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

/in , /by
Click here for PDF

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

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

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

Is this the final rule?

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

Who would be exempt from the mandate under the NPRM?

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

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

Is this a change from the existing exemption?

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

In another respect, the new proposal appears to be worse for entities such as Catholic high schools. Under last year’s regulations, it was suggested that if a school’s employees received insurance from a diocese’s health plan, the school’s coverage would fall under the diocese’s exempt status as a church. See 77 Fed. Reg. 16,502. But the new proposed exemption intentionally removes this possibility and says employers will be treated separately: only if a school is itself a church or integrated auxiliary thereof will it be exempt, even if its employees use the diocesan health plan. 78 Fed. Reg. at 8,467. Thus, many schools that are affiliated with churches, but not integrated auxiliaries thereof, may lose their access to exempt insurance.

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

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

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

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

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

What qualifies an organization for this “accommodation”?

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

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

The organization is organized and operates as a nonprofit entity.

The organization holds itself out as a religious organization.

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

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

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

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

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

What about self-insured non-profit religious groups?

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

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

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

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

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

None.

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

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

Is the NPRM still subject to comment?

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

If I have more questions, whom do I contact?

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

 

 

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

/in , /by
Click here for PDF

This Issue Brief takes a look at the new3 “Notice of Proposed Rulemaking” issued on February 1, 2013, by the Department of Health and Human Services concerning the federal mandate that health insurance plans, including those provided or arranged by Catholic colleges, must include coverage of early abortion pills, contraception, sterilization, and related education and counseling for women with a reproductive capacity.

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

The Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (“NPRM”)4 sets forth a proposed (not final) structure for public comment on whether or how the government will respect religious objections to its coverage mandate of early abortion pills, contraception, and sterilization.  It concerns three categories of entities with objections to the mandate.  Generally, these categories are: (1) houses of worship; (2) all other religious non-profits; and (3) all other objectors.

Is this the final rule?

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

Who would be exempt from the mandate under the NPRM?

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

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

Is this a change from the existing exemption?

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

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

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

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

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

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

What qualifies an organization for this “accommodation”?

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

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

The organization is organized and operates as a nonprofit entity.

The organization holds itself out as a religious organization.

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

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

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

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

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

What about self-insured non-profit religious groups?

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

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

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

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

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

None.

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

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

How does the NPRM treat student health plans? 

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

Is the NPRM still subject to comment?

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

If I have more questions, whom do I contact?

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

 

 

 

General Education at Catholic Colleges and Universities

/in , /by
Click here for PDF

Executive Summary

Across the universe of American higher education, increasing attention is being given to the weakening of general education standards.  This study examines the general education requirements at Catholic colleges and universities.  It compares the general education programs at 184 Catholic colleges and universities to all other American colleges and universities, to see if the Catholic colleges are more comprehensive (that is, devote a larger share of the curriculum to general education) and more coherent (that is, provide their students with a fairly well identified set of courses that provide a unified vision of the body of knowledge that the institution believes that all educated citizens should be familiar with).  The study determines that Catholic colleges as a whole are more comprehensive and slightly more coherent than colleges and universities overall. Next, the study examines whether those colleges and universities included in the Newman Guide to Choosing a Catholic College differ substantially from the other Catholic colleges.  The Newman Guide schools are, indeed, significantly more comprehensive and coherent than the other Catholic colleges and universities. Finally, the distinctive role of theology and philosophy in a Catholic education was examined. Catholic colleges and universities retain, to varying degrees, their commitment to the study of philosophy and theology, which serve as integrative disciplines within the curriculum.  A surprising finding, however, was the extent to which the non-Newman Guide Catholic colleges and universities allow students to fulfill their theology requirements without actually studying Catholic theology.

General Education at Catholic Colleges and Universities

Pope Benedict XVI, in his 2008 address to U.S. Catholic educators, reminded them of the high calling of a university in the overall economy of salvation:

Set against personal struggles, moral confusion and fragmentation of knowledge, the noble goals of scholarship and education, founded on the unity of truth and in service of the person and the community, become an especially powerful instrument of hope.4

Throughout history and even today, in addition to supporting the intrinsic benefits of education for human development, the university plays a critical role in preparing students for successful careers.  Universities have consistently struggled to balance the educational goals of pursuit of truth and moral development with the more instrumental goals of career preparation and skill development.5

In most American colleges and universities today, it is in the pursuit of a major field of study that students focus on developing the career-related skills and knowledge that they will take with them into the world.  The more intrinsic benefits of higher education, such as those described by Pope Benedict, are emphasized and developed in the general education program which commonly precedes specialization.

A general education program attempts to provide an overview of the fundamental areas of human knowledge found in the traditional liberal arts.  The curriculum may further aim at integration of knowledge by requiring interdisciplinary courses or otherwise encouraging interdisciplinary approaches to human problems.  A well-designed general education curriculum will teach students to comprehend knowledge according to its proper order and in relation to other knowledge, developing what Blessed John Henry Newman called a “philosophical habit” of mind.

Historically, the means by which the American university (religious or secular) fulfilled its mission and oriented the student toward the unity of truth was through a core curriculum which gave all students in the university a common, integrated liberal arts education.  In a core curriculum, particular courses are required of all students, or at least a broad set of students (for instance, enrolled in a certain school within a university).  The university determines that every student should, at a minimum, have studied particular facts, concepts, themes, authors, literature, etc., while attaining an introductory or intermediate level of skill or knowledge in the disciplines of the liberal arts.  A Catholic university, for instance, might expect students to graduate with a common foundation in Catholic theology and Western philosophy, literature, and history by studying particular texts, authors, leaders, etc. The prescribed core ensures that all students share a common education and can dialogue on common themes, resting on the university’s judgment about the importance of certain subject matter.  Moreover, the courses in a well-designed core are highly integrated to illustrate the unity of truth across disciplines.

In 1884 the landscape of American higher education was changed forever, when Harvard University discarded its core and introduced an elective system at the heart of its curriculum.6 The unified set of courses that made up the core curriculum was replaced by a series of “distribution” requirements for graduation.  The distribution model allows students to choose among many courses introducing them to a variety of disciplines and methods of inquiry, with less emphasis on the integration of knowledge across disciplines.  The topics of the courses are varied; there is little or no effort to promote the study of common texts or topics.  Whereas the core curriculum emphasizes a shared body of knowledge and a common basis for dialogue—in the United States, typically requiring students to contemplate classical works and the ideas that shaped Western civilization and Christianity—the distribution model often encourages a student’s encounter with a variety of perspectives and arguments, independent of a university’s judgment about the value of particular subject matter.

This elective, distribution system of general education rapidly overtook the more traditional core model in the late 19th and early 20th centuries.  While Catholic colleges and universities held to a core model longer than most other types of universities, by the 1960s most of the Catholic institutions of higher education had joined the mainstream movement away from a unified core curriculum to a distribution, elective-based model.  Unlike their secular counterparts, however, most Catholic colleges and universities retained vestiges of a unified, integrative curricular expression through their requirements that all students study philosophy and Catholic theology, ensuring that students recognize unifying themes and consider the great human questions when studying other disciplines.

This study will examine the ways in which contemporary Catholic colleges and universities approach the question of general education.  If it is true that, as Blessed Newman implies, it is through the integration of the specialized branches of knowledge that a student “apprehends the great outlines of knowledge, the principles on which it rests, the scale of its parts, its lights and its shades, its great points and its little, as he otherwise cannot apprehend them,” and that this represents “the special fruit of the education furnished at a University,” the state of general education is of paramount importance for all who are interested in Catholic higher education.7

This study confirms that Catholic colleges and universities today, by and large, remain committed to general education requirements, distinguishing Catholic institutions from their counterparts with generally weaker standards.  But most Catholic educators have embraced the distribution model of electives, abandoning the traditional core curriculum.  Some remnant of a distinctive role for philosophy and religious studies remains in place at most Catholic institutions, although there is evidence of a declining emphasis on Catholic theology.

General Education in American Higher Education

Even in the secular universities, increasing attention is being given to the disappearance of core curricula, the weakening of general education standards, and the need for attention to liberal arts education for undergraduates.  With the rise of the research university, with its hyper-specialization and concomitant growth of faculty allegiance to their specialties, there has been an overall de-emphasis on undergraduate general education, and in particular declining interest in curricular integration.  A National Association of Scholars (NAS) study in 1996 documented the diminishing role of general education in the undergraduate experience.8   This study demonstrates that not only has the distribution model of general education achieved near-total hegemony in the American higher education system, but also that the proportion of the overall curriculum devoted to any form of general education has been steadily shrinking over the course of the 20th century.  In 1914, the average student devoted about 55 percent of the credits needed for graduation to general education requirements; by 1993, this was down to 33 percent.

More recently, the Association of American Colleges and Universities (AACU) commissioned a study to analyze trends in this area, and this study reinforced the picture of a profound movement away from the concept of an integrative curriculum to a highly specialized, even fragmented, educational experience.9 The AACU study confirmed the reduced portion of the curriculum that is devoted to general education.  Only 6 percent of the respondents indicated that half or more of the credits needed for graduation are devoted to general education; more than 25 percent of the respondents indicated that a third or less were so devoted.  In most of these institutions, several of these requirements can be fulfilled in the course of pursuing a major, so there are even fewer credit hours that are specifically devoted to general learning, rather than the specialized education that makes up the major field of study.

The vast majority of institutions (80 percent) follow a distribution model of general education, in which students select courses from various categories to fulfill the general education requirements.  While most of these colleges provide some guidance to students with regard to specific courses or common experiences, the fundamental model is a choice-based approach to general education, with the emphasis on exposure to different fields of study rather than engagement with specific intellectual content.

One could conclude, then, that over time general education in America has become both less comprehensive (that is, less a significant and robust part of the overall educational experience) and less coherent (that is, less a unified and common set of courses designed to present an integrated approach to knowledge).

This report seeks to evaluate how the overall trends in American higher education are reflected in Catholic colleges and universities.  The general education programs at Catholic colleges and universities have been examined and categorized with respect to their coherence and comprehensiveness.  Since a distinctive attribute of Catholic core curricula has traditionally been a strong emphasis on theology and philosophy, this study also considers the role these disciplines currently play in the general education programs at Catholic institutions of higher education.  Finally, this study examines the correlation between the structure of the general education program and the Catholic identity of the institution.

The general education programs at 184 Catholic, four-year, co-educational colleges and universities in the United States were examined.  While there are 251 institutions of higher education recognized by the Association of Catholic Colleges and Universities, many of those are not relevant to this study.  Excluded are exclusively graduate-level institutions, two-year colleges, seminaries, conservatories, and specialized health-care institutions.  Two colleges were eliminated because of insufficient information regarding their general education programs.

Data was collected online from college catalogs.  The information was drawn from the catalog that included the Fall 2009 semester.  The content of required theology courses was drawn from the information available online in August 2012.

Comprehensiveness of General Education at Catholic Colleges and Universities

The comprehensiveness of general education programs was determined simply by the overall number of credit hours required. The incredible complexity of many of today’s general education programs made even this classification difficult, so several methodological definitions and decisions were required.  General education was defined as required courses that all students had to pass in order to graduate.  If, as was the case in some large universities, there were different general education programs for different degrees (i.e., general education for the school of nursing, the school of business, etc.), the classification was based on the “college of arts and sciences” or equivalent degree program.

These general education requirements could be specific courses (all students must pass English 101, for example), distribution requirements (all students must take an English course), or an evaluated competency (all students must either pass English 101 or score an 85 percent or higher on the freshman writing exam).  Competency requirements were only counted as part of general education if they substituted for required coursework (so, for example, some colleges require students to demonstrate computer skills, but that was not counted toward general education, because no computer literacy class is required if they do not pass the test).  In most cases, courses taken to fulfill general education requirements may also count for major requirements (so American history might be a requirement for general education, but it could also count toward courses needed for a history major).  A few colleges do not allow any course taken in a student’s major field to count for general education, which has the effect of increasing the number of general education requirements; however, it was impossible to account for this given the wide variation in student majors.

The very nature of most general education systems, with their wide array of choices and possible substitutions, made it difficult to make uniform determinations of exactly how many credit hours were required to complete the program.  Within institutions there can be variation from student to student.  For example, many institutions require language to a third semester competency; some students need to take any language courses, while others take nine to 12 hours of language instruction.

It seemed best to classify programs in fairly broad ranges, rather than attempt a precise ranking based on a specific calculation of credit hours.  Therefore, those institutions which require, on average, 55 credit hours or more of general education (almost half of the credit hours required for a degree and the average amount of general education required 100 years ago) were classified as having a high level of comprehensiveness.  Those which require from 45 to 54 hours (more than a third, but less than half, and generally above the median 46.4 hours reported in the AACU survey) were classified as medium, while those which require 44 hours or fewer (roughly one third or less of the required credit hours) were classified as low.

While it is impossible to make direct comparisons with the studies done either for the NAS or the AACU, because the methodology was different, it is possible to draw some general conclusions.  Catholic colleges and universities tend to devote more of their curriculum to general education than is normal in U.S. higher education (see Figure 1).  As noted above, about half of the colleges in the AACU survey would fall into the low range in this classification, but at Catholic institutions, 76 percent fall into the medium or high ranges of general education comprehensiveness, indicating a distinctive commitment to general education requirements in Catholic higher education.

FIGURE 1

Coherence of General Education at Catholic Colleges and Universities

How coherent are the general education programs at Catholic colleges and universities?  General education programs were classified based on the proportion of general education credit hours that were elective (that is, a course chosen from a list of options) and what proportion were required.

In some cases, a small range of choice was allowed, such that the college or university retained significant direction over what the student learns.  Most institutions allow students to choose which language they will study for their foreign language requirement.  Most institutions will place students into the appropriate mathematics course based on their proficiency.  And, in some cases, students might choose between British and American literature to fulfill a literature requirement.  In situations like these, where the choice is either skill-dependent or limited to three or fewer options, this study classifies the credits as “required” even though there is some element of choice.10

Once again, institutions were placed within ranges.  Those which require particular courses for more than half the total general education curriculum were considered to have high coherence; those between one third and one half were considered medium; and those below one-third were considered low.

The results show that Catholic colleges and universities, much like their non-Catholic peers, have largely abandoned a strongly coherent core curriculum (see Figure 2 below).  Eighteen percent of the Catholic institutions assign half or more of their general education courses.  Only 44 percent require as much as one-third of the courses that comprise the general education curriculum.

FIGURE 2

Thus, while Catholic colleges and universities generally remain distinctive with regard to the comprehensiveness of their general education programs, they, like their non-Catholic counterparts, have embraced curricular choice as the dominant mode of delivering general education.  Many today lack a coherent vision of the subjects and knowledge that should be commonly learned by all students.

Influence of Strong Catholic Identity

Given the wide range of commitment to Catholic identity in Catholic higher education and the historical correlation between Catholic colleges and a strong core curriculum, it seems appropriate to analyze whether there are significant differences among Catholic institutions.  This study looks specifically at the 19 Catholic colleges and universities which were included in the online edition of The Newman Guide to Choosing a Catholic College as of the fall of 200911,  which identifies colleges that “give priority to their Catholic identity and actively practice it.”

Although the Newman Guide colleges vary considerably from one another (some are extremely small and dedicated solely to the liberal arts, while others are much larger and have a wide variety of academic programs), as a group they are clearly distinctive when compared with the overall universe of Catholic higher education.  Not only do they demonstrate strong Catholic identity, but their general education programs are significantly more comprehensive (see Figure 3 below).

FIGURE 3

None of the Newman Guide colleges falls into the low category for comprehensiveness of general education, whereas 78 percent fall into the high category.  Nearly the same percentage of other Catholic colleges and universities are in the medium or low category.  The green “all” bar is included as a reminder of how the entire group, both Newman Guide and other Catholic institutions, is categorized.

Similarly, the Newman Guide colleges show strong coherence in their general education requirements, compared to other Catholic institutions (see Figure 4 below).  Sixty-eight percent of the Newman Guide institutions fall into the high category on the coherence scale, whereas 87percent of the other Catholic colleges and universities are in the medium and low categories.

FIGURE 4

Philosophy and Theology in General Education

Most Catholic colleges and universities require students to take some philosophy and theology courses.  As Alisdair MacIntyre has pointed out, this distinctive attribute of Catholic institutions reflects their commitment to helping students integrate knowledge and bring the tools of faith and reason to bear upon the fundamental questions they encounter in other disciplines, and so refine their capacity for sound judgment12.

Likewise Blessed John Paul II, in the apostolic constitution Ex corde Ecclesiae, indicated that philosophy and theology have a special role in providing the unifying framework for the pursuit of truth that should mark the Catholic university:

Aided by the specific contributions of philosophy and theology, university scholars will be engaged in a constant effort to determine the relative place and meaning of each of the various disciplines within the context of a vision of the human person and the world that is enlightened by the Gospel, and therefore by a faith in Christ, the Logos, as the centre of creation and of human history13.

Thus, it is appropriate that these disciplines play a special and significant role in the curriculum of a Catholic college or university.  While the amount of philosophy and theology required varies significantly, from one course per semester in each discipline over four years to just one course total in either discipline14,  75 percent of Catholic colleges and universities require at least three courses in some combination of these two disciplines.

However, the size of the philosophy and theology requirement does not tell the whole picture.  The integrative function that theology plays in the traditional conception of the Catholic university is that it gives students the opportunity to examine all of their learning in the light of the truths of the Catholic faith.  For that to happen, obviously, the theology requirement would have to offer students those truths—that is, students would have to study genuine Catholic theology.

To be clear, it is not the purpose of this study to judge the quality or faithfulness of theology courses.  But the descriptions of courses permitted to satisfy the theology requirements of general education programs at Catholic institutions were examined to determine if they were Catholic theology at all, by their own definition.  In other words, if the description stated that the course covered Catholic (or, in fact, any Christian) theology, no further investigation into the content or approach of the course was carried out.

Also, the general education requirements were examined to ensure that theology courses are in fact required.  At almost every Catholic institution, students can study Catholic theology if they wish.  The question being considered is whether they are required to do so.  A requirement which could be satisfied by taking a course that is not Catholic theology, even if Catholic theology courses would also be accepted, has not been labeled a Catholic theology requirement.

According to these criteria, in 54 percent of the Catholic colleges and universities studied, the “theology” requirement could be satisfied without actually studying Catholic theology.  In a few of these institutions, there is no theology requirement at all.  Students may be required to take courses in either philosophy or theology, and so the requirement can be fulfilled entirely with philosophy courses.  Often the theology requirement is actually a “religious studies” requirement; religious studies is an academic discipline which focuses on the study of religion as a social phenomenon, but without any basis in a particular faith.  Or students may be permitted to study comparative religions or the theology of non-Christian faiths such as Hinduism or Buddhism.

The pervasiveness of the theology requirement, then, does not necessarily coincide with a commitment to ensure that all students are instructed in the truths of the Catholic faith.

Moreover, this area reveals the sharpest divergence between the Newman Guide institutions and other Catholic colleges and universities (see Figure 5 below).  While all of the Newman Guide schools require Catholic theology, 61 percent of other Catholic institutions do not.

FIGURE 5

Conclusion

This study shows that Catholic colleges and universities remain somewhat distinctive within the universe of American colleges and universities, with significantly more comprehensive general education programs.  But many Catholic institutions have followed their non-Catholic counterparts by embracing a distribution approach to general education and eliminating common core requirements.

Catholic colleges and universities retain, to varying degrees, their commitment to the study of philosophy and theology, which serve as integrative disciplines within the curriculum.  A surprising finding, however, was the extent to which Catholic colleges and universities allow students to fulfill their theology requirements without studying Catholic theology.

A closer look revealed that those Catholic institutions that most clearly and pervasively embraced their Catholic identity (specifically, those that were identified in the online edition of The Cardinal Newman Society’s Newman Guide to Choosing a Catholic College as of fall 2009) are much more likely to provide their students with a comprehensive, coherent general education program with a significant emphasis on philosophy and theology as integrative disciplines, and a definite requirement that students study Catholic theology.

 

 

 

Strategies for Reducing Binge Drinking and a “Hook-Up” Culture on Campus

/in , /by
Click here for PDF

The problems of binge drinking and the hook up culture are well-known, widespread, and detrimental to the educational mission of any university.  Moreover, these behaviors should especially concern Catholic universities, which seek to develop the whole person—socially, morally, and spiritually.

Every Catholic university, as a university, is an academic community which, in a rigorous and critical fashion, assists in the protections and advancement of human dignity.… Students are challenged…to continue the search for truth and for meaning throughout their lives, since “the human spirit must be cultivated in such a way that there results a growth in its ability to wonder, to understand, to contemplate, to make personal judgments, and to develop a religious, moral, and social sense” (c.f., Gaudium et Spes, 59).15

Beyond the classroom, Catholic universities have a pastoral concern for student development:

Pastoral ministry is that activity of the University which offers the members of the university community an opportunity to integrate religious and moral principles with their academic study and non-academic activities, thus integrating faith with life…. Pastoral ministry is an indispensable means by which Catholic students can, in fulfillment of their baptism, be prepared for active participation in the life of the Church; it can assist in developing and nurturing the value of marriage and family life, fostering vocations to the priesthood and religious life, stimulating the Christian commitment of the laity and imbuing every activity with the spirit of the Gospel.16

Moral development in the Catholic intellectual tradition is linked to true human happiness.  But what is happiness, and how can we find it?  The answers to these questions provide the proper intellectual context for considering the common practices on America’s Catholic campuses.

Choosing True Happiness

Drawing on the work of Saint Thomas Aquinas, Jesuit Father Robert J. Spitzer identifies four levels of happiness in his book, Healing the Culture.17 Level one happiness is bodily pleasure obtained by drink, food, drugs, or sex.  Level two happiness has to do with competitive advantage in terms of money, fame, power, popularity, or other material goods.  Level three happiness involves loving and serving other people. And level four happiness is found in loving and serving God.  Although we may desire each level of happiness, not every level provides equal and lasting contentment.  The key to Spitzer’s work is the desire or need to move up the “happiness ladder,” at least to the point of moving from level two to levels three and four.

In life, we are often faced with a choice between one level of happiness or another.  For example, the Olympic athlete chooses success in athletics (level two) over pleasures of the body (level one), which might be found in abusing drugs or alcohol.

One can attain more level one happiness by sleeping late on Monday morning, but would sacrifice level two happiness by not be able to earn money at work.  On the other hand, one could gain more of a level two happiness by cheating others out of their money, but would be sacrificing a level three happiness by unfairly using them rather than helping them.  Since daily living often requires a choice of one activity over another, practical wisdom is the virtue that enables one to make decisions which will lead to true happiness.

The first and lowest level of happiness — pleasures of the senses — has several advantages. It is based on our animal instincts.  It arrives quickly, can be intense, and can leave almost as fast as it arrives.  Additionally, we build a tolerance to activities that bring us this level of happiness requiring more to achieve the same degree of pleasure.  Such pleasures can lead to addictions; and to the addict, enslavement in the pleasure is opposed to true level one happiness.  This superficial happiness is easy to attain, but our own human instinct provides us with a desire for something more meaningful and important in life.

The next level of happiness provides greater meaning and significance than the first.  It involves a desire for success—not just keeping up with the Joneses, but surpassing them in money, fame, popularity or status.  We celebrate such achievements as a culture: the valedictorian, the star athlete, the millionaire.  But such success can lead to a superficial happiness related to the degree of success.  Personal success can quickly lead to a satisfaction at this level with no desire to move past the ego.

There is nothing inherently wrong with worldly success (level two) or with bodily pleasures (level one).  Rather, when these become the ultimate goals of life, they trump the higher levels.  Happiness, Aristotle taught, is activity in accordance with virtue.  In order for us to be objectively happy, we need to engage in activities that accord with virtue, especially the virtue of love.  As C. S. Lewis said, “Love is not affectionate feeling, but a steady wish for the loved person’s ultimate good as far as it can be obtained.”18 Without seeking higher levels of happiness, even if we subjectively feel good (for a while), we are missing out on objectively being happy.

The two great commandments given by Jesus: “You shall love the Lord, your God, with all your heart, with all your soul, and with all your mind…. You shall love your neighbor as yourself” (Mt 22:37,39), point to the two higher levels of happiness.  If we truly love God, we will also love people, for they are made in His image and likeness.  We cannot truly love God without also loving our neighbor.  Indeed, the teachings of Jesus point us toward higher levels of happiness by guiding us toward this love: “A new commandment I give to you, love one another as I have loved you” (Jn 13:34).  Levels three and four happiness seek what is truly good, true human flourishing and happiness.

Commenting on Aristotle, who argued that human happiness necessarily involves friendship, St. Thomas Aquinas added that we can be friends not only with other human beings, but also with God.19 Psychological research confirms this ancient wisdom.  The happiest people have meaningful work that serves others acting in accordance with virtue; and have strong, loving relationships with their family, friends, and God.20 On average, people who practice their faith report greater happiness than those who do not.  Practice of common religious teachings, such as practicing thanksgiving and forgiving those who trespass against us, bolster well-being and strengthen relationships — leading to greater happiness.21

It is in this context that we can better understand the ethical problem of binge drinking and the hook up culture.  Both seek satisfaction at level one or two happiness in such a way as to undermine level three and level four happiness.  Students can foster level three and four happiness not simply in volunteer projects but also in the classroom; but by developing their minds, students become better prepared to make a positive contribution to the well-being of others and to society.  On the other hand, excessive use of alcohol hampers intellectual excellence, because students who binge drink are more likely to miss class, fall behind in schoolwork, and have health problems that interfere with academics.22 Binge drinking is the leading cause of death in young adults and leads to hundreds of fatal injuries each year and more than 1,399 unintentional, alcohol-related fatal injuries among college students in 1998 alone.23  Alcohol abuse leads to student health problems,24 including suicide.25

Although there is widespread acknowledgement that binge drinking undermines the academic and ethical mission of universities, it is less recognized that the hook up culture also hinders achieving that mission.  The hook up culture hampers intellectual excellence in numerous ways.  Sexual promiscuity is related to depression and lack of focus on academics as well as the distractions of pregnancy and pregnancy scares.  Sexual promiscuity increases the likelihood of contracting sexually transmitted infections, endangers health, and distracts from an academic focus.  Anne Hendershott notes that women are particularly at risk:

Nearly all of these studies suggest that women are at substantially more risk than men for feeling upset about the experience of engaging in casual sex.  Glenn and Marquardt (2001) found that many women felt hurt after hooking up and confused about their future relations with the men with whom they hooked up with.  Bisson and Levine found that it may be the combination of mismatched expectations and the lack of communication about the meaning of the encounter that leads to negative outcomes for some students.  Research by Paul and Hayes (2002) found that for some of these relationships, it could be that the situations were unwanted or forced.  When women feel pressured to engage in a casual sexual relationship, or if there is alcohol involved, there are more likely to be negative outcomes.  One research team (Grello, 2006) found that students’ feelings of regret after hooking up were related to more depressive symptoms.26

In addition to academic growth, most Catholic universities also aim to foster the ethical development of students so that they are men and women for others with a sense of human solidarity.  Binge drinking inhibits this development with an egocentric focus toward self, not exocentric toward service for others.  In the Catholic intellectual tradition, both hooking up and binge drinking are serious sins, undermining love for God and neighbor.  In their article, “College Students and Problematic Drinking: A Review of the Literature,” Lindsay S. Ham and Debra A. Hope highlight numerous findings that point to the negative effects of excessive drinking.27

  1. Binge drinkers are more likely to commit crimes related to sexual assault and vandalism.
  2. Binge drinkers are 25 times more likely to commit acts that they later regret, e.g., engage in sexual activity that is unplanned and/or unprotected; and get in trouble with law enforcement (Wechsler et al, 2002).
  3. Binge drinkers negatively affect many other students who are subject to interrupted sleep, “baby-sitting” drunken students, insults, humiliation, unwanted sexual advances, assault, and rape (Hingson et al, 2002).

The hook up culture inhibits ethical development through a focus on private indulgence of using other people for pleasure, rather than on loving, committed relationships.  Using other people for sexual pleasure, and then discarding them, is seriously damaging to level three and level four happiness.  The hook up culture even impinges upon other students who choose not to hook up, especially roommates who get “sexiled” from their own dorm room to facilitate such activities.

The ramifications of unhealthy behaviors in both drinking and sex go beyond the physical, psychological, and social damage to the individuals partaking in the activities.  They affect the entire campus community by undermining the reputation of the institution, damaging the relationship to the local community, increasing the operating costs of the institution, lowering the academic quality of the university, and diminishing the institution’s ability to attract and retain excellent students and faculty.28

While there is no perfect solution to these problems, meaningful and significant reductions of the extent of both are possible.  Let us examine first educational strategies and then institutional strategies for dealing with both problems.

Educational Strategies

The first six weeks of the college experience are extremely important in establishing a student’s habits and identity.  “The first six weeks of enrollment are critical to first-year student success. Because many students initiate heavy drinking during these early days of college, the potential exists for excessive alcohol consumption to interfere with successful adaptation to campus life.”29  Habits take root and patterns of behavior become established during this crucial period.  Prior to arriving at college, high school students become socialized about what to expect through movies that depict university life as primarily revolving around wild parties and only marginally about academic or social development.  These media depictions feed into what social psychologists call “pluralistic ignorance,” in which a majority falsely assumes that everyone else accepts a particular social norm.  Students, especially first-year students, believe that college students binge drink and hook up much more than they actually do.30

Since students, especially first-year students, deeply desire to fit in socially, they look to social norms to define acceptable behavior.  Studies have shown that the drive to “fit in” can motivate even more powerfully than the fear of potential risks and dangers.31  “We may be willing to give up our vices and cultivate new virtues if we believe that it will more firmly secure us a spot in our most cherished tribe.”32 These students, looking to fit in, drink and hook up to satisfy this misperceived social expectation about what is normal, acceptable, and typical.  Often, students behave in ways that are contrary to what they actually want because of these (often inaccurate) social expectations.33  In the words of one study,

Male and female residents overestimated the alcohol use behavior and related attitudes among their floor mates.  Results also showed that perceived norms were strongly related to individual drinking behaviors and permissive attitudes toward drinking.  Moreover, feelings of connectedness to one’s residence hall were found to moderate this relationship.  These findings identify a salient reference group to target in initiatives aimed at utilizing normative feedback to reduce alcohol-related risk in the first year of college.34

Among other causes, pluralistic ignorance drives excessive drinking and hook up culture.

Pre-arrival education

In order to combat pluralistic ignorance as well as inform students of the dangers of binge drinking, educational efforts could be made before the students arrive on campus.  In tours of campus, student campus guides should be clear and consistent about university policy so that prospective students are made aware that this college is not a “party school.”  This initial clarity may deter at least some students who are seeking an “animal house” experience rather than an academic experience from enrolling.  The fewer such students who enroll, the better for the campus climate.

All incoming students might be required to take an online course that educates them about the dangerous effects of alcohol and drug abuse and combats widespread misperceptions about alcohol abuse on campus.  One such course, “AlcoholEdu” is a web-based 2-3 hour alcohol abuse prevention program used at more than 500 universities nationwide.35  Independent research indicates that the program is successful in reducing:

alcohol problems in general and problems in the physiological, social, and victimization domains during the fall semester immediately after completion of the course. …  AlcoholEdu for College appears to have beneficial short-term effects on victimization and the most common types of alcohol-related problems among freshmen.  Universities may benefit the most by mandating AlcoholEdu for College for all incoming freshmen and by implementing this online course along with environmental prevention strategies.36

Similar online programs can be instituted to educate students about the dangers of sexual promiscuity as well as to dispel the myth that “everyone is hooking up.”

Once students arrive on campus, the educational efforts could be reinforced, especially for those most at risk: freshmen, athletes, and Greek system members.  Posters can be put up in every dorm which advertise important facts about drinking in order to combat pluralistic ignorance.  Pre-arrival surveys can be conducted on students.  Once data has been collected and tabulated, internal marketing activity can stress for example, “89% of students at [your school] drink less than 3 times a week.”  Ideally, the information should be quite specific, even broken down by dorms: “92% of women in [specific dorm name here] drink twice a week or less.”  “77% of [specific dorm] men drink 6 or fewer drinks a week.”  “81% of [specific dorm] women drink 4 or less drinks when they drink.”  For further examples of such posters, see the link below.37

Education in chastity

In order to educate students about the dangers of the hook up culture, the Love and Fidelity Network developed poster campaigns to educate in chastity.38

The approach of the Love and Fidelity Network, which richly emphasizes the dangers of the hook up culture, can be supplemented with efforts to combat pluralistic ignorance.  Mark Regnerus and Jeremy Uecker’s book Premarital Sex in America:  How Young Americans Meet, Mate, and Think about Marrying (Oxford University Press, 2011) dispels numerous myths, that when believed, can prompt students into actions they would be less inclined to do.  Rather than making informed decisions, students often act out of ignorance and mythical beliefs.

Many students believe the myth that everyone else in college is having sex and hooking up on a regular basis.  In fact, one quarter of college students are virgins.  Indeed, most college students are not in a sexual relationship, nor are they hooking up regularly.  In fact, only one hookup per year is average for college students.  Many students believe, “Only losers don’t have premarital sex.”  In fact, those in college are more likely to abstain than those not in college.  College virgins “tend to be a self-confident and accomplished lot.”39

It is also a myth that students who choose to abstain lack sexual desire or are less physically attractive than other students.  Indeed, in comparison with those who never attended college, college students and college graduates have fewer sexual partners.  Many students believe is that sex is needed in order to start a long-term relationship.  In fact, Regnerus and Uecker point out, “[Just] 8 percent of both men and women reported having had sex first—before sensing romance—in at least one of their two most important relationships so far.  [So] 92 percent of young adults said that nurturing romance and love…before sex.  It is difficult to make it work the other way around.”40 Properly informed students are better able to make choices condusive to their health and happiness if they have such information.

During freshman orientation, persuasive speakers (ideally other students or recent graduates) can explicitly address binge drinking and the hook up culture.  These speakers could address the issue making use of contemporary research about the possible negative consequences of unhealthy choices as well as addressing the pluralistic ignorance that abounds on both issues.  They should also discuss the university’s policy for reducing such behavior and correcting student misbehavior.  During the course of the year, these themes could be emphasized by other invited speakers sponsored by student life, campus ministry.  Ideally,  student groups like FOCUS or the Love and Fidelity Network can sponsor events and speakers.41

When suitable, faculty in appropriate classes can be encouraged to present information on the detrimental nature of binge drinking and casual sexual encounters.  Such topics can be addressed in an academic way particularly in classes on moral philosophy, moral theology, sociology, psychology, and health.  In a less formal setting, “Theology on Tap” may further contribute to informing students.

There may also be utility in distributing having booklets, pamphlets, brochures, and on-line media available for students treating these issues.  Jason Evert’s booklet Pure Love (available in both secular and Catholic versions) makes a case for chastity.  The U.S. Department of Health issued a brochure Beyond Hangovers: Understanding Alcohol’s Impact on Your Health.  Seeking to accentuate the positive, I authored a booklet, How to Stay Catholic in College.  If made widely available in the student residences, this reading material may help students make better decisions.

Around Valentine’s Day, a theme week could be organized to foster discussion on love, dating, and authentic understandings of femininity and masculinity.  Similarly, colleges can recognize and foster National Collegiate Alcohol Awareness Week with education, sober events.

Institutional Strategies

Institutional changes can occur within the university to foster an environment which positively reinforces a campus culture conducive to academic excellence and ethical development.  Three institutional strategies may help.  First, in order to make a significant difference, a many different groups—both on campus and off campus—should cooperate to enhance the campus culture including campus ministry, resident life directors, and local law enforcement.  “[T]he use of comprehensive, integrated programs with multiple complementary components that target: (1) individuals, including at-risk or alcohol-dependent drinkers, (2) the student population as a whole, and (3) the college and the surrounding community.”42 Finally, an institution of higher education can reduce rates of binge drinking and hook up culture through instituting single-sex housing.

Multi-pronged approach

It is best to begin with clear expectations of student behavior.  The Code of Student Conduct should establish public regulations governing student consumption of alcohol as well as sexual behavior.  Depending on the school, it may be suitable to have a dry campus, but if not, the expectation of responsible drinking should be made clear to the students.  In terms of sexual behavior, these codes should indicates that marriage between one man and one woman is the only suitable context for a sexual relationships.  Sexual activity of any kind outside of marriage are inconsistent with the teachings and moral values of the Catholic Church and are prohibited.

Studies indicate that active participation in religious services is linked to decreased rates of both binge drinking and hook up culture.43 Campus ministry, priests, religious, and other active Catholics on campus can invite and encourage student participation in religious services.  As new students arrive on campus, such key leaders could be present in the dorms, greeting parents and students, making themselves as helpful as they can.  Friendly invitations, wallet-size schedules of Masses and liturgies can be extended to Catholic students.  Ideally, priests, religious sisters, or other committed Catholics would be present in the student residences.  For non-Catholics, information can be shared about nearby religious services.  In each student residence, campus ministers can make sure that Mass times are posted and advertisements (particularly early in the year) widely distributed to make students aware of liturgical opportunities.  Competing events should not be scheduled during important university-wide events, like the Mass of the Holy Spirit.  Resident assistants should set an example with regard to attendance at these liturgical celebrations.44 Campus ministry, priests, and religious on campus can also address issues of substance abuse and hook up culture both in the pulpit and in pastoral settings, and help fortify students to reduce unhealthy and ethically problematic behaviors.  Greater religious involvement is linked to lesser levels of binge drinking and hook up culture.

Staff from student life should be careful, especially in the first six weeks for freshman, to have healthy programming available.  Students should get into the habit early in their college careers of thinking of Friday night as bowling night, pool night, intramural night, anything other than party night.

It is essential that there is strong enforcement by resident assistants, campus security and police (especially during the first six weeks) of legal drinking limits.  Many authority figures on campus “turn a blind eye” and ignore underage drinking.  After every weekend, piles of empty beer cans are in the garbage outside freshmen dorms implies a tacit consent and cooperation with immoral and (for students under 21) illegal activity.  Strict, swift, and consistent enforcement of legal drinking limits (including minor intoxication and minor in possession) during the first six weeks of the semester can have lasting beneficial effects.  Police should check for drivers under the influence leaving and arriving on campus as well as minor intoxication, minor in possession, and public drunkenness.  Resident directors and student life officials need to strictly enforce policies against underage drinking and overnight visitations.  Student offenders might receive extra formation in drinking responsibly and, if needed, professional help in dealing with alcohol abuse and/or drug abuse.  Resident assistants, often students themselves, often do not enforce rules “on the books” about underage drinking, excessive drinking, and having overnight opposite sex visitors.  A common practice amounts to “don’t check, don’t report,” where only the most obvious and egregious violations are reported.  This is passive cooperation that undermines the university’s academic and moral mission.  The tacit approval given by student resident officials is quickly recognized by students, often to their own detriment.

An important element of combating underage drinking is partnering with the local community.  The local community often suffers the effects of excessive college drinking by students and may be motivated to help reduce the problem.  Campus-community partnerships have helped reduce alcohol abuse among students.

[One] intervention included a social marketing campaign, with prevention advertisements in the school newspaper, ads posted in public areas on campus, and ads distributed as postcards. The message in the ads warned students that “Drinking Driving Laws Are Strictly Enforced in the College Area.” These advertisements were backed up by strong media coverage on the local community stations and in the college paper. DUI checkpoints were operated by the campus police, with assistance from local city police and the highway patrol. The results were promising. One of the universities showed a “considerable drop” in the students’ reports of driving after drinking.45

The National Institute on Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism suggests that a multi-pronged approach is mostly likely to be successful.

Finally, universities must not be afraid of expelling or suspending serious offenders.  Such strict action can be a deterrent to other students who quickly learn what behavior is and is not acceptable on campus.

Single-sex dorms

A vital institutional strategy for reducing binge drinking and hook up culture is the institution of single-sex dorms.  Research indicates that students in single-sex residences are significantly less likely to engage in binge drinking and the hook up culture than students living in co-ed student residences.

Let’s look at the connection between binge drinking and co-ed dorms first.  Writing in the May 2002 edition of the Journal of Alcohol Studies, Thomas C. Harford and colleagues reported,

Another finding in the present study indicated that students living in coed dormitories, when compared with students in single-gender dorms, incurred more problem consequences related to drinking….  The reported differences in problem consequences extend previous studies of underage alcohol use in the CAS (Wechsler et al., 2000), which found that college students residing in coed dormitories and fraternity/sorority house, when compared with students residing in single-gender dormitories, were more likely to report heavy episodic drinking.

The American Journal of Preventative Medicine (2000) and Journal of American College Health (2009) have reported similar findings.46

If students who enjoy risky behavior choose co-ed residences because they seek a more permissive atmosphere, then the differences between co-ed and single-sex residences reflect the kinds of people who choose them, rather than being caused by some difference between single-sex and co-ed residences.  This explanation fails because in almost all cases, students did not select single-sex dormitories, but were placed in them by university officials. Since there was no selection, there can be no selection effect.  Researchers found no differences in depression, impulsivity, extroversion, body image, or pro-social behavior tendencies between the two groups—all differences relevant to students’ likelihood to take risks.47

Why do co-ed residences have more binge drinking?  A plausible explanation is that co-ed living creates a “party” expectation that students fulfill.  College males want to get females to drink more, facilitating hookups.  College men themselves drink more as “liquid courage” to approach women and as part of the process of encouraging female drinking (for instance, with drinking games).  In order to demonstrate “equality” with male students and so as not to seem prudish, college females drink more than they otherwise would.  Single-sex residences reduce this binge drinking dynamic.

Not surprisingly, single-sex residences also reduce the hook up culture.  In a 2009 study in Journal of American College Health, B.J. Willoughby and J.S. Carroll found that “students living in co-ed housing were also more likely [than those in single-sex residences] to have more sexual partners in the last 12 months.”  Further, those students were “more than twice as likely as students in gender-specific housing to indicate that they had had 3 or more sexual partners in the last year.”

After controlling for age, gender, race, education, family background, and religiosity, living in a co-ed dorm was associated with more sexual partners.  Indeed, two thirds (63.2%) of students in gender-specific housing indicated that they had no sexual partners in the last year, whereas less than half of (44.3%) of students in co-ed housing indicated zero sexual partners in the last year.

Naturally, some objections may be raised to establishing single-sex residences, especially concerns about enrollment.  Students may not prefer single-sex residences, so if a university institutes them, enrollment could plummet.  However, many universities already have a few single-sex residences, and there is no evidence these residences lower enrolment even in part.  Other colleges, such as the University of Notre Dame, have only single-sex residences yet have no problems with enrollment at all.  If a student wants a “party school,” it may be better for the university environment if that student is deterred from enrolling because of single-sex residences.

Indeed, single-sex residences may benefit enrollment.  Many parents would prefer to have single-sex residences for their children.  Single-sex residences lead to the perception and the reality of a safer campus, especially for female students.  Lower levels of binge drinking and participation in the hookup culture may also lead to higher graduation rates and a more academic atmosphere on campus, increasing prestige, which boosts enrollment.

Another objection is that a university is not a seminary.  Division of males and females may be appropriate at a monastery, but not in a residence for college students.  Students seek to attend a Catholic university, not a Catholic convent or rectory.  This objection is widely exaggerating the proposal to have single-sex housing.  No one is proposing that student residences have compulsory times of prayer like a convent.  No one is proposing that student residences have mandatory “spiritual direction” like a monastery.  Student residences at universities are not seminaries, but neither should they be visions of Animal House.  An Animal House environment is not conducive to intellectual or moral development.  As students at the University of Notre Dame can attest, there is much fun to be had and no monastic atmosphere in single-sex residences.

By reducing levels of binge drinking and participation in the hookup culture, universities committed to the academic and ethical growth of students can better fulfill their mission.  The time has come to stop bemoaning campus culture and to take concrete steps to improve the situation.  A move in the right direction was undertaken recently by President John Garvey of The Catholic University of America.  In his Wall Street Journal op-ed,48 President Garvey explained why the school is reinstituting single-sex dorms.  Someone might respond by saying: “Single-sex dorms won’t stop drinking or ‘hooking up’.”49 Of course, no one claimed that single sex dorms eliminate or stop all drinking or casual sex, so this is an example of the straw-man fallacy.

Not everyone agreed with President Garvey’s decision.  One critic objected to the change noting, “His [President Garvey’s] explanation for the change has a let’s-protect-the-women ring to it that is decidedly out of step with the gender roles and expectations of today’s young women and young men.50 Yet, Garvey said nothing in the essay about women being at greater risk than men in terms of binge drinking and hook-up culture.  However, if he had, he would have been correct.  Campus culture puts young women at greater risk than young men.  An equal amount of alcohol affects females more than males, and sexual promiscuity produces asymmetrical gender effects in terms of sexually transmitted infections, such as HPV and pelvic inflammatory disease. And then there is the risk of pregnancy.

Some people are skeptical that separating the residences of men and women will make any difference.  For example, a critic of single-sex dorms has written:

Nothing in my 20 years of experience writing about young people suggests that reverting to the old days of male and female dorms will substantially reduce the frequency of drinking or casual sex. … He cites unnamed studies showing that students in co-ed dorms report having more sexual partners and consuming excessive amounts of alcohol more often.51

But studies do indeed justify Garvey’s view. Let me name a few:

  • In the journal Environment and Behavior, Jennifer E. Cross and co-authors write,

Women living on single-sex floors are about half as likely to consume as much [alcohol] as their peers living on coed floors. … Women living on a single-sex floor are significantly less likely to consume as frequently as their peers on coed floors.52

  • In the Journal of Alcohol Studies, Thomas C. Harford and colleagues found:

Students living in coed dormitories, when compared with students in single-gender dorms, incurred more problem consequences related to drinking … The reported differences in problem consequences extend previous studies of underage alcohol use in the CAS (Wechsler et al., 2000a), which found that college students residing in coed dormitories and fraternity/sorority house, when compared with students residing in single-gender dormitories, were more likely to report heavy episodic drinking.53

  • In the American Journal of Preventative Medicine, Wechsler and coauthors indicate:

Underage students who live in coed dormitories and fraternity or sorority houses are more likely to binge drink (OR51.7 and 6.2, respectively) than are students who live in single-sex dormitories.54

  • Finally, a 2009 study on binge drinking and hook-up culture in the Journal of American College Health by B.J. Willoughby and J.S. Carroll found that:

Students in co-ed halls were more than twice as likely as students living in gender-specific halls (56.4 percent versus 26.5 percent) to indicate that they consume alcohol at least weekly. … Students in co-ed halls (41.5 percent) were nearly two and a half times more likely than students in gender-specific housing (17.6 percent) to report binge drinking on a weekly basis.55

Against this evidence, a critic of single-sex dorms cites a single anecdotal example: When women drink a lot, they do so with a group of women, at least as frequently, or more frequently, than with men.  Author Liz Funk, a New York resident in her 20s who was raised as a Roman Catholic, attended a co-ed college with co-ed dorms.  She remembers,

“Without the presence of guys, my friends and I had no problem throwing back three to eight drinks in a sitting.  And on the occasions where accidents happened … it was always in an all-female context.”56

This anecdotal evidence does little to cast doubt on the academic research pointing to less binge drinking and fewer casual sexual encounters in single-sex dorms in comparison to co-ed dorms. It is true that other factors are relevant in terms of college drinking:

Where college students live — or with whom — has less to do with how much they drink than with other factors, including the level of alcohol they saw consumed at home; the cultural assumption, endorsed by older adults, that drinking is a rite of passage; the lack of instruction in how to drink responsibly; the drink promotions offered at clubs and bars near campus; and little or no enforcement, by local or campus authorities, of the legal drinking age.57

Of course, Garvey never said that the only factor involved in binge drinking is living environment.  As a university president, many of these factors are beyond his control to change.  But even if these other conditions are of greater importance, which may be right, it hardly follows that efforts should not be made to control the factors which can be controlled at the college level.

The critique continues: “Garvey believes that if women and men once again lived in segregated housing, they wouldn’t hook up as much.”  But this is not a matter merely of belief, but of evidence.  Willoughby and Carroll found that

students living in co-ed housing were also more likely than those in single sex residences: to have more sexual partners in the last 12 months, to have more recent sexual partners, were more than twice as likely as students in gender-specific housing to indicate that they had had 3 or more sexual partners in the last year.  After controlling for age, gender, race, education, family background, and religiosity, living in a co-ed dorm was associated with more sexual partners two thirds (63.2 percent) of students in gender-specific housing indicated that they had no sexual partners in the last year, whereas less than half of (44.3 percent) of students in co-ed housing indicated zero sexual partners in the last year.58

Does self-selection explain away these differences?  In fact, self-selection cannot explain the differences in drinking and hooking up because, in almost all cases as noted earlier, students did not select to live in single-sex dorms but were put into these dorms by university officials.  With no selection, there can be no selection effect.

The selection effect may begin to play a role now at CUA and other schools with single-sex dorms, insofar as some students who want to party hard in college may choose not to go to those schools.  I certainly hope that this is the case — then these universities will have fewer students who contribute to an Animal House atmosphere.  The fewer Animal House students who enroll at a particular college, the better for that college.

One of the few reasons given in favor of co-ed dorms is that they facilitate friendships with the opposite sex.  As one critic wrote, “one contribution of co-ed dorms: the ease with which members of this generation relate to each other as friends, and the depth of their understanding of the opposite sex.  I can’t help but believe those qualities will help sustain their intimate partnerships in the future.”59

Single-sex dormitories hardly prohibit or deter young men and women from relating to each other as friends or from understanding the opposite sex.  Single-sex dorms may even help.  As President Garvey points out,

Shared living space might mean spending more hours with the opposite sex.  But it often doesn’t foster the mutual respect necessary for real friendship.   The prevalence of “hooking up” on college campuses is both a cause and a sign of this decline in solid friendships between men and women.  When students “hook up,” they put sex before love.  Our goal is not to make students think sex is bad.  It’s not.  But as those of us with a few more years of life know, when sex comes first, it’s often mistaken for love.  Worse still, it can become a kind of recreational pleasure that lets people think they can live without love.  Friendship between men and women – the kind that leads to healthy relationships and lasting marriages – requires that love come first.60

Indeed, Garvey’s perspective found confirmation in the experiences of students who reported that co-ed dormitories actually undermine rather than facilitate co-ed friendships.  In their article, “Hooking Up and Opting Out,” Lisa Wade and Caroline Heldman point out, “Students found that friendships were difficult to establish and maintain because many cross-sex friends were also past or potential sexual partners.”61  Co-ed dorm life made non-sexual relationships more difficult.  They continue:  “Because hookup culture positioned everyone as a potential sexual partner, friendships were sexualized.  Female students reported that it was nearly impossible to have male friends.”62 To paraphrase one student, you can label it, “friends with benefits, minus the friend part.”63

Single-sex dorms do not destroy the opportunities for opposite-sex friendships, but they do put an obstacle in the way of taking someone back to the dorm room for hooking up. This impediment may actually aid, rather than undermine, the fostering of meaningful intimate relationships both now and in the future.  Indeed, as Mark Regnerus and Jeremy Uecker suggest in Premarital Sex in America How Young Americans Meet, Mate, and Think about Marrying  (Oxford University Press, 2011), a man and woman who delay their sexual relationship are likely contribute to making their relationships last longer.  They also note that young people who are veterans of many sexual relationships have a higher rate of divorce.  Of course, students can learn from bad decisions, but the university should not make it easier to make bad decisions, especially bad decisions that can undermine the likelihood of satisfying marriages in the future.  The desirability of sustaining intimate partnerships in the future (let’s call them “marriages”) — suggests that President Garvey made the right decision.

Households

Ideally these single-sex residences should be places that foster communal academic and ethical development.  One way of fostering this type of community is the “household” residential choice found at Franciscan University Steubenville and other Catholic universities.  In these households, which students report have a family feeling, there is a shared spiritual, academic, moral, and social atmosphere which begins with the student life staff providing an “institutional culture of chastity” throughout the university.64  The institutional culture emphasizes the positive rewards of living well rather than simply the negative aspects of binge drinking and the hook-up culture.  Small faith communities can help students to find shared values and support.  It may also be suitable, on certain campuses, to establish “substance-free” residence options to ratify student commitment to substance-free living.

Significant reduction in both binge drinking and hook up culture is a worthwhile goal and an achievable goal.  Such a reduction would increase campus safety (especially for women), foster a more academic environment, and support the spiritual and moral developments of students.  Of course, perfect behavior and an absolute elimination of unhealthy activities is impossible, but we should not let the impossibility of the perfection deter us from pursuing a better course.

Appendix: Examples from Newman Guide Colleges

There are many ways to implement the strategies recommended in this paper, and many other strategies that might be considered.  What follows is a selection of programs and policies identified during research for The Newman Guide to Choosing a Catholic College, which recommends 28 colleges, universities, and online programs for their strong Catholic identity.  There are other good programs and policies to address binge drinking and the hook up culture at other Catholic and non-Catholic institutions.  College officials would benefit from continual sharing of effective practices and observation of similar institutions.

It is interesting to note that while many of these strategies to promote sobriety could reasonably be employed to promote chastity—and pro-chastity programs and policies might be tweaked to promote sobriety—often colleges do not approach both topics in the same ways.  An equal commitment to promoting both behaviors could quickly expand a college’s outreach to students without requiring much creativity.

Education

Freshman orientation

Many of the colleges include discussion of chastity and sobriety during freshman orientation programs, including explanation of college policies.  DeSales University starts even before students arrive on campus, requiring them to complete a one-hour, online alcohol awareness program.

Belmont Abbey College has a policy on Christian Sexual Morality that is explained to freshmen during orientation. According to the College: “In keeping with John Paul II’s theology of the body, we make clear that sex is a gift from God to be enjoyed by those who have received the Sacrament of Marriage and for the purpose of the mutual good of the spouses and for bringing children into the world as a gift from God, in accord with Catholic teaching and Canon Law.”

Walsh University’s 12-week mandatory freshman credited course (General Education 100: First Year Institute) begins during opening weekend with a 45-minute presentation, “A Day in the Life of a Student.”  The University explains: “Video vignettes performed by Walsh students depict choices every college student faces:  academic, social, spiritual, physical.  The vignettes provoke discussion of tools for self-awareness, personal responsibility, and critical thinking for making positive lifestyle choices.  The vignette dealing with sexual choices discusses pro-abstinence.  Most FYI faculty ask students to write reaction papers to the presentation, which sets out university expectations for student behavior aligned with the university’s mission as a Catholic university of distinction.  Follow-up sessions occur in FYI under the topic ‘relationships’ and in residence halls, where the chaplain and others continue to promote chastity in leading ‘Let’s Talk Sex’ discussions by floor.”

The Catholic University of America provides “Alcohol 101” workshops in each first-year student residence hall within the first six weeks of the fall semester.

Lectures and classes

Several colleges present occasional speakers to discuss chastity, proper dating, and the role of marriage.  Some of these programs are organized and repeated, such as DeSales University’s student presentation on impaired driving, “It’s Not an Accident, It’s a Choice,” and campus ministry programs “Off the Hook: The Hook-Up Culture and Our Escape from It” and “Single and Ready to Mingle: Campus Dating 101.”  Ave Maria University, Mount St. Mary’s University, and others provide lectures and courses on the “Theology of the Body,” as taught by Blessed Pope John Paul II.

The University of Mary’s student health clinic sponsors a peer-education program, Health PRO (Peers Reaching Out), which sponsors numerous programs.

The Franciscan University of Steubenville’s Veritas Lecture Series, coordinated by the University’s student life office, addresses sexuality, dating, and marriage with discussion of related Catholic teachings.

Campus ministry at Mount St. Mary’s University sponsors a “Couples Ministry,” which organizes gatherings for couples who are dating to discuss their faith, as well as educational programs like “Healthy Relationships without the Baggage.”  In “Love and Lattes” at the University of Mary, a four-week program sponsored by campus ministry, faithful Catholic couples talk to students about topics such as dating and chastity, faith and marriage, natural family planning, finances, conflict resolution, and parenting.

Priests and religious address moral issues during “Morals and Mocha” coffeehouse discussions at the University of Mary and “Theology on Tap” gatherings at pubs near the campuses of Aquinas College (Nashville) and Ave Maria University. At Thomas Aquinas College, the virtues of modesty and chastity are regularly addressed by chaplains in their sermons at daily Mass.

Several Catholic colleges welcome FOCUS missionaries (www.focus.org) on campus to lead Bible studies and promote chastity and sobriety through small-group activities.

Theme weeks

A number of colleges declare themes for weeks during the school year to present programs and activities in support of sobriety and chastity.  Ave Maria University has an annual “Love Week” in February, devoted to hosting events and lectures that foster discussion on love, dating, the Theology of the Body, and other Catholic studies on sexuality. The Catholic University of America recognizes National Collegiate Alcohol Awareness Week, National Drunk and Drugged Driving Prevention Month, and Safe Spring Break Week with information distribution and campus-wide programming. The University of St. Thomas in Houston has an annual “Sexual Responsibility Week.”

Education for student offenders

When students violate campus policies, consequences can include education programs to help improve behavior.  Ave Maria University purchased an online education module that provides basic alcohol information to students who violate the alcohol policy. According to AMU, “Through a review of topics related to safe consumption, characteristics of high risk drinking, positives and negatives of consumption, and social norms, students gain a better understanding of how irresponsible alcohol use can negatively impact their academics and personal lives. The anticipated outcome is that students will make better decisions in the future related to alcohol use.”

Likewise, Benedictine College will schedule an alcohol assessment with its counseling center if it has cause to worry that any student may have a problem with alcohol abuse.  When students are found cohabiting in residence halls, the College may assign education initiatives or have the students meet with counselors, while losing the right to visitation even during daylight hours for a specified period of time.

Regulations

Dress code to encourage modesty

Christendom College, like several other colleges, maintains a dress code for the classroom, Mass, lunch, and special events. “Usually this includes a dress shirt and necktie for men and a dress or blouse with skirt or dress slacks for women. A jacket is also required for men at Sunday Mass and for speakers’ presentations.”

Ave Maria University is less specific, but students must dress “with modesty and prudence.”  The student handbook offers them guidelines for dressing with dignity.

Regulations on entertainment

Ave Maria University requires that movies and television programs viewed on campus “should be in good taste and not offensive to Catholic morals and values.”

Regulating sex, romantic behavior

Some colleges expressly forbid sexual activity outside of marriage.  The Catholic University of America’s Code of Student Conduct states, as paraphrased by the University, “that sexual relationships are designed by God to be expressed solely within a marriage between husband and wife.  Sexual acts of any kind outside the confines of marriage are inconsistent with the teachings and moral values of the Catholic Church and are prohibited.”

Likewise, the University of Mary’s Community Standards for Students prohibits “sexual intimacy between persons who are not married to one another in the university’s residence halls.”

Christendom College has restrictions on public romantic displays of affection, and Thomas More College of Liberal Arts discourages “exclusive dating” during the first two years.

Dry campuses

All of the colleges have policies on alcohol, often prohibiting possession by anyone under the legal age and sometimes prohibiting minors from being in a room when others are consuming alcohol.  But at the University of Mary and some other colleges, alcohol is not permitted for any student.  Christendom College forbids on-campus drinking but makes exceptions for students over the age of 21 at some campus events, such as St. Patrick’s Day festivities and musical performance nights, called Pub Night.

Residence Halls

Residence life programs

Many of the colleges locate educational programs in the residence halls (see “Education” above).  Benedictine College sponsors an annual Alcohol Free competition, inviting each residence hall to put on an alcohol-free event “which both serves as a model for how to engage in healthy activities without the use of alcohol and disseminates information about the dangers of abusing alcohol.”

Special housing

DeSales University offers specialized “substance-free” housing for students who forego all alcohol and tobacco use.  The University of Mary permits students to choose roommates who are committed to abstaining from alcohol even off campus, and these students are grouped together in the residence halls.

The University of Mary also has established Saint Joseph’s Hall, a 30-bed facility for men who have made a commitment to live a virtuous life and support other residents in that commitment.  Living in the facility with students is the retired Bishop of Bismarck and the current diocesan vocations director.  A similar facility for women has been established with support from Benedictine Sisters who live on campus.

Mount St. Mary’s University offers a variety of themed housing and living-learning options. Students participating in the Summit Housing initiative adopt as a rule of life a “healthy living commitment” through outdoor activities, service projects, and abstinence from tobacco, alcohol and drugs.

Training for residence life staff

Belmont Abbey College, like many of the colleges, ensures that resident assistants are trained in authentic Catholic morality.  “All resident directors study the virtues, Ex corde Ecclesiae, the Rule of St. Benedict, the Pope’s Theology of the Body, and the documents on the dignity of the human person and the vocation of women.”

The Catholic University of America provides alcohol education and training for resident assistants, orientation advisors, and resident ministers each summer. “Residential staff are expected to confront disruptive and unhealthy behaviors including those related to sexual activity.”

Faculty, priest presence in residence halls

Some colleges ask priests, religious, and faculty members to live in residence halls to assist and supervise students.  At Holy Spirit College, the student residences in a nearby apartment community are proctored by faculty members.  Thomas More College of Liberal Arts has a Dean of Men and a Dean of Women who help promote chastity in the residences.

Student Engagement

Peer clubs and programs

Some colleges have student clubs dedicated to promoting chastity through peer education, such as the Love Revealed club at Franciscan University of Steubenville.  According to the University, the club “strives to enrich students’ understanding of the principles that uphold the goods of Marriage, Family, and Sexual Integrity.”  The group emphasizes “that stable marriages and families and the moral character they cultivate are best supported by commitment to the integrity of sex and to the healthy sexual attitudes and behaviors that honor that integrity.”

At The Catholic University of America, student organizations such as Live Out Love, Vitae Familia, Students for Life, and CUAlternative “bring speakers to campus and host events that focus on love and relationships with emphasis on the Church’s teachings on marriage and family life,” according to CUA.  “For example, the student group Vitae Familia hosted an event titled ‘Love. Relationships. College. How does college shape how you love?’ where two guest speakers addressed the importance of dating while in college.”  Although Live Out Love focuses on teaching chastity to local middle-school and high-school students, it is student-led and engages CUA students in making arguments for sexual purity.

Students at Holy Spirit College likewise assist Moda Real, a virtue and modesty program for the Solidarity School and Mission, a Hispanic outreach program, that culminates in an annual modest fashion show.

Pro-life groups may help promote chastity.  CUA’s Students for Life publishes a magazine titled The Choice: Pro-Life Answers to Today’s Tough Questions, including articles on purity and chastity, cohabitation, and natural family planning.  The Crusaders for Life at the University of Dallas promotes Catholic teachings on chastity and abstinence.

Other groups may also address chastity.  Kappa Phi Omega, the Catholic sorority at St. Gregory’s University, brings speakers on campus to address the impact that chastity and modesty have on our society.  Even the Fra Angelico Art Club at Ave Maria University, which hosts events that examine true art and beauty, sponsors lectures on the Theology of the Body and an annual art exhibition to examine themes of love.

Campus ministry at Walsh University has a peer ministry program called Peacemakers, which trains upper-classmen to minister to students in the residence halls.  In 2011-12 they helped organize monthly residence hall programs on topics including pornography (the University’s IT officers verified that residence hall hits on pornography sites fell 75 percent as a result), women’s dignity (attracting up to 80 women per session), and “Extraordinary Gentlemen.”  Students in campus ministry also organized Theology of the Body discussions and assisted in the campus appearance of Christopher West.

Households

Several of the colleges encourage students to participate in voluntary “households,” which are spiritual communities of men or women that gather together to pray, encourage one another in chastity and virtue, perform works of mercy, and host events on campus.  The concept is especially popular at Franciscan University of Steubenville, where about half the student body is involved in any of 45 households.

Women’s and men’s groups

Ave Maria University has a Genuine Feminine Club of female students who foster the development of feminine virtues and organize the “Genuine Feminine Conference” each spring.

At The Catholic University of America, males students can join Esto Vir to strive together to live a life of prayer, brotherhood, chastity, self-sacrifice, and fortitude.  Female students can join Gratia Plena, a sisterhood of Catholic women that meets for fellowship, prayer and faith formation.

DeSales University sponsors Philotheas, a student-led, student only group for women desiring to mature in their Catholic faith through spiritual, religious, catechetical and social experiences, and support. Esto Vir (“Be a Man!”) is a group of men, who through social, educational, and spiritual activities strive to live as men of faith and virtue.

At the University of Mary, the Knights of Virtue (for men) and Vera Forma (for women) focus on the development of virtue and holiness, studying Scripture and the saints from a Christian but not exclusively Catholic perspective.

Administration

Administrative committees

Ave Maria University has an administration subcommittee specifically tasked with promoting chastity.  The Student Activities Board, Student Government Association, Student Life Office, Campus Ministry, and Office of Housing and Residence Life all collaborate to develop initiatives to support and promote a culture of chastity.

At The Catholic University of America, the Alcohol and Other Drug Education (AODE) program is coordinated by the Office of the Dean of Students and supported by the Employee Assistance Program, Kane Fitness Center, Office of Residence Life, Student Health Services, and the Counseling Center.

 

 

 

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

/in , /by
Click here for PDF

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

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

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

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

Introduction

In the post-Vatican II period, Catholic colleges and universities in the United States have experienced a marked decrease in the numbers of their Catholic faculty. As we read in The Catholic University of America’s ten-year review of its application of the norms first promulgated by the Apostolic Constitution Ex corde Ecclesiae and affirmed by the U.S. Bishops in 199950, the twenty-year period from 1975 to 1995, especially, was a time when the identity of Catholic colleges and universities was undergoing much self-criticism and redefinition. Coupled with the decreased availability of religious and clerical personnel, owing to the vocations crisis, and an increased dependence upon lay faculty, the net result for Catholic University, concludes the University’s report, “was a decrease in hires of committed Roman Catholics as well as a decreased emphasis on formally tracking the religious preference of new faculty hires.” This result was characteristic of most Catholic colleges and universities in this period.51

The promulgation of Ex corde Ecclesiae in 1990 aimed to address this crisis of identity occurring in Catholic institutions of higher learning, and in the twenty-two years since its promulgation much progress has been made toward calling these institutions back to their “privileged task,” as Ex corde puts it, of uniting “existentially by intellectual effort two orders of reality that too frequently tend to be placed in opposition as though they were antithetical: the search for truth, and the certainty of already knowing the fount of truth” (Introduction, no. 1). However, the decline in numbers of Catholic faculty has, by and large, continued unabated. While certain institutions have demonstrated admirable pro-activity in responding  to Ex corde’s norm that Catholic colleges and universities maintain a majority of Catholic faculty, others are struggling to maintain that majority as older and predominantly Catholic faculty retire. The issue, of course, is not simply about numbers; it is about sustaining the very character of Catholic institutions of higher learning. As Richard D. Breslin, professor of leadership and higher education at Saint Louis University, writes: “One can stipulate that if hiring practices are not addressed in the Catholic higher education community, some of these institutions will continue to be called Catholic and to call themselves Catholic, but they will have lost their real identity; they will have lost their souls. They will have done so precisely because their hiring practices failed to support and sustain the mission and philosophy of the university as Catholic.”56

The aim of this report is to survey current efforts by Catholic colleges and universities to avert this danger by means of their hiring practices. The institutions surveyed include twenty-five institutions included in the third edition of The Newman Guide to Choosing a Catholic College (October 2012), as well as selected institutions not in the Guide, including, by way of comparison, some non-Catholic ones. In particular, the report will focus on how Catholic colleges and institutions are going about “hiring for mission,” that is, how they are endeavoring to recruit and hire committed Catholic faculty, faculty who unite in their persons the search for truth within their respective disciplines, and the certainty by faith of already knowing the fount of truth. As a result of this survey, a better understanding will be achieved of the current trends and practices at Catholic colleges and universities when it comes to hiring for Catholic mission. This will help facilitate the later discernment of strengths and weaknesses, and the eventual advocacy of particular policies aimed at encouraging Catholic institutions to realize ever more faithfully their mission “in the heart of the Church.”65

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

A Note on Sources

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

Newman Guide Colleges

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

Other Catholic Colleges

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

Non-Catholic Colleges

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

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

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

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

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

Hiring for Catholic Mission: Aims & Challenges

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

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

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

A paraphrase of these essential characteristics might read as follows:

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

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

  1. a concern for the exploration of and active commitment to the ultimate complementarity of faith and reason;
  2. a sustained examination of the nature of the unity of knowledge in addition to discrete disciplinary research; and
  3. a concern for the exploration of the distinctive character and present implications of the Catholic intellectual tradition.66

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

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

Every quality that a college or university desires as an institutional characteristic must be embodied in its faculty; they are what most make it what it is. To seek academic excellence would be in vain, for instance, unless at every evaluation of faculty and in every personnel decision this excellence were a quality openly sought after. If an institution professes to be Catholic, not just nominally but in ways that are intellectually inquisitive and morally committed, then it is similarly imperative that faculty and administrators unabashedly pursue and articulate those interests and those commitments in the recruitment and the advancement of colleagues. Neither intellectual excellence nor religious commitment nor any other positive value will exist within an institution unless each of those qualities is candidly recruited and evaluated and preferred in the appointments of its faculty. The result of such a positive process must be a faculty among whom seriously committed and intellectually accomplished Catholics predominate.67

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

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

Different curricular approaches—indeed, the very differences between colleges and universities—distinguish the various approaches to Catholic higher education in the United States. For the purposes of this report we will assume that these structural differences in themselves do not negatively impact the pursuit of Catholic mission and the development of robust hiring-for-mission policies.68  A small college and a national research university can each in its own way be exemplary in all that it means to be a truly Catholic institution of higher learning. But other factors do present challenges to the mission of Catholic higher education, and thus to the hiring practices of Catholic institutions. These are challenges that arise from the lived situation of these Catholic colleges and universities: from their histories, their confrontations with and attitudes toward our increasingly secularized culture, even their geographical locations. What challenges are these?

A first and very obvious challenge is a legal one: to what degree, if any, can institutions inquire into the religious affiliation, or lack of it, of prospective candidates? It is a complex question, one outside the scope of this report. But it should be noted, at least, that, according to the Office of General Counsel at The Catholic University of America, “a common point of confusion is the idea that because equal opportunity law prohibits discrimination on the basis of religion, an employer may not exhibit a preference for someone of a certain religion. Many people do not realize that an exception exists for religious employers, including religious educational institutions. Both the United States Constitution and statutory law support this First Amendment right for religious educational institutions to hire members of their own religion on a preferential basis.”69

A second challenge is demographic. In their book, Catholic Higher Education70, Morey and Piderit characterize Catholic colleges demographically according to four models:

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

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

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

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

At first blush, the mission of Catholic institutions would seem to call all Catholic institutions to be classified demographically as (more or less) “immersion” schools. A school with “a small array of Catholic courses in the academic sector,” as in the “persuasion” model, would not appear to satisfy the three criteria of the Catholic pursuit of knowledge identified by Briel71; and the “disapora” and “cohort” models, with their low percentages of Catholic faculty, fall outside the norms of Ex corde. In any event, for any kind of school other than the “immersion” school to increase the numbers of its Catholic faculty it may well court resistance, especially perhaps from those non-Catholic, non-Christian, and non-theist members of the faculty, who may take the new impetus to be a negative comment on their own hires and on the accustomed diversity of the faculty. Peter Steinfels gives voice to this resistance when he writes:

Most major Catholic universities have had religiously diverse faculties for decades now, and many, especially urban universities, have similarly diverse student bodies. Any significant initiative to hire Catholics will prove offensive to non-Catholic members of the community and their Catholic colleagues. It will require a religious test alien to the academic culture of universities and injurious to the religious presence in scholarly life that Catholic universities should represent. It will stir from the get-go a degree of resistance that will be overcome by nothing short of top-down fiat disruptive of the university community.72

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

A third challenge arises from what might be termed the concern for excellence. A common objection that arises when hiring-for-mission policies are debated is that such policies, in preferring the hiring of Catholics, jeopardize the institution’s pursuit of academic excellence—which presumably should be sought in whatever scholars may be found, no matter their religious identification or lack of it. John McGreevy, dean of the College of Arts and Letters at Notre Dame, adds the point that even when institutions aim to hire Catholics, they are confronted with a dramatic shortage of Catholic scholars.73 He cites a 2006 study claiming that, when it comes to tenure-track scholars in the arts and sciences and business at the fifty top-ranked research universities, only six percent self-identify as Catholics (McGreevy admits that the percentage is slightly higher at lesser-ranked universities). In response, McGreevy’s colleague in Notre Dame’s history department, the Rev. Wilson Miscamble, C.S.C., argues:

That (6%) figure may seem low relatively—and, incidentally, might prompt a curious person to wonder why Catholics (and religious believers in general) are so under-represented at the supposed top schools—but it actually represents a substantial raw number of faculty who are possible recruits to Notre Dame.  Moreover, [McGreevy] substantially limits the recruiting pool by referencing only these major research schools. First-rate Catholic scholars also ply their trade at fine liberal arts colleges and at so-called second-tier research institutions, a group which includes Notre Dame itself. Furthermore, the community of Catholic intellectuals is hardly limited to the United States. Notre Dame has a valued tradition extending back for decades of recruiting non-American Catholic scholars like Waldemar Gurian and Stephen Kertesz which surely must be continued. (Of course, it still continues the practice of recruiting overseas but one wonders how effectively when the avowed atheist Jill Mann gained an appointment and the renowned Catholic scholar Eamon Duffy did not.) In short, the recruitment pool is significantly larger than [McGreevy] implies.74

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

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

The conception of the university presupposed by and embodied in the forms and activities of contemporary research universities is not just one that has nothing much to do with any particular conception of the universe, but one that suggests strongly that there is no such thing as the universe, no whole of which the subject matters studied by the various disciplines are all parts or aspects, but instead just a multifarious set of assorted subject matters.75

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

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

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

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

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

Further Relevant Literature

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Mission Statements

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

Franciscan University of Steubenville Mission Statement:

The complete version of Franciscan’s mission statement is exemplary for its faithfulness to the Magisterium, its commitment to the Catholic liberal arts tradition, and its understanding of how a Catholic university should be a source of evangelical witness. Perhaps too long to quote in full, the last item in the Statement of Convictions that concludes the statement should at least be noted: “Therefore, the administration, faculty, and staff, in fostering an intellectual and faith community, are obligated to serve, lead, and guide the institution in a manner consistent with its overall mission.76

Ave Maria University Mission Statement:

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

Christendom College Mission Statement:

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

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

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

Benedictine College Mission Statement:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

And from the evangelical perspective, there is Wheaton College’s Statement of Faith and Educational Purpose; the Statement of Faith is “reaffirmed annually by its Board of Trustees, faculty, and staff….”77

Vision Statements

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

Other Kinds of Statements and Policies Regarding Institutional Mission

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Identifying Potential Candidates

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Forming the Search Committee

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

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

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

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

Further Relevant Literature

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

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

Advertising the Position

Statements of Expectation

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Job Postings

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The Application

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

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

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

About this aspect of the application Dean Hochschild remarks:

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

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

Narrowing the Field

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The Contract

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

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

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

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

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

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

New Faculty Orientation and Beyond

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Further Relevant Literature

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Appendix A

Linked Digest of Institutions Surveyed

Newman Guide Colleges

Aquinas College

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

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

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

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

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

Ave Maria University

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

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

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

–

Belmont Abbey College

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

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

–

Benedictine College

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

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

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

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

–

Catholic Distance University

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

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

–

Catholic University of America

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

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

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

–

Christendom College

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

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

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

College of St. Mary Magdalen

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

–

The College of Saints John Fisher & Thomas More

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

–

DeSales University

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

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

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

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

–

Franciscan University of Steubenville

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

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

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

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

–

Holy Spirit College

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

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

–

John Paul the Great Catholic University

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

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

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

–

Mount St. Mary’s University

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

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

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

–

Our Lady Seat of Wisdom

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

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

–

Redeemer Pacific College

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

–

Thomas Aquinas College

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

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

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

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

–

Thomas More College of Liberal Arts

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

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

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

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

–

University of Dallas

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

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

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

–

University of Mary

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

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

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

–

University of Saint Thomas

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

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

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

–

Walsh University

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

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

–

Wyoming Catholic College

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

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

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

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

Non-Guide Schools Surveyed

Bob Jones University

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

–

Brigham Young University

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

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

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

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

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

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

–

Baylor University

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

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

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

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

–

Canisius College

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

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

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

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

–

Colorado Christian University

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

–

Creighton University

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

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

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

–

John Carroll University

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

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

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

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

–

Leymone College

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

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

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

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

–

Loyola Marymount University

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

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

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

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

–

University of Notre Dame

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

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

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

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

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

–

University of St. Thomas (Minn.)

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

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

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

–

Wheaton College

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

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

 

 

 

 

A Mandate for Fidelity: Pope Benedict Urges Compliance with Theologian’s Mandatum

/in , /by
Click here for PDF

Introduction

On May 5, 2012, in his address to several American bishops during their required ad limina visit to Rome, His Holiness Pope Benedict XVI spoke on “religious education and the faith formation of the next generation of Catholics” in the United States.  He said:

On the level of higher education, many of you have pointed to a growing recognition on the part of Catholic colleges and universities of the need to reaffirm their distinctive identity in fidelity to their founding ideals and the Church’s mission in service of the Gospel.  Yet much remains to be done, especially in such areas as compliance with the mandate laid down in Canon 812 for those who teach theological disciplines.

The importance of this canonical norm as a tangible expression of ecclesial communion and solidarity in the Church’s educational apostolate becomes all the more evident when we consider the confusion created by instances of apparent dissidence between some representatives of Catholic institutions and the Church’s pastoral leadership: such discord harms the Church’s witness and, as experience has shown, can easily be exploited to compromise her authority and her freedom.78

Canon 812 of the Catholic Church’s Code of Canon Law states, “Those who teach theological disciplines in any institutes of higher studies whatsoever must have a mandate from the competent ecclesiastical authority.”79

The U.S. bishops’ 2001 guidelines for implementing Canon 812 describe the mandate, commonly identified by the Latin mandatum, as “fundamentally an acknowledgment by Church authority that a Catholic professor of a theological discipline is teaching within the full communion of the Catholic Church.”  It recognizes “the professor’s commitment and responsibility to teach authentic Catholic doctrine and to refrain from putting forth as Catholic teaching anything contrary to the Church’s magisterium.”80  The mandatum is requested by the theologian in writing, and it is granted in writing by the local bishop who presides over the diocese where the theologian is employed.

The Holy Father’s new call for “compliance” with Canon 812 is something of a surprise for Americans.  The mandatum has not received significant attention here since the 1990s, when it was vigorously opposed by major theological associations and the Association of Catholic Colleges and Universities, defended by the U.S. bishops and organizations including The Cardinal Newman Society and the Fellowship of Catholic Scholars, and widely debated in both Catholic and secular news media.  One reason the topic has received little attention in the past decade is because it is very difficult for Catholics to identify which theologians have received the mandatum; many Catholic colleges and universities refuse to reveal such information, even to students and their families.

Now despite the long silence—or perhaps because of it—Pope Benedict has expressed concern about the lack of compliance with Canon 812, giving the matter renewed importance.  Moreover, the Holy Father has declared that compliance with the mandatum is “especially” lacking in the work of Catholic colleges and universities to reaffirm their Catholic identity.  This appears to assign to the colleges and universities some responsibility for compliance with Canon 812.  In the United States, it is widely understood that it is the individual theologian’s responsibility to request the mandatum, drawing from the language of Canon 812.  But many Catholic colleges and universities reject corresponding responsibilities—drawing from the nature of Canon 812 as a statute in the Code’s section on Catholic institutes of higher learning—to employ only Catholic theology professors who receive the mandatum and to disclose to students and others which theology professors have the mandatum.

In response to the Holy Father’s renewed attention to the mandatum, The Cardinal Newman Society has prepared the following report to provide Catholic families a better understanding of the mandatum, identify concerns about compliance with Canon 812, and suggest responsibilities of Catholic colleges and universities.  We have invited several Church officials, college leaders, canon law experts, and theologians to contribute their insights. Quite appropriately, none of these wished to guess the personal concerns and intentions of the Holy Father, but they did identify serious compliance issues that may, we hope, find resolution in Catholic colleges and universities’ response to Pope Benedict’s charge.

Chief among those who responded to our queries is His Eminence Cardinal Raymond Burke, prefect of the Supreme Tribunal of the Apostolic Signatura and Archbishop Emeritus of St. Louis.  He serves as the chief judge for the Vatican’s canon law courts and therefore has great influence on matters of canon law. Cardinal Burke is also a member of the Congregation for the Clergy and the Pontifical Council for Legislative Texts, and he is Ecclesiastical Advisor to The Cardinal Newman Society’s Center for the Advancement of Catholic Higher Education.

“The Holy Father only has a limited number of occasions during these ad limina visits to speak with bishops,” noted Cardinal Burke in his June 20th telephone interview with The Cardinal Newman Society, “and that he would devote one of the lengthier communications with the bishops to the subject [of the mandatum and Catholic higher education] certainly indicates to me that it is a serious concern on his part.”

His Excellency Bishop Joseph Martino, retired from the Diocese of Scranton and a long-time advisor to The Cardinal Newman Society, agrees that Pope Benedict’s address to the American bishops has real significance.

“The Pope does not bring up topics casually in his ad limina talks,” Bishop Martino told The Cardinal Newman Society.  “When all of the Pope’s talks to the U.S.A. bishops during their recent ad limina visits are analyzed, you have a summary of the Pope’s pastoral ‘worries’ about the Catholic Church in the U.S.A.”

Resistance to the Mandatum

Catholic identity in Catholic higher education has been a significant concern of both the Vatican and the U.S. bishops for at least three decades.  The mandatum is a key aspect of the Vatican’s response to secularization and theological dissent, and it is celebrated at several Catholic colleges and universities where theology professors are required to have the mandatum.  Many other institutions, however, have resisted the mandatum, claiming it is an infringement on academic freedom and institutional autonomy.

In 1983 His Holiness, Blessed Pope John Paul II approved the revised Code of Canon Law, which for the first time in Church history included a section governing “Catholic universities and other institutes of higher studies”—including the mandatum requirement for theologians.  But some American experts in canon law contended that the new section did not apply to most Catholic colleges and universities, because they are legally owned by trustees and not the Catholic Church.  As a result, the mandatum was largely ignored.

In 1990 Blessed John Paul II resolved the matter with the constitution for Catholic higher education, Ex corde Ecclesiae,81 which assumes canonical jurisdiction over any college or university that has an “institutional commitment” to Catholic education, regardless of legal control.  The constitution also insists on compliance with the mandatum.

Despite complaints from some theologians and academic societies, in 1999 the American bishops approved particular norms to implement Ex corde Ecclesiae in the United States,82 including the requirement that Catholic theology professors at Catholic colleges and universities obtain the mandatum.  In 2001 the bishops issued guidelines for compliance with the mandatum.83 And last year the bishops completed a nationwide review of colleges’ and universities’ progress toward complying with Ex corde Ecclesiae, including specific discussion of the mandatum.84

Nevertheless, a 2011 survey of U.S. Catholic college and university leaders revealed that serious concerns remain.  Forty-two percent of the respondents + Add New Issue said their institutions have neither a department nor a chair of Catholic theology as required by Ex corde Ecclesiae, and more than seven percent said that Catholic theology is not even taught in their institutions.  More than a third (36 percent) said they did not know whether their theology professors have received the mandatum, 10 percent said some but not all of their theologians have received it, and another 6 percent said no professors have it.85

In June and July 2012, The Cardinal Newman Society contacted the public relations offices of the ten largest Catholic universities in America, ranked by their undergraduate student enrollment.  We asked them to identify theology professors who have received the mandatum.

Only three of the ten universities replied by our deadline, and none provided the requested information.  DePaul University spokesman John Holden wrote, “I believe this question misunderstands the mandatum process developed by the bishops.  Faculty request the mandatum directly from the local ordinary.  A university would not generally have this information.”

Father James Fitz, SM, vice president for mission and rector of the University of Dayton, reported likewise that the University views the mandatum “as a personal relationship between the theologian and the archbishop. …Therefore, the University does not have a list of those who have received the mandatum, nor does the University publish such a list.”

Marquette University spokeswoman Kate Venne explained that the mandatum is an obligation of the theologian, not the university, and information about who has the mandatum “is not something that is shared with the university or a department chair.”

The remaining seven large universities did not respond at all to our request: Boston College, Fordham University, Georgetown University, Loyola University Chicago, St. John’s University in New York, Saint Louis University, and the University of Notre Dame.

By contrast, other Catholic colleges and universities—including several that are recommended in The Newman Guide to Choosing a Catholic College86—have taken a much different approach to the mandatum.  They see it as an institutional obligation to ensure that theology faculty have the mandatum, and they offer full disclosure to students and others.

In June and July 2012, The Cardinal Newman Society requested and received confirmation that all theology faculty have the mandatum at Aquinas College in Tennessee, Ave Maria University, Belmont Abbey College, Benedictine College, the College of Saint Mary Magdalen, DeSales University, Franciscan University of Steubenville, John Paul the Great Catholic University, Mount St. Mary’s University, St. Gregory’s University, Thomas More College of Liberal Arts, the University of St. Thomas in Texas, and Wyoming Catholic College.  At The Catholic University of America, where the theology and religious studies department is a pontifical faculty, all professors have the similar missio canonica from the Archbishop of Washington.

The Mandatum and Catholic Higher Education

Pope Benedict’s May 5th address to U.S. bishops considers a key question: Is the mandatum only a theologian’s private, individual commitment of fidelity to the Church, or does it also have significance for a college or university’s Catholic identity?  The Holy Father appears to confirm the latter.

Cardinal Burke reflected on Pope Benedict’s address in his interview with The Cardinal Newman Society.  In that address, says Cardinal Burke, the Holy Father “mentions that some important efforts have been made, but that much remains to be done in terms of the Catholic identity of the Catholic colleges and universities, and then he cites specifically the implementation of Canon 812—namely that those who are teaching the theological disciplines in the Catholic university should have certification that they are teaching in communion with the Magisterium, the official teaching of the Church.”

So how is the mandatum important to the Catholic university?  Cardinal Burke continues:

Well, it is the truth of the faith which is the highest goal of a Catholic education.  Everything that a Catholic student studies at a university or college is directed ultimately to a knowledge of God and His plan for our world and for us.

And so everything that is taught at a Catholic university must relate in some way to this—what we might call this wisdom, this knowledge of God and of His plan for us.  And it’s the professors of theology at the university who teach that highest form of learning, that learning towards which every other form of learning is directed at the university.  And for that reason, of course, the Church wants to be sure that those who are teaching theology are sound and clear in their teaching.

…This is even more critical in our time in which we are living with a secularized culture, where there is so much confusion and error about the truth about ourselves, about our world, and the truth about God.  So the Church is being particularly attentive that those who teach Catholic theology are indeed teaching in communion with the Magisterium.

The secularism in society, the errors which we find so commonly in many sectors of society, has its influence also on the Church.  The Church must take her own prudent and necessary measures to make sure that error doesn’t enter in to the university level of the Catholic college where young people—and older people—are coming with the idea of obtaining a solid education to equip them for a lifetime of good and upright living.  And that depends very much on the received theological education.

There are several indications that the Church regards compliance with the mandatum as integral to Catholic higher education.  Most apparently, Canon 812 is situated in the section of the Code of Canon Law for Catholic universities.  It was Ex corde Ecclesiae, the apostolic constitution on Catholic universities and not a document focused on theologians, that forced compliance with the mandatum seven years after Canon 812 had been published.  The mandatum is a requirement of the U.S. bishops’ “Application of Ex corde Ecclesiae,” and it was a topic of the bishops’ review last year of the implementation of Ex corde Ecclesiae.

Asked for some insight into why Canon 812 would be situated in the Code’s section on Catholic higher education, Cardinal Burke again reiterated the Church’s great need for education that is faithful and authentic, which the mandatum helps ensure:

The Catholic university—and this is stated in a wonderful way in Ex corde Ecclesiae—provides a distinctive service in society of preparing young people, or even older people, in the various arts and sciences with a solid, Catholic foundation to their knowledge, earlier referred to as knowledge of God as He has revealed Himself to us in the Church.

And so the Church has always viewed the Catholic universities and Catholic colleges as a most important means of carrying out the work of evangelization.  In other words, at the highest levels of the pursuit of knowledge there would be this fundamental obedience to the Word of God as spoken to us in our own hearts, in natural moral law and our consciences, and through the divine revelation, the Scriptures and the Tradition of the Church.

This is the great gift of the Catholic universities.  They should be in our society leaders and powerful forces for the New Evangelization, for the teaching, celebration, and the goodness of the Catholic faith with a new enthusiasm and a new engagement.

Public Disclosure of the Mandatum

In his May 5th address, Pope Benedict describes the mandatum as “a tangible expression of ecclesial communion and solidarity in the Church’s educational apostolate.”  The Cardinal Newman Society asked Cardinal Burke to explain how the mandatum is “tangible”:

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

The mandatum, then, is by its nature a public act.  “The fact that I teach in accord with the Magisterium is a public factor,” says Cardinal Burke.  “That’s not some private, secret thing between myself and the Lord.”

Moreover, says Cardinal Burke, it’s the right of Catholic students and their families to know who has the mandatum:

Ultimately, the mandatum gives that assurance to students that, if they enroll in a given college or university, they can count upon receiving a solid education in Catholic theology. And that’s important, especially in an age in which there is so much confusion, even within the Church, with regard to teaching and discipline.

And so that is certainly a prime purpose of the mandatum, securing and ensuring the Catholic identity of a university, but at the same time, and inseparably from that, guaranteeing to the students and to all those who may be helping them to have a Catholic education that indeed the teaching of the faith which they will receive, and in those disciplines related to the faith, that the university is truly Catholic.

While all of this may come as a surprise to Americans whose experience of the mandatum has been as an entirely private matter between a bishop and a theologian, this is not the first time the Vatican has indicated the public nature of the mandatum.  Blessed Pope John Paul II, speaking to American bishops in 2004 during their ad limina visit to Rome, said: “Catholic colleges and universities are called to offer an institutional witness of fidelity to Christ and to His word as it comes to us from the Church, a public witness expressed in the canonical requirement of the mandatum.”87

In 2007 Archbishop Michael Miller, CSB, then-secretary to the Vatican Congregation for Catholic Education, defended the rights of Catholic families in an address to Catholic college leaders gathered at the Franciscan University of Steubenville:

The Catholic faithful—both parents and students—have a right to the assurance, when choosing a university or a specific course, that those teaching theology are in full communion with the Church.  While no law obliges the university to make known those who have the mandatum, and many Catholic universities prefer it that way, such silence frustrates the purpose of the law and deprives the faithful of their right to assurance about the doctrinal soundness of a given professor.88

Contrary to the American approach to the mandatum, Archbishop Miller recommended that Catholic colleges and universities assess their Catholic identity with the question, “Does the university have a procedure in place which will guarantee that the mandatum fills its purpose?”

The Cardinal Newman Society asked the opinion of Father Thomas Weinandy, OFM Cap., executive director of the Secretariat for Doctrine and Pastoral Practices of the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops.  He says that theologians ought to be proud of receiving the mandatum, which is an honor “recognizing that theologians have a true vocation in the Church.”

I wouldn’t know why you wouldn’t want it to be public.  The whole point is public recognition that somebody is truly a Catholic theologian.  I don’t know why you would want to keep that hidden when the Church is bestowing the mandatum to recognize that somebody is truly a Catholic theologian.

Canon law counselor Robert Flummerfelt suggests that theologians prominently display the mandatum in their offices “in the same way that attorneys and professors hang their academic degrees, professional licenses, bar admissions, etc., in their offices for clients and students to see.”  He adds that colleges and universities should identify professors with the mandatum “in literature and on the institution’s web site.”

Father James Conn, SJ, a canon law scholar at the Gregorian in Rome, has studied the mandatum extensively and has both written and given lectures to bishops and canonists on the subject.  Currently a visiting professor at Boston College, Father Conn tells The Cardinal Newman Society that the mandatum’s purpose “is to declare that the teacher of theology is carrying out his function in communion with the teaching authority of the Church.”  He adds:

The mandate is important because it gives assurance of doctrinal integrity in circumstances in which the faithful have a reasonable expectation of it.  It guarantees, as it were, truth in advertising, even when the advertising is only implicit.

In view of what is asserted above, it is of course to be made public.  The norm otherwise makes no sense.

Monsignor Stuart Swetland, director of The Cardinal Newman Society’s Center for the Advancement of Catholic Higher Education and vice president for Catholic mission at Mount St. Mary’s University, makes an interesting comparison to other public acts that involve private commitments:

You can’t get any more private than the act of marriage in one sense, but it’s almost always a public act.  In the rarest cases of persecution or legal issues, you could have a secret marriage.  The exception proves the rule that marriage is a public act.

Monsignor Swetland describes the mandatum as “an act of being in communion with the Church, a sign a professor who teaches theology is teaching in full communion with the Church.” Therefore, he argues, “It’s a counter sign to talk of something as building up the communion of the Church and then to keep it private.  Communion is by its very nature for the community.  To privatize something that is required seems to me to run counter to its purpose.”

But as for who is responsible for publicly disclosing recipients of the mandatum, canon law provides no clear answer.  Cardinal Burke suggests:

With regard to who makes it public, I suspect that there could be a number of ways of doing that. The bishop, simply, when he gives the mandate, he could make that public in various ways, in the diocesan organs of communication and so forth because it is a public fact—that this is not some kind of secret thing where people don’t know, “Do you have the mandate or don’t you?”

So the bishop could make it known, and certainly I believe that there are Catholic universities which state publicly all of the professors in Catholic theology and the related disciplines at our university have the mandate, and a university would want to make that known for the sake of its own public integrity and also to reassure the students and parents and others who will be concerned.

And also, too, if I were teaching Catholic theology in a Catholic university or college or in a chair of Catholic theology, I would want people to know that I was doing so with a mandate from the diocesan bishop that certifies that my teaching is in communion with the Catholic faith.

Father Conn has similar thoughts:

Perhaps the theologian should make it public that a mandatum has been granted, though it is not clear what means should be used.  Since the university is asserting its Catholic character, it is perhaps its responsibility to make the information public.  Failing that, or for other reasons, the responsibility would fall upon the bishop.

Archbishop Elden Curtiss, retired from the Archdiocese of Omaha, told The Cardinal Newman Society that he believes it is “primarily” the responsibility of the bishop to release names: “The bishop should make it public because he’s saying to the people, ‘This is a reliable source of Catholic theology.’”

It was in 2001, when the U.S. bishops approved their mandatum guidelines, that Archbishop Curtiss first advocated publicly disclosing recipients of the mandatum.  He later told theologians in his archdiocese that if they refused the mandatum, he would release their names.

Bishop Martino would place the responsibility for disclosure on the college or university:

The college should display its communion with the Bishop by being the appropriate entity to publish the names of those college professors with or without the mandatum.  In the absence of the local college’s fulfillment of this act of ecclesial communion, the Bishop should publish the names and keep them published and updated, for example, on a diocesan website, for future inquirers.

The Mandatum in Faculty Hiring

Aside from disclosing whether professors have obtained the mandatum, is a Catholic college or university obligated to ensure that its professors have complied with Canon 812?

The common assumption in the United States has been that because Canon 812 makes reference only to the individual theologian—“Those who teach theological disciplines in any institutes of higher studies whatsoever must have a mandate from the competent ecclesiastical authority”—a college or university need not, and perhaps even should not, assume any responsibilities regarding the mandatum.

Indeed, the U.S. bishops’ 2001 guidelines declare, “The mandatum is an obligation of the professor, not of the university.”  But while this fact seems to be universally accepted with regard to the act of requesting the mandatum from the local bishop—much as an individual in any profession would be responsible for obtaining appropriate certification—it seems clear that Catholic colleges and universities have responsibilities of their own.

The same 2001 guidelines, for instance, prescribe that if a new Catholic theology professor does not obtain the mandatum within the academic year or six months, whichever is longer, the bishop is to notify the college or university.  Why notify the institution if it is not expected to make use of the information—or if it is not, as some universities argue, appropriate even to monitor which theology professors have received the mandatum?

Canon law experts tell The Cardinal Newman Society that Catholic colleges and universities have a certain obligation to monitor which professors have the mandatum… and more.  Father Conn, for instance, argues it would be “inconsistent for Catholic universities to hire Catholic theologians who do not have a mandatum.”

Cardinal Burke likewise says that only theology professors with the mandatum should be employed at a Catholic institution:

…[T]he Catholic university will want that all its teachers of theology or the theological disciplines have a mandate and will not, of course, retain the professor in teaching Catholic theology or the theological disciplines who does not have a mandate, because to do so would be to call into question the whole raison d’etre of the university.  If a Catholic university doesn’t distinguish itself for its care, that those who are teaching theology and the other theological disciplines are doing so in communion with the Magisterium, what reason does it have to exist?

“If a Catholic university or college has been given the title Catholic (Canon 808),” says canon law advisor Robert Flummerfelt, “then it is the obligation of that Catholic institution to employ individuals teaching in the theological disciplines to promote Catholic thought completely faithful to the teaching authority of the Church.”

Choosing theology professors who have the mandatum is “an additional sign of the commitment that the Catholic university has to promote and teach the Catholic faith authentically,” Flummerfelt says.

Here Canon 812 intersects with Canon 810, which describes a Catholic college or university’s obligations with regard to employing professors in all disciplines:

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

Archbishop Curtiss sees it as a matter of truth in advertising: “If a Catholic purports to be teaching Catholic theology, then he needs a mandatum.”  On the other hand, “if he’s teaching some other kind of theology, then say so.”

Properly labeling professors and their courses, by clearly identifying what is authentic Catholic theology and what is not, would seem a related responsibility of the Catholic college or university.

The Mandatum and Non-Catholic Institutions

What about non-Catholic colleges and universities that employ Catholic theologians—does the mandatum apply only at Catholic institutions?  The U.S. bishops’ 2001 guidelines for the mandatum concern only “Catholics who teach theological disciplines in a Catholic university,” and the mandatum is most often associated with Ex corde Ecclesiae and the renewal of Catholic identity in Catholic institutions.

But interestingly, Cardinal Burke tells The Cardinal Newman Society that he believes Canon 812 can be applied to theology professors at state, secular, and other religious colleges and universities as well:

My interpretation of the canon is that it applies to anyone who teaches in a public and formal way Catholic theology, in other words also someone who would hold a chair of Catholic theology in another institute.

In other words, let’s say that at some secular university a chair is founded of Catholic theology and the person who is teaching it publicly claims to be teaching Catholic theology, then it seems to me that that person needs a mandate, in other words needs certification on the part of the competent ecclesiastical authority, which would normally be the diocesan bishop, that he or she is teaching in communion with the Magisterium.  Otherwise, you could end up in a situation where you’d have someone who holds a chair in Catholic theology who is teaching something that is contrary to the Catholic faith or even inimical to it.

Rescuing Theology

The Cardinal Newman Society interviewed several theology professors at Catholic institutions who responded favorably to Pope Benedict’s May 5th address.  They indicate that in addition to protecting students from dissident professors, a renewed emphasis on the mandatum could improve theology departments at Catholic colleges and universities—but while the mandatum will help, much more needs to happen.

“The mandatum is important, but it has been pretty much disregarded in this country,” laments Father Edward O’Connor, CSC, theology professor emeritus at the University of Notre Dame.  “Theologians don’t like to have anybody looking over their shoulders.  I thought it was absolutely wrong that the mandatum was disregarded.  We’ve got a lot of theologians in Catholic colleges who are not really Catholic.”

That, says Ave Maria University theology chairman and former Boston College theologian Father Matthew Lamb, is a problem with serious consequences:

Many of the pastoral problems bishops face find their roots in the failure of proper formation and education of the priests, religious, seminarians, and faithful in their dioceses as dissent spreads from theologians to the mass media and beyond.  The recent sexual abuse scandals that have damaged so many sprang from failures in moral and theological formation and proper oversight.  Those theologians now rejecting Magisterial teachings on the immorality of contraception, of abortion, of homosexual acts, and of euthanasia, as well as those rejecting Magisterial teachings on marriage, priesthood, and sacramental practice, are sowing the seeds of further scandals.

Father Lamb believes that “students, as well as their families,” should be told who has the mandatum, and Catholic institutions should not hire theologians without it.  University of Scranton theologian Brian Benestad agrees, noting that strict employment policies are “especially important today since the defense of dissent by Catholic theologians seems to be the rule rather than the exception.”

It’s a matter of justice, says University of Dallas theologian Christopher Malloy:

Let us not forget that who most need protection in the true faith are the poor.  The poor catechetically are those who want catechetical formation.  We must protect and nurture these souls.  Salvation is at stake, and purgatory is no cup of tea.  Theologians who complain about their “rights” are forgetting that we are servants of Jesus Christ, and He came to feed the poor.

Any theologian who is unwilling to request the mandatum is “a bad Catholic theologian,” says Larry Chapp, professor of theology and former department chairman at DeSales University.  That’s because “theology must focus on the ecclesial context of how Revelation is mediated to us, and that necessarily implies respect” for the Magisterium.

But Malloy adds:

Orthodoxy is the absolute minimum requirement of authentic theology.  It is by no means a maximal requirement.  This means that whoever is not orthodox is not fit to be a theologian.  However, being orthodox does not make one a theologian, much less a good theologian. …Parents and students should use their nose in discerning whether or not a theologian is truly orthodox, who loves Jesus and the one Church that Jesus founded.  It may be that a mandatum is issued, and yet a theologian is playing fast and loose with the magisterial teaching, especially in ways that most students are not able to detect but that have real, deleterious effects.

Mark Lowery, also a theology professor at the University of Dallas, worries that “some heterodox theologians who are angry about the mandatum might go ahead and sign it disingenuously.”  For this, he proposes a solution:

The department of theology should have a regular presence on campus through talks (with responses), symposia on current topics, and the like.  The student body should have fairly regular chances to see how their theologians’ minds tick.  That strategy goes a long way in discovering what a signature on a mandatum really means.

Ultimately the mandatum is one tool toward the larger goal of promoting fidelity in Catholic theology and, more broadly, throughout Catholic higher education.  Loyola University Chicago theologian Dennis Martin explains that the value of the mandatum is in shining a light on a discipline that needs to regain the trust of Catholic families:

[T]he mandatum puts the theologian on notice, makes him accountable when he’s tempted to disagree.  It does not mean that the bishop approves of everything that theologian has written or will write or has said or will say in class.  What it does is put the burden of conscience onto the theologian, first, to present the faith accurately and then, if he disagrees with it, to deal with that unfaithfulness in his conscience and acknowledge it to himself and students.  No person of integrity will do that for very long.

The several theologians, bishops and canon law experts interviewed by The Cardinal Newman Society seem to agree that by ensuring compliance with Canon 812—not only compliance by individual theologians seeking the mandatum, but also colleges and universities eager to ensure that students receive theological instruction from professors who have the mandatum—Catholic colleges and universities can significantly strengthen their Catholic identity.

As expressed in Ex corde Ecclesiae, preserving Catholic identity requires hiring professors “who are both willing and able to promote that identity.  The identity of a Catholic University is essentially linked to the quality of its teachers and to respect for Catholic doctrine.”  For this reason, the mandatum is crucial to the integrity of a college or university as Catholic.

 

Bioethics Studies in Catholic Higher Education

/in , /by
Click here for PDF

Executive Summary

This paper examines contemporary Catholic higher education and its unique role in preparing graduates, grounded in natural moral law, to respond to the increasing bioethical questions of the day.

The importance of both administrators and faculty articulat­ing and embracing the mission of Catholic higher education, as they prepare graduates for a culture of relativism, is presented.

Curricular objectives, content and teaching strategies are rec­ommended to address the most relevant bioethical dilemmas of the day. The importance of an integrated approach to examining these dilemmas, as well as a grounding in “core” content in phi­losophy and theology for all graduates regardless of discipline or concentration, are presented.

The interjection of government mandates into the void of bio­ethical resolutions is examined in relationship to the rights of conscience.

The paper concludes with examples of best practices, exempli­fying the role of Catholic higher education as uniquely suited to advance the common good.

_

The goal of higher education is to prepare informed citizens to contribute to society in an effective manner, as participants as well as leaders.  The nature of institutional sponsorship may dictate variances in the specific goals of higher education.  Educational goals of state-sponsored institutions of higher education may include preparing “all students with the knowledge, skills, and credentials necessary to succeed in the workplace, in the community, in further education, in living enriched lives, and in being globally competent citizens.”83 Catholic higher education has a unique role in helping shape a society that respects natural moral law.89

The secular relativism embraced by the American culture has raised more questions than answers for the participants in modern society.90  Increasingly, within all disciplines, the study of ethics, especially applied ethics, has become critically important to preparing students for the challenges of such a culture.91   Historically, a graduate of an institution of higher education had at least a foundation in philosophy, and graduates of religiously sponsored institutions received a grounding in the faith of the founding religious community.  Further, despite the discipline in which the student concentrated, he or she acquired a liberal education that fostered intellectual reasoning and provided a framework for ethical decision making effective for contributing to society.

A Catholic higher education institution, particularly one grounded in the liberal arts, should prepare its students to have some facility in the theological and philosophical principles that can shape secular debates.92  This also should be true for those institutions and departments that prepare graduates within applied disciplines, even if only achieved through prerequisite core courses for their major areas of study.  Consistent with canon law, each discipline should also include classes in theologically grounded applied principles (ethics) to enable students to integrate these principles within the disciplines they are studying.93  In this way, methods of ethical reasoning could be synthesized and applied within the particular disciplines for which the student are being prepared.94  Most importantly, graduates of Catholic higher education should be prepared to assume a critical role in shaping a secular environment regarding respect for the human dignity of all persons, especially the vulnerable.  This is one of the key aspects of Catholic bioethics education.95

Today medical research and technological developments outpace our ability to address easily the bioethical questions that necessarily arise.  Graduates of Catholic higher education, regardless of their fields of study, more than ever need to be academically prepared to address and shape the ensuing bioethical debates in our society. Graduates of Catholic colleges and universities should be prepared to:

  • understand the impact of current scientific advances on society’s appreciation of the human person;
  • identify trends in resolving bioethical dilemmas by means of governmental mandates;
  • analyze current trends in bioethical politics impacting the public’s perceptions of current bioethical issues;
  • approach these bioethical dilemmas in a manner consistent with natural moral law;
  • and synthesize philosophical and theological foundations for the understanding of the dignity of the human person.

Faculty members not only need to be prepared to assume these educational challenges, but they also need to be committed to the mission and vision of the institutional sponsors.  For theology faculty of Catholic institutions of higher education there is the additional requirement of the mandatum, first codified in canon law (can. 812) and subsequently reaffirmed in the apostolic constitution  Ex corde Ecclesiae promulgated by Pope John Paul II in 1990.  The mandatum aims to ensure that Catholic theologians “assent to Catholic doctrine according to the degree of authority with which it is taught.”96  Furthermore, consistent with canon law all faculties within Catholic higher education, especially those responsible for ethics courses, be they core or integrated courses, should respect the truths contained in natural moral law embraced by the Catholic Church (can. 810 §1):

§ 3. In ways appropriate to the different academic disciplines, all Catholic teachers are to be faithful to, and all other teachers are to respect, Catholic doctrine and morals in their research and teaching. In particular, Catholic theologians, aware that they fulfill a mandate received from the Church, are to be faithful to the Magisterium of the Church as the authentic interpreter of Sacred Scripture and Sacred Tradition.97

This paper, while not providing a curriculum framework for each discipline, will explore each of the challenges that professors at Catholic colleges and university face as   they address some of the most disputed ethical questions of the day: embryonic stem cell research, assisted reproductive technologies, sexual assault protocols, transgender surgery, and care of those in the persistent vegetative state.  Furthermore, this paper will identify the direction which Catholic higher education needs to take to ground its students in natural moral law, almost abandoned by today’s secular culture and its embrace of relativism.  In this way graduates of Catholic higher education, regardless of their academic majors, can not only address the bioethical challenges they face but assume a critical role in resolving these challenges.

Catholic Higher Education’s Unique Role in Shaping a Society Respectful of Natural Moral Law

Pope Benedict XVI, in his address to Catholic educators during his 2008 visit to the United States, indicated how Catholic higher education plays a unique role in shaping a society respectful of natural moral law:

The Church’s primary mission of evangelization, in which educational institutions play a crucial role, is consonant with a nation’s fundamental aspiration to develop a society truly worthy of the human person’s dignity. …The Church’s mission, in fact, involves her in humanity’s struggle to arrive at truth.  In articulating revealed truth she serves all members of society by purifying reason, ensuring that it remains open to the consideration of ultimate truths.  Drawing upon divine wisdom, she sheds light on the foundation of human morality and ethics, and reminds all groups in society that it is not praxis that creates truth but truth that should serve as the basis of praxis.98

Moral truth is grounded in natural moral law, which directs practice within the academic disciplines, including the applied disciplines such as bioethics.  The Catechism of the Catholic Church provides instruction on natural moral law:

Man participates in the wisdom and goodness of the Creator who gives him mastery over his acts and the ability to govern himself with a view to the true and the good.  The natural law expresses the original moral sense which enables man to discern by reason the good and the evil, the truth and the lie: The natural law is written and engraved in the soul of each and every man, because it is human reason ordaining him to do good and forbidding him to sin…  But this command of human reason would not have the force of law if it were not the voice and interpreter of a higher reason to which our spirit and our freedom must be submitted.  (Leo XIII, Libertas praestantissimum, 597.)99

Natural moral law is not invented and then passed on through universities.  As Saint Paul tells us, natural moral law is written on the hearts of men.100  Aristotelian understanding of morality or the “good” demonstrates this reality.  As Aristotle observed, virtue is natural to humans.  Virtue is a perfection of one’s nature, achieved through contemplation and by acting reasonably on behalf of ends perceived as goods in pursuit of happiness.101  Saint Thomas Aquinas explicates these truths when he states that God is the ultimate source of happiness and that virtue, while revealed through revelation, is never contrary to reason.102

Historically, society embraced these truths and the medical community codified them in practice standards.  The Hippocratic Oath, now abandoned by most medical schools, reflected these standards: “I will not give a lethal drug to anyone if I am asked, nor will I advise such a plan; and similarly I will not give a woman a pessary to cause an abortion.”103  The oath was hailed as a pro-life phenomenon, not only by John Paul II,104 but also secular anthropologists such as Margaret Mead:

For the first time in our tradition there was a complete separation between killing and curing.  Throughout the primitive world the doctor and the sorcerer tended to be the same person.  He with the power to kill and the power to cure… He who had the power to cure would necessarily also be able to kill.

With the Greeks, the distinction was made clear.  One profession, the followers of Asclepius, were to be dedicated completely to life under all circumstances, regardless of rank, age, or intellect—the life of a slave, the life of an emperor, the life of a foreign man, the life of a defective child…

But society always is attempting to make the physician into a killer—to kill the defective child at birth, to leave the sleeping pills beside the bed of a cancer patient…105

In fact, the leadership of the Catholic Hospital Association (CHA) initially was able to endorse the American College of Surgeons’ “Minimum Standard” (1919) as a code of ethics for Catholic hospitals.  Rev. Charles B. Moulinier, SJ, CHA’s first president of the CHA, collaborated in the development of the “Minimum Standard.”106  This endeavor of the American College of Surgeons evolved into the Joint Commission on Accreditation of Healthcare Organizations in 1987, to which Catholic hospitals answer for accreditation today.  However, very quickly it was recognized that Catholic health care required its own minimum standard.  In 1921 CHA published its own set of requirements that established ethical standards for patient care while conforming to the “Minimum Standard.”107  Over the decades society began to embrace cultural relativism.  Objective standards of morality in society and ethics in health care delivery were traded-in for the subjective standards of situation ethics,108 consequentialism109 and utilitarianism.110  Thus, it was not the Catholic Church that changed its understanding of professional obligations; society abandoned centuries of tradition that had protected the vulnerable from a redefinition of human dignity.  By 1948,111 this necessitated Catholic health care to adopt its own ethical standards, consistent with the Catholic Church’s understanding of the good112 and the definition of the human person as a bearer of rights.113  The current version of these standards, promulgated by the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops and adopted as particular law by each diocesan bishop, is the Ethical and Religious Directives for Catholic Health Care Services.114

Phenomenal developments in medical technology have entered into a culture that has lost its rudder in terms of its obligations to the vulnerable.  This is where the role of a Catholic university can have its greatest impact.  The secular relativism embraced by contemporary American culture has raised more questions than answers, especially in the bioethical domain.  Catholic university graduates who are grounded in philosophy, theology and applied bioethics regardless of their concentrations of study, are critically necessary for reclaiming a virtuous society, i.e., one that is natural to humans and grounded in natural moral law.  As professionals, consumers of health care, and citizens who direct public policy, the potential contribution of Catholic university graduates to reshaping a society that is respectful of natural moral law is immeasurable.

Bioethics Competencies of Graduates

Graduates of Catholic institutions of higher education need to be able to dialogue meaningfully and contribute to resolving contemporary dilemmas concerning bioethics within a secular society.  Regardless of the academic major, all graduates of Catholic higher education have a role to play not only in resolving the bioethical questions of the day, but also in shaping these bioethical debates.  Before debating any bioethical question, graduates need to be able to identify the theological, philosophical, scientific, sociological and legal principles which guide the debates and provide direction to society. To do so requires an understanding of the aforementioned disciplines and the medical advances of the day, as well as a grounding in history pursuant to these very disciplines.  When technological developments in medicine have outpaced society’s ability to answer ensuing bioethical questions, it is critical that graduates of Catholic colleges and universities have an accurate historical perspective of societal influences that impact and even create these bioethical dilemmas.  Thus, all graduates of Catholic higher education need to be prepared for the five competencies cited in the introduction above.

Whether through an integrated approach within or among disciplines, within specific courses, or a combination of both, students will acquire the aforementioned competencies by gaining facility in the following areas.  This creates obligations for faculty, faculty hiring practices, faculty retention and faculty development.  The introduction above addressed the foundations of such obligations; the final section of this paper will provide more specific suggestions pursuant to these areas.

1st Competency:  Understand the impact of current scientific developments on society’s appreciation of the human person.

Content
Discovery of Oral Contraceptives115
Cybernetic, nanotechnologies, biotechnologies116
Assisted reproductive technologies117
Genetic therapies versus genetic engineering118
Transhumanism119
Embryonic cell research120
Neonatology
Vaccine development; cell lines from aborted fetuses.121
Organ transplantation and definitions of death
Rejection of aging
Advanced life support and persistent vegetative state122
Faith and Reason123 not faith versus reason
Human acts as moral acts124

Teaching Strategy

Teaching methods should be tailored to the cognitive and affective levels125 of each competency.  Students need to understand fully the impact that scientific developments have on our understanding of the human person.  Lecture/discussion and case studies, using current examples from the content listed, are suited to developing this competency.  For example, the discovery of the oral contraceptive has changed the understanding of the role of human sexuality in relationships, marriage, family and society, creating numerous ethical dilemmas related to the engendering of children.  Focus on these issues can be integrated among a number of disciplines, such as the natural sciences, the social sciences and the humanities, including philosophy and religion.  Understanding the impact of current scientific advances on society’s appreciation of the human person can be enhanced through case analyses, developing affective competencies such as valuing (belief systems, natural law, human dignity).  Acquiring competencies, which can be exercised in real life situations, requires practice similar to that required of psychomotor domain competencies.126  For students in the applied disciplines (e.g., nursing), clinical experiences and pre- and post-conferencing discussions for those experiences, provide invaluable opportunities to develop competency in applying the knowledge they are acquiring.

2nd Competency:  Identify trends in resolving bioethical dilemmas by means of governmental mandates.

Content
The First Amendment: what it really means
Judicial redefinition of Constitutional rights
The History of health care: A ministry or an industry127
“Table of Legal Mandates, State by State”128
Erosion of religious liberty through the courts
Efforts to restore religious liberty129
Efforts of the Church to protect religious liberty130
Federal role in protection of human subjects in research131
Creation and enforcement of new “rights:” sexual orientation, gender identity, same-sex marriage, privacy as the foundation for the right to an abortion, the right to be parents, rights over the fetus, the right to die.132

Teaching Strategy

Knowledge in the social sciences is involved in the cognitive task of being able to identify trends in resolving bioethical dilemmas by means of governmental mandates.  Lecture/discussion and debates are suited to developing this student ability, by using current examples from the content listed.  For example, the changing laws protecting sexual orientation have created mandates on employers, for example Catholic schools, which impact the constitutionally protected free exercise of religion.133  Legal mandates can cause the government to be the source of the violation of religious liberty, which government was created to protect.134  Focus on these issues can be integrated among a number of disciplines, such as the social sciences, particularly political science and communication, and the humanities, including philosophy and religion.  Herein the cognitive ability to identify trends in resolving bioethical dilemmas by means of governmental mandates can be developed through case analyses and field experiences.  These experiences can develop in the student affective competencies, such as responding and contributing as a citizen to resolving the political controversies about such mandates. For students in the applied disciplines (e.g., pre-law, law), internships with faculty oversight and conferencing provide tangible opportunities to witness government attempting to resolve an ethical debate through legal mandates.

3rd Competency:  Propose resolutions to selected bioethical dilemmas in a manner consistent with natural moral law.

Content
Aristotle and the ethic of the good135
Aquinas and natural moral law136
Ethical theories: deontological and teleological137
Ethical and Religious Directives for Catholic Health Care Services138
Meaning of suffering139
Ordinary (proportionate) versus extraordinary means (disproportionate to benefit)
Cooperation in moral/immoral acts140
Principle of double effect
Moral certitude

Teaching Strategy

Application of knowledge is involved in the cognitive task of being able to propose resolutions to selected bioethical dilemmas in a manner consistent with natural moral law.  Case studies are suited to developing this ability in students, by using current examples from the media.  For example, the use of abortion in a pregnancy in which there are multiple fetuses and fetal or maternal health, or both, are at risk, would be a challenging case study.  Competency to propose ethical resolutions requires prerequisite knowledge in the content areas listed under this competency, particularly natural moral law.  Herein the role of philosophy and theology, as prerequisite courses regardless of the student’s discipline, is critical.  The cognitive ability to apply theological principles and philosophical reasoning can be enhanced through case analyses that develop affective competencies such as problem solving and concern for others.  As stated earlier, acquiring cognitive and affective domain competencies, which can be exercised in real life situations, requires practice similar to that required of psychomotor domain competencies.  For students in the applied disciplines (e.g., pre-medicine), clinical experiences and pre- and post-conferencing for those experiences, provide invaluable opportunities to develop competency in applying the knowledge they are acquiring.

4th Competency:  Analyze current trends in bioethical politics impacting the public’s perceptions of current bioethical issues.

Content
Extremes: secular relativism and theocracy; versus democracy and religious liberty141
Managed care and health care costs
The Sexual Revolution and the Women’s Movement: changing views on human sexuality, human life and marriage
The embryo and fetus as a commodity/property
Growth of the homosexual, lesbian, bisexual and transgendered advocacy movement
Professional standards of practice and religious liberty
Role of Catholic laity142

Teaching Strategy

The ability to analyze societal culture and its embrace of particular ethical theories (deontological, teleological, the ethic of the good, or natural moral law) is the requisite cognitive task needed to analyze current trends in bioethical politics impacting the public’s perceptions of current bioethical issues.  A secular relativism143 and a utilitarian economic144 frequently dictate public perception and thus direct bioethical politics.  Cross-discipline case studies are suited to developing this higher level ability in students, by using current examples from the content listed.  For example, a required team-taught interdisciplinary course could be required of all students.  Faculty from philosophy, theology, political science, sociology and psychology could engage the students in problem-based instruction in such areas as gender equity, human rights and religious liberty.145  Herein the cognitive ability to analyze current trends in bioethical politics impacting the public’s perceptions of current bioethical issues can also facilitate the development of affective competencies such as the organization of a value system (philosophy of life).146  Again acquiring cognitive and affective domain competencies, which can be exercised in real life situations, requires practice similar to that required of psychomotor domain competencies.  For students in the applied disciplines (e.g., bioethics, chaplaincy, law), internships with faculty oversight and conferencing for those experiences, provide invaluable opportunities to directly analyze the bioethical politics shaping public perceptions of current bioethical issues.

5th Competency:  Synthesize philosophical and theological foundations for the understanding of the dignity of the human person.

Content
Human organisms versus human beings
Dualism
Human nature and the virtues
Person as object
Theology of the Body147
Apportioning moral worth
Definitions of human dignity
Cooperation in moral/immoral acts148

Teaching Strategy

The ability to integrate learning from a number of disciplines is the requisite cognitive task needed to synthesize philosophical and theological foundations for the understanding of the dignity of the human person.  Regardless of the concentration of study, graduates need a solid grounding in philosophy and theology not only to contribute to contemporary society, but also to function in society effectively.  Respect for human dignity, as explicated in natural moral law, enables one to engage the world with a consistent and predictable value system, demonstrating the affective competency of having a value complex.149  After the foundational core courses have been completed, the same cross-discipline case studies cited above are suited to developing this higher-level ability in students.  Again, acquiring cognitive and affective domain competencies, which can be exercised in real life situations, requires practice similar to that required of psychomotor domain competencies.  For students in all of the applied disciplines, clinical placements or internships with faculty oversight and conferencing for those experiences provide invaluable opportunities to synthesize the knowledge they are acquiring.

For all of the identified competencies and content, faculty from all disciplines need to be involved in enabling students to be successful.  Whether through an integrated approach within or among disciplines, or within discrete courses, or ideally a combination of both methods, faculty must be able to guide students to these ends.

Current Bioethical Challenges

Phenomenal developments in medical technology have outpaced society’s ability to engage in a moral analysis of their impact on the human person and the commonweal.  The rudder has become the utilitarian ethic within this void, endangering those who are seen as not contributing to society.  These vulnerable human beings are frequently those who have no voice or no advocate.

Most interestingly, there are attempts to silence those who provide a voice for such vulnerable human beings.  This is particularly true if those advocates speak from a faith-based perspective.  The opposing outcry bases its arguments on a misrepresentation of the First Amendment, claiming violations of the separation of church and state.  Thus, increasingly, the very government charged with the protection of religious liberty is being used to silence these advocates for the voiceless, violating the very rights government is charged to protect.  As the constitutional scholar Stephen Carter stated, “The potential transformation of the Establishment Clause from a guardian of religious freedom into a guarantor of public secularism raises prospects at once dismal and dreadful.”150  Furthermore, those who refuse to engage in violating the human rights and dignity of the vulnerable are being coerced to do so by government mandates.

There have been efforts to assure the constitutionally protected rights of conscience.  In December 2008 the United States Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) issued a final rule to ensure that HHS funds do not support practices or policies in violation of existing federal conscience protection laws.151  Very quickly, however, efforts to abrogate these rules were initiated, with seven state attorneys general joining the American Civil Liberties Union and Planned Parenthood, suing the federal government to accomplish this end.  A significant number of members of Congress and President Barack Obama have advocated for passage of the federal Freedom of Choice Act, which will make abortion an entitlement.152  Thus, individual health care providers and Catholic health care agencies could be required to violate conscience and cooperate in the provision of abortions.  The burgeoning list of such mandates is formidable, and how they impact the bioethical challenges at hand will be addressed in relationship to each respective area below.

Of great dismay is the fact that professional organizations, created to protect the professional practices of their members, are advocating for the violation of individual conscience in the provision of care.  For example, the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists has advanced a policy which requires the violation of physicians’ consciences.  They admonish that conscience only may be accommodated if first the duty to the patient is met; and even then physicians of conscience are required to refer patients to other providers who are willing to offer the morally illicit procedures.  Such physicians of conscience are to locate their practices in proximity to these other providers, for easier access for their patients.  Furthermore, in emergencies when a referral is impossible, the physician is to act against conscience.153  The American Medical Association’s Board of Trustees “supports legislation that would require individual pharmacists and pharmacy chains to fill legally valid prescriptions or to provide immediate referral to an appropriate alternative dispensing pharmacy without interference.”154

What becomes increasingly apparent is that Catholic higher education can and should be a critical force in preparing citizens, and particularly professionals, who are capable of articulating and asserting not only their own rights in the face of such coercion, but the rights of the voiceless as well.

Assisted Reproductive Technologies

With the delay in parenting, brought on by widespread use of contraception in our society, more persons find themselves beyond the age of maximum fertility when they decide to become parents.  The average age of American women having their first child has increased from 21 years of age in 1970155 to 24.9 years of age in 2000.156  The peak of female fertility occurs before age 30.157 Approximately two percent of women of childbearing age in the United States had an infertility-related medical appointment in 2002.158 Furthermore, individuals are choosing to be single parents, and homosexual couples are seeking parenthood by engaging assisted reproductive technologies, resulting in a separation of the marital conjugal act from the engendering of children.

In 1987 the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith provided moral guidance to married couples seeking medical assistance with their fertility with its instruction Donum Vitae (DV).159 This instruction addressed the evolving questions of the day concerning respect for the origin of human life and the dignity of procreation.  DV elucidated two fundamental values connected with assisted reproductive technologies: “the life of the human being called into existence and the special nature of the transmission of human life in marriage.”160  It condemned heterologous technologies (use of sperm or egg from at least one donor other than the married spouses161) while providing moral guidance for homologous technologies, including criteria to be used to evaluate the moral legitimacy of such therapies.  Citing Pius XII, DV instructed, “A medical intervention respects the dignity of persons when it seeks to assist the conjugal act either in order to facilitate its performance or in order to enable it to achieve its objective once it has been normally performed.”162(II, B, N. 7)  DV continued:

On the other hand, it sometimes happens that a medical procedure technologically replaces the conjugal act in order to obtain a procreation which is neither its result nor its fruit.  In this case the medical act is not, as it should be, at the service of conjugal union but rather appropriates to itself the procreative function and thus contradicts the dignity and the inalienable rights of the spouses and of the child to be born.163

DV anticipated the abuses perpetuated on the human embryo (to be addressed in the next section) when it spoke against non-therapeutic human research on the embryo and fetus, and eugenic prenatal diagnosis. (I. 2.)  Finally, the instruction called for all persons to be involved in assuring that civil law is reflective of moral law:

All men of good will must commit themselves, particularly within their professional field and in the exercise of their civil rights, to ensuring the reform of morally unacceptable civil laws and the correction of illicit practices.  In addition, “conscientious objection” vis-a-vis such laws must be supported and recognized.164

In vitro fertilization opened the flood gates of abuse of the human embryo, from pre-implantation genetic diagnosis to unscrupulous multiple gestations, abortion, the creation of human-animal hybrids, and the legitimization of non-therapeutic fatal research on the “spare” embryos left un-implanted by their parents.  Persons of goodwill sought to intervene and rescue the abandoned embryos through prenatal embryo adoption.  Most notably, the Snowflake Program provided organized and life protecting methods for married couples to adopt, implant, gestate and raise these embryos into adulthood.165  Since this involved the condemned heterologous implantation of abandoned embryos, a dilemma was raised: was it morally licit to save the lives of these embryos through embryo adoption?

In 2008 the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith issued Dignitas Personae (DP).  DP provided new guidance in the areas of techniques for assisting fertility, new forms of interception and contragestation, gene therapy, human cloning, the therapeutic use of stem cells, attempts at hybridization, and the use of human “biological material” of illicit origin.  It provided more specificity pertaining to the illicit nature of certain assisted reproductive technologies, e.g., in vitro  fertilization, intracytoplasmic sperm injection (ICSI), freezing of oocytes, pre-implantation diagnosis, the reduction (abortion) of embryos in multiple gestations, and the freezing of embryos (and the dilemma of their futures).  Specifically, while not condemning embryo adoption, DP did not affirm it as morally licit:

The proposal that these embryos could be put at the disposal of infertile couples as a treatment for infertility is not ethically acceptable for the same reasons which make artificial heterologous procreation illicit as well as any form of surrogate motherhood; [DV II, A, 1-3] this practice would also lead to other problems of a medical, psychological and legal nature.

It has also been proposed, solely in order to allow human beings to be born who are otherwise condemned to destruction, that there could be a form of “prenatal adoption”.  This proposal, praiseworthy with regard to the intention of respecting and defending human life, presents however various problems not dissimilar to those mentioned above.166

Similar to DV, DP calls for action stating that there is an “urgent need to mobilize consciences in favour of life.”167  Assisted reproductive technology has been one focus for legislative and judicial mandates impacting conscience.  Increasingly state legislatures are requiring employers to provide insurance coverage for in vitro fertilization in employee health plans.  Furthermore, the courts are dictating the violation of the physician’s conscience in providing these technologies to patients.  In August 2007, the California Supreme Court ruled that the anti-discrimination rights of an infertile lesbian take precedence over the religious liberty of physicians who had limited their in vitro fertilization practice to married heterosexual couples.168  Catholic higher education should play a major role in awakening and forming consciences to contemporary and evolving moral dilemmas and equipping future citizens, professionals and scholars to address these dilemmas personally as well as in the public square.

Embryonic Stem Cell Research

The first embryonic stem cell was not extracted until 1998,169 eleven years after DV.  Although animal cloning was first successful in 1996 with the cloning of Dolly the sheep,170 cloning of a human embryo was not achieved until 2001.171  Thus, while DV condemned non-therapeutic research on the human embryo and fetus, embryonic stem cell research and human cloning remained unaddressed.  As the search increased for embryonic stem cells that would not cause rejection in their recipients, human cloning was seen as the answer.  The creation and destruction of human embryos for research was justified.

DP clearly addresses this violation of human life:

Human cloning is intrinsically illicit in that, by taking the ethical negativity of techniques of artificial fertilization to their extreme, it seeks to give rise to a new human being without a connection to the act of reciprocal self-giving between the spouses and, more radically, without any link to sexuality.  This leads to manipulation and abuses gravely injurious to human dignity. [DV I, 6]172

In less than a quarter of a century since DV, the speculated-upon Brave New World has become a reality.173 Despite the historic protections in federal law of the embryo, efforts have been successful in dehumanizing the embryo, erroneously calling the creation and destruction of the embryo with the support of tax dollars not only acceptable, but laudable.  Where this has occurred, such public funding has placed a mandate on citizens, requiring the support this intrinsic evil with tax dollars.

Historically Congress has provided the same protection to the embryo and fetus as is provided to an infant.  In 1975 the federal government established federal regulations for the protection of human embryos from the time of implantation in the womb.174  In 1985 Congress further clarified this standard by amending the National Institutes of Health reauthorization act providing research protections that are “the same for fetuses which are intended to be aborted and fetuses which are intended to be carried to term.”175  In 1996 Congress passed legislation to provide the same protections to the embryo; the Dickey-Wicker Amendment stated that federal funds are not to be used for the creation of human embryos for research purposes or for research in which embryos are destroyed, discarded, or knowingly subjected to risk of injury or death greater than that allowed for research on fetuses in utero.  The ban defined “human embryo or embryos” as including any organism that is derived by fertilization, parthenogenesis, cloning or any other means from one or more human gametes (sperm or egg.).176

Yet federal protections are being eroded, and state legislatures are funding embryonic stem cell research in the name of economic development.  This is despite the fact that embryonic stem cell research in humans has not been demonstrated to be clinically effective in humans.  The ethical stem cell alternatives using adult sources of stem cells (including umbilical cord blood, amniotic fluid and placental sources) successfully have treated thousands of patients, from those with cardiac disease and pediatric brain tumors to the widely-known successes with blood diseases.  Scientists have demonstrated that they are able to induce pluripotent stem cells from somatic cells without creating or destroying human embryos.177  All of these morally licit methods can obviate the problem of tissue rejection.

More fundamentally, however, government must respect and protect human life regardless of any utilitarian scientific advance.  It cannot single out certain human beings as disposable, simply because their parents or society in general do not want them.

DP addressed this discrimination against embryos, abandoned to fatal research by their parents after pre-implantation diagnosis labeled the embryos unsuitable:

By treating the human embryo as mere “laboratory material”, the concept itself of human dignity is also subjected to alteration and discrimination.  Dignity belongs equally to every single human being, irrespective of his parents’ desires, his social condition, educational formation or level of physical development.178

Catholic higher education can be of substantial assistance in demythologizing these public policy debates.  Legislatures and the public have been misled by technical terminology into believing that falsely-labeled cloning bans actually ban cloning, when in fact they allow (and in many cases fund) the creation of human embryos for research and destruction.  New and false terminologies, such as “pre-embryo,” have been created to deceive the public into believing that the embryo is not a human being.  Those educated in the sciences, grounded in truth and natural law, not only can expose these falsehoods but also can articulate the resulting assault on the common good.

Sexual Assault Protocols

In 2006 the United States Food and Drug Administration (FDA) approved the dispensing of emergency contraception, Plan B, by a pharmacist without a prescription to male and female adults.  In 2009, the FDA lowered the age to from adulthood to 17 years of age.[92]179  A number of states also promulgated legal provisions pertaining to pharmacist dispensing of emergency contraception.

Only a few states provide a pharmacist refusal provision based on conscience.  When such provisions do exist, they are tenuous at best and require some mechanism for timely alternative access to emergency contraception.  Increasingly, state legislatures mandate that emergency departments provide information about administration of, or arrangement for transportation to another facility for, emergency contraception to victims of sexual assault even when there is an indication that the medication could impede implantation of an engendered embryo.

State statutory conscience exemptions for such requirements are nearly non-existent.  This is extremely problematic, particularly since the recent instruction of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, Dignitas Personae states:

It is true that there is not always complete knowledge of the way that different pharmaceuticals operate, but scientific studies indicate that the effect of inhibiting implantation is certainly present, even if this does not mean that such interceptives [intrauterine device and “morning-after pills”] cause an abortion every time they are used, also because conception does not occur after every act of sexual intercourse.  It must be noted, however, that anyone who seeks to prevent the implantation of an embryo which may possibly have been conceived and who therefore either requests or prescribes such a pharmaceutical, generally intends abortion.180

Catholic health care has been in the forefront of compassionate care in the treatment of sexual assault victims.  In fact, due to the possibility that treatment can impact two victims (the woman assaulted and the human being potentially being engendered), Catholic hospitals had holistic policies in place long before secular hospitals.  Such policies include physical, psychological, spiritual and forensic parameters of care.181

The health care provider, however, must achieve the moral certitude, through appropriate testing, that the object of preventing ovulation with each administration of the emergency contraceptive can be achieved, rather than a potential post fertilization effect.  By not testing to achieve the moral certitude that fertilization can be prevented when administering the emergency contraception, the health care provider could engage in immediate material cooperation with those intending the intrinsic evil of abortion.  This would be true if the administration of emergency contraception is upon the request of the victim, or in response to a mandate from government, either of whose intentions are to prevent implantation of the embryo if fertilization cannot be prevented.182

State legislatures are dictating health care protocols that demand administration of emergency contraception without allowing for diagnostic testing to determine what effect the medication will have on the particular patient in question.  This is not only a violation of conscience, but also the violation of informed consent as well as sound medical practice.

In situations such as these, informed citizens, consumers and professionals are key to informing the general population of the dangers of a constitutional government that violates its own constitution, by selecting which powerful groups are granted favoured status, e.g., those demanding reproductive “rights” over the rights of religious liberty.  To articulate these constitutional violations requires some sophistication in a climate that does not want citizens to be confused by the facts.  Catholic higher education is known for its pursuit of truth through scholarship and is well suited to accomplishing this end.

Transgender Surgery

The sexual culture is being defined by an international movement that equates all human sexuality as a “good,” regardless of whether it involves acts that are heterosexual, homosexual, lesbian, bi-sexual, transgendered, within marriage or non-monogamous.  Such a philosophy radically redefines the nature of human sexuality, divorcing its proper unitive and procreative purposes.  The societal role of heterosexual marriage and the children it begets is becoming marginalized, equated to all other unions in which people choose to engage.  Numerous permutations of “marital rights” are being legislated, with corresponding obligations on others: reciprocal beneficiaries, domestic partnerships, civil unions and same-sex marriage.

There are new “rights” also being extended through what are called “gender identity” laws.  All states prohibit discrimination based on gender.  Thus, the newer “gender identity” legislative protections are being promoted in such a way that any attempt to allow for religious exemptions is being labeled a violation of civil rights.  These new legal categories of relationships and behaviors are being legislated as “protected classes”183 equal to race, color, religion, sex or national origin and increasingly taking precedence over the rights of religious liberty.  An example of this is the loss of the New Jersey tax-exempt status by a Methodist-sponsored camp ground which refused to allow a same-sex union ceremony in its marriage pavilion.184

The implications for employers and providers of services are significant.  Gender identity “protections” could require employers such as Catholic schools to allow the first grade teacher to be identified as Ms. Jones on Monday and Mr. Jones on Tuesday, with respective appearances to match the identity.  Furthermore, in the delivery of health care services, mandates pursuant to transgender surgery already have been faced by Catholic providers.185  Some states expressly prohibit discrimination against same-sex couples in adoption policies.  This has had a significant impact on the ability of diocesan Catholic Charities to provide adoption services; for example, in March 2006 after 100 years of providing adoption services, Catholic Charities of Boston had to cease such services rather than comply with this mandate.  More recently Catholic Charities of Worcester experienced the same fate.

Here, again, one of the major roles of Catholic higher education is to prepare graduates who are able and willing to articulate the moral and legal principles involved when legally created rights conflict.  Those responsible for developing social policies need to have an appreciation that a viable society must be grounded in natural law.  Furthermore, and perhaps most importantly, graduates of Catholic higher education need to be able to shape these debates consistent with the truth that natural moral law is not a religious belief, but a practical reality the acknowledgement and acceptance of which  allows a society to survive.

Care of Those in a Persistent Vegetative State

The case of Terri Schiavo brought the issue of care of persons in a persistent vegetative state into the public domain.186  Much of the controversy surrounded whether or not her wishes concerning her care were being respected, especially since she had no advanced directive.187  Another controversy surrounded whether or not she truly was in a vegetative state.  Politicians and judges and advocates for “death with dignity” and the “right to life” became involved with this case.  The central question was whether Mrs. Schiavo had given her consent to the continuance of assisted nutrition and hydration, which were keeping her alive.

Regardless of the answers to these questions, there are fundamental moral principles operable in providing assisted nutrition and hydration to those in a persistent vegetative state.  These principles were explicated in a response from the Vatican’s Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith (CDF) to a dubium from the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops.  This response was not addressed to any one patient situation, but did address the moral questions generated by the Schiavo case.  Specifically, the response stated:

The administration of food and water even by artificial means is, in principle, an ordinary and proportionate means of preserving life.  It is therefore obligatory to the extent to which, and for as long as, it is shown to accomplish its proper finality, which is the hydration and nourishment of the patient.  In this way suffering and death by starvation and dehydration are prevented… A patient in a “permanent vegetative state” is a person with fundamental human dignity and must, therefore, receive ordinary and proportionate care which includes, in principle, the administration of water and food even by artificial means.188

Society has embarked on the slippery slope of situation ethics, equating a person’s ability to lead what others determine is a “meaningful life” to human dignity.  Human dignity is a redundant phase; such dignity is innate and synonymous with being human.  It cannot be lost or taken away.  Yet studies show that those who request physician assisted suicide fear the loss of such dignity.189  This translates into not wanting to be a burden and thus rejected by loved ones.  The societal impact is significant.  In jurisdictions where assisted suicide has become accepted policy, such as the Netherlands, there now is the provision for euthanasia for those who cannot consent, such as disabled infants.190

Public policy should be in the hands of the public, but an informed public which has been given all of the truths and the skills to uncover the truth, needed for shaping policies that impact the public good.  Education focused only on the “how” and not the “why” has led to the ethical dilemmas of the day, be they biomedical, economic or social.  This is where Catholic higher education, using an integrated theological and philosophical approach to ethics education, can be of immeasurable service to the commonweal.   Below this paper will address more specific suggestions pursuant to these areas, concluding with a discussion of best practices.

Social Politics Impacting Bioethics Education

The fruits of the civil rights movement are good and bountiful in so many ways.  The Civil Rights Act of 1964 made it illegal to discriminate against persons based on race, color, religion, sex or national origin.  Incrementally, federal legislation was passed to protect other classes of persons facing discrimination, e.g., the 1968 Fair Housing Act added familial status and people with disabilities to such protected classes.191  Initially, these laws may have forced persons to change immoral and inhumane behaviors toward others, but eventually the changes in behaviors and associations led to positive changes in perceptions and beliefs.  For the first time in history, with the election of Barack Obama, we have a president of the United States whose father was African and whose mother was Caucasian.  Two women were advanced by their political parties for nomination or as a candidate for president or vice-president of the United States.192  The willingness of society to embrace diversity is palpable.

However, the civil rights movement has been hijacked by those attempting to advance their own cultural agendas which will redefine society as we know it.  With these new agendas, non-discrimination only applies to those having the power to control the agenda.  Thus the unborn human being with a disability who cannot speak for herself has no power and no rights.  Those advocating for these vulnerable human beings become labeled as religious fanatics.  Thus religion becomes marginalized and in effect the object of discrimination.

Case law is pitting religious liberty, supposedly constitutionally protected, against an increasing state interest in fostering equality between the sexes.193  Most alarmingly, gender identity is redefined to mean anything one chooses it to be at any time, and marriage and family are also so redefined.194  Again, any group advocating for maintaining heterosexual marriage and family as the social institution that is the fabric of society from its origin is labeled a bigot.

Health care professionals who wish to exercise conscience in the delivery of health care are labeled discriminatory.  In fact they often are impeded from invoking their consciences in the exercise of their professions.195  Laws are advanced, such as the federal Freedom of Choice Act, with language that is a misnomer; the only free choices that will be protected are those choices which will violate the lives of the vulnerable.196  Conscience protections for health care professionals, enshrined in federal law since the 1973 Church amendments,197 are in jeopardy.

This is where the role of Catholic higher education enters: to help the future shapers of society to sort through the rhetoric, the misuse of terminology (deliberate and otherwise), and the misinterpretation of the federal and state constitutions which allow for the violation of human life, the Hippocratic practice of medicine and the role of marriage and family in society.

However, somewhere along the way, the mission of Catholic higher education has been attenuated.  Herdershott attributes this secularization of mission to what she terms “status envy:” the attempt of Catholic higher education to achieve elite status at the expense of mission.198  She cites as the origin of this phenomenon an essay by Monsignor John Tracy Ellis, written over half a century ago.  Ellis accused Catholic campus faculty of giving priority to students’ moral development over scholarship and intellectual excellence.199  Hendershott proceeds through an historical analysis in which Catholic higher education’s Catholic identity has been “defined down,” the mission secularized, theology confused and boundaries blurred.  Most telling is her report of a survey of 7,200 incoming students of thirty-eight Catholic institutions of higher education, with a repeat of the same survey four years later.  Between admission and graduation, student support for the following socially destructive behaviors increased as follows: legalized abortion (37.9 percent to 51.7 percent), premarital sex (27.5 percent to 48.0 percent), and same-sex marriage (52.4 percent to 69.5 percent).200

Many bioethical issues touch upon an understanding of the sacredness of human life from its engendering until natural death, human sexuality, and the sacredness of marriage and family.  Clearly, social politics has impacted Catholic higher education and most notably in the area of bioethics education.  With the results of the aforementioned survey one is left asking how well-versed are these graduates in natural moral law?  How grounded are the faculty, and the curricula for which they are responsible, in natural moral law?

Faculty Obligations to Prepare Graduates Capable of Resolving Bioethical Dilemmas of the Day

The need to prepare graduates of Catholic higher education who are capable of resolving contemporary ethical dilemmas creates obligations for faculty, faculty hiring practices, and faculty retention and development policies.

There has been much confusion over the years concerning faculty rights, pursuant to academic freedom, and faculty obligations to embrace the mission of the institution for which they have agreed to be an agent of education.  The need for educating students consistent with the mission of any institution with which faculty engage is not a parochial standard.  Educational accrediting standards, regardless of the sponsorship of the institution of higher education, require that an institution has a mission statement which is manifested through its curriculum.201  This is not an invention of Catholic higher education administration.

Yet all one has to do is attend to the media to see some faculty in Catholic colleges claiming that such a requirement is a violation of academic freedom.  A recent example can be seen in the outrage some faculty expressed when crucifixes were placed in classrooms of Boston College, claiming that this traditional Catholic practice creates an environment hostile to open intellectual discourse, thereby asking that we accept the absurdity of their implication that a Catholic college cannot implement its own mission.202

The concept of academic freedom is as misunderstood as the concept of the separation of church and state.  The American Association of University Professors and Association of American Colleges and Universities agree that:

Teachers are entitled to full freedom in research and in the publication of the results, subject to the adequate performance of their other academic duties; but research for pecuniary return should be based upon an understanding with the authorities of the institution.

Teachers are entitled to freedom in the classroom in discussing their subject, but they should be careful not to introduce into their teaching controversial matter which has no relation to their subject.  Limitations of academic freedom because of religious or other aims of the institution should be clearly stated in writing at the time of the appointment.203

While Dignitatis Humanae hails the right to freedom, both individual and communal, it also states that:

It is in accordance with their dignity as persons—that is, beings endowed with reason and free will and therefore privileged to bear personal responsibility—that all men should be at once impelled by nature and also bound by a moral obligation to seek the truth, especially religious truth. They are also bound to adhere to the truth, once it is known, and to order their whole lives in accord with the demands of truth.204

Somehow in the age of cultural relativism, the concept that academe is to be in search of eternal truths has been lost.  Freedom, whether academic or social, became defined as freedom to do what one wants, not the more accurate definition consistent with natural law: freedom to act toward the good.  Educators sometimes envision themselves as agents of social change, dissent and even civil disobedience.  In recent history, colleges and universities were in the forefront of the 1960s civil rights movement and the anti-Vietnam War movement.  While many engaged in laudable non-violent protests, for some the rallying against authority included violence which was praised as a strike for social justice.  Enter the sexual revolution through the discovery of oral contraception,205 with the Church’s teaching on the inseparable unitive and procreative gifts of married love,206 and the Church became the target for scholarly dissent.  Father Charles Curran sued The Catholic University of America for suspending him for his dissent from Church teaching.  The Superior Court of the District of Columbia ruled against Curran, citing the pontifical nature of the university, and found that that there is “an ecclesiastical limit” on theological dissent.207  However, throughout the United States the conflicts continue, leading to confusion by students and often dismay by parents whose intent in sending their children to a Catholic institution of higher education may have been usurped by the unresolved tension between institutional mission and academic freedom.

There are Catholic institutions of higher education that have embraced this opportunity to clarify their unique role in education.  In so doing, they have acknowledged that not all faculty upon hiring were grounded solidly in Catholic dogma, or were even Catholic.  Such an acknowledgement recognizes the obligation to provide ongoing faculty development in Catholic doctrine.  Some of the best contemporary practices also prepare faculty to be versed in the Church’s teaching on contemporary bioethical dilemmas, to enable them to prepare their graduates for the challenges they face in our culture.

Holy Apostles College and Seminary208 is a residential seminary and a commuter college located in the diocese of Norwich, Connecticut.  The seminary was originally operated by the Missionaries of the Holy Apostles, an order of priests.  In 1984 the order invited the three Roman Catholic diocesan bishops of Connecticut to join the Board of Directors, along with lay men and women.  The bishop of the Diocese of Norwich serves as the school’s chancellor.

The integration of the college and the seminary enables the cultivation of lay, consecrated and ordained Catholic leaders for the purpose of evangelization in the modern world.  There are four Bachelor of Arts major concentrations: Theology, Philosophy, English in the Humanities, and History in the Social Sciences. A firm grounding in the tradition of Catholic moral teaching and a clear understanding of the Church’s teaching on contemporary bioethical issues is essential for all students, enabling them to be leaders in evangelization.  Every undergraduate and graduate class, whether in theology, philosophy, humanities or social sciences, is taught from the perspective of natural moral law with applications to key contemporary issues of human life and sexuality.  Courses in sociology, psychology and biology, for example, reaffirm the truth of the person in light of the anthropology articulated by Pope John Paul II in the Theology of the Body.209

The goal of the undergraduate program is to provide a philosophically based Catholic honors liberal arts curriculum to prepare students for graduate study and most especially for life.  Each student is required to take eight courses in philosophy: logic, ancient philosophy, medieval philosophy, metaphysics, epistemology, philosophy of man, and ethics and contemporary issues in philosophy.  These courses educate in the true sense of the word: “to draw out from the students,” enabling them to discover the truth, the beauty and the good in the natural moral law accessible by right reason.  A key goal is to enable each graduate to articulate correctly the basis in reason for Catholic moral teaching on contemporary bioethical issues.

Furthermore, each undergraduate student is required to take seven courses in theology.  The Catechism of the Catholic Church210 is studied in its entirety over two semesters.  Special emphasis is given to the “pillar” of moral teaching as this is the locus at which the Church faces most present-day difficulties in catechesis and culture.  Courses in scripture, liturgy, spirituality and Church history are rooted in Pope John Paul’s exegesis of Genesis211 on sexuality, complementarity of the sexes, and the sacredness of every human life.

Holy Apostles has a very qualified and dedicated core of undergraduate professors.  The small size of the student body, and thus its faculty, enable interdisciplinary collaboration and cohesiveness.  This allows for a sharing of expertise. While courses are not team taught, it is not uncommon for faculty members to become guest lecturers in each others’ classes, bringing their particular expertise to the subject at hand.  For example, a professor of philosophy conducted a seminar on the philosophical underpinnings of John Paul II’s Theology of the Body.212  The same kind of collaboration occurred with the study of the philosophical basis of Pope Paul VI’s encyclical on human life, Humanae Vitae.213  Philosophy is recognized as the “handmaid” of theology, and the two disciplines remain closely linked.

The focus of the undergraduate program is to provide an honors liberal arts curriculum with a view to specialization in graduate school.  The school does not offer concentrations per se within the undergraduate majors.  The student can, however, choose to exercise his or her elective courses to enhance preparation in bioethics.

The Pope John Paul II Bioethics Center was founded at Holy Apostles College and Seminary in 1982.  The Center offers graduate courses in bioethics and a concentration of bioethics in the Master of Arts Degree in Theology.  In addition, the Center sponsors lectures for the community at large and has published a number of important articles and monographs.  The undergraduate students benefit from the public lectures and, with the permission of the Academic Dean, may enroll in advance placement graduate bioethics courses.  The courses offered by the Bioethics Center are available on campus or via distance learning.

Faculty members of Holy Apostles are committed to ongoing education.  Faculty are active participants in the Fides et Ratio summer seminars for undergraduate professors of Catholic colleges and universities in the United States.214  An important outcome of the summer seminars is to continue the seminar discussions at the institution of each participant.  Ensuing campus-based faculty discussions have focused on important contemporary issues facing the Church.  Common readings are prepared by each faculty member to facilitate quality discussion and mutual enrichment.  The faculty also attend public lectures and conferences on bioethical issues.

In addition to the many formal educational opportunities offered to undergraduate students on bioethical topics, a culture permeates the campus in which a love of the Church and her teachings is palpable.  The life of the College and Seminary is centered in the chapel.  There is a Holy Hour for Life and Mercy each Saturday afternoon which includes readings and reflections from Pope John Paul II’s Evangelium Vitae.215  Students have the opportunity to pray and reflect at Adam’s Tomb on campus where a pre-born child is buried.  The Holy Apostles Life League is very active with many lay and seminarian members participate through volunteering in life affirming activities.  Through these experiences the undergraduate students have the opportunity to face contemporary bioethical issues firsthand.  Furthermore, through organized contact with public officials students and faculty have become engaged in the political processes that shape public policy.  As future professionals, consumers of health care, and citizens who direct public policy, Holy Apostles graduates, be they clergy or laity, are being prepared to reshape a society that is respectful of natural moral law.

We find another example of “best practices” at the University of Saint Thomas, an archdiocesan university in Saint Paul, Minnesota.  The University of Saint Thomas sponsored a week-long seminar for faculty, funded by a Lilly Foundation Grant,216 “The Church and the Bioethical Public Square.”  The seminar was conducted out of the Catholic Studies program and attracted faculty from diverse disciplines, as well as students and members of the surrounding community.  This seminar was part of an organized effort to assure the incorporation of mission into efforts of the academic community.

Students, regardless of their major, are required to take two core courses in philosophy (“Philosophy of the Human Person” and “Ethics”) and three core courses in theology sequence.  The theology sequence is quite unique in its sequential focus on assisting the student to integrate theological concepts into their encounter with culture. The first course is “The Christian Theological Tradition.”  The other two courses can vary: the second-level course introduces students to the actual practice of theology through one of the major theological sub-disciplines (Scripture, morals, systematics).  In the third course, the student is asked to examine the relationship between faith and culture in some aspect, e.g., “Theology and the Biomedical Revolution.”  Recently initiated are what are termed “bridge courses” which pair theology and non-theology faculty in an examination of some cultural or professional topic, e.g., “Theology and Literature,” “Theology and Engineering,” “Theology and Medicine,”  “Theology and Mass Media,” etc.

The University’s ongoing commitment to a liberal arts core course sequence is one of the key ways in which Catholic identity is promoted.  As the director of the Masters Degree Programs in Catholic Studies stated: “You obviously don’t need to be a Catholic to appreciate the liberal arts, but as more and more colleges and universities simply give up on the notion of a ‘core’ tradition of liberal/humanistic studies, the very idea begins to take on a distinctively Catholic patina.”217

Likewise bioethics education devoid of grounding in natural moral law becomes an exercise in the subjective ethics of situation ethics, consequentialism and utilitarianism.  Without a “core” tradition which also allows for “bridge courses” preparing graduates for the cultural relativism they are facing, graduates of Catholic higher education will be no different from other graduates.   The mission of Catholic higher education will be lost, and the purpose for its existence extinct.

 

*The author wishes to express her appreciation to Dr. Stephen Napier, Ph.D., Staff Ethicist, National Catholic Bioethics Center, for his assistance with this paper.

References

Ascension Health. “A Sexual Assault Protocol for Catholic Hospitals.“ Ethics and    Medics (June 2002 27:6).

ADAM Medical Encyclopedia (Atlanta, GA: ADAM, 2005). s.v. “Infertility,” updated February 5, 2008, http://www.nlm.nih.gov/medlineplus/ency/article/001191.htm.

Amato, Angelo, S.D.B., Titular Archbishop of Sila, Prefect for the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith. “Responses to Certain Questions of the USCCB Concerning Artificial Nutrition and Hydration” Ethics and Medics (vol. 32/no. 11, November 2007), p. 3.

American Association of University Professors and of the Association of American Colleges (now the Association of American Colleges and Universities). 1940       Statement of Principles on Academic Freedom and Tenure. Reprinted with editing and interpretive comments (January 1990), http://www.aaup.org/AAUP/pubsres/policydocs/contents/1940statement.htm.

American College of Surgeons Board of Regents. “Minimum Standard,” History and Archives of the American College of Surgeons (December 20, 1919), http://www.facs.org/archives/minimumhighlight.html.

Benedict XVI. Address to Catholic Educators. Washington, DC: The Catholic University of America (April 17, 2008).

Benedict XVI. Encyclical Letter Spe Salvi: In Hope We are Saved (November 30, 2007.

Berman, Harold J. “The Religious Clauses of the First Amendment in Historical Perspective.” Religion and Politics, ed. W. Laswon Taitte. Dallas: University of Texas Press (1989).

Bostrom, Nick. “The Transhumanist FAQ– A General Introduction.”World Transhumanist Assoc: Version 2.1 (2003).

Canon Law Society of America. Code of Canon Law: Latin–English Edition, New English Translation. Washington, D.C.: CLSA (1999).

Carter, Stephen L. The Culture of Disbelief: How American Law and Politics Trivialize Religious Devotion. New York: Basic Books (1993).

Catholic Charities of the Diocese of Albany v. Gregory V. Serio, New York Court of Appeals, no. 110 (October 19, 2006), 16, http://www.nycourts.gov/ctapps/decisions/oct06/110opn06.pdf. by the New York State Court of Appeals.

Cibelli, Jose B., et al. “The First Human Cloned Embryo.” Scientific American (November 24, 2001), http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?id=0008B8F9-AC62-1C75-9B81809EC588EF21.

College of Liberal Arts & Sciences at UNC Charlotte. “Mission and Vision.” Center for Professional and Applied Ethics. University of North Carolina at Charlotte, http://www.ethics.uncc.edu/.

Committee on the Status and Future of the Profession. The Role of Philosophy Programs in Higher Education. Newark, DE: American Philosophical Association (Nov 2008).

Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith. Declaration on Euthanasia (May 5, 1980).

Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith. Declaration on Procured Abortion (1974).

Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith. Instruction Dignitas Personae on Certain Bioethical Questions (8 September 2008).

Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith. (Donum Vitae) Respect for Human Life  (22 February 1987).

Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith. “Responses to Certain Questions of the USCCB Concerning Artificial Nutrition and Hydration (August 1, 2007), with Accompanying Commentary.” Reprinted in Ethics & Medics 32.11 (November 2007): 3.

Curran, Charles E. Catholic Moral Theology in the United States: A History. Georgetown: Georgetown Univ. Press (2008).

Ellis, John Tracy. “American Catholics and the Intellectual Life.” Thought 30 (Autumn 1955), 351-388.

Fletcher, Joseph. Situation Ethics: the New Morality. Westminster: John Knox Press (1997).

Gilson, Etienne et al. Thomisim: The Philosophy of Thomas Aquinas. Toronto: Pontifical Institute of Mediaeval Studies (2002).

Glazer, E. “Problem Based Instruction.” In M. Orey (Ed.). Emerging perspectives on learning, teaching, and technology (2001), Retrieved 18 February 2009, from http://projects.coe.uga.edu/epltt/

Gronlund, Norman E. Stating Objectives for Classroom Instruction, Second Edition New York: Macmillan Publishing Co., Inc. (1978).

Hardon, Fr. John A., S.J. The Meaning of Virtue in Thomas Aquinas. Manassas, VA: Trinity Communications, Taken from the “Great Catholic Books Newsletter” (Volume II, Number 1), http://www.ewtn.com/library/SPIRIT/MEANVIR.TXT.

Charlene Hastings vs. Seton Medical Center et al. Superior Court of California, County of San Francisco (CGC-07-470336, 20 Sept 2008).

Hendershott, Anne. Status Envy: The Politics of Catholic Higher Education (New Brunswick, NJ: Transaction Publishers, 2009).

Hilliard, Marie T. “Contraceptive Mandates and the Avoidance of Culpable Negligence,” Urged on by Christ: Catholic Health Care in Tension with Contemporary Culture, Philadelphia, PA: National Catholic Bioethics Center (2007), 127-142.

Hilliard, Marie T. “Dignitas Personae and Emergency Contraception.” Ethics and Medics (February 2009, 34:2).

Hollowell, Kelly. “Distorting Science for the Secular Agenda.” WorldNet Daily (April 17, 2004), http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=38081.

Huxley, Aldous. Brave New World (London: HarperCollins, first Perennial Modern Classics edition, 1932).

Indiana Commission for Higher Education. “Aspirations for Indiana Post Secondary Education: Student Success” (June, 08, 2007).

John XXIII. Encyclical Pacem et Terris, 11 April 1963. English Translation in The Pope Speaks, 9 (1963), 13-48.

John Paul II. Catechism of the Catholic Church, English Translation. Washington, DC: USCCB, Second Edition (2000).

John Paul II. Encyclical Letter Evangelium vitae, 25 Mar. 1995 (7 Dec. 2007),  http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/john_paul_ii/encyclicals/documents/hf_jp-ii_enc_25031995_evangelium-vitae_en.html.

John Paul II. Encyclical Letter Fides et Ratio (Sept. 15, 1998), http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/john_paul_ii/encyclicals/documents/hf_jp-ii_enc_15101998_fides-et-ratio_en.html.

John Paul II. Post-Synodal Apostolic Exhortation Christifideles Laici: On the Vocation and the Mission of the Lay Faithful in the Church and in the World (Washington, D.C.: United States Catholic Conference, 1988).

John Paul II. Address to those taking part in the International Congress of Moral Theology (April 10,1986), 1; Insegnamenti IX, 1 (1986).

John Paul II. Apconst Ex corde Ecclesiae (Vatican: Libreria Editrice, August 15, 1990).

John Paul II. Apostolic Letter Salvifici Doloris: On the Christian Meaning of Human     Suffering. Washington: United States Catholic Conference (1984).

John Paul II. Encyclical Letter Veritatis Splendor:The Splendor of Truth (Washington, D.C.: United States Catholic Conference, 1993).

Kleinsman, John. “Surveying a Catholic Approach to Bioethics.” The Nathaniel Report: Issue Seven. The Nathaniel Centre: The New Zealand Catholic Bioethics Centre (2002).

Kraut, R. “Aristotle’s Ethics.” Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (July 17, 2007), 2. “The Human Good and the Function of Argument,” http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/aristotle-ethics/#HumGooFunArg.

Levine, Maurice. Psychiatry and Ethics. New York: G. Braziller (1972).

Liggio, Leonard P. “Smith and Utilitarian Economic Freedom.” Literature of Liberty (October/December 1978, vol. 1, No. 4, 1978).

Lindemann, H. and M. Verkerk. “Ending the Life of a Newborn: The Groningen Protocol.” The Hastings Center Report (Jan-Feb 2008), 42-51.

McLaren A. “Cloning: pathways to a pluripotent future.” Science 288: 5472 (2000), 1775–80, doi:10.1126/science.288.5472.1775. PMID 10877698.

Mill, John Stuart. “Utilitarianism.” Fraser’s Magazine (1861).

Morey, Melanie M. and John J. Piderit, S.J. Catholic Higher Education: A Culture in Crisis. New York City: Oxford  Univ. Press (2006).

McMurtrie, Beth . “Catholic Colleges Fail to Impart Church’s Teachings, Study’s Author    Says.” The Chronicle of Higher Education 49 (March 21, 2003), A 38.

National Catholic Bioethics Center. “Table of Legal Mandates, State by State” (Updated quarterly), http://www.ncbcenter.org/MandatedProcedures.pdf.

National Library of Medicine, National Institutes of Health. “History of Medicine: Hippocratic Oath.” Greek Medicine (11 Sept 2002), http://www.nlm.nih.gov/hmd/greek/greek_oath.html.

The North Central Association of Colleges and Schools. The Higher Learning Commission Institutional Accreditation: An Overview. Chicago: Higher Learning Commission, NCA (2003).

North Coast Women’s Care Medical Group, Inc., et al., v. San Diego County Superior Court. California Supreme Court (Super. Ct. No. GIC770165, 18 August 2008).

O’Reilly, Kevin B. “Oregon still stands alone: Ten years of physician-assisted suicide.” AMNews (May 12, 2008).

Paul VI. Declaration on Religious Freedom Dignitatis Humanae: On the Right of the Person and of Communities to Social and Civil Freedom            in Matters Religious (Dec. 7, 1965).

Paul VI. Pastoral Constitution on the Church in the Modern World Gaudium et Spes (Dec   7, 1965).

Paul VI. Encyclical Letter, Humanae Vitae: On the Regulation of Birth. Washington DC: US Conference of Catholic Bishops (1968).

Payton, Rita Jean. “A Bioethical Program for Baccalaureate Nursing Students” in Ethics in Nursing Practice and Education, ed. American Nurses Association Committee on Ethics. Kansas City, MO: ANA (1980) 53-65.

Peet, Judy. “State withdraws tax break for Ocean Grove pavilion.” Real-Time News (Sept 17, 2007), http://www.nj.com/news/index.ssf/2007/09/state_withdraws_tax_break_for.html.

Pius XII. “Discourse to those taking part in the 4th International Congress of Catholic Doctors” (September 29, 1949). AAS 41 (1949).

Pontifical Academy for Life. letter, “Moral Reflections on Vaccines Prepared from Cells Derived from Aborted Human Fetuses” (June 9, 2005).

President’s Council on Bioethics. Beyond Therapy: Biotechnology and the Pursuit of Happiness. Washington, D.C. (October 2003), http://bioethics.gov/topics/beyond_index.html.

Second Vatican Ecumenical Council. Decree on the Apostolate of the Laity. Apostolicam Actuositatem (1965), no. 1.

Smith, Prof. Randall B. “Christianity and the Liberal Arts: Intellectual Community as a Foundation for Faith.” Joy in the Truth: The Catholic University in the New Millennium. Notre Dame: Center for Ethics and Culture, Proceedings (Sept 30, 2003), Colloquium Session 3.

Stanford University. Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Feb 9, 2006), http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/consequentialism/.

Thomson, James A., et al. “Embryonic Stem Cell Lines Derived from Human Blastocysts.” Science 6: Vol. 282. no. 5391 (November 1998), pp. 1145 – 1147.

UNECE. “Trends in Europe and North America.” The Statistical Yearbook of the Economic Commission for Europe (2005), http://www.unece.org/stats/trends2005/Sources/115_B_Mean%20age%20of%20women%20at%20the%20birth%20of%20the%20first%20child.pdf.

United States Conference of Catholic Bishops. New American Bible. Washington, DC: USCCB (1991).

United States Conference of Catholic Bishops. Ethical and Religious Directives for Catholic Health Care Services, 4th ed. Washington, D.C.: USCCB (2001).

United States Department of Health and Human Services. “Ensuring that Department of Health and Human Services Funds Do Not Support Coercive or Discriminatory Policies or Practices in Violation of Federal Law.” Federal Register: 73:245 (December 19, 2008), Rules and Regulations, pp. 78071-78101.

United States Department of Health and Human Services. “Title 45: Public Welfare.” CFR (46.204), http://www.hhs.gov/ohrp/humansubjects/guidance/45cfr46.htm#46.204.

United States Department of Health and Human Services, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. “Assisted Reproductive Technology.” Updated February 9, 2009, http://www.cdc.gov/ART/.

United States Food and Drug Administration, Center for Drug Evaluation and Research. “Plan B: Questions and Answers” (August 24, 2006, updated December 14, 2006), http://www.fda.gov/cder/drug/infopage/planB/planBQandA20060824.htm.

United States Senate, Joint Economic Committee. “Fact Sheet: Investing in Raising Children” (February 2007).

Weir, Richard. “Boston College in the Cross Hair: Outrage over Crucifixes Hung in Classrooms.” Boston Herald (Feb 12, 2009), http://www.bostonherald.com/news/regional/view.bg?articleid=1151661.

West, Christopher. Theology of the Body Explained, Revised Edition, from John Paul II’s 129 Wednesday audiences between 1979-1984. Boston, MA: Pauline Books and Media (2007).

Yamanaka, S., et al. “Generation of germline-competent induced pluripotent stem cells.” Nature 448 (2007), 313-7.

 

 

 

The “Hook-Up” Culture on Catholic Campuses: A Review of the Literature

/in , /by

The dynamics surrounding intimate relationships among Catholic college students is of special concern to Catholic families and educators, because these relationships often and eventually lead to marriage.  The Catholic Church teaches that marriage is instituted and ordained by God as the union of one man with one woman, and that sexual behavior is reserved for marriage.  This review of social science literature considers whether the student culture on Catholic college and university campuses reinforces these teachings and facilitates the pathway from healthy intimate relationships to marriage.

Throughout history, our society has provided ways to encourage “pair bonding” through providing opportunity situations.  Historically, colleges and universities—especially Catholic colleges and universities—believed that they needed to play an active role in helping their students find happiness and meaningful relationships with those of the opposite sex during their years on campus.  Providing what sociologists call “opportunity situations” used to play an important role in the student life on most college campuses, because at one time the adults leading these schools recognized how important it is that young people meet each other, fall in love, and form families.

Until the 1980s, most colleges and universities—secular as well as sectarian—believed it was their duty to offer opportunity situations including dances, clubs and other recreational activities, designed to help their students create and maintain healthy and satisfying intimate relationships.  Even single-sex Catholic colleges used to arrange school-sponsored and supervised dances (often called “mixers”) with neighboring schools to facilitate the opportunity for those at the all-male school to meet those from the all-female school.  College administrators used to believe that they needed to take care of their students—both academically and socially.  But, as most Catholic colleges moved from single-sex to co-educational in the 1970s and 80s, the perceived need for such “mixers” disappeared.

Today, it appears that many student life administrators have moved from a pro-active role in helping to facilitate healthy pair bonding to a reactive role in helping to pick up the pieces and repairing the very real damages when a degraded campus culture of casual sex emerges.  The conventional wisdom is that students are best left to their own devices in meeting and mating.  This paper finds significant consequences for both the individual and the institution.

A damage assessment

During the past decade, there has been a growing body of literature examining the dating attitudes, values and behavior of contemporary college students.  An emerging number of scholars are conducting research which examines how young people meet, mate and decide to marry.  There is a growing body of data that points to a degraded student culture on many college campuses—including Catholic college campuses (Bogle, 2008; Freitas, 2008; Burdette, Ellison, Hill and Glenn, 2009).  This paper provides a systematic review of the research literature identifying the culture and examining the very real damage that has been done by abandoning the in loco parentis role that colleges and universities used to play in terms of encouraging healthy social relationships.  The purpose of our paper is to provide a systematic summary of the social science literature that has been published in the last twenty years on the dating and mating behavior of college students—and assessing what many of these researchers have identified as the very real damage that has been done by the embrace of this culture.

We have organized these findings into four sections based on specific issues related to sexuality on campus.  The first section is the most comprehensive, because it defines the hook-up culture and identifies the extent of the problem of casual sexual behavior on college campuses—both Catholic and non-Catholic.  While most studies of the hook-up culture on campus do not differentiate by religious affiliation, we provide a comprehensive look at the ones that investigate the differences in sexual behavior by students attending a Catholic college and those who do not.

Following this, the second section considers the “costs” that such a culture has incurred in terms of the psychological, spiritual and physical damages associated with such behavior.  Sexually transmitted diseases, unintended pregnancies and abortions—as well as a long list of psychological costs including poor self-esteem, depression and sadness—have been correlated with the emergence of the hook-up culture on campus.  There is also anecdotal evidence that students who engage in the culture of casual sex that permeates many Catholic campuses find themselves moving away from a commitment to formerly held religious beliefs and practices.  In addition to a decline in Church attendance by those who are participating in the hook-up culture, there is anecdotal evidence of a reduction in religious feelings and perceived closeness to God.

In the third portion of this report, we consider the role of alcohol in encouraging and expanding the hook-up culture.  Nearly all of the researchers who are studying the hook-up campus culture have found that alcohol is implicated as a correlate—if not necessarily as a causal factor—in the hook-up culture.  Because of this, we devote a substantial portion of our literature review to the data describing the expansion of the use of alcohol by college students through permissive policies of on-campus drinking in the dorms and at social functions, and the role alcohol plays in the hook-up culture—especially on Catholic campuses.

The fourth section of our report investigates the impact of campus polices and especially those who are hired to implement them.  While more research in this area is needed, there is evidence that student life personnel are not a strong deterrent to a campus hook-up culture—and neither are co-ed residence halls.

We conclude by looking closely at the counter-culture that is emerging on many Catholic and secular campuses as students are taking the lead in promoting chastity and fidelity.  We also offer suggestions for additional research.

Defining the Hook-Up Culture on College Campuses

In 2001, the Times Higher Education Supplement (Marcus, 2001) published the results of a survey of 1,000 American university women which indicated that “dating is dead.”  The Chronicle of Higher Education (Mulhauser, 2001) followed up with an analysis of the data on dating and found that few female college seniors surveyed were asked out on dates during their college years.  This confirms dozens of other anecdotal studies.

Almost two-thirds of the participants in the Marcus study said that they were unhappy with the emptiness of their social lives.  Most respondents complained that the culture on their campuses consisted of either having sex without necessarily progressing to a relationship, or forming a long-standing and intense bond with a man without any anticipation of a future life with that man.  Most of the female respondents to this survey were disappointed with their campus culture.

Still, we have to avoid the temptation to look at the college dating behavior of previous generations through rose-colored glasses.  The idealized notion of the traditional date in which the male invites the female out to dinner or to a movie, picks her up and pays for the date is one that we often refer to when we lament the loss of traditional dating behavior.  But those who lived and dated during those times know that even then the traditional dating scene was less than ideal.  In some instances, females were left out of dating entirely because they were viewed as less physically attractive than other female students.  For some male students, the anxiety involved in inviting a female student on a date was overwhelming.  For these students, college became a lonely time of weekends spent watching others involved in the social scene on campus.

Researchers have found that anxiety characterized the traditional dating culture for many female and male students.  This was especially true in the “college mixer” setting.  In a now-classic article entitled “Fear and Loathing at the College Mixer” (Schwartz and Lever, 1976), we learn that at the traditional college mixer, “physical appearance is about the only criterion being used to evaluate people.”  This produces a situation filled with tension—especially for female college students.  When one is repeatedly rejected through the course of an evening, the experience can be shattering to one’s self image.  Study authors conclude that “students reported feelings of ugliness, fatness, clumsiness and so forth during and after the mixer situation.”   Even for males, the mixer is not always an optimal experience:  “My first impression of a mixer in my freshman year reminded me of cattle auctions I’d seen, where huge crowds of inspectors and buyers and such would climb the entryways and this group of very frightened creatures would charge through the middle” (Schwartz and Lever, 1976).

While traditional dating behavior was more formal and well defined, today’s male and female social interactions are much more casual and inclusive.  Contemporary student life is more spontaneous.  Unlike in the past when the male student would telephone the female student several days in advance to ask her on a date to a specific place at a specific time, today’s students use text messaging to get in touch and meet right away.

In fact, some researchers believe that instant messaging, Facebook and texting play an important role in creating a culture that contributes to casual sexual relationships—what has become known on campus as a “hook-up culture” (Bogle, 2008).  But the reality is that college campuses—including Catholic college campuses—have been moving toward a hook-up culture for more than thirty years.  In the late 1970s, it began to become common for college students to shift from traditional dating to group partying.  Even in these early days, it was not uncommon for men and women to pair off at the end of a night of partying in order for a sexual encounter to occur.  Traditional dating was disappearing by 1980.

Larry Lance (2007) provides an excellent overview of the changes in college students’ attitudes about sex, marriage and the family from 1940 to 2000.  This study reveals dramatic changes in students’ willingness to make moral judgments about the sexual behaviors of other college students—reflecting the growing cultural relativism in the greater society.  When this type of casual sexual behavior was “defined down,” the rate of such behaviors began to rise because it then became the “new normal.”

Whatever the origins, the reality is that hooking up has become the dominant script for forming sexual and romantic relationships on Catholic and secular campuses.  And, although the term hooking up is ambiguous in meaning, students generally use the phrase to refer to a physical encounter between two people who are largely unfamiliar with one another or otherwise briefly acquainted (Burdette, Ellison, Hill and Glenn, 2009; Glenn and Marquardt, 2001; Paul, McManus and Hayes, 2000).  Most importantly, hook-ups carry no anticipation of a future relationship (Bogle, 2008; England, Shafer, and Fogarty, 2007).

Studies of the extent of the hook-up culture on campus can be divided into categories by the methods used in collecting data.  Some of the richest data is derived from qualitative studies like those done by Kathleen Bogle and Donna Freitas.  Although Freitas supplemented her interviews with survey data, most of the qualitative studies draw from in-depth interviews with a small, non-representative sample of students.  This source of qualitative data provide us with a deeper understanding of the meaning of the hook-up, but the anecdotal nature of the studies make generalization difficult.  To address this, we have found a growing number of large-scale quantitative studies using representative samples of the hook-up campus culture by sociologists like Norval Glenn, Elizabeth Marquardt, Amy Burdette, Christopher Ellison, and Terrence Hill (2009).  These new quantitative studies help increase reliability and add credibility to the qualitative work.

Does religion make a difference?

Studying the relationship between religion and casual sexual behavior is more complex than one might think.  While there are several studies which attempt to measure the effects of religiosity on engaging in casual sexual behavior, most do not differentiate between students who simply state that they have an affiliation with a certain religious denomination, and those who actively participate in religious activity through Church attendance or bible study and adhere to Church teachings on social and moral issues.

The best studies are those which take a multi-dimensional look at religiosity.  This approach was identified more than fifty years ago by Glock (1962).  These dimensions include experiential (feeling or emotional), ritualistic (participating in religious activities or attendance), ideological (beliefs), intellectual (knowledge), and consequential (effects in the secular world).

In addition to Catholicism, nearly all world religions encourage adherents to conform to their teachings on sexual behavior.  Religious teachings on sexuality must be presented clearly to the faithful by the faithful.  If those who are engaged in teaching about the religion are not fully committed to the truth of what they are teaching, those receiving that instruction will likely not find it to be true either.  Only to the degree that moral teaching is expressed by the attitudes and actions of Catholics themselves can it make a difference in the lives of those Catholics.  If students actually want to challenge the secular culture, students and their campus leaders have to have a firm knowledge of, and commitment to Catholic teachings on social and moral behaviors.

For this reason, the studies which simply look at religious denomination as a predictor of hooking-up behavior cannot be viewed as sufficient.  A multi-dimensional view of religiosity which includes beliefs, knowledge, participation and emotion of college students is certainly the better way to look at the effects of religion on this type of sexual behavior.

An excellent example of a multi-dimensional approach to studying the relationship between religion and sexuality is the study by Penhollow, Young and Denny (2005), which demonstrated that for both female and male college students, those who reported  infrequent worship attendance and weak religious feelings were more likely to report participating in non-marital sexual behaviors.  Although the study did not specifically study “hooking-up behavior,” they found that the strength of religious conviction and participation in religious activities are more important than religious denomination or affiliation in predicting whether or not an individual engages in non-marital sex.

Follow-up studies by Penhollow, Young and Bailey (2005, 2007) looked specifically at the relationship between hooking-up behavior and two measures of religiosity: church attendance and religious feeling.  Findings revealed that for both females and males, church attendance was negatively related to some forms of hooking-up behaviors (the more frequent the church attendance, the less frequent the hooking-up behavior), but religious feeling was only significant in reducing hooking-up behavior for males.  For females, the emotional attachment to religion had little impact on their decision to participate in hooking-up behaviors.

One important consideration offered by Penhollow, Young and Denny (2005) is that in doing research on the correlates of participating in the hook-up culture, it is possible that just as religiosity has an effect on hooking-up behavior, the converse may be true; it is just as likely that “sexual experiences influence religiosity” (Penhollow et al, 2005:81).

For evidence of the likelihood that engaging in casual sexual experiences affects the commitment to participating in one’s religious behavior, it is helpful to recall classic research published in the Journal of Marriage and the Family by Thornton and Camburn (1989).  This study indicated that those individuals who engage in premarital sex actually “become” less religiously involved.  It is possible that those students who engage in short term acts of sexual behavior (the hook-up) also decrease religious involvement.  This should come as no surprise to most faithful Catholics who have been taught about the ways in which immoral behavior can lead to additional forms of immorality and eventually a turning away from God and the sacraments.

Looking specifically at those who identify themselves as “Catholic,” Elizabeth Stoddard (1996) surveyed 235 never-married heterosexual college students enrolled at a west coast independent university and found significant differences in the sexual behavior of students of differing religious orientation.  Stoddard’s study differed from the others because she looked closely at “religious orientation” (categorized as intrinsic, indiscriminately pro-religious and non-religious).  Intrinsic students were those who indicated clearly that they “belonged” to a specific denomination.  She found that most intrinsic students were significantly less likely to participate in premarital sexual intercourse—except for Roman Catholics.  For the Catholic students in the Stoddard study, affiliation with the Catholic Church made no difference in reducing the rate of engaging in premarital sexual behavior.

Yet, when church attendance is factored into the equation of religiosity and sexual behavior, we most often find that church attendance has a significant effect on decreasing the likelihood of engaging in hooking-up behavior.  Susan Harris Eaves (2007) found that religious affiliation and church attendance had a negative effect on first intercourse, number of sexual intercourse partners, number of oral sex partners and number of one-night stands.

This study joins a growing list of studies that indicate that it is “attendance,” and not belief or affiliation, that has the dampening effect on the decision to engage in casual sex.  Most studies find a negative relationship between religiosity and sexual activity—the higher the religiosity, the lower the sexual activity.  For example, in her dissertation, Peggy Sue Sadeghin (1989) surveyed 483 college undergraduates and found that the more religious students were much less likely to engage in sexual behavior.  In contrast, Jacynth Fennell (2000) looked at the relationship between religious beliefs and found “non-significant differences between those who had sex and those who did not.”  This indicates that religious beliefs, in and of themselves, had no effect on the decision to participate in premarital sex.

A major quantitative study which employs a multidimensional measure of religion to explore the relationship between religion and hooking-up behavior was recently published in the Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion by Burdette, Ellison, Hill, and Glenn (2009).  For this survey, a national sample of 1,000 college women participated in a telephone interview designed to examine the dating and courtship attitudes and values of contemporary college women.

To measure “hooking-up behavior,” respondents were asked: “Now, some people say that a hook-up is when a girl and a guy get together for a physical encounter and do not necessarily expect anything further.  Since you have been at school have you experienced a hook-up?” Approximately 38 percent of the respondents indicated that they had engaged in a “hook-up.”

To measure religious denomination, the Burdette team used six groupings including: Catholic, conservative Protestant, mainline Protestant, other Christian, other religious faith, and non-affiliated.  In addition to these religious affiliation variables, respondents were also asked about the frequency of church attendance, and were queried about their subjective religiousness (“How religious do you consider yourself to be?”)   Beyond these individual religion variables, the researchers classified colleges and universities each respondent attended according to their institutional affiliation.  In order to be classified, the school had to display a religious mission statement and advertise religion in their promotional materials; the school also had to sponsor religious activities and /or employ religiously affiliated faculty and staff.  It was not enough that the school have a historic affiliation with a certain faith.  Rather, the school had to have “an active and apparent religious presence on campus.”

The Burdette study is important to Catholic educators because of these religious affiliation variables, but critics have noted the study’s limitations.  Of the 1,000 college women surveyed, only 31 percent were Catholic and only six percent attended Catholic colleges.  In sum, only 39 Catholic women attending Catholic colleges were interviewed, though there are tens of thousands of Catholic women attending college in the United States.  Only 16 Catholic colleges were represented.  Thus, while the study’s findings are important, it is clear that further research is needed in this area.

In the data it had available, the Burdette team found important religious differentials in hooking-up behavior.  While holding a conservative Protestant affiliation reduced the odds of hooking up, holding a Catholic affiliation increased the odds of hooking up.  Indeed, students who identified themselves as Catholics displayed roughly a 72 percent increase in the odds of hooking up compared to those women with no religious affiliation.

Yet, for all respondents—including Catholics and Protestants—religious involvement reduced the odds of hooking up at college, and this pattern was driven by religious service attendance rather than religious affiliation or subjective religiousness.  The authors suggest that “co-religionist networks may be particularly important during the college years, when individuals have increased dating and sexual opportunities, yet little or no supervision.  Further, religious service attendance may be a greater predictor of religious commitment once an individual has left home, given that church attendance is not always voluntary for adolescents.”

The authors surmise that “being Catholic,” in and of itself, yields few protective effects from engaging in casual sexual behavior, and, in fact, that Catholic women are actually more likely than their unaffiliated counterparts to have hooked up.  Still, only 24 percent of Catholic women who attended church on a weekly basis reported having hooked up compared to 38 percent of their nonreligious counterparts.  In contrast, 50 percent of Catholic women who reported infrequent church attendance and low levels of subjective religiousness hooked up at college compared to 38 percent of those with no religious affiliation.

Immoral communities

Kathleen Bogle, author of Hooking Up: Sex, Dating and Relationships on Campus (2008), found “no differences” between the hooking-up behavior of students at a large state university and the same behavior on a Roman Catholic campus.  She found that while some of the students she interviewed believed that there were more anonymous hook-up encounters at the state university due to the larger size of the student population, most of the Catholic college students she interviewed did not believe that the religious affiliation of their university affected hooking up in any way.  In fact, “most of them believed the religious connection did not make any difference.”

But the study by Burdette, Ellison, Hill and Glenn (2007) points to a more serious problem on Catholic campuses.  The survey indicated that “women attending colleges and universities affiliated with the Catholic Church are almost four times as likely to have participated in hooking up compared with women at secular schools.” Attending a conservative Protestant college was not associated with having engaged in hooking-up behavior.  Although the small sample of Catholic college students suggests the need for further verification, the results are troubling.

Unlike students on evangelical or conservative Protestant campuses, students on Catholic campuses do not constitute what the authors identify as a “moral community.”  When Catholic students enter college, it appears that they do not enter with the same level of religious commitment or knowledge of their faith as their Protestant counterparts.  The Catholic women in the study report significantly lower levels of subjective religiousness than both conservative and mainline Protestant respondents.  Thus, on Catholic campuses, with large numbers of Catholic students, the authors conclude that “it may be that university investments in religious instruction and education are too little too late for some students.”

Without a foundation of religious socialization during childhood and early adolescence, religious messages may be poorly received.  As a result, while the Catholic universities may contain a majority of students affiliated with the Catholic Church, the authors of the study conclude that these young adults may not “ratify religious principles in the social environment,” a critical component of what these authors identify as the moral communities thesis.  For instance, in an entry titled Sex and the Catholic Campus posted on www.bustedhalo.com, Fordham student Julia Tier reflects on how the Catholic faith is just “not relevant” for those living on a Catholic campus.

In their 2005 book Soul Searching, Christian Smith and Melinda Denton argue that current Catholic college students no longer arrive on campus with the kind of religious socialization that used to take place within Catholic elementary and high schools.  They write that today’s “Catholic schools have grown into college prep academies with competitive admissions standards and hefty tuition rates, serving the more privileged of their communities, whether Catholic or not, and more dedicated by demand of parents to getting their students admitted to prestigious colleges than to teaching them about the Trinity, sin, the Virgin Mary, the atonement and faithful Christian living.”  Many Catholic students seem to arrive on Catholic college campuses with little idea about what the Church teaches about sexual morality.  Smith and Denton maintain that “most Catholic teenagers now pass through a Church system that has not fully come to terms with its own institutional deficit and structural vacuum with regard to providing substantial distinctive Catholic socialization, education and pastoral ministry for its teenagers.”

This poor socialization for Catholic teenagers is often continued when they arrive on Catholic campuses and may be confronted with theology professors who are committed to providing a critical perspective of the Catholic faith rather than instruction on what the faith teaches.  Students on these Catholic campuses may learn to critique their religion before they even learn what the Catholic Church actually teaches.

For this reason, some researchers like Burdette, Ellison, Hill and Glenn (2007:546) point out that “Catholic universities in particular may face an uphill battle in attempting to create moral communities.”  They cite research by Regnerus (2003) which demonstrates that for a sustainable moral community to emerge, there must not only be a critical mass of adherents, there must also be an actively religious majority that reinforces specific religious principles in the general social environment.  As a result, religion becomes a group property, rather than just a matter of individual preference.

Church-attending Protestants tend to enter college with higher levels of religious commitment than their Catholic counterparts and are less likely to reduce their commitment during young adulthood.  In her study of the hook-up culture, Donna Freitas, the author of Sex and the Soul: Juggling Sexuality, Spirituality, Romance, and Religion on America’s College Campuses, found that the one type of college that stood out from the trend toward “hooking up” was the evangelical Christian college.

To understand the hook-up culture, Freitas collected responses from students at seven colleges and universities—a mix of public, private, evangelical and Catholic institutions.  She found that for students at evangelical colleges, unlike students at Catholic colleges, religion is the center of everything, from campus life to student identity.  She writes, “At all the other campuses it is really hard for students to see sex and religion in relation to each other.”  Freitas found that at the evangelical colleges, there was not a hook-up culture that pressured students.  Rather, it was a “purity” culture that encouraged chastity and marriage, a culture of shared morality that exists on the evangelical college campus.

While this may be true for evangelical colleges, this still does not explain why female Catholic college students enrolled on Catholic campuses are more likely to hook up—even more likely than those on secular campuses.  Some researchers suggest that a hook-up culture can emerge when females outnumber males on campus (Rhoads, Webber and VanVleet, 2010).  Many Catholic campuses have far greater numbers of female students than males, and some researchers suggest that women are competing for men on these campuses.  The anthropologist Elizabeth Cashdan found that where there are more men than women, women usually set the ground rules; where there are more women than men, men get to set the ground rules.  At most Catholic colleges, more than 50 percent of the undergraduates are women and they may feel pressured to compete sexually for men.  But the reality remains that similar gender disparities exist on evangelical Christian campuses where females outnumber males by significant percentages.

In an attempt to explain the differences in the rate of hooking-up behavior for Catholic college students, Burdette, Ellison, Hill and Glenn (2007:547) suggest that selection effects may be operating.  By this they mean that some parents may encourage their daughters to attend Catholic colleges because “they perceive their child’s dating behavior to be problematic.  Parents who view their daughters as bad girls may send them to religious schools in hopes of constraining dating behaviors.”  This could help explain the variation in females engaging in “hooking up” on Catholic campuses.  But further analysis by these researchers did not support possible selection effects.  They did not find that female Catholic college students differed dramatically from those entering secular colleges, so the researchers dismissed selection factors as the answer to the differences in rates of hooking up.

Instead, Burdette, Ellison, Hill and Glenn (2007) suggest that the more likely reason that women at Catholic colleges and universities are more likely to hook up compared to their counterparts at secular schools can be attributed to the fact that in comparison with other colleges—including secular colleges—the policies surrounding alcohol and dorm visitation are more permissive at Catholic colleges than elsewhere.  Also, compared to secular colleges, Catholic schools bring together men and women who have much in common not only religiously but socially as well.  And unlike their Protestant counterparts, many Catholic students arrive on campus never having learned much about Church or Scriptural teachings on sexual morality.

These contributing factors at Catholic colleges have led Burdette, Ellison, Hill and Glenn (2007:546) to conclude: “Quite unintentionally, the combination of these three factors may create an environment that is conducive to casual physical encounters.” Additional research on the culture that has emerged on Catholic campuses, published by Donna Freitas in Sex and the Soul, supports many of their conclusions.

Freitas’ book reveals that there is a culture of “openness” about the sexual behavior of other students: “One young woman told me that at her Catholic school, by the end of the second month in her first-year residence hall, students had developed a kind of catalog about who was experienced at what and who was not experienced at all… Several young women told me that once they lost their virginity, they felt as though they might as well continue.  After all, once you’ve done it, what’s the point of stopping?”

Freitas found that for a minority of students virginity was important and writes that when she was interviewing female students on one Catholic campus, students were about to enter into a lottery for on-campus apartments and residence hall rooms for the following year.  A group of five women, all of whom were virgins, stood out among everyone else.  They called themselves “Virgins ‘R Us.”

Although virginity was not the norm on many of the campuses she studied, Freitas did not find that there was a stigma associated with virginity: “The woman telling me the story is not a virgin herself, but she is quick to argue that virginity is a perfectly legitimate choice for some people.”  Another student on a Catholic campus told Freitas, “I have a friend in the hall who has been with her boyfriend for three years and she wants to wait for marriage, and I think that is an amazing decision.  I think people really respect people that make that decision.”  Still, Freitas adds that this same student also talks about virginity not as a personal choice, but as a sign of feeling unwanted and of lacking in self-esteem.  When a campus develops a “hook-up culture” those who are not part of that culture can easily feel like outsiders.  This points to the real costs of the hook-up culture on both the institution and the individual.

Costs of a Hook-Up Campus Culture

There are individual costs and institutional costs that accrue when a hook-up culture emerges on a Catholic campus.  All students are affected because such a culture can permeate the entire campus.

To understand this culture it is helpful to review some of the interviews Freitas conducted with Catholic college students.  These interviews reveal a culture of “theme parties” that have become a “campus tradition” on many campuses—including some Catholic campuses.  These are parties or events where students dress up according to a particular set of stereotypes including: “pimps and ho’s,” “CEOs and office ho’s,” and “golf pros and tennis ho’s.”   Freitas writes: “By their very design, most theme parties are about sex and power, with guys in the dominant position—the CEO and the sports pros—and girls acting the part of the sexually submissive, sexually suggestive, sexually available, and sexually willing ho’s at their beck and call.”  While such activity surely does not involve most students, it can have an effect on the entire campus—even beyond those who are attending the parties.

A study published by Armstrong, Hamilton and Sweeney (2006), described a “party dorm” as having a “hedonistic culture.” They came to this conclusion after holding sixteen group interviews and forty-two individual interviews with residents of what became known as a “party dorm” (because of the drinking and sexual behavior) and found that sexual assault was a “predictable outcome” of such a culture.

Such a culture can negatively affect relationships and friendships between students.  There are several studies which describe the phenomenon known as “friends with benefits” on college campuses—including Catholic college campuses—or relationships that fit neither the traditional definition of a friendship nor a romantic relationship.  The phenomenon of “friends with benefits” and the movement to casual sex most likely begins long before students enter college.

Drawing upon a sample of 125 students, Melissa Bisson (2004) found that 60 percent of the students polled have had this type of relationship.  Although some respondents indicate that “sex can complicate a friendship by bringing forth desires for commitment,” Bisson believes that these relationships can be desirable because they incorporate trust and comfort while avoiding romantic commitment.

In contrast, Feldman, Cauffman, Jensen and Arnett (2000) found that “friends with benefits” can lead to feelings of betrayal:  “Because loyalty and trust are viewed as key requirements for relationships with friends as well as with romantic partners, acts of betrayal which violate the trust on which these relationships are based are viewed as serious transgressions.”

When looking at the costs for the individual student, it is helpful to look closely at the large-scale quantitative studies.  Nearly all of these studies suggest that women are at substantially more risk than men for feeling upset about the experience of engaging in casual sex.  Glenn and Marquardt (2001) found that many women felt hurt after hooking up and confused about their future relations with the men with whom they hooked up with.  Bisson and Levine found that it may be the combination of mismatched expectations and the lack of communication about the meaning of the encounter that leads to negative outcomes for some students.  Research by Paul and Hayes (2002) found that for some of these relationships, it could be that the situations were unwanted or forced.  When women feel pressured to engage in a casual sexual relationship, or if there is alcohol involved, there are more likely to be negative outcomes.  One research team (Grello, 2006) found that students’ feelings of regret after hooking up were related to more depressive symptoms.

These differential outcomes for female students is not surprising to evolutionary anthropologists like John Townsend whose research has led him to believe that many women go through an experimental stage when they try casual sex.  Townsend also points out that women almost always end up rejecting it.  For women, sexual intercourse produces feelings of “vulnerability” and of being used when they cannot get the desired emotional investment from their partners.  In Townsend’s studies, that occurs even among the most sexually liberated women.  Despite their freethinking attitudes, their emotions make it impossible for them to enjoy casual sex (cited by Rhoads, Webber and VanVleet, 2010).

Several studies have documented the possible negative outcomes for both women and men involved in the hook-up culture.  A survey of 832 college students’ hooking-up experiences by Owen, Rhoades, Stanley and Fincham (2007) points to the problem inherent in attempting to determine  psychological outcomes of hooking-up behavior.  It is the problem of directionality—or trying to determine whether students who had low psychological well-being were more likely to engage in an activity that did not benefit their mental health, or if it was the encounter which contributed to lower psychological well-being.  For example, it is likely that students who have a negative experience with hooking up may feel that they were not treated fairly by their partner after their encounter.  Or, it may be that one partner, but not the other partner, did not see the encounter as consensual.

Owen, et al. (2007) also report that negative emotional reactions were tied to less general acceptance of hooking up itself.  It may be that holding negative attitudes about hooking up and then doing so anyway creates dissonance that causes a negative emotional reaction; or it could be that having a negative experience results in less accepting attitudes about hooking up.  This makes it difficult to make confident assertions that it is the hooking-up behavior that causes the negative emotional reactions.

Beyond psychological outcomes for individuals engaging in hooking-up behavior, it is important to look at the physical costs for individuals who engage in hooking-up behavior.  There is a great deal of research on the individual outcomes of engaging in risky sexual behavior in terms of unplanned pregnancies and sexually transmitted diseases.  There is also the perception that those who engage in this risky sexual behavior—especially women who engage in this behavior—are somehow “damaged” by their choice to do this.  A major study of the sexual behavior of 71,860 college students by the American College Health Association revealed that a growing number of female college students are reporting having acquired sexually transmitted infections, diseases, or complications including the human papillomavirus, genital herpes, chlamydia, pelvic inflammatory disease, HIV and gonorrhea.

Kathleen Bogle’s study points to the negative impact of this lifestyle for female students.  She writes that women are far more likely than men to get a bad reputation for how they conduct themselves in the hookup culture.  Women can get a bad reputation for many different things including how often they hook up, who they hook up with, how far they go sexually during a hook-up, and how they dress when they go out at night where hooking up may happen.  Bogle points out that men who are very active in the hook-up culture may be called “players,” while women are still viewed as “sluts” if they are perceived as having hooked up too often or with the wrong people.

This continued “double standard” is reflected in a memorable interview of a male college student published in Sex and the Soul by Donna Freitas.  The student told Freitas about what he identified as “the dirty girls” on his campus, who are perceived by others (and himself) as having hooked up too much.  This young man mentioned that after a while, no one wanted to hook up with these girls because they feared contracting a sexually transmitted disease.  The data compiled by the American College Health Association reveals that this is a valid fear.

It is clear that there remain gender differences in perceptions of those who are engaged in the hook-up culture.  Freitas and Bogle both introduce the concept of the “walk of shame,” which refers to a female college student walking home the next morning after a hook-up encounter, wearing the same outfit she was wearing the evening prior.  Given that students dress differently for “going out” than during the daytime for class, it is obvious to all when a student is doing the walk of shame.  The fact that they even use the word “shame” is revealing.  If all students accept hooking up as a way of campus life, and believe that everyone is doing it, then using the word shame cannot be understood.  But students continue to be ambivalent about hooking up itself—and some are shameful.

Beyond the individual physical and psychological costs, there is evidence that the culture that has emerged on many Catholic campuses now carries spiritual costs.  While we cannot attribute these spiritual costs directly to the hook-up culture, we can suggest that the degraded student culture can be related.  A recent study done by researchers at Georgetown University (2010)  tracking changes in the behavior and attitudes of college students during their years on Catholic campuses reveals that 31 percent of Catholic students enrolled in Catholic colleges and universities report that they have “moved away” from the pro-life teachings of the Catholic Church during their college years.  Comparing Catholic students enrolled at Catholic institutions with Catholic students enrolled in private and public colleges and universities reveal that those enrolled in Catholic schools were less likely to move toward Catholic Church teachings on abortion than those enrolled in non-Catholic institutions.  While 16 percent of Catholics enrolled in Catholic schools claim to have moved to a pro-life position, 17 percent of Catholic students enrolled in public colleges and 18 percent of Catholic students enrolled in private non-sectarian colleges moved in the pro-life direction.

In addition to increased support for abortion, the Georgetown study revealed that 39 percent of Catholic students enrolled on Catholic campuses claim that they have moved further away from their Church’s definition of marriage as a union of one woman and one man.  On this issue, more Catholic students on Catholic campuses moved toward supporting gay marriage than those enrolled in private religious (non-Catholic) colleges, and showed just slightly less increased support for gay marriage than those enrolled in public colleges and private non-sectarian colleges.

Beyond Catholic college student support for gay marriage and abortion, the Georgetown data indicate that these students decrease their participation rates in religious activities such as Mass attendance and prayer.  While we cannot claim that the hook-up culture contributes to a change in Church attendance and support for abortion and gay marriage, we can propose the likelihood that once a Catholic campus adopts a culture that is counter to Church teachings on sexual morality, support for all Church teachings declines.

Alcohol as a Correlate of Hook-Up Behavior

One of the leading organizations addressing the effects of substance abuse is the National Center on Addiction and Substance Abuse (CASA) at Columbia University.  Led by Joseph A. Califano, Jr., the former U.S. Secretary of Health, Education and Welfare, CASA convened a commission in the early 1990s to look into the substance abuse situation at America’s colleges and universities.  The commission issued two reports—The Smoke-Free Campus (1993) and Rethinking Rites of Passage (1994)—and was chaired by Reverend Edward Malloy, C.S.C., now President Emeritus of the University of Notre Dame, who also serves on the board of CASA.  In 2002, CASA reconvened the commission and tasked it with determining what, if any, progress had been made.  The commission produced a report titled Wasting the Best and the Brightest: Substance Abuse at America’s Colleges and Universities, which reveals, among other things, a significant public health crisis on campuses throughout the country.

Califano summarized the report’s findings: “The college culture of alcohol and other drug abuse is linked to poor student academic performance, depression, anxiety, risky sex, rape, suicide and accidental death, property damage, vandalism, fights and a host of medical problems.” Teenage pregnancy, sexual assault and prostitution are also mentioned as results of substance abuse.  For Catholics, this is not just a “public health” crisis, but also a moral and a spiritual crisis.  Califano makes an important point: at Catholic colleges and universities, there is both an “added incentive” and a “special obligation” to confront the problems of substance abuse and casual sex.  “Students…are made in God’s image, with an inherent human dignity that should not be debased by excessive use of alcohol” (CASA, 2007).”

Sadly, the CASA study reveals that there is no reason to believe that Catholic institutions fare any better than other colleges and universities around the country.  In 2005, New York City’s Fordham University ranked first in self-reported campus alcohol violations, with 905 incidents—four times as many as the second-ranked New York University.  At the College of the Holy Cross, a series of incidents arose out of the combination of alcohol and sex: in 1996, a female student who was drinking heavily reported having been raped; in 1998, a car accident killed a drunk student; in 2000, a drunk student was killed by a train; and in 2002, a fight between two drunk students resulted in a death.

In 2010, 44 Notre Dame students were arrested for under-age drinking at an off-campus party.  South Bend police responded to a call about a fight near a roadway and discovered the Notre Dame student party.  Nate Montana, the son of former Notre Dame standout Joe Montana was among 11 Notre Dame athletes arrested among the 44 students on misdemeanor charges of underage drinking at a party.

CASA recommends a set of policies to colleges and universities in an effort both to prevent and reduce alcohol abuse on campus.  First, policies should be clear, as should the consequences of violating them be.  CASA advocates a ban on alcohol in dorms, in most common areas, at on-campus parties, and at sporting events.  Both the faculty and staff, as well as students and their parents, should be educated on the problems of substance abuse.  At Georgetown University, for instance, all freshmen are required to be educated about alcohol abuse.  Further, the college should be diligent in monitoring the rates of consumption and target students who are at risk, providing them with the opportunity for treatment.

It is important to look at what factors influence students’ decisions to drink.  Most notably, it is living arrangements.  Drinking varies depending on where a student lives.  The Task Force encourages parents to inquire about campus alcohol policies when their high school student is trying to choose the right college.  The parent should ask how the college enforces underage drinking prevention and what procedures are used to notify parents about consumption and abuse.  Drinking rates tend to be the highest in fraternity and sorority housing, so the parent should see if alcohol-free dorms are available.  Additionally, the number of alcohol-related injuries and deaths at the campus is an important statistic to find out.  (For recent data describing the consequences of the emergence of a culture of alcohol and drugs on campus, see Appendix A.)

Dangerous liaisons

So what is the connection between the use of drugs and alcohol and student sexual behavior? Another CASA study, Dangerous Liaisons: Substance Abuse and Sexual Behavior (1999), revealed that teens who drink or use drugs are “much more likely to have sex, initiate it at younger ages…and have multiple partners.” These students are more likely to contract sexually-transmitted diseases (STDs) or AIDS and experience unplanned pregnancies.  The 1999 report analyzed data collected from interviews with over 34,000 teenagers and 100 experts in relevant fields.

The study also revealed that while 63 percent of teens who use alcohol and 70 percent of teens who are frequent drinkers have had sex, only 26 percent of those who have never drank have had sex.  Further, the survey found that 23 percent of sexually active teens and young adults in America (about 5.6 million 15- to 24-year-olds) report having unprotected sex because they were drinking or using drugs at the time.  Of these, 29 percent say that, due to alcohol and drug use, they did “more sexually then they had planned.” Fifty percent said that people their age mix alcohol or drugs and sex “a lot,” and 37 percent want more information about “how alcohol or drugs might affect decision about having sex.”

In an attempt to discover whether alcohol consumption by college students leads to sexual behavior that would not have otherwise occurred, Meilman (1993) discovered that of 439 randomly selected undergraduate students, 35 percent had participated in “alcohol-induced” sexual activity.  For the half of these students who had intercourse, many admitted to having unprotected sex at least one time while under the influence of alcohol.  In another study at the University of Virginia, the College of William and Mary and Dartmouth College, almost 40 percent of college students reported having engaged in sexual behavior “as a direct result” of consuming alcohol (Meilman et al., 1993).

Desiderato and Crawford (1995) point out that risky sex—unprotected sex and deceptiveness from partners—has led to an alarmingly high rate of STDs among young adults.  In their study, 47 percent of participants did not use a condom, 19 percent had STDs at the time, and one-third of those with STDs admitted that they did not inform their partner of their infection.  Many studies have noted the negative relationship between consuming alcohol and condom use (Leigh and Morrison, 1991; Donovan and McEwan, 1995).  Many students—58 percent of males and 48 percent of females—consumed alcohol immediately before their first sexual experience (Clapper & Lipsitt, 1991).

In short, says Califano, “For parents and religious leaders who believe that sexual abstinence before marriage is a moral imperative, this report signals the particular importance of persuading teens not to drink alcohol or use illegal drugs.” The urgency and duty can be extended to college administrators, especially those at Catholic colleges and universities.

So help me God: The role of religion

A CASA white paper titled “So Help Me God: Substance Abuse, Religion and Spirituality” examines the link between religion and the prevention and treatment of substance abuse.  The 2001 report observes a strong connection between one’s religious practices and a lower risk of abusing drugs and alcohol.  As part of the study, CASA surveyed administrators at seminaries and schools of theology, inquiring about their perceptions of the scope of the problem of substance abuse.  CASA’s research indicates that God, religion and spirituality are important factors in preventing and treating substance abuse, and that weekly church attendance significantly reduces the risk of drinking and drug use.

The data collected from teenagers is revealing.  Teens who do not consider themselves religious are almost three times as likely to binge drink as teens who consider religion to be important.  Teens who do not attend religious services weekly are twice as likely to drink than teens who do attend weekly religious services.

On the college campus, CASA discovered that students with no religious affiliation reported higher levels of drinking than those who identified as either Catholic or Protestant.  But while religious activity lowers the risk of drinking among college students, the heaviest drinkers among college students are men, whites and Roman Catholics to whom religion is not important.

It is evident that when students have strong religious convictions and participate in religious activities, they consume less alcohol and therefore are less likely to engage in casual sex.

Most religions prohibit or restrict the use of substances, but there is a variation in strictness.  Judaism and Christianity draw the concept of moderation from, among other passages of Scripture, this verse from Proverbs: “Do not join those who drink too much wine or gorge themselves on meat” (23:20).  Historically, the Catholic Church has not required abstinence from its members, but teaches that believers must use self-control.  Both Judaism and Christianity admonish drunkenness as sinful; St. Paul tells the Corinthians not to conduct themselves in “reveling and drunkenness” (1 Corinthians 5:11).

When CASA asked Catholic college presidents if they saw substance abuse as a problem on their campus, 73.9 percent saw it as a very important problem, and 26.1 percent saw it as somewhat important.

Student Personnel and Residence Life Policies

Many student affairs officers on Catholic campuses say the most important issues they face are issues of sexual behavior and identity (Bickel, 2001).  In her dissertation study, Catherine Bickel explored how four residence life leaders from two Midwestern Catholic colleges worked with students who had sexual concerns (over issues like promiscuity and homosexuality) that were in conflict with Catholic teachings.  The author identified nine important findings which indicated that residence hall directors received little, if any training about how to operate in an environment identified as Catholic.  Because of this lack of training, residence hall directors made a variety of assumptions about students, colleagues, the institution’s expectations and Catholic teachings.  Bickel claimed that “students lead the way on issues in conflict with Catholic doctrine” rather than student affairs professionals or leaders.  She also found that there was a concern on the part of some residence life leaders of the “conservative reaction of students and parents” to issues surrounding sexual behavior, identity and orientation.  While Bickel is clearly sympathetic to the need for a non-judgmental attitude for residential life staff, her study points to this area as one that needs further research.

It is clear that on many Catholic campuses, residence life leaders appear to have little idea about Catholic teachings on sexuality.  This uncertainty about Catholic teachings on sexual morality may actually encourage a hook-up culture by creating a non-judgmental culture that conveys tacit approval for sexual behaviors counter to Church teachings.

Bickel’s research is given support from a study by Sandra Estanek (1996) published in Current Issues in Catholic Higher Education which revealed that many of the most difficult issues relating to the Catholic identity of Catholic colleges and universities are confronted not by teachers in the classroom, but by student affairs administrators responding to students, especially to sexual behavior and sexual identity problems.

In her book, Hooking Up: Sex, Dating and Relationships on Campus, Kathleen Bogle points out that the contemporary college campus (both Catholic and secular) is conducive to hooking up: there is a relatively homogeneous population living in close proximity to each other with no strictly enforced rules monitoring their behavior.  This fosters a sense of safety or comfort—students share the mantra that college is a time to party.

Christopher Kaczor, Loyola Marymount University philosophy professor and author of How to Stay Catholic in College, writes in First Things, “The answer is single-sex student residences.  Research indicates that students in single-sex residences are significantly less likely to engage in binge drinking and the hookup culture than students living in co-ed student residences” (Kaczor, 2011).  He cites several studies supporting his claim (Harford et al., 2002; Wechsler et al., 2000; Willoughby and Carroll, 2009).

In particular, studies analyzing data from the Harvard School of Public Health College Alcohol Study (CAS) have found that “students living in coed dormitories, when compared with students in single-gender dorms, incurred more problem consequences related to drinking…  The reported differences in problem consequences extend previous studies of underage alcohol use in the CAS, which found that college students residing in coed dormitories and fraternity/sorority house, when compared with students residing in single-gender dormitories, were more likely to report heavy episodic drinking” (Harford et al., 2002).  Nearly twice as many students in coed dorms (39.1 percent) reported binge drinking in the last two weeks than students in single-sex halls (20.6 percent) (Wechsler et al., 2000).

That prevalence of “risk-taking,” say Willoughby and Carroll (2009), is as common with casual sex as it is with drinking.  Despite using different survey data from Harvard’s College Alcohol Study, they similarly found that students in co-ed halls were more than twice as likely to engage in binge-drinking or drink alcohol at least once a week.  But students in co-ed dorms were also more likely to view pornography and have “permissive attitudes toward sexual activity.”  They were more than twice as likely (12.6 percent) to have three or more sexual partners in the last twelve months than students in single-sex residences (4.9 percent).

An important question asked by researchers about such data is whether “students who enjoy risky behavior choose co-ed residences because they seek a more permissive atmosphere. So, the differences between co-ed and single sex residences reflect the kinds of people who choose them, rather than being caused by some difference between single-sex and co-ed residences” (Kaczor, 2011).  But Harford, et al. (2002) found similar background characteristics for students choosing co-ed and single-sex dorms, and so reported only “limited evidence for self-selection.”  Willoughby and Carroll (2009) controlled for students’ religion and other variables but found that the residential differences remained significant.  They concluded that selection “does not play a large role” in the association between risky behavior and residence type.

On a growing number of secular campuses, there is movement toward offering students the opportunity to share co-ed bedrooms—perhaps an indication of things to come on certain Catholic campuses, where student life policies often follow secular trends in American higher education.  According to an article in The Chronicle of Higher Education (Borrego, 2001), Swarthmore introduced co-ed housing in part to provide a residential alternative for gay students.  For some, finding a same-sex roommate comfortable with their sexuality was difficult.  Gay students had begun complaining to the college’s housing committee that mandatory same-gender housing was “heterosexist.”  The approval of “gender-neutral” housing at nearby George Washington University in 2010 had students at Georgetown University excited.  They requested a similar policy at the Jesuit Catholic university, and the vice president for student affairs said that he was open to discussing it with the student government (Maglio, 2010).

In a May 2000 article in the National Review, John Biaggio, then the President of Tufts University, refused to implement co-ed rooms explaining that, “While we realize many of our students are sexually active, we don’t see it as our role to encourage it.  I am not saying we are prudish.  We are not acting in loco parentis.  But we are dealing with life-threatening venereal diseases here.”  The Chronicle of  Higher Education (2009) reported that Tufts banned “any sex act in a dorm room while one’s roommate is present” and further stipulated that “any sexual activity in the room should not interfere with a roommate’s privacy, study habits or sleep.”  The office said that the policy stemmed from a significant number of complaints by students uncomfortable with what their roommates were doing in the room.  The Tufts Daily newspaper (Kan, 2009) reported that “the sex policy is intended as a tool to facilitate conversation and compromise between roommates rather than simply proscribe behavior.”  Distancing herself from any perceptions of a judgmental attitudes and the in loco parentis role, one residence hall administrator said that “we want to make perfectly clear that we do not want to hinder someone from engaging in any personal or private activity.”

Research indicates that students tend to overestimate the hook-up culture on their campuses.  A study published in the Journal of American College Health revealed that although 49.1 percent of students (71,860 students at 107 institutions of higher education) reported having engaged in sexual intercourse during their college years, students tend to think that twice as many students are sexually active than actually are.  This perception that “everyone” is engaged in the hook-up culture can contribute to expanding the hook-up culture, because it provides tacit permission to those who are considering participation in the practice.  Students begin to view the behavior as a “normal” part of college life.

For a culture to emerge on Catholic campuses that values chastity and respect for Church teachings on sexual morality, there must a true collaboration between students and student life administrators.  But the literature indicates that on some campuses the student life administrators, many of whom came of age in the freewheeling 1970s, lag behind the more conservative students in creating such a culture.

Creating a Campus Culture That Values Chastity

Discouraged by the hook-up culture on their campuses, there appears to be a student counter-culture emerging.  Student initiated and led, this counterculture is intended to reclaim sexual integrity on campuses.  The Elizabeth Anscombe Society at Providence College, for example, claims to “equip students with the knowledge and social science data that will help them navigate their personal romantic relationships in a happy and healthy way.”  Viviana Garcia, founder and former co-president of the Providence College Anscombe Society, writes that “in the spirit of writer Flannery O’Connor, who held that we have to push as hard as the age that pushes against you, these students are holding fast to their conviction that sexual intimacy can only bring happiness within the committed relationship of marriage” (Garcia, 2009).

The first Elizabeth Anscombe Society was started at Princeton University in 2005. Named for the famed Cambridge philosophy professor and intellectual defender of traditional sexual ethics, the mission of the organization is to “foster an atmosphere where sex is dignified, respectful and beautiful; where human relationships are affirming and supportive; where motherhood is not put at odds with feminism; and where no one is objectified, instrumentalized or demeaned.”

Similar groups are emerging on Catholic campuses.  In 2004, students at the University of Notre Dame launched the Edith Stein Project.  Drawing from the Apostolic letter of Pope John Paul II titled “On the Dignity and Vocation of Women,” Notre Dame students—both men and women—have held conferences each year to discuss issues of gender, sexuality and human dignity.  The coordinators of the Edith Stein Project write that they wish to “examine the degrading attitudes toward our own dignity that are often taken for granted and to question their root causes… we offer that their common cause is a general misunderstanding of the true nature and dignity of the human person.”

The 6th Annual Edith Stein Project Conference in February 2011 was titled “Irreplaceable You: Vocation, Identity, and the Pursuit of Happiness.” The conference drew from Pope John Paul II’s Apostolic proclamation that “Every Life is a Vocation.”  Conference organizers write, “Each one of us is called to perform an irreplaceable role in the Body of Christ that only we can perform, simply by the virtue of being ourselves in our own distinctive situation.” They promise that the conference will “draw on the richness of Catholic teaching on authentic personhood and sexuality, including presentations on masculinity and femininity, marriage, lay vocation, the priesthood and religious life, the family, homosexuality, Pope John Paul II’s theology of the body and student life.”

At Boston College, there is a group of male students whose mission is to “seek to create a brotherhood of Christian men dedicated to leading virtuous lives.”  The Sons of St. Patrick gather each week in a campus dormitory to discuss philosophy, literature and God.  Fr. Paul McNellis, S.J., a professor in the Philosophy Department who helped with the group’s creation, said that about four years ago some of his former students asked if he would be the moderator for the group.  In an interview for the campus newspaper, Fr. McNellis said: “They wanted a group that got together regularly in fellowship to discuss important topics.  However the topics gradually became more religious as the Sons realized that the strongest bond between them was their shared faith.”

In an interview published in The Heights, Fr. McNellis said the students wanted to live a Christian life without compromise, especially in the way they treated women, and thus to help each other become good men and future good husbands and fathers (Gu, 2010).  In a follow-up interview in The Heights, Fr. McNellis directly addressed the problems inherent in the hook-up culture: “When men get involved in the hook-up culture, they regress.  It infantilizes them.  They develop habits of thinking about themselves and women which are antithetical to being a good husband a good father” (Morrison, 2010).

Fr. McNellis said his motivation to address the male response to the hook-up culture stemmed from his observations of student life: “the thing that struck me as a difference from when I was in college was how little women now expect of men” (Morrison, 2010).  What he sees as “women’s dwindling faith in male behavior” may have been caused by the rise in the divorce rate, the spike in births out of wedlock, and the collapse of the dating culture.  The Sons of St. Patrick are attempting to reverse this culture.  To do that, Fr. McNellis points out that students need to “shed their ties with the hook-up culture in order to start developing the values that are necessary to being a faithful spouse or responsible father.”  He believes that the resurgence of the dating culture can cure the hook-up culture.  He believes that many students want the dating culture to come back, pointing to the “yearly student scramble to obtain tickets to the formal Middlemarch Dance” as evidence of student desire for an alternative to the current hook-up culture.

Such small groups of students, of course, cannot change the culture alone.  From the moment they step on campus for freshman orientation, college students are steeped in the radicalism-turned-orthodoxy that is the hook-up culture.  Students need support from the administration and the faculty to counter that culture.  They need to help create alternative campus environments that counter the cultural pressure that has “normalized” sexual deviance.  Students need an alternative to the culture of sexual permissiveness that currently shapes students’ expectations.  They need help creating moral communities in which Church teachings on sexual morality are understood and cherished.

Recommendations for Further Study

While we have seen that the published literature offers some idea of sexuality on college campuses—and Catholic campuses in particular—Catholic educators would benefit greatly by allowing and even encouraging more extensive research on student behaviors and the impact of college policies, programs and campus life on sexual attitudes and activity.

We suggest specific areas that warrant further research:

Causes and consequences of the hook-up culture for males

Much of the research on hooking up on college campuses focuses on female students.  It is assumed that women are often victims of the hook-up culture.  But anecdotal evidence exists that males also suffer consequences from the student culture on many campuses.

Measurable consequences of the hook-up culture

What is the incidence of STDs, pregnancy and abortion on Catholic campuses, and how does it compare to other colleges?  Is there evidence of psychological consequences from student sexual activity?  How does sexual activity impact academic performance?

Differences between Protestant and Catholic college campuses and their students

It is clear that the culture on evangelical campuses is dramatically different from that on Catholic campuses.  What can Catholic campus administrators learn from them?  Why do students behave differently at evangelical institutions?  Why do Catholic students behave differently from evangelical students?

Alcohol and drug abuse on Catholic campuses

CASA has provided some very good research on substance abuse on college campuses, showing a link to increased sexual activity.  Additional research looking particularly at substance abuse on Catholic campuses and among Catholic students, and exploring further the link to sexual activity would be helpful to Catholic college leaders.  Do policies and programs that have been effective in reducing alcohol and drug abuse correlate with declines in student sexual activity?

Co-ed dormitory housing

Whereas single-sex student housing was the norm at Catholic colleges a few decades ago, most have transitioned to co-ed halls, with men and women often separated by wing or floor.  As a consequence, the opportunities for sexual activity in campus housing have clearly increased.  Some Catholic colleges, like the University of Notre Dame and those with a strong Catholic identity, continue to offer single-sex housing.  A year into his tenure as the president of the Catholic University of America, John Garvey announced that the university would return to single-sex housing.  Writing in the Wall Street Journal, Garvey observes the destructive nature of binge drinking and the hook-up culture, as well as the role of the university in instilling virtue. There is a great need for additional research on whether the co-ed dormitory living contributes to the emergence of a hook-up campus culture, as anecdotal evidence suggests.  What are the measurable benefits and costs of co-ed residence halls?

Appendix A

As far back as 1999, a majority of college presidents identified alcohol abuse as one of the most serious problems facing students on campus.  In April 2002, a Federal Task Force of the National Advisory Council on Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism issued a report titled A Call to Action: Changing the Culture of Drinking at U.S. Colleges.  The Task Force—composed of college presidents, researchers and students—spent three years extensively analyzing the literature on the use of alcohol on college campuses.  In a section called “What Parents Need to Know About College Drinking,” the reader is presented with a litany of disturbing statistics:

Death: 1,400 college students die each year from alcohol-related unintentional injuries, including motor vehicle crashes.

Injury: 500,000 college students are unintentionally injured under the influence of alcohol.

Assault: More than 600,000 college students are assaulted by another student who has been drinking.

Sexual Abuse: More than 70,000 college students are victims of alcohol-related sexual assault or date rape.

Unsafe Sex: 400,000 college students have sex without taking precautions against STDs, and more than 100,000 college students report having been too intoxicated to know if they consented to having sex.

Academic Problems: About 25 percent of college students report academic consequences of their drinking including missing class, falling behind, doing poorly on exams or papers, and receiving lower grades overall.

Health Problems/Suicide Attempts: More than 150,000 college students develop an alcohol-related health problem, and between 1.2 and 1.5 percent of college students indicate that they tried to commit suicide within the past year due to drinking or drug use.

Drunk Driving: In 2001, 2.1 million college students reported driving under the influence of alcohol.

Vandalism: About 11 percent of college students report that they have damaged property while under the influence of alcohol.

Property Damage: More than 25 percent of administrators from schools with low drinking levels and more than 50 percent from schools with high drinking levels say their campuses have a “moderate” or “major” problem with alcohol-related property damage.

Police Involvement: About 5 percent of college students are involved with the police or campus security as a result of their drinking.  About 110,000 students are arrested for alcohol-related violations, such as public drunkenness or driving under the influence.

Alcohol Abuse and Dependence: 31 percent of college students met criteria for a diagnosis of alcohol abuse and 6 percent for alcohol dependence in the past 12 months.

About the Authors

Dr. Anne Hendershott is the 2010-2011 John Paul II Fellow in Student Development for the Center for the Advancement of Catholic Higher Education. She served 15 years at the University of San Diego as director of urban studies and chair of the sociology department until 2008, when she moved to New York to become distinguished visiting professor of urban studies at King’s College.  Her articles have appeared in The Wall Street Journal, World Magazine and National Review, and her books include Status Envy: The Politics of Catholic Higher Education, The Politics of Abortion, Moving for Work and The Reluctant Caregivers. Hendershott received her B.A. and M.S. degrees from Central Connecticut State University and her Ph.D. in Sociology from Kent State University.

Nicholas Dunn has served as a research assistant to Dr. Hendershott for two years.  He is a senior at The King’s College in New York City, where he studies philosophy, politics and economics.  He has written for Human Life Review and Catholic World Report and was a research intern at the Catholic Family and Human Rights Institute at the United Nations.

Bibliography

Armstrong, Elizabeth; Hamilton, Laura; and Sweeney, Brian.  “Sexual Assault on Campus: A Multilevel, Integrative Approach to Party Rape,” Social Problems (November 2006), 53 (4): 483-499.

Bickel, Catherine Mary.  “Residential Life Professionals on Catholic Campuses:  A Qualitative Study of How They Assist Students with Issues of Sexual Behavior and Identity” (2001).  Dissertation submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the Doctorate at Indiana University.

Bisson, Melissa.  “Have Your Cake and Eat it Too: Negotiating a Friends with Benefits Relationship” (2004).  Master’s Thesis completed in partial fulfillment for the Master’s Degree at Michigan State University.

Bogle, Kathleen.  Hooking Up: Sex, Dating and Relationships on Campus (New York: New York University Press, 2008).

Borrego, Ann Marie.  “Today’s Students Want to Have Sex, But Not with Their Roommates,” The Chronicle of Higher Education (December 21, 2001).

Burdette, Amy; Ellison, Christopher; Hill, Terrence; and Glenn, Norval.  “Hooking Up at College: Does Religion Make a Difference?” Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion (2009), 48 (3): 535-551.

Desiderato, L. L., and Crawford, H. J.  “Risky sexual behavior in college students: Relationships between number of sexual partners, disclosure of previous risky behavior, and alcohol use,” Journal of Youth and Adolescence (1995), 24: 55–68.

Donovan, C., and McEwan, R.  “A review of the literature examining the relationship between alcohol use and HIV-related sexual risk-taking in young people,” Addiction (1995), 90: 319-328.

Eaves, Susan Harris.  “Attachment Style, Self-Esteem, and Perceived Peer Norms as Predictors of Sexually Risky Behavior among College Students,” (2007).  Dissertation completed in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the Doctor of Philosophy at Mississippi State University.

England, Paula; Shafer, Emily Fitzgibbons; and Fogarty, Alison.  “Hooking Up and Forming Romantic Relationships on Today’s College Campuses,” in M. Kimmel and A. Aronson (eds.), The Gendered Society Reader, 3rd edition (New York: Oxford University Press, 2007).

Estanek, Sandra.  “A Study of Student Affairs Practice at Catholic Colleges and Universities,” Current Issues in Catholic Higher Education (1996), 16: 63-72.

Feldman, Shirley; Cauffman, Elizabeth; Jensen, Lene Arnett; and Arnett, Jeffrey J.  “The Unacceptability of Betrayal: A Study of College Students’ Evaluations of Sexual Betrayal by a Romantic Partner and Betrayal of a Friend’s Confidence,” Journal of Youth and Adolescence (2000), 29 (4): 499-523.

Fennell, Jacynth.  “The Relationship Between Religious Beliefs, Moral Development, Self  Control, Peer Pressure, Self Esteem and Premarital Sex” (2000).  Dissertation completed in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the Doctor of Philosophy at Andrews University, Michigan.

Freitas, Donna.  Sex and the Soul: Juggling Sexuality, Spirituality, Romance, and Religion on America’s College Campuses (New York: Oxford University Press, 2008).

Garcia, Viviana M.  “Resisting in the Age of Infidelity,” MercatorNet (July 15, 2010).

Glenn, Norval and Marquardt, Elizabeth.  “Hooking Up, Hanging Out, and Hoping for Mr. Right:       College Women on Dating and Mating Today” (New York: Institute for American Values, 2001).

Glock, Charles.  “On the Study of Religious Commitment,” Religious Education, 42 (July-August 1962), 98-110.

Grello, Catherine; Welsh, Deborah; and Harper, Melinda.  “No Strings Attached: The Nature of Casual        Sex in College Students,” Journal of Sex Research (2006), 43 (3): 255-267.

Gu, James.  “Sons of St. Patrick Form a Brotherhood of Faith,” The Heights (March 29, 2010).

Harford, Thomas; Wechsler, Henry; and Muthen, Bengt.  “The Impact of Current Residence and High School Drinking on Alcohol Problems Among College Students,” Journal of Studies on Alcohol (2002), 63: 271-279.

Johnson, Luke Timothy.  “Sex and American Catholics,” Annual Currie Lecture in Law and Religion, Emory University, Atlanta, GA (October 9, 2002).

Kaczor, Christopher.  “Rethinking Single Sex Dorms,” First Things (May 12, 2011).

Kan, Ellen.  “New Rules Regulate Sexual Activity in Tufts University Dorm Rooms,” Tufts Daily Wire (September 25, 2009).

Lance, Larry.  “College Student Sexual Morality Revisited,” College Student Journal (September 2007).

Leigh, B. C.; Morrison, D. M.; Trocki, K.; and Temple, M. T.  “Sexual behavior of American adolescents: Results from a U.S. national survey,” Journal of Adolescent Health (2004), 15: 117–125.

Maglio, Alice.  “Gender-Blind Talks in Store,” The Hoya (Nov. 16, 2010).

Marcus, Jon.  “Virgins and Casual Sisters Spurn Dating,” The Times Higher Education Supplement (August 2001), 1502: 10.

Meilman, P.W.  “Alcohol-induced sexual behavior on campus,” Journal of American College Health (1993), 42 (1): 27-31.

Morrison, Daniel.  “Hookup Culture Elicits Response from McNellis,” The Heights (March 25, 2010).

Mulhauser, Dana.  “Dating Among College Student is all but Dead, Survey Finds,” The Chronicle of Higher Education (August 2001), 47 (48): A51.

National Center on Addiction and Substance Abuse (CASA).  Dangerous Liaisons: Substance Abuse and Sexual Behavior (New York: 1999).

—. Wasting the Best and the Brightest: Substance Abuse at America’s Colleges and Universities (New York: 2007).

Owen, Jesse; Rhoades, Galena; Stanley, Scott; and Fincham, Frank.  “Hooking-Up Among College Students: Demographic and Psychosocial Correlates,” Archives of Sexual Behavior (2007).

Paul, E.L; McManus, B.; and Hayes, A.  “Hookups: Characteristics and correlates of college students spontaneous and anonymous sexual experiences,” Journal of Sex Research (2000), 37: 76-88.

Paul, E. L. and K. A. Hayes.  “The Casualties of Casual Sex. A Qualitative Exploration of the Phenomenology of College Students’ Hookups,” Journal of Social and Personal Relationships (2002), 19: 639-661.

Penhollow, Tina; Young, Michael; and Bailey, William.  “Relationship Between Religiosity and Hooking Up Behavior,” American Journal of Health Education (November/December 2007), 38 (6): 338-345.

Penhollow, Tina; Young, Michael; and Denny, George.  “The Impact of Religiosity on the Sexual Behaviors of College Students,” American Journal of Health Education (March/April, 2005), 36 (2): 75-83.

Schwartz, Pepper and Lever, Janet.  “Fear and Loathing at the College Mixer,” Journal of Contemporary Ethnography (1976), 4 (4): 413-431.

Regnerus, Mark.  “Moral Communities and Adolescent Delinquency,” Sociological Quarterly (September 2003), 44 (4): 523-554.

Rhoads, Steven; Webber, Laura; and Van Vleet, Diana.  “The Emotional Costs of Hooking Up,” The Chronicle of Higher Education (June 20, 2010).

Sadeghin, Peggy Sue.  “Religion and Reproductive Roulette” (1989).  Master’s Thesis completed in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the Master’s Degree at the University of Texas at Arlington.

Smith, Christian and Denton, Melinda.  Soul Searching: The Religious and Spiritual Life of American Teenagers (New York: Oxford University Press, 2005).

Stoddard, Elizabeth.  Religious Orientation and Sexual Behavior of College Students (1996).Dissertation completed in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the Doctor of Philosophy at Oregon State University.

The Chronicle of Higher Education.  “Tufts University Bans Student Sex When Roommates are Present” (September 28, 2009).

Thornton, Aarland and Camburn, Donald.  “Religious Participation and Adolescent Sexual Behavior and Attitudes,” Journal of Marriage and the Family, Vol. 51, No. 3 (August 1989).

Tier, Julia.  “Sex and the Catholic Campus,” <www.bustedhalo.com> (January 29, 2004).

Wechsler, Henry; Kuo, Meichun; Lee, Hang; and Dowdall, George.  “Environmental Correlates of Underage Alcohol Use and Related Problems of College Students,” American Journal of Preventive Medicine (2000), 19 (1): 24-29.

Willoughby, Brian and Carroll, Jason.  “The Impact of Living in Co-ed Resident Halls on Risk-Taking Among College Students,” Journal of American College Health (2009), 58 (3): 241-246.

The NLRB’s Assault on Religious Liberty

/in , /by
Click here for PDF

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

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

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

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

NLRB v. The Catholic Bishop of Chicago (1979)151

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

But in the NLRB’s early years of enforcing the National Labor Relations Act of 1935, the question of Catholic schools and colleges was moot.  The NLRB declined to assert jurisdiction over any nonprofit educational institution, arguing that the nonprofit status precluded substantial commercial activity.  It was not until 1970 that the NLRB reversed its position in response to the growing influence of leading universities, claiming jurisdiction over Cornell University212 as well as other schools, colleges and universities.

Still through most of the 1970s, the NLRB did not consider whether the agency might be intruding on the First Amendment rights of Catholic colleges and universities.  The Board asserted jurisdiction over Catholic institutions including Fordham University in New York City;218 Manhattan College in Riverdale, New York;219 Seton Hill College in Greensburg, Pennsylvania;220 Saint Francis College in Loretto, Pennsylvania;221 and even the U.S. bishops’ national university, The Catholic University of America in Washington, D.C.222  In all of these cases, the bargaining units included teaching faculty.

The question of religious liberty was raised, however, by Catholic parochial schools.  In 1975, the NLRB established a “completely religious” test223 that exempted only Catholic schools with no secular education, such as seminaries to train young men for the priesthood.  Even when a school was owned and operated by the Catholic Church, the NLRB determined that:

Regulation of labor relations does not violate the First Amendment when it involves a minimal intrusion on religious conduct and is necessary to obtain [the National Labor Relations Act’s] objective.224

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

We find the standard itself to be a simplistic black or white, purported rule containing no borderline demarcation of where ‘completely religious’ takes over or, on the other hand, ceases.  In our opinion the dichotomous ‘completely religious-merely religiously associated’ standard provides no workable guide to the exercise of discretion.  The determination that an institution is so completely a religious entity as to exclude any viable secular components obviously implicates very sensitive questions of faith and tradition.225

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

College of Notre Dame (1979)226

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

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

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

There are generally significant differences between the religious aspects of church-related institutions of higher learning and parochial elementary and secondary schools. …Since religious indoctrination is not a substantial purpose or activity of these church-related colleges and universities, there is less likelihood than in primary and secondary schools that religion will permeate the area of secular education.”227

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Lewis University (1982)228

Three years later in 1982, Lewis University in Romeville, Illinois, unsuccessfully opposed a faculty union and challenged the NLRB’s application of Catholic Bishop.  The NLRB held firmly to its position that “Catholic Bishop applies only to parochial elementary and secondary schools, not to institutions of higher learning such as Lewis University.”  The Board cited both College of Notre Dame and another 1979 ruling against Barber-Scotia College,229 which was affiliated with the United Presbyterian Church.

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

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

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

In addition to pleading for an exemption under Catholic Bishop, Lewis University tried a new argument that had been successful just months earlier for Duquesne University of the Holy Ghost in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania.230  Although Duquesne had initially contested a regional director’s assertion that Catholic Bishop does not apply to colleges, the University dropped the argument on appeal before the NLRB, instead relying on a new Supreme Court ruling in NLRB v. Yeshiva University.231  The Court had ruled that full-time professors at Yeshiva were “managerial” employees who had a significant role in management of the University, and therefore they could be excluded from collective bargaining.  The strategy worked for Duquesne, and the NLRB ruled that the University was exempt from recognizing a union of full-time members of its law faculty.

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

Universidad Central de Bayamon (1984)232

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

St. Joseph’s College (1986)233

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

University of Great Falls (1997, 2000)234

The Religious Freedom Restoration Act of 1993 (RFRA)235 introduced a new factor into NLRB rulings on the exemption of religious employers from the National Labor Relations Act.  RFRA states, “Government shall not substantially burden a person’s exercise of religion even if the burden results from a rule of general applicability,” unless the burden is necessary for the “furtherance of a compelling government interest” and is the least restrictive means of serving that interest.

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

As for RFRA, the NLRB initially agreed to consider the University’s arguments.  But just prior to the Board’s ruling, in the 1997 case City of Bourne v. Flores,236 the Supreme Court invalidated a portion of RFRA as it applied to state and local governments, finding that it violated the separation of powers in the Fourteenth Amendment.  Although the Court’s ruling did not invalidate the law as it pertains to the federal government, the NLRB inexplicably declared moot the University’s argument with regard to RFRA following the Flores decision.

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

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

A violation of RFRA must constitute a substantial burden on religious practices.  The NLRB noted that the legislative intent behind RFRA was to restore legal standards of religious liberty that existed prior to the Supreme Court’s 1990 decision in Employment Division v. Smith.237  The Board therefore reasoned that it could continue to rely on Catholic Bishop as it had done prior to RFRA, and that its standard of avoiding even a “substantial risk of infringement” on religious activity was well within RFRA’s prohibition on an actual “substantial burden.”  So while the NLRB acknowledged the applicability of RFRA to its jurisdiction over Catholic employers, it decided that the law had no practical impact on its deliberations.

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

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

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

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

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

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

Again, despite the finding against the University of Great Falls, the NLRB did not have the last word.  The University petitioned the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit for review in September 2000.238  The University argued not only that the NLRB had no jurisdiction over the University under Catholic Bishop, but also that the Board’s investigation of the University’s religious character was itself a violation of its First Amendment rights under Catholic Bishop.  The University also repeated its argument that it was exempt from NLRB jurisdiction under RFRA.

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

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

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

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

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

By evaluating whether a Catholic university was sufficiently religious, the Circuit Court ruled, the NLRB “has engaged in the sort of intrusive inquiry that Catholic Bishop sought to avoid.”  The Court cited the plurality opinion in the Supreme Court case Mitchell v. Helms,239  rejecting “inquiry into… religious views” as “not only unnecessary but also offensive,” and declaring that “[i]t is well established, in numerous other contexts, that courts should refrain from trolling through a person’s or institution’s religious beliefs.”

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

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

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

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

The Court was not concerned that exempting institutions simply because they claim a religious identity would invite fraudulent claims by secular institutions.  It cited the Supreme Court ruling Boy Scouts of America v. Dale,240 in which the Court found that if an institution publicly holds itself out to be religious, the Court “cannot doubt that [it] sincerely holds this view.”

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

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

Manhattan College (Pending)

Despite the D.C. Circuit Court’s repudiation of the NLRB’s religious character test, the Board has not yet embraced the Court’s three-part test prescribed in University of Great Falls v. NLRB, leaving staff to follow Board precedent with the religious character test.  In 2003, the NLRB’s general counsel advised Barry University in Miami Shores, Florida, that it was exempt from NLRB jurisdiction under Catholic Bishop—but only after concluding that “the University’s board of trustees and administration adhere to and seek to fulfill a stated religious mission.”241  In 2008, a NLRB regional director decided that the University of Detroit Mercy in Detroit, Michigan, is not exempt from NLRB jurisdiction because neither of the University’s two sponsoring religious orders, the Society of Jesus and the Sisters of Mercy, “or the Catholic Church, is involved in its day-to-day operations.”

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

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

From Carroll’s public representations, it is readily apparent that the college holds itself out to all as providing a religious educational environment.  That it is a nonprofit affiliated with a Presbyterian synod is beyond dispute.  From the Board’s own review of Carroll’s publicly available documents, see Carroll Coll., 345 N.L.R.B. at 254–55, it should have known immediately that the college was entitled to a Catholic Bishop exemption from the NLRA’s collective bargaining requirements.242

Still, NLRB staff employees continue to apply the Board’s religious character test absent a clear Board ruling that embraces the D.C. Circuit Court’s more lenient three-part test for exemption.  In 2010, the NLRB general counsel rejected a request by Marquette University in Milwaukee, Wisconsin, for exemption from recognizing a union of security guards—not only because the unit did not include teaching faculty, but because “the Board has not adopted the D.C. Circuit’s three-part test for determining whether to assert jurisdiction over religiously-operated employers.”243  Revealing a clear preference on the matter, the general counsel contrasted the Board’s “thorough” religious character assessment with the Court’s “superficial” test.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Facing the Future

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

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

…the Board’s consistent policy for itself to determine whether to acquiesce in the contrary views of a circuit court of appeals or whether, with due deference to the court’s opinion, to adhere to its previous holding until the Supreme Court of the United States has ruled otherwise.244

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

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

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

For the purposes of this case, we assume that the [D.C. Circuit] Court’s test governs the exercise of the Board’s jurisdiction over religiously affiliated educational institution [sic].245

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

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

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

Meanwhile, legal experts have advised The Center for the Advancement of Catholic Higher Education that a Catholic college or university’s best protection from religious liberty violations is to faithfully follow the guidelines established by the Catholic Church for Catholic higher education.  The norms of Ex corde Ecclesiae, if followed in both letter and spirit, should be sufficient in most cases to claim a religious identity that impacts curriculum, personnel, campus life, and all activities of the institution.  A new assessment guide published by The Center246 may be helpful to college leaders in self-evaluating their religious identity and preparing for any challenge from a federal agency or court.

The Becket Fund for Religious Liberty warns that Catholic institutions must be able to demonstrate that their religious identity is “bona fide” and “sincerely held,” or they may be unable to claim religious exemptions to federal law.247  Kevin Theriot, Senior Counsel for the Alliance Defense Fund, believes the Vatican and bishops have made this easier with clear standards of Catholic identity: “Catholic colleges and universities have an advantage over other religious institutions in that the Catholic Church’s Canon Law and the Apostolic Constitution Ex corde Ecclesiae lay out the requirements for a college to be considered Catholic.”248

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

(Click to enlarge)

About the Author

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

 

 

 

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

/in , /by
Click here for PDF

Contents:

Assessing Catholic Identity

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

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

Faculty & Academics
Faculty
Curriculum
Theology
Research

Students & Campus Life
Pastoral Ministry
Student Life

Assessing Catholic Identity

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

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

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

“To date, the Holy See’s primary concern at every level is encouraging the fostering and, if necessary, the reclaiming of the Catholic identity of institutions of higher learning,” explained Archbishop J. Michael Miller, then Secretary for the Vatican Congregation of Catholic Education, to American college and university leaders in 2005.249 “It does this, as we shall see, by insisting, first, on the university’s institutional commitment to the Church and, second, on its fidelity to the Catholic faith in all its activities.”

Archbishop Miller framed the issue like this:

Perhaps now is the time to move the debate over the Catholic identity of institutions of higher education to a different level.  Instead of sterile arguments over how “Catholic-lite” a university can be and still be “Catholic,” the question to be engaged becomes: how does a Catholic university honestly and effectively provide a Christian presence in the world of higher education?  The burden of proof now falls on the university itself.  The challenge thus becomes whether a Catholic university can develop the institutional arrangements that clearly demonstrate its willingness to participate in the Church’s evangelizing mission as well as to serve the common good.250

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

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

Concern for social justice

Sacramental and devotional life

Curriculum – are theology and the Christian tradition core elements?

Percentage of Catholics among faculty, trustees, and staff

Religious and doctrinal attitudes of students over time

Practice of the faith – do students pray, go to Mass, express an interest in religious vocations, etc.?251

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

Assessment is not an end in itself but should be directed toward enhancing the university’s Catholic identity.  It is of little use to draw up a list of markers of Catholicity that are then ticked off to show the institution’s compliance.  Rather, I would suggest, measurable strategies should be put in place that require the university to deepen its Catholic character, moving it from where it is now to where it wishes to be in the future.252

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

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

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

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

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

In two studies commissioned by The Cardinal Newman Society’s Center for the Advancement of Catholic Higher Education, legal experts in religious freedom advise Catholic colleges and universities that their legal status as “religious” institutions requires consistent adherence to religious principles.  The Becket Fund for Religious Liberty warns that Catholic institutions must be able to demonstrate that their religious identity is “bona fide” and “sincerely held,” or they may be unable to claim religious exemptions to offensive laws.253  Kevin Theriot of the Alliance Defense Fund believes the Vatican has made this easier with clear standards of Catholic identity: “Catholic colleges and universities have an advantage over other religious institutions in that the Catholic Church’s Canon Law and the Apostolic Constitution Ex corde Ecclesiae lay out the requirements for a college to be considered Catholic.”254

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

We pray that the following summary of magisterial guidance and proposed questions will help Catholic college and university leaders ensure “a Christian presence in the university world”255 where “each and every aspect of your learning communities reverberates within the ecclesial life of faith.”256

Institutional Identity

Mission Statement, Governing Documents & Statutes

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Ex corde Ecclesiae, §1

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

Ex corde Ecclesiae, §4

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

Ex corde Ecclesiae, §12

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

Ex corde Ecclesiae, §§1­3-14

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

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

Ex corde Ecclesiae, §27

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

Ex corde Ecclesiae, §30

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Application of Ex corde Ecclesiae for United States, §7

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

Questions for Self-Assessment

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

  1. make known the institution’s Catholic identity and canonical status?257
  2. include or reference the General Norms of Ex corde Ecclesiae and the Particular Norms of the Application of Ex corde Ecclesiae for the United States?258
  3. ensure compliance with each of these Norms?259
  4. explain the mission of the institution in accord with the purposes of a Catholic university as described in Ex corde Ecclesiae260, especially the following essential characteristics:261
    1. a Christian inspiration not only of individuals but of the university community
      as such;
    2. a continuing reflection in the light of the Catholic faith upon the growing treasury of human knowledge, to which it seeks to contribute by its own research;
    3. fidelity to the Christian message as it comes to us through the Church; and
    4. an institutional commitment to the service of the people of God and of the human family in their pilgrimage to the transcendent goal which gives meaning to life?
  5. express the institution’s recognition of the teaching authority of the Catholic Church on matters of faith and morals?262
  6. express the institution’s commitment to the practical implications of its Catholic identity, including but not limited to:
    1. commitment to Catholic ideals, principles, and attitudes in carrying out research, teaching, and all other university activities, including activities of officially-recognized student and faculty organizations and associations, and with due regard for academic freedom and the conscience of every individual?263
    2. commitment to serve others, particularly the poor, underprivileged, and vulnerable members of society?264
    3. commitment of witness of the Catholic faith by Catholic administrators and teachers, especially those teaching the theological disciplines, and acknowledgment and respect on the part of non-Catholic teachers and administrators of the university’s Catholic identity and mission?265
    4. commitment to provide courses for students on Catholic moral and religious principles and their application to critical areas such as human life and other issues of social justice?266
    5. commitment to care pastorally for the students, faculty, administration, and staff?267
    6. commitment to provide personal services (health care, counseling, and guidance) to students, as well as administration and faculty, in conformity with the Church’s ethi-
    7. cal and religious teaching and directives?268
    8. commitment to create a campus culture and environment that is expressive and supportive of a Catholic way of life?269

Policies, Programs & Commitments

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

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

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

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

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

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

Ex corde Ecclesiae, §21

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

Ex corde Ecclesiae, §27

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

Ex corde Ecclesiae, §34

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

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

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

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

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

Application of Ex corde Ecclesiae for United States, §7

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

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

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

United States Conference of Catholic Bishops, Catholics in Political Life

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

Questions for Self-Assessment

How are each of the institution’s distinct programs, activities, and commitments informed and carried out with Catholic ideals, principles, and attitudes?270

How are each of the institution’s academic, personnel, student, and other policies informed and carried out with Catholic ideals, principles, and attitudes?271

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

  1. ensure that members of the college or university community relate to each other with mutual respect and sincere dialogue?272
  2. protect the individual rights and religious liberty and conscience of all members of the college or university community?273
  3. ensure that Catholic members of the college or university community demonstrate fidelity to the Catholic Church in all their activities?274
  4. ensure that non-Catholic members of the college or university community respect the Catholic character of the institution?275
  5. help make education at the college or university available to students from low-income families, minority groups who customarily have been deprived of an equivalent education, and students from newly emerging nations?276
  6. implement in practical terms the institution’s commitment to be faithful to the teachings of the Catholic Church?277
  7. implement in practical terms the institution’s commitment to serve others, particularly the poor, underprivileged, and vulnerable members of society?278
  8. ensure that individuals who act in defiance of the Catholic Church’s fundamental moral principles are not honored, including awards, honors, or platforms which would suggest support for their actions?279

Has the institution developed a plan for fulfilling its mission that communicates and develops the Catholic intellectual tradition, is of service to the Church and society, and encourages the members of the university community to grow in the practice of the faith?280

How does the plan address these concerns?281

How does the plan address intellectual and pastoral contributions to the mission of communicating Gospel values, service to the poor, social justice initiatives, and ecumenical and inter-religious activities?282

How does the institution maintain this plan and prescribed activities?283

Relationship with Diocesan Bishop

Code of Canon Law, Canon 808

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

Code of Canon Law, Canon 809

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

Code of Canon Law, Canon 810, §2

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

Code of Canon Law, Canon 812

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

Code of Canon Law, Canon 813

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Ex corde Ecclesiae, §27

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

Ex corde Ecclesiae, §28

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

Ex corde Ecclesiae, §29

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Application of Ex corde Ecclesiae for United States, §2

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

Application of Ex corde Ecclesiae for United States, §4

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

Application of Ex corde Ecclesiae for United States, §5

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

Application of Ex corde Ecclesiae for United States, §5

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

Application of Ex corde Ecclesiae for United States, §7

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

Questions for Self-Assessment

How has the institution ensured that the local diocesan bishop consents to its identification as a “Catholic” college or university?284

How has the institution ensured that the institution’s governing documents have been reviewed and/or approved by the local diocesan bishop, if required according to the institution’s canonical status and method of establishment?285

How does the institution periodically communicate relevant information about the Catholic character of the institution and its activities to the local diocesan bishop or other competent ecclesiastical authority under Canon Law?286

How does the institution strive to develop a close personal and pastoral relationship with the local diocesan bishop—characterized by mutual trust, close and consistent cooperation, and continuing dialogue—such that the bishop is seen as a participant in the life of the institution?287

How does the institution ensure dialogue between the local diocesan bishop and those who teach theological disciplines?288

How does the institution ensure regular dialogue with the local diocesan bishop and diocesan authorities about ways of promoting Catholic identity, how to achieve the goals of Ex corde Ecclesiae according to local needs and circumstances, and the contribution that the institution can make to the life of the Church in the area?289

How does the institution ensure regular dialogue on these matters with the religious institute to which it is related by establishment or tradition, if applicable?290

How does the institution defer in practical ways to the authority of the local diocesan bishop and the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops to remain vigilant that the principles of Catholic doctrine are faithfully observed at the institution?291

How does the institution defer in practical ways to the authority of the local diocesan bishop to watch over the preservation and strengthening of the Catholic character of the institution, including any initiative of the bishop to resolve problems?292

How does the institution defer in practical ways to the authority of the local diocesan bishop over the pastoral care of the college or university community, including campus ministry programs, liturgical activities, and the appointment of pastoral ministers?293

How does the institution ensure that those who teach theological disciplines have a mandatum according to the procedures established by the local diocesan bishop?294

How does the institution work jointly with Catholic Church authorities to jointly identify, study, and pursue solutions to issues concerning social justice, human life, and the needs of
the poor?295

Cooperation

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

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

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

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

Ex corde Ecclesiae, §35

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

Ex corde Ecclesiae, §37

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

Ex corde Ecclesiae, §41

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

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

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

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

Questions for Self-Assessment

How does the institution cooperate with other Catholic colleges and universities in research, teaching, and other activities to strengthen the Catholic identity of the institutions and confront problems facing modern society?296

How does the institution, in accord with Catholic principles and doctrine, cooperate with non-Catholic colleges and universities in research, teaching, and other activities to confront problems facing modern society?297

How does the institution dialogue and collaborate with other colleges and universities in the United States on behalf of development, understanding between cultures, and defense of nature in accordance with an awareness of the international ecological situation?298

How does the institution, in accord with Catholic principles and doctrine, cooperate with government programs and the programs of other national and international organizations on behalf of justice, development, and progress?299

In its cooperative activities with other entities, how does the institution give witness to the Church’s social teaching and its moral principles in areas such as the fostering of peace and justice, respect for all human life, the eradication of poverty and unjust discrimination, the development of peoples, and the growth of human culture?300

How does the institution ensure close cooperation between the institution’s pastoral ministry and the other activities within the local Church, under the guidance or with the approval of the local diocesan bishop?301

Leadership & Administration

Board of Trustees

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Questions for Self-Assessment

How are prospective and current members of the Board of Trustees and other governing boards informed of their responsibility for maintaining and strengthening the Catholic identity of the institution?302

How does the institution ensure that a majority of the members of the Board of Trustees and other governing boards are Catholics who are committed to the Catholic Church?303

How have the Board of Trustees and other governing boards:

  1. developed and implemented effective ways of relating to and collaborating with the local diocesan bishop and diocesan agencies on matters of mutual concern?304
  2. analyzed ecclesiastical documents on higher education, including Ex corde Ecclesiae and the Application of Ex corde Ecclesiae for the United States, and developed and carried out specific ways of implementing them appropriate to the structure and life of the university?305
  3. developed and implemented a plan to undertake a periodic review of the congruence of the institution’s mission statement, courses of instruction, research program, and service activity with the ideals, principles, and norms expressed in Ex corde Ecclesiae?306

Administration & Non-Faculty Employees

Code of Canon Law, Canon 833

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Ex corde Ecclesiae, §24

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

Ex corde Ecclesiae, §27

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

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

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

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

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

“The university president should be a Catholic.”

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

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

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

Application of Ex corde Ecclesiae for United States, §7

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

Questions for Self-Assessment

How does the institution ensure that the president (or equivalent executive official) is a Catholic?307

How does the institution ensure that the president (or equivalent executive official) expresses commitment to the institution’s Catholic identity and (if Catholic) makes the Vatican-approved profession of faith at the beginning of the president’s term of office?308

How does the institution ensure that each official and non-faculty employee is informed at the time of their appointment about the Catholic identity of the institution and its implications, and their responsibility to promote—or if not Catholic, to at least respect—that Catholic identity?309

How does the institution ensure that each official and non-faculty employee is both willing and able to maintain and strengthen the Catholic identity of the institution, under the direction of the governing board(s)?310

How does the institution ensure that each official and non-faculty employee implements
in practical terms the commitment to maintain and strengthen the Catholic identity of the institution?311

How does the institution invite official and non-faculty employees to participate in the spiritual life of the institution?312

How does each Catholic official and non-faculty employee witness to the Catholic faith?313

Faculty & Academics

Faculty

Code of Canon Law, Canon 810, §1

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Ex corde Ecclesiae, §12

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

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

Ex corde Ecclesiae, §22

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

Ex corde Ecclesiae, §27

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Application of Ex corde Ecclesiae for United States, §7

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

Questions for Self-Assessment

How does the institution ensure that at least a majority of faculty members are Catholics who are committed to the witness of the faith?314

How does the institution ensure that each faculty member is informed at the time of their appointment about the Catholic identity of the institution and its implications, and their responsibility to promote—or if not Catholic, to at least respect—that Catholic identity?315

How does the institution ensure that each faculty member is both willing and able to maintain and strengthen the Catholic identity of the institution, under the direction of the governing board(s) and administrative officials?316

How does the institution ensure that each faculty member implements in practical terms the commitment to promote—or if not Catholic, to at least respect—the Catholic identity of the institution?317

How does the institution ensure that each faculty member implements in practical terms the commitment to maintain and strengthen the Catholic identity of the institution?318

How does the institution ensure the appointment of faculty members who, besides their professional suitability, are also outstanding in their integrity of doctrine and probity of life?319

When these qualities are lacking, how does the institution ensure that faculty members are removed from their positions?320

How does the institution invite faculty members to participate in the spiritual life of the institution?321

How does each Catholic faculty member witness to the Catholic faith and authentic Christian life, demonstrating integration between faith and life and between professional competence and Christian wisdom?322

How does each faculty member demonstrate commitment to academic ideals and the principles of an authentically human life?323

How does each faculty member strive to improve their competence and endeavor to set the content, objectives, methods, and results of research in their particular discipline within the framework of a coherent world vision which conforms to Catholic teaching?324

How does the institution ensure that officially recognized faculty organizations and associations conform to Catholic ideals, principles, and attitudes?325

How does the institution guarantee its faculty members a freedom of inquiry and of prudently expressing their opinions on matters in which they have expertise, while observing the submission due to the magisterium of the Church, the rights of individuals and the community, the confines of the truth and the common good, and the methods proper to their particular discipline?326

How does the institution respond to violations and abuses of academic freedom?327

Curriculum

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

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

Ex corde Ecclesiae, §7

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

Ex corde Ecclesiae, §9

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

Ex corde Ecclesiae, §20

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

Ex corde Ecclesiae, §23

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

Ex corde Ecclesiae, §31

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

Ex corde Ecclesiae, §34

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

Ex corde Ecclesiae, §36

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

Ex corde Ecclesiae, §49

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

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

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

Questions for Self-Assessment

How does the education for each student:

  1. combine academic and professional development with formation in moral and religious principles, the social teachings of the Catholic Church, and their application to critical issues such as human life and other issues of social justice?328
  2. include instruction in authentic Catholic doctrine and practice?329
  3. include interdisciplinary studies, assisted by a careful and thorough study of philosophy
    and theology, helping students acquire an organic vision of reality?330
  4. consider the moral implications that are present in each discipline?331
  5. develop the Christian spirit of service to others for the promotion of social justice?332
  6. prepare the student to be outstanding in learning, ready to shoulder society’s heavier burdens and to witness the faith to the world?333

How does each program of professional studies include appropriate Catholic ethical formation in that profession and develop a sense of service to individuals and society?334

How do programs in science and technology evaluate the attainments of science and technology in the perspective of the totality of the human person?335

How does the institution offer its services and make knowledge and understanding of the faith available to the public beyond its own academic community?336

Theology

Code of Canon Law, Canon 811, §§1-2

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

Code of Canon Law, Canon 812

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

Code of Canon Law, Canon 833

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

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

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

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

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

Ex corde Ecclesiae, §19

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

Ex corde Ecclesiae, §20

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

Ex corde Ecclesiae, §29

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Application of Ex corde Ecclesiae for United States, §5

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

Application of Ex corde Ecclesiae for United States, §7

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

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

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

Questions for Self-Assessment

How does the institution maintain a faculty, institute, or chair of Catholic theology with courses for lay students?337

How does the institution ensure that students have access to courses which treat in a special way those theological questions with are connected with each particular discipline?338

How does the institution provide academic events on a regular basis to address theological issues, especially those relative to the various disciplines taught in the university?339

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

  1. has a mandatum according to the procedures established by the local diocesan bishop?340
  2. makes the Vatican-approved profession of faith at the beginning of the individual’s employment?341
  3. is faithful to the Magisterium of the Catholic Church as the authentic interpreter of Sacred Scripture and Sacred Tradition and assents to Catholic doctrine according to the degree of authority with which it is taught?342
  4. teaches in a manner faithful to Scripture, Tradition, and the Catholic Church’s Magisterium?343
  5. remain faithful to the principles and methods proper to Catholic theology?344

Research

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

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

Ex corde Ecclesiae, §7

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

Ex corde Ecclesiae, §15

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

Ex corde Ecclesiae, §16

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

Ex corde Ecclesiae, §17

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

Ex corde Ecclesiae, §18

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

Ex corde Ecclesiae, §32

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

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

Ex corde Ecclesiae, §33

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

Ex corde Ecclesiae, §34

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

Ex corde Ecclesiae, §35

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

Ex corde Ecclesiae, §45

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

Ex corde Ecclesiae, §46

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

Ex corde Ecclesiae, §47

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

Ex corde Ecclesiae, §49

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

Application of Ex corde Ecclesiae for United States, §5

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

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

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

Questions for Self-Assessment

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

  1. the search for an integration of knowledge, by determining the relative place and meaning of each of the various disciplines in relation to Christ as the center of creation and human history?345
  2. dialogue between faith and reason?346
  3. concern for the ethical and moral implications of its methods and discoveries?347
  4. a moral, spiritual, and religious dimension from a Catholic theological perspective?348

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

  1. serve the development of scientific knowledge?349
  2. evaluate the attainments of science and technology in the Christian perspective of the totality of the human person and the higher truth that comes from the Gospel?350
  3. study the roots and causes of serious contemporary problems, paying special attention to their ethical and religious dimensions, in areas such as the dignity of human life, the promotion of justice for all, the quality of personal and family life, the protection of nature, the search for peace and political stability, a more just sharing in the world’s resources, and a new economic and political order that will better serve the human community at a national and international level?351
  4. examine and evaluate from a Christian perspective the predominant values and norms of modern society and culture, including the impact of modern technology and the mass media?352
  5. help communicate to society the ethical and religious principles which give full meaning to human life?353
  6. contribute to ecumenical dialogue, according to the directives of ecclesiastical authority?354
  7. otherwise contribute to the Catholic Church’s work of evangelization?355

How does the institution ensure cooperation among the different academic disciplines in research and other academic activities?356

Students & Campus Life

Pastoral Ministry

Code of Canon Law, Canon 813

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

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

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

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

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

Ex corde Ecclesiae, §§38-39

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

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

Ex corde Ecclesiae, §§40-42

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Application of Ex corde Ecclesiae for United States, §5

“Allocation of personnel and money to assure the special contributions of campus ministry is indispensable.  In view of the presence on campus of persons of other religious traditions, it is a concern of the whole Church that ecumenical and inter-religious relationships should be fostered with sensitivity.”

Application of Ex corde Ecclesiae for United States, §7

“In order to maintain and safeguard their freely-chosen Catholic identity, it is important for Catholic universities… to implement in practical terms their commitment to the essential elements of Catholic identity, including the following: …Commitment to care pastorally for the students, faculty, administration and staff….”

Questions for Self-Assessment

How does the institution promote the pastoral care of all members of the college or university community, with special attention to the spiritual development of Catholics?357

How does the institution strive to unite intellectual learning with the religious dimension of life?358

How does the institution ensure sufficient resources and the appointment of sufficient priests, deacons, religious, and lay people to provide pastoral care for the college or university community?359

How does the institution give practical demonstrations of the Catholic faith in daily activity, including important moments of reflection and prayer?360

How does the institution ensure respect for non-Catholic members of the college or university community and their initiatives for reflection and prayer in accordance with their own beliefs?361

How does the institution collaborate in ecumenical and interfaith efforts to care for the pastoral needs of non-Catholic students?362

How do the institution’s pastoral ministers:

  1. invite all members of the college or university community to assist the work of pastoral ministry and collaborate in its activities, including the sacraments (especially the Mass and Penance), religious devotions, and other authentic forms of Catholic spirituality?363
  2. encourage faculty members and students to become more aware of their responsibility toward those who are suffering physically or spiritually, with particular attention to the poor and victims of economic, social, cultural, or religious injustice?364
  3. help develop and nurture in students the value of marriage and family life?365
  4. foster vocations to the priesthood and religious life?366

Student Life

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

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

Ex corde Ecclesiae, §42

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

Application of Ex corde Ecclesiae for United States, §7

“In order to maintain and safeguard their freely-chosen Catholic identity, it is important for Catholic universities… to implement in practical terms their commitment to the essential elements of Catholic identity, including the following: …Commitment to Catholic ideals, principles and attitudes in carrying out research, teaching and all other university activities, including activities of officially-recognized student and faculty organizations and associations… Commitment to provide personal services (health care, counseling and guidance) to students, as well as administration and faculty, in conformity with the Church’s ethical and religious teaching and directives …Commitment to create a campus culture and environment that is expressive and supportive of a Catholic way of life.”


Questions for Self-Assessment

How does the institution ensure that students recognize and respect the Catholic identity of the institution?367

How does the institution ensure a campus culture and environment that is expressive and supportive of a Catholic way of life?368

How does the institution promote student participation in associations of spiritual and apostolic life, especially those developed especially for students?369

How does the institution ensure that officially recognized student organizations and associations conform to Catholic ideals, principles, and attitudes?370

How does the institution provide personal services like health care, counseling, and guidance for students, in conformity with the Catholic Church’s ethical and religious teaching and directives?371