan” under federal law must have some very specific language to avoid future challenges. The insurer most likely will not be an expert on Catholic-sensitive language and will offer a boilerplate contract. Do not assume that the Church’s definition of something is the same as the insurer ’s. For instance, the contract must define “family” and other things that may have very different meanings for a Catholic institution and a secular insurer. Every word of the contract must be read and understood, and every exclusion must be examined. You cannot trust that a contract is operating the way your agent, lawyer or other professional claims, unless you read and understand it yourself and consult with a true expert on the very unique needs of Catholic institutions.

The contract needs language controlling when an insurer can add benefits. Several dioceses were recently surprised when they learned the hard way that their insurer had the contractual right to add benefits without their approval. Although the dioceses’ lawyers believed they had a contract that could only be changed on renewal, the insurer had the unilateral right to impose changes—in this case covering contraception in response to a new state law. Thus in the middle of the year the dioceses have a major problem.

Eligibility is also an area where Catholic institutions may run into problems. In the U.S., health insurance is governed by an employer-employee relationship, and insurers expect to see a wage and tax statement showing earnings for each employee. Insurers do not want to cover volunteers who might only be volunteering to gain health insurance because they are ill. But how do we deal with Religious with a vow of poverty? Even if full-time employees, they are not paid; instead their order is often paid for their services. Thus, many Religious and even entire orders have been denied or removed from coverage because they receive no wages. Worse, insurers often do not ask for proof of wages until after the insured has an expensive claim—a terrible time to lose coverage. Again, this is a contractual issue that should be addressed up front.

There are also Catholic Church-specific laws, such as the Downey Amendment, that deal with Medicare for Catholic Religious. It is a very complex law, and most insurers are not even aware of its existence, let alone the application. There has been much confusion that required a ruling by the Center for Medicare Services three years ago, as many dioceses were interpreting the law incorrectly.

There are many more considerations involved in constructing a health plan for Catholic employers. This generally must be done with a custom product, not an off-the-shelf “normal” design. A custom plan often requires the cooperation of the insurer, filing with regulatory agencies and complex legal issues.

Split Off Drugs?

It is sometimes recommended that Catholic institutions should split off drugs—that is, have a fully insured health plan and self fund prescription drug claims—in order to avoid government mandates for contraceptives. It is suggested that such a scheme also produces cost savings, sometimes leading to rebates from the insurance companies that offer such standalone drug programs. My experience has shown this not to be the case, and I would advise against it.

Let us look how drugs are purchased by insurance plans. An insurance company will often subcontract portions of an employer ’s health plan including drugs, trans- plants and networks of doctors and hospitals. All these are normal subcontracted functions under the health plan. With regard to prescription drugs, most health plans use the same four pharmacy benefit managers.

Separating out drugs does not generate any cost savings by itself. There are actually several possible negative economic consequences. Many times drugs are not covered under the stop loss agreements if an employer self funds, but this is especially likely if drugs are covered through a separate plan. If the institution has a fully insured medical plan and then self funds the drugs, it could have unlimited drug cost liability. How would the institution budget? What if it has a terrible year? Will it have adequate reserves?

As for avoiding state mandates, self-funding a drug plan alone may not help. Regulators could simply decide that drugs are part of the major medical plan, regardless of the setup. For instance, when a patient is in the hospital, some drugs are covered under the medical plan; when he leaves the hospital and takes the same drugs, they may be covered by the self-funded pharmacy plan. How does the institution explain that inconsistency? The opportunity for misinterpretation by state regulators is great, and a legal fight to argue otherwise could be costly.

My best advice: do not do it. Leave the pharmacy plan to the insurer and take the huge discounts.

Pool Together?

It is also often recommended that Catholic institutions “pool” together for health insurance benefits, but there are many reasons why a pooled plan could be a disaster waiting to happen.

If the goal is to avoid mandates as a religious employer, the courts have indicated that the pooled entity itself must be “Catholic.” Would that new entity qualify for inclusion in the Official Catholic Directory?

And what about linking an institution’s finances with another entity? My firm has several clients that have struggled through the huge time, effort and cost of fighting sexual abuse lawsuits. One has filed for bankruptcy, and the lawyers aggressively sought to “find” money. Does another institution want to intertwine finances with such a troubled entity at this time? What kind of risk does that add? I know that this is a terrible question, but it is an honest, real-world question. Pools have set up separate corporations to try to limit the risk to individual employers, but the more that the pool or self-funded plan is walled off, the less likely that it will be considered “Catholic” by regulators or the courts. The two goals are somewhat at odds with each other.

Another argument for a pool is the opportunity for a volume discount, which in itself is a good idea. However, a good firm can help employers create groups that are financially separate, with different premium levels, yet receive a volume discount. Think about going to the car dealership and pooling with 10 entities for a fleet dis- count, but writing separate checks. It is the same concept, provides the same net result and risks much less liability, since you do not in fact pool assets together.

You may have heard that XYZ Diocese pools together and it works great. Pools do often work great, right up to the day they do not! Consider a real example:

A large Catholic pool run by a secular broker struggled with passing on necessary rate increases, and the trustees did not fund the plan to the level it needed. The plan nearly ran out of money. The dioceses participating in the plan were surprised by a mid-year assessment. Now how do you budget for that?

Ultimately, when an institution is in a pool, it owns all the risk of the whole pool. It is like owning a condo and having the pool leak. Every unit gets assessed money. It does not matter if a participating institution was excellent and had low claims. Pools generally must have the ability to assess or they run the risk of not having funds to pay unexpected or higher-than-expected costs.

Now here is the real mess: How should the pool assess, or make any similar decision? Should it divide the total amount of the assessment by the number of entities in the pool? The larger entities would favor that, but a smaller entity would want the assessment to be apportioned by the number of insureds for each participant.

So assume that everything is pro-rated according to each entity’s number of insureds—then turn the tables. What happens when the pool needs to pick a network of doctors? Back to my real example: The pool decided on a network that was not great for small rural dioceses but excellent for large dioceses. What could the little guys do? They only had 100 votes, while the big member had 50,000.

At some point the pool will not work for a member institution. Typically it is when the institution is very healthy and the pool is sick. The institution’s rates go up, and its trustees want to leave. It cannot afford the huge premiums, and it can go locally for much less. The institution leaves the pool, thus the remaining participants have fewer people to spread the risk of claims. Rates go up, and more participants leave. This drives the rates way up, and eventually the plan collapses. This is classic “adverse selection” as we call it in the insurance industry.

Now there are rare occasions when adverse selection is tempered. There is a state-specific Catholic pool where one health insurer virtually owns the state, due to restrictive laws; this seems to function well.

But that is the exception. The insurance industry tried for years to form pools through “associations.” They almost all lost money and blew up the pools with huge claims. Remember chamber of commerce pools?

Yet another problem with pools is how to get out. They tend to be thrown together for the sake of what often turns out to be short-term cost savings. Rarely do the pool members ask going in, “What are the rules to leave?” The example I have been using had two small entities leave. One had a surplus and its employees were very healthy; it was not allowed to take their surplus with them when they left. Another entity that left had a deficit of several hundred thousand dollars; it was forced to pay the debt to the pool. This institution had not budgeted for that, believing that the premiums they paid were the maximum required.

Let us say that one entity in a pool is knowingly incurring non-eligible expenses or is poor at controlling eligibility. How do other institutions control a pool participant? One bishop or entity cannot tell another what to do. What is the enforcement action? What if the problem participant is costing other institutions money that they really should not be paying? This is real and happens often. The other institutions cannot do much except maybe leave the pool, but under what terms?

Another example: Many dioceses and even some larger independent Catholic institutions do not have centralized payroll. Their sub-units hire and fire, and the master entity has difficulty controlling and keeping track of who should be on the health plan. In such cases there are often people not on the plan who should be, and others who are on the health plan but should not be.

Consider this also: what if the pool fails or too many groups suddenly pull out? A sick group could have a world of problems. Do groups that leave take pending claims with them? Let us say their insured receive one million dollars of health care on December 31, and the group leaves on January 1. Does the group that left “own” the claim legally, or are the remaining groups “stuck” with it? It is typical for many pools to not fully educate, disclose or address these issues, and so many of their member entities do not fully understand their liabilities.

Conclusion

For many institutions, employee health insurance is the second largest expense after payroll. Yet most will spend less time on their health plan than mundane purchases such as computers or telephone plans. Given the increasing dangers to Catholic institutions because of federal and state regulation of employee benefits, it is critical for Catholic institutions to take a fresh look at their health insurance decisions.

This applies especially to the choice of broker. Most institutions consult only with local general practitioner agents. These may be friends, donors or other honest, hard- working people. The problem is they are not experts in this unique and specialized field, lacking the skill sets, abilities and relationships of Catholic-only agencies. They do not devote all or even a substantial part of their time to Catholic institutions and their particular requirements.

Ultimately, to properly construct a “Catholic” health plan, Catholic institutions need an expert. Think of it this way: if your child becomes ill and needs brain surgery, you would never ask a pediatrician to be the surgeon. In situation after situation, problems could have been avoided if a Catholic institution had hired a Catholic-specific firm to stay on top of changes to the law and to the health plan, avoiding future lawsuits.

The bottom line is that today’s legal and policy environment makes it difficult for Catholic institutions to buy “off the shelf ” health insurance that is morally sound. The good news is that there are ways to craft Catholic health plans. To help navigate the complex issues, there are at least three major firms that work only with the Catholic Church and others with particular expertise in designing plans for Catholic institutions.

Contraceptive Mandates and Immoral Cooperation

/in , /by
Click here for PDF

As the largest provider of nongovernmental, nonprofit health care in the United States, Catholic health care is susceptible to being viewed as just another secular institution engaged in the welfare of the larger society, and at its behest. Those who wish to deny the ministerial nature of Catholic health care have capitalized on this misperception for their own political agendas. Advocates for abolishing sexual mores, for providing abortion on demand and for redefining the human being as a bearer of rights have engaged political structures in their pursuit of reshaping Catholic health care in their own image. They have made some subtle and some blatantly obvious attempts at changing the public perception of the purposes of Catholic health care. These have escalated into legislative initiatives that attempt to force Catholic health care to violate the tenets of the Catholic Church in the delivery of health care.

First, there is a need to correct the misperception that the delivery of health care is a secular endeavor. The Christian woman Fabiola, who established a hospital in Rome around the year 390, was the earliest forerunner of today’s nurse. Her decision to dedicate her wealth and her life to the care of the sick poor was grounded in her Christian faith. St. Benedict founded the Benedictine nursing order, based on the Christian ethic, around the year 500. The very names of the oldest foundations of health care, which continue to exist today—including the Hotel-Dieu in Paris, founded in 660—reflect the religious tradition of health care delivery. A structure for the delivery of nursing care was created by the Christian religious order the Hostpitallers of Saint John of Jerusalem in 1113. This historically is considered to be the first organized structure for the delivery of health care. The first identified nurse in the territory that was to become the United States was Catholic friar Juan de Mena, from Santo Domingo of Mexico. He arrived on the shores of the southern Texas coast in 1554. The friar was known for his humility and his charity toward the sick.

The second oldest public hospital in continuous existence in the United States, Charity Hospital in New Orleans (1736), despite being a public hospital, was under the administration of the Daughters of Charity from 1834 to 1970. The oldest hospital west of the Mississippi was established in St. Louis, Missouri, in 1828 by St. Elizabeth Seton’s Sisters of Charity. Today, through the centuries of initiatives to apply the Gospel imperatives in the service of neighbor, Catholic health care is the largest provider of nongovernmental, nonprofit health care in the United States. With this stunning history of health care in the ministry in the Catholic tradition, it is disingenuous to identify Catholic health care as a secular function of society. Yet, state by state, there have been legislative initiatives to define Catholic health care ministries as secular endeavors, not protected by the free exercise clause of the First Amendment of the United States Constitution.

The Secular Redefinition of Catholic Health Care

The escalation of legislated health care mandates illustrates this trend to secularize Catholic health care. (See the regularly updated “Table of Legal Mandates State by State” at www.ncbcenter.org.) The majority of states mandate that contraceptive coverage, including prescription drugs and devices, be included in employee insurance plans that offer prescription coverage. Of these mandating states, few provide a true religious or conscience exemption. Increasingly states are mandating the administration of emergency contraception in emergency departments to victims of sexual assault, even when there is an indication that the medication would function as an abortifacient. Only in rare cases are states providing conscience exemptions for the health care agency. Pharmacists have been more successful in securing refusal provisions that protect them from having to violate their consciences in the dispensing of emergency contraception. Increasingly, however, they have had to seek court injunctions to protect their rights of conscience.

Of significant concern is the redefinition, in statutes or through the courts, of a religious employer. Arizona, Arkansas, California, Hawaii, New York, North Carolina and Oregon are examples of states which have narrowly defined a religious employer to include only nonprofit agencies (which would include Church ministries) that serve or employ primarily members of their own faith (which would not include the majority of Church ministries). Here rests the example of a revisionist’s view of the role of religion in society and the protections that should be provided to religious entities.

To define a religious employer as primarily hiring or serving its own members is the antithesis of the historical role of a religious ministry. The classic example of this can be seen in the parable of the Good Samaritan (Luke 10: 29-37). In defining who is one’s neighbor, who we are to love as we love ourselves, Jesus tells a young legal scholar the story of the compassionate Samaritan who, unlike a priest and Levite, stopped and ministered to a man who was beaten and robbed along the road to Jericho. The Samaritans were despised by the Jews. Jesus asks, “Which of these three, in your opinion, was neighbor to the robbers’ victim?” The scholar answers, “The one who treated him with mercy,” and Jesus tells him to “go and do likewise.” Church ministries answer this call. They are not created to be self-serving and self-employing, but to care mercifully for those in need, regardless of their religion, ethnicity, gender, social status, vocational or marital status, or ability to pay. History supports this purpose of Church ministry.

Furthermore, Church hiring practices are based on the ministry being provided. In a Catholic school, where beliefs are imparted to the next generation, teachers of certain disciplines may be required to be Catholic. For the majority of ministries, competence in and adherence to the mission of the ministry are the usual criteria for employment. Finally, there are no client eligibility conditions (such as conversion to the Catholic faith) applied to recipients of Church ministry. However, states such as New York and California require that to be considered a religious employer one must have as a purpose the inculcation of religious values. It would be very interesting to see the response of state legislatures if Church ministries attempted to apply the very criteria that these legislatures have stated define a religious ministry: that is, for a Catholic hospital to hire only Catholic workers and to treat only Catholic patients, or those willing to be evangelized in the faith.

Not only have state legislatures redefined Church ministries, but so have the courts. In 2006, the New York State Court of Appeals, by a unanimous vote, upheld two lower court decisions requiring the Church to include contraceptive drugs and devices (including abortifacients) in their employee prescription drug plans. Religious or faith-based ministries may be exempted only if they evangelize, and employ and provide services primarily to their own members. Thus, while employers of Catholic schools and chanceries may be exempted, most other ministries may not be. In the decision, it was evident that what was viewed as the need to remedy a bias against women took precedence over the rights of people of faith. In considering the constitutionality of the narrow legal definition of a “religious employer,” the justices acknowledged the reasoning of the New York legislature: “Those favoring a narrower exemption asserted that the broader one would deprive tens of thousands of women employed by church-affiliated organizations of contraceptive coverage. Their view prevailed.”1 In other words, the pro-contraception/pro-abortion agenda prevailed over religious freedom. This agenda was supported by the New York State Court of Appeals: “Finally, we must weigh against plaintiffs’ interest in adhering to the tenets of their faith the State’s substantial interest in fostering equality between the sexes, and in providing women with better health care.”2

A similar bias was demonstrated by the Supreme Court of California. This court concluded that the California legislature did not violate the “free exercise [of religion] clause” of the California Constitution when mandating that Catholic Charities of Sacramento include contraceptive drugs and devices in its employee prescription coverage plan. The justices found that it is within the legislature’s competence to identify subtle forms of gender discrimination, by which they referenced discrimination based on pregnancy, childbirth or related medical conditions: “Certainly the interest in eradicating gender discrimination is compelling. We long ago concluded that discrimination based on gender violates the equal protection clause of the California Constitution… and… triggers the highest level of scrutiny.”3 Again, the pro-contraception/pro-abortion agenda prevailed over religious freedom.

The First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution states that Congress will make no law respecting a religious establishment. However, it immediately follows with a prohibition against violations of the free exercise of religion. These provisions have been described as the separation of church and state. However, no other concept of constitutional protections has been more misunderstood or misused by those with their own political agendas. The constitutional scholar Stephen Carter addresses this misperception: “For the most significant aspect of the separation of church and state is not, as some seem to think, the shielding of the secular world from too strong a religious influence; the principle task of the separation of church and state is to secure religious freedom.”4

Clearly, there has been a redefinition by the courts of the meaning of the First Amendment since its adoption in 1791. The mandate for demonstrating a prevailing state interest before passing a law that infringes on a religious freedom has been marginalized. When rights conflict (as in this case), the balance has tragically shifted from religious freedom to “reproductive rights.” In the Oregon v. Smith decision in 1990, public employees who smoked peyote as part of a religious ritual were held to not be protected by the free exercise clause of the First Amendment.5 The impact of the decision is that the state has no obligation to demonstrate a prevailing state interest if a legal mandate or prohibition is applied to all persons. This negates the very purpose of the free exercise of religion clause. As Carter states, “If the state bears no special burden to justify its infringement on religious practice, as long as the challenged statute is a neutral one, then the only protection a religious group receives is against legislation directed at that group. But legislation directed at a particular religious group, even in the absence of the free exercise clause, presumably would be prohibited by the equal protection clause.”6

In response to the Oregon v. Smith decision, advocates of religious freedom succeeded in securing passage of the Federal Religious Freedom Act of 1993. This legislation prohibited the government from limiting religious freedom in the absence of a compelling government interest, and even then the limitation had to be the least restrictive. In 1997, however, in the decision Boerne v. Flores, the U.S. Supreme Court overturned the law on the basis that it interfered with states’ rights.7

In his analysis of the changing perception of the First Amendment, Carter cites the legal scholar Harold Berman, who asserts that contemporary thinking on the First Amendment is sharply discontinuous with that of the Founding Fathers. Berman further asserts that the establishment clause of the First Amendment should be understood to allow “government support of theistic and deistic belief systems more nearly comparable to the government support which is permitted to be given to agnostic and atheist belief systems.”8 While Berman’s analysis addressees government support for faith-based endeavors, he identifies a phenomenon which some would consider to be a bias against religions by the very state(s) charged with protecting religious rights. Clearly, recent actions of legislatures and the courts have demonstrated this phenomenon. To fail in vigorously opposing such actions can have long-term and catastrophic implications for people of faith. Carter forecasts, “The potential transformation of the Establishment Clause from a guardian of religious freedom into a guarantor of public secularism raises prospects at once dismal and dreadful.”9 All one has to do is analyze the burgeoning list of mandates against religious freedom to understand the proportions of this very real threat. (See “Table of Legal Mandates” at www.ncbcenter.org.)

It will not end there. Ever-increasing threats exist, such as mandated assisted suicide and the recognition of same-sex unions, to name two examples. The question is, can the Church acquiesce under the misnomer of “the greater good?” Analyses of this conundrum have centered on proportionality of evil to good. There is a risk in refusing to comply with the legislative mandates (refusing to be complicit with evil) of losing one’s right to engage in the social and health care ministries of the Church. There is also the real concern that if the Church responds to the only morally tenable option – given the rulings in New York and California, for example – it would have to discontinue all prescription benefit coverage for employees. However, providing coverage for contraceptives and abortifacients may, in canonical terms, cause representatives of the Church to commit gravely imputable acts by cooperating with evil.

Grave Imputability

The concept of grave imputability relates to external violations of Church law. Canon 1321 §1 provides an insight into the nature of grave imputability: “No one is punished unless the external violation of a law or precept, committed by the person, is gravely imputable by reason of malice or negligence.” Thus, one is accountable for violations of the law through both intentional commissions (malice) and omissions of which they are culpable (negligence).10 The question is, could representatives of the Church be committing gravely imputable acts by allowing their employee benefit plans to pay for contraceptive drugs and devices, including abortifacients? Specifically, could they be considered in violation of canon 1282, which states, “All clerics or lay persons who take part in the administration of ecclesiastical goods by a legitimate title are bound to fulfill their functions in the name of the Church according to the norm of law?”

There is no question that the use of contraceptives, even by married couples, is gravely and intrinsically evil. Pope Paul VI states, “It is a serious error to think that a whole married life of otherwise normal relations can justify sexual intercourse which is deliberately contraceptive and so intrinsically wrong.”11 The Catechism of the Catholic Church states that contraception, even to regulate births, is morally unacceptable: “The regulation of births represents one of the aspects of responsible fatherhood and motherhood. Legitimate intentions on the part of the spouses do not justify recourse to morally unacceptable means (for example, direct sterilization or contraception).”12

What accountability, then, is borne by those who facilitate such use of morally unacceptable means? Pope Paul VI states that to make it easy for another to commit this intrinsic evil also is “an evil thing”: “Not much experience is needed to be fully aware of human weakness and to understand that human beings—and especially the young, who are so exposed to temptation—need incentives to keep the moral law, and it is an evil thing to make it easy for them to break that law.”13 Causing another to break the law is, in and of itself, scandal, which is morally illicit.14 Furthermore, the scandal is grave when it is caused by a representative of the Church, “who by nature or office [is] obliged to teach and educate others.”15

This grave nature of the matter is compounded by the fact that almost all state contraceptive mandates include insurance coverage for “devices” such as intrauterine abortifacient devices. Abortion is one of the most serious violations of the law. “A person who procures a completed abortion incurs a latae sententiae excommunication” (can. 1398). A latae sententiae penalty is one that is incurred ipso facto when the specific external violation of the law is committed (can. 1314). Abortion includes the destruction of the embryo or fetus any time after conception (fertilization).16 The Ethical and Religious Directives for Catholic Health Care Services are consistent with this interpretation of the meaning of abortion. Directive 36 states, in part, “It is not permissible, however, to initiate or to recommend treatments that have as their purpose or direct effect the removal, destruction or interference with the implantation of a fertilized ovum.”17 Therefore, initiating or recommending the use of abortifacient drugs or devices is also prohibited.

Canon 1329 addresses the imputability as it pertains to accomplices without whose assistance the delict (external violation of the law) would not have been committed:

  • 1. If ferendae sententiae [imposed, not latae sententiae] penalties are established for the principal perpetrator, those who conspire together to commit a delict and are not expressly named in a law or precept are subject to the same penalties or to others of the same or lesser gravity.
  • 2. Accomplices who are not named in a law or precept incur a latae sententiae penalty attached to a delict if without their assistance the delict would not have been committed, and the penalty is of such a nature that it can affect them; otherwise, they can be punished by ferendae sententiae penalties.

Given these laws, are representatives of the Church accomplices when, under legal mandate, they allow their employees to receive contraceptive coverage, including coverage for abortifacient devices, through the Church’s employee benefit plans? A relevant factor that exempts one from a penalty for a delict is coercion. However, there are provisions to this exemption. One relevant exemption pertains to “a person who acted coerced by grave fear, even if only relatively grave, or due to necessity or grave inconvenience unless the act is intrinsically evil or tends to the harm of souls” (can. 1323, 4º). The presence of legal coercion is a fact in contraceptive mandate laws, but the act of facilitating contraception and the use of abortifacients is “intrinsically evil” and “tends to harms souls.” The bishops of the United States have issued a statement addressing the harm done to couples, in Married Love and the Gift of Life: “Suppressing fertility by using contraception denies part of the inherent meaning of married sexuality and does harm to the couple’s unity.”18 Thus, this exemption from imputability does not apply.

One also can look at the meaning of “malice” in canon 1321 §1: the Latin text uses the word dolo, meaning “deliberate intent to violate the law.”19 One can also examine factors in cooperation with evil: “The term ‘cooperation’ refers to any specific assistance knowingly and freely given, either as a means or an end, to a morally evil act principally performed by another individual or institution.”20 In formal cooperation in evil, the cooperators in the evil act have the same intent as the principal agents of the act. For the representatives of the Church to engage in explicit formal cooperation in providing contraceptives and abortifacient devices to their employees, they must have the same intent as the medical professionals who provide these prescriptions or services. The intent could also be implicit, in giving assistance for a specific portion of the immoral act or in providing prerequisite assistance to enable the immoral act to occur.

There is much evidence to support the fact that bishops and other representatives of the Church have opposed contraceptive mandates as a violation of the moral teachings of the Church. Thus, there is no malice or deliberate attempt to violate Church law by complying with contraceptive mandates.

Ethicists have examined the other levels of cooperation pursuant to adhering to contraceptive mandates. Peter Cataldo differentiates these levels as follows:

Cooperation is material if the act of the principal agent is not intended. The act of the cooperator in material cooperation is itself good or morally indifferent. Material cooperation can be either immediate or mediate. Immediate material cooperation contributes to the essential circumstances, and mediate material to the nonessential circumstances, of the principal agent’s act. Mediate material cooperation can be either proximate through a direct causal influence, or remote through an indirect causal influence, upon the act of the principal agent. Immediate material cooperation by an institution in an intrinsically evil act such as contraception is never morally permissible. Mediate material cooperation can be morally tolerated if there is a great good to be preserved or a grave evil to be avoided.21

The question is whether enabling payment for the prescription constitutes an essential circumstance, making the immoral act possible.

There are numerous permutations of employee benefit plans used by Church corporations. Employee benefit plans are funded in part by the employer and in part by all of the employees participating in the plan. There is nothing more essential to the completion of an act than the payment for the act, which would not be completed without such payment, thus making the material cooperation immediate. Even if one did not agree with this premise, and held that cooperation with contraceptive mandates constitutes mediate material cooperation, one would have to analyze the good being preserved and the grave evil to be avoided in determining whether the cooperation is licit. As stated earlier, there are goods to be preserved: the continuance of the health care and social ministries of the Church, and the continued employment of thousands of persons provided with prescription coverage. However, to preserve these goods requires cooperation in the intrinsically evil acts of contraception and abortion (through abortifacient devices). While canon 1324 §1,5o provides for a tempering of a penalty is a violation is perpetrated under coercion, and 1324 §3 precludes a latae sententiae penalty under such circumstance, canon 1323, 4o states that one is still subject to a penalty for violating a law, even if coerced, if the act is intrinsically evil or tends to harm souls.

The evil of cooperating in contraception and abortion is not the only evil to be averted. By cooperating with contraceptive laws, Church employers are forcing their employees to contribute to the insurance pools that pay for the immoral prescriptions and services. There is a third evil to be averted, and it is that which was predicted by Paul VI in Humane vitae. He predicted that government would impose its will in the area of contraception:

Who will prevent public authorities from favoring those contraceptive methods which they consider more effective? Should they regard this as necessary, they may even impose their use on everyone. It could well happen, therefore, that when people, either individually or in family or social life, experience the inherent difficulties of the divine law and are determined to avoid them, they may give into the hands of public authorities the power to intervene in the most personal and intimate responsibility of husband and wife.22

By collaborating, even under protest, with contraceptive and abortifacient mandates, the Church is paving the way for further government intrusions. This is a grave evil to be avoided. The Church has made every legal attempt to overturn the contraceptive mandate laws. To date, all efforts to secure judicial recourse have failed. To continue to comply with such mandates can only lead to a further erosion of religious freedom. Furthermore, to acquiesce to a redefinition of our ministries as secular entities not only is historically inaccurate but also has significant implications for the future of religion in the United States. To comply now would appear to be akin to negligence.

The second criterion of grave imputability for a violation of the law, culpable negligence, is also addressed in canon 1321 §1: “No one is punished unless the external violation of a law or precept, committed by the person, is gravely imputable by reason of malice or negligence [culpa].” To comply with contraceptive and abortifacient mandates could constitute ecclesiastical negligence pursuant to canon 1389 §2: “A person who through culpable negligence illegitimately places or omits an act of ecclesiastical power, ministry or function with harm to another is to be punished with a just penalty.” Canon 1321 §2 states that ordinary negligence due to the omission of necessary diligence is not punishable by law: “A penalty established by a law or precept binds the person who has deliberately violated the law or precept; however, a person who violated a law or precept by omitting necessary diligence is not punished unless the law or precept provides otherwise.” However, canon 1321 continues, “when an external violation has occurred, imputability is presumed unless it is otherwise apparent” (can. 1321 §3).

Need for Decisive Action

Concerning culpable negligence, no one could accuse the Church of not performing due diligence on the matter. Extensive legal resources have been expended in the pursuit of religious freedom. Now that legal remedies are being exhausted, the issue is how will the Church act in accord with its due diligence? Now is the time to act: to refuse to comply, so that no further harm can be done to the ministries of the Church, her employees and the future of religious freedom. The history of Catholic health care is being rewritten by legislatures and the courts, who are denying the ministerial nature that is its foundation. The essential meaning of religion is being redefined to deny its very essence. Furthermore, for the Church not to act will fulfill the prophesies of Paul VI, as well as those of Carter: “The potential transformation of the Establishment Clause from a guardian of religious freedom into a guarantor of public secularism raises prospects at once dismal and dreadful.”23

Since the U.S. Supreme Court declared the federal Religious Freedom Restoration Act of 1993 unconstitutional, efforts to remedy this in Congress have stalled. In 2000, Congress passed a limited version of an RFRA, the Religious Land Use and Institutional Persons Act. This legislation restricts government intrusion into the use of religious land, and protects religious freedom of institutionalized persons. The final recourse to redress the contraceptive mandate laws and rulings of New York and California is the U.S. Supreme Court. However, in October 2004 the U.S. Supreme Court refused to hear the challenge to the decision of the Supreme Court of California; and in October 2007 the U.S. Supreme Court refused to hear a challenge to the New York Court of Appeals decision. Now what should be done?

Eventually the Church will have to say, “Enough. We will not be complicit in the violation of moral law.” This will require significant employee relations and public relations campaigns to demonstrate the source of the problem: violation by the government of religious freedom that the drafters of the U.S. Constitution intended to protect. Sufficient notice of the intent to no longer comply, perhaps by no longer offering prescription coverage to employees, will be needed. Then the very secular society that depends on the services of the Church, which is the largest provider of nongovernmental, nonprofit health care, social services, human services and education in the United States, will be responsible for the outcome.

 

 

 

Implications of Mandatory Insurance Coverage of Contraceptives for Catholic Colleges and Universities

/in , /by
Click here for PDF

You have asked us to describe some of the current issues surrounding conscientious objections to the funding of contraceptives through employee and student health insurance benefit plans. In particular, you have asked us to describe the general considerations confronting Catholic institutions that seek to comply with their understanding of their obligations under Ex corde Ecclesiae and Roman Catholicism generally.

We emphasize at the outset that this is not legal advice, and no one should treat it as such. Nor are we presuming to give religious or theological advice.

We also note that it is not only those Catholic institutions that conform in all respects to the most obvious reading of Ex corde Ecclesiae, canon law, or any other source of church authority that enjoy religious liberty under the law. At least since Thomas v. Review Board, 450 U.S. 707 (1981), it has been clear that it is the specific religious beliefs of the person or institution before the Court that determine the extent of conscience protection afforded by civil courts. The legal analysis that follows is therefore belief-neutral.

Introduction

The issue of contraceptive mandates is a new one for most Catholic institutions. The trend toward state-mandated contraceptive coverage in employee health insurance plans began in the mid-1990s1 and was accelerated by the decision of Congress in 1998 to guarantee contraceptive coverage to employees of the federal government through the Federal Employees Health Benefits Program (FEHBP).2 After FEHBP—the largest employer-insurance benefits program in the country—set this precedent, the private sector followed suit, and state legislatures began to make such coverage mandatory.3

The trajectory of state law and the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission’s (EEOC) recent interpretations of Title VII and the Pregnancy Discrimination Act (PDA) pose serious threats to the conscience rights of Catholic employers who believe that they cannot fund employee prescription contraceptives without contradicting fundamental tenets of their faith. Should this trend continue, many Catholic institutions will not be able to comply with state law and the PDA while remaining true to their religious convictions. As a result, Catholic institutions might be compelled to suspend, or significantly restrict, the prescription health care benefits available to their employees.

Failure to exclude objecting Catholic entities from the requirement to provide contraception constitutes an abandonment of the government’s responsibility to protect against threats to the moral integrity of a large class of its citizens.4  What is at stake is therefore the right of an objecting Catholic college to remain “authentically Catholic” by its own lights.5

Overview of Governing Law

Catholic employers are no doubt familiar with Title VII, the primary federal law addressing employment discrimination. Title VII prohibits “discriminat[ion] against any individual with respect to his compensation, terms, conditions, or privileges of employment, because of such individual’s race, color, religion, sex, or national origin….”6  Title VII exempts religious organizations and institutions from its provision on religious discrimination, but does not exempt them from its provisions on gender discrimination.7

Title VII defines discrimination “on the basis of sex” to include discrimination “because of or on the basis of pregnancy, childbirth, or related medical conditions;” and specifies that “women affected by pregnancy, childbirth, or related medical conditions shall be treated the same for all employment-related purposes, including receipt of benefits under fringe benefit programs, as other persons not so affected but similar in their ability or inability to work….”8

This part of Title VII, commonly known as the Pregnancy Discrimination Act (PDA)9, was added by Congress in 1978 in response to a Supreme Court decision holding that an employer ’s selective refusal to cover pregnancy-related disability was not sex discrimination within the meaning of Title VII.10  The PDA specifies that it “shall not require an employer to pay for health insurance benefits for abortion, except where the life of the mother would be endangered if the fetus were carried to term, or except where medical complications have arisen from an abortion.”11  The PDA does not define abortion, and makes no mention of contraception.12

In 2000, the EEOC issued an opinion stating that the refusal to cover contraceptives in an employee prescription health plan constituted gender discrimination in violation of the PDA.13  Although this opinion is not binding on federal courts, it is influential, since the EEOC is the government body charged with enforcing Title VII.14  This opinion led to many lawsuits against non-religious employers who refused to cover prescription contraceptives.15  The first federal court decision in one of these cases—Erickson v. Bartell Drug Co.—came less than a year after the EEOC opinion, and agreed that employers with prescription drug plans have “a legal obligation to make sure that the resulting plan does not discriminate based on sex-based characteristics and that it provides equally comprehensive coverage for both sexes.”16 The Supreme Court has not ruled on the issue of contraceptive coverage. But, since Erickson, new Title VII claims have been brought against Catholic institutions that did not provide contraceptive coverage.17

Current State Laws Concerning Insurance Coverage of Contraceptives

While virtually all insurance plans include coverage of prescription drugs, employers can opt to exclude coverage of the range of U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA)- approved prescription contraceptive drugs and devices.18  To counteract this policy, in the past two decades, 27 states have enacted laws to require insurers that cover any prescription drugs at all to cover all FDA-approved contraceptive drugs and devices.19 Furthermore, 16 of these states have mandated coverage of related outpatient services.20 Such state laws regulate college and university health plans for students as well as employees.

Catholic institutions are afforded limited protection in 15 of the 27 states.  These states have enacted conscience protections that allow institutional employers or insurers to exclude contraceptive coverage on religious or moral grounds.21  Under such provisions, a Catholic college or university may be able to exclude contraceptive coverage from its employee health plan. (However, the conscience protections do not extend to health plans offered by a college or university to its students.)22

The state exemptions ordinarily allow entities to opt out if covering contraception would interfere with the employer ’s “religious tenets” (e.g., Hawaii and North Carolina), “bona fide religious tenets” (e.g., Connecticut), or “bona fide religious beliefs and practices” (e.g., Maine and Maryland).23 Among the states that have enacted these mandates, Missouri is the most protective of conscience, allowing any employer to refuse coverage, regardless whether the motivation is based on religion or other ethical principle.24  The objections of Catholic institutions to covering contraception should meet any of these state standards, since Catholic institutions that object to contraception, sterilization, and abortion as “intrinsic evils” can invoke a number of doctrinal statements expressing the value and dignity of human life from conception and the sacredness of the marital act open to procreation.25

More complicated, however, is how the state laws define the religious employers to be exempted under their conscience provision. Some states do not define the term “religious employer ” at all, which could permit any institution that self-identifies as religious to claim the exemption.26  In North Carolina, for example, a religious employer is a non- profit organization whose purpose is to advance the “inculcation of religious values” and whose employees primarily “share the [employer ’s] religious tenets.”27  Thus, in North Carolina and states employing similar language, Catholic colleges would ordinarily be exempted. Hawaii’s statute is similar to North Carolina’s, although it also affords protection to nonprofit organizations that are owned or controlled by a religious employer, as long as the organization “primarily employs persons who share the religious tenets of the entity.”28 In New York and California, among others, the term “religious employer ” is interpreted so as to exempt Catholic churches themselves, but not the various organs of the Catholic Church such as Catholic Charities, or Catholic hospitals, colleges, universities or nursing homes.29

Catholic colleges are subject to the overlapping jurisdictions of the state and federal governments; a fact that complicates approaches to benefits decisions. For example, fully-insured health plans, such as those extended to employees and students of most colleges and universities, are governed by both federal and state law. Self-insured employee health plans, by contrast, are governed exclusively by federal law under ERISA.30  However, this federal preemption of state mandates under ERISA affects employee health plans only; student health plans remain subject to state regulations despite an institution’s decision to self insure.31

Since the PDA is federal law, a religious exemption to the PDA would be ineffectual in protecting religious employers in the 27 states that require contraceptive coverage. An exemption to the PDA would only affect those religious institutions that are able to provide self-insurance programs (that are subject to Federal ERISA) or in the minority of states that have not mandated contraceptive coverage.

Trends in the Law

The law governing contraceptive mandates has seen much change in recent years. One of the most far-reaching state contraceptive mandates was enacted earlier this year in Wisconsin. As of January 2010, Wisconsin will require all providers of health insurance to include contraceptive services, irrespective of religious affiliation, moral objection, or category of “religious employer.” The Roman Catholic bishops of Wisconsin issued a statement in response, decrying “this blatant insensitivity to our moral values and legal rights.”32  The new mandate will have direct impact on all objecting Catholic institutions and dioceses, except for the few that have the size and wherewithal to self-insure for their employees.33

The Wisconsin law is the latest iteration of a growing body of state law that rejects conscientious objections to contraceptive mandates. For instance, in 2004 the California Supreme Court held that Catholic Charities was required to cover contraceptives under their fully-insured employee health plan in order to comply with California’s Women’s Contraceptive Equity Act (WCEA). See generally Catholic Charities of Sacramento, Inc. v. Superior Court, 85 P.3d 67 (Cal. 2004).34

The reasoning in Catholic Charities of Sacramento was followed in New York, where the state’s highest court affirmed a decision that Catholic Charities was not a “religious employer ” for the purposes of a religious exemption to the state mandate on contraceptive coverage.35  Part of the intermediate appellate court’s explanation for overriding Catholic Charities’ Free Exercise claims was that “the paramount right of personal health…of many employees who do not share plaintiffs’ views on contraceptives would be subordinated to plaintiffs’ right to freely exercise their beliefs.”36  This reasoning manifests the courts’ and legislatures’ recent tendency to treat government as the guarantor of a limited set of state-defined benefits—even at the expense freedom of conscience—rather than as the protector of the liberty and integrity of persons.37

If other state courts follow the reasoning of the California and New York courts, then state contraceptive mandates will affect Catholic institutions in every state where state law does not provide conscience protections.

There is similar uncertainty with respect to the EEOC’s claim that the PDA provides for a contraceptive mandate for employers. Lower courts have split over whether Title VII, as amended by the PDA, compels insurance coverage for contraceptives. Compare Cummins v. Illinois, No. 2002-cv-4201-JPG, 2005 U.S. Dist. LeXIS 42634 (S. D. Ill. 2005) (employee health plan does not violate Title VII if both men and women are denied contraceptive coverage); Alexander v. American Airlines, Inc., 2002 WL 731815 (N.D.Tex. 2002) (“[b[y no stretch of the imagination does the prohibition against discrimination based on ‘pregnancy, childbirth, or related medical condition[s]’ require the provision of contra- ceptives.”) with Erickson, 141 F. Supp. 2d 1266 (failure to provide contraceptive coverage violated the PDA); Stocking v. AT&T Corp., 436 F.Supp.2d 1014 (W.D.Mo.2006) (same); Cooley v. DaimlerChrysler Corp., 281 F.Supp.2d 979, 984-85 (E.D. Mo. 2003) (same); Mauldin v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., 2002 WL 2022334 (N.D. Ga. 2002) (same).

Although the federal district courts have split over the issue of whether the PDA requires employers to provide contraception, the only federal court of appeals to reach the issue held that the PDA did not include a contraceptive mandate. In 2007, the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that contraception was not sufficiently “related to” pregnancy to fit under the umbrella of the PDA. See In re Union Pacific Railroad, 479 F.3d 936 (8th Cir. 2007). Specifically, the court grounded its opinion on the fact that contraception itself is “gender-neutral” and the plain language of the PDA statute did not refer to contraception.38  An employee health insurance plan, therefore, did not violate the PDA by failing to include contraception coverage. Since the court ruled the employer ’s decision not to cover contraceptives did not involve a “sex classification,” it could not be categorized as a sex-based violation of Title VII.39

Given the relatively recent vintage of the EEOC’s interpretation (2000) and the mixed court rulings so far, it remains an open question whether federal law, like some state laws, will impose a contraceptive mandate on objecting Catholic colleges and institutions.

Legal Defenses for Catholic Colleges and Universities

Catholic institutions with objections to contraceptive mandates are not wholly without legal options, even in the face of federal or state law. There are two main kinds of legal defenses that Catholic colleges can raise in response to federal- or state-imposed contraceptive mandates.

First, there are various defenses arising from the federal Constitution or state constitutions that objecting Catholic institutions may be able to employ to defend against contraceptive mandates. Colleges may have recourse to state constitutional language and the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution, which preserve free exercise of religion. Colleges may also raise defenses rooted in the constitutional doctrine of “church autonomy,” which protects internal church affairs on matters of theology and ecclesiastical governance from government interference.

Despite these constitutional guarantees, Catholic institutions will have to be prepared for arguments stemming from the Supreme Court’s decision in Employment Division v. Smith.40  In Smith, the Supreme Court announced that the First Amendment’s free exercise clause “does not relieve an individual of the obligation to comply with a ‘valid and neutral law of general applicability,’” simply because “the law proscribes (or prescribes) conduct that his religion prescribes (or proscribes).”41  In other words, the fact that an act infringes on the religious beliefs or regulates the religiously motivated policies of a Catholic institution does not necessarily make the law unconstitutional.42 This is because, as the New York and California courts have asserted, their state contraceptive insurance mandates “apply neutrally and generally to all employers, regardless of religious affiliation, except to those few who satisfy the statute’s strict requirements for exemption on religious grounds.”43

In New York and California, “those few” may not include Catholic colleges. Nonetheless, objecting Catholic institutions can argue that the definition of a “religious employer ” for purposes of a statutory exemption should comprehend Catholic colleges with a strong Catholic identity, since there is a very strong argument that the mission of a Catholic college is “to inculcate religious values.”

That said, any constitutional defense will necessarily vary with both the location and the circumstances of the particular Catholic institution affected. Therefore experienced constitutional counsel should be consulted at the earliest opportunity.

Second, Catholic institutions can raise various statutory defenses to contraceptive man- dates. These include federal and state “Religious Freedom Restoration Acts,” as well as various anti-discrimination statutes.44  These laws typically protect against (a) religious discrimination and (b) “substantial burdens” on religious exercise, without regard to whether the government intended to discriminate. However, in the context of an EEOC action, the EEOC is likely to argue that statutory religious discrimination defenses do not trump gender discrimination claims made under the PDA.45 Moreover, since state religious freedom laws (including state constitutions) do not protect against action by the federal government, PDA claims brought by the EEOC would be relatively difficult to defend against on that basis.

Catholic institutions should be aware that all of these protections—constitutional and statutory—are subject to the requirement that the religious institutions’ claims be sincere, or “bona fide.” Although the courts will not delve into the reasonableness of a religious belief, they are competent to judge whether a belief is “sincerely held.”46  Insincere religious beliefs enjoy neither constitutional nor statutory protection.47 For example, a prison inmate who requests to be served a vegetarian diet for religious reasons but who nonetheless buys hot dogs from the commissary cannot invoke free exercise protections because his behavior appears to be insincere. In the context of Catholic colleges and universities, first acting inconsistently with the school’s religious identity and then later claiming a religious exemption (after a lawsuit has been filed) is unlikely to succeed.

As with the constitutional defenses, there is no one-size-fits-all legal strategy to law- suits attempting to impose contraceptive mandates on Catholic institutions. Therefore the key to raising a successful defense will be to involve competent counsel at an early juncture.

Areas of Consideration for Catholic Colleges and Universities

Depending on the state legislative developments and the outcome of future litigation over the scope of the PDA, objecting Catholic institutions may have to resort to creative arrangements to balance treating their employees and students justly and remaining faithful to their principles. Some possible courses of action and recommendations are outlined below:

Eliminating Prescription Drug Benefits Altogether. This option was proposed by the New York Court of Appeals in Catholic Charities of Albany, but has obvious drawbacks, including burdens on students, employees and their families who require prescription drugs.48  It would also likely present objecting Catholic institutions with the dilemma of reconciling Catholic teaching on living wages for workers with their beliefs about facilitating contraception, sterilization, and abortion.

Eliminating prescription drug benefits altogether may be a more appealing option for student health insurance plans (rather than employee plans).  Already, student plans tend to be less comprehensive than employee plans; students are typically offered a choice among different plans with varying levels of benefits.  Because basic student plans, or “catastrophic plans,” usually exclude prescription drugs or “out- patient treatment” altogether, these plans would not be obligated to provide “family planning services” under state mandates.  Moreover, unlike a university employee, a student pays an additional fee for health coverage offered by the university.  Thus, a student who desires prescription health benefits can simply opt for a private health plan instead of the university plan. Although the student might have to sacrifice convenience, a Catholic college might decide this is an acceptable compromise.

Attempting to “Out-source” Contraceptive Coverage. Another way that some Catholic institutions, principally health care systems, have dealt with mandated contraception coverage is by attempting to distance themselves from the actual provision of benefits.49 According to a 2000 report of “Catholics for a Free Choice,” more than half of managed care plans adopted by Catholic health systems have found “creative approaches” to contract at arm’s length to meet the state requirements and joint federal-state Medicaid mandate that entitles Medicaid recipients to family planning services and supplies.50  Some of these Catholic employers have attempted to distance them- selves from providing this coverage by separating out the amount of the premium that would be used to cover contraception and contracting with a third-party administrator to handle payment. Others contract with an independent insurance company to handle coverage of those services.

This approach would have the disadvantage of putting many religious institutions and individuals into a quandary of conscience.51 Such arrangements would also make it much more difficult for Catholic institutions to invoke religious freedom protections against facilitating access to morally objectionable services in other contexts, because plaintiffs would likely argue that the outsourcing arrangements contradict the institution’s claimed beliefs.

Form self-insurance pools. Another option may be for Catholic institutions to pool their benefits and liabilities in such a way as to self-insure. This strategy would allow Catholic employers to escape restrictive state laws styled after Wisconsin’s recent mandate, but would not protect against federal laws or EEOC action. However, converting from insured to self-insured has larger consequences than protecting against state law prescription contraceptive mandates. For instance, self-insuring would ex- pose the religious employer to financial risk whenever high-cost claims are filed.52

Be consistent in policy decisions and in media communications. A Catholic institution must be careful to ensure that all of its members’ actions are consistent with the values it espouses. Recent history amply demonstrates that religious institutions will be charged with hypocrisy, and incur civil liability, if they do not act consistent with their beliefs. Similarly, all media communications need to be consistent with the actual values of the institution. A civil court will be much less inclined to believe assertions of sincere conscientious objection if the institution has not been consistently acting and communicating in accordance with its claimed beliefs.

Make clear—externally and internally—what one’s institutional values are. It is crucially important that the administration of a Catholic institution state publicly and privately what moral precepts it intends to follow and why. Many religious institutions have seen religious freedom defenses fail because the institutions failed to assert their values openly, vigorously, and consistently. Catholic institutions also run the risk of liability if they fail to explain in detail why they believe what they do. Rooting benefits policies in specific Church doctrines makes clear where the institution stands, and that it is sincere. Sound theology can be a sound defense, even in civil court.

Don’t carelessly discuss finances and costs of health insurance. Colleges and universities often take a business-like approach to certain decisions, even when there are underlying religious principles at stake. Make sure that the written record of any decision regarding benefits reflects the religious principles motivating the decision. Plaintiffs seeking to defeat a religious freedom defense often argue that denying certain benefits is “just about the money.” Don’t give a civil court reason to believe them.

Seek legal advice at the earliest opportunity. Every legal situation is different, and religious freedom issues can be particularly tricky in any state. Catholic institutions should get expert legal advice as soon they find out about a challenge to their benefits practices. Waiting to get legal advice until later often leads to mistakes that can be difficult to unwind.

Responding firmly. As the analysis above shows, objecting Catholic institutions have legal options. Immediately accommodating a potential plaintiff once he or she com- plains often results in only temporary appeasement and additional requests later. It is frequently better to respond firmly at the outset than to accommodate and merely delay the inevitable conflict until later.

Conclusion

The next few years may present difficult times for Catholic colleges and universities that have conscientious objections to contraceptive mandates. However, there are a number of ways Catholic institutions can continue to carry out their missions while minimizing the threat of government penalty. They should not be afraid to do so.

 

 

 

Ex corde Ecclesiae: Echoes of Newman’s The Idea of a University

/in , /by

Having taught courses in the philosophy of education in two of the largest Catholic universities of the country for twenty years, I have more than a passing interest in the field. When the invitation came to consider presenting a paper to a conference sponsored by The Cardinal Newman Society to commemorate the bicentennial of Cardinal Newman’s birth,1 I immediately thought of his magisterial work, The Idea of a University, written exactly 150 years ago, referred to by Cardinal Anthony Bevilacqua as “a work of great subtlety.”2 Fresh in my mind also was that United States episcopal conference had just completed a decade-long effort to bring Pope John Paul II’s Ex corde Ecclesiae to life in our nation. Could there be a connection between the visions of Newman and Wojtyla?

Both men spent considerable portions of their lives as university professors and chaplains. Both wrote only one major work on the nature of a Catholic university: Newman to prepare for the opening of the Catholic University of Ireland; John Paul II to prevent the collapse of Catholic higher education worldwide. Both struggled to see their vision implemented: Newman failed; the jury is still out on Wojtyla.

Many have noted that Cardinal Newman was the “unseen father” at Vatican II, and I don’t think that is much of an exaggeration. The late Holy Father, like every single one of his predecessors from the nineteenth century forward, and now also his successor, Pope Benedict XVI, made no secret of his esteem for the Venerable convert on numerous occasions. One could highlight the fact, for instance, that aside from popes, councils, and the beatified or canonized, Newman is the only person cited in the Catechism of the Catholic Church—and on three occasions, no less. Of course, the Pope also concluded his homily at the latest consistory by evoking the memory of Cardinal Newman and by presenting him as a model for cardinals of the third millennium; interestingly, that was also the consistory at which the recently late Father Avery Dulles, S.J. entered the College of Cardinals—another theologian-cardinal and convert.

So, I don’t think it far-fetched to suppose a Newmanian influence on the composition of Ex corde; in fact, a glance at the footnotes surfaces three direct quotes. I submit, however, that closer examination of the document reveals distinct and loud echoes of Newman’s voice, as well as a tone which is unmistakably suffused with the thought and spirit of John Henry Newman. Permit me to serve as your guide through this investigation by moving back and forth between the Cardinal and Pope John Paul II, asking not too irreverently, “Was Newman the ghostwriter for Ex corde Ecclesiae?”

1. What Is a Catholic University?

Newman launches into this matter with all deliberateness: “. . . when the Church founds a University,” he says, “she is not cherishing talent, genius or knowledge, for their own sake, but for the sake of her children, with a view to their spiritual welfare and their religious influence and usefulness, with the object of training them to fill their respective posts in life better, and of making them more intelligent, capable, active members of society.”3

The title of Pope John Paul II’s apostolic exhortation is carefully chosen; in fact, he has been referring to Catholic schools as “the very heart of the Church” at least since 1981, if my tracking has been accurate.4 The Holy Father sets the stage by locating the university as having been “born from the heart of the Church.” Indeed, he makes a point which most commentators, Catholic and secular alike, fail to recall: that it was the Catholic Church which created not Catholic universities but the entire concept and system of university education. So much for George Bernard Shaw’s snide remark that speaking of “a Catholic university is a contradiction in terms.”

“It is the honor and responsibility of a Catholic university to consecrate itself without reserve to the cause of truth,” teaches the Pope.5 And then, directly quoting Cardinal Newman, he speaks of the Church’s “intimate conviction that truth is its real ally . . . and that knowledge and reason are sure ministers to faith.”6

One cannot gainsay the centrality of truth in the educational process, and here the Pope’s admiration for Newman knows no bounds, having referred to him as an “ardent disciple of truth.”7 Indeed, Newman made the battle for truth the cause célèbre of his life, fighting against “liberalism” in religion, which he defined as the belief that “there is no positive truth in religion, but that one creed is as good as another.” 8 Quite movingly does Cardinal Bevilacqua describe Newman’s commitment to this cause:

Cardinal Newman’s life is a testimony to the liberating power of the truth and a warning about the slavery awaiting those who exalt freedom above all. Unless our freedom is built on the rock of truth, our poor wills will be, as the Apostle says, “tossed to and fro and carried about with every wind of doctrine, by the cunning of men, by their craftiness in deceitful wiles” [Eph 4:14]. Without the kindly light of truth, human freedom gets lost amid the encircling gloom.9

The Holy Father goes on to identify four “essential characteristics,” to use his terminology, qualities that must be present in any university which wishes to be known as Catholic; they are worth citing in full:

  1. A Christian inspiration not only of individuals but of the university community as such;
  2. A continuing reflection in the light of the Catholic Faith upon the growing treasury of human knowledge, to which it seeks to contribute by its own research;
  3. Fidelity to the Christian message as it comes to us through the Church;
  4. An institutional commitment to the service of the People of God and of the human family in their pilgrimage to the transcendent goal which gives meaning to life.10

Then follows counsel for all who make up the university community, which community must be, he says, “animated by the Spirit of Christ.” The Pope further argues that no true community can exist without “a common dedication to the truth, a common vision of the dignity of the human person and, ultimately, the person and message of Christ.” This last element, he maintains, is precisely what “gives the institution its distinctive character” (no. 21). University teachers are thus not merely providers of academic formation; they are called to be “witnesses and educators of authentic Christian life.” Most importantly, the Holy Father says, it should be evident that these men and women have achieved an “integration between faith and life and between professional competence and Christian wisdom” (no. 22). Nor should one expect that because many of them are members of the laity that this dimension would be less apparent or even totally lacking (no. 25).

Students, having been introduced to the meaning of Christian wisdom and having seen clear, consistent, and living examples of it in their professors, will logically be able to assume their roles as “the trained ‘leaders’ of tomorrow, of being witnesses to Christ in whatever place they may exercise their profession” (no. 24).

2. Why a Catholic University?

Cardinal Newman explains it thus: “. . . it is a matter of deep solicitude to Catholic prelates that their people should be taught a wisdom, safe from the excesses and vagaries of individuals, embodied in institutions which have stood the trial and received the sanction of ages. . . .” 11

Ex corde puts it this way: “In the world today, characterized by such rapid developments in science and technology, the tasks of a Catholic university assume an ever greater importance and urgency. . . . Its Christian inspiration enables it to include the moral, spiritual and religious dimension in its research and to evaluate the attainments of science and technology in the perspective of the totality of the human person” (no. 7). John Paul II continues:

. . . I turn to the whole Church, convinced that Catholic universities are essential to her growth and to the development of Christian culture and human progress. For this reason, the entire ecclesial community is invited to give its support to [them] and to assist them in their process of development and renewal. It is invited in a special way to guard the rights and freedoms of these institutions in civil society . . . (no. 11).

Along similar lines, it has been noted that Newman “urges the priority of literature over science in education,” lest the Church’s educational institutions produce little more than a generation of “technocrats”.12 That does not mean that Newman was opposed to science; by no means. In fact, following in the mentality of his fellow-Oratorian of the sixteenth century, Cardinal Baronius, Newman—like Wojtyla today—had a profound respect for science and its autonomy and even contended that “many scientists have been hostile to religion because theologians have often overstepped their mark.”13

The Pope goes on with very practical applications of these general principles, talking about the “integration of knowledge” (no. 16) and the need to promote “dialogue between faith and reason” (no. 17). He underscores the critical necessity for all research to be grounded in ethical and moral standards, both in “its methods and discoveries” (no. 18) because of the requirement to safeguard the dignity of the human person in all circumstances.

3. Does a Catholic University Have a Distinctive Curriculum?

John Paul II would seem to think so, and it is what we might call “the humanum.” Sounding an awful lot like the old pagan Roman poet Terence, with his “nihil humanum mihi alienum est,” the Holy Father argues that “there is only one culture: that of man, by man and for man.” He goes on: “And thanks to her Catholic universities and their humanistic and scientific inheritance, the Church, expert in humanity, . . . explores the mysteries of humanity and of the world, clarifying them in the light of Revelation” (no. 3). Even more boldly, he declares: “By means of a kind of universal humanism, a Catholic university is completely dedicated to the research of all aspects of truth in their essential connection with the supreme Truth, Who is God” (no. 4), with the result that Catholic institutions of higher learning “are called to explore courageously the riches of Revelation and of nature, so that the united endeavor of intelligence and faith will enable people to come to the full measure of their humanity” (no. 5). And here the Pope sounds a great deal like Irenæus, with his “gloria Dei vivens homo.”

Having mentioned Irenæus, one is immediately led to consider Newman. What does he envision for a Catholic university curriculum? The Cardinal observes that, although Pope St. Gregory the Great was not particularly fond of the literature of the pagan Greeks and Romans (although he knew it all very well), he was said by his biographer “to have supported the hall of the Apostolic See upon the columns of the Seven Liberal Arts.”14

As Newman presented his ideas for the founding of the Catholic University of Ireland, he applied this generic concept to a model for a curriculum:

. . . Civilization too has its common principles, and views, and teaching, and especially its books, which have more or less been given from the earliest of times. . . . In a word, the classics, and the subjects of thought and the studies to which they give rise, or, to use the term most dear to our present purpose, the Arts, have ever, on the whole, been the instruments of education which the civilized orbis terrarum has adopted; just as inspired works, and the lives of the saints, and the articles of faith, and the catechism, have ever been the instrument of education in the case of Christianity. And this consideration, you see, . . . invests [our project] with a solemnity and moment of a peculiar kind, for we are but reiterating an old tradition, and carrying on those august methods of enlarging the mind, and cultivating the intellect, and refining the feelings, in which the process of civilization has ever consisted.15

The venerable Cardinal also spoke specifically about “Catholic literature,” for which he offers a definition: “. . . by ‘Catholic literature’ is not to be understood a literature which treats exclusively or even primarily of Catholic matters, of Catholic doctrine, controversy, history, persons, or politics; but it includes all subjects of literature whatever, treated as a Catholic would treat them, and as he only can treat them.”16

Newman is advocating an approach to education grounded in the classics. How does one determine whether an author fits the bill? “A great author,” he says, “is not one who merely has a copia verborum, whether in prose or verse, and can, as it were, turn on at his will any number of splendid phrases and swelling sentences; but he is one who has something to say and knows how to say it.”17 He gets even more specific and even lyrical in expounding his vision:

. . . if by means of words the secrets of the heart are brought to light, pain of soul is relieved, hidden grief is carried off, sympathy conveyed, counsel imparted, experience recorded, and wisdom perpetuated,—if by great authors the many are drawn up into unity, national character is fixed, a people speaks, the past and the future, the East and the West are brought into communication with each other,—if such men are, in a word, the spokesmen and prophets of the human family,—it will not answer to make light of literature or to neglect its study; rather we may be sure that, in proportion as we master in whatever language, and imbibe its spirit, we shall ourselves become in our own measure ministers of like benefits to others, be they many or few, be they in the obscurer or the more distinguished walks of life,—who are united to us by social ties, and are within the sphere of our personal influence.18

Few commentators have missed how Newman was most impressed by the role “personal influence” played in the lives of people, as is the Pope, who stresses the critical importance of having faculty and administrators provide appropriate role models for the student population. John Paul II also underscores the “irreplaceable lay vocation” in the university apostolate (no. 25). Yet again, the Holy Father relies on Newman’s apprehension here: “Cardinal Newman describes the ideal to be sought in this way: ‘A habit of mind is formed which lasts through life, of which the attributes are freedom, equitableness, calmness, moderation, and wisdom.’ ”19 “The humanum” comes across loud and clear again.

4. What Is the Place of Theology Within the Curriculum?

Is there a place? Cardinal Newman framed it as a syllogism:

A university, I should lay down, by its very name professes to teach universal knowledge. Theology is surely a branch of knowledge: how then is it possible to profess all branches of knowledge, and yet to exclude from the subjects of its teaching one which, to say the least, is as important and as large as any of them? I do not see that either premiss of this argument is open to exception.20

He presses the point the point even further: “Religious doctrine is knowledge, in as full a sense as Newton’s doctrine is knowledge. University teaching without theology is simply unphilosophical. Theology has at least as good a right to claim a place there as astronomy.”21

When Newman tries to understand and explain why theology found itself being slowly but surely driven to the margins of academia, he offers a fascinating insight. He suggests the reason was rather simple, namely, that theology had become classified as little more than “taste and sentiment,”22 with everything reduced to subjectivity. In other words, the great irony is that theology’s Enlightenment-influenced movement away from objective truth has been its own undoing.

Cardinal Newman also realized the possibility for excessive claims on the part of theology, and so he warned theologians and other scholars as well: “ . . . according as we are only physiologists, or only politicians, or only moralists, so is our idea of man more or less unreal.”23 Tunnel vision is bad for everyone, which is why he went on to say that what would make him a poor academic would be if “I carried out my science irrespectively of other sciences.”24 Why? Because “all knowledge forms one whole, because its subject-matter is one.”25 Without fear of contradiction, Newman maintains “that the systematic omission of any one science from the catalogue prejudices the accuracy and completeness of our knowledge altogether.”26 And were we to make such an omission, we should see without a doubt how theology is “the soul of the university.” Here he waxes eloquent:

In a word, religious truth is not only a portion, but a condition of general knowledge. To blot it out is nothing short, if I may so speak, of unravelling the web of university teaching. It is, according to the Greek proverb, to take the Spring from out of the year; it is to imitate the preposterous proceeding of those tragedians who represented a drama with the omission of its principal part.27

Ex corde notes the central place for theology in a Catholic institution of higher learning and the importance of interdisciplinary approaches to the various subjects, such that the unity of all truth is acknowledged and becomes apparent. Therefore, we read that theology “serves all other disciplines in their search for meaning, not only by helping them to investigate how their discoveries will affect individuals and society but also by bringing a perspective and an orientation not contained within their own methodologies.” However, this is not a one-way street, for the “interaction with these other disciplines and their discoveries enriches theology, offering it a better understanding of the world today, and making theological research more relevant to current needs” (no. 19). Hence, the need for every Catholic university to “have a faculty, or at least a chair, of theology.” Needless to say, the Pope observes that Catholic theology must be “taught in a manner faithful to Scripture, Tradition and the Church’s Magisterium” (no. 20).

5. What Is the Relationship Between the Catholic University and the Church?

The Pope tackles this core problem of the past few decades, begun with the Land o’ Lakes Statement in 1967.28 In the most unequivocal terms possible, he asserts that such a relationship “is essential to [the university’s] institutional identity.” Furthermore, he declares that non-Catholic members of the university community “are required to respect the Catholic character” of the institution, even as the university “respects their religious liberty” (no. 27). Bishops have an indispensable role to play in Catholic colleges, engaging in “close and consistent cooperation and continuing dialogue” with the university authorities. Because of the nature of this relationship, bishops cannot under any circumstances be regarded “as external agents” to the life of a university which wishes to be Catholic; in truth, they are active “participants in [its] life” (no. 28). John Paul II also reminds us that Catholic theologians have a right to academic freedom, like all other professors. A critical part of that right, however, is also concerned with being faithful to the principles and methods proper to the discipline of theology, which is to say, fidelity to the Church’s Scripture, Tradition, and Magisterium (no. 29).

Rightly, then, does the Code of Canon Law stipulate: “In Catholic universities it is the duty of the competent statutory authority to ensure that there be appointed teachers who are not only qualified in scientific and pedagogical expertise, but are also outstanding in their integrity of doctrine and uprightness of life” (can. 810). The Code goes on to require of presidents and those entrusted with teaching in areas related to faith and morals a profession of faith, which has been drawn up by the Apostolic See (see can. 833).

But more than a century before the present Holy Father, Cardinal Newman—that great advocate of academic freedom—was capable of stating in the strongest language: “Hence a direct and active jurisdiction of the Church over [a Catholic university] and in it is necessary, lest it should become the rival of the Church with the community at large in those theological matters which to the Church are exclusively committed.”29 And there is more: “It is no sufficient security for the Catholicity of a university, even that the whole of Catholic theology should be professed in it, unless the Church breathes her own pure and unearthly spirit into it, and fashions and molds its organization, and watches over its teaching, and knits together its pupils, and superintends its action.”30 Interestingly, Newman brings forth as an example of an institution which ran amok, precisely because of the lack of a direct link to the institutional Church, the Spanish Inquisition.31

A theology of communio32 underlies Ex corde’s notions of how everything fits together in a Catholic university. In this regard, the Pope once more cites Newman directly as he writes: “Cardinal Newman observes that a university ‘professes to assign to each study which it receives its proper place and its just boundaries; to define the rights, to establish the mutual relations and to effect the intercommunion of one and all.’ ”33 Was it Cardinal George of Chicago who suggested that the issue was not the place of the Church in the university but the place of the university in the Church?

6. Some Concluding Considerations

The Holy Father has much more to say on other significant issues, but time does not permit adequate attention to be given to such things as how the Catholic university serves both the Church and society; what kind of pastoral ministry should be exercised on campus; the unique contribution which should be made to contemporary culture by Catholic colleges; and the central place of evangelization in university priorities, goals, and objectives. In this context, it is worth looking to Newman’s thoughts on university preaching, for they are reflective of his overall approach to pastoral ministry for university students.

Allow me now to highlight a few of the more salient points of Ex corde Ecclesiae and The Idea of a University.

  1. Notice that Pope John Paul II, like Newman a century earlier, stresses the existence of the Catholic university for the advancement of truth. That should be the case for any institution of higher learning, but in this post-Enlightenment period in which we find ourselves, academia has lost its moorings in its abandonment of belief in truth. Truth has been replaced by opinion and/or ideology—at least as far as religious matters are concerned, although we note with fascination that in math class two plus two still equals four, regardless of personal opinion or fancy and regardless of anyone’s suggestion that such a position might be “authoritarian.”
  2. I hope you did not miss the Pope’s appeal to an interdisciplinary approach to learning—another “Newmanian” echo. Indeed, the Catholic philosophy of education is rooted in our belief that all truth is one, causing us to operate from a unified vision of reality. No unhealthy compartmentalization for us! For we recall that the word “university” itself means that the various disciplines are presented and studied in such a manner as to “turn toward the one,” converging in what the Pope calls “a single reality,”34 that is, bringing all the little truths of the several sciences into unity in the one great Truth, Who is the Inspiration and Source of all academic inquiry. Therefore, what is learned in one department of a university should eventually mesh in a holistic way with what is gained in another. And while there is no such thing as a Catholic brand of math or a Catholic take on science, our ethical and moral reflection must necessarily undergird it all. Therefore, we should be able to say with confidence that in a truly Catholic university the truths of the Catholic Faith will never be contradicted in any forum, if for no other reason than the simple fact that all truth is one and mutually reinforcing. Way back in the third century, Tertullian asked what he thought was a rhetorical question: “What indeed has Athens to do with Jerusalem?” By which he meant to imply that theology and humanistic sciences had little or nothing to do with each other. The Church disagreed in a definitive fashion, and, in the midst of the Age of Faith, she began the university system.
  3. Both Newman and Wojtyla place in clear relief the fact that in a Catholic university the local bishop and the teaching authority of the Church can never be perceived as extrinsic, let alone oppressive, realities. Since the Catholic educational institution comes into existence because of faith, is sustained because of faith, and has its only valid rationale because of faith, it is patently absurd to regard matters of faith as foreign or alien to its life.
  4. The Pope obviously expects great things from Catholic colleges, something besides mere cosmetic changes, in many instances. More than crucifixes on classroom walls and collars on the clergy is being sought—although these two are certainly steps in the right direction. What the Pontiff has in mind is an educational establishment which breathes Catholic air, and that can come from nothing less than a total permeation of the curriculum and every other program with a fully Catholic spirit. And this philosophy of education jumps off every page of Cardinal Newman’s The Idea of a University.

In sum, could we argue, basing ourselves on Newman and Wojtyla, that the only true university is a Catholic university, pace George Bernard Shaw?

If we take our time-machine up to the present, we might ask what the current Pope has to offer on this topic. It is interesting to note that in the massive corpus of Joseph Ratzinger, one finds very little on Catholic education. Since he changed his name to Benedict XVI, however, he has dealt with the topic extensively. Not surprisingly, all eyes and ears were focused on him as he was to meet with Catholic educators in Washington, D.C. on April 17, 2008. The encounter was originally billed as an address to the presidents of America’s Catholic colleges and universities. Word has it that the interest-level of most of the intended audience was so low that the event was re-fashioned into a more generic grouping.

I am going to offer a decidedly minority opinion about the papal talk. First, it cannot be ignored that Ex corde was not mentioned even once—not even as a footnote. Secondly, of a four-page discourse, less than a quarter of the document could be considered as directed specifically to institutions of higher learning and actually, only one paragraph was uniquely suited to colleges and universities. Why did this turn of events occur?

I want to suggest that Pope Benedict has come to the conclusion that the vast majority of Catholic colleges and universities in the United States are beyond repair and sees no reason to expend time and energy on a lost cause. I think Pope John Paul had come to a similar judgment on American religious life and so just dropped the entire project, turning his attention to encouraging new religious communities, rather than focusing on the reform of existing ones. I suspect the present Holy Father has determined to adopt a like course in regard to American colleges and universities that once were rooted in a strong ecclesial identity and no longer are. Simply put: Don’t waste effort on institutions that will die; support new ones that have a truly Catholic ethos and sensibility. Time will tell whether that is the precise course he is charting and, if so, how wise such a course might be.

Pope John Paul II issued Ex corde on the Solemnity of the Assumption in 1990. Throughout his pontificate, he consistently presented the Sedes Sapientiæ as the model for Catholic scholars. Once more, we find a connection to Cardinal Newman here, for it was Newman who headed each of his University essays with the invocation “Sedes Sapientiæ, Ora pro nobis,” and actually dedicated the University to Our Lady under this very title.35 But why? Because, Newman asserted, the Seat of Wisdom was a model for simple believers and for theologians alike because she operates from faith and reason at one and the same time. The great convert wrote:

Thus, St. Mary is our pattern of faith, both in the reception and the study of Divine Truth. She does not think it enough to accept, she dwells upon it; not enough to submit to the Reason, she reasons upon it; and not indeed reasoning first, and believing afterwards, with Zacharias, yet first believing without reasoning, next from love and reverence, reasoning after believing. And thus she symbolizes to us, not only the faith of the unlearned, but of the doctors of the Church also, who have to investigate, and weigh, and define, as well as to profess the Gospel; to draw the line between truth and heresy; to anticipate or remedy the various aberrations of wrong reason; to combat pride and recklessness with their own arms; and thus to triumph over the sophist and the innovator.36

May the Virgin who guided the steps of Cardinal Newman to the fullness of truth, as she guided Pope John Paul II and now guides Pope Benedict XVI, ensure for us a Catholic Academy of the third millennium which is wholly directed toward her Son, Who is Truth Incarnate.