Page 52 – Cardinal Newman Society

CNS Joins Amicus Brief Upholding ERISA Church Plan Exemption – Advocate Health v Stapleton, U.S. Supreme Court

January 24, 2017/in Blog Amicus Briefs, Public Policy and Legal (General)/by Cardinal Newman Society Staff

U.S. Policy Priorities for Catholic Education

January 23, 2017/in Mission and Governance Public Policy and Legal (General), Research and Analysis/by Patrick Reilly

Catholic education provides many important benefits to American society. At a cost substantially less than public schools, Catholic elementary and secondary schools provide an outstanding education to nearly 2 million students, who tend to score high on national tests and succeed in college and career. More than 200 Catholic colleges and universities educate nearly 1 million students, preparing them to serve society in a wide variety of fields.

While business leaders lament the decline of communication, thinking, and problem-solving skills among job candidates, Catholic educators have maintained a strong emphasis on the core liberal arts and intellectual development.

Most importantly, graduates of Catholic schools are integrally formed in mind, body, and soul to give generous service to their fellow citizens. They exhibit strong character and virtue in an increasing secular and self-centered culture.

Nevertheless, Catholic educators face serious threats to their religious freedom emanating from their state and local governments and Washington, D.C. These have escalated significantly under the Obama administration, but some began much earlier. We now look with great hope to the incoming Trump administration and Congress to correct the many injustices and take lasting actions that will uphold Catholic educators’ First Amendment right to teach and witness to the Catholic faith by word and deed.

For that, Catholic educators and families would be most grateful and relieved, eager to focus on the essential task of raising young Americans to fulfill God’s calling and “make America great again.”

The following policy recommendations were developed by The Cardinal Newman Society, which promotes and defends faithful Catholic education, following substantial consultation with Catholic and other Christian education leaders, policy experts, and legal advisers. The proposals especially represent the concerns and needs of the Catholic schools recognized by the Newman Society’s Catholic Education Honor Roll and the Catholic colleges and universities recommended in our Newman Guide. These are institutions for which the freedom to teach and witness to the Catholic faith is essential to their mission and survival.

Elementary and Secondary Education Act

Overview
President Trump has proposed a $20 billion federal voucher program, while encouraging states to spend another $110 billion on vouchers. The program would aid students from low-income families and would likely redirect funds under Title I of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act, which are currently block-granted to states.

The school choice proposal could aid thousands of families attending or wishing to attend Catholic schools, but it also poses significant challenges for religious education. Schools must be allowed to freely maintain religious standards for education, and vouchers must not be permitted to open the door to substantial federal and state government regulation that would stifle diversity and religious values in education.

Already Catholic schools have struggled to preserve their unique identity and superior academic quality under the national Common Core movement. Although Catholic schools are not required to adopt state standards, many have yielded to the pressure to conform to standardized education and testing. Ending federal interference in school standards is an important step toward restoring diversity and innovation in education.

Action: Expand school choice without regulation
School choice presents a wonderful opportunity to help families afford a Catholic education—but only if it preserves the religious identity and quality of Catholic education, without opening the door to government regulation and coercion.

Legislative action: Reform Title I and IDEA (disabilities funding) to allow the funds to follow low-income students to the schools of their choice, but ensure that the aid does not impose new regulations and restrictions on religious education. Allow funds to go only to states that protect religious education and allow true school choice, including religious schools and homeschooling.

Action: End federal push for career- and college-focused standards
The federal incentives that the Obama administration used to coerce states to embrace the Common Core standards—the Race to the Top funds and waivers from No Child Left Behind—are already gone. But while the Every Student Succeeds Act (ESSA) prohibits ED from “federal mandates, direction, or control” over state standards for education, ED has plenty of opportunities to influence standards and testing. It is essential that the federal government gets out of the way, lets states work their way out of the Common Core stranglehold on innovation, and focus on state-level improvements that don’t nationalize education.

Executive action: Ensure that ED refrains from interference in education standards and testing, and instead promotes state-level and local innovation. Dismantle any remaining programs that promote a utilitarian view of education with emphasis on career and college instead of healthy student formation and learning for its own sake.

Higher Education Act

Overview
There has been a longstanding injustice in ED’s regulation of colleges based on the handling of student aid under Title IV of the Higher Education Act. In 1984, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in Grove City College v. Bell (465 U.S. 555) that a college that does not receive direct federal aid—but its students do receive aid for college education under Title IV—can be regulated under Title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972. Title IX applies only to colleges that receive federal financial assistance.

The clear intent of Title IV is to support the needs of students, not particular institutions. It is the students who are awarded the aid and who choose which institutions will receive the funds for tuition and expenses. Title IV is a form of “school choice” for needy college students; the aid can make it possible for students to choose among a wide variety of colleges that would otherwise be inaccessible.

The Grove City decision opened to door to substantial federal regulation of higher education. For religious colleges, this excessive government regulation invites conflicts with religious freedom. (See discussion of Title IX below.)

Another way Title IV funding opens the door to federal interference in higher education is by ED’s regulation of accrediting agencies, creating potential conflicts with the religious freedom of religious colleges. Under the Higher Education Act, accrediting associations determine which colleges a student may attend to receive Title IV aid. This politicizes accreditors, distorts their purpose as independent promoters of excellence in higher education, and invites ED regulation by its recognition of accreditor-gatekeepers. With regard to Title IV aid, the only remedy for a college that is unfairly treated by an accreditor is to request revocation of the accreditor’s standing with ED.

In addition to requirements under Title IX that violate religious freedom, other federal regulation and coercion poses concerns for religious colleges. The regulation of teacher preparation programs tends to diminish diversity and ignore the particular needs of schools and colleges, including religious institutions. Federal policies that disadvantage students who choose to focus their studies in the liberal arts or “humanities” are a misguided form of social engineering that disregards the great benefits of a religious, liberal-arts education.

Action: De-link student aid from Title IX
The U.S. Supreme Court has determined that the receipt of Title IV funds triggers a college’s obligation to comply with Title IX. Given attempts to redefine “sex” in Title IX to include “gender identity,” the link between student aid and Title IX is a serious threat to religious higher education.

Legislative action: Amend the Higher Education Act to ensure that Title IV funds are not considered federal support for educational institutions with regard to enforcement of Title IX.

Action: De-link accreditation from Title IV funding
Accrediting associations are the gatekeepers for federal aid under Title IV of the Higher Education Act. Currently the law (20 U.S. Code §1009 (b)) includes minimal protection for religious colleges by requiring that the accreditor “consistently applies and enforces standards that respect the stated mission of the institution of higher education, including religious missions.” The only remedy for religious colleges that may be unjustly discriminated against by an accreditor is to request revocation of the accreditor’s standing with the U.S. Department of Education.

Legislative action: Amend the Higher Education Act to ensure that accrediting bodies are no longer gatekeepers to Title IV funds.
Legislative action: Amend the Higher Education Act to allow a private right of action against an accreditor by a college that is unjustly discriminated against in the course of accreditation.

Action: Deregulate teacher preparation
Religious educators strive to comply with state and accreditor expectations for teacher preparation, but federal government regulation of teacher preparation programs interferes with the independence of such programs and state decision making. It also raises concerns for religious freedom in programs that reside within religious colleges. In late 2016, ED issued regulations to increase federal oversight of teacher preparation.

Executive action: Repeal Obama-era regulations expanding federal interference in teacher preparation (see 34 CFR Parts 612, 686).

Action: Refrain from discriminating against liberal arts majors
Federal policy proposals to disadvantage college students who focus their studies in the liberal arts or “humanities” are a misguided form of social engineering that disregards the great benefits of a religious, liberal-arts education. Complaints that liberal arts graduates have low earning potential have been greatly exaggerated and are often inaccurate. Many business executives prefer graduates with strong communications and reasoning skills. Regardless, liberal arts graduates contribute greatly to society and culture beyond simple measures of career success.

Threatening to control Title IV expenditures by discriminating against liberal arts majors or limiting students’ choices of college major and career is neither wise nor beneficial. It also disproportionately impacts students at religious colleges, who often concentrate their studies in the liberal arts.

Executive action: Refrain from interference in students’ choice of college studies and limitations of Title IV student aid for liberal arts majors.

Title IX of Education Amendments of 1972

Overview
Title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972 (20 U.S.C. §§ 1681–1688) forbids sex discrimination at schools and colleges that accept federal funds, but the law has recently been reinterpreted by the U.S. Department of Education (ED) in ways that harm women and violate religious freedom.

The clear intent of Congress, when it enacted Title IX in 1972, was to prohibit discrimination against the two “sexes”—male and female. This is indicated in the law. Enforcement of Title IX has emphasized parity for males and females, as in school and college athletics programs.

However, the EEOC and ED have recently forced an ideological reinterpretation of “sex” in Title IX to include “gender identity”—even a person’s choice of gender that is different from their biological sex at birth. Far from advancing the original intent of the law, this “gender ideology” threatens women’s athletics and other activities by permitting biological males to join and potentially dominate those activities. It also threatens women’s privacy and safety by permitting male access to women’s bathrooms, showers, locker rooms, and residences.

ED’s reinterpretation of Title IX to include gender identity unfairly prejudices Catholic educators who teach and witness to the Catholic faith. Catholics believe that man is created male or female, a fact of natural law and the will of God. Human sexuality is properly ordered toward marriage between a man and a woman. A faithfully Catholic school or college must conform to an individual’s biological sex and expects students and employees to practice chastity outside of marriage. Although Title IX provides an exemption for religious education, ED’s reinterpretation of “sex discrimination” unfairly indicates that religious institutions discriminate against women, and this can have a “trickle down” impact on state policy, accreditation, private funding, etc.

Moreover, Title IX’s religious exemption is not certain for many religious schools and colleges. ED has asserted its authority to pre-certify or deny eligibility for the exemption, a practice that is not indicated by the law. The law’s language describing the exemption could be unfairly interpreted to exclude independent and nondenominational religious institutions that are not legally controlled by an established church.

And still more, those institutions that receive ED’s preapproval for religious exemption—an exemption that is clearly indicated in the law—are being persecuted by advocacy groups, states, and ED itself.

Action: Clarify Title IX religious exemption
20 U.S. Code § 1681 (a) (3) provides a religious exemption to Title IX: “…this section shall not apply to an educational institution which is controlled by a religious organization if the application of this subsection would not be consistent with the religious tenets of such organization…”

It is important to clarify the words “controlled by a religious organization” to protect institutions that are “controlled” by religious beliefs but have no legal ties to a church. For instance, most Catholic colleges and many Catholic schools—even the most faithful to Catholic teachings—have no legal ties to the Catholic Church. There are also many nondenominational Christian schools and colleges that are strongly religious but not affiliated with any formal church.

Executive action: Issue an executive order to clarify language in 20 U.S. Code § 1681 (a) (3) to ensure that no religious school or college can be excluded from the Title IX religious exemption.
Legislative action: Amend the law to replace or clarify language in 20 U.S. Code § 1681 (a) (3) to ensure that no religious school or college can be excluded from the Title IX religious exemption.

Action: Uphold Title IX religious exemption
The religious exemption to Title IX (20 U.S. Code § 1681 (a) (3)) suggests automatic exemption for a qualifying school or college, if and when there may be a conflict with Title IX: “…this section shall not apply to an educational institution which is controlled by a religious organization if the application of this subsection would not be consistent with the religious tenets of such organization…”

Although not indicated by the law, ED has inappropriately asserted authority to pre-certify or deny a religious institution’s exemption to Title IX. A process has been established whereby an institution applies for an advance ruling from ED, which by its sole discretion may refuse to “approve” an exemption if, in its opinion, a school or college does not meet the standard of being “controlled by a religious organization.”

This puts ED in the position of potentially limiting an exemption that is clearly indicated by law; courts and the public may be prejudiced if ED rejects or even delays its ruling. It also suggests that exemption from Title IX depends on an institution’s assertion of the exemption prior to a dispute; in fact, the law demands exemption for religious institutions in every case of a religious conflict with Title IX, whether or not the exemption is claimed prior to the conflict or even at the time of the conflict.

Moreover, ED has recently been publishing on its website the names of institutions that it “approves” for Title IX exemptions. This has been done at the urging of states and advocacy groups that wish to shame and persecute religious institutions for obtaining these legally valid exemptions. In 2016, California legislators attempted to withhold state Cal Grants from religious colleges that appear on ED’s list of “unapproved” institutions. This is a form of persecution; religious organizations should not be punished or denigrated for their beliefs and for protecting their religious freedom against an ED reinterpretation of Title IX that is inconsistent with the law’s original purpose.

Executive action: End the U.S. Department of Education’s policy of approving or denying advance rulings for religious educational institutions that claim the exemption to Title IX in 20 U.S. Code § 1681 (a) (3).
Executive action: End the U.S. Department of Education’s policy of publishing a list of religious educational institutions that claim the religious exemption to Title IX in 20 U.S. Code § 1681 (a) (3).
Executive action: Issue an executive order to forbid retaliation by any federal agency against religious educational institutions that claim the religious exemption to Title IX in 20 U.S. Code § 1681 (a) (3) (cf. non-retaliation provision in S. 815, the proposed Employment Non-Discrimination Act of 2013: “It shall be an unlawful employment practice for a covered entity to discriminate against an individual because such individual—(1) opposed any practice made an unlawful employment practice by this Act; or (2) made a charge, testified, assisted, or participated in any manner in an investigation, proceeding, or hearing under this Act”).
Legislative action: Amend the law to forbid retaliation by any state or other entity or individual against religious educational institutions that claim the religious exemption to Title IX in 20 U.S. Code § 1681 (a) (3) (cf. non-retaliation provision in S. 815, proposed Employment Non-Discrimination Act of 2013: “It shall be an unlawful employment practice for a covered entity to discriminate against an individual because such individual—(1) opposed any practice made an unlawful employment practice by this Act; or (2) made a charge, testified, assisted, or participated in any manner in an investigation, proceeding, or hearing under this Act”).

Action: Restore original meaning of Title IX
As noted above, ED and EEOC have reinterpreted “sex discrimination” to force acceptance of new concepts of gender and sexual orientation. This ideological reinterpretation of the law threatens the religious freedom of religious schools and colleges.

Executive action: Rescind any “Dear Colleague” letters, administrative rules, executive orders, or regulations (see 34 CFR Part 106) which re-interpret the law to define “sex” and “gender” as referring to anything other than the biologically-defined sex (male or female) of an individual at birth, or that require admittance of the opposite sex to gender-exclusive bathrooms, locker rooms, shower facilities, residences, and other facilities.
Executive action: Issue an executive order defining “sex” and “gender” for the purposes of Title IX to refer only to the biologically-defined sex (male or female) of an individual at birth.
Legislative action: Amend the law to define “sex” and “gender” for the purposes of Title IX to refer only to the biologically-defined sex (male or female) of an individual at birth.

Action: Deregulate higher education by eliminating Title IV trigger
Federal student loans and grants under Title IV of the Higher Education Act are intended to expand individuals’ access to higher education according to their need, but not to directly support educational institutions. They are “school choice” programs for postsecondary education.

Nevertheless, ED and the courts have determined that Title IV student aid is a trigger for federal regulation of colleges under Title IX and other ED regulations, the same as direct federal aid to colleges. Title IV is the “hook” that allows expansive federal regulation in higher education, which opens the door to conflicts over religious freedom at religious colleges. (See more explanation under “Higher Education Act” above.)

Legislative action: Amend the Higher Education Act to ensure that Title IV funds are not considered federal support for educational institutions with regard to enforcement of Title IX.

Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964

Overview
Title VII forbids discrimination in employment on the basis of sex, race, color, national origin, and religion. The clear intent of Congress, when it enacted the Civil Rights Act, was to prohibit discrimination against the two “sexes”—male and female.

However, the EEOC and federal agencies have recently forced an ideological reinterpretation of “sex” in Title VII to include “gender identity”—even a person’s choice of gender that is different from their biological sex at birth. Far from advancing the original intent of the law, this “gender ideology” threatens women’s activities and employment opportunities (by permitting access to males) and women’s privacy and safety in the workplace (by permitting male access to women’s bathrooms, showers, locker rooms, etc.).

“Sex discrimination” is also being redefined for ideological purposes to forbid discrimination on the basis of “sexual orientation.” This was not the original intent of the law, but because attempts to legislate protection for “sexual orientation” have failed, the EEOC has simply reinterpreted existing law.

Finally, “sex discrimination” is being used to mandate employee health benefits that cover contraception and sterilization, regardless of medical benefit or necessity. While Title VII does not mandate abortion coverage in health plans, it does forbid employers from considering an employee’s participation in abortion when making employment decisions—even a religious employer with deeply held convictions against abortion and moral standards for employees.

Under this reinterpretation of Title VII, the religious freedom of Catholic educators to teach and witness to the Catholic faith is being violated. Catholics believe that man is created male or female, a fact of natural law and also the will of God. Human sexuality is properly ordered toward marriage between a man and a woman. A faithfully Catholic school or college must conform to an individual’s biological sex and expects students and employees to practice chastity outside of marriage. Abortion, sterilization, and contraception are serious offenses.

Title VII provides an exemption for religious employers with regard to religious discrimination, but it is unclear whether this exemption protects religiously-motivated personnel decisions that might be characterized as “sex” discrimination.

Action: Restore original meaning of Title VII
As noted above, federal agencies have reinterpreted “sex discrimination” to force acceptance of new concepts of gender and sexual orientation and to mandate support for contraception, sterilization, and abortion. This ideological reinterpretation of the law violates the religious freedom of religious schools and colleges.

Executive action: Rescind any “dear colleague” letters, administrative rules, executive orders, or regulations (see 34 CFR Part 106) which re-interpret the law to define “sex” and “gender” as referring to anything other than the biologically-defined sex (male or female) of an individual at birth; require admittance of the opposite sex to gender-exclusive bathrooms, locker rooms, shower facilities, residences, and other facilities; or refer in any way to expanded benefits or accommodations for contraception, sterilization, or abortion.
Executive action: Issue an executive order defining “sex” and “gender” for the purposes of Title VII to refer only to the biologically-defined sex (male or female) of an individual at birth and never to contraception, sterilization, or abortion.
Legislative action: Amend the law to define “sex” and “gender” for the purposes of Title VII to refer only to the biologically-defined sex (male or female) of an individual at birth and never to contraception, sterilization, or abortion.

Action: Expand Title VII religious exemption
Given the attempts by federal agencies, courts, and legislators to redefine “sex discrimination” for ideological purposes, the threat posed by Title VII to religious organizations is significant. Unlike Title IX of the Higher Education Act, there is uncertain protection for religious employers under Title VII with regard to sex discrimination.

Legislative action: Amend Title VII to explicitly exempt religious employers with regard to sex discrimination if the application of the law is inconsistent with the religious tenets of the employer.

Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (Obamacare)

Overview
In regulations implementing the Affordable Care Act, HHS has mandated coverage for sterilization and contraceptives, including some that can cause abortion, in health insurance plans. The “HHS mandate” does not exempt most religious employers.

In 2016 in Zubik v. Burwell, the U.S. Supreme Court unanimously overturned lower court rulings upholding the “HHS mandate” against the Little Sisters of the Poor and other challengers. The Court instructed the lower courts to seek “an approach going forward that accommodates the petitioner’s religious beliefs.” However, the matter has yet to be resolved by the courts.

HHS has also issued regulations under the Affordable Care Act that forbid covered health-related entities to discriminate on the basis of race, color, national origin, sex, age, or disability; included in the Department’s definition of sex (consistent with the EEOC) is “gender identity.” The regulations create a “transgender mandate,” under which covered entities—including religious colleges that receive HHS funds for medical education programs—must accept a person’s choice of gender that is different from their biological sex at birth. Legal experts also believe that the regulations prohibit most private health insurers—including those providing health benefits to employees of religious organizations—from categorically excluding coverage related to “gender transition” and from denying claims for “transgender” services that are comparable to other covered services. (For instance, if a hysterectomy is covered for serious medical reasons, it must be permitted for “transgender” purposes.)

The HHS also defines sex to include “termination of pregnancy.” Legal experts believe that the new HHS regulations may prohibit health insurers—including those providing health benefits to employees of religious organizations—from denying coverage for elective abortion.

In addition, HHS has refused to enforce federal law against states that violate religious freedom by mandating abortion benefits in state-regulated health plans, even for religious employers.

Action: End “HHS mandate”
In regulations implementing the Affordable Care Act, HHS has mandated coverage for sterilization and contraceptives, including some that can cause abortion, in health insurance plans. The “HHS mandate” does not exempt most religious employers.

Executive action: Repeal regulations (26 CFR Part 54, 29 CFR Parts 2510 and 2590, 45 CFR Parts 147 and 156) mandating health insurance coverage for sterilization and contraception.
Legislative action: Amend the Affordable Care Act to ensure that HHS cannot mandate health insurance coverage for sterilization or contraception.

Action: Exempt all religious organizations from “HHS mandate”
The “HHS mandate” for coverage for sterilization and contraceptives, including some that can cause abortion, in health insurance plans does not exempt most religious employers. HHS has offered various forms of “accommodation” to many but not all religious employers (26 CFR 54.9815-2713A, 29 CFR 2590.715-2713A, 45 CFR 147.131); those “accommodations” still force many employers to violate their deeply held religious beliefs.

Executive action: Amend regulations (26 CFR Part 54, 29 CFR Parts 2510 and 2590, 45 CFR Parts 147 and 156) to exempt all religious organizations from mandatory health insurance coverage for sterilization and contraception if it conflicts with their religious beliefs.
Legislative action: Amend the Affordable Care Act to ensure that HHS cannot require any individual or entity to purchase health insurance coverage that conflicts with the purchaser’s moral or religious beliefs.

Action: End abortion and transgender mandate
In regulations implementing Section 1557 of the Affordable Care Act and prohibiting sex discrimination, HHS has defined “sex” as including “gender identity” and “termination of pregnancy.” Not only does this directly impact covered religious entities, including religious colleges that receive HHS funds for medical education programs, but it also impacts most health insurers, including those that serve religious schools and colleges.

Executive action: Issue an executive order defining “sex” and “gender” for the purposes of the Affordable Care Act to refer only to the biologically-defined sex (male or female) of an individual at birth and never to contraception, sterilization, or abortion.
Executive action: Amend the regulations implementing Section 1557 of the Affordable Care Act to define “sex” and “gender” to refer only to the biologically-defined sex (male or female) of an individual at birth and never to contraception, sterilization, or abortion.
Legislative action: Amend the Affordable Care Act to define “sex” and “gender” for the purposes of Section 1557 to refer only to the biologically-defined sex (male or female) of an individual at birth and never to contraception, sterilization, or abortion.

Action: Exempt religious organizations from abortion and transgender mandate
In HHS regulations implementing Section 1557 of the Affordable Care Act and prohibiting sex discrimination—by which “sex” is defined to include “gender identity” and “termination of pregnancy”—there is no exemption for covered religious entities or for individuals and employers that may have religious objections to the mandated coverage.

Executive action: Amend the regulations implementing Section 1557 of the Affordable Care Act to exempt all religious organizations from enforcement of any provision that conflicts with their religious beliefs.
Legislative action: Amend Section 1557 of the Affordable Care Act to exempt all religious organizations from enforcement of any provision that conflicts with their religious beliefs.

Action: Enforce Weldon Amendment against state mandates
In 2014, California interpreted the state Knox-Keene Act to mandate abortion coverage in state-regulated health insurance plans, with no exemption for religious employers.

Although the Federal Refusal Clause (the “Weldon amendment”) in the federal appropriations act for the Department of Health and Human Services (Consolidated Appropriations Act of 2012, Pub. L. No. 112-74, div. F, tit. V, § 507(d)(1), 125 Stat. 786, 1111 (2011)) prohibits federal, state, and local governments from “discrimination” against a health-care entity—including a health insurance plan—that “does not provide, pay for, provide coverage of, or refer for abortions,” HHS has refused to enforce the Weldon amendment against California. This invites other states to also ignore the law.

Executive action: Require HHS to enforce the Weldon amendment by demanding that California rescind its mandate for abortion coverage in state-regulated health insurance plans.

Internal Revenue Service

Overview
The federal tax code provides substantial benefits that help families afford a Catholic education. Tax exemption for religious schools and colleges helps lower costs, and the loss of tax exemption because of political or ideological biases would be devastating. Tax advantages that help Catholic families pay for Catholic education are valuable opportunities to promote “school choice” without opening the door wide to federal regulation.

Action: Protect tax exemption for religious education
In 2015, during oral argument before the Supreme Court in the Obergefell v. Hodges case, the U.S. Solicitor General acknowledged that the tax-exempt status of religious organizations could be threatened if they fail to recognize same-sex marriages.

Executive action: Ensure that the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) does not threaten the tax-exempt status of religious organizations, regardless of their beliefs about marriage.
Executive action: Issue an executive order stating that with regard to tax status, licensing, government grants, and contracts, no entity of the federal government may penalize someone for acting on their conviction that marriage is between a man and a woman.
Legislative action: Amend the Internal Revenue Code to protect the tax-exempt status of religious organizations, regardless of their beliefs about marriage.

Action: Increase tax benefits to support education expenses
Coverdell Education Savings Accounts allow money to grow tax-deferred, to be used tax-free for most elementary, secondary, and postsecondary education expenses. But since 2002, Congress has capped the amount that can be contributed per child to $2,000 per year. Section 529 plans allow prepayment of college education expenses and tax-advantaged savings; withdrawals for college tuition expenses are tax-free. The American Opportunity Tax Credit allows a federal income tax credit of up to $2,500 of college expenses per year; up to 40 percent of the credit is refundable.

Legislative action: Increase or lift the $2,000 annual cap on contributions to Coverdell Education Savings Accounts to help families supporting students in schools and colleges, including religious institutions. Expand the program to cover homeschool expenses.
Legislative action: Expand Section 529 plans to allow savings for elementary and secondary education expenses, including homeschooling.
Legislative action: Increase the $2,500 American Opportunity Tax Credit to help families supporting students in college, including religious institutions. Expand the credit to also cover elementary and secondary education expenses, including homeschooling, thereby achieving President Trump’s promise of increasing school choice without inviting federal regulation of religious schools.

Equal Employment Opportunity Commission

Overview
The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) has issued opinions that endanger the religious freedom of religious employers. It has pressed the redefinition of sex discrimination to cover “gender identity,” family planning and abortion, and “sexual orientation.”

In 2009, the EEOC ruled that Belmont Abbey College in North Carolina—a faithful Catholic college—discriminated against women because it refused to cover contraception in its employee health plan, in accordance with the Catholic faith.

Action: Appoint defenders of religious freedom to EEOC
President Trump has an early opportunity to name a new chair of the EEOC (as of July 1, 2017), giving Republicans a 3-2 majority on the Commission, and he can immediately replace the departing legal counsel. The commissioner whose term is up next, Chai Feldblum in July 2018, is a former Georgetown University law professor whose advocacy for homosexual issues has been a grave threat to religious employers.

Executive action: Appoint EEOC commissioners and staff members who respect religious freedom and will not misinterpret sex discrimination laws and regulations according to “gender ideology” and LGBT advocacy.

National Labor Relations Board

Overview
Despite the U.S. Supreme Court’s 1979 ruling in NLRB v. Catholic Bishop of Chicago, which forbids the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) to assert jurisdiction over employee relations in religious education, the NLRB has for decades asserted jurisdiction at the behest of labor unions.

In 2014, the Board abandoned its long-held policy of unconstitutionally determining the religious quality of colleges where unions sought to organize faculty members, but it took up a new unconstitutional test of the religious functions of particular employees. Since then, the NLRB has used its new test to declare jurisdiction over faculty members at Seattle University and Saint Xavier University, with the exception of those teaching theology or religious studies. This still violates NLRB v. Catholic Bishop of Chicago.

Action: Appoint defenders of religious freedom to NLRB
President Trump has an immediate opportunity to fill two vacant positions at the NLRB, giving Republicans a 3-2 majority on the Board. However, reports have indicated that Trump intends to delay his appointments until the spring or summer of 2017, which would leave a pro-union Democrat majority in place until the Senate confirms his appointments in late 2017.

Commissioner Philip Miscimarra has been a strong but lone defender of NLRB v. Catholic Bishop of Chicago; his term expires in December 2017. That will end the 3-2 majority on the Board until he is re-appointed or replaced.

The NLRB general counsel’s term expires in November 2017.

Executive action: Appoint NLRB commissioners and staff members who respect religious freedom and will uphold the Supreme Court’s 1979 ruling in NLRB v. Catholic Bishop of Chicago. Immediately fill the two vacancies without delay. Reappoint Philip Miscimarra to another term.

District of Columbia

Overview
Under the protection of President Obama’s veto, the District of Columbia has been able to trample on the rights of religious schools and colleges without action from Congress. The successful D.C. voucher program has also been allowed to lapse.

Action: Repeal D.C. Human Rights Amendment Act
The Human Rights Amendment Act, approved by the District of Columbia (D.C.) Council in 2014, repealed the “Armstrong Amendment”— a provision of the D.C. code that Congress enacted in 1989 to ensure that religious schools and colleges could not be forced to officially endorse, fund, or provide other benefits to advocates of homosexual identity and conduct. Catholic schools and colleges are now under the threat of District action if they uphold Catholic teaching on sexuality and marriage.

Legislative action: Repeal the D.C. Human Rights Amendment Act of 2014.

Action: Repeal D.C. Reproductive Health Non-Discrimination Act
In 2015, the U.S. House of Representatives voted to halt a District of Columbia law from going into effect, but the Senate failed to block it. The Reproductive Health Non-Discrimination Amendment Act expands the District’s definition of discrimination to include an employee’s “reproductive health” decisions, including family planning and abortion, without exemption for religious employers. This prevents Catholic schools and colleges from upholding standards of morality that are consistent with Catholic beliefs.

Legislative action: Repeal the D.C. Reproductive Health Non-Discrimination Act of 2015.

Action: Restore D.C. Opportunity Scholarship Program
Until President Obama stopped including it in his budget after 2011, the D.C. Opportunity Scholarship Program provided vouchers to children from low-income families in the District of Columbia. It covered tuition and expenses at private schools.

Legislative action: Restore the D.C. Opportunity Scholarship Program, supporting families’ choices of religious education and homeschooling.

First Amendment Protection

Overview
In its 2015 ruling in Obergefell v. Hodges, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that same-sex couples have a Constitutional right to civil marriage. The implications for Catholics are not yet certain, but there is reason to be concerned that the ruling will be used to restrict religious freedom for those who support traditional marriage.

Action: Protect Americans who support traditional marriage
The First Amendment Defense Act ensures that the federal government “shall not take any discriminatory action against a person, wholly or partially on the basis that such person believes or acts in accordance with a religious belief or moral conviction that marriage is or should be recognized as the union of one man and one woman, or that sexual relations are properly reserved to such a marriage.” President-elect Trump has pledged that he would sign the bill if approved by Congress.

Legislative action: Pass the First Amendment Defense Act.
Executive action: Issue an executive order stating that with regard to tax status, accreditation, licensing, government grants, and contracts, no entity of the federal government may penalize someone for acting on their conviction that marriage is between a man and a woman.

Georgetown University from observatory, Washington, D.C.

‘Exorcist’ Author’s Canon Law Case Against Georgetown Continues

January 16, 2017/in Blog Latest, PR Register Column/by Patrick Reilly

William Peter Blatty, best-selling author and Academy Award-winning screenwriter of The Exorcist, died Thursday at the age of 89 after battling a form of blood cancer. But his final work is still underway: a petition to the Vatican, seeking the enforcement of canon law to reform Georgetown University’s Catholic identity, is still in front of the Church’s highest court.

Although Bill Blatty is appreciated widely for his writing talent, great humor and one of the scariest movies ever made, we should also remember him as a faithful Catholic and a passionate advocate for Catholic education.

In many of his works, Blatty explored the depths of good and evil, psychology, theology and spirituality with great respect for his subject matter. And as he explained often, his objective was never “horror.” His was an inspiring human quest to catch a glimpse of God amid extraordinary experiences that test the soul.

In his last years, Blatty’s appeal to the Vatican to correct Georgetown’s wrongs demonstrated that his Catholic faith remained strong, as did his deep concern and love for the sincerely Catholic university that he attended in the 1940s.

Petition at Vatican

Manuel Miranda, a Georgetown alumnus who helped Blatty organize the petition, told me Monday that Blatty made arrangements before his death to keep the Vatican petition alive.

Blatty named Miranda his “alternate” in the canon law case. Miranda, a former president of The Cardinal Newman Society, served as Blatty’s legal counsel and helped him found the Father King Society of concerned Georgetown alumni, students, parents and faculty members. The case has worked its way through the Catholic hierarchy to the Vatican’s highest court, the Supreme Tribunal of the Apostolic Signatura, and the King Society’s canon lawyer will meet with the Signatura about the petition this week.

In May 2012, Blatty wrote a letter urging friends of Georgetown to join his canon law petition. “For 21 years now, Georgetown University has refused to comply with Ex corde Ecclesiae (“From the Heart of the Church”), and, therefore, with canon law,” Blatty wrote. “And, it seems as if every month GU gives another scandal to the faithful!”

The petition, which Blatty began thinking about filing a few years prior, was announced on the heels of Georgetown’s announcement that HHS Secretary Kathleen Sebelius was invited to speak at the university’s 2012 commencement. Sebelius, a Catholic, had expressed public support for abortion and led the implementation of the HHS contraception mandate. The mandate — which is still being fought in the courts — threatens the religious freedom of Catholic institutions and had been vigorously opposed by the U.S. bishops in numerous public statements before Georgetown invited Sebelius to campus.

At Blatty’s request, the Newman Society produced a dossier documenting the numerous Catholic identity abuses at Georgetown. Many but not all of these abuses have been reported, but the full dossier and petition have not yet been made public.

“Each of these scandals is proof of Georgetown’s non-compliance with Ex corde Ecclesiae and canon law,” Blatty wrote in 2012. “They are each inconsistent with a Catholic identity, and we all know it. A university in solidarity with the Church would not do these prideful things that do so much harm to our communion.”

In May 2013, the petition was submitted to Cardinal Donald Wuerl of the Archdiocese of Washington with the support of more than 1,200 “alumni, students, parents, teachers, and other laity from around the world.”

“After one year of work, the petition we submit today is 198 pages, 476 footnotes, 91 appendices, 124 witness statements, a commissioned 120-page institutional audit of Georgetown, a sworn certification of facts, and a legal opinion,” Miranda announced. “We have documented 23 years of scandals and dissidence, over 100 scandals in the most recent years alone.”

The Archdiocese of Washington advised that the petition be sent to the Vatican, and in October 2013, Blatty announced that the case was submitted to several dicasteries in Rome. The petition then had 2,000 supporters.

“What is profoundly interesting is that the very first remedy that we asked of the Archbishop of Washington, His Eminence, Donald Cardinal Wuerl, was: ‘If the Holy Spirit leads you to it and your conscience will allow it, to declare publicly that Georgetown University is compliant with Ex corde Ecclesiae, orients its institutional initiatives according to standards that are consistent with the norms and morality of the Church, and lives up to the title ‘Catholic,’” Blatty said in a statement at the time. “His Eminence opted not to do that.”

Impact uncertain

On April 4, 2014, Blatty received a response to the canon law petition from Archbishop Angelo Zani, secretary of the Vatican’s Congregation for Catholic Education. “Your communications to this Dicastery in the matter of Georgetown University. . . constitutes a well-founded complaint,” wrote Archbishop Zani. He added, “Our Congregation is taking the issue seriously, and is cooperating with the Society of Jesus in this regard.”

The petition has since been appealed to the Apostolic Signatura. It is not clear what communications have resulted between the Vatican and Georgetown University, but the Catholic identity abuses at Georgetown have continued with no indication that administrators will conform with Ex corde Ecclesiae.

Last March, for example, the Archdiocese of Washington chastised the university for hosting Planned Parenthood CEO Cecile Richards on campus — a woman responsible for the deaths of almost three million babies. The Archdiocese said Georgetown lacks an “environment of morality, ethics and human decency” on campus, and the archdiocesan newspaper went even further in denouncing the decision.

“Welcoming an ardent supporter of the violent taking of an unborn human life is deeply offensive and heart-rending to other Georgetown students, teachers, alumni and community members who believe in the Catholic teaching that all human life has God-given dignity from conception to natural death,” the paper stated in an editorial. “Apparently to some, the one group of people that it is acceptable to offend, even at a Catholic university, are Catholics.”

Richards used her platform at Georgetown to rally support for Planned Parenthood and the moral evils of abortion and contraception, potentially endangering students’ souls according to the Newman Society, which called on Georgetown to rescind the invitation.

Unfazed by criticism about giving a platform to America’s top abortion activist, Georgetown hosted a day-long strategy session for abortion activists in November 2016 who gathered to discuss the “injustices” of legal barriers to abortion. The event was capped off by a presentation meant to gather support for legislation that would force taxpayers to pay for abortions.

‘Our only recourse’

The scandals at Georgetown were heartbreaking to Blatty, who attended Georgetown on a full scholarship and had great respect for the Jesuits of his day. Matt Archbold wrote in 2013, “Blatty’s love of Georgetown runs deep and back to the time when he attended the Jesuit university. Georgetown wasn’t just the setting for the book and the classic film. ‘The film is in many ways a hymn to Georgetown,’ William Friedkin, the film’s director, recently told USA Today in an interview with him and Blatty to mark the film’s upcoming 40th anniversary.”

The canon law petition was not intended to punish Georgetown for its swing away from a once-strong Catholic identity, but instead Blatty wanted to spark reform.

“I believe [a canon law petition] is the only thing that can stop Georgetown in its path,” Blatty told The Cardinal Newman Society in a May 2012 interview. “Only firm Church action can save it and make it a great university. It is our only recourse. Our only hope.

“And not just at Georgetown,” he said. “I hope alumni from other colleges will contact me for help in submitting petitions regarding their colleges. I hope that Georgetown will see the light and alter its course.”

William Peter Blatty, requiescat in pace. It now remains for other good Catholics to continue your noble effort.

Newman Society Editor Adam Cassandra contributed substantially to writing this report.

This article first appeared at The National Catholic Register.

CNS Joins Amicus Brief Opposing Redefinition of Sex in Title IX – Gloucester County School Boad v G.G., U.S. Supreme Court

January 10, 2017/in Blog Amicus Briefs, Public Policy and Legal (General)/by Cardinal Newman Society Staff

Click here to read.

Father Scanlan Was America’s Pastor to Catholic Higher Education

January 9, 2017/in Blog Latest, PR Register Column/by Patrick Reilly

Father Michael Scanlan, T.O.R., who died Saturday, reformed Franciscan University of Steubenville and built it into one of America’s most faithful and vibrant centers of Catholic learning. He is rightly acknowledged as a foremost leader in the renewal of Catholic higher education.

More than that, I think it is fitting that he be remembered as America’s devoted pastor of Catholic higher education in the 20th century.

Why do I call him pastor, and not first president or leader or reformer? Because what I hear most from nearly everyone who knew him, is that he touched them personally and cared deeply for the souls he encountered, bringing them closer to Christ. That seems to be the heart of his success and his motivation.

Thousands of his students, faculty, staff, trustees and others who knew him would doubtless agree.

Also, by his priestly witness Father Scanlan was in effect a shepherd to all Catholic colleges and universities, helping launch the renewal of faithful higher education and setting an important example for other college leaders to follow.

He was, of course, not the only major figure in Catholic higher education in the last century or president of the largest Catholic university. But Father Scanlan deserves the accolade nonetheless—surely more than his early contemporary Father Theodore Hesburgh, who accumulated popularity, prestige and influence but led the University of Notre Dame (and probably many individual Catholics) down a path that ends tragically in relativism and secularism.

When Father Scanlan became Franciscan University’s president in 1974, most American colleges founded by Catholic religious orders were rapidly shedding their distinctive identity. Faithful laymen responded by founding Thomas Aquinas College, Magdalen College, Christendom College and Thomas More College of Liberal Arts. But there was something unique happening at Franciscan University: a saintly Franciscan friar was again answering God’s call to “rebuild my Church.”

By the influence of Franciscan’s graduates, Father Scanlan continues to do just that. And the Church should be very grateful.

University reformer

I have long admired Father Scanlan and met him on several occasions. But after his death, dwelling upon his life and impact, I was eager to know more about those first exciting years when he began to transform what was then called the College of Steubenville.

So I spoke by phone with Dr. Alan Schreck, chairman of Franciscan University’s theology department for about 14 years under Father Scanlan. He gave a moving account of the incredible work and vision of this giant of Catholic education.

While still a student in college, Dr. Schreck first met Father Scanlan shortly after he was asked by the college’s trustees to consider putting his name in for the presidency. Father asked the young theology student for prayers that he make the right decision. That greatly impressed Schreck, as did Father’s vision.

“I will be president only if they allow me to make Jesus Christ lord of every aspect of the college,” Dr. Schreck remembers him saying.

At the time, Father Scanlan was rector of the Franciscan seminary in Loretto, Penn., and a well-known figure in the Catholic charismatic renewal. He had a worldwide following. My father-in-law, who lived in the Philippines until the 1980s and was very active in charismatic prayer groups and conferences, impressed me with his memories and great fondness for Father Scanlan.

I have often wondered how difficult it must have been for Father Scanlan to pull back from his charismatic ministry to take up a college presidency. But Dr. Schreck says that’s not what happened: Father had an “incredible capacity for work” and served on the Catholic renewal’s national committee and as pastor for a local parish established for charismatic Catholics, even while serving as college president.

Today the charismatic influence of Father Scanlan is still apparent at Franciscan University, although it has never been an official characteristic of the institution. It certainly contributed to the college’s reform and growth, attracting Catholics who are on fire with love for Christ. For Father Scanlan, it was “just a dimension of being Catholic,” Dr. Schreck explains. Father’s primary concern for the college and its faculty members was that they be faithful to the Magisterium, which is why he required the oath of fidelity for professors.

While the changes drove away some administrators and teachers, they also attracted a variety of notable scholars. They were attracted to Father Scanlan’s “integrated vision,” says Dr. Schreck. This called for 1) “dynamic orthodoxy,” ensuring that faculty are “loyally Catholic” while “teaching in such a way that theology is alive and life-giving;” 2) student life “where students could grow humanly as well as academically;” and 3) stronger academic quality.

I think that Father Scanlan’s academic priorities are largely overlooked today, given his reputation as a spiritual guide and preacher. But Dr. Schreck says Father immediately insisted on hiring Ph.D.’s, a step above many other Catholic colleges that, in those days, frequently hired master’s level professors.

With the conviction that theology is “queen of the sciences,” Father insisted that Franciscan have a full department of theology. The College of Steubenville had only a few core theology courses in 1974, but no major. Dr. Schreck later worked with Father to hire stars like Dr. Scott Hahn, Father Francis Martin and Dr. Regis Martin, as well as philosopher Dr. John Crosby.

With regard to student life, Father Scanlan wanted to ensure full integration between the students’ studies, especially in theology, and their campus experience. He instituted “households,” small communities of students who pray together and support each other in their daily lives. Noticing that students tended to go to Mass on Saturday evening before partying, Father preached at Sunday Mass and gradually drew students in. Campus ministry was fully devoted to “preaching of the Gospel.”

All of this made Franciscan University the shining model on a hill that it is today. Other Catholic colleges have followed the example, each in their own way, once again building up faithful Catholic education in many states across the country.

Extraordinary leader

Brian Scarnecchia, who taught legal studies at Franciscan University for 20 years and is now an associate professor at Ave Maria School of Law, also has known Father Scanlan since the 1970s. He tells an amazing story of Father Scanlan before he became president—in the 1960s, when Father was a theology professor and honors dean at the college.

Rev. Martin Luther King, Jr., was killed in Memphis in the summer of 1968, and Steubenville was on the verge of a race riot. Because of the city’s great respect for Father Scanlan, the mayor took the extraordinary step of turning the city government over to him. Father’s tactic of placing one black and one white police officer in every police cruiser helped avoid a riot and likely saved the city from burning.

Scarnecchia also recalls when Father and Bishop Albert Ottenweller of Steubenville were arrested outside a Youngstown, Ohio, abortion clinic in 1989. Scarnecchia helped spring them and the other “Youngstown 47” from imprisonment at the National Guard Armory.

In court, the judge asked Father if he is familiar with the Bible passage, “Let every person be subordinate to the higher authorities” (Rom. 13:1). Father Scanlan asked whether the judge had heard the passage, “We must obey God rather than men” (Acts 5:29).

That’s not your typical college president.

I heard another tale straight from Father Scanlan a few years ago that, for me, exemplifies Father’s inventiveness, leadership and trust in God that brought him so much success. Unfortunately, I’ve not found a single person who confirms the story, so it will have to be categorized somewhere in the realm of legend.

Here’s what I recall: Father told me that when he became president of the College of Steubenville, the campus was a sore sight. One thing that particularly irked him was the lack of a proper lawn.

“There was no grass,” he said. That might have been a bit of exaggeration, but the college had no money for groundskeeping, and students had trampled much of the grass bare.

With no money, most college leaders would have turned to other problems with apparent solutions. Instead, Father prayed. And the answer he received meant fertilizing the lawn by a creative method that somehow involved the local sanitation authority. (Here’s where I’d love to get some confirmation—today there are all kinds of laws that keep garbage, or sewage, or whatever it was off private property—but that’s how I remember the story.)

In those days, a struggling Ohio college didn’t have central air conditioning. All summer, Father said, faculty and staff were faced with the terrible options of sweltering in hot buildings or opening up the windows. He said the smell was so bad, they chose to swelter.

Then, with that Irish twinkle in his eye, Father said, “But sure enough, we had grass by the time the students arrived in the fall. And we’ve had grass ever since!”

There are, no doubt, many anecdotes revealing Father Scanlan’s great capacity for looking above his challenges to the God Who makes all things right. No doubt this strength came from prayer.

Dr. Schreck recalls that Father would sometimes not get to his office until 11 a.m., because he spent his mornings in prayer.

“I don’t know how to turn this university around,” Father Scanlan admitted. “Only God can do that.”

Leader of the renewal

I asked Dr. Schreck whether Father had ever indicated any angst about leading the reform in Catholic higher education. His work was counter-cultural, and he bucked the secularizing trend among most Catholic colleges. Surely this didn’t please his peers at most other Catholic colleges.

On the other hand, Father Scanlan must have felt the responsibility of setting an example for other college leaders. He must have known that he was being watched, and thankfully he lived to see some of the enormous impact his example had—especially at the growing number of faithful Catholic colleges.

Didn’t the pressure of leading such important reform in the Church ever get to him?

Dr. Schreck doesn’t think so. In fact, he says that Father Scanlan stayed focused on the tasks that God set before him, and he didn’t seem to worry much about the bigger picture.

“If we do well what we’re doing, we will make an impact,” was Father’s outlook.

Father Scanlan did have the conviction that his vision for Franciscan University “was the future of Catholic institutions as they should be,” says Dr. Schreck, and that vision had real influence. He recalls a symposium some years ago following Father’s retirement, when leaders of several Catholic universities came to Franciscan to discuss the mission of Catholic higher education—a sign of their respect for Franciscan’s stature as a leading example of faithful education.

“He really wanted to do God’s will,” says Dr. Schreck. “If that happened, it was the grace of God” that would bring about other changes elsewhere, “as long as we remained faithful to the vision.”

Today Franciscan is pushing forward into online education, an opportunity and challenge that Father Scanlan never faced himself. But Dr. Schreck says the vision remains the same: to find ways to educate well, and to keep it Catholic.

That surely sounds like good counsel for any venture in Catholic education today. It would have met with much skepticism in the 1970s, when the very possibility of a Catholic college was being questioned. Today, we know for certain that Catholic education can be done well—and can be thoroughly Catholic—because of Father Scanlan’s extraordinary example.

He did what he set out to do: he made Jesus Christ lord of every aspect of his college, and of his life.

May God have mercy on Father Michael Scanlan’s soul and take him into His loving arms.

This article was originally published by National Catholic Register.

Resist This Compromise That Would Crush Catholics

December 16, 2016/in Blog Latest, PR Register Column/by Patrick Reilly

Catholics hoped for a reprieve from assaults on religious freedom following the November elections, but a very serious threat looms with so-called SOGI laws.

That’s why 80 Christian leaders — including four leading Catholic bishops and many Catholic education leaders — chose to make a bold statement this week rejecting such efforts as contrary to Christian and American values. I joined them on behalf of The Cardinal Newman Society, convinced that timidity and false compromise will bring ruin to our culture and our freedom to live and teach the Catholic Faith.

(Like the Manhattan Declaration, which has more than half a million signers in support of pro-life and pro-marriage principles, “Preserve Freedom, Reject Coercion” is hosted by The Colson Center for Christian Worldview and invites the public to join the initial 80 signers.)

SOGI stands for “sexual orientation and gender identity,” which are the loaded terms that activists want to be included in federal and state nondiscrimination laws. The Obama administration openly supports that goal, but it has only achieved incremental steps like the Education Department’s interpretation of Title IX to require schools and colleges to make bathrooms and locker rooms open to students who claim a gender different from their birth sex.

That interpretation of Title IX, which is clearly contrary to the original intent of Congress to prevent discrimination against women, will be scrutinized by the Supreme Court this term.

Still, the SOGI threat could worsen if politicians are persuaded by certain Christians who seem, astonishingly, willing to compromise in support of SOGI laws. It’s a serious tactical error to accept legal protections for “sexual orientation” and “gender identity” in exchange for tenuous exemptions for religious organizations.

That’s a bargain that gives up a bedrock principle — not only an article of faith, but a truth of human anthropology — in exchange exceptions that are unlikely to survive if our culture fully embraces what Pope Francis calls the modern “gender ideology.”

A Bad Deal

To be sure, a religious exemption to a SOGI law might protect religious schools, colleges, hospitals, etc. in the short term, and we should strive to include exemptions in any SOGI bill that seems likely to pass against our strong opposition.

But let’s not deceive ourselves! We cannot expect that activists will be content to allow religious “dissent” from their false ideology. Recent experience in California has shown how vicious lawmakers can be against religious colleges that have legitimately claimed religious exemptions to the Obama administration’s interpretation of Title IX.

In addition, the exemptions sought by some SOGI promoters provide no protection for individual Catholics and other Christians who believe as our faith teaches that there are two God-given sexes and marriage is between a man and a woman. It is a mistake for Catholic and other Christian organizations to cut a deal to try to provide themselves with some protection at the expense of leaving individuals at the mercy of runaway bureaucrats and activists. Just ask the bakers and photographers.

Regardless of whatever benefits a religious exemption to SOGI laws might provide some organizations, they are a poor exchange for the devastation that such laws would inflict on our culture. No society built on a false anthropology can long survive.

All of this aside, my greatest concern about accepting SOGI laws with religious exemptions is that it represents a compromise of truth and Christian values that simply cannot be embraced by Catholics and our Christian brethren. Whatever the motivation — and I truly believe that it is tactical and not any intentional betrayal of Christian values — the fact is that actively supporting SOGI laws directly contradicts Christian anthropology and denies truth. From my reading of the Bible and Catholic teaching, that is a line that Christians must not cross.

Thankfully, our bishops see the danger. This week’s statement against SOGI laws is signed by the following four leaders of the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops:

Archbishop Charles Chaput, chairman of the Committee on Laity, Marriage, Family Life and Youth;
Bishop Frank Dewane, chairman of the Committee on Domestic Justice and Human Development;
Archbishop William Lori, chairman of the Committee for Religious Liberty; and
Bishop George Murry, chairman of the Committee on Catholic Education.

Of the 31 leaders of Christian colleges and schools who signed the statement, five are presidents of faithful Catholic colleges: Sister Mary Sarah Galbraith, O.P., of Aquinas College (Tenn.); James Towey of Ave Maria University; Father Sean Sheridan, T.O.R., of Franciscan University of Steubenville; Dr. Derry Connolly of John Paul the Great Catholic University; and Dr. William Fahey of Thomas More College of Liberal Arts.

And other prominent Catholics signed, including Ryan Anderson of The Heritage Foundation, Anthony Esolen of Providence College, Thomas Farr of Georgetown University, Robert George of Princeton University, Alan Sears of the Alliance Defending Freedom and George Weigel of the Ethics and Public Policy Center.

Full Statement

The text of this week’s statement, “Preserve Freedom, Reject Coercion,” is below. To join the statement or to see the full list of original signatures, go to http://www.colsoncenter.org/freedom.

As Americans, we cherish the freedom to peacefully express and live by our religious, philosophical, and political beliefs—not merely to hold them privately. We write on behalf of millions of Americans who are concerned about laws that undermine the public good and diminish this freedom for individuals and organizations alike.

We affirm that every individual is created in the image of God and as such should be treated with love, compassion, and respect. We also affirm that people are created male and female, that this complementarity is the basis for the family centered on the marital union of a man and a woman, and that the family is the wellspring of human flourishing. We believe that it is imperative that our nation preserve the freedoms to speak, teach, and live out these truths in public life without fear of lawsuits or government censorship.

In recent years, there have been efforts to add sexual orientation and gender identity as protected classifications in the law—either legislatively or through executive action. These unnecessary proposals, often referred to as SOGI policies, threaten basic freedoms of religion, conscience, speech, and association; violate privacy rights; and expose citizens to significant legal and financial liability for practicing their beliefs in the public square. In recent years, we have seen in particular how these laws are used by the government in an attempt to compel citizens to sacrifice their deepest convictions on marriage and what it means to be male and female—people who serve everyone, regardless of sexual orientation or gender identity, but who cannot promote messages, engage in expression, or participate in events that contradict their beliefs or their organization’s guiding values.

Creative professionals, wedding chapels, non-profit organizations, ministries serving the needy, adoption agencies, businesses, schools, religious colleges, and even churches have faced threats and legal action under such laws for declining to participate in a same-sex wedding ceremony; for maintaining policies consistent with their guiding principles; and for seeking to protect privacy by ensuring persons of the opposite sex do not share showers, locker rooms, restrooms, and other intimate facilities. Under SOGI laws, people of good will can face personal and professional ruin, fines, and even jail time, and organizations face the loss of accreditation, licensing, grants, contracts, and tax-exemption.

SOGI laws empower the government to use the force of law to silence or punish Americans who seek to exercise their God-given liberty to peacefully live and work consistent with their convictions. They also create special preference in law for categories based on morally significant choices that profoundly affect human relations and treat reasonable religious and philosophical beliefs as discriminatory. We therefore believe that proposed SOGI laws, including those narrowly crafted, threaten fundamental freedoms, and any ostensible protections for religious liberty appended to such laws are inherently inadequate and unstable.

SOGI laws in all these forms, at the federal, state, and local levels, should be rejected. We join together in signing this letter because of the serious threat that SOGI laws pose to fundamental freedoms guaranteed to every person.

America has stood as a beacon of liberty to the world because our Constitution protects people’s freedom to peacefully—and publicly—work and live according to their convictions. We represent diverse efforts to contribute to the flourishing of our neighbors, communities, nation, and world. We remain committed to preserving in law and stewarding in action the foundational freedoms that make possible service of the common good, social harmony, and the flourishing of all.

This article was originally published by The National Catholic Register.

Gerard V. Bradley: Common Core Catastrophe

December 1, 2016/in Academics, Blog Commentary, Common Core Latest/by Gerard V. Bradley

Editor’s Note: This guest commentary by University of Notre Dame Law Professor Gerard V. Bradley was originally published on November 15, 2016, at Public Discourse, an online publication of the Witherspoon Institute, and is reprinted here with permission.

Pyrotechnics about unsecured e-mails, groping, pay-to-play, and multiple personality disorders suffocated what was—early in the 2016 election cycle—an essential discussion about the most far-reaching reform of K-12 schooling in our country’s history. “Common Core” is the latest, and by far the most comprehensive, plan for national educational standards. Developed by a select group of consultants and bankrolled by the Gates Foundation, Common Core was aggressively promoted by the Obama administration beginning in 2010. Within eighteen months, forty-six states adopted it, 90 percent of them egged on by a chance to snag federal dollars in the form of “Race to the Top” funds.

President-elect Donald Trump regularly denounced Common Core on the primary campaign trail, beginning with his speech to CPAC in 2015. This also gave him an opportunity to browbeat Jeb Bush, a fervent early supporter of this educational overhaul. Hillary Clinton’s criticism of Common Core was limited to lamenting its “poor implementation”; about the revision’s basic soundness and desirability, she expressed no doubt. Had she prevailed last Tuesday, Common Core would have been safe in the hands of Clinton constituencies who brought it to life, especially the public education establishment and the business oligarchs who want shovel-ready workers. The grassroots rebellion against Common Core (which “paused” its implementation in 2013 or triggered reassessment of it in a few states) would have been squeezed from the top down. Those rebels must refocus President Trump’s attention upon Common Core and persuade him to ignite a national movement to roll it back.

The stated objective of Common Core is to produce “college- and career-ready” high school graduates. Yet even its proponents concede that it only prepares students for community-college level work. In truth, Common Core is a dramatic reduction of the nature and purpose of education to mere workforce preparation.

In 2013, a group of 132 scholars, myself among them, spoke out against Common Core. Our criticism was and is sound:

Common Core adopts a bottom-line, pragmatic approach to education. The heart of its philosophy is, as far as we can see, that it is a waste of resources to “over-educate” people. The basic goal of K-12 schools is to provide everyone with a modest skill set; after that, people can specialize in college – if they end up there. Truck-drivers do not need to know Huck Finn. Physicians have no use for the humanities. Only those destined to major in literature need to worry about Ulysses. …

Perhaps a truck-driver needs no acquaintance with Paradise Lostto do his or her day’s work. But everyone is better off knowing Shakespeare and Euclidian geometry, and everyone is capable of it. Everyone bears the responsibility of growing in wisdom and grace and in deliberating with fellow-citizens about how we should all live together. A sound education helps each of us to do so.

One silver lining that could be expected in this gray cloud is a renaissance for Catholic schools. The overwhelming majority of Catholic children attend public schools, there being “educated” according to Common Core’s secularized workforce prescription. Catholic parents who are informed about Common Core could be expected to seize the moment and switch their kids to one of the Church’s thousands of elementary or high schools.

For the contrast between a sound Catholic education and Common Core could scarcely be sharper. That difference was illumined by us, the 132 scholars—Catholics all—who addressed our letter (which was subsequently made public) to each of America’s bishops:

Common Core is innocent of America’s Catholic schools’ rich tradition of helping to form children’s hearts and minds. In that tradition, education brings children to the Word of God. It provides students with a sound foundation of knowledge and sharpens their faculties of reason. It nurtures the child’s natural openness to truth and beauty, his moral goodness, and his longing for the infinite and happiness. It equips students to understand the laws of nature and to recognize the face of God in their fellow man. Education in this tradition forms men and women capable of discerning and pursuing their path in life and who stand ready to defend truth, their church, their families, and their country.

The case for the incompatibility of Common Core with a Catholic education has now been extended, and completed, with the release of “After the Fall: Catholic Education Beyond the Common Core.” A joint publication of the Pioneer Institute and the American Principles Project, this white paper is authored by Anthony Esolen, Dan Guernsey, Jane Robbins, and Kevin Ryan. They observe that at

the heart of Common Core agenda is a century-old dream of Progressive educators to redirect education’s mission away from engaging the young in the best of human thought and focusing instead on preparation for “real life.” While a reasonable but quite secondary goal, workforce-development is dwarfed by Catholic schools’ transcendent goals of human excellence, spiritual transformation, and preparation for the “next life” as well.

In a compact but rich Preface to “After the Fall,” former ambassadors to the Holy See Raymond Flynn and Mary Ann Glendon write that the “basic goal of Common Core is not genuine education, but rather the training and production of workers for an economic machine.” By contrast, Catholic schools have traditionally provided “a classical liberal-arts education” that seeks to “impart moral lessons and deep truths about the human condition.” Glendon and Flynn observe that religion and the integrated humanist education that Catholic educators have long offered have “never been more needed than they are in this era of popular entertainment culture, opioid epidemics, street-gang violence, wide achievement gaps, and explosive racial tensions.” Just so.

It is no wonder, then, that John Doerfler, Catholic Bishop of Marquette, Michigan, recently announced his rejection of Common Core, saying that adopting it would not “benefit the mission, Catholic identity or academic excellence of our schools.” Just so.

Bishop Doerfler is, however, in the minority. His rejection of Common Core is the exception, not the rule. In fact, most Catholic dioceses and archdioceses—approximately 100 (including New York and Los Angeles)—have adopted Common Core. This means that the vast majority of our nation’s Catholic schoolchildren will be taught from Common Core, whether they are enrolled in public or private Catholic schools.

“After the Fall” tells some of this sad tale. The de facto voice of Catholic education in America is the National Catholic Educational Association, to which about 85 percent of America’s 6500 Catholic schools belong. By May 2012, the NCEA was encouraging Catholic schools to embrace Common Core, gushing a bit later that it contained “high quality academic standards,” which would “in no way compromise the Catholic identity or educational program of a Catholic school.” Catholic school systems rushed to buy in. More recently and after much negative feedback, the NCEA has backed off its embrace of Common Core and has begun to provide some helpful resources and tools for teachers who have no choice but to teach within its strictures. But the damage of hasty adoption was done.

What could explain the mad rush? Anecdotal feedback to the Catholic scholars’ letter (which I not only signed but organized) strongly suggests that, in spite of so many enthusiastic public statements, Catholic educators recognized effortlessly that Common Core was deeply flawed. It is doubtful that any serious Catholic educator would have recommended adopting it, or anything like it, were it not for real or perceived pressure from public authorities and teachers’ organizations to do so. Their view seems to have been: Common Core is not good for a Catholic school, but it is not so bad that it needs to be rejected, at least where the local political and economic powers-that-be want us to go along with it. These Catholic educators thought that they could “work with” Common Core.

“After the Fall” carefully states and cogently refutes the pragmatic reasons offered by these Catholic educators for adopting Common Core. The study also shows—conclusively, in my judgment—that these educators’ pragmatic approach is ill-conceived in a deeper, more important, way: Common Core is so philosophically at odds with a sound Catholic education that an acceptable modus vivendi is unavailable. Trying to pour Common Core into such venerable wineskins will burst them.

I would add the further criticism that these educators’ accommodationism is shortsighted. It is ultimately a recipe for the demise of Catholic schools. Already a great many dedicated Catholic parents have withdrawn their children from Catholic schools due to low academic standards and substandard Catholic character. These parents homeschool or send their children to a burgeoning number of new “classical Christian” schools, which are almost always outside the control of the local Catholic educational establishment. Other dedicated parents send their children to decent public schools where they are available, reckoning that the avowedly secular atmosphere there at least portends no confusion about the content of the Catholic faith. Adopting Common Core will surely accelerate this exodus, a hemorrhage of precisely those students who should form a Catholic school’s backbone.

Left behind in many Catholic schools, especially but not only in Rust Belt cities, are non-Catholic students happy to escape under-performing public schools, as well as Catholics who are in it for sports, college prep, or an ambiance of social justice service projects. These are all good things, and a good Catholic school should have them if it can. But they are secondary features of a sound Catholic education, not essential ones. A perfectly good Catholic grade school might have no sports and no service projects, and a solid Catholic high school might enroll only a few students with serious college aspirations.

The important point is that the appetite (if you will) for an integral Catholic education is already perilously suppressed in a vast swath of this country’s Catholic schools. Students in them tolerate the distinctly Catholic quality of the education they are getting. But it is not a big reason for their attendance, and for some it is not a reason at all. Its decline would not deprive them of anything they came to a Catholic school to get. The decision of so many Catholic administrators and teachers to embrace Common Core probably reflects their recognition of exactly this unfortunate situation. They would give the students pretty much the education they want.

These schools are already far down the path of transition from providing a truly Catholic education (as it is so aptly described in “After the Fall”) to being more like a religiously inspired, affordable private alternative to dysfunctional public schools. The appeal of this denouement is undeniable: urban “Catholic” schools might be the best route up and out of the ghetto for thousands of non-Catholic children who deserve that opportunity. But this encouraging effect is and must be just that: a welcome side-benefit of providing a genuine Catholic education.

Vice President-elect Mike Pence is now in charge of the Trump transition. That is a good omen; as Indiana governor Pence heeded the grassroots rebellion against Common Core—led, as a matter of fact, by two very able moms (Erin Tuttle and Heather Crossin)—and orchestrated a significant modification of the curriculum. He should now be encouraged to recommend to Donald Trump the appointment of an Education Secretary who will release the pressure from Washington, and instead encourage the states to explore alternatives to Common Core.

For those interested in genuine Catholic education, the politics is local. School parents and others with the best interests of students at heart will have to seek, and insist politely, on receiving straight answers from principals and administrators about whether, and to what extent, Common Core is in their schools. In places such as Marquette, Michigan, officials from the bishop on down should be thanked for their stand against it. In the hundred or so jurisdictions where Common Core (or something practically indistinguishable from it) is in place, respectful but firm corrective action is needed, including the organization of parents who want more than workforce prep for their Catholic school children. The sponsors of “After the Fall”—American Principles Project and Pioneer Institute—have the resources and the experts to help.

How to Build a Healthy Political Culture in America

November 14, 2016/in Blog Latest, PR Register Column/by Patrick Reilly

Last month in the heat of the presidential campaign, Pope Francis indicated his dismay about the quality of the candidates and Americans’ depth of understanding of political issues.

Offering a “theoretical” response to a reporter’s question about the Trump-Clinton race, the Pope said on October 2, “When a country has two, three or four candidates who are unsatisfactory, it means that the political life of that country is perhaps overly ‘politicized’ but lacking in a political culture.”

For comparison he pointed to unnamed Latin American countries where people embrace political parties “for emotional reasons, without thinking clearly about the fundamentals, the proposals.”

The solution, he suggested, lies partly with our Catholic colleges. “One of the tasks of the Church and of higher education is to teach people to develop a political culture,” said the Holy Father.

I often find myself seeking a reliable interpreter for remarks made by Pope Francis, and his criticism of America being overly politicized but “lacking in a political culture” is no exception. And since my work at The Cardinal Newman Society promotes faithful Catholic education, I am also intrigued that the Holy Father would suggest that Catholic colleges are partly responsible for building a political culture. What does it all mean?

I consulted a faithful Catholic scholar in political science, Dr. Stephen Krason at the Franciscan University of Steubenville, who also serves as president of the national Society of Catholic Social Scientists and is author of the recent book, Challenging the Secular Culture: A Call to Christians.

I also communicated with James Towey, president of Ave Maria University, who has a long history of working with Catholic apostolates (including direct service with Saint Mother Teresa), was head of Florida’s health and human services department, and served as director of the White House Office of Faith-Based and Community Initiatives.

Healthy Culture Doesn’t Coerce or Suppress

To be clear, neither expert claims any certainty about what Pope Francis himself meant in his October 2 interview. But they agreed to help me shed some light on the claim that America is overly politicized without a healthy political culture, and how a Catholic college might contribute to building such a culture.

“A healthy political culture doesn’t indoctrinate, coerce or suppress, but instead welcomes and respects divergent opinion and beliefs,” Towey suggested. But he didn’t think that’s been America’s recent experience under the Obama administration.

“The United States is leaving an eight-year period where religious liberty and the rights of faith-based institutions, including those within higher learning, have been under constant, coercive attack,” Towey said. “America’s culture has become contaminated with a political correctness that now seems to strive to equate the words of Sacred Scripture with ‘hate speech.’”

Krason blamed “the ascendant leftist ideology, which has politicized virtually everything as it has turned away from the transcendent and sought to remake American life according to its grievously flawed vision.”

This, he said, is particularly apparent within the Democrat Party.

“It seems like one can’t be a Democrat without accepting in toto the ruling leftist ideology—probably because of the hold of rigid leftist interest groups on the Democratic Party and the fact that they and their followers provide so much of the funding,” he said.

But it goes beyond political partisanship to the culture itself, which is becoming increasingly hostile to Catholic values and practices.

“If you follow your faith beliefs and speak out on traditional marriage and family values or the so-called ‘gender rights movement,’ or if you don’t follow the script on global warming and pro-choice policies and refuse to march in the ‘armies of contraception,’ then you find yourself assailed as religious bigots, as hateful, as opposed to woman’s rights, and so forth,” Towey said. “That is not American, that kind of political correctness run amok.”

Instead, Krason said, a healthy political culture “would adhere to natural law and the traditional role of the political, which understands its centrality but does not allow it to consume and shape everything.”

Such a culture should be rooted in “basic moral principles” but have “a commonsensical, realist view about man, culture, and the political,” Krason said. It ought to “rely on human experience as its reference point, in a Burkean fashion,” and reject attempts “to implant ideology.” That’s what the American Left is doing, he warned, “increasingly in the manner of the French Revolutionaries.”

Looking to Catholic Colleges

So what can a Catholic college do about that? Ave Maria University has opted for a strong voice on issues that are important to the Church—especially resisting any sort of political or government coercion.

“People of faith have a right to be in the public square and influence the culture,” Towey insisted, while acknowledging intense opposition. “Those who champion mandatory political correctness and the orthodoxy of radical secularism will continue to try to banish devout Catholics and people of faith and stifle their influence.”

Whereas much of American higher education has been captured by political correctness, “Catholic colleges and universities aren’t called to conform to this nonsense but instead oppose it,” Towey said. He noted his university’s court fight against President Obama’s “HHS mandate” for contraceptive and sterilization coverage in health plans—a fight that in Catholic higher education has been left almost entirely to financially challenged but faithfully Catholic colleges in our Newman Guide, while nearly all large Catholic universities have never filed suit.

“Catholic colleges and universities—the very places where faith and reason intersect and inspire the hearts and minds of our youth—need to be at the forefront of the effort to shape a healthy political culture that is faith-friendly, worthy of human dignity, and consistent with our country’s noble history and values,” Towey said.

This occurs especially within the classroom. Krason believes that Catholic colleges should strive to “teach again sound philosophy and a political science based on it, and renew the notion of scholarship as aiming for the truth and a social science that makes conclusions according to the facts and evidence and also doesn’t pretend that one can or should be value-free.”

In essence, he said, it’s “a restoration of the liberal arts.”

“Catholic colleges and universities need to get back to the highest tradition of the liberal arts, where truth matters,” Krason said. “The right training of the mind will result in a better politics for and by the future citizens and leaders.”

Within political science, Krason recommended grounding programs in “sound realist philosophy, including sound ethics” and that colleges “teach Catholic social teaching” so that it is “permeated throughout much of their social science curriculum.”

All of this, however, first requires a renewal of fidelity and Catholic identity in most of America’s Catholic colleges. It doesn’t help, Krason said, if a Catholic college teaches philosophy the way secular institutions do—“just an exposure to different philosophical schools, with philosophy not seen as involving truths that reason can discern.” Likewise, Catholics shouldn’t be teaching political science “without a sound philosophical foundation, embodying an empiricism outlook, not paying any more attention to the forming of good citizens than they do the forming of the good human person.”

In other words, Catholic colleges “can’t help transform culture for the better—especially by helping to rightly form the students who are in their charge—when they are operating from the same flawed premises that the secular institutions are,” Krason said.

I wholeheartedly agree. If the Holy Father’s wish is that Catholic colleges will help build a healthy political culture in America, many of them need to first shed their obvious and often coercive political correctness and then find the conviction that undergirds Ave Maria University and other such faithful institutions.

It’s the graduates of such strongly Catholic colleges who will bring the sort of hope and change that is meaningful and good for America.

This article was originally published by The National Catholic Register.

Eight Bad Reasons for Adopting Common Core in Catholic Schools

November 8, 2016/in Academics, Blog Commentary, Common Core Latest/by Adam Cassandra

There are many expertly crafted reasons presented in After the Fall: Catholic Education Beyond the Common Core for why Common Core State Standards are insufficient for Catholic education. Among them are refutations of eight popular arguments used by proponents of the controversial standards to justify Common Core in Catholic schools.

After the Fall was published by the Pioneer Institute in collaboration with American Principles Project in October 2016. The Cardinal Newman Society praised the report for its “devastating critique” of Common Core’s use in Catholic schools.

The Cardinal Newman Society’s Dr. Dan Guernsey, director of K-12 education programs, and his co-authors of After the Fall, Dr. Anthony Esolen, Jane Robbins and Dr. Kevin Ryan, show why Catholic school leaders should move above and beyond the flawed Common Core standards by embracing truly Catholic standards of excellence in education, such as the Newman Society’s new Catholic Curriculum Standards.

Below are eight bad reasons for adopting Common Core in Catholic schools that are debunked in After the Fall:

Bad Reason #1: “Catholic schools need to adopt the Common Core standards because they are high-quality standards that will keep test scores high and enable Catholic schools to compete with public schools.”

Debunked: “Catholic schools have been outperforming public schools by double-digit margins for the last 20 years on federal National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP) reading and math tests (often referred to as “the nation’s report card”). Catholic-school college preparation is outstanding, with over 99 percent of students graduating from high school and 84 percent going on to four-year colleges (almost double the public-school rate). … These statistics establish that in adopting the Common Core, Catholic schools were attempting to fix what was not broken. …

“Five years into the Common Core experiment, the [test score] data is at best mixed, and in fact NAEP scores are dropping, although causation is not yet clear.”

Bad Reason #2: “Catholic schools need to adopt the Common Core standards because some states require Catholic-school students to take state tests aligned to them.”

Debunked: Only six states “require that Catholic-school students at some point take state-administered tests … but wholescale adoption of the Common Core standards is not necessary or advisable, especially as the state tests themselves are in flux.

“Roughly 90 percent of states either leave Catholic schools entirely alone on testing issues or only require them to take a nationally normed test … of their own choice. There are a number of non-Common Core options for schools to choose from … Catholic schools should be wary of simply choosing Common Core-based tests because they are perceived as being more current or valid. State testing related to the Common Core is still uncertain and controversial.”

Bad Reason #3: “Catholic schools need to adopt the Common Core standards because they will influence college-entrance exams.”

Debunked: Commenting on the two major college entrance exams, the ACT and the SAT, “ACT is not beholden to the Common Core,” and “If the SAT were to swerve too deeply into the Common Core, hampering its perceived ability to evaluate all students across the nation, ACT will gain millions of more customers from non-Common Core schools.”

Further, “About a thousand colleges and universities, including more than 125 featured in U.S. News and World Report rankings, no longer require SAT or ACT scores at all.”

Bad Reason #4: “Catholic schools need to adopt the Common Core standards because most teachers will be trained under the new standards, and most teacher in-services for ongoing development will occur in a Common Core world.”

Debunked: “While this argument seems plausible on the surface, it is also true that for years, when states had different standards, it was never thought that a teacher trained in Michigan under its specific curricular standards would therefore be unqualified to teach in Florida under its different particular curricular standards. A professional educator with strong core teaching skills can easily adapt to a set of curriculum standards. It simply was never an issue before. …

“Competent educators can move skillfully through any set of standards. To a professional educator, there is nothing sacrosanct, magical, or deeply mysterious about a particular set of standards.”

Bad Reason #5: “Catholic schools need to adopt the Common Core standards because most textbooks and materials will reference them.”

Debunked: “Most textbooks have always covered a broad set of standards. Teachers in individual states would adapt the use of those texts to ensure that they meet their own state standards. In fact, even though there is a related effort to nationalize science standards, there technically are no Common Core science standards today. Each state has its own history standards, yet that does not prevent states from using the same textbooks to teach to their individual standards. This dynamic has not changed. Catholic educators can still follow their own standards and not be lost in interacting with any textbooks, Common Core-based or not.”

Bad Reason #6: “Catholic schools can adopt the Common Core standards because criticism of them is just ‘political,’ not educational.”

Debunked: “To say that [critics’] legitimate concerns about academic rigor and Catholic identity are ‘political as opposed to educational’ is dismissive and ignores their legitimate educational concerns. Even the many concerns of a political nature that plague the Common Core, specifically about the proper role of government in citizens’ lives, are legitimate and should not be simply dismissed. Catholics are citizens and have the responsibility to ensure the political order operates for the common good. …

“Few activities are more ‘political’ than forming other people’s children. It is the responsibility and duty of politics to inform this process. Political concerns, even though they are not the focus of this report, cannot simply be brushed away.”

Bad Reason #7: “Catholic schools can adopt the Common Core standards since schools can simply ‘infuse’ Catholicism into the existing standards.”

Debunked: “Most Catholics would agree it is a good and important thing for Catholic schools to infuse their curriculum with Catholic subject matter as appropriate. … However, a fundamental concern remains: The Common Core standards are not enough to guide the complete intellectual formation in a Catholic school. The attempt to ‘work within’ the Common Core by infusing Catholic content (or, as the superintendent of schools in one archdiocese said, to use the Common Core but ‘sprinkle Catholicism on top’) is inadequate — ultimately much more is needed to retain a genuine Catholic education.”

Bad Reason #8: “Catholic schools can adopt the Common Core standards since standards are not a curriculum and therefore do not really affect what, when, and how Catholic schools teach.”

Debunked: “Especially in Catholic education, mission should drive standards; standards should drive curriculum. Both standards and curriculum serve the mission. If mission drives standards, then to the degree the Catholic schools’ educational mission is similar to public schools’ (e.g., in teaching basic math skills to second-graders), there can be some sharing of standards (if there is proof of their effectiveness). However, to the degree that elements of the Catholic mission are broader than the public schools’, different or additional standards are required. …

“The Common Core is clear that it seeks to develop the skills and knowledge necessary to prepare students for college and career. If there is any other purpose to education, the Common Core does not recognize it. The mission of a Catholic school, though, is much broader.”

Educating to Truth, Beauty and Goodness

October 17, 2016/in Academics Commentary, Commentary, K12 Curriculum Standards, Teacher Formation and Witness/by Dr. Dan Guernsey

Click here for PDF

Editor’s Note: The following essay appears in Appendix A of The Cardinal Newman Society’s Catholic Curriculum Standards.¹

The world, in all its diversity, is eager to be guided towards the great values of mankind, truth, good and beauty; now more than ever…Teaching means to accompany young people in their search for truth and beauty, for what is right and good. — Educating Today and Tomorrow: A Renewing Passion, 2014 ²

We want our students to maximize their human potential and to both be good and do good in authentic freedom. In order to do this, our students need to be able to know how to wisely and fully apprehend and interrogate all aspects of reality from a solid Christian intellectual tradition. This intellectual tradition involves not just teaching facts and skills, but is also essentially focused on seeking to know the value and nature of things and in appreciating the value of knowledge for its own sake.

One method of assisting students to keep focus on these aspects of Catholic intellectual inquiry is to use the lenses of truth, goodness, and beauty to evaluate a subject under consideration. These three elements are often understood as being among the transcendentals. Transcendentals are the timeless and universal attributes of being.³ They are the properties of all beings. They reflect the divine origin of all things and the unity of all truth and reality in God. These elements are among the deepest realities. They help unite men across time and culture and are often a delight to explore and discuss, because they are substantive to our very nature.

The transcendentals of truth, beauty, and goodness are closely intertwined. Dubay (1999) observed that, “Truth beauty and goodness have their being together, by truth we are put in touch with reality which we find is good for us and beautiful to behold. In our knowing, loving and delighting the gift of reality appears to us as something infinitely and in-exhaustively valuable and fascinating.”⁴ In seeking to discuss one, the others are naturally and organically brought into the conversation.

The following simple definitions and essential questions are provided as a general framework to help facilitate a discussion on any topic in any subject. The goal is not to generate easy questions for easy answers, but to generate foundational questions for deep inquiry into the value and nature of things, to instill a sense of the intrinsic value of knowledge, and to elicit a sense of wonder.

Beauty

Beauty can help evoke wonder and delight, which are foundations of a life of wisdom and inquiry.⁵ Beauty involves apprehending unity, harmony, proportion, wholeness, and radiance.⁶ It often manifests itself in simplicity and purity, especially in math and science.⁷ Often beauty has a type of pre-rational (striking) force upon the soul, for instance when one witnesses a spectacular sunset or the face of one’s beloved. Beauty can be understood as a type of inner radiance or shine coming from a thing that is well-ordered to its state of being or is true to its nature or form.⁸

Beauty pleases not only the eye or ear, but also the intellect in a celebration of the integrity of our body and soul. It can be seen as a sign of God’s goodness, benevolence and graciousness, of both His presence and His transcendence in the world.⁹ It can serve as re-enchantment with the cosmos and all reality¹⁰ and assist in moving our students to a rich and deep contemplative beholding of the real.¹¹

Some essential questions related to beauty:

Is “X” beautiful? How so? Why not?
Which of these (i.e., poems, experiments, proofs, theories, people, functions, concepts) is more beautiful and why? Why might others have thought this beautiful?
How does this person/thing attract? Is this person using their God-given gifts to attract in a way that pleases God and draws others closer to God? What can happen when beauty is not used for the glory of God?
What is delightful, wondrous about this person/thing?
How does this shine? Radiate?
How is faithfulness to form or nature powerfully evident here?
What does this reveal about the nature of what is seen?
Where is there unity and wholeness here?
Where is there proportion and harmony here?
How does this reveal God’s graciousness, presence, and transcendence?
What does my response to this reveal about me?
Is this also Good? Is this also True?

Goodness

When we explore issues of goodness with our students, we are fundamentally asking them to consider questions of how well someone or something fulfills its purpose. Goodness is understood as the perfection of being. A thing is good to the degree that it enacts and perfects those powers, activities, and capacities appropriate to its nature and purpose. A good pair of scissors cuts, a good eye has 20/20 vision, and so forth. We have to know a thing’s purpose, nature, or form to engage in an authentic discussion of “The Good.” When we get to questions of what is a good law, a good government, a good father, or a good man, the discussion quickly grows richer, deeper, and more complex.

As Catholic educators, our goal is to help our students to become good persons. Among those qualities we deem good are wisdom, faithfulness, and virtue. Virtue is a habitual and firm disposition to do the good.¹² We are free to the extent that with the help of others, we have maximized these goods, these proper powers and perfections as man.¹³ Such efforts raise fundamental questions of what it means to be human and our relationships with each other, the created world, and God.

God, through reason and revelation, has not left us blind on these issues, nor has He left us up to our own subjective devices. It is a fundamental responsibility of the Catholic school to teach and pass on this Catholic culture, this Catholic worldview, this cultural patrimony, these insights, and these very fundamental truths about the good and what constitutes the good life.¹⁴ Particularly, in this and all our efforts as Catholic educators, we build our foundation of the good on Jesus Christ, who is the perfect man, and who fully reveals man to himself.¹⁵

Some essential questions related to goodness:

What is this thing’s purpose/end? What do we know from our senses and reason? From nature and natural law? What do we know from revelation?
What is this thing’s nature? What do we know from our senses and reason? From nature and natural law? What do we know from revelation?
What perfections are proper to this thing in light of its purpose?
To what degree does the particular instance we are considering possess or lack these perfections?
What, if anything, would make this better?
What would make this worse?
How well does this work? Is “X” a good “Y”? What makes “X” a good “Y”? (e.g., Is Odysseus a good husband? Is the liver we are diagnosing a good liver? Is the theory of relativity a good theory? Is Picasso a good artist?)
How does this measure up in terms of a Catholic worldview and values?
How does this measure up in terms of Catholic morality and virtue?
How does this measure up to God’s plan or expectations of it as revealed in Christ?
Is this also beautiful? Is this also true?

Truth

A simple definition for truth is the mind being in accord with reality.¹⁶ We seek always to place our students and ourselves in proper relationship with the truth. Nothing we do can ever be opposed to the truth, that is, opposed to reality which has its being in God. Catholics hold that when our senses are in good condition and functioning properly under normal circumstances, and when our reason is functioning honestly and clearly, we can come to know reality and have the ability to make true judgments about reality. Through study, reflection, experimentation, argument and discussion, we believe that an object under discussion may manifest itself in its various relations, either directly or indirectly, to the mind.¹⁷

We believe that Man tends by nature toward the truth. Even though due to our fallen nature we may sometimes seek to ignore or obfuscate the truth, we are nonetheless obliged to honor and bear witness to it in its fullness. We are bound to adhere to the truth once we come to know it and direct our whole life in accordance with the demands of truth.¹⁸ As Catholics, we believe that reason, revelation, and science will never be in ultimate conflict, as the same God created them all.¹⁹ We oppose scientism which without evidence makes the metaphysical claim that only what can be measured and subject to physical science can be true. We oppose relativism, not only because its central dictum “there is no truth” is self-contradicting, but also because in removing objective truths from any analysis, this also removes the possibility of gauging human progress, destroys the basis for human dignity, and disables the ability to make important moral distinctions such as the desirability of tolerance²⁰ and wisdom of pursuing truth, beauty, and goodness as opposed to their opposites of error, ugliness, and sin.

Some essential questions related to truth:

Is it true?
Is our mind/concept in accord with reality?
Are we looking at this clearly and with our senses and reason properly attuned?
Is the thinking rational and logical?
Is the information and reasoning clear and precise?
Is the approach fair and balanced?
How does this square with what we know from revelation? If there is a disconnect, where further shall we explore?
On what intellectual, moral, or intuitive principle are we basing this?
Can the knowledge or situation under consideration be integrated with or expanded by the knowledge from another academic discipline?
Now that we know this particular truth about a thing, what other questions does that raise? What more do we want to know?
Is this also beautiful? Is this also good?