Page 50 – Cardinal Newman Society

Talk to Newman Guide College Presidents and Senior Staff

January 21, 2016/in Mission and Governance Commentary, St. John Henry Newman/by Most Rev. James Conley

This talk was originally given at The Cardinal Newman Society Presidents’ Meeting in Washington, D.C. on January 20, 2016

Mr. Reilly, esteemed university presidents, dear friends in Christ,

I want to thank you for inviting me to join you for dinner this evening, and to offer a few remarks to you. This is an esteemed, august, and distinguished group, and I’m very humbled that you’ve invited me to offer a few remarks to you this evening.

I have been asked to speak to you about celebrating Catholic identity in the context of your universities and colleges. And in some ways, I feel ill equipped for that task—your institutions already represent some of the most Catholic places in our country—places where Catholic culture, intellectual life, and sacramental life flourishes in beautiful ways.

I am a graduate of a large, land-grant public university. (Rock Chalk Jayhawk!) And my diocese, the Diocese of Lincoln, does not have a Catholic university. But I do hope that I can offer a few thoughts that might be helpful to you in the important work you undertake.

I’d like to talk for a few moments about the Catholic University of Ireland, the university founded by my spiritual patron, Blessed John Henry Cardinal Newman.

Most of you know that Newman is probably the most famous English convert to the faith, a prolific writer and thinker, and most of you are very familiar with Newman’s Idea of a University. In fact, most of your institutions probably draw wisdom and guidance from Newman’s work. But you might not be as familiar with Newman’s term as the founding president of the Catholic University of Ireland. And the story might be instructive for you today.

In 1852, Newman was asked by the bishops of Ireland to be the founding rector of the Catholic University of Ireland.

He didn’t want the job. The Catholic University of Ireland was founded to compete with the anti-Catholic Queen’s University of Ireland, which forbade theology and undermined the Church’s mission. But Newman wasn’t sure the Irish bishops really understood what a Catholic university should be. He took the job, and began in 1854, only after the Holy Father asked him personally.

His first biographer, William Philip Ward, says that “the story of the next three or four years is a long drawn-out history of apparent failure.”

Newman clashed with the Irish bishops—especially Cardinal Cullen, the Archbishop of Dublin. Newman’s vision was a well-educated laity, formed in the humanities, as described in Idea of a University, which he developed as he began the project. But he felt the bishops wanted to found a sort of pre-seminary, whose sole focus would be training for future priests. They clashed over faculty appointments, curriculum, and authority. Newman felt that their promises were often broken. The bishops refused to allow him to accredit the college, which he thought it guaranteed its failure.

Newman’s work in Ireland, says Ward, “made no difference, and wasted his time.”

The clashes between Cardinal Cullen and Newman put the university in dire straits. Its enrollment was too low, its funding was unclear, and its episcopal leadership, at least from Newman’s perspective, expected him to “pick up the crumbs.”

In October of 1858, these frustrations came to a head. Cardinal Cullen had failed to approve Newman’s appointment of a vice-rector. A dean had been appointed without Newman’s approval. It was clear that he had been sidelined. In November, after a period of reflection, Newman tendered his resignation

The bishops of Ireland felt he had failed. Newman felt, in some ways, they had failed him. Some felt that he had failed the Holy Father. The faculty felt that his departure would lead to the University’s demise. And, in fact, the Catholic University of Ireland lasted only 50 years before it was absorbed in to the secular university it had originally sought to defeat.

Newman’s time in Ireland might be seen as a spectacular failure. But Newman believed that the Lord had called him there for a purpose, and had used his service there to further the Kingdom. He had honed and articulated a vision for education—and a vision for the Church—while he was in Ireland. He was now passionate about well-formed and active Catholic laity. And he believed the Lord had wanted that vision, and would use it.

He wrote to a friend. Resignation, he said, “does not prove that what I have written and planned will not take effect some time and somewhere, because it does not at once. For twenty years my book on the Arians was not heard of …

My Oxford University Sermons, preached out as long ago as seventeen years, are now attracting attention at Oxford. When I am gone something may come of what I have done at Dublin. And since I hope I did what I did not for the sake of man, not for the sake of the Irish hierarchy, not even for the Pope’s praise, but for the sake of God’s Church and God’s glory, I have nothing to regret and nothing to desire different from what is.”

The path of Providence, as he had seen before, had been dimly lit. But he believed that for all his failure, the Lord would use his work for great and beautiful good.

I want to make three points about Newman’s experience at the Catholic University of Ireland, and about your role in contemporary Catholic education.

The first point is that Providence is utilizing your faithfulness even when you cannot see it. Many of your colleges and universities are in precarious and difficult situations today. Many of you face real and clear threats because of your fidelity to the Gospel. For some of you, it is no exaggeration to say that your survival is at stake, in the face of threats to religious freedom. And some of you may wonder why the Lord is calling you to persevere in a culture so hostile to your mission and ministry. But, dear brothers and sisters, Providence is utilizing your faithfulness.

Whether your colleges are able to weather the storms, or whether you’re capsized by the winds of persecution, the Lord is utilizing your work, and calling you to faithfulness. Newman’s university did not survive. But the work that came out of his time there—especially Idea of a University—laid the groundwork for faithful and dynamic Catholic university education across the globe. The so-called “failure” of the Catholic University of Ireland was the catalyst for the good work that you’re now doing.

Newman wrote: “God has created me to do Him some definite service; He has committed some work to me which He has not committed to another. I have my mission—I never may know it in this life, but I shall be told it in the next. Somehow I am necessary for His purposes….a link in a chain, a bond of connection between persons. He has not created me for naught. I shall do good, I shall do His work.”

God has created and called your institutions to do some definite service. And in the tribulations that many of you face, you may not see what the purpose is. None of us see clearly the movement and intentions of the Holy Spirit.

But Providence lays the groundwork of the Lord’s will over time. And your work—whether blessed with worldly success or not—is guided by the hand of Providence. And the Church thanks you for your fidelity.

My second point is that our contemporary situation requires new and creative approaches to the mission of orthodox and dynamic Catholic higher education.

The Catholic University of Ireland, as Newman envisioned it, was a new approach to Catholic higher education. The idea of founding a university whose principal mission was the formation of a “well-educated laity,” seemed novel. To us, with the benefit of hindsight, the mission and methodology seems obvious. But consider that the bishops of Ireland had such difficulty envisioning the primacy of the liberal arts, and the role of lay faculty and administrators. At the time, Newman’s thoughts were considered revolutionary, and maybe even subversive.

We need a continued renaissance in our approaches to Catholic higher education. As an example, I should mention that some estimate 90% of American Catholic college students attend public universities. Some of them are poor, or new to this country, or the first in a family to attend college. Some of them are disinterested or poorly formed in the faith. Some of them are studying in programs that small colleges and universities cannot offer. And you know, far better than I, that their education and formation is not only bereft of a Catholic character, it is often hostile to the truths of the Gospel.

Catholic colleges and universities, if they are true to their mission, might spend time asking how they can support the Catholic intellectual and personal formation of these students.

My good friend Steve Minnis, president of Benedictine College, is here with us tonight. Benedictine has formed a partnership with the St. Lawrence Catholic Center to support Humanitas, a program of intellectual formation for freshman and sophomores at the University of Kansas. The University of Mary, under the leadership of Msgr. Shea, offers accredited courses at the University of Arizona.

In the Diocese of Lincoln, in partnership with our college seminary, we’ve begun the Newman Institute for Catholic Thought and Culture, which will offer accredited courses in the humanities to undergraduates at the University of Nebraska.

These partnerships and projects are not easy. They require an investment of time and financial resources. But they are evangelical, they have life-long impact on students, and they bring the mission of Catholic universities to students most in need of the Gospel. Graduates of these programs have a Catholic foundation, through which to understand their education in areas you might not offer: engineering, technology, biomedical sciences, etc.

Each of you has opportunities to serve and reach students who might never attend Cardinal Newman Society colleges. And in so doing, you’ll be instrumental in forming the network of “well-educated laity” who will build a culture of life.

My third point is that the Church needs you, even when she doesn’t realize it.

Newman bears witness to the challenges and difficulties an institution can face when the hierarchy does not understand or support its mission. He carried the feelings of mutual distrust, disappointment, and disenchantment with the local hierarchy—especially his bishop, Cardinal Cullen.

Many of the institutions represented in this room bear battle scars from difficult relationships with bishops or dioceses that have not always understood your mission. Many of you are, for understandable reasons, wary of collaboration with the local Church. But fidelity to the Gospel requires service to the universal Church and to the particular Church in which you operate. The Lord is calling you to serve the Church in precisely the places in which you are located.

And as a bishop, I can tell you that the Church, and the bishops in the United States especially, increasingly have an understanding and appreciation for what it is that you are doing.

I am 60 years old, and I’ve been a bishop for almost 8 years. There was a time when I could call myself a young bishop—but increasingly, those days have passed me by!

In dioceses across the country, bishops younger than me, with an even greater appreciation for your mission, are being entrusted with important leadership positions. And the Lord, truly, is calling you to foster and cultivate relationships with them. Ex Corde Ecclessiae calls every Catholic college to “be in close communion with the local Church and in particular with the diocesan bishops of the region or nation in which it is located.”

Newman reminds us of the importance of fostering this communion. Of course, many of you are wondering how to go about this. And some of you have better ideas than I do. But I can tell you that bishops everywhere are concerned with the ongoing formation of their priests, teachers, and lay collaborators. And bishops are eager to find partners in advocating for the faith in the public square. And of course, bishops are concerned with fostering vocations. And finally, I can tell you something that you’ll identify with—most bishops are trying to fulfill their responsibilities while recognizing the reality that there never seems to enough money to get things done!

I’m being sincere when I say that your bishops are in need of the work that you’re doing. And I’m sincere when I say that many of you will experience real and authentic openness to communion and collaboration.

The question for you to consider is what service you can offer to the needs of the particular Church. Can you foster an interest in vocations to the diocesan priesthood, among your students and among other young men? Can you offer training and educational opportunities for diocesan priests, teachers, and leaders? Can you develop authentically Catholic schools of education? Can your accounting and finance faculty offer workshops on parish management and finance for pastors? Can you be a voice for the richness of the Church’s life in your own dioceses?

In the face of ever-greater secularization, bishops are searching for partners. And they’re eager for help. Now, more than ever, the imperative of communion with the local Church is critical to your success, and to the success of the Church’s mission.

Providence is guiding your work, dear brothers and sisters, even in the face of trials and difficulties. Providence is leading even when you cannot see the outcome. You can be at the forefront of continued renaissance in faithful Catholic higher education. You can be of great service to the particular Church. And you can be, and will be, blessed abundantly by the Father for your fidelity and generosity to the Gospel.

Thank you for your good work. May almighty God bless you, +

SCOTUS Agrees to Hear Missouri Blaine Amendment Case

January 20, 2016/in Blog/by Cardinal Newman Society Staff

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

SPECIAL REPORT: Planned Parenthood Offices Located Near Half of Catholic Colleges, Alarming Pro-Life Leaders

January 19, 2016/in Student Formation Counseling and Health Services, Research and Analysis/by Kim Scharfenberger

Half of all four-year, residential Catholic colleges in the U.S. are within five miles of Planned Parenthood facilities, a study by The Cardinal Newman Society has found. Catholic pro-life leaders warn that the close proximity of these Planned Parenthood centers threatens the well-being of students and the culture of Catholic campuses.

Planned Parenthood is, by its mission, directly opposed to Catholic values on sexuality, artificial contraception and abortion. Many of its centers perform abortions and distribute contraceptives.

In its review of 188 four-year, residential Catholic colleges in the U.S., The Cardinal Newman Society found that 92, or 49 percent, are within five miles of a Planned Parenthood facility. Of these, 13 are within one mile or less, 37 are within 1.1-3 miles and 42 are within 3.1-5 miles (see tables below).

“Catholic colleges didn’t invite this situation, but they can respond by demonstrating genuine concern for their students and fighting Planned Parenthood’s attempts to lure students to their centers,” said Patrick Reilly, president of The Cardinal Newman Society.

“It’s important that Catholic colleges help pregnant students with counseling and referrals,” Reilly said. “But it’s also very important that they promote a campus culture that assumes and promotes chastity, educate students about sexual morality and the problems with contraception and sterilization, and dissuade students from entering Planned Parenthood centers by informing them about Planned Parenthood’s dreadful practices.”

In interviews with the Newman Society, Catholic pro-life leaders also stressed the need for college administrators to warn students about the dangerous influence of Planned Parenthood, America’s largest abortion business, and work to build a pro-life culture on campus.

“With so many abortion clinics near Catholic colleges, pregnant women may be even more tempted or pressured by others to seek abortions,” said Deirde McQuade, assistant director for pro-life communications for the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops (USCCB) Pro-Life Secretariat. “These colleges especially need to build a life-affirming culture and support network — one that both promotes chastity and welcomes life with creative solutions for students, staff and faculty alike.”

Father Frank Pavone, national director of Priests for Life, said the presence of a Planned Parenthood business so close to campus is “a threat to the lives of the children carried in the wombs of pregnant students, and a threat to the health of any student who purchases Planned Parenthood services.”

“Moreover,” he said, “it poses a near occasion of sin, since Planned Parenthood markets evil and sells death, as well as promotes a perverted view of human sexuality.”

American Life League Vice President Jim Sedlak agreed, arguing “a Planned Parenthood facility so close to Catholic campuses poses a real threat to the sexual morality of life on campus.”

Government statistics show Planned Parenthood relies on the college-age demographic for its abortion and contraception business. About one-third of all abortions in the U.S. occur among women aged 20-24, and another 13.5 percent occur at younger ages, according to the federal Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

In 2012, Students for Life of America (SFLA) reported that 79 percent of Planned Parenthood businesses are located in zip codes that are within five miles of a college campus. But students don’t seem to be fully informed about what these centers do: an SFLA survey the same year found that 59 percent of college-aged respondents did not know that Planned Parenthood commits abortions.

“Planned Parenthood preys off young girls in crisis, locating right near our high schools and college campuses, telling them abortion is their only real option in their moment of desperation,” warned SFLA.

Catholic Colleges Within Five Miles of Planned Parenthood Facilities. [Click to Enlarge]

Proximate Danger

Having already identified numerous links between Planned Parenthood and Catholic colleges, published in the August 2015 report A More Scandalous Relationship: Catholic Colleges and Planned Parenthood, the Newman Society decided to research the threat posed by Planned Parenthood clinics near Catholic college campuses.

The location of Planned Parenthood facilities was identified by entering the zip codes of four-year, residential Catholic colleges in the search function at PlannedParenthood.org. The distances between these facilities and college campuses was verified using the mapping function at Google Maps and recording the estimated driving distances. Because driving distance is almost always longer than walking distance or a straight-line measure, the actual distances between the Planned Parenthood offices and campuses is likely shorter than what is reported here.

Results were divided into three categories of distances from the college campus to the nearest Planned Parenthood facility: one mile or less, more than one mile and up to three miles and more than three miles and up to five miles.

The Newman Society found that Loyola University Chicago is the Catholic college closest to a Planned Parenthood facility, which is located right across the street from the University’s Lakeshore campus. Several reviews of this Planned Parenthood on the website Yelp reveal how the clinic impacts students and compromises the University’s Catholic policies.

“The proximity of this Planned Parenthood to Loyola’s Lakeshore campus is wonderful for those of us that go to a school that refuses to give birth control,” stated one review from Tracy K. Another review by Tom A. noted, “Since I go to a Catholic school and can’t get free condoms, it’s nice being able to cross the street and get them for 25 cents.”

“When I was a student at Loyola my best option for birth control was this Planned Parenthood,” wrote a former student, Virginia T.

The Newman Society reached out to Loyola University Chicago and its pro-life advocacy group for comment on whether students are properly informed or warned against patronizing the nearby Planned Parenthood, but no response was received by time of publication.

At some other Catholic colleges with nearby facilities, Planned Parenthood has attempted to exert influence over the colleges’ pro-life decisions.

In February 2015, the University of Scranton — which has a Planned Parenthood facility only about half a mile from campus — announced that it would end its immoral employee insurance coverage for abortions, including in cases of rape, incest and when the mother’s life is compromised. University President Father Kevin Quinn, S.J., faced immediate backlash from Planned Parenthood, which accused him of “cruel indifference.” However, Fr. Quinn courageously insisted that covering abortion in any situation was not in line with the University’s “Catholic and Jesuit mission.”

Back in September 2014, an unofficial student group, “Students for Sex and Gender Equality and Safety,” sought to change Fordham University’s policy prohibiting the distribution of birth control on campus. A January 2015 rally on the streets of Manhattan was reportedly joined by representatives from the Planned Parenthood center located about 3.5 miles from Fordham’s Manhattan campus and four miles from its Bronx campus. Also, the Planned Parenthood Federation of America headquarters is located just a mile and a half from Fordham at Lincoln Center.

In 2007, Duquesne University’s president, Dr. Charles Dougherty, directed a campus-based radio station to stop running advertisements for Planned Parenthood. In response, Planned Parenthood — which has a facility located less than a mile from Duquesne’s campus — launched a public relations effort pressuring Dougherty to reverse his decision.

Providing Student Assistance

Some Catholic colleges with nearby Planned Parenthood facilities sponsor health centers with access to pro-life counseling and resources.

Saint Louis University (SLU), for example, is located 1.2 miles from a Planned Parenthood facility, and its student health center “does not offer contraception,” Nikki Kuhlman, a senior at SLU and chair of the Pregnant and Parenting Student Assistance, told the Newman Society. If students come to the health center needing pregnancy assistance, they are “referred to a nearby Catholic hospital for procedures that extend beyond the reach of the campus clinic, especially prenatal care.” Additionally, the University’s “Pregnancy Resources” website lists several pro-life pregnancy centers.

The Pregnant and Parenting Student Assistance Committee was started at SLU in 2008. “We have a university endowment that lets us offer financial assistance to students who have children or find themselves pregnant,” Kuhlman explained. “We’re also working hard to help SLU become a more parent-friendly environment. There are multiple nursing suites across campus, we partnered with the bookstore to offer free textbook rentals to some parents, and we brought a Feminists for Life Pregnancy Resource Forum to campus in 2014.”

Other colleges strive to ensure a Catholic campus culture that embraces chastity while openly opposing the practices of Planned Parenthood. At Newman Guide-recommended John Paul the Great Catholic University (“JP Catholic”) in Escondido, Calif., the administration and office of student life take great pains to ensure the campus’ pro-life culture.

JP Catholic has a Planned Parenthood “within about two blocks” of campus, Julia Carrano, dean of students at the University, told the Newman Society. Although the facility does not perform surgical abortions, the abortion drug RU-486 is prescribed there, and Carrano explained that the administration provides talks and training sessions for students on contraceptives and abortifacients.

“Students have wondered why we protest outside this local clinic, as opposed to the larger one in San Diego which performs [surgical] abortions,” said Carrano. “So we have explained to them that prescribing RU-486 is still providing early-term abortions.” Moreover, by focusing on the nearby Planned Parenthood facility, Carrano stressed that the students are being encouraged to “make an impact in their local community.”

“This clinic is right next to their grocery store,” Carrano explained. “We want our students to be present and to encounter people who are suffering in their local community. That’s what will make a difference.”

The University also brings in medical professionals and doctors to talk to students about women’s health, abortion and contraception. All incoming freshmen and transfer students are required to take a class called “Intellectual Life and Virtue,” which has a special focus on the Corporal Works of Mercy. The class requires students to complete service projects, one of which involves praying outside the local Planned Parenthood. And every Saturday, students come together to pray the Rosary outside of the facility.

JP Catholic also has several unique student-led initiatives focused on promoting the pro-life message. One of the University’s households, the ΖΩΗ Life House, adopted as its mission: “To protect the sanctity of life by raising awareness of the true pro-life mission, and promoting alternative options to abortion and contraception.” Additionally, the household has a stated commitment of opposing the local Planned Parenthood, and to that end, they host monthly street corner protests.

“Colleges have an opportunity to help students really commit to the pro-life message, not just as something handed down to them by their parents,” said Carrano. “These young people will be future leaders in our health communities, our businesses — we have the opportunity to form their minds and their understanding.”

Life-Affirming Practices

“A Planned Parenthood abortion mill poses a threat to its entire community, both in the fact that babies are killed there and the general moral corruption that spreads into the community that allows it to operate,” said Father Shenan Boquet, president of Human Life International. “The Catholic university has a special obligation to oppose this evil in their communities through prayerful and peaceful witness at the clinic, and through educating the surrounding community about what happens there.

“It is an imperative of both social justice and basic Catholic moral doctrine that the Catholic institution oppose Planned Parenthood at every turn, that they speak the truth in love, leaving no impression that the abortion business is welcome in their community,” he added.

But it’s also important to keep in mind that “no one model fits all colleges,” the USCCB’s McQuade pointed out, adding that different colleges will benefit from incorporating different pro-life practices, depending on availability and resources.

Working to affirm life creatively “will look different on different campuses and institutions. The most important element is that Catholic colleges have a well-informed network that can offer tangible resources and aid in crisis pregnancy situations,” said McQuade.

McQuade noted that the Jubilee Year of Mercy presents “a beautiful opportunity to promote new, life-affirming practices” on campuses. She suggested options such as “designated housing for parenting students” and “academic flexibility and part-time student options built into degree programs.”

Newman Society Files Amicus Brief on Contraceptive Mandate – U.S. Supreme Court

January 11, 2016/in Blog Amicus Briefs, Public Policy and Legal (General)/by Cardinal Newman Society Staff

The Cardinal Newman society joined an amicus brief at the Supreme Court of the United States urging the court to uphold that religious institutions, other than churches, should be exempt from U.S. Department of Health and Human Services’ “contraceptive mandate.”

School Choice Threatened by Anti-Catholic Blaine Amendments

December 30, 2015/in Blog/by Cardinal Newman Society Staff

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

NAEP Scores Suggest Some Concerns for Catholic Schools

December 20, 2015/in Academics Common Core, Research and Analysis/by Dr. Denise Donohue Ed.D.

Click here for PDF

Summary

While Catholic school scores continue to dominate public school scores on the National Assessment for Educational Progress (NAEP), it is the internal trends of these scores that tell an interesting story. Grade 8 Catholic school math scores have seen a decline since 2009 after an almost decade trend of gains. Fourth grade math scores showed a steady decline in the differential between public and Catholic school scores from 2000 to 2013 with a rebound, finally, in 2015. NAEP is “the largest nationally representative and continuing assessment of what America’s students know and can do in various subject areas”. It serves as a common metric for states and stays essentially the same from year to year.

Introduction

On October 30, the National Catholic Educational Association (NCEA) published an article stating in its lead paragraph that “Catholic school scores continue to trend higher than public school scores overall by up to 20 percentage points.” Highlighting the fact that Catholic schools “marry rigorous academics, faith formation and Catholic identity,” the article details the major comparisons between 4^th and 8^th grade math and reading scores on the National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP).

That’s great news. But while Catholic schools might still be outpacing the public schools in overall average NAEP scores, fluctuations and the continued decline in 8^th grade math scores since 2009 warrant further study, especially in terms of the effects of the Common Core standards in many Catholic schools and instructional shifts required to implement the standards.

Scores for public school 8^th grade students in both reading and mathematics showed a decrease this year, but so did Catholic school NAEP scores. In both 8^th grade math and reading, Catholic student scores dipped by 2 points. On the other hand, 4^th grade reading scores increased by 2 points and 4^th grade math by one point.

8^th Grade Math and Reading Scores Decline

Looking closely at the average math scores for 8^th grade Catholic school students (see Table 1) reveals a decrease in the average score for Catholic students since 2009. Catholic schools had enjoyed a run of an average 2 additional points per year, but in 2011 we saw a slide of 2 points that held steady in 2013 then declined again in 2015. With the NAEP acting as the steady barometer of U.S. student abilities, not having been significantly changed since the early 1990s, we need to ask what’s happening in Catholic schools to cause the lower test scores.

Catholic school NAEP scores for 8^th grade mathematics have outdistanced public school scores by an average 12-point spread since 1996, but when one examines the Catholic scores closely, the average increase per test drops from 2.4 (1996–2009) to -1.3 (2011–2015). Calculating the trend for the full administration of the tests,¹ Catholic schools saw a 1.11 per-test increase from 1996–2015. Yet we have a 2-point drop in 2015.

The 2015 reading score for 8^th grade Catholic school students has also declined. While it still represents a 20-point advantage above public school scores, this internal decline is worth noting, because it is out of the expected trend for 2015. The average point increase from 1998 to 2013 was .06 points, so one would not expect a 2-point reduction.

Table 1: 2015 NAEP (2013) – 8^th Grade

Sources:
http://nces.ed.gov/nationsreportcard/naepdata/report.aspx?app=NDE&p=2-MAT-2-20153%2c20133%2c20113%2c20093%2c20073%2c20053%2c20033%2c20003%2c20002%2c19963%2c19962%2c19922%2c19902-MRPCM-SCHTYPE-NT-MN_MN-Y_J-0-0-5
http://nces.ed.gov/nationsreportcard/naepdata/report.aspx?app=NDE&p=2-RED-2-20153%2c20133%2c20113%2c20093%2c20073%2c20053%2c20033%2c20023%2c20003%2c20002%2c19983%2c19982%2c19942%2c19922-RRPCM-SCHTYPE-NT-MN_MN-Y_J-0-0-5

4^th Grade Math and Reading Score Trends

The difference in scores between 4^th grade Catholic school and public school students (Table 2) remains substantial in reading, with Catholic scores averaging 16 points higher than scores for public school students. The Catholic reading score increased a promising 2 points after some stagnation since 2009.

What is interesting is this year’s reversal of a trend showing a steady decline in the difference between Catholic and public school student 4^th grade math scores since 2000. In 2015 the differential increased 2 points, after decreasing in every assessment from 2003 to 2013. The Catholic school average score increased one point this year.

Table 2: 2015 NAEP (2013) – 4^th Grade

Sources:
http://nces.ed.gov/nationsreportcard/naepdata/report.aspx?app=NDE&p=1-MAT-2-20153%2c20133%2c20113%2c20093%2c20073%2c20053%2c20033%2c20003%2c20002%2c19963%2c19962%2c19922%2c19902-MRPCM-SCHTYPE-NT-MN_MN-Y_J-0-0-5
http://nces.ed.gov/nationsreportcard/naepdata/report.aspx?app=NDE&p=1-RED-2-20153%2c20133%2c20113%2c20093%2c20073%2c20053%2c20033%2c20023%2c20003%2c20002%2c19983%2c19982%2c19942%2c19922-RRPCM-SCHTYPE-NT-MN_MN-Y_J-0-0-5

Changes to 8^th Grade Math

One factor to consider with regard to math scores is the traditional pace in Catholic schools to move students toward Algebra I in 8^th grade. Catholic school data is not available when drilling down to compare scores of students who took Algebra I versus a basic math course in 8^th grade, but it is possible to review the trends of public versus private schools as a whole, of which Catholic schools are a part.

With data available for 2007 to 2013,² one can see that private school scores outdistance public schools in both 8^th grade math and Algebra I (Tables 3 and 4). It is also evident that students who took Algebra I as 8^th graders scored better on the NAEP than students who took 8^th grade math, especially since NAEP Algebra questions comprise almost a third (29 percent) of the math test.³ With some progressions toward delaying Algebra 1 until high school, Catholic schools would be wise not to follow this delayed progression, should these NAEP scores and entrance to STEM colleges be a concern.

Table 3: Average Scale Scores for mathematics,
Grade 8 by percent enrolled in 8^th-grade mathematics

Source: http://nces.ed.gov/nationsreportcard/naepdata/report.aspx
Note: Private school data was not reported for 2015 and no separate Catholic school data is available.

Table 4: Average Scale Scores for mathematics,
Grade 8 by percent enrolled in Algebra I (1 year course)

Source: http://nces.ed.gov/nationsreportcard/naepdata/report.aspx

Note: Private school data was not reported for 2015, and no separate Catholic school data is available.

Effects of Common Core

Has anything changed in Catholic schools to bring about these trends? Certainly, the implementation of Common Core math and English language standards by more than 100 dioceses is the largest single change, but instructional shifts intended to implement the standards should also be reviewed along with other possible factors.

Some Catholic school systems may be using these instructional shifts — such as cognitively guided math instruction, close reading, and the shift between information and fictional texts as recommended by the publisher — and not the standards themselves.

Catholic school systems that participated in NAEP testing (not all Catholic school systems participate) might review the changes they have made since 2009 in both math and reading to begin to pinpoint areas for further inquiry. By doing this review, a great service would be provided to the other diocesan systems.

States such as Maryland and cities like New York are themselves taking on this internal review task since, according to the data, “Not a single state had an increase in 8^th grade math scores,” and, “Twenty-two states had declines in 8^th grade math.”⁴

Some have suggested that the drop in NAEP math scores has to do with the misalignment of the NAEP with the Common Core Standards, but a recently released report (Oct. 2015) commissioned by the NAEP Validity Studies Panel, Study of the Alignment of the 2015 NAEP Mathematics items at Grades 4 and 8 to the Common Core State Standards (CCSS), touts that the NAEP mathematics framework was developed to account for all the major curricula across the country (p. iii) and that the alignment in 8^th grade math is “strong” and 4^th grade is “reasonable.” Nevertheless, the report also suggests that perhaps now is the time for a major review of the framework in light of the Common Core Standards.

Standards and Testing

Catholic school educators cannot rest on their laurels and assume they will always outscore public schools, especially if they slavishly follow public school patterns and standards. Parents in Catholic schools expect outstanding scores. This is not unreasonable, since students who come from supportive, involved, and tuition-paying families are expected to score higher on standardized tests. The academic setting lends to higher scores and demands higher standards.

Catholic schools should ensure that their standards have been created and specifically tailored to not only demand excellence, but also to promote deep, creative, and precise thinking as well as developing within students a sense of wonder about mathematical relationships and critical, convergent thinking in literature. A re-evaluation, especially of the 8^th grade math curriculum, along with the instructional approaches advocated by publishers and others, is recommended and long overdue.

Standardized tests should also be chosen to align with the instructional approaches and content standards used in Catholic schools. Working with private assessment companies is extremely important now to ensure a valid assessment of student learning, as well as longitudinal data to evaluate student academic growth and compare against NAEP results.

The Incredible Shrinking Case for Common Core

December 17, 2015/in Blog Latest, PR Register Column/by Patrick Reilly

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Did Pope Francis Say ‘Don’t Proselytize’?

November 24, 2015/in Blog Latest, PR Register Column/by Patrick Reilly

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

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

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

So what did the Holy Father actually say?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

This article first appeared at The National Catholic Register.

Vatican Envoy to Jesuits and Bishops: Reform Education

November 18, 2015/in Blog Latest, PR Register Column/by Patrick Reilly

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Our Church and society depend on it.

This article first appeared at The National Catholic Register.

Fire Theologians, Not Columnists

November 4, 2015/in Blog Latest, PR Register Column/by Patrick Reilly

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

There is great desperation in the move — and hypocrisy.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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