Excitement is building for Jesuits worldwide as their general congregation to elect a new superior general is quickly approaching this fall. The election presents an important opportunity for them to reflect on the future of the Society of Jesus — and to address serious concerns. Even under a Jesuit Pope, the order suffers from a steady decline in membership, dissent and moral confusion within its ranks, and a widening gulf between many Jesuit universities and the Church.
Perhaps that’s why there has been so much attention lately to the announcement that 20 new Jesuit priests were ordained this year in the United States, Canada and Haiti. That’s good news, with the hope that these new priests will be true Soldiers of Christ and embrace the fullness of Church teaching, like their predecessors of old and some notable giants today.
Unfortunately, the ordinations have given rise to misleading claims that the Jesuits’ membership woes are coming to an end. Last month, a Jesuit official told the National Catholic Register that “the trends of new Jesuit entrants show demographic stability is on the horizon.” As best I can determine, that’s fantasy. It’s easy to understand why the Jesuits would look for any sign of hope after decades of decline, but exaggeration is dangerous if it diverts attention away from a very real crisis that is deeper than the numbers alone.
Again, someone seems to have spun a tale to Catholic World Report, which last week declared that, contrary to warnings in recent years, “there never really was an ‘implosion’ of the Jesuits worldwide.”
But there was … and still is. The “implosion” claim was made by Matthew Archbold of The Cardinal Newman Society in 2013, when he cited predictions of “a demographic free fall with declining ordinations and former Jesuits outnumbering active Jesuits in the United States.” Most convincingly, he cited hard data published in 2011 by Georgetown University’s Center for Applied Research in the Apostolate (CARA) that clearly supported the forecast.
I checked the CARA data again — including a newer study of Jesuit numbers released in 2015 — as well as both Jesuit and Vatican sources, and the numbers remain dismal. Jesuit membership has been spiraling downward for more than 50 years. It’s possible that new entrants and ordinations during the three-year pontificate of Pope Francis could help slow the rate of decline in the Jesuit order, but that’s yet to be proven. What’s certain is that the Jesuit order has a membership crisis, and there’s no reason to predict stability or growth anytime soon.
First, let’s take a look at the local numbers. It’s suggested that this year’s 20 Jesuit ordinations is a high number for the North American region, and therefore we should be excited about it. Perhaps so, but there’s not much data to confirm the long-term impact on the order. According to the website for the North American Jesuit provinces, the continent had 28 new Jesuit priests last year, 19 in 2014, and 16 in 2013. Therefore, 20 is relatively good, and yet it’s a substantial decline from last year’s 28 — the largest number of Jesuit ordinations for North America in 15 years.
Should Jesuits be concerned that last year’s number was not sustained? Or should they be excited, because 20 ordinations is significantly higher than in prior years? Is it just a momentary benefit of having a Jesuit pope, or is it a trend? Unfortunately, I couldn’t find data for North America earlier than 2013, when Pope Francis went to Rome. After a fruitless Web search, I requested information from the communications secretary of the North American provinces, but I was only given numbers of Jesuits worldwide.
Another Jesuit official told the Register that there’s a second reason for hope: Although the number of U.S. entrants to the Society of Jesus declined from 102 in 1982 to a low of 45 in 2010, it has since increased to the “mid-50s” this year. Here we’re not talking about ordinations to the priesthood, but novices preparing to be priests and brothers.
That’s indeed hopeful, yet uncertain. While the Register was told there have been no fewer than 45 entrants in the U.S. alone since 1982, CWR reports that 44 men entered novitiates in both the U.S. and Canada in 2015. CARA documents Jesuit membership in the United States (including Jamaica, Belize and Micronesia) and reports 177 entrants from 2009 to 2013, which is an average of just 35 per year. The numbers don’t match up.
Regardless, the numbers of entrants do not tell us as much as we’d like about the future of the Jesuits. If the numbers of new entrants and priests is increasing annually, that’s a hopeful sign. But ultimately, showing growth in the Society of Jesus requires producing a net gain of their membership numbers. This means counting not only new additions but also subtracting the many novices who depart each year before completing their studies. Furthermore, we must subtract the number of Jesuits who pass away each year.
If we take the deceased into account, any prediction of approaching “stability” in the Society of Jesus seems ludicrous. The Register reports that the average age of the North American Jesuits is 65. In the period 2008-2013, CARA counts 445 Jesuit deaths in the United States, an average of 89 per year. In the same period, the U.S. Jesuits had a net gain of just 10 novices per year, subtracting those who departed from those who stayed.
Putting it all together, American Jesuits are still in a free fall. CARA reports that the number of Jesuits in the United States declined by more than half in just 25 years, from 4,823 in 1988 to 2,395 in 2013. Presented in five-year increments, the data shows much sharper declines in the most recent two periods (15.2 percent in 2003-2008, 14.4 percent in 2008-2013) than in the prior three periods (hovering around 12 percent). That’s not improvement by any stretch of the imagination; it’s a worsening crisis.
Are things any better for the Jesuits worldwide? Well, some regions are certainly doing better than others. As CARA notes, “The clear majority of younger Jesuits are now coming from Asia and Africa.” The Center adds, “As Jesuits gather in 2016 for a General Congregation and to elect a new Superior General, the demographic center of the Jesuits will be in South Asia and the global South.”
That’s true, but somehow CWR cites the CARA data wrong when it reports: “… the number of Jesuit priests in East Asia (including Australia, Philippines, Indonesia, Korea, Japan, Vietnam, China, Thailand, and Myanmar) as well as the number of Jesuit priests in Latin America have stayed steady since the 1980s.” In fact, CARA’s study of Jesuit membership finds a 33 percent decline in Latin America and a 13 percent decline in East Asia during the period 1988-2013.
CWR also exaggerates its case for stability in the Society of Jesus with this statement: “Although Jesuit priests in Europe and United States declined in number, there was an increase in the number of Jesuit priests in South Asia (including India, Nepal and Sri Lanka) and Africa.” The implication is that the membership decline in Europe and the United States (7,057 Jesuits from 1988 to 2013) was somehow offset by the much smaller increases in South Asia and Africa (880 Jesuits during the same period).
Instead, the huge declines in Europe and America — together with the significant declines in Latin America and East Asia — have driven a worldwide decline in Jesuit membership since 1965. Over the prior 425 years, the order had grown to its largest number of 36,038 priests and brothers, as reported in the Vatican’s Annuario Pontificio. But from 1965 to 2015, membership dropped precipitously to 16,740. That’s a fall of more than 50 percent in just 50 years.
I’ve been told by the spokeswoman for the North American provinces that this year’s membership is 16,376 worldwide. That makes perfect sense; it’s consistent with the trends. By contrast, recent news reports claim “more than 17,000” and “just over 18,000,” but they cite no sources for their data. Those numbers couldn’t possibly be correct.
So there was a sharp decline over the last 50 years — but perhaps most of the drop occurred during the late 1960s and the 1970s, that tumultuous period following Vatican II, when there was widespread dissent from Humanae Vitae? Surprisingly, that’s not the case. The decline in Jesuit membership was indeed steepest (19.5 percent) during that first decade (1965-1975), when many priests and religious abandoned their vows. But the most recent decade (2005-2015) has also seen a sharp decline of 15.7 percent. Over the last three decades, the loss as a percentage of members has been getting worse, from a decline of 10.4 percent in 1984-1995 (no numbers are available for 1985), to 13.3 percent in the next decade and 15.7 percent most recently.
How about raw numbers? The Vatican reports that from 2005 to 2015, the Jesuits declined by 3,110 priests and brothers, which is less than half the actual decline (7,020) in the troubled decade of 1965-1975. But still, there were twice as many Jesuits in the first decade as the last. And the membership decline has worsened over the last three decades: from a drop of 2,665 in 1984-1995, to 3,035 in 1995-2005, to 3,110 this past decade. Again, that’s no sign of revival; the loss of members has been getting worse.
Moreover, those losses are not sporadic. Jesuit membership has declined every year since 1965, except for a brief uptick from 1984 to 1986.
Facts are facts. Maybe there are glimmers of hope in recent numbers, but overall the Society of Jesus is losing ground. Instead of counting on a bump in numbers thanks to Pope Francis, Jesuits might do better to consider whether these numbers reflect a greater instability in the order and a loss of reputation in the Church. While there are a number of exceptional Jesuits, the Society suffers from repeated controversy and moral confusion among others in its ranks. The reputation of the Jesuits as the “foot soldiers” for Christ is repeatedly undermined by many of their Jesuit universities, which are rapidly losing their Catholic identity and fidelity.
Normally we would celebrate the Memorial of St. Ignatius of Loyola on July 31, but this year it yields to the Sunday feast. This Sunday might be an opportunity for wayward Jesuits — instead of the usual celebration of the great Saint and his Company — to focus attention on the Eucharist and the unity of all the Faithful with the Magisterium of the Church, which should be the foundation for Jesuit education and spirituality. I bet that St. Ignatius would approve.
https://cardinalnewmansociety.org/wp-content/uploads/St.-Ignatius-of-Loyola-730x350-1.png350730Patrick Reillyhttps://cardinalnewmansociety.org/wp-content/uploads/CNS-logo-2C-450-tag2.pngPatrick Reilly2016-07-29 02:59:252020-05-26 15:04:03American Jesuits Are in a Free Fall, and the Crisis is Getting Worse
But when several Catholic university leaders gathered in the summer of 1967 at a remote retreat in Land O’ Lakes, Wisconsin, did they fully anticipate the consequences of their vision for “modern” Catholic education? Hopefully not.
It was 49 years ago, on July 20-23, when Notre Dame’s Father Theodore Hesburgh, C.S.C., gathered his peers to draft and sign the “Land O’ Lakes Statement,” a declaration of the independence of Catholic universities from “authority of whatever kind, lay or clerical, external to the academic community itself.”
Over the course of just a few years following the statement, most Catholic colleges and universities in America shed their legal ties to the Church and handed their institutions over to independent boards of trustees. In the quest for secular prestige and government funding, many went so far as to remove the crucifixes from their classroom walls and to represent their Catholic identity in historical terms (such as, “in the Jesuit tradition”).
The wound of secularization deepened over the next few decades: many Catholic colleges and universities weakened their core curricula in favor of the Harvard model of electives and specialization, adopted a radical notion of academic freedom, embraced relativism and political correctness, and largely abandoned the project of forming young people for Christ outside the classroom.
It wasn’t until 1990 that the “Land O’ Lakes Statement” was soundly repudiated by Saint Pope John Paul II in Ex corde Ecclesiae, the apostolic constitution for Catholic universities. Although not yet accepted in its entirety, Ex corde Ecclesiae turned the tide toward renewal of Catholic identity and gave prominence to those faithful institutions that never accepted the Land O’ Lakes mentality. In the meantime, however, Fr. Hesburgh’s declaration did much damage.
It’s for good reason, then, that the “Land O’ Lakes Statement” has become a focal point in American Church history. It’s sometimes described as an explosive, revolutionary act that changed the trajectory of Catholic higher education, which may be an exaggeration. But it certainly was a watershed moment, evidenced by the rapid changes that followed the statement. It was also the culmination of years of unrest in Catholic universities — in many respects, a moral struggle with the temptation to pride and prestige at the expense of Catholic identity.
With the “Land O’ Lakes Statement,” that struggle was momentarily lost. It represented a public, deliberate choice for opportunity over mission, resulting in a voluntary exile from the once-lush gardens of truth and wisdom that had distinguished the world’s Catholic universities.
The Allure of Prestige
For most Catholic university graduates and educators before the late 1960s, alma mater was still as much Mother Church as her academic institutions. But more than a decade before the “Land O’ Lakes Statement,” influential academics were already expressing disappointment with the public status of Catholic universities in the United States.
This was argued forcefully by Monsignor John Tracy Ellis, a Church history professor at the Catholic University of America, whose lament was published and disseminated by Fordham University:
“…in no western society is the intellectual prestige of Catholicism lower than in the country where, in such respects as wealth, numbers, and strength of organization, it is so powerful. …Admittedly, the weakest aspect of the Church in this country lies in its failure to produce national leaders and to exercise commanding influence in intellectual circles, and this at a time when the numbers of Catholics in the United States… and their material resources are incomparably superior to those of any other branch of the universal Church.”
Note that Msgr. Ellis did not claim that Catholics were intellectually lacking, but only that they lacked academic “influence” and “prestige.” The prior claim would have been astonishing, given that Ellis’ university colleagues included (until 1950) then-Bishop Fulton Sheen — who not only was known for his radio and television preaching, but also was described as a highly gifted philosopher.
The Thomas Reeves biography of the Venerable Sheen reveals a much earlier battle, in which the saintly professor testified to Catholic University’s board of trustees against attempts to make the institution a “Catholic Harvard,” with emphasis on secular prestige. At a 1935 trustees meeting, Sheen called for the “primacy of the spiritual” in Catholic education:
“The task of integrating the supernatural with the natural, of infusing human knowledge with the divine, of complementing our knowledge of things with our knowledge of God, of making all things Theocentric, is the business of a Catholic university.”
He added that the bishops’ national university:
“…is to education what the Catholic Church is to religion, namely, the leaven in the mass. The Church is not one of the sects, it is the unique life of Christ; the Catholic University is not one of the American Universities, it is their soul.”
The Deck is Stacked
It would be wrong, then, to assume that Catholic identity was suddenly under assault by the participants in the 1967 retreat at Land O’ Lakes. It had endured through many trials. The appeal for academic independence from “all authority” had perhaps found its time, when society itself seemed to have turned against tradition and values.
Two other false notions about the Land O’ Lakes meeting deserve to be corrected. For one thing, the retreat was not an isolated gathering of independent reformers; it was surprisingly “official,” one of several regional meetings around the world to help draft a statement by the Vatican-affiliated International Federation of Catholic Universities (IFCU), of which Fr. Hesburgh was then president. The final Vatican-influenced document, “The Catholic University in the Modern World,” was far more traditional in its understanding of Catholic education, and in fact it is quoted in Ex corde Ecclesiae.
Second, although the Land O’ Lakes meeting was identified as the North American regional delegation to the IFCU, it was never truly intended to represent all of the region’s Catholic colleges and universities. Subsequent histories and Notre Dame’s own description indicate that the participants were focused on large, research institutions — an odd emphasis, since none of the represented universities had truly attained that status, but perhaps they aspired to it.
Moreover, it seems the deck was stacked with Fr. Hesburgh’s allies: only 10 universities were represented, including six from the U.S.: Boston College, Catholic University of America, Fordham, Georgetown, Notre Dame and Saint Louis. (The rector of the Catholic University of America was alone in publicly criticizing the resulting statement.) Of the 26 signers, seven were from Notre Dame and its sponsoring Holy Cross Fathers, and ten were Jesuits or leaders of Jesuit institutions.
Some of the signers were especially notable: Archbishop Paul Hallinan of Atlanta, Father Theodore McCarrick (then president of the Pontifical University of Puerto Rico and later Archbishop of Washington) and Father Vincent O’Keefe, S.J. (later Vicar General of the Society of Jesus).
Also intriguing is the signature by John Cogley, a leftist scholar representing the Center for the Study of Democratic Institutions. It’s not clear what he was doing at Land O’ Lakes, except that he was a celebrated intellectual in certain circles. He had been religion editor of the New York Times and a principal writer of John F. Kennedy’s 1960 speech advocating the separation of church and state. He later dissented from Humanae Vitae and became an Episcopalian.
For a Few Coins
I leave it to the reader to explore more of the statement itself, but I’ll make one more claim about the motivations behind it. Above I accused the signers of succumbing to the temptation for worldly prestige. But closely tied to secular prestige is the desire for money, which seems also to have been a related factor.
In 1987, Sister Brigid Driscoll, former president of Marymount College in New York, offered a defense of the “Land O’ Lakes” mentality:
“In the 1960s and early 1970s, most Catholic colleges severed even tenuous ties to the Church…
“We became independent and named lay trustees because of accreditation, the increased sophistication of higher education as a major enterprise and because of the demands of growth…
“Those decisions meant a windfall for the schools a few years later when the federal government offered financial aid to independent colleges…
“Any indication that these schools were under ecclesiastical authority could cast doubt on their independence and thus jeopardize that aid…”
The same year, in the New York Times (Jan. 16, 1987), Fr. Hesburgh made a similar claim:
“Catholic colleges and universities receive a large amount of financial help in different forms from the public monies of the state.
“…if there were no academic freedom and institutional autonomy for Catholic higher education, it might very well be that the [U.S. Supreme] Court would rule that public funding for Catholic institutions of higher learning is unconstitutional.”
In fact, however, the Supreme Court has ruled quite differently in support of religious institutions. Today some of the most faithful Catholic colleges like Franciscan University of Steubenville and Thomas Aquinas College participate freely in federal student aid programs, as does the “ecclesiastical” Catholic University of America.
It’s sadly true that, for the Catholic universities that embraced Land O’ Lakes, secularization has been rewarded with large endowments and state aid. But it’s simply not true that federal aid would have been unavailable to universities that maintained formal ties to the Church. Ironically, Notre Dame still is under some legal control by the Holy Cross Fathers; its students receive grants and loans, and it has received numerous federal grants from the Obama administration (albeit after giving the President an honorary degree).
For many smaller Catholic colleges, secularization has not benefited them financially. They struggle to distinguish themselves from state universities that provide the same job training at less cost.
Marymount College in New York is a case in point. Recall that Sr. Driscoll seemed proud of her institution’s choice to sever “tenuous ties to the Church,” bringing a “windfall” of taxpayer funds. The College closed its doors in 2007 for financial reasons.
https://cardinalnewmansociety.org/wp-content/uploads/Boston-College_Bapst_Students-studying-in-Gargan-Hall-730x350-1.jpg350730Patrick Reillyhttps://cardinalnewmansociety.org/wp-content/uploads/CNS-logo-2C-450-tag2.pngPatrick Reilly2016-07-21 20:33:002020-05-26 15:04:36The Land O’ Lakes Statement Has Caused Devastation For 49 Years
We hear a lot about the decline of Catholic schools, but maybe not enough.
The numbers are staggering: Catholic school enrollment has declined more than two-thirds in the last 50 years, from 5.2 million to 1.9 million students.
Even so, Catholic homeschoolers perceive significant growth in their numbers, with the freedom to explore a vast menu of resources that improve upon the stale textbooks used by many schools.
Catholic classical educators likewise see an increase in their ranks, not only among homeschoolers but in schools that have shifted toward the classical model or have been newly founded.
At The Cardinal Newman Society, we hear regularly from parents who are excited by the changes to Catholic schools promoted by their bishops. These include the hard-won teacher standards championed by Archbishop Salvatore Cordileone of San Francisco.
So why the contradiction? In certain quarters, families and educators are embracing faithful Catholic education with great enthusiasm. And yet Catholic schools are still closing; we’ve lost nearly 20 percent of the schools that were in operation just 10 years ago, especially elementary schools.
The answer doesn’t come easily to those who define the crisis simply as a lack of students and money. These are symptoms of deeper problems in our schools. There have been too many misguided attempts to attract students and increase tuition revenues, donations and government subsidies.
These strategies are necessary and yet can harm Catholic schools if they ignore the far more serious problem: the diminishment of Catholic identity in recent decades.
Catholic schools in America once were the envy of the Western world, not because they sought prestige, but because they responded directly to the needs of Catholic families. They embraced goals and methods of forming the mind, body and soul that could only have sprung from the Catholic faith. Catholic education was excellent, precisely because it was Catholic.
Therefore, attracting families by reaching for secular standards and embracing the goals, methods, curricula and even textbooks of public education can be damaging to Catholic schools. Ultimately, it fills schools with students who don’t value what we value.
The same can be said for attracting donors by the same methods.
Worse, in an age when both state and federal government are turning increasingly secularist, the pursuit of government aid can be, at best, a short-term solution to financial needs. The day seems to be coming rapidly when Catholic schools may be permitted to uphold Catholic values only if they are free of government support.
So how do we address the crisis?
As evidenced by the success of many faithful Catholic schools today, I believe that the only path forward for schools that wish to both survive long-term and remain Catholic is to more robustly embrace the Church’s vision for Catholic schools. I believe this for three reasons:
First, a secular society will only permit religious freedom—if it is permitted at all—to the most consistently and fervently religious schools. In this, at least, the intolerance of the present age is having some positive impact, by motivating sincerely Catholic schools to establish clear and firm policies that are directly tied to Catholic teaching.
Second, the character of a school is determined largely by its teachers. If Catholic education is to genuinely form young people to be fully human, it requires teachers who witness to the faith and morals, both inside and outside the classroom. In today’s culture, hiring such teachers takes a special resolve on the part of school leaders who are firmly committed to faithful Catholic education, even in the face of potential lawsuits and pressure from both outside and within the Church.
Third, as more Catholic families turn to public schools and succumb to the zeitgeist of the age, the remaining market for Catholic schools will include higher concentrations of families who appreciate genuine Catholic education. Already we are seeing how seriously Catholic schools are attracting students, donors and even local acclaim for their “old-fashioned” methods. Other schools that strive for students by shedding Catholic identity may find the strategy short-lived, at least if they intend to continue as Catholic schools.
(A scholar recently commented to me that the closing of secularized schools represents the sort of “pruning of the vine” that Pope Benedict XVI predicted in the Church. I suggested that it may be more akin to dead branches withering and falling away of their own accord, since every effort is being made to save them. But the scholar’s point was that the Church ultimately benefits from the fruit of the healthy branches.)
No matter how desperate a school’s effort to gain students or financial support, it is even more important that it remains true to its mission and regains anything that has been lost in past years. Catholic schools should:
Hire only teachers and leaders who embrace that mission and the Catholic faith.
Study and observe the key principles of Catholic education found in the Church’s rich teachings on the nature of the Catholic school.
Subscribe only to school and curriculum standards that explicitly uphold the Catholic school’s emphasis on evangelization and formation.
Establish student and personnel policies that explain and uphold Catholic moral teachings.
Fight vigorously for religious freedom, and permit no government encroachment on Catholic education.
Listen to parents and serve them in their task as the primary educators of their children. Help children know and love their Savior.
Years from now, the surviving Catholic school is unlikely to be satisfied with meeting minimal obligations for retaining the Catholic label. That’s not enough.
It’s the school where leaders and teachers are eager to provide the very best Catholic formation—to lead young people to Christ and to accompany them on the road to Heaven—that exemplifies the truly healthy Catholic school. That’s something that families can rally around.
https://cardinalnewmansociety.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/04/Fritz-von-Uhde.jpg519682Patrick Reillyhttps://cardinalnewmansociety.org/wp-content/uploads/CNS-logo-2C-450-tag2.pngPatrick Reilly2016-07-16 21:07:002020-05-26 15:05:18For Catholic Schools to Survive, Their Catholicity Must Thrive
A nightmare scenario has further developed in California, threatening to severely harm Catholic colleges as legislators pursue a radical “gender ideology” and the dismantling of religious freedom.
New amendments to an anti-religious education bill working its way through the California legislature clearly impact Catholic colleges’ employment practices, effectively forcing them to drop out of the state’s financial aid programs for students.
Previous versions of Senate Bill (SB) 1146 made religious colleges, except for seminaries and similar programs, subject to the nondiscrimination clause in California’s Equity in Higher Education Act. That clause forbids discrimination against students with regard to “sexual orientation,” and its prohibition against sex discrimination has been interpreted to include self-declared “gender identity.”
The bill also punishes religious colleges that have legally obtained exemptions from the federal Title IX law, which bans sex discrimination in education but has been interpreted by the Obama administration to require accommodations for “transgender” students. It requires those colleges to publicly declare their exemption in a variety of ways to a variety of audiences, including prospective students and employees.
It is, in effect, a modern “Scarlet Letter” for faithful Christian educators.
These provisions apply only to colleges accepting state funds. But nearly all religious colleges in California participate in the Cal Grant program, which provides students up to $9,084 if they attend a private four-year college. Exclusion from the program would make attendance at a Catholic college unaffordable for many, and Catholic colleges would be at a severe disadvantage in competing for students.
All of these terrible elements remain in the new version of the bill. But according to the legal experts at Alliance Defending Freedom, recent amendments added by the state Assembly Judiciary Committee make the situation worse.
The bill now amends not only the Equity in Higher Education Act, but also the state’s Government Code 11135, which clearly concerns discrimination in employment as well as student policies. There was some ambiguity as to whether prior versions of the bill applied only to student policies, but the Government Code clearly references employment practices including hiring, firing, faculty expectations and health benefits.
This is unacceptable for a faithful Catholic institution, which must ensure that its professors uphold Catholic teaching in the classroom and by their personal example.
With regard to students, there has been some helpful clarification in the new version of the bill. A religious college is explicitly permitted to enforce moral codes, mandatory religious practices and housing policies that are applied universally without consideration of a student’s claim to gender or sexuality. Also, a religious college may refuse the use of its facilities for purposes that violate its religious mission — presumably including same-sex weddings.
However, the new bill is explicit in its requirement that religious colleges make single-sex facilities and residences available to “transgender” students, regardless of their biological sex. And if a college offers housing for married students, it must include legally married same-sex couples.
Should this bill become law, I see no option for faithful Catholic colleges but to withdraw from the Cal Grants program. The campaign to force a radical “gender ideology” and sexual immorality on religious colleges could shove them into second-class status. And the campaign likely will not end here; we can expect efforts in California and elsewhere to pass even more draconian laws against religious schools and charities.
Worse — and this is what I fear most — the persecution will tempt California’s less faithful Catholic colleges to capitulate and further erode the foundations of Catholic education.
The precedent for capitulation has already been set. Although Loyola Marymount University and Santa Clara University waged brief but noble battles to remove abortion coverage from their employee health insurance, they fell silent in the face of new state rules forcing that coverage even on religious institutions. And only Thomas Aquinas College and John Paul the Great University have been strong in opposing the Obama administration’s HHS Mandate.
The campaign to rid California of religious education must be fought vigorously. But the future looks bleak: encroachment on Catholic education at both the state and federal level may soon require faithful Catholic schools and colleges to withdraw from government aid programs.
This should be quite possible for Catholic schools, but I don’t know how many of the Catholic colleges can survive financially, unless the forced corruption of moral standards at other colleges will have the happy effect of driving donors and paying students to the few remaining bastions of moral education. How many Catholic colleges choose to compromise their Catholic beliefs rather than give up taxpayer funds is a question of great importance to Catholic families.
What they do in response to this bill, now and if it becomes law, will have lasting consequences for their institutions and for Catholic families. I believe that capitulation might give up the project of Catholic education altogether for all but a few colleges. The time is very late to oppose California’s campaign against religious education, but Catholic college leaders should be fighting it with all the effort they can muster.
How do Catholic schools best serve students who struggle with same-sex attraction or gender dysphoria (popularly called “transgendered”)? What should a school’s policies prescribe in order to prevent confusion, disputes and even litigation?
Previously, these questions were often addressed behind closed doors, as administrators worked quietly on a case-by-case basis and often within traditional moral norms. However, since this past summer’s Supreme Court ruling supporting same-sex marriage and the social acceptance of superstar Bruce Jenner’s gender dysphoria, Catholic schools face an increasingly public challenge to their teaching and mission.
This dynamic became painfully evident in the recent decision by a Rhode Island Catholic school, which ignited a national firestorm by refusing to admit transgendered students and then was pressured to reverse its policy within just a couple of days. The correct instinct that a Catholic school cannot accommodate willful gender confusion gave rise to a weak position statement, holding that transgendered students could not be admitted due to a lack of facilities to accommodate them. Activists seized upon the opportunity and offered to “crowd source” the necessary facilities, forcing the school to reverse its policy of strict exclusion.
While some Catholic school leaders might be persuaded to avoid this thorny issue, or to embrace a false compassion that is inconsistent with Catholic teaching, instead the Rhode Island school’s misstep highlights the grave necessity of a more comprehensive policy approach to sexuality in Catholic schools. Catholic schools must bravely serve all students, including same-sex attracted or gender dysphoric students, by forthrightly presenting and upholding truth. That’s why — in addition to the excellent resources for Christians already available from Alliance Defending Freedom, The Heritage Foundation and the Liberty Institute — The Cardinal Newman Society has released a new handbook of Human Sexuality Policies for Catholic Schools to help Catholic educators with specific exemplars and language tied to their Catholic mission.
Working with students who have these sexual inclinations is complex, especially since a Catholic school is called to serve everyone who has the capability and desire to partake in its mission. It must also be clear that all students are expected to follow the same school policies, and not work against the school’s mission, or its moral and religious standards and ends.
A Catholic school which clearly articulates the faith in these matters is bound to make some enemies in the common culture, and even possibly to be threatened with legal action. But Catholic educators must never compromise the faith, or the authentic good of their students, for fear of public ridicule or potential litigation. In fact, it is precisely a deeply felt and lived Catholicism, rooted in an authentic love for all students, which is the best protection against litigation. The more clearly and comprehensively a Catholic school articulates its unique religious mission and identity, and the more securely it anchors its policies for all students in this mission, the more protected it is from potential litigation. Such a comprehensive, mission-based approach ensures that students struggling with issues of human sexuality or gender dysphoria are not singled out for different treatment, but rather are held to the same faith-based standards as all students in the school.
Know Thyself
Since it is critical that Catholic schools ensure that all policies are consistent with their Catholic mission, they need to clearly articulate that mission. Pope Pius XI describes the purpose of Catholic education as “securing the Supreme Good, that is, God, for the souls of those who are being educated, and the maximum of well-being possible here below for human society.” Expanding upon this, the Church’s Code of Canon Law #795 sums up the mission of Catholic education this way:
Since true education must strive for complete formation of the human person that looks to his or her final end, as well as to the common good of societies, children and youth are to be nurtured in such a way that they are able to develop their physical, moral, and intellectual talents harmoniously, acquire a more perfect sense of responsibility and right use of freedom, and are formed to participate actively in social life.
The final end for which Catholic schools prepare their students is union with God through Christ. A Catholic school also facilitates students’ participation in the common good. Both goals are accomplished by integrally and harmoniously developing the students’ minds, spirits, morals, and bodies so that they might use their freedom properly. What is proper or good as a means of attaining our final end of salvation is always understood in terms of Church teaching, based on the person and truth of Jesus Christ.
This is what Catholic schools do. This is who we are. This is what we offer.
Those who do not want to receive what we offer are free to go wherever they want to find what they think they need. We are not required to change our standards to meet the needs of those who reject all or part of our efforts, especially if changing our standards works contrary to our mission. Those students or families who only want to benefit from a part of the mission, such as our intellectual formation, must still participate with goodwill in the full program.
This program includes formation of the whole human person. We cannot disaggregate our efforts or offer our formation a la carte, because: “In the Catholic school’s educational project, there is no separation between time for learning and time for formation, between acquiring notions and growing in wisdom,” according to the Vatican Congregation for Catholic Education. The Congregation also emphasizes that everything in a Catholic school is Catholic, and the faith is everywhere:
What makes the Catholic school distinctive is its religious dimension, and that this is to be found in a) the educational climate, b) the personal development of each student, c) the relationship established between culture and the Gospel, d) the illumination of all knowledge with the light of faith.
A student or family may not like every part of the complete educational project, but they should be expected to participate in the complete mission, to the fullest extent possible for their state of life, and never do anything that works against the mission, or protests it. Surely those whose religious practices and beliefs run counter to Church teaching might experience conflicts as the school maintains mission integrity. Sincere questioning of the practices and traditions of the Catholic faith, in order to more deeply understand them, ought to be welcome, but openly hostile and public defiance of Catholic truths or morality are signs that a student may not be a good fit for a Catholic school’s primary evangelical mission and, therefore, may be denied admission.
All students should be welcome in our schools, including those working through issues of gender dysphoria and same-sex attraction, but all students must be willing to work within the religious mission of the school, and comport themselves according to the social and moral norms of the distinctive Catholic environment they have freely chosen.
Love One Another
A Catholic school always interacts with others in an attitude of deep respect. This respect is based on the essential human dignity of each person, who is made in the image and likeness of God. There is no room in a Catholic school for hatred, injustice, or a lack of charity or compassion. It is also true that while all people have an inherent dignity and fundamental freedom that must be respected, one need not have inherent respect for all that people do. Respect for particular human behaviors must depend on how completely they fulfill the proper nature of humanity as created by God.
Those who experience challenges in the proper exercise of their sexuality can be respected as members of the human family, and yet still be challenged in behavior which the Church considers as not fulfilling its proper nature. Catholic schools are places to clarify and distinguish between error and truth, sin and virtue, order and disorder, according to reason, natural law, revelation, and Church teaching. Catholic schools make no secret about what the Church teaches regarding human sexuality. We cannot compromise that teaching by looking the other way when one is in serious error, and we cannot allow for the advocacy of error in our hallways. We do this in humility to the truth, and out of love for others.
Respect and love can only transpire in the truth. Love entails seeking the authentic good of the other. A simple definition of “good” is when a thing well-fulfills its potentialities and purposes. Love, then, involves assisting another to fulfill their full human potentiality as created and loved by God.
While many groups differ as to what exactly constitutes human good, the purpose of a Catholic school is to address these issues from a distinctly Catholic perspective, and within a deeply felt and lived Catholic culture. When this dynamic is focused on issues related to human sexuality, it is clear that the Catholic Church has a distinct and defined theology regarding the potentialities and purposes of human sexuality. The Catholic school must ensure that these are presented, even in the face of a hostile common culture, with conviction, integrity, and charity. A school’s pastoral, and policy practices must be written in fidelity to the moral guidance and teachings of the Catholic Church in all areas that touch on human nature, including issues related to human sexuality.
We situate this teaching in the conviction that the mission of a Catholic school includes the integral formation of the whole person: body, mind, and spirit. The whole person includes the student’s attitudes, dispositions, and behaviors, of which the very complex area of human sexuality is a part. As a Catholic institution, we believe that our bodies are gifts from God, and temples of the Holy Spirit. We believe that human sexual behavior is only properly oriented to the ends of love and life in the context of a sacramental marriage.
We believe that the body and soul are intimately united: the body does not contain the soul, like water in a glass, but rather holistically and naturally expresses who we are in the order of creation as physical/spiritual beings. We believe that the sexes are complementary, and that “male and female he made us.” Our given biological sex is part of the divine plan. The Church teaches that sexual identity is “a reality deeply inscribed in man and woman” that is rooted in one’s biological identity, and that a person “should acknowledge and accept his sexual identity.” Biological identity and sexual identity are never disaggregated. Both are gifts from God for us to perfect and bring into harmony according to his plan and guidance. They are not ours to reject, or to change outside of their proper functioning at our own will, because we believe God has made a mistake which we must correct.
Catholic schools understand truth to be the state in which the mind is in conformity with reality: a reality which entails the fullness of God’s creation and divine plan. We also affirm that reality is knowable through the use of properly functioning senses and reason, as well as through the aid of divine revelation.
In this context, a student who wishes to express a gender other than his or her biological sex is understood as operating outside of the “reality deeply inscribed” within. Assisting the child in his or her disconnect with this reality — however sincerely experienced — by agreeing to participate in the child’s efforts to change gender expression, is contrary to the pursuit of the truth. Authentic love, a gift of the self for the good of the other, requires that we compassionately dwell in the truth, and assist those we love to do the same. We will lovingly accompany the student through the inherent challenges of this situation, but in the fullness of love, must also insist upon integrity between reality and comportment for the good of the child, and for the common good.
In a similar vein, we love and respect all of our students, but Catholic schools cannot condone or respect unchaste or disordered sexual activity. Every member of our school is called to a life of holiness, and that holiness includes living a chaste life appropriate to one’s vocation, whether as single, married, or consecrated religious. The Church defines chastity as the successful integration of sexuality within the person and, thus, the inner unity of man in his bodily and spiritual being: “The chaste person maintains the integrity of the powers of life and love placed in him. This integrity ensures the unity of the person; it is opposed to any behavior that would impair it. It tolerates neither a double life nor duplicity in speech.” Also, because the Catholic Church teaches that same-sex attraction is intrinsically disordered, and that sexual activity is only appropriate for the purposes of love and life within sacramental marriage, those students experiencing this disordered inclination may not advocate for it, or express it in the context of our Catholic school classes, activities, or events. The Church encourages individuals experiencing same-sex attraction to pursue the virtues of chastity, self-mastery, and friendship, instead of acting upon those inclinations, romantically or sexually—as is the current norm in much of secular society.
Authentic Good for All Students
Once properly situated in the broad context of a school’s Catholic mission, particular efforts to work respectfully and holistically from within a Catholic context and culture with students experiencing same-sex attraction or gender dysphoria can be better understood, and more clearly articulated. Because the Church teaches that for all its students sexual activity is only properly exercised toward the ends of both love and life in the context of a valid marriage, and because it teaches that same-sex attraction is disordered, the school can and should prohibit actively advocating for, or manifesting same-sex attraction, at school and school events. Similarly, because a Catholic school does not disaggregate gender from biological sex, the school can clarify that it accepts people with gender dysphoria, but still holds them accountable to all policies and procedures (including dress code and facilities use) concordant with the student’s biological sex.
Granted this is a complex and potential litigious topic, but Catholic schools must be willing to secure the authentic good of their students, in season and out of season. If students and families want to pursue a competing concept of the good, that is, of course, their right; but Catholic schools do not need to provide, nor accommodate, a competing version of the good. It is our right and our responsibility to live the truth with love in complete fidelity to Christ and his Church.
Our message of love and human flourishing must be faithful, pastoral, and clear. Our Catholic schools should be open to all who wish to join our mission of complete human formation of our students for their own salvation and good, and for the good of others.
https://cardinalnewmansociety.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/04/Perspectives-in-Cathlic-Ed-Web-Header-845-x-321-px-01.png13383521Dr. Dan Guernseyhttps://cardinalnewmansociety.org/wp-content/uploads/CNS-logo-2C-450-tag2.pngDr. Dan Guernsey2016-04-28 16:16:222020-05-26 15:06:08Serving “LGBT” Students in Catholic Schools
Clearly, then, Catholic identity is not dependent upon statistics…
It demands and inspires much more: namely that each and every aspect of your learning communities reverberates within the ecclesial life of faith. Only in faith can truth become incarnate and reason truly human, capable of directing the will along the path of freedom (cf. Spe Salvi, 23). In this way our institutions make a vital contribution to the mission of the Church and truly serve society. They become places in which God’s active presence in human affairs is recognized and in which every young person discovers the joy of entering into Christ’s “being for others.”
Pope Benedict XVI remarks given at Catholic University of America, April 17, 2008
The Church has always taught the beauty of human sexuality and that each person, made in the image and likeness of God, should live chastely, according to his vocation. Although not a recent phenomenon, our society has in many ways become blind to these beautiful teachings of the Church and has espoused a radically new, secular view of the human person. This new philosophy has affected all aspects of the moral life, not only those that involve human sexuality.
The sexual revolution, heralded as liberation in the 1960s, eventually took its toll even in our Catholic institutions of higher learning. The Church has always taught the beauty of human sexuality and that each person, made in the image and likeness of God, should live chastely, according to his vocation. Although not a recent phenomenon, our society has in many ways become blind to these beautiful teachings of the Church and has espoused a radically new, secular view of the human person. This new philosophy has affected all aspects of the moral life, not only those that involve human sexuality.
Out of a desire to meet the needs of their ever-growing non-Catholic student population, and to keep up with their secular counterparts, Catholic universities began to abandon the various student life policies that reflected the teachings of the Church, particularly in the area of human sexuality.
When I was a sophomore at a large Catholic university in the early 1970s, I distinctly remember when the university administration instituted 24-hour inter-visitation in the residence halls. Up to this point, all the living arrangements were single-sex, with visitation policies prohibiting members of the opposite sex to spend time in each other’s residence halls. But then it all changed. From my own, first-hand experience, I can attest that these new policies had a devastating effect on campus residential life. I personally witnessed many friends and acquaintances who were deeply, adversely affected by what was perceived as the institution’s approval of promiscuity. The adults/administration seemed to be saying, “You are old enough to make up your own mind about sexual morality.”Out of a desire to meet the needs of their ever-growing non-Catholic student population, and to keep up with their secular counterparts, Catholic universities began to abandon the various student life policies that reflected the teachings of the Church, particularly in the area of human sexuality.
After a number of years of inter-visitation, Catholic colleges and universities began to allow co-ed dormitories. Not surprisingly, there are now many Catholic institutions of higher learning whose dormitories house both sexes; in some cases men and women are separated by floors, others by wings, and even others, simply by rooms. It is not too difficult to ponder the consequences of such a policy.
One of the reasons I was attracted to come to Christendom College was the fact that, since its founding, Christendom has been faithful to the commitment to encourage and bear witness to all of the Church’s teachings, including the beautiful teaching on chastity. Let me explain the reasoning behind this stance.
The rules and policies that a college enforces must truly reflect the institution’s beliefs—her mission and integrity. If a college is genuinely committed to being Catholic, then every facet of the college, including the rules and regulations governing student life, must reflect Church teachings, bringing those teachings to life and incarnating them for the students.
The Catholic Church has always taught that unmarried people of the opposite sex need to exercise a prudent reserve in relationships, especially because of the goodness, indeed the holiness, of intimacy within marriage. Anyone of maturity and good sense knows that permissive rules allowing young men and women to spend hours upon hours inside each other’s dormitory rooms not only contradict the Church’s teachings on prudence and chastity, but also seriously jeopardize the purity of these young people. When students perceive the disconnect between exhortations by college administrators to live a virtuous life and residential policies that are not conducive to that calling, they not only lose their trust in the institution, but they also become seriously confused about what is right and what is wrong. When this happens, the institution fails in its mission to teach the whole truth about the human person.
Some voices in both secular and Catholic academia believe, since the students are generally over the age of 18, and therefore, in the eyes of the law, adults, that there is no need to implement policies affirming and encouraging chastity. Some insist that these young adults are mature and should not be told what to do in this regard. Others maintain that the students need only encouragement and good example, that these will be sufficient inducements to their becoming virtuous men and women who live a chaste life. Clearly this reasoning is deficient as evidenced by rules governing consumption of alcoholic beverages. Rules are meant to reinforce morals and foster virtuous behavior, just as they do in the home life; they are meant to complement, not contradict each other.
Given the brutal collapse of our secular culture, we need to have the courage to embrace a “contra mundum” stance. An authentically Catholic college, one striving to do the will of the Church, as faithful disciples, should not only adopt residential policies that separate and respect the dignity of the opposite sexes, but it should also provide many examples and events that promote and illustrate the joy of virtuous living, such as pro-chastity speakers or a course devoted to St. John Paul II’s Theology of the Body. This two-pronged attack offers a greater chance of success in bearing witness to the power and truth of Catholic teaching.
Our Catholic institutions of higher learning need to foster virtue and be countercultural as a corrective to our nation’s secular universities, many of which are floundering and debasing human dignity in this sensitive area. We need to bear witness to the truth and convince our beloved young people that they have a dignity and a calling far greater than that which is promoted by the secular world.
https://cardinalnewmansociety.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/04/Perspectives-in-Cathlic-Ed-Web-Header-845-x-321-px-01.png13383521Dr. Timothy O'Donnellhttps://cardinalnewmansociety.org/wp-content/uploads/CNS-logo-2C-450-tag2.pngDr. Timothy O'Donnell2016-04-18 03:28:002020-05-26 15:07:00Encourage, Enact, and Enforce: A Residential Blueprint for Witnessing to the Church’s Teachings on Chastity during the College Years
December 20, 2013 – In recent decades, Church leaders, together with Catholic families, have come to better appreciate that Catholic identity is essential to Catholic schools’ mission, teaching methods, curriculum, and appeal. It is because of their Catholic identity that schools are most attentive to the needs of students and their families. “These Catholic schools afford the fullest and best opportunity to realize the fourfold purpose of Christian education, namely to provide an atmosphere in which the Gospel message is proclaimed, community in Christ is experienced, service to our sisters and brothers is the norm, and thanksgiving and worship of our God is cultivated” (U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops, Renewing Our Commitment to Catholic Elementary and Secondary Schools in the Third Millennium, 2005).
Although Catholic schools in the United States—which have served students and the Church in an exemplary way for more than a century—have avoided many of the pedagogical and curricular trends in public schools, some Catholic educators have recently advocated for Catholic schools to adopt or adapt the untested and increasingly controversial Common Core State Standards Initiative.
We have grave concerns. This school reform effort is nothing short of a revolution in how education is provided, relying on a technocratic, top-down approach to setting national standards that, despite claims to the contrary, will drive curricula, teaching texts, and the content of standardized tests. At its heart, the Common Core is a woefully inadequate set of standards in that it limits the understanding of education to a utilitarian “readiness for work” mentality.
Well-intentioned proponents of adopting the Common Core in Catholic schools have argued that Catholic identity can be “infused” into the Core. This approach misses the point that authentic Catholic identity is not something that can be added to education built around thoroughly secular standards, but that our faith must be the center of—and fundamental to—everything that a Catholic school does.
The Common Core revolution in American education was launched behind closed doors and rushed to implementation in public schools with the promise of tax dollars as an inducement—even though all the Standards have not yet been completed, and those that have been released are controversial among many expert educators and parents. Catholic educators need not rush to follow this potentially dangerous path.
There is an ongoing, healthy debate about whether the Common Core is appropriate in public schools, and even more so in Catholic schools. Let it run its course. The Cardinal Newman Society—together with the countless Catholic parents, principals and pastors we have heard from—is concerned that we will be locked into the Common Core before it has been thoroughly and rigorously evaluated.
Most troubling in the public debate about whether Catholic schools should adopt the Common Core is that parents, whom the Church recognizes are the primary educators of their children, have been largely absent from it. They lack sufficient information to make judgments about the Common Core. And yet, as the Church has clearly taught, parents deserve a strong voice in deciding whether to embrace this “fundamental shift” in Catholic education, as the Common Core has been described by one leading Catholic advocate.
The Cardinal Newman Society is concerned that adoption of the Common Core at this time is premature. Worse, it may be a mistake that will be difficult or impossible to undo for years to come. We do not doubt the good intentions of those who advocate the Common Core in Catholic schools, and we acknowledge their confidence that Catholic schools can maintain a strong Catholic identity even while measuring their quality according to secular standards. But we do not share this confidence, in light of the sad experience in recent decades of many Catholic colleges, hospitals, and charities that believed they could infuse Catholic identity into the secular standards that they embraced.
We seek to help inform the dialogue about the Common Core with our new project and website, Catholic Is Our Core (www.CatholicIsOurCore.org), while expanding the conversation to include parents, educators and principals who have largely been absent from the debate. The Cardinal Newman Society’s mission is to promote and defend faithful Catholic education. We are working closely with key Catholic education experts and others to provide analysis of the Core and its potential impact on Catholic schools. We seek to provide those concerned about faithful Catholic education with solid information, analysis and arguments to more fully understand the potential impact of the Common Core on Catholic education and to advise caution about the Common Core until it can be further studied and evaluated.
https://cardinalnewmansociety.org/wp-content/uploads/CNS-logo-2C-450-tag2.png00Cardinal Newman Society Staffhttps://cardinalnewmansociety.org/wp-content/uploads/CNS-logo-2C-450-tag2.pngCardinal Newman Society Staff2016-03-08 16:15:002020-05-26 15:08:15Statement Regarding Common Core
In a hyper-sexual society, once-traditional morals have eroded even in our Catholic institutions—and especially on many Catholic college campuses. Research shows that the pervasive “hook up” culture on the typical American campus is found even at many Catholic colleges, a fact that will not surprise most Crisis readers.
Given the documented consequences of the Sexual Revolution, it’s long past time that Catholic colleges take the lead on campus reform, creating cultures that reinforce the expectation of chastity. Solutions are by no means simple, as the casual sex scene has become an accepted norm of college life—even seemingly acceptable to many Catholic parents who would never allow such behavior in their homes. But while there’s no quick fix, Catholic colleges can at least start to address the problem by observing the residence life policies of those few faithful Catholic institutions and their other Christian counterparts that promote a culture of chastity.
Good solutions often begin with good data, so The Cardinal Newman Society has published a review of the dorm visitation policies at 191 residential Catholic college campuses in the United States. Our report, Visitation Policies at U.S. Catholic Colleges, is a factual overview of policies that regulate student visits to those campus residences that function, at least in large part, as student bedrooms.
https://cardinalnewmansociety.org/wp-content/uploads/nguyen-dang-hoang-nhu-HHs_PrvxSQk-unsplash-scaled.jpg19202560Adam Wilsonhttps://cardinalnewmansociety.org/wp-content/uploads/CNS-logo-2C-450-tag2.pngAdam Wilson2016-02-23 21:02:072020-05-26 15:11:19New Dorm Visitation Study Reveals Need for Reform
This report presents the results from a Cardinal Newman Society study of the visitation policies in student residences at residential Catholic colleges, not including seminaries, in the United States.1 Data used in the report was collected during the summer of 2015.
The report primarily evaluates visitation hours—the times during which colleges permit students of the opposite sex to be present in student bedrooms (including single-room residences) on campus. The report also presents information on other residence life policies that regulate the interaction between male and female students in campus residences. The report considers the policies of Catholic institutions and then compares policies of select Catholic and other Christian colleges.
In the first part of the report, it is found that the vast majority of Catholic colleges have residence life policies that permit students of the opposite sex to visit each other in bedrooms until early morning hours, behind closed doors. More than one quarter of the Catholic colleges permit students to stay overnight in an opposite-sex bedroom at least one night a week. Very few Catholic colleges prohibit opposite-sex visitation entirely. About a third of Catholic colleges have policies that explicitly forbid sexual intimacy in campus residences. The report also explores additional policies that regulate student behavior during visitation times, including open-door rules.
In the second part of the study, a sample of Catholic and other Christian colleges was selected in order to compare visitation policies. The selected non-Catholic Christian colleges have substantially more limited opposite-sex visitation hours than their Catholic counterparts and are stricter about prohibiting sexual intimacy in residences. Many of the selected Catholic institutions are ambiguous in their policies regarding sexual intimacy.
Methodology
For the first part of this report, the researcher attempted to review policies regarding opposite-sex visitation at all residential Catholic colleges in the United States. Policies were identified for 191 Catholic colleges, but no policies were found for three Catholic colleges.2 Another ten Catholic colleges were nonresidential and therefore not included in the study.3 The visitation hours for all Catholic colleges are included in Appendix A at the end of this report.
For the second part of the report, the researcher compared a sample of 40 Catholic colleges affiliated with the Association of Catholic Colleges and Universities (ACCU) and 40 non-Catholic Christian colleges affiliated with the Council of Christian Colleges and Universities (CCCU). For a rough parity between samples, they include only institutions that were rated in the U.S. News & World Report Best College Rankings and Lists in 2015.4 For both Catholic and other Christian institutions, six were selected from the U.S. News “National Universities Rankings,” six from the “National Liberal Arts Colleges Rankings,” four from each of the four “Regional Universities Rankings,” and three from each of the four “Regional Colleges Rankings.” The highest-ranked Catholic and other Christian colleges in each category were selected; however, some were excluded and replaced by other colleges, because no visitation information could be found. The samples do not allow for a strictly equivalent comparison, but nevertheless they are of interest because of their similarities in secular rankings and yet substantial differences with regard to visitation policies. The visitation hours for the sample of Catholic and other Christian colleges are included in Appendix B at the end of this report.
Information included in this report was collected during the summer of 2015 from various resources posted online by the colleges. Information was also collected through direct communication with some of the colleges by email and phone when there was insufficient data online. Online sources include, but are not limited to, student handbooks, student life or residence life handbooks, community standards pages and residence life information pages. The most recent official college documents which could be found at the time of the study were used.
Some institutions have stricter policies for freshmen than for other students. There is also variation in the visitation hours among different residences at some colleges. In such instances, the most relaxed hours for undergraduate students were recorded. Some institutions that set specific hours for visitation were reported to have open visitation due to the fact that they permit overnight opposite-sex visitation under certain circumstances. And some institutions that prohibit overnight opposite-sex visitation do not provide any time limits to visitation. These instances were reported as open visitation.
The report focuses on visitation hours for traditional campus residences. Some colleges have more relaxed visitation hours for students in campus apartments, houses, and townhomes with the rationale that such living arrangements include areas for visitors that are not bedrooms. Because the emphasis of this report is on bedroom visitation, the policies for such residences were generally not used for analysis in the first part of the report.
Similarly, some colleges that do not permit opposite-sex visitation do allow for common area visitation in residence halls. Such common area hours were not taken into consideration in this report, which is focused on bedroom visitation. The exception to this rule is when common area hours are set by a college, but the decision on visitation hour limits for bedrooms is left up to students. In these cases, the report uses the common area hours to determine the latest visitation hours in the bedrooms. These instances are not considered to have “open” visitation due to the fact that common area hours were always found to be more relaxed or equal to bedroom hours.
Institutions that rarely permit opposite-sex visitation during special open house events under close supervision are reported here as not allowing visitation.
The main categories of visitation hours utilized in this report are “Weekday Nights” (Monday through Thursday) and “Weekend Nights” (Friday and Saturday). Some colleges have opposite-sex visitation hours on only certain days of the week, but these are recorded as a college’s weekday or weekend policy, as appropriate. If the hours vary, the latest hour is recorded.
In the section considering policies on sexual intimacy in the first part of this report, only those policies that explicitly prohibit sexual activity were quantified. Other policies not recorded include those prohibiting cohabitation and overnight visits of the opposite sex, but without explicitly proscribing sexual intimacy. As the purview of this report is to gather specific visitation hours and definite rules regarding sexual intimacy, those policies not explicitly forbidding sexual intimacy were not considered in the analysis.
The charts in this report round down visitation end times to the closest hour.
The researcher took care to ensure accuracy and completeness of the information recorded but acknowledges the possibility of some mistakes or omissions given the amount of data involved in the research. If any errors are found or reported, they will be corrected in the online version of this report.
Catholic College and University Visitation Policies
Overview
Overall, 182 (95 percent) of the 190 residential Catholic colleges studied permit opposite-sex visitation at some time during the week. Of these, only a handful have open-door policies. About one-third of the colleges have policies expressly prohibiting sexual intimacy in student residences.
Weekend Night Visitation
Fifty-four Catholic colleges (28 percent) have “open” hours on weekend nights (Friday and Saturday), meaning that opposite-sex students can stay in student bedrooms without time limits. Forty-nine (26 percent) permit visitation without time limits on both weekend and weekday nights. Some colleges (39 or 21 percent) do not set any hour limits to visitation on weekends; nine of these (5 percent) leave it up to students to determine, meaning that students are free to establish with their roommates—by means of a residence contract or other agreement—the hours during which opposite-sex guests are permitted. And some (13 or 7 percent) have unlimited opposite-sex visitation for only some students, usually upper-classmen or seniors. All of these instances5 are defined as “open” visitation for this report.6
There are a few examples of open visitation that should be mentioned. Edgewood College specifies a policy that permits “Weekend Opposite Sex/Intimate Partner Visitation Hours.” Edgewood states, “All students are eligible to have 24-hour weekend visitation of guests. Visitation hours in which members of the opposite sex and same-sex intimate partners are permitted are: Weekend visitation hours begin 8:00 a.m. Friday and run through 11:00 p.m. Sunday.”7
A few colleges were considered to have open visitation in light of exceptions made to other standard policies. Examples include La Salle University, which sets opposite-sex visitation hours on weekends. However, La Salle permits overnight visitation in some residence halls “in recognition of such residences’ structural designs and the possibility of legitimate needs for group study,” although it is discouraged.8 The College of New Rochelle sets opposite-sex visitation limits for all students, but says, “The only exception in Angela Hall is that seniors or those over age 23 may have overnight guests of the opposite sex.”9 Similarly, St. Mary’s College in Indiana, which is an all-female college, has visitation hour limits and permits only female overnight guests, with the exception of “Regina South Tower, where male guests may stay over night.”10 Regina South Tower is a residence hall for senior students with one-, two-, three-, and four-bedroom residences. And Seton Hall University sets hours for visitation, but also states that students “can co-host with someone of the opposite gender if you wish to host someone of the opposite gender. Your co-host and guest must remain with you at all times.”11
Eight colleges (5 percent) do not permit any opposite-sex visitation in student residences on weekends.
Of the remaining colleges, the median latest visitation hour is 2:00 a.m. Nearly half of the Catholic colleges studied (91 or 48 percent) end weekend visitation in the 2:00 a.m. hour. A few have later hours: two (1 percent) end visitation at 4:00 a.m., while nine (5 percent) end visitation in the 3:00 a.m. hour. Fourteen colleges (7 percent) end visitation in the 1:00 a.m. hour, 10 (5 percent) end visitation at midnight, one (.5 percent) ends visitation at 11:00 p.m., and another (.5 percent) ends visitation at 10:00 p.m.
Exhibit C – Colleges with Weekend Night Visitation Ending between 3 a.m. and 4 a.m.
College
Visitation Until
Alvernia University
3:00 AM
College of Saint Mary
3:00 AM
Creighton University
3:00 AM
DeSales University
3:00 AM
D’Youville College
3:00 AM
Fordham University
3:30 AM
Mount Saint Mary College
3:00 AM
St. John’s University (NY)
3:00 AM
St. Louis University
4:00 AM
University of Scranton
3:00 AM
Xavier University of Louisiana
4:00 AM
A few Catholic colleges begin weekend visitation hours in the late afternoon or evening instead of the morning as is typical, thereby reducing the total number of hours in which opposite-sex visitation is permitted. For example, Ave Maria University12 permits visitation between 6:00 p.m. and 12:00 a.m. on weekend nights, and the Franciscan University of Steubenville13 permits visitation between 7:00 p.m. and 11:00 p.m. on weekend nights. As noted below, both colleges also have “open-door” policies during visitation hours.
Weekday Night Visitation
Forty-nine Catholic colleges (26 percent) were found to have open visitation hours on weekday nights (Monday through Thursday). Ten (5 percent) do not permit any opposite-sex visitation in student residences on weekday nights.
Of the remaining Catholic colleges, the median latest visitation hour is midnight. Seventy-one of the colleges (37 percent) have visitation hours ending in the 12:00 a.m. hour, 22 (12 percent) in the 1:00 a.m. hour, 23 (12 percent) at 2:00 a.m., and two (1 percent) in the 3:00 a.m. hour. Some colleges end visitation hours before midnight, with nine (5 percent) ending at 11:00 p.m., three (2 percent) ending at 10:00 p.m., and one (.5 percent) ending at 9:00 p.m.
Of the 190 Catholic colleges studied for this report, five (3 percent) have some form of an open-door policy together with visitation hours. Such policies require that doors remain fully or partly open when members of the opposite sex are present in student residences.
For example, the University of Dallas14 and St. Gregory’s University15 stipulate that the bolts on doors must remain open, thus preventing locked doors and total privacy. Ave Maria University requires that doors be “propped open.”16 The Franciscan University of Steubenville requires residence doors to be “open.”17 And St. Martin’s University requires doors to be open only during the last few hours of visitation each night.18
Open-door policies coincide with relatively limited visitation hours at Ave Maria University, the Franciscan University of Steubenville, and the University of Dallas. The visitation hours at St. Gregory’s University and St. Martin’s University are about on par with most other Catholic colleges.
Policies on Sexual Intimacy and Other Behavior in Residences
About one third of the Catholic colleges (60 or 32 percent) were found to have some form of a policy explicitly prohibiting sexual intimacy on campus. Some colleges (40 or 21 percent) make clear that sexual intimacy is reserved for marriage. Some (52 or 27 percent) mention Catholic teaching or Catholic identity language while prohibiting sexual intimacy. Thirteen (7 percent) prohibit “overnight visits” or “cohabitation” for the purpose of sexual activity, but do not specify that sexual intimacy is also forbidden at other times of the day. Eight (4 percent) prohibit sexual “overnight visits” or “cohabitation” while also mentioning Catholic teaching or Catholic identity language in support of the policy, but do not specify that sexual intimacy is also forbidden at other times of the day.
Of the eight Catholic colleges that prohibit opposite-sex visitation in residences, half of them—Aquinas College in Tennessee, Christendom College, Northeast Catholic College, and John Paul the Great Catholic University—also have policies explicitly prohibiting sexual intimacy. For those that do not explicitly prohibit sexual intimacy, the point may be moot as opposite-sex visitation is already forbidden.
Overview
The second part of this report is based on a comparison of the visitation policies at 40 members of the Association of Catholic Colleges and Universities (ACCU) and 40 members and affiliates of the Council of Christian Colleges and Universities (CCCU) that are included in U.S. News and World Report’s 2015 Best College Rankings and Lists. See the “Methodology” section on page 2 for details on how the colleges were selected.
The comparison is interesting, because although most Christian sects share similar beliefs about the immorality of sexual activity outside of marriage, the CCCU colleges studied have more limited visitation hours than the Catholic colleges. Many of the Catholic colleges do not set limits on how late students of the opposite sex may visit student bedrooms, while none of the CCCU colleges was found to have open visiting hours. The most common latest time that the Catholic colleges permit opposite-sex visitation is 2:00 a.m.; the most common latest time among the CCCU colleges is midnight.
Many of the CCCU colleges and one of the Catholic colleges have other policies in place related to opposite-sex visitation. These include open-door and open-bolt policies and lights-on rules. Whereas most colleges in both sets have at least some coed residence halls for students, more than half the Catholic colleges and just five of the CCCU colleges offer only coed halls without single-sex options.
Policies, teachings, and regulations related to sexual intimacy on campus were compared between the CCCU and Catholic colleges. A greater number of the CCCU institutions studied have some sort of a statement that forbids premarital sexual intimacy. Colleges of both types that prohibit sex on campus make reference to their mission and/or identity to support the policy. Many Catholic colleges reference “cohabitation” or overnight visits in their policies regulating student behavior in the residences, but often the terms are used ambiguously and do not explicitly prohibit sexual intimacy in student residences. Some do include Catholic teaching and prohibitions on sexual intimacy in their language.
Weekend Night Visitation
Among the 40 Catholic colleges studied, 11 (28 percent) have open visitation hours in primary campus residence halls on weekend nights (Friday and Saturday). Two (5 percent) end their weekend visitation hours in the 3 a.m. hour, more than half (21 or 53 percent) end at 2:00 a.m., two (5 percent) end in the 1:00 a.m. hour, two (5 percent) end at midnight, and just two (5 percent) allow no opposite-sex visitation on weekend nights.
By contrast, none of the 40 CCCU colleges studied has open visitation hours on weekend nights. Two (5 percent) end their hours at 2:00 a.m., one quarter (10 or 25 percent) end at 1:00 a.m., 14 (35 percent) end at midnight, six (15 percent) conclude in the 11:00 p.m. hour, and one (3 percent) ends visitation in the 10:00 p.m. hour. Seven of the CCCU colleges (18 percent) allow no opposite-sex visitation on weekend nights.
Weekday Night Visitation
Among the Catholic colleges, 11 (28 percent) have open visitation hours on weekday nights (Monday through Thursday). One college ends its visitation hours at 3:30 a.m. on weekday nights, four (10 percent) end at 2:00 a.m., six (15 percent) end in the 1:00 a.m. hour, 15 (38 percent) end at midnight, and one ends at 11:00 p.m. Two (5 percent) do not allow opposite-sex visitation hours on weekday nights.
For the CCCU colleges, none of the institutions studied have open visitation hours on weekday nights. One CCCU college (3 percent) ends weekday night visitation hours at 2:00 a.m., another (3 percent) ends at 1:00 a.m., seven (18 percent) end in the 12:00 a.m. hour, eight (20 percent) end in the 11:00 p.m. hour, and 15 (38 percent) end in the 10:00 p.m. hour. Eight CCCU colleges (20 percent) do not allow opposite-sex visitation on weekday nights.
Ten of the Catholic colleges (25 percent) have open visitation hours on Sunday nights. One Catholic college (3 percent) ends visitation hours in the 3:00 a.m. hour, four (10 percent) end at 2:00 a.m., six (15 percent) end at 1:00 a.m., 15 (38 percent) end at midnight, one (3 percent) ends at 11:00 p.m., and one (3 percent) ends at 8:00 p.m. Two of the Catholic colleges (5 percent) do not permit opposite-sex visitation on Sunday nights.
One of the CCCU colleges studied (3 percent) ends visitation hours on Sunday nights at 2:00 a.m., another (3 percent) ends at 1:00 a.m., nine (23 percent) end in the 12:00 a.m. hour, six (15 percent) end in the 11:00 p.m. hour, eight (20 percent) end in the 10:00 p.m. hour, two (5 percent) end at 9:00 p.m., two (5 percent) end at 8:00 p.m., and two (5 percent) end at 5:00 p.m. Nine of the CCCU colleges (23 percent) do not allow opposite-sex visitation hours on Sunday nights, and none have open visitation hours.
A few of the institutions studied were also found to have stricter visitation hour rules for first-year students, including three Catholic colleges (8 percent) and one CCCU college (3 percent).
Among the Catholic colleges, Loyola University New Orleans gives first-year students a visitation period ending at midnight seven days a week prior to completing their “Roommate Agreement” form. Upper-class students do not have such a restriction.19
At Villanova University, first-year students are limited to midnight on weekday nights and 2:00 a.m. on weekend nights, but upperclassmen have open visitation seven days a week.20
Similarly, Wheeling Jesuit University ends first-year student visitation at midnight on weekday nights and 2:00 a.m. on weekend nights, but grants upperclassmen a 2:00 a.m. limit on weekday nights and 24-hour visitation on weekends. Wheeling Jesuit gives several exceptions that can be made to its upperclassmen weekday visitation policy, so the University is listed as “open” in Appendix B of the report.21
Messiah College, a CCCU member, limits both first-year and upper-class students to visitation ending at 10:00 p.m. on Sunday, 10:00 p.m. on Wednesday and 1:00 a.m. on weekend nights. Messiah grants upperclassmen an additional night of visitation on Monday until 10:00 p.m.22
Students Set Visitation Hours
Another way some (4 or 10 percent) of the Catholic colleges address opposite-sex visitation on campus is by allowing students in the same rooms, floors, or wings in residence halls to decide on their own visitation hours. None of the CCCU colleges in the study allow this.
For the purposes of this study, colleges that allow students to set their own hours are considered to have open visitation policies when there is no limit set for them. Where students are permitted to set their own hours within a college-established limit, the latest end hour is reported.
A residence life official at Santa Clara University told us, “Standard policy is that students and their roommate(s) set their own visiting hours in the residence halls, and the University doesn’t have gender-specific restrictions.”
Loyola University New Orleans permits upperclassmen to have open visiting hours, but it limits first-year students to visiting hours ending at midnight until they “have completed and reviewed their Roommate Agreement with a Residential Life staff member.”23
The College of St. Benedict in Collegeville, Minn., has typical visitation hours until midnight on weekday nights and until 2:00 a.m. on weekend nights. However, it “expects” that roommates “determine what hours you wish to host” visitors of the opposite sex.24 Villanova also permits freshmen to set visiting hours by means of roommate living agreements, as long as they are within the pre-set limits imposed by the University.
Typically, colleges require students to respect the wishes of their roommates when bringing visitors into the residence. For instance, both St. Francis College in New York and Stonehill College have open visitation. Stonehill stipulates, “Whether during the day or overnight, guests are only permitted to be in that individual residence hall room with the consent of a resident’s roommate(s).”25 And St. Francis College says, “In consideration to the rights of roommates and other residents, there are limits to the duration and frequency of such visits. A resident may have only one overnight guest at any given time.”26
Visitation in Campus Apartments, Townhomes, and Houses
Some universities offer students alternative residence options in apartments, townhomes, and houses on campus. These options are more prevalent at the 40 CCCU colleges than at the 40 Catholic colleges studied. Apartments, townhomes, and houses on campus are typically reserved for upper-class students. In general, visitation hours were found to be more relaxed in these types of living arrangements.
Only three of the Catholic colleges studied offer students on-campus living options in apartments, townhomes, and/or houses. Two (5 percent) end opposite-sex visiting hours at 2:00 a.m., and one (3 percent) has open visiting hours.
Exhibit J – Catholic College Apartments, Townhomes and Houses Visitation Hour End Times
Catholic College
Weekend Nights
Weekday Nights
Sunday Nights
Belmont Abbey College
2:00 AM
2:00 AM
2:00 AM
University of San Diego
2:00 AM
2:00 AM
2:00 AM
Rockhurst University
open
open
open
At the CCCU colleges, 14 offer campus residential options in apartments, townhomes, and/or houses. On weekend nights, one (3 percent) has completely open visitation hours, three (8 percent) end their hours at 2:00 a.m., five (13 percent) end at 1:00 a.m., two (5 percent) end at midnight, and three (8 percent) end at 11:00 p.m. On weekday nights, one (3 percent) has open hours, two (5 percent) end at 2:00 a.m., one (3 percent) ends at 1:00 a.m., four (10 percent) end at midnight, and six (15 percent) end at 11:00 p.m. On Sunday nights, one (3 percent) has open hours, two (5 percent) end at 2:00 a.m., one (3 percent) ends at 1:00 a.m., five (13 percent) end at midnight, and four (10 percent) end at 11:00 p.m.
Exhibit K – CCCU College Apartments, Townhomes and Houses Visitation Hour End Times
CCCU College
Weekend Nights
Weekday Nights
Sunday Nights
Gordon College
12:00 AM
11:00 PM
11:00 PM
Trevecca Nazarene U.
12:00 AM
11:00 PM
12:00 AM
Azusa Pacific Univ.
1:00 AM
12:00 AM
12:00 AM
Biola University
1:00 AM
11:00 PM
John Brown University
1:00 AM
12:00 AM
12:00 AM
Pepperdine University
1:00 AM
1:00 AM
1:00 AM
Spring Arbor Univ.
1:00 AM
12:00 AM
12:00 AM
Baylor University
2:00 AM
2:00 AM
2:00 AM
George Fox University
2:00 AM
12:00 AM
12:00 AM
Wheaton College
2:00 AM
2:00 AM
2:00 AM
Cairn University
11:00 PM
11:00 PM
11:00 PM
LeTourneau University
11:00 PM
11:00 PM
11:00 PM
Univ. of Valley Forge
11:00 PM
11:00 PM
11:00 PM
Seattle Pacific Univ.
open
open
open
Open-Door/Open-Bolt Policies
Only one of the Catholic colleges (3 percent) was found to have an open-door or open-bolt policy for opposite-sex visitation. By contrast, more than half (21 or 53 percent) of the CCCU colleges have open-door or open-bolt policies. Appendix C lists the colleges with this policy.
Lights-On Policy
Eleven of the CCCU colleges studied (28 percent) have lights-on policies. Most of the institutions that implement this policy do so in addition to an open-door rule. Typically, the lights in a student bedroom are required to be left at least partially on, so that the occupants present during opposite-sex visitation are visible from outside the room.
None of the 40 Catholic colleges studied implements this policy.
Single-Sex Residences
Eight of the Catholic colleges (20 percent) and 13 of the CCCU colleges (33 percent) studied have only single-sex residence halls on campus. Eight Catholic colleges (20 percent) and 17 CCCU colleges (43 percent) have both single-sex and coed halls on campus. Twenty-one Catholic colleges (53 percent) and five CCCU colleges (13 percent) have only coed residences.27
For both Catholic and CCCU colleges with only single-sex residences, it was found that they have roughly the same kind of opposite-sex visitation policies as the rest of the institutions studied. Even when considering together institutions with only single-sex residences and those with both single-sex and coed residences, there is still no noteworthy difference in average visitation hours when compared to all institutions.
Several of the institutions studied have varying forms of prohibitions on sexual intimacy. Some colleges specify that they prohibit pre-marital sex, and some identify specific forms of sexual intimacy that are prohibited. Others say instead that “cohabitation” is against college policy. Only the colleges that specifically disallow sexual intimacy were considered by this study to have a sexual intimacy prohibition in place. Aside from assessing prohibitions on sexual intimacy, this section of the report is based on general observations and is not quantified.
Eleven of the Catholic colleges studied (28 percent) provide some sort of official statement that sexual intimacy is reserved for marriage and/or is inappropriate among students. Thirty of the CCCU colleges (75 percent) have such language in place.
Catholic examples include:
Benedictine College states that it is “committed to the teachings and moral values of the Catholic Church, including the belief that human sexuality… is to be genitally expressed only in a monogamous heterosexual relationship of lasting fidelity in marriage.”28
Gregory’s University states, “Contrary to the pervasive opinion of secular culture that views casual sexual activity among unmarried persons to be the norm, St. Gregory’s University affirms the Church’s teaching that the rightful context for sexual activity lies exclusively within the union of sacramental marriage.”29
The University of Notre Dame says that it “embraces the Catholic Church’s teaching that a genuine and complete expression of love through sex requires a commitment to a total living and sharing together of two persons in marriage.” Notre Dame further states that students “who engage in sexual union outside of marriage may be subject to a referral to the University Conduct Process.”30
Villanova University cites Catholic teaching and states that “a genuine and complete expression of love through sexual union requires a commitment to living and sharing of two persons in marriage.” And Villanova says that it “reserves the right to take action under the Code of Student Conduct for students found in violation of this policy.”31
Xavier University in Ohio “draws to the attention of all its members the traditional and wise Catholic moral teaching that properly locates sexual activity within the relationship of a man and a woman united for life through marriage as husband and wife.” Xavier further states that its religious identity “impels us to recognize the norm of chastity for everyone, whether homosexual or heterosexual.”32
CCCU institutions that make reference to their missions or values while advancing policies regarding sexual intimacy include:
Baylor University’s policy states that it “will be guided by the biblical understanding that human sexuality is a gift from God and that physical sexual intimacy is to be expressed in the context of marital fidelity.”33
George Fox University cites Scripture and states “only marriage between a man and a woman is God’s intention for the joyful fulfillment of sexual intimacy,” and “Sexual behaviors outside of this context are inconsistent with God’s teaching.”34
Oklahoma Wesleyan University forbids students from engaging “in any behavior that promotes, celebrates, or advertises sexual deviancy or a sexual identity outside of the scriptural expectation of sexuality.” The University affirms “the exemplar and standard of heterosexual monogamy within the context of marriage.”35
Wheaton College states that it upholds “a biblical sexual ethic that reserves consenting intimate sexual expression within a marriage between a man and a woman.”36
Many of the CCCU colleges studied go beyond only specifying that sexual intimacy should be reserved for marriage and also include language prohibiting other forms of sexual activity and related practices. For example, The Master’s College cites several Scripture verses, states that sexual intimacy is reserved for marriage, and includes the language, “Any form of sexual immorality such as pornography, fornication, adultery, homosexuality, bisexual conduct, is sinful and outside of God’s design for sexual intimacy (Lev 18:1-30; Romans 1:18-29).”37
Dordt College has a similar policy and says, “the college firmly holds to the biblical teaching that premarital intercourse is forbidden. Further, behavior (e.g. nudity, lying in bed together) that encourages such intimacy will not be tolerated by the college.”38
Messiah College, under its section on Scriptural Guidelines, mentions that “we are to avoid such sinful practices as… sexual intercourse outside of marriage, homosexual behavior, and sexually exploitative or abusive behavior.”39
Some of the other CCCU colleges studied prohibit premarital sexual intimacy without mentioning their religious mission in the same context. For instance, Biola University states, “Any behavior that is considered compromising, sexually inappropriate, or causes others in the community to be uncomfortable is prohibited.”40
Trevecca Nazarene University states that students are not allowed to engage “in acts of sexual immorality, such as premarital and extramarital relations.”41 Malone University stipulates, “Sex should be exclusively reserved for the marriage relationship, understood as a legal, lifelong commitment between a husband and wife.”42 And Pepperdine University prohibits “Sexual activity outside a marriage between husband and wife including, but not limited to, premarital, extramarital or homosexual conduct.”43
Nearly all of the colleges studied were found to have specific sections for policy regarding sexual misconduct in their student handbooks. While none of the 40 Catholic colleges studied were found to prohibit premarital sex as a part of their sexual misconduct policies, several of the CCCU colleges studied do. Taylor University states as part of its sexual misconduct policy, “Remaining sexually pure is God’s plan for our lives. The following [sexual misconduct] guidelines are intended to provide direction when dealing with students who are sexually involved outside of the marriage relationship.”44 Calvin College also states under its sexual misconduct policy that “premarital intercourse is in conflict with Biblical teaching,” and those “engaging in such conduct face disciplinary action including parent/guardian notification, or suspension.”45 While not mentioning sexual misconduct per se in the same context, Wheaton College specifies, “Intimate sexual expression outside the biblical boundary of marriage may increase the risk of miscommunication about consent.”46
Many of the Catholic colleges studied prohibit “cohabitation” or overnight visits by members of the opposite sex, rather than specifically prohibiting all premarital sexual relations among students. Overall, there is much variance among Catholic colleges in the ways they use the term cohabitation and describe overnight visitation policies.
For instance, some Catholic colleges stipulate that visitors of the opposite sex are not permitted overnight, but they do not explicitly prohibit sexual activities at other times of the day. The College of the Holy Cross says, “Guests are not permitted to stay overnight in the same room with a member of the opposite sex.”47 Seattle University specifies, “Given the values of Seattle University, cohabitation is not permitted in University residence halls or apartments. Only guests of the same gender as their resident hosts are permitted to stay overnight in the residence halls, provided that the guest is not in an amorous relationship with the resident host.”48 Saint John’s University in Minnesota also stipulates, “Guests of the opposite sex are not permitted to stay overnight in any student residence.”49
Some Catholic colleges, without making direct mention of sexual activities, do not define the term cohabitation, or they use it broadly to mean any visitor who is not the primary resident staying in a campus residence for an extended period of time. For example, Stonehill College says, “reflective of Catholic values and moral teaching, Stonehill encourages relationships between young adults that foster physical, emotional, and spiritual well-being and, as such, the College does not permit cohabitation.”50 Wheeling Jesuit University has a broad policy which defines cohabitation as “the consistent presence of a guest who spends a day/night or longer period of time in a student’s residence hall room.” Wheeling Jesuit stipulates that “Visitors of the same or opposite gender found to be a consistent presence… will be considered to be engaged in cohabitation, and the host and student(s) involved will be subject to conduct review through the Office of Residence Life and Student Conduct.”51 And Bellarmine University states that “Cohabitation exists when a person who is not assigned to a particular residence hall room or apartment uses that room or apartment as if he or she were living there.”52
A couple Catholic colleges have policies that specifically prohibit overnight sexual encounters, but they do not include language prohibiting sexual relations at other times. Georgetown University defines cohabitation as “overnight visits with a sexual partner” and says it is “incompatible both with the Catholic character of the University and with the rights of the roommates.”53 Creighton University stipulates, “Overnight visits with a sexual partner is incompatible both with the Catholic nature of the University and with the rights of the roommate and is strictly prohibited.” It defines cohabitation as “living together outside of marriage in an intimate relationship.”54
A few of the Catholic colleges studied have very loose or practically nonexistent policies regarding sexual relations among students. Rockhurst University, which has open visitation, stipulates that “Guests may not stay for more than two consecutive nights (48 hours) unless permission is obtained from the Resident Director.”55 A residence life administrator from St. Francis College stated, “Currently there is no policy specifically prohibiting sexual activity in the residence halls. However, any activities taking place in a room must have the consent of all residents of the room including their roommates.”
Appendices
Appendix A – Visitation Hour End Times at Catholic Colleges and Universities
Catholic College
Weekend Nights
Week Nights
Sunday Nights
Single-Sex or Coed Residences
Aquinas College
none
none
none
Single Sex
Bellarmine University
2:00 AM
2:00 AM
2:00 AM
Both
Belmont Abbey College
12:00 AM
12:00 AM
12:00 AM
Single Sex
Benedictine College
1:30 AM
12:00 AM
12:00 AM
Single Sex
Boston College
open
open
open
Carroll College
2:00 AM
1:00 AM
1:00 AM
Coed
Christian Brothers University
2:00 AM
12:00 AM
12:00 AM
Coed
Clarke University
2:00 AM
12:00 AM
12:00 AM
Both
College of St. Benedict
2:00 AM
12:00 AM
12:00 AM
Single Sex
College of the Holy Cross
open
open
open
Coed
Creighton University
3:00 AM
1:00 AM
1:00 AM
Coed
Fairfield University
open
open
open
Coed
Fordham University
3:30 AM
3:30 AM
3:30 AM
Coed
Georgetown University
open
open
open
Coed
Gonzaga University
2:00 AM
2:00 AM
2:00 AM
Both
John Carroll University
2:00 AM
12:00 AM
12:00 AM
Coed
Loras College
2:00 AM
2:00 AM
2:00 AM
Coed
Loyola Marymount University
2:00 AM
2:00 AM
2:00 AM
Both
Loyola University Maryland
2:00 AM
12:00 AM
12:00 AM
Loyola Univ. New Orleans
open
open
open
Coed
Marquette University
2:00 AM
1:00 AM
1:00 AM
Both
Merrimack College
12:00 AM
12:00 AM
12:00 AM
Providence College
2:00 AM
12:00 AM
12:00 AM
Both
Rockhurst University
open
open
12:00 AM
Both
Santa Clara University
open
open
open
Coed
Seattle University
2:00 AM
1:00 AM
1:00 AM
Coed
Seton Hill University
2:00 AM
12:00 AM
12:00 AM
Coed
Spring Hill College
2:00 AM
12:00 AM
12:00 AM
Coed
St. Francis College
open
open
open
Coed
St. Gregory’s University
2:00 AM
12:00 AM
8:00 PM
Single Sex
St. John’s University (MN)
2:00 AM
12:00 AM
12:00 AM
Single Sex
St. Michael’s College
2:00 AM
1:00 AM
1:00 AM
Coed
Stonehill College
open
open
open
Coed
Thomas Aquinas College
none
none
none
Single Sex
University of Great Falls
1:00 AM
11:00 PM
11:00 PM
Coed
University of Notre Dame
2:00 AM
12:00 AM
12:00 AM
Single Sex
University of San Diego
2:00 AM
12:00 AM
12:00 AM
Coed
Villanova University
open
open
open
Coed
Wheeling Jesuit University
open
open
open
Both
Xavier University
2:00 AM
1:00 AM
1:00 AM
Coed
CCCU College
Weekend Nights
Week Nights
Sunday Nights
Single-Sex or Coed Residences
Anderson University
12:00 AM
10:00 PM
9:00 PM
Both
Asbury University
1:00 AM
12:00 AM
12:00 AM
Azusa Pacific University
12:00 AM
10:00 PM
10:00 PM
Both
Baylor University
2:00 AM
2:00 AM
2:00 AM
Biola University
12:00 AM
11:00 PM
11:00 PM
Both
Cairn University
none
none
none
Calvin College
1:00 AM
10:00 PM
10:00 PM
Both
College of the Ozarks
none
none
none
Single Sex
Covenant College
11:00 PM
none
5:00 PM
Coed
Dordt College
12:00 AM
10:00 PM
10:00 PM
Both
Eastern University
1:00 AM
10:30 PM
10:30 PM
Geneva College
1:00 AM
12:00 AM
8:00 PM
Both
George Fox University
12:00 AM
11:00 PM
12:00 AM
Both
Gordon College
12:00 AM
10:00 PM
10:00 PM
Goshen College
12:00 AM
11:00 PM
12:00 AM
Coed
Houghton College
1:00 AM
11:00 PM
11:00 PM
Single Sex
John Brown University
12:00 AM
10:00 PM
none
Both
LeTourneau University
11:00 PM
11:00 PM
9:00 PM
Single Sex
Lipscomb University
none
none
none
Single Sex
Malone University
12:00 AM
11:00 PM
11:00 PM
Single Sex
Messiah College
1:00 AM
10:00 PM
10:00 PM
Coed
Mississippi College
12:00 AM
12:00 AM
12:00 AM
Single Sex
Oklahoma Baptist University
11:00 PM
10:00 PM
none
Both
Oklahoma Wesleyan University
none
10:00 PM
8:00 PM
Single Sex
Olivet Nazarene University
none
none
none
Single Sex
Pepperdine University
1:00 AM
1:00 AM
1:00 AM
Both
Point Loma Nazarene University
1:00 AM
12:00 AM
12:00 AM
Both
Roberts Wesleyan College
1:00 AM
12:30 AM
12:30 AM
Both
Samford University
12:00 AM
10:00 PM
10:00 PM
Both
Seattle Pacific University
12:00 AM
11:00 PM
11:00 PM
Single Sex
Spring Arbor University
11:00 PM
10:00 PM
11:00 PM
Single Sex
Taylor University
12:00 AM
none
5:00 PM
Both
The Master’s College and Sem.
none
none
none
Both
Trevecca Nazarene University
12:00 AM
11:00 PM
12:00 AM
Single Sex
Trinity International University
11:30 PM
10:30 PM
11:30 PM
Both
Union University
none
none
none
Single Sex
University of Valley Forge
10:30 PM
10:30 PM
none
Both
Waynesburg University
2:00 AM
12:00 AM
12:00 AM
Single Sex
Westmont College
1:00 AM
12:00 AM
12:00 AM
Coed
Wheaton College
11:00 PM
10:00 PM
10:00 PM
Coed
Appendix C – Comparison of Open-Door, Open-Bolt, and Lights-On Policies at Sample of Catholic and CCCU Colleges
Catholic Colleges with Open-Door/Open-Bolt/Lights-On Policies
Number of colleges from sample: 1/40
College
Open-Door/Open-Bolt
Lights-On
St. Gregory’s University
✔
CCCU Colleges with Open-Door/Open-Bolt/Lights-On Policies
Number of colleges from sample: 21/40
College
Open-Door/Open-Bolt
Lights-On
Anderson University
✔
Biola University
✔
Cairn University
✔
Calvin College
✔
Covenant College
✔
✔
Dordt College
✔
✔
Eastern University
✔
George Fox University
✔
Gordon College
✔
✔
Houghton College
✔
✔
John Brown University
✔
LeTourneau University
✔
Malone University
✔
✔
Mississippi College
✔
Oklahoma Wesleyan University
✔
✔
Samford University
✔
Spring Arbor University
✔
✔
Taylor University
✔
✔
Trinity International University
✔
✔
Union University
✔
University of Valley Forge
✔
Westmont College
✔
Wheaton College
✔
https://cardinalnewmansociety.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/04/Catholic-Education-Report-Web-Header-845-x-321-px-01.png13383521Adam Wilsonhttps://cardinalnewmansociety.org/wp-content/uploads/CNS-logo-2C-450-tag2.pngAdam Wilson2016-02-19 02:54:142020-06-18 12:25:07Visitation Policies at U.S. Catholic Colleges
Not long after Nevada created the nation’s first nearly universal education savings account (ESA) program for students last year, two lawsuits were filed to block the program that relied on discriminatory, historically anti-Catholic, provisions in the state constitution. Now the program is on hold following an injunction issued this month by a Nevada district court in one of the cases.
Carson City, Nev., District Judge James Wilson ruled on January 11 that the program “would cause irreparable harm to students in Nevada” by taking public funds out of the current public school system structure to create a “non-uniform system of schools.”
The case, Lopez v. Schwartz, was filed by the Education Law Center (ELC) in September on behalf of several parents. ELC argued that the program violated several provisions of the Nevada constitution, including Article 11, Section 2, which states in part that “any school district which shall allow instruction of a sectarian character therein may be deprived of its proportion of the interest of the public school fund.”
“Article 11, Section 2 suffers from the same anti-Catholic taint that plagues the Blaine Amendment,” argued the Becket Fund for Religious Liberty in an amicus brief. The brief noted: “First, it was passed during a time of sweeping anti-Catholic sentiment and with an intent to remove Catholic influence on public schools, and second, it prohibits ‘sectarian’ influences on schools while leaving unharmed ‘generic’ religious practices in public schools.”
The groundbreaking ESA program, passed into law last summer, creates an account for students in which the state deposits an amount equal to 90 percent of the average amount spent by the state per student during that school year ($5,100 for the 2015-16 school year), or 100 percent for students with a disability or with a household income less than 185 percent of the federal poverty level ($5,700 for the 2015-16 school year).
Funds can be used for a variety of educational expenses, such as private school tuition (including religious schools), tuition at eligible higher education institutions, distance education, curriculum, tutoring, exam fees, transportation and specialized services or therapies for students with a disability.
To be eligible for the program, students must attend a Nevada public or charter school for at least 100 uninterrupted school days immediately prior to submitting an application. The first round of funding to the over 3,500 students who applied for the ESAs was scheduled to be sent out February 1.
Wilson ultimately concluded that plaintiffs “failed to carry their burden of proof” that the ESA program violated Article 11, Section 2, but said the program did violate Article 11, Sections 6.1 and 6.2, and “irreparable harm will result if an injunction is not entered.”
Nevada Attorney General Adam Paul Laxalt appealed Wilson’s decision to the Nevada Supreme Court: “My Office is working diligently so that parents can enjoy the genuine educational choice envisioned by lawmakers this past legislative session, and remains focused on resolving the matter as quickly as possible to provide families with the certainty they deserve. A ruling from the state Supreme Court will do just that.”
The ACLU of Nevada and Americans United for Separation of Church and State filed a separate lawsuit, Duncan v. Nevada, against the ESA program back in August. In addition to relying on Article 11, Section 2, the lawsuit also argues that the ESA program violates Nevada’s Blaine Amendment found in Article 11, Section 10 of the state constitution: “No public funds of any kind or character whatever, State, County or Municipal, shall be used for sectarian purpose.”
“The education savings account law passed this last legislative session tears down the wall separating church and state erected in Nevada’s constitution,” Tod Story, executive director for the ACLU of Nevada, said at the time.
“To claim that the ESA Program funds ‘sectarian’ purposes is simply a modern spin on the same discrimination that birthed the Blaine Amendments,” the Becket Fund argued in their amicus brief in the case.
Blaine Amendments, named for former Speaker of the House and U.S. Secretary of State James G. Blaine, are provisions currently found in 37 state constitutions prohibiting the use of taxpayer funds at “sectarian” schools. After Blaine’s failed attempt to amend the U.S. Constitution with the proposal in 1875, versions of the amendment were “added to state constitutions in order to enforce the nativist bigotry of the day” against Catholics, according to The Beckett Fund for Religious Liberty. The provisions are now being interpreted to discriminate against non-Catholics as well.
“Activist groups are treating religious schools and the students who choose to attend them like second-class citizens,” said Diana Verm, legal counsel of the Becket Fund. “It is deplorable to see a discriminatory 19th century law being used to prevent children from access to quality education simply because the school may have religious ties.”
The lawsuit brought by the ACLU of Nevada and Americans United for Separation of Church and State is still awaiting a decision by the district court in Clark County, Nev., but the ACLU voiced support for Wilson’s decision in the Lopez case.
“The ACLU of Nevada is still diligently pursuing a permanent remedy to stop this unconstitutional voucher program,” said Amy Rose, legal director of the ACLU of Nevada. “We are pleased to see that another court recognizes that this program runs afoul of the Nevada Constitution.”
Laxalt, who is also defending the ESA program in the Duncan case, stated last week that the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision to hear a case challenging Missouri’s Blaine Amendment was a good sign for Nevada.
“My Office is encouraged by the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision that will be of crucial significance in our defense of Nevada’s Educational Savings Accounts,” he said. “The program is currently being challenged by the American Civil Liberties Union and Americans United for Separation of Church and State, who are asking state courts to twist the Nevada Constitution in ways never imagined, much less intended by our framers, barring parents and private schools with religious affiliations from participating in this important statewide program.
“Nevada’s Constitution does not require religious discrimination,” he continued, “and we are hopeful our nation’s highest Court will confirm that the U.S. Constitution does not allow that either.”
As The Cardinal Newman Society reported last week, a case challenging a discriminatory Blaine Amendment in Missouri’s state constitution will go before the U.S. Supreme Court this year to decide if the state can rely on the historically anti-Catholic constitutional provision in its denial of a grant to a Christian preschool meant to aid in resurfacing the playground with recycled tires.
The U.S. Supreme Court will also make a decision on February 19 to hear a case challenging Colorado’s Blaine Amendment. The Newman Society reported in December that petitioners are challenging a Colorado Supreme Court ruling that blocked scholarship funds to hundreds of families in Douglas County, Colo., who were supposed to be able to use the scholarship to attend a private school of their choice, regardless of a school’s religious identity.
https://cardinalnewmansociety.org/wp-content/uploads/iStock-186821103.jpg14142121Cardinal Newman Society Staffhttps://cardinalnewmansociety.org/wp-content/uploads/CNS-logo-2C-450-tag2.pngCardinal Newman Society Staff2016-01-28 14:51:162020-07-02 16:34:01Discriminatory Blaine Amendment Used Against Education Savings Accounts in Nevada
American Jesuits Are in a Free Fall, and the Crisis is Getting Worse
/in Blog, Mission and Governance Commentary, Mission and Catholic Identity Latest, PR Register Column/by Patrick ReillyExcitement is building for Jesuits worldwide as their general congregation to elect a new superior general is quickly approaching this fall. The election presents an important opportunity for them to reflect on the future of the Society of Jesus — and to address serious concerns. Even under a Jesuit Pope, the order suffers from a steady decline in membership, dissent and moral confusion within its ranks, and a widening gulf between many Jesuit universities and the Church.
Perhaps that’s why there has been so much attention lately to the announcement that 20 new Jesuit priests were ordained this year in the United States, Canada and Haiti. That’s good news, with the hope that these new priests will be true Soldiers of Christ and embrace the fullness of Church teaching, like their predecessors of old and some notable giants today.
Unfortunately, the ordinations have given rise to misleading claims that the Jesuits’ membership woes are coming to an end. Last month, a Jesuit official told the National Catholic Register that “the trends of new Jesuit entrants show demographic stability is on the horizon.” As best I can determine, that’s fantasy. It’s easy to understand why the Jesuits would look for any sign of hope after decades of decline, but exaggeration is dangerous if it diverts attention away from a very real crisis that is deeper than the numbers alone.
Again, someone seems to have spun a tale to Catholic World Report, which last week declared that, contrary to warnings in recent years, “there never really was an ‘implosion’ of the Jesuits worldwide.”
But there was … and still is. The “implosion” claim was made by Matthew Archbold of The Cardinal Newman Society in 2013, when he cited predictions of “a demographic free fall with declining ordinations and former Jesuits outnumbering active Jesuits in the United States.” Most convincingly, he cited hard data published in 2011 by Georgetown University’s Center for Applied Research in the Apostolate (CARA) that clearly supported the forecast.
I checked the CARA data again — including a newer study of Jesuit numbers released in 2015 — as well as both Jesuit and Vatican sources, and the numbers remain dismal. Jesuit membership has been spiraling downward for more than 50 years. It’s possible that new entrants and ordinations during the three-year pontificate of Pope Francis could help slow the rate of decline in the Jesuit order, but that’s yet to be proven. What’s certain is that the Jesuit order has a membership crisis, and there’s no reason to predict stability or growth anytime soon.
First, let’s take a look at the local numbers. It’s suggested that this year’s 20 Jesuit ordinations is a high number for the North American region, and therefore we should be excited about it. Perhaps so, but there’s not much data to confirm the long-term impact on the order. According to the website for the North American Jesuit provinces, the continent had 28 new Jesuit priests last year, 19 in 2014, and 16 in 2013. Therefore, 20 is relatively good, and yet it’s a substantial decline from last year’s 28 — the largest number of Jesuit ordinations for North America in 15 years.
Should Jesuits be concerned that last year’s number was not sustained? Or should they be excited, because 20 ordinations is significantly higher than in prior years? Is it just a momentary benefit of having a Jesuit pope, or is it a trend? Unfortunately, I couldn’t find data for North America earlier than 2013, when Pope Francis went to Rome. After a fruitless Web search, I requested information from the communications secretary of the North American provinces, but I was only given numbers of Jesuits worldwide.
Another Jesuit official told the Register that there’s a second reason for hope: Although the number of U.S. entrants to the Society of Jesus declined from 102 in 1982 to a low of 45 in 2010, it has since increased to the “mid-50s” this year. Here we’re not talking about ordinations to the priesthood, but novices preparing to be priests and brothers.
That’s indeed hopeful, yet uncertain. While the Register was told there have been no fewer than 45 entrants in the U.S. alone since 1982, CWR reports that 44 men entered novitiates in both the U.S. and Canada in 2015. CARA documents Jesuit membership in the United States (including Jamaica, Belize and Micronesia) and reports 177 entrants from 2009 to 2013, which is an average of just 35 per year. The numbers don’t match up.
Regardless, the numbers of entrants do not tell us as much as we’d like about the future of the Jesuits. If the numbers of new entrants and priests is increasing annually, that’s a hopeful sign. But ultimately, showing growth in the Society of Jesus requires producing a net gain of their membership numbers. This means counting not only new additions but also subtracting the many novices who depart each year before completing their studies. Furthermore, we must subtract the number of Jesuits who pass away each year.
If we take the deceased into account, any prediction of approaching “stability” in the Society of Jesus seems ludicrous. The Register reports that the average age of the North American Jesuits is 65. In the period 2008-2013, CARA counts 445 Jesuit deaths in the United States, an average of 89 per year. In the same period, the U.S. Jesuits had a net gain of just 10 novices per year, subtracting those who departed from those who stayed.
Putting it all together, American Jesuits are still in a free fall. CARA reports that the number of Jesuits in the United States declined by more than half in just 25 years, from 4,823 in 1988 to 2,395 in 2013. Presented in five-year increments, the data shows much sharper declines in the most recent two periods (15.2 percent in 2003-2008, 14.4 percent in 2008-2013) than in the prior three periods (hovering around 12 percent). That’s not improvement by any stretch of the imagination; it’s a worsening crisis.
Are things any better for the Jesuits worldwide? Well, some regions are certainly doing better than others. As CARA notes, “The clear majority of younger Jesuits are now coming from Asia and Africa.” The Center adds, “As Jesuits gather in 2016 for a General Congregation and to elect a new Superior General, the demographic center of the Jesuits will be in South Asia and the global South.”
That’s true, but somehow CWR cites the CARA data wrong when it reports: “… the number of Jesuit priests in East Asia (including Australia, Philippines, Indonesia, Korea, Japan, Vietnam, China, Thailand, and Myanmar) as well as the number of Jesuit priests in Latin America have stayed steady since the 1980s.” In fact, CARA’s study of Jesuit membership finds a 33 percent decline in Latin America and a 13 percent decline in East Asia during the period 1988-2013.
CWR also exaggerates its case for stability in the Society of Jesus with this statement: “Although Jesuit priests in Europe and United States declined in number, there was an increase in the number of Jesuit priests in South Asia (including India, Nepal and Sri Lanka) and Africa.” The implication is that the membership decline in Europe and the United States (7,057 Jesuits from 1988 to 2013) was somehow offset by the much smaller increases in South Asia and Africa (880 Jesuits during the same period).
Instead, the huge declines in Europe and America — together with the significant declines in Latin America and East Asia — have driven a worldwide decline in Jesuit membership since 1965. Over the prior 425 years, the order had grown to its largest number of 36,038 priests and brothers, as reported in the Vatican’s Annuario Pontificio. But from 1965 to 2015, membership dropped precipitously to 16,740. That’s a fall of more than 50 percent in just 50 years.
I’ve been told by the spokeswoman for the North American provinces that this year’s membership is 16,376 worldwide. That makes perfect sense; it’s consistent with the trends. By contrast, recent news reports claim “more than 17,000” and “just over 18,000,” but they cite no sources for their data. Those numbers couldn’t possibly be correct.
So there was a sharp decline over the last 50 years — but perhaps most of the drop occurred during the late 1960s and the 1970s, that tumultuous period following Vatican II, when there was widespread dissent from Humanae Vitae? Surprisingly, that’s not the case. The decline in Jesuit membership was indeed steepest (19.5 percent) during that first decade (1965-1975), when many priests and religious abandoned their vows. But the most recent decade (2005-2015) has also seen a sharp decline of 15.7 percent. Over the last three decades, the loss as a percentage of members has been getting worse, from a decline of 10.4 percent in 1984-1995 (no numbers are available for 1985), to 13.3 percent in the next decade and 15.7 percent most recently.
How about raw numbers? The Vatican reports that from 2005 to 2015, the Jesuits declined by 3,110 priests and brothers, which is less than half the actual decline (7,020) in the troubled decade of 1965-1975. But still, there were twice as many Jesuits in the first decade as the last. And the membership decline has worsened over the last three decades: from a drop of 2,665 in 1984-1995, to 3,035 in 1995-2005, to 3,110 this past decade. Again, that’s no sign of revival; the loss of members has been getting worse.
Moreover, those losses are not sporadic. Jesuit membership has declined every year since 1965, except for a brief uptick from 1984 to 1986.
Facts are facts. Maybe there are glimmers of hope in recent numbers, but overall the Society of Jesus is losing ground. Instead of counting on a bump in numbers thanks to Pope Francis, Jesuits might do better to consider whether these numbers reflect a greater instability in the order and a loss of reputation in the Church. While there are a number of exceptional Jesuits, the Society suffers from repeated controversy and moral confusion among others in its ranks. The reputation of the Jesuits as the “foot soldiers” for Christ is repeatedly undermined by many of their Jesuit universities, which are rapidly losing their Catholic identity and fidelity.
Normally we would celebrate the Memorial of St. Ignatius of Loyola on July 31, but this year it yields to the Sunday feast. This Sunday might be an opportunity for wayward Jesuits — instead of the usual celebration of the great Saint and his Company — to focus attention on the Eucharist and the unity of all the Faithful with the Magisterium of the Church, which should be the foundation for Jesuit education and spirituality. I bet that St. Ignatius would approve.
This article was originally published by The National Catholic Register.
The Land O’ Lakes Statement Has Caused Devastation For 49 Years
/in Blog Latest, PR Register Column/by Patrick ReillyIn hindsight, what they did was appalling.
But when several Catholic university leaders gathered in the summer of 1967 at a remote retreat in Land O’ Lakes, Wisconsin, did they fully anticipate the consequences of their vision for “modern” Catholic education? Hopefully not.
It was 49 years ago, on July 20-23, when Notre Dame’s Father Theodore Hesburgh, C.S.C., gathered his peers to draft and sign the “Land O’ Lakes Statement,” a declaration of the independence of Catholic universities from “authority of whatever kind, lay or clerical, external to the academic community itself.”
Over the course of just a few years following the statement, most Catholic colleges and universities in America shed their legal ties to the Church and handed their institutions over to independent boards of trustees. In the quest for secular prestige and government funding, many went so far as to remove the crucifixes from their classroom walls and to represent their Catholic identity in historical terms (such as, “in the Jesuit tradition”).
The wound of secularization deepened over the next few decades: many Catholic colleges and universities weakened their core curricula in favor of the Harvard model of electives and specialization, adopted a radical notion of academic freedom, embraced relativism and political correctness, and largely abandoned the project of forming young people for Christ outside the classroom.
It wasn’t until 1990 that the “Land O’ Lakes Statement” was soundly repudiated by Saint Pope John Paul II in Ex corde Ecclesiae, the apostolic constitution for Catholic universities. Although not yet accepted in its entirety, Ex corde Ecclesiae turned the tide toward renewal of Catholic identity and gave prominence to those faithful institutions that never accepted the Land O’ Lakes mentality. In the meantime, however, Fr. Hesburgh’s declaration did much damage.
It’s for good reason, then, that the “Land O’ Lakes Statement” has become a focal point in American Church history. It’s sometimes described as an explosive, revolutionary act that changed the trajectory of Catholic higher education, which may be an exaggeration. But it certainly was a watershed moment, evidenced by the rapid changes that followed the statement. It was also the culmination of years of unrest in Catholic universities — in many respects, a moral struggle with the temptation to pride and prestige at the expense of Catholic identity.
With the “Land O’ Lakes Statement,” that struggle was momentarily lost. It represented a public, deliberate choice for opportunity over mission, resulting in a voluntary exile from the once-lush gardens of truth and wisdom that had distinguished the world’s Catholic universities.
The Allure of Prestige
For most Catholic university graduates and educators before the late 1960s, alma mater was still as much Mother Church as her academic institutions. But more than a decade before the “Land O’ Lakes Statement,” influential academics were already expressing disappointment with the public status of Catholic universities in the United States.
This was argued forcefully by Monsignor John Tracy Ellis, a Church history professor at the Catholic University of America, whose lament was published and disseminated by Fordham University:
Note that Msgr. Ellis did not claim that Catholics were intellectually lacking, but only that they lacked academic “influence” and “prestige.” The prior claim would have been astonishing, given that Ellis’ university colleagues included (until 1950) then-Bishop Fulton Sheen — who not only was known for his radio and television preaching, but also was described as a highly gifted philosopher.
The Thomas Reeves biography of the Venerable Sheen reveals a much earlier battle, in which the saintly professor testified to Catholic University’s board of trustees against attempts to make the institution a “Catholic Harvard,” with emphasis on secular prestige. At a 1935 trustees meeting, Sheen called for the “primacy of the spiritual” in Catholic education:
He added that the bishops’ national university:
The Deck is Stacked
It would be wrong, then, to assume that Catholic identity was suddenly under assault by the participants in the 1967 retreat at Land O’ Lakes. It had endured through many trials. The appeal for academic independence from “all authority” had perhaps found its time, when society itself seemed to have turned against tradition and values.
Two other false notions about the Land O’ Lakes meeting deserve to be corrected. For one thing, the retreat was not an isolated gathering of independent reformers; it was surprisingly “official,” one of several regional meetings around the world to help draft a statement by the Vatican-affiliated International Federation of Catholic Universities (IFCU), of which Fr. Hesburgh was then president. The final Vatican-influenced document, “The Catholic University in the Modern World,” was far more traditional in its understanding of Catholic education, and in fact it is quoted in Ex corde Ecclesiae.
Second, although the Land O’ Lakes meeting was identified as the North American regional delegation to the IFCU, it was never truly intended to represent all of the region’s Catholic colleges and universities. Subsequent histories and Notre Dame’s own description indicate that the participants were focused on large, research institutions — an odd emphasis, since none of the represented universities had truly attained that status, but perhaps they aspired to it.
Moreover, it seems the deck was stacked with Fr. Hesburgh’s allies: only 10 universities were represented, including six from the U.S.: Boston College, Catholic University of America, Fordham, Georgetown, Notre Dame and Saint Louis. (The rector of the Catholic University of America was alone in publicly criticizing the resulting statement.) Of the 26 signers, seven were from Notre Dame and its sponsoring Holy Cross Fathers, and ten were Jesuits or leaders of Jesuit institutions.
Some of the signers were especially notable: Archbishop Paul Hallinan of Atlanta, Father Theodore McCarrick (then president of the Pontifical University of Puerto Rico and later Archbishop of Washington) and Father Vincent O’Keefe, S.J. (later Vicar General of the Society of Jesus).
Also intriguing is the signature by John Cogley, a leftist scholar representing the Center for the Study of Democratic Institutions. It’s not clear what he was doing at Land O’ Lakes, except that he was a celebrated intellectual in certain circles. He had been religion editor of the New York Times and a principal writer of John F. Kennedy’s 1960 speech advocating the separation of church and state. He later dissented from Humanae Vitae and became an Episcopalian.
For a Few Coins
I leave it to the reader to explore more of the statement itself, but I’ll make one more claim about the motivations behind it. Above I accused the signers of succumbing to the temptation for worldly prestige. But closely tied to secular prestige is the desire for money, which seems also to have been a related factor.
In 1987, Sister Brigid Driscoll, former president of Marymount College in New York, offered a defense of the “Land O’ Lakes” mentality:
The same year, in the New York Times (Jan. 16, 1987), Fr. Hesburgh made a similar claim:
In fact, however, the Supreme Court has ruled quite differently in support of religious institutions. Today some of the most faithful Catholic colleges like Franciscan University of Steubenville and Thomas Aquinas College participate freely in federal student aid programs, as does the “ecclesiastical” Catholic University of America.
It’s sadly true that, for the Catholic universities that embraced Land O’ Lakes, secularization has been rewarded with large endowments and state aid. But it’s simply not true that federal aid would have been unavailable to universities that maintained formal ties to the Church. Ironically, Notre Dame still is under some legal control by the Holy Cross Fathers; its students receive grants and loans, and it has received numerous federal grants from the Obama administration (albeit after giving the President an honorary degree).
For many smaller Catholic colleges, secularization has not benefited them financially. They struggle to distinguish themselves from state universities that provide the same job training at less cost.
Marymount College in New York is a case in point. Recall that Sr. Driscoll seemed proud of her institution’s choice to sever “tenuous ties to the Church,” bringing a “windfall” of taxpayer funds. The College closed its doors in 2007 for financial reasons.
This article was originally published by The National Catholic Register.
For Catholic Schools to Survive, Their Catholicity Must Thrive
/in Mission and Governance Commentary, Mission and Catholic Identity Latest, PR Register Column/by Patrick ReillyWe hear a lot about the decline of Catholic schools, but maybe not enough.
The numbers are staggering: Catholic school enrollment has declined more than two-thirds in the last 50 years, from 5.2 million to 1.9 million students.
Even so, Catholic homeschoolers perceive significant growth in their numbers, with the freedom to explore a vast menu of resources that improve upon the stale textbooks used by many schools.
Catholic classical educators likewise see an increase in their ranks, not only among homeschoolers but in schools that have shifted toward the classical model or have been newly founded.
At The Cardinal Newman Society, we hear regularly from parents who are excited by the changes to Catholic schools promoted by their bishops. These include the hard-won teacher standards championed by Archbishop Salvatore Cordileone of San Francisco.
So why the contradiction? In certain quarters, families and educators are embracing faithful Catholic education with great enthusiasm. And yet Catholic schools are still closing; we’ve lost nearly 20 percent of the schools that were in operation just 10 years ago, especially elementary schools.
The answer doesn’t come easily to those who define the crisis simply as a lack of students and money. These are symptoms of deeper problems in our schools. There have been too many misguided attempts to attract students and increase tuition revenues, donations and government subsidies.
These strategies are necessary and yet can harm Catholic schools if they ignore the far more serious problem: the diminishment of Catholic identity in recent decades.
Catholic schools in America once were the envy of the Western world, not because they sought prestige, but because they responded directly to the needs of Catholic families. They embraced goals and methods of forming the mind, body and soul that could only have sprung from the Catholic faith. Catholic education was excellent, precisely because it was Catholic.
Therefore, attracting families by reaching for secular standards and embracing the goals, methods, curricula and even textbooks of public education can be damaging to Catholic schools. Ultimately, it fills schools with students who don’t value what we value.
The same can be said for attracting donors by the same methods.
Worse, in an age when both state and federal government are turning increasingly secularist, the pursuit of government aid can be, at best, a short-term solution to financial needs. The day seems to be coming rapidly when Catholic schools may be permitted to uphold Catholic values only if they are free of government support.
So how do we address the crisis?
As evidenced by the success of many faithful Catholic schools today, I believe that the only path forward for schools that wish to both survive long-term and remain Catholic is to more robustly embrace the Church’s vision for Catholic schools. I believe this for three reasons:
First, a secular society will only permit religious freedom—if it is permitted at all—to the most consistently and fervently religious schools. In this, at least, the intolerance of the present age is having some positive impact, by motivating sincerely Catholic schools to establish clear and firm policies that are directly tied to Catholic teaching.
Second, the character of a school is determined largely by its teachers. If Catholic education is to genuinely form young people to be fully human, it requires teachers who witness to the faith and morals, both inside and outside the classroom. In today’s culture, hiring such teachers takes a special resolve on the part of school leaders who are firmly committed to faithful Catholic education, even in the face of potential lawsuits and pressure from both outside and within the Church.
Third, as more Catholic families turn to public schools and succumb to the zeitgeist of the age, the remaining market for Catholic schools will include higher concentrations of families who appreciate genuine Catholic education. Already we are seeing how seriously Catholic schools are attracting students, donors and even local acclaim for their “old-fashioned” methods. Other schools that strive for students by shedding Catholic identity may find the strategy short-lived, at least if they intend to continue as Catholic schools.
(A scholar recently commented to me that the closing of secularized schools represents the sort of “pruning of the vine” that Pope Benedict XVI predicted in the Church. I suggested that it may be more akin to dead branches withering and falling away of their own accord, since every effort is being made to save them. But the scholar’s point was that the Church ultimately benefits from the fruit of the healthy branches.)
No matter how desperate a school’s effort to gain students or financial support, it is even more important that it remains true to its mission and regains anything that has been lost in past years. Catholic schools should:
Hire only teachers and leaders who embrace that mission and the Catholic faith.
Study and observe the key principles of Catholic education found in the Church’s rich teachings on the nature of the Catholic school.
Subscribe only to school and curriculum standards that explicitly uphold the Catholic school’s emphasis on evangelization and formation.
Establish student and personnel policies that explain and uphold Catholic moral teachings.
Fight vigorously for religious freedom, and permit no government encroachment on Catholic education.
Listen to parents and serve them in their task as the primary educators of their children. Help children know and love their Savior.
Years from now, the surviving Catholic school is unlikely to be satisfied with meeting minimal obligations for retaining the Catholic label. That’s not enough.
It’s the school where leaders and teachers are eager to provide the very best Catholic formation—to lead young people to Christ and to accompany them on the road to Heaven—that exemplifies the truly healthy Catholic school. That’s something that families can rally around.
This article first appeared at The National Catholic Register.
California Dreams Up Nightmare for Catholic Education
/in Blog Latest, PR Register Column/by Patrick ReillyA nightmare scenario has further developed in California, threatening to severely harm Catholic colleges as legislators pursue a radical “gender ideology” and the dismantling of religious freedom.
New amendments to an anti-religious education bill working its way through the California legislature clearly impact Catholic colleges’ employment practices, effectively forcing them to drop out of the state’s financial aid programs for students.
Previous versions of Senate Bill (SB) 1146 made religious colleges, except for seminaries and similar programs, subject to the nondiscrimination clause in California’s Equity in Higher Education Act. That clause forbids discrimination against students with regard to “sexual orientation,” and its prohibition against sex discrimination has been interpreted to include self-declared “gender identity.”
The bill also punishes religious colleges that have legally obtained exemptions from the federal Title IX law, which bans sex discrimination in education but has been interpreted by the Obama administration to require accommodations for “transgender” students. It requires those colleges to publicly declare their exemption in a variety of ways to a variety of audiences, including prospective students and employees.
It is, in effect, a modern “Scarlet Letter” for faithful Christian educators.
These provisions apply only to colleges accepting state funds. But nearly all religious colleges in California participate in the Cal Grant program, which provides students up to $9,084 if they attend a private four-year college. Exclusion from the program would make attendance at a Catholic college unaffordable for many, and Catholic colleges would be at a severe disadvantage in competing for students.
All of these terrible elements remain in the new version of the bill. But according to the legal experts at Alliance Defending Freedom, recent amendments added by the state Assembly Judiciary Committee make the situation worse.
The bill now amends not only the Equity in Higher Education Act, but also the state’s Government Code 11135, which clearly concerns discrimination in employment as well as student policies. There was some ambiguity as to whether prior versions of the bill applied only to student policies, but the Government Code clearly references employment practices including hiring, firing, faculty expectations and health benefits.
This is unacceptable for a faithful Catholic institution, which must ensure that its professors uphold Catholic teaching in the classroom and by their personal example.
With regard to students, there has been some helpful clarification in the new version of the bill. A religious college is explicitly permitted to enforce moral codes, mandatory religious practices and housing policies that are applied universally without consideration of a student’s claim to gender or sexuality. Also, a religious college may refuse the use of its facilities for purposes that violate its religious mission — presumably including same-sex weddings.
However, the new bill is explicit in its requirement that religious colleges make single-sex facilities and residences available to “transgender” students, regardless of their biological sex. And if a college offers housing for married students, it must include legally married same-sex couples.
Should this bill become law, I see no option for faithful Catholic colleges but to withdraw from the Cal Grants program. The campaign to force a radical “gender ideology” and sexual immorality on religious colleges could shove them into second-class status. And the campaign likely will not end here; we can expect efforts in California and elsewhere to pass even more draconian laws against religious schools and charities.
Worse — and this is what I fear most — the persecution will tempt California’s less faithful Catholic colleges to capitulate and further erode the foundations of Catholic education.
The precedent for capitulation has already been set. Although Loyola Marymount University and Santa Clara University waged brief but noble battles to remove abortion coverage from their employee health insurance, they fell silent in the face of new state rules forcing that coverage even on religious institutions. And only Thomas Aquinas College and John Paul the Great University have been strong in opposing the Obama administration’s HHS Mandate.
The campaign to rid California of religious education must be fought vigorously. But the future looks bleak: encroachment on Catholic education at both the state and federal level may soon require faithful Catholic schools and colleges to withdraw from government aid programs.
This should be quite possible for Catholic schools, but I don’t know how many of the Catholic colleges can survive financially, unless the forced corruption of moral standards at other colleges will have the happy effect of driving donors and paying students to the few remaining bastions of moral education. How many Catholic colleges choose to compromise their Catholic beliefs rather than give up taxpayer funds is a question of great importance to Catholic families.
What they do in response to this bill, now and if it becomes law, will have lasting consequences for their institutions and for Catholic families. I believe that capitulation might give up the project of Catholic education altogether for all but a few colleges. The time is very late to oppose California’s campaign against religious education, but Catholic college leaders should be fighting it with all the effort they can muster.
This article first appeared at The National Catholic Register.
Serving “LGBT” Students in Catholic Schools
/in Student Formation Commentary, Sexuality and Gender/by Dr. Dan GuernseyHow do Catholic schools best serve students who struggle with same-sex attraction or gender dysphoria (popularly called “transgendered”)? What should a school’s policies prescribe in order to prevent confusion, disputes and even litigation?
Previously, these questions were often addressed behind closed doors, as administrators worked quietly on a case-by-case basis and often within traditional moral norms. However, since this past summer’s Supreme Court ruling supporting same-sex marriage and the social acceptance of superstar Bruce Jenner’s gender dysphoria, Catholic schools face an increasingly public challenge to their teaching and mission.
This dynamic became painfully evident in the recent decision by a Rhode Island Catholic school, which ignited a national firestorm by refusing to admit transgendered students and then was pressured to reverse its policy within just a couple of days. The correct instinct that a Catholic school cannot accommodate willful gender confusion gave rise to a weak position statement, holding that transgendered students could not be admitted due to a lack of facilities to accommodate them. Activists seized upon the opportunity and offered to “crowd source” the necessary facilities, forcing the school to reverse its policy of strict exclusion.
While some Catholic school leaders might be persuaded to avoid this thorny issue, or to embrace a false compassion that is inconsistent with Catholic teaching, instead the Rhode Island school’s misstep highlights the grave necessity of a more comprehensive policy approach to sexuality in Catholic schools. Catholic schools must bravely serve all students, including same-sex attracted or gender dysphoric students, by forthrightly presenting and upholding truth. That’s why — in addition to the excellent resources for Christians already available from Alliance Defending Freedom, The Heritage Foundation and the Liberty Institute — The Cardinal Newman Society has released a new handbook of Human Sexuality Policies for Catholic Schools to help Catholic educators with specific exemplars and language tied to their Catholic mission.
Working with students who have these sexual inclinations is complex, especially since a Catholic school is called to serve everyone who has the capability and desire to partake in its mission. It must also be clear that all students are expected to follow the same school policies, and not work against the school’s mission, or its moral and religious standards and ends.
A Catholic school which clearly articulates the faith in these matters is bound to make some enemies in the common culture, and even possibly to be threatened with legal action. But Catholic educators must never compromise the faith, or the authentic good of their students, for fear of public ridicule or potential litigation. In fact, it is precisely a deeply felt and lived Catholicism, rooted in an authentic love for all students, which is the best protection against litigation. The more clearly and comprehensively a Catholic school articulates its unique religious mission and identity, and the more securely it anchors its policies for all students in this mission, the more protected it is from potential litigation. Such a comprehensive, mission-based approach ensures that students struggling with issues of human sexuality or gender dysphoria are not singled out for different treatment, but rather are held to the same faith-based standards as all students in the school.
Know Thyself
Since it is critical that Catholic schools ensure that all policies are consistent with their Catholic mission, they need to clearly articulate that mission. Pope Pius XI describes the purpose of Catholic education as “securing the Supreme Good, that is, God, for the souls of those who are being educated, and the maximum of well-being possible here below for human society.” Expanding upon this, the Church’s Code of Canon Law #795 sums up the mission of Catholic education this way:
The final end for which Catholic schools prepare their students is union with God through Christ. A Catholic school also facilitates students’ participation in the common good. Both goals are accomplished by integrally and harmoniously developing the students’ minds, spirits, morals, and bodies so that they might use their freedom properly. What is proper or good as a means of attaining our final end of salvation is always understood in terms of Church teaching, based on the person and truth of Jesus Christ.
This is what Catholic schools do. This is who we are. This is what we offer.
Those who do not want to receive what we offer are free to go wherever they want to find what they think they need. We are not required to change our standards to meet the needs of those who reject all or part of our efforts, especially if changing our standards works contrary to our mission. Those students or families who only want to benefit from a part of the mission, such as our intellectual formation, must still participate with goodwill in the full program.
This program includes formation of the whole human person. We cannot disaggregate our efforts or offer our formation a la carte, because: “In the Catholic school’s educational project, there is no separation between time for learning and time for formation, between acquiring notions and growing in wisdom,” according to the Vatican Congregation for Catholic Education. The Congregation also emphasizes that everything in a Catholic school is Catholic, and the faith is everywhere:
A student or family may not like every part of the complete educational project, but they should be expected to participate in the complete mission, to the fullest extent possible for their state of life, and never do anything that works against the mission, or protests it. Surely those whose religious practices and beliefs run counter to Church teaching might experience conflicts as the school maintains mission integrity. Sincere questioning of the practices and traditions of the Catholic faith, in order to more deeply understand them, ought to be welcome, but openly hostile and public defiance of Catholic truths or morality are signs that a student may not be a good fit for a Catholic school’s primary evangelical mission and, therefore, may be denied admission.
All students should be welcome in our schools, including those working through issues of gender dysphoria and same-sex attraction, but all students must be willing to work within the religious mission of the school, and comport themselves according to the social and moral norms of the distinctive Catholic environment they have freely chosen.
Love One Another
A Catholic school always interacts with others in an attitude of deep respect. This respect is based on the essential human dignity of each person, who is made in the image and likeness of God. There is no room in a Catholic school for hatred, injustice, or a lack of charity or compassion. It is also true that while all people have an inherent dignity and fundamental freedom that must be respected, one need not have inherent respect for all that people do. Respect for particular human behaviors must depend on how completely they fulfill the proper nature of humanity as created by God.
Those who experience challenges in the proper exercise of their sexuality can be respected as members of the human family, and yet still be challenged in behavior which the Church considers as not fulfilling its proper nature. Catholic schools are places to clarify and distinguish between error and truth, sin and virtue, order and disorder, according to reason, natural law, revelation, and Church teaching. Catholic schools make no secret about what the Church teaches regarding human sexuality. We cannot compromise that teaching by looking the other way when one is in serious error, and we cannot allow for the advocacy of error in our hallways. We do this in humility to the truth, and out of love for others.
Respect and love can only transpire in the truth. Love entails seeking the authentic good of the other. A simple definition of “good” is when a thing well-fulfills its potentialities and purposes. Love, then, involves assisting another to fulfill their full human potentiality as created and loved by God.
While many groups differ as to what exactly constitutes human good, the purpose of a Catholic school is to address these issues from a distinctly Catholic perspective, and within a deeply felt and lived Catholic culture. When this dynamic is focused on issues related to human sexuality, it is clear that the Catholic Church has a distinct and defined theology regarding the potentialities and purposes of human sexuality. The Catholic school must ensure that these are presented, even in the face of a hostile common culture, with conviction, integrity, and charity. A school’s pastoral, and policy practices must be written in fidelity to the moral guidance and teachings of the Catholic Church in all areas that touch on human nature, including issues related to human sexuality.
We situate this teaching in the conviction that the mission of a Catholic school includes the integral formation of the whole person: body, mind, and spirit. The whole person includes the student’s attitudes, dispositions, and behaviors, of which the very complex area of human sexuality is a part. As a Catholic institution, we believe that our bodies are gifts from God, and temples of the Holy Spirit. We believe that human sexual behavior is only properly oriented to the ends of love and life in the context of a sacramental marriage.
We believe that the body and soul are intimately united: the body does not contain the soul, like water in a glass, but rather holistically and naturally expresses who we are in the order of creation as physical/spiritual beings. We believe that the sexes are complementary, and that “male and female he made us.” Our given biological sex is part of the divine plan. The Church teaches that sexual identity is “a reality deeply inscribed in man and woman” that is rooted in one’s biological identity, and that a person “should acknowledge and accept his sexual identity.” Biological identity and sexual identity are never disaggregated. Both are gifts from God for us to perfect and bring into harmony according to his plan and guidance. They are not ours to reject, or to change outside of their proper functioning at our own will, because we believe God has made a mistake which we must correct.
Catholic schools understand truth to be the state in which the mind is in conformity with reality: a reality which entails the fullness of God’s creation and divine plan. We also affirm that reality is knowable through the use of properly functioning senses and reason, as well as through the aid of divine revelation.
In this context, a student who wishes to express a gender other than his or her biological sex is understood as operating outside of the “reality deeply inscribed” within. Assisting the child in his or her disconnect with this reality — however sincerely experienced — by agreeing to participate in the child’s efforts to change gender expression, is contrary to the pursuit of the truth. Authentic love, a gift of the self for the good of the other, requires that we compassionately dwell in the truth, and assist those we love to do the same. We will lovingly accompany the student through the inherent challenges of this situation, but in the fullness of love, must also insist upon integrity between reality and comportment for the good of the child, and for the common good.
In a similar vein, we love and respect all of our students, but Catholic schools cannot condone or respect unchaste or disordered sexual activity. Every member of our school is called to a life of holiness, and that holiness includes living a chaste life appropriate to one’s vocation, whether as single, married, or consecrated religious. The Church defines chastity as the successful integration of sexuality within the person and, thus, the inner unity of man in his bodily and spiritual being: “The chaste person maintains the integrity of the powers of life and love placed in him. This integrity ensures the unity of the person; it is opposed to any behavior that would impair it. It tolerates neither a double life nor duplicity in speech.” Also, because the Catholic Church teaches that same-sex attraction is intrinsically disordered, and that sexual activity is only appropriate for the purposes of love and life within sacramental marriage, those students experiencing this disordered inclination may not advocate for it, or express it in the context of our Catholic school classes, activities, or events. The Church encourages individuals experiencing same-sex attraction to pursue the virtues of chastity, self-mastery, and friendship, instead of acting upon those inclinations, romantically or sexually—as is the current norm in much of secular society.
Authentic Good for All Students
Once properly situated in the broad context of a school’s Catholic mission, particular efforts to work respectfully and holistically from within a Catholic context and culture with students experiencing same-sex attraction or gender dysphoria can be better understood, and more clearly articulated. Because the Church teaches that for all its students sexual activity is only properly exercised toward the ends of both love and life in the context of a valid marriage, and because it teaches that same-sex attraction is disordered, the school can and should prohibit actively advocating for, or manifesting same-sex attraction, at school and school events. Similarly, because a Catholic school does not disaggregate gender from biological sex, the school can clarify that it accepts people with gender dysphoria, but still holds them accountable to all policies and procedures (including dress code and facilities use) concordant with the student’s biological sex.
Granted this is a complex and potential litigious topic, but Catholic schools must be willing to secure the authentic good of their students, in season and out of season. If students and families want to pursue a competing concept of the good, that is, of course, their right; but Catholic schools do not need to provide, nor accommodate, a competing version of the good. It is our right and our responsibility to live the truth with love in complete fidelity to Christ and his Church.
Our message of love and human flourishing must be faithful, pastoral, and clear. Our Catholic schools should be open to all who wish to join our mission of complete human formation of our students for their own salvation and good, and for the good of others.
This article was first published on Homiletic and Pastoral Review.
Encourage, Enact, and Enforce: A Residential Blueprint for Witnessing to the Church’s Teachings on Chastity during the College Years
/in Student Formation Commentary, Student Residences/by Dr. Timothy O'DonnellThe Church has always taught the beauty of human sexuality and that each person, made in the image and likeness of God, should live chastely, according to his vocation. Although not a recent phenomenon, our society has in many ways become blind to these beautiful teachings of the Church and has espoused a radically new, secular view of the human person. This new philosophy has affected all aspects of the moral life, not only those that involve human sexuality.
The sexual revolution, heralded as liberation in the 1960s, eventually took its toll even in our Catholic institutions of higher learning. The Church has always taught the beauty of human sexuality and that each person, made in the image and likeness of God, should live chastely, according to his vocation. Although not a recent phenomenon, our society has in many ways become blind to these beautiful teachings of the Church and has espoused a radically new, secular view of the human person. This new philosophy has affected all aspects of the moral life, not only those that involve human sexuality.
Out of a desire to meet the needs of their ever-growing non-Catholic student population, and to keep up with their secular counterparts, Catholic universities began to abandon the various student life policies that reflected the teachings of the Church, particularly in the area of human sexuality.
When I was a sophomore at a large Catholic university in the early 1970s, I distinctly remember when the university administration instituted 24-hour inter-visitation in the residence halls. Up to this point, all the living arrangements were single-sex, with visitation policies prohibiting members of the opposite sex to spend time in each other’s residence halls. But then it all changed. From my own, first-hand experience, I can attest that these new policies had a devastating effect on campus residential life. I personally witnessed many friends and acquaintances who were deeply, adversely affected by what was perceived as the institution’s approval of promiscuity. The adults/administration seemed to be saying, “You are old enough to make up your own mind about sexual morality.”Out of a desire to meet the needs of their ever-growing non-Catholic student population, and to keep up with their secular counterparts, Catholic universities began to abandon the various student life policies that reflected the teachings of the Church, particularly in the area of human sexuality.
After a number of years of inter-visitation, Catholic colleges and universities began to allow co-ed dormitories. Not surprisingly, there are now many Catholic institutions of higher learning whose dormitories house both sexes; in some cases men and women are separated by floors, others by wings, and even others, simply by rooms. It is not too difficult to ponder the consequences of such a policy.
One of the reasons I was attracted to come to Christendom College was the fact that, since its founding, Christendom has been faithful to the commitment to encourage and bear witness to all of the Church’s teachings, including the beautiful teaching on chastity. Let me explain the reasoning behind this stance.
The rules and policies that a college enforces must truly reflect the institution’s beliefs—her mission and integrity. If a college is genuinely committed to being Catholic, then every facet of the college, including the rules and regulations governing student life, must reflect Church teachings, bringing those teachings to life and incarnating them for the students.
The Catholic Church has always taught that unmarried people of the opposite sex need to exercise a prudent reserve in relationships, especially because of the goodness, indeed the holiness, of intimacy within marriage. Anyone of maturity and good sense knows that permissive rules allowing young men and women to spend hours upon hours inside each other’s dormitory rooms not only contradict the Church’s teachings on prudence and chastity, but also seriously jeopardize the purity of these young people. When students perceive the disconnect between exhortations by college administrators to live a virtuous life and residential policies that are not conducive to that calling, they not only lose their trust in the institution, but they also become seriously confused about what is right and what is wrong. When this happens, the institution fails in its mission to teach the whole truth about the human person.
Some voices in both secular and Catholic academia believe, since the students are generally over the age of 18, and therefore, in the eyes of the law, adults, that there is no need to implement policies affirming and encouraging chastity. Some insist that these young adults are mature and should not be told what to do in this regard. Others maintain that the students need only encouragement and good example, that these will be sufficient inducements to their becoming virtuous men and women who live a chaste life. Clearly this reasoning is deficient as evidenced by rules governing consumption of alcoholic beverages. Rules are meant to reinforce morals and foster virtuous behavior, just as they do in the home life; they are meant to complement, not contradict each other.
Given the brutal collapse of our secular culture, we need to have the courage to embrace a “contra mundum” stance. An authentically Catholic college, one striving to do the will of the Church, as faithful disciples, should not only adopt residential policies that separate and respect the dignity of the opposite sexes, but it should also provide many examples and events that promote and illustrate the joy of virtuous living, such as pro-chastity speakers or a course devoted to St. John Paul II’s Theology of the Body. This two-pronged attack offers a greater chance of success in bearing witness to the power and truth of Catholic teaching.
Our Catholic institutions of higher learning need to foster virtue and be countercultural as a corrective to our nation’s secular universities, many of which are floundering and debasing human dignity in this sensitive area. We need to bear witness to the truth and convince our beloved young people that they have a dignity and a calling far greater than that which is promoted by the secular world.
Statement Regarding Common Core
/in Academics Commentary, Common Core Statements and Press Releases/by Cardinal Newman Society StaffDecember 20, 2013 – In recent decades, Church leaders, together with Catholic families, have come to better appreciate that Catholic identity is essential to Catholic schools’ mission, teaching methods, curriculum, and appeal. It is because of their Catholic identity that schools are most attentive to the needs of students and their families. “These Catholic schools afford the fullest and best opportunity to realize the fourfold purpose of Christian education, namely to provide an atmosphere in which the Gospel message is proclaimed, community in Christ is experienced, service to our sisters and brothers is the norm, and thanksgiving and worship of our God is cultivated” (U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops, Renewing Our Commitment to Catholic Elementary and Secondary Schools in the Third Millennium, 2005).
Although Catholic schools in the United States—which have served students and the Church in an exemplary way for more than a century—have avoided many of the pedagogical and curricular trends in public schools, some Catholic educators have recently advocated for Catholic schools to adopt or adapt the untested and increasingly controversial Common Core State Standards Initiative.
We have grave concerns. This school reform effort is nothing short of a revolution in how education is provided, relying on a technocratic, top-down approach to setting national standards that, despite claims to the contrary, will drive curricula, teaching texts, and the content of standardized tests. At its heart, the Common Core is a woefully inadequate set of standards in that it limits the understanding of education to a utilitarian “readiness for work” mentality.
Well-intentioned proponents of adopting the Common Core in Catholic schools have argued that Catholic identity can be “infused” into the Core. This approach misses the point that authentic Catholic identity is not something that can be added to education built around thoroughly secular standards, but that our faith must be the center of—and fundamental to—everything that a Catholic school does.
The Common Core revolution in American education was launched behind closed doors and rushed to implementation in public schools with the promise of tax dollars as an inducement—even though all the Standards have not yet been completed, and those that have been released are controversial among many expert educators and parents. Catholic educators need not rush to follow this potentially dangerous path.
There is an ongoing, healthy debate about whether the Common Core is appropriate in public schools, and even more so in Catholic schools. Let it run its course. The Cardinal Newman Society—together with the countless Catholic parents, principals and pastors we have heard from—is concerned that we will be locked into the Common Core before it has been thoroughly and rigorously evaluated.
Most troubling in the public debate about whether Catholic schools should adopt the Common Core is that parents, whom the Church recognizes are the primary educators of their children, have been largely absent from it. They lack sufficient information to make judgments about the Common Core. And yet, as the Church has clearly taught, parents deserve a strong voice in deciding whether to embrace this “fundamental shift” in Catholic education, as the Common Core has been described by one leading Catholic advocate.
The Cardinal Newman Society is concerned that adoption of the Common Core at this time is premature. Worse, it may be a mistake that will be difficult or impossible to undo for years to come. We do not doubt the good intentions of those who advocate the Common Core in Catholic schools, and we acknowledge their confidence that Catholic schools can maintain a strong Catholic identity even while measuring their quality according to secular standards. But we do not share this confidence, in light of the sad experience in recent decades of many Catholic colleges, hospitals, and charities that believed they could infuse Catholic identity into the secular standards that they embraced.
We seek to help inform the dialogue about the Common Core with our new project and website, Catholic Is Our Core (www.CatholicIsOurCore.org), while expanding the conversation to include parents, educators and principals who have largely been absent from the debate. The Cardinal Newman Society’s mission is to promote and defend faithful Catholic education. We are working closely with key Catholic education experts and others to provide analysis of the Core and its potential impact on Catholic schools. We seek to provide those concerned about faithful Catholic education with solid information, analysis and arguments to more fully understand the potential impact of the Common Core on Catholic education and to advise caution about the Common Core until it can be further studied and evaluated.
New Dorm Visitation Study Reveals Need for Reform
/in Student Formation Commentary, Student Residences/by Adam WilsonIn a hyper-sexual society, once-traditional morals have eroded even in our Catholic institutions—and especially on many Catholic college campuses. Research shows that the pervasive “hook up” culture on the typical American campus is found even at many Catholic colleges, a fact that will not surprise most Crisis readers.
Given the documented consequences of the Sexual Revolution, it’s long past time that Catholic colleges take the lead on campus reform, creating cultures that reinforce the expectation of chastity. Solutions are by no means simple, as the casual sex scene has become an accepted norm of college life—even seemingly acceptable to many Catholic parents who would never allow such behavior in their homes. But while there’s no quick fix, Catholic colleges can at least start to address the problem by observing the residence life policies of those few faithful Catholic institutions and their other Christian counterparts that promote a culture of chastity.
Good solutions often begin with good data, so The Cardinal Newman Society has published a review of the dorm visitation policies at 191 residential Catholic college campuses in the United States. Our report, Visitation Policies at U.S. Catholic Colleges, is a factual overview of policies that regulate student visits to those campus residences that function, at least in large part, as student bedrooms.
Continue reading at this link at Crisis Magazine…
Visitation Policies at U.S. Catholic Colleges
/in Student Formation Research and Analysis, Student Residences/by Adam WilsonIntroduction
This report presents the results from a Cardinal Newman Society study of the visitation policies in student residences at residential Catholic colleges, not including seminaries, in the United States.1 Data used in the report was collected during the summer of 2015.
The report primarily evaluates visitation hours—the times during which colleges permit students of the opposite sex to be present in student bedrooms (including single-room residences) on campus. The report also presents information on other residence life policies that regulate the interaction between male and female students in campus residences. The report considers the policies of Catholic institutions and then compares policies of select Catholic and other Christian colleges.
In the first part of the report, it is found that the vast majority of Catholic colleges have residence life policies that permit students of the opposite sex to visit each other in bedrooms until early morning hours, behind closed doors. More than one quarter of the Catholic colleges permit students to stay overnight in an opposite-sex bedroom at least one night a week. Very few Catholic colleges prohibit opposite-sex visitation entirely. About a third of Catholic colleges have policies that explicitly forbid sexual intimacy in campus residences. The report also explores additional policies that regulate student behavior during visitation times, including open-door rules.
In the second part of the study, a sample of Catholic and other Christian colleges was selected in order to compare visitation policies. The selected non-Catholic Christian colleges have substantially more limited opposite-sex visitation hours than their Catholic counterparts and are stricter about prohibiting sexual intimacy in residences. Many of the selected Catholic institutions are ambiguous in their policies regarding sexual intimacy.
Methodology
For the first part of this report, the researcher attempted to review policies regarding opposite-sex visitation at all residential Catholic colleges in the United States. Policies were identified for 191 Catholic colleges, but no policies were found for three Catholic colleges.2 Another ten Catholic colleges were nonresidential and therefore not included in the study.3 The visitation hours for all Catholic colleges are included in Appendix A at the end of this report.
For the second part of the report, the researcher compared a sample of 40 Catholic colleges affiliated with the Association of Catholic Colleges and Universities (ACCU) and 40 non-Catholic Christian colleges affiliated with the Council of Christian Colleges and Universities (CCCU). For a rough parity between samples, they include only institutions that were rated in the U.S. News & World Report Best College Rankings and Lists in 2015.4 For both Catholic and other Christian institutions, six were selected from the U.S. News “National Universities Rankings,” six from the “National Liberal Arts Colleges Rankings,” four from each of the four “Regional Universities Rankings,” and three from each of the four “Regional Colleges Rankings.” The highest-ranked Catholic and other Christian colleges in each category were selected; however, some were excluded and replaced by other colleges, because no visitation information could be found. The samples do not allow for a strictly equivalent comparison, but nevertheless they are of interest because of their similarities in secular rankings and yet substantial differences with regard to visitation policies. The visitation hours for the sample of Catholic and other Christian colleges are included in Appendix B at the end of this report.
Information included in this report was collected during the summer of 2015 from various resources posted online by the colleges. Information was also collected through direct communication with some of the colleges by email and phone when there was insufficient data online. Online sources include, but are not limited to, student handbooks, student life or residence life handbooks, community standards pages and residence life information pages. The most recent official college documents which could be found at the time of the study were used.
Some institutions have stricter policies for freshmen than for other students. There is also variation in the visitation hours among different residences at some colleges. In such instances, the most relaxed hours for undergraduate students were recorded. Some institutions that set specific hours for visitation were reported to have open visitation due to the fact that they permit overnight opposite-sex visitation under certain circumstances. And some institutions that prohibit overnight opposite-sex visitation do not provide any time limits to visitation. These instances were reported as open visitation.
The report focuses on visitation hours for traditional campus residences. Some colleges have more relaxed visitation hours for students in campus apartments, houses, and townhomes with the rationale that such living arrangements include areas for visitors that are not bedrooms. Because the emphasis of this report is on bedroom visitation, the policies for such residences were generally not used for analysis in the first part of the report.
Similarly, some colleges that do not permit opposite-sex visitation do allow for common area visitation in residence halls. Such common area hours were not taken into consideration in this report, which is focused on bedroom visitation. The exception to this rule is when common area hours are set by a college, but the decision on visitation hour limits for bedrooms is left up to students. In these cases, the report uses the common area hours to determine the latest visitation hours in the bedrooms. These instances are not considered to have “open” visitation due to the fact that common area hours were always found to be more relaxed or equal to bedroom hours.
Institutions that rarely permit opposite-sex visitation during special open house events under close supervision are reported here as not allowing visitation.
The main categories of visitation hours utilized in this report are “Weekday Nights” (Monday through Thursday) and “Weekend Nights” (Friday and Saturday). Some colleges have opposite-sex visitation hours on only certain days of the week, but these are recorded as a college’s weekday or weekend policy, as appropriate. If the hours vary, the latest hour is recorded.
In the section considering policies on sexual intimacy in the first part of this report, only those policies that explicitly prohibit sexual activity were quantified. Other policies not recorded include those prohibiting cohabitation and overnight visits of the opposite sex, but without explicitly proscribing sexual intimacy. As the purview of this report is to gather specific visitation hours and definite rules regarding sexual intimacy, those policies not explicitly forbidding sexual intimacy were not considered in the analysis.
The charts in this report round down visitation end times to the closest hour.
The researcher took care to ensure accuracy and completeness of the information recorded but acknowledges the possibility of some mistakes or omissions given the amount of data involved in the research. If any errors are found or reported, they will be corrected in the online version of this report.
Catholic College and University Visitation Policies
Overview
Overall, 182 (95 percent) of the 190 residential Catholic colleges studied permit opposite-sex visitation at some time during the week. Of these, only a handful have open-door policies. About one-third of the colleges have policies expressly prohibiting sexual intimacy in student residences.
Weekend Night Visitation
Fifty-four Catholic colleges (28 percent) have “open” hours on weekend nights (Friday and Saturday), meaning that opposite-sex students can stay in student bedrooms without time limits. Forty-nine (26 percent) permit visitation without time limits on both weekend and weekday nights. Some colleges (39 or 21 percent) do not set any hour limits to visitation on weekends; nine of these (5 percent) leave it up to students to determine, meaning that students are free to establish with their roommates—by means of a residence contract or other agreement—the hours during which opposite-sex guests are permitted. And some (13 or 7 percent) have unlimited opposite-sex visitation for only some students, usually upper-classmen or seniors. All of these instances5 are defined as “open” visitation for this report.6
There are a few examples of open visitation that should be mentioned. Edgewood College specifies a policy that permits “Weekend Opposite Sex/Intimate Partner Visitation Hours.” Edgewood states, “All students are eligible to have 24-hour weekend visitation of guests. Visitation hours in which members of the opposite sex and same-sex intimate partners are permitted are: Weekend visitation hours begin 8:00 a.m. Friday and run through 11:00 p.m. Sunday.”7
A few colleges were considered to have open visitation in light of exceptions made to other standard policies. Examples include La Salle University, which sets opposite-sex visitation hours on weekends. However, La Salle permits overnight visitation in some residence halls “in recognition of such residences’ structural designs and the possibility of legitimate needs for group study,” although it is discouraged.8 The College of New Rochelle sets opposite-sex visitation limits for all students, but says, “The only exception in Angela Hall is that seniors or those over age 23 may have overnight guests of the opposite sex.”9 Similarly, St. Mary’s College in Indiana, which is an all-female college, has visitation hour limits and permits only female overnight guests, with the exception of “Regina South Tower, where male guests may stay over night.”10 Regina South Tower is a residence hall for senior students with one-, two-, three-, and four-bedroom residences. And Seton Hall University sets hours for visitation, but also states that students “can co-host with someone of the opposite gender if you wish to host someone of the opposite gender. Your co-host and guest must remain with you at all times.”11
Eight colleges (5 percent) do not permit any opposite-sex visitation in student residences on weekends.
Of the remaining colleges, the median latest visitation hour is 2:00 a.m. Nearly half of the Catholic colleges studied (91 or 48 percent) end weekend visitation in the 2:00 a.m. hour. A few have later hours: two (1 percent) end visitation at 4:00 a.m., while nine (5 percent) end visitation in the 3:00 a.m. hour. Fourteen colleges (7 percent) end visitation in the 1:00 a.m. hour, 10 (5 percent) end visitation at midnight, one (.5 percent) ends visitation at 11:00 p.m., and another (.5 percent) ends visitation at 10:00 p.m.
A few Catholic colleges begin weekend visitation hours in the late afternoon or evening instead of the morning as is typical, thereby reducing the total number of hours in which opposite-sex visitation is permitted. For example, Ave Maria University12 permits visitation between 6:00 p.m. and 12:00 a.m. on weekend nights, and the Franciscan University of Steubenville13 permits visitation between 7:00 p.m. and 11:00 p.m. on weekend nights. As noted below, both colleges also have “open-door” policies during visitation hours.
Weekday Night Visitation
Forty-nine Catholic colleges (26 percent) were found to have open visitation hours on weekday nights (Monday through Thursday). Ten (5 percent) do not permit any opposite-sex visitation in student residences on weekday nights.
Of the remaining Catholic colleges, the median latest visitation hour is midnight. Seventy-one of the colleges (37 percent) have visitation hours ending in the 12:00 a.m. hour, 22 (12 percent) in the 1:00 a.m. hour, 23 (12 percent) at 2:00 a.m., and two (1 percent) in the 3:00 a.m. hour. Some colleges end visitation hours before midnight, with nine (5 percent) ending at 11:00 p.m., three (2 percent) ending at 10:00 p.m., and one (.5 percent) ending at 9:00 p.m.
Of the 190 Catholic colleges studied for this report, five (3 percent) have some form of an open-door policy together with visitation hours. Such policies require that doors remain fully or partly open when members of the opposite sex are present in student residences.
For example, the University of Dallas14 and St. Gregory’s University15 stipulate that the bolts on doors must remain open, thus preventing locked doors and total privacy. Ave Maria University requires that doors be “propped open.”16 The Franciscan University of Steubenville requires residence doors to be “open.”17 And St. Martin’s University requires doors to be open only during the last few hours of visitation each night.18
Open-door policies coincide with relatively limited visitation hours at Ave Maria University, the Franciscan University of Steubenville, and the University of Dallas. The visitation hours at St. Gregory’s University and St. Martin’s University are about on par with most other Catholic colleges.
Policies on Sexual Intimacy and Other Behavior in Residences
About one third of the Catholic colleges (60 or 32 percent) were found to have some form of a policy explicitly prohibiting sexual intimacy on campus. Some colleges (40 or 21 percent) make clear that sexual intimacy is reserved for marriage. Some (52 or 27 percent) mention Catholic teaching or Catholic identity language while prohibiting sexual intimacy. Thirteen (7 percent) prohibit “overnight visits” or “cohabitation” for the purpose of sexual activity, but do not specify that sexual intimacy is also forbidden at other times of the day. Eight (4 percent) prohibit sexual “overnight visits” or “cohabitation” while also mentioning Catholic teaching or Catholic identity language in support of the policy, but do not specify that sexual intimacy is also forbidden at other times of the day.
Of the eight Catholic colleges that prohibit opposite-sex visitation in residences, half of them—Aquinas College in Tennessee, Christendom College, Northeast Catholic College, and John Paul the Great Catholic University—also have policies explicitly prohibiting sexual intimacy. For those that do not explicitly prohibit sexual intimacy, the point may be moot as opposite-sex visitation is already forbidden.
Overview
The second part of this report is based on a comparison of the visitation policies at 40 members of the Association of Catholic Colleges and Universities (ACCU) and 40 members and affiliates of the Council of Christian Colleges and Universities (CCCU) that are included in U.S. News and World Report’s 2015 Best College Rankings and Lists. See the “Methodology” section on page 2 for details on how the colleges were selected.
The comparison is interesting, because although most Christian sects share similar beliefs about the immorality of sexual activity outside of marriage, the CCCU colleges studied have more limited visitation hours than the Catholic colleges. Many of the Catholic colleges do not set limits on how late students of the opposite sex may visit student bedrooms, while none of the CCCU colleges was found to have open visiting hours. The most common latest time that the Catholic colleges permit opposite-sex visitation is 2:00 a.m.; the most common latest time among the CCCU colleges is midnight.
Many of the CCCU colleges and one of the Catholic colleges have other policies in place related to opposite-sex visitation. These include open-door and open-bolt policies and lights-on rules. Whereas most colleges in both sets have at least some coed residence halls for students, more than half the Catholic colleges and just five of the CCCU colleges offer only coed halls without single-sex options.
Policies, teachings, and regulations related to sexual intimacy on campus were compared between the CCCU and Catholic colleges. A greater number of the CCCU institutions studied have some sort of a statement that forbids premarital sexual intimacy. Colleges of both types that prohibit sex on campus make reference to their mission and/or identity to support the policy. Many Catholic colleges reference “cohabitation” or overnight visits in their policies regulating student behavior in the residences, but often the terms are used ambiguously and do not explicitly prohibit sexual intimacy in student residences. Some do include Catholic teaching and prohibitions on sexual intimacy in their language.
Weekend Night Visitation
Among the 40 Catholic colleges studied, 11 (28 percent) have open visitation hours in primary campus residence halls on weekend nights (Friday and Saturday). Two (5 percent) end their weekend visitation hours in the 3 a.m. hour, more than half (21 or 53 percent) end at 2:00 a.m., two (5 percent) end in the 1:00 a.m. hour, two (5 percent) end at midnight, and just two (5 percent) allow no opposite-sex visitation on weekend nights.
By contrast, none of the 40 CCCU colleges studied has open visitation hours on weekend nights. Two (5 percent) end their hours at 2:00 a.m., one quarter (10 or 25 percent) end at 1:00 a.m., 14 (35 percent) end at midnight, six (15 percent) conclude in the 11:00 p.m. hour, and one (3 percent) ends visitation in the 10:00 p.m. hour. Seven of the CCCU colleges (18 percent) allow no opposite-sex visitation on weekend nights.
Weekday Night Visitation
Among the Catholic colleges, 11 (28 percent) have open visitation hours on weekday nights (Monday through Thursday). One college ends its visitation hours at 3:30 a.m. on weekday nights, four (10 percent) end at 2:00 a.m., six (15 percent) end in the 1:00 a.m. hour, 15 (38 percent) end at midnight, and one ends at 11:00 p.m. Two (5 percent) do not allow opposite-sex visitation hours on weekday nights.
For the CCCU colleges, none of the institutions studied have open visitation hours on weekday nights. One CCCU college (3 percent) ends weekday night visitation hours at 2:00 a.m., another (3 percent) ends at 1:00 a.m., seven (18 percent) end in the 12:00 a.m. hour, eight (20 percent) end in the 11:00 p.m. hour, and 15 (38 percent) end in the 10:00 p.m. hour. Eight CCCU colleges (20 percent) do not allow opposite-sex visitation on weekday nights.
Ten of the Catholic colleges (25 percent) have open visitation hours on Sunday nights. One Catholic college (3 percent) ends visitation hours in the 3:00 a.m. hour, four (10 percent) end at 2:00 a.m., six (15 percent) end at 1:00 a.m., 15 (38 percent) end at midnight, one (3 percent) ends at 11:00 p.m., and one (3 percent) ends at 8:00 p.m. Two of the Catholic colleges (5 percent) do not permit opposite-sex visitation on Sunday nights.
One of the CCCU colleges studied (3 percent) ends visitation hours on Sunday nights at 2:00 a.m., another (3 percent) ends at 1:00 a.m., nine (23 percent) end in the 12:00 a.m. hour, six (15 percent) end in the 11:00 p.m. hour, eight (20 percent) end in the 10:00 p.m. hour, two (5 percent) end at 9:00 p.m., two (5 percent) end at 8:00 p.m., and two (5 percent) end at 5:00 p.m. Nine of the CCCU colleges (23 percent) do not allow opposite-sex visitation hours on Sunday nights, and none have open visitation hours.
A few of the institutions studied were also found to have stricter visitation hour rules for first-year students, including three Catholic colleges (8 percent) and one CCCU college (3 percent).
Among the Catholic colleges, Loyola University New Orleans gives first-year students a visitation period ending at midnight seven days a week prior to completing their “Roommate Agreement” form. Upper-class students do not have such a restriction.19
At Villanova University, first-year students are limited to midnight on weekday nights and 2:00 a.m. on weekend nights, but upperclassmen have open visitation seven days a week.20
Similarly, Wheeling Jesuit University ends first-year student visitation at midnight on weekday nights and 2:00 a.m. on weekend nights, but grants upperclassmen a 2:00 a.m. limit on weekday nights and 24-hour visitation on weekends. Wheeling Jesuit gives several exceptions that can be made to its upperclassmen weekday visitation policy, so the University is listed as “open” in Appendix B of the report.21
Messiah College, a CCCU member, limits both first-year and upper-class students to visitation ending at 10:00 p.m. on Sunday, 10:00 p.m. on Wednesday and 1:00 a.m. on weekend nights. Messiah grants upperclassmen an additional night of visitation on Monday until 10:00 p.m.22
Students Set Visitation Hours
Another way some (4 or 10 percent) of the Catholic colleges address opposite-sex visitation on campus is by allowing students in the same rooms, floors, or wings in residence halls to decide on their own visitation hours. None of the CCCU colleges in the study allow this.
For the purposes of this study, colleges that allow students to set their own hours are considered to have open visitation policies when there is no limit set for them. Where students are permitted to set their own hours within a college-established limit, the latest end hour is reported.
A residence life official at Santa Clara University told us, “Standard policy is that students and their roommate(s) set their own visiting hours in the residence halls, and the University doesn’t have gender-specific restrictions.”
Loyola University New Orleans permits upperclassmen to have open visiting hours, but it limits first-year students to visiting hours ending at midnight until they “have completed and reviewed their Roommate Agreement with a Residential Life staff member.”23
The College of St. Benedict in Collegeville, Minn., has typical visitation hours until midnight on weekday nights and until 2:00 a.m. on weekend nights. However, it “expects” that roommates “determine what hours you wish to host” visitors of the opposite sex.24 Villanova also permits freshmen to set visiting hours by means of roommate living agreements, as long as they are within the pre-set limits imposed by the University.
Typically, colleges require students to respect the wishes of their roommates when bringing visitors into the residence. For instance, both St. Francis College in New York and Stonehill College have open visitation. Stonehill stipulates, “Whether during the day or overnight, guests are only permitted to be in that individual residence hall room with the consent of a resident’s roommate(s).”25 And St. Francis College says, “In consideration to the rights of roommates and other residents, there are limits to the duration and frequency of such visits. A resident may have only one overnight guest at any given time.”26
Visitation in Campus Apartments, Townhomes, and Houses
Some universities offer students alternative residence options in apartments, townhomes, and houses on campus. These options are more prevalent at the 40 CCCU colleges than at the 40 Catholic colleges studied. Apartments, townhomes, and houses on campus are typically reserved for upper-class students. In general, visitation hours were found to be more relaxed in these types of living arrangements.
Only three of the Catholic colleges studied offer students on-campus living options in apartments, townhomes, and/or houses. Two (5 percent) end opposite-sex visiting hours at 2:00 a.m., and one (3 percent) has open visiting hours.
At the CCCU colleges, 14 offer campus residential options in apartments, townhomes, and/or houses. On weekend nights, one (3 percent) has completely open visitation hours, three (8 percent) end their hours at 2:00 a.m., five (13 percent) end at 1:00 a.m., two (5 percent) end at midnight, and three (8 percent) end at 11:00 p.m. On weekday nights, one (3 percent) has open hours, two (5 percent) end at 2:00 a.m., one (3 percent) ends at 1:00 a.m., four (10 percent) end at midnight, and six (15 percent) end at 11:00 p.m. On Sunday nights, one (3 percent) has open hours, two (5 percent) end at 2:00 a.m., one (3 percent) ends at 1:00 a.m., five (13 percent) end at midnight, and four (10 percent) end at 11:00 p.m.
Open-Door/Open-Bolt Policies
Only one of the Catholic colleges (3 percent) was found to have an open-door or open-bolt policy for opposite-sex visitation. By contrast, more than half (21 or 53 percent) of the CCCU colleges have open-door or open-bolt policies. Appendix C lists the colleges with this policy.
Lights-On Policy
Eleven of the CCCU colleges studied (28 percent) have lights-on policies. Most of the institutions that implement this policy do so in addition to an open-door rule. Typically, the lights in a student bedroom are required to be left at least partially on, so that the occupants present during opposite-sex visitation are visible from outside the room.
None of the 40 Catholic colleges studied implements this policy.
Single-Sex Residences
Eight of the Catholic colleges (20 percent) and 13 of the CCCU colleges (33 percent) studied have only single-sex residence halls on campus. Eight Catholic colleges (20 percent) and 17 CCCU colleges (43 percent) have both single-sex and coed halls on campus. Twenty-one Catholic colleges (53 percent) and five CCCU colleges (13 percent) have only coed residences.27
For both Catholic and CCCU colleges with only single-sex residences, it was found that they have roughly the same kind of opposite-sex visitation policies as the rest of the institutions studied. Even when considering together institutions with only single-sex residences and those with both single-sex and coed residences, there is still no noteworthy difference in average visitation hours when compared to all institutions.
Several of the institutions studied have varying forms of prohibitions on sexual intimacy. Some colleges specify that they prohibit pre-marital sex, and some identify specific forms of sexual intimacy that are prohibited. Others say instead that “cohabitation” is against college policy. Only the colleges that specifically disallow sexual intimacy were considered by this study to have a sexual intimacy prohibition in place. Aside from assessing prohibitions on sexual intimacy, this section of the report is based on general observations and is not quantified.
Eleven of the Catholic colleges studied (28 percent) provide some sort of official statement that sexual intimacy is reserved for marriage and/or is inappropriate among students. Thirty of the CCCU colleges (75 percent) have such language in place.
Catholic examples include:
CCCU institutions that make reference to their missions or values while advancing policies regarding sexual intimacy include:
Many of the CCCU colleges studied go beyond only specifying that sexual intimacy should be reserved for marriage and also include language prohibiting other forms of sexual activity and related practices. For example, The Master’s College cites several Scripture verses, states that sexual intimacy is reserved for marriage, and includes the language, “Any form of sexual immorality such as pornography, fornication, adultery, homosexuality, bisexual conduct, is sinful and outside of God’s design for sexual intimacy (Lev 18:1-30; Romans 1:18-29).”37
Dordt College has a similar policy and says, “the college firmly holds to the biblical teaching that premarital intercourse is forbidden. Further, behavior (e.g. nudity, lying in bed together) that encourages such intimacy will not be tolerated by the college.”38
Messiah College, under its section on Scriptural Guidelines, mentions that “we are to avoid such sinful practices as… sexual intercourse outside of marriage, homosexual behavior, and sexually exploitative or abusive behavior.”39
Some of the other CCCU colleges studied prohibit premarital sexual intimacy without mentioning their religious mission in the same context. For instance, Biola University states, “Any behavior that is considered compromising, sexually inappropriate, or causes others in the community to be uncomfortable is prohibited.”40
Trevecca Nazarene University states that students are not allowed to engage “in acts of sexual immorality, such as premarital and extramarital relations.”41 Malone University stipulates, “Sex should be exclusively reserved for the marriage relationship, understood as a legal, lifelong commitment between a husband and wife.”42 And Pepperdine University prohibits “Sexual activity outside a marriage between husband and wife including, but not limited to, premarital, extramarital or homosexual conduct.”43
Nearly all of the colleges studied were found to have specific sections for policy regarding sexual misconduct in their student handbooks. While none of the 40 Catholic colleges studied were found to prohibit premarital sex as a part of their sexual misconduct policies, several of the CCCU colleges studied do. Taylor University states as part of its sexual misconduct policy, “Remaining sexually pure is God’s plan for our lives. The following [sexual misconduct] guidelines are intended to provide direction when dealing with students who are sexually involved outside of the marriage relationship.”44 Calvin College also states under its sexual misconduct policy that “premarital intercourse is in conflict with Biblical teaching,” and those “engaging in such conduct face disciplinary action including parent/guardian notification, or suspension.”45 While not mentioning sexual misconduct per se in the same context, Wheaton College specifies, “Intimate sexual expression outside the biblical boundary of marriage may increase the risk of miscommunication about consent.”46
Many of the Catholic colleges studied prohibit “cohabitation” or overnight visits by members of the opposite sex, rather than specifically prohibiting all premarital sexual relations among students. Overall, there is much variance among Catholic colleges in the ways they use the term cohabitation and describe overnight visitation policies.
For instance, some Catholic colleges stipulate that visitors of the opposite sex are not permitted overnight, but they do not explicitly prohibit sexual activities at other times of the day. The College of the Holy Cross says, “Guests are not permitted to stay overnight in the same room with a member of the opposite sex.”47 Seattle University specifies, “Given the values of Seattle University, cohabitation is not permitted in University residence halls or apartments. Only guests of the same gender as their resident hosts are permitted to stay overnight in the residence halls, provided that the guest is not in an amorous relationship with the resident host.”48 Saint John’s University in Minnesota also stipulates, “Guests of the opposite sex are not permitted to stay overnight in any student residence.”49
Some Catholic colleges, without making direct mention of sexual activities, do not define the term cohabitation, or they use it broadly to mean any visitor who is not the primary resident staying in a campus residence for an extended period of time. For example, Stonehill College says, “reflective of Catholic values and moral teaching, Stonehill encourages relationships between young adults that foster physical, emotional, and spiritual well-being and, as such, the College does not permit cohabitation.”50 Wheeling Jesuit University has a broad policy which defines cohabitation as “the consistent presence of a guest who spends a day/night or longer period of time in a student’s residence hall room.” Wheeling Jesuit stipulates that “Visitors of the same or opposite gender found to be a consistent presence… will be considered to be engaged in cohabitation, and the host and student(s) involved will be subject to conduct review through the Office of Residence Life and Student Conduct.”51 And Bellarmine University states that “Cohabitation exists when a person who is not assigned to a particular residence hall room or apartment uses that room or apartment as if he or she were living there.”52
A couple Catholic colleges have policies that specifically prohibit overnight sexual encounters, but they do not include language prohibiting sexual relations at other times. Georgetown University defines cohabitation as “overnight visits with a sexual partner” and says it is “incompatible both with the Catholic character of the University and with the rights of the roommates.”53 Creighton University stipulates, “Overnight visits with a sexual partner is incompatible both with the Catholic nature of the University and with the rights of the roommate and is strictly prohibited.” It defines cohabitation as “living together outside of marriage in an intimate relationship.”54
A few of the Catholic colleges studied have very loose or practically nonexistent policies regarding sexual relations among students. Rockhurst University, which has open visitation, stipulates that “Guests may not stay for more than two consecutive nights (48 hours) unless permission is obtained from the Resident Director.”55 A residence life administrator from St. Francis College stated, “Currently there is no policy specifically prohibiting sexual activity in the residence halls. However, any activities taking place in a room must have the consent of all residents of the room including their roommates.”
Appendices
Appendix A – Visitation Hour End Times at Catholic Colleges and Universities
Nights
Coed Residences
Nights
Nights
Nights
Appendix C – Comparison of Open-Door, Open-Bolt, and Lights-On Policies at Sample of Catholic and CCCU Colleges
Discriminatory Blaine Amendment Used Against Education Savings Accounts in Nevada
/in Blog/by Cardinal Newman Society StaffNot long after Nevada created the nation’s first nearly universal education savings account (ESA) program for students last year, two lawsuits were filed to block the program that relied on discriminatory, historically anti-Catholic, provisions in the state constitution. Now the program is on hold following an injunction issued this month by a Nevada district court in one of the cases.
Carson City, Nev., District Judge James Wilson ruled on January 11 that the program “would cause irreparable harm to students in Nevada” by taking public funds out of the current public school system structure to create a “non-uniform system of schools.”
The case, Lopez v. Schwartz, was filed by the Education Law Center (ELC) in September on behalf of several parents. ELC argued that the program violated several provisions of the Nevada constitution, including Article 11, Section 2, which states in part that “any school district which shall allow instruction of a sectarian character therein may be deprived of its proportion of the interest of the public school fund.”
“Article 11, Section 2 suffers from the same anti-Catholic taint that plagues the Blaine Amendment,” argued the Becket Fund for Religious Liberty in an amicus brief. The brief noted: “First, it was passed during a time of sweeping anti-Catholic sentiment and with an intent to remove Catholic influence on public schools, and second, it prohibits ‘sectarian’ influences on schools while leaving unharmed ‘generic’ religious practices in public schools.”
The groundbreaking ESA program, passed into law last summer, creates an account for students in which the state deposits an amount equal to 90 percent of the average amount spent by the state per student during that school year ($5,100 for the 2015-16 school year), or 100 percent for students with a disability or with a household income less than 185 percent of the federal poverty level ($5,700 for the 2015-16 school year).
Funds can be used for a variety of educational expenses, such as private school tuition (including religious schools), tuition at eligible higher education institutions, distance education, curriculum, tutoring, exam fees, transportation and specialized services or therapies for students with a disability.
To be eligible for the program, students must attend a Nevada public or charter school for at least 100 uninterrupted school days immediately prior to submitting an application. The first round of funding to the over 3,500 students who applied for the ESAs was scheduled to be sent out February 1.
Wilson ultimately concluded that plaintiffs “failed to carry their burden of proof” that the ESA program violated Article 11, Section 2, but said the program did violate Article 11, Sections 6.1 and 6.2, and “irreparable harm will result if an injunction is not entered.”
Nevada Attorney General Adam Paul Laxalt appealed Wilson’s decision to the Nevada Supreme Court: “My Office is working diligently so that parents can enjoy the genuine educational choice envisioned by lawmakers this past legislative session, and remains focused on resolving the matter as quickly as possible to provide families with the certainty they deserve. A ruling from the state Supreme Court will do just that.”
The ACLU of Nevada and Americans United for Separation of Church and State filed a separate lawsuit, Duncan v. Nevada, against the ESA program back in August. In addition to relying on Article 11, Section 2, the lawsuit also argues that the ESA program violates Nevada’s Blaine Amendment found in Article 11, Section 10 of the state constitution: “No public funds of any kind or character whatever, State, County or Municipal, shall be used for sectarian purpose.”
“The education savings account law passed this last legislative session tears down the wall separating church and state erected in Nevada’s constitution,” Tod Story, executive director for the ACLU of Nevada, said at the time.
“To claim that the ESA Program funds ‘sectarian’ purposes is simply a modern spin on the same discrimination that birthed the Blaine Amendments,” the Becket Fund argued in their amicus brief in the case.
Blaine Amendments, named for former Speaker of the House and U.S. Secretary of State James G. Blaine, are provisions currently found in 37 state constitutions prohibiting the use of taxpayer funds at “sectarian” schools. After Blaine’s failed attempt to amend the U.S. Constitution with the proposal in 1875, versions of the amendment were “added to state constitutions in order to enforce the nativist bigotry of the day” against Catholics, according to The Beckett Fund for Religious Liberty. The provisions are now being interpreted to discriminate against non-Catholics as well.
“Activist groups are treating religious schools and the students who choose to attend them like second-class citizens,” said Diana Verm, legal counsel of the Becket Fund. “It is deplorable to see a discriminatory 19th century law being used to prevent children from access to quality education simply because the school may have religious ties.”
The lawsuit brought by the ACLU of Nevada and Americans United for Separation of Church and State is still awaiting a decision by the district court in Clark County, Nev., but the ACLU voiced support for Wilson’s decision in the Lopez case.
“The ACLU of Nevada is still diligently pursuing a permanent remedy to stop this unconstitutional voucher program,” said Amy Rose, legal director of the ACLU of Nevada. “We are pleased to see that another court recognizes that this program runs afoul of the Nevada Constitution.”
Laxalt, who is also defending the ESA program in the Duncan case, stated last week that the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision to hear a case challenging Missouri’s Blaine Amendment was a good sign for Nevada.
“My Office is encouraged by the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision that will be of crucial significance in our defense of Nevada’s Educational Savings Accounts,” he said. “The program is currently being challenged by the American Civil Liberties Union and Americans United for Separation of Church and State, who are asking state courts to twist the Nevada Constitution in ways never imagined, much less intended by our framers, barring parents and private schools with religious affiliations from participating in this important statewide program.
“Nevada’s Constitution does not require religious discrimination,” he continued, “and we are hopeful our nation’s highest Court will confirm that the U.S. Constitution does not allow that either.”
As The Cardinal Newman Society reported last week, a case challenging a discriminatory Blaine Amendment in Missouri’s state constitution will go before the U.S. Supreme Court this year to decide if the state can rely on the historically anti-Catholic constitutional provision in its denial of a grant to a Christian preschool meant to aid in resurfacing the playground with recycled tires.
The U.S. Supreme Court will also make a decision on February 19 to hear a case challenging Colorado’s Blaine Amendment. The Newman Society reported in December that petitioners are challenging a Colorado Supreme Court ruling that blocked scholarship funds to hundreds of families in Douglas County, Colo., who were supposed to be able to use the scholarship to attend a private school of their choice, regardless of a school’s religious identity.