Catholic education provides many important benefits to American society. At a cost substantially less than public schools, Catholic elementary and secondary schools provide an outstanding education to nearly 2 million students, who tend to score high on national tests and succeed in college and career. More than 200 Catholic colleges and universities educate nearly 1 million students, preparing them to serve society in a wide variety of fields.
While business leaders lament the decline of communication, thinking, and problem-solving skills among job candidates, Catholic educators have maintained a strong emphasis on the core liberal arts and intellectual development.
Most importantly, graduates of Catholic schools are integrally formed in mind, body, and soul to give generous service to their fellow citizens. They exhibit strong character and virtue in an increasing secular and self-centered culture.
Nevertheless, Catholic educators face serious threats to their religious freedom emanating from their state and local governments and Washington, D.C. These have escalated significantly under the Obama administration, but some began much earlier. We now look with great hope to the incoming Trump administration and Congress to correct the many injustices and take lasting actions that will uphold Catholic educators’ First Amendment right to teach and witness to the Catholic faith by word and deed.
For that, Catholic educators and families would be most grateful and relieved, eager to focus on the essential task of raising young Americans to fulfill God’s calling and “make America great again.”
The following policy recommendations were developed by The Cardinal Newman Society, which promotes and defends faithful Catholic education, following substantial consultation with Catholic and other Christian education leaders, policy experts, and legal advisers. The proposals especially represent the concerns and needs of the Catholic schools recognized by the Newman Society’s Catholic Education Honor Roll and the Catholic colleges and universities recommended in our Newman Guide. These are institutions for which the freedom to teach and witness to the Catholic faith is essential to their mission and survival.
Elementary and Secondary Education Act
Overview
President Trump has proposed a $20 billion federal voucher program, while encouraging states to spend another $110 billion on vouchers. The program would aid students from low-income families and would likely redirect funds under Title I of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act, which are currently block-granted to states.
The school choice proposal could aid thousands of families attending or wishing to attend Catholic schools, but it also poses significant challenges for religious education. Schools must be allowed to freely maintain religious standards for education, and vouchers must not be permitted to open the door to substantial federal and state government regulation that would stifle diversity and religious values in education.
Already Catholic schools have struggled to preserve their unique identity and superior academic quality under the national Common Core movement. Although Catholic schools are not required to adopt state standards, many have yielded to the pressure to conform to standardized education and testing. Ending federal interference in school standards is an important step toward restoring diversity and innovation in education.
Action: Expand school choice without regulation
School choice presents a wonderful opportunity to help families afford a Catholic education—but only if it preserves the religious identity and quality of Catholic education, without opening the door to government regulation and coercion.
- Legislative action: Reform Title I and IDEA (disabilities funding) to allow the funds to follow low-income students to the schools of their choice, but ensure that the aid does not impose new regulations and restrictions on religious education. Allow funds to go only to states that protect religious education and allow true school choice, including religious schools and homeschooling.
Action: End federal push for career- and college-focused standards
The federal incentives that the Obama administration used to coerce states to embrace the Common Core standards—the Race to the Top funds and waivers from No Child Left Behind—are already gone. But while the Every Student Succeeds Act (ESSA) prohibits ED from “federal mandates, direction, or control” over state standards for education, ED has plenty of opportunities to influence standards and testing. It is essential that the federal government gets out of the way, lets states work their way out of the Common Core stranglehold on innovation, and focus on state-level improvements that don’t nationalize education.
- Executive action: Ensure that ED refrains from interference in education standards and testing, and instead promotes state-level and local innovation. Dismantle any remaining programs that promote a utilitarian view of education with emphasis on career and college instead of healthy student formation and learning for its own sake.
Higher Education Act
Overview
There has been a longstanding injustice in ED’s regulation of colleges based on the handling of student aid under Title IV of the Higher Education Act. In 1984, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in Grove City College v. Bell (465 U.S. 555) that a college that does not receive direct federal aid—but its students do receive aid for college education under Title IV—can be regulated under Title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972. Title IX applies only to colleges that receive federal financial assistance.
The clear intent of Title IV is to support the needs of students, not particular institutions. It is the students who are awarded the aid and who choose which institutions will receive the funds for tuition and expenses. Title IV is a form of “school choice” for needy college students; the aid can make it possible for students to choose among a wide variety of colleges that would otherwise be inaccessible.
The Grove City decision opened to door to substantial federal regulation of higher education. For religious colleges, this excessive government regulation invites conflicts with religious freedom. (See discussion of Title IX below.)
Another way Title IV funding opens the door to federal interference in higher education is by ED’s regulation of accrediting agencies, creating potential conflicts with the religious freedom of religious colleges. Under the Higher Education Act, accrediting associations determine which colleges a student may attend to receive Title IV aid. This politicizes accreditors, distorts their purpose as independent promoters of excellence in higher education, and invites ED regulation by its recognition of accreditor-gatekeepers. With regard to Title IV aid, the only remedy for a college that is unfairly treated by an accreditor is to request revocation of the accreditor’s standing with ED.
In addition to requirements under Title IX that violate religious freedom, other federal regulation and coercion poses concerns for religious colleges. The regulation of teacher preparation programs tends to diminish diversity and ignore the particular needs of schools and colleges, including religious institutions. Federal policies that disadvantage students who choose to focus their studies in the liberal arts or “humanities” are a misguided form of social engineering that disregards the great benefits of a religious, liberal-arts education.
Action: De-link student aid from Title IX
The U.S. Supreme Court has determined that the receipt of Title IV funds triggers a college’s obligation to comply with Title IX. Given attempts to redefine “sex” in Title IX to include “gender identity,” the link between student aid and Title IX is a serious threat to religious higher education.
- Legislative action: Amend the Higher Education Act to ensure that Title IV funds are not considered federal support for educational institutions with regard to enforcement of Title IX.
Action: De-link accreditation from Title IV funding
Accrediting associations are the gatekeepers for federal aid under Title IV of the Higher Education Act. Currently the law (20 U.S. Code §1009 (b)) includes minimal protection for religious colleges by requiring that the accreditor “consistently applies and enforces standards that respect the stated mission of the institution of higher education, including religious missions.” The only remedy for religious colleges that may be unjustly discriminated against by an accreditor is to request revocation of the accreditor’s standing with the U.S. Department of Education.
- Legislative action: Amend the Higher Education Act to ensure that accrediting bodies are no longer gatekeepers to Title IV funds.
- Legislative action: Amend the Higher Education Act to allow a private right of action against an accreditor by a college that is unjustly discriminated against in the course of accreditation.
Action: Deregulate teacher preparation
Religious educators strive to comply with state and accreditor expectations for teacher preparation, but federal government regulation of teacher preparation programs interferes with the independence of such programs and state decision making. It also raises concerns for religious freedom in programs that reside within religious colleges. In late 2016, ED issued regulations to increase federal oversight of teacher preparation.
- Executive action: Repeal Obama-era regulations expanding federal interference in teacher preparation (see 34 CFR Parts 612, 686).
Action: Refrain from discriminating against liberal arts majors
Federal policy proposals to disadvantage college students who focus their studies in the liberal arts or “humanities” are a misguided form of social engineering that disregards the great benefits of a religious, liberal-arts education. Complaints that liberal arts graduates have low earning potential have been greatly exaggerated and are often inaccurate. Many business executives prefer graduates with strong communications and reasoning skills. Regardless, liberal arts graduates contribute greatly to society and culture beyond simple measures of career success.
Threatening to control Title IV expenditures by discriminating against liberal arts majors or limiting students’ choices of college major and career is neither wise nor beneficial. It also disproportionately impacts students at religious colleges, who often concentrate their studies in the liberal arts.
- Executive action: Refrain from interference in students’ choice of college studies and limitations of Title IV student aid for liberal arts majors.
Title IX of Education Amendments of 1972
Overview
Title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972 (20 U.S.C. §§ 1681–1688) forbids sex discrimination at schools and colleges that accept federal funds, but the law has recently been reinterpreted by the U.S. Department of Education (ED) in ways that harm women and violate religious freedom.
The clear intent of Congress, when it enacted Title IX in 1972, was to prohibit discrimination against the two “sexes”—male and female. This is indicated in the law. Enforcement of Title IX has emphasized parity for males and females, as in school and college athletics programs.
However, the EEOC and ED have recently forced an ideological reinterpretation of “sex” in Title IX to include “gender identity”—even a person’s choice of gender that is different from their biological sex at birth. Far from advancing the original intent of the law, this “gender ideology” threatens women’s athletics and other activities by permitting biological males to join and potentially dominate those activities. It also threatens women’s privacy and safety by permitting male access to women’s bathrooms, showers, locker rooms, and residences.
ED’s reinterpretation of Title IX to include gender identity unfairly prejudices Catholic educators who teach and witness to the Catholic faith. Catholics believe that man is created male or female, a fact of natural law and the will of God. Human sexuality is properly ordered toward marriage between a man and a woman. A faithfully Catholic school or college must conform to an individual’s biological sex and expects students and employees to practice chastity outside of marriage. Although Title IX provides an exemption for religious education, ED’s reinterpretation of “sex discrimination” unfairly indicates that religious institutions discriminate against women, and this can have a “trickle down” impact on state policy, accreditation, private funding, etc.
Moreover, Title IX’s religious exemption is not certain for many religious schools and colleges. ED has asserted its authority to pre-certify or deny eligibility for the exemption, a practice that is not indicated by the law. The law’s language describing the exemption could be unfairly interpreted to exclude independent and nondenominational religious institutions that are not legally controlled by an established church.
And still more, those institutions that receive ED’s preapproval for religious exemption—an exemption that is clearly indicated in the law—are being persecuted by advocacy groups, states, and ED itself.
Action: Clarify Title IX religious exemption
20 U.S. Code § 1681 (a) (3) provides a religious exemption to Title IX: “…this section shall not apply to an educational institution which is controlled by a religious organization if the application of this subsection would not be consistent with the religious tenets of such organization…”
It is important to clarify the words “controlled by a religious organization” to protect institutions that are “controlled” by religious beliefs but have no legal ties to a church. For instance, most Catholic colleges and many Catholic schools—even the most faithful to Catholic teachings—have no legal ties to the Catholic Church. There are also many nondenominational Christian schools and colleges that are strongly religious but not affiliated with any formal church.
- Executive action: Issue an executive order to clarify language in 20 U.S. Code § 1681 (a) (3) to ensure that no religious school or college can be excluded from the Title IX religious exemption.
- Legislative action: Amend the law to replace or clarify language in 20 U.S. Code § 1681 (a) (3) to ensure that no religious school or college can be excluded from the Title IX religious exemption.
Action: Uphold Title IX religious exemption
The religious exemption to Title IX (20 U.S. Code § 1681 (a) (3)) suggests automatic exemption for a qualifying school or college, if and when there may be a conflict with Title IX: “…this section shall not apply to an educational institution which is controlled by a religious organization if the application of this subsection would not be consistent with the religious tenets of such organization…”
Although not indicated by the law, ED has inappropriately asserted authority to pre-certify or deny a religious institution’s exemption to Title IX. A process has been established whereby an institution applies for an advance ruling from ED, which by its sole discretion may refuse to “approve” an exemption if, in its opinion, a school or college does not meet the standard of being “controlled by a religious organization.”
This puts ED in the position of potentially limiting an exemption that is clearly indicated by law; courts and the public may be prejudiced if ED rejects or even delays its ruling. It also suggests that exemption from Title IX depends on an institution’s assertion of the exemption prior to a dispute; in fact, the law demands exemption for religious institutions in every case of a religious conflict with Title IX, whether or not the exemption is claimed prior to the conflict or even at the time of the conflict.
Moreover, ED has recently been publishing on its website the names of institutions that it “approves” for Title IX exemptions. This has been done at the urging of states and advocacy groups that wish to shame and persecute religious institutions for obtaining these legally valid exemptions. In 2016, California legislators attempted to withhold state Cal Grants from religious colleges that appear on ED’s list of “unapproved” institutions. This is a form of persecution; religious organizations should not be punished or denigrated for their beliefs and for protecting their religious freedom against an ED reinterpretation of Title IX that is inconsistent with the law’s original purpose.
- Executive action: End the U.S. Department of Education’s policy of approving or denying advance rulings for religious educational institutions that claim the exemption to Title IX in 20 U.S. Code § 1681 (a) (3).
- Executive action: End the U.S. Department of Education’s policy of publishing a list of religious educational institutions that claim the religious exemption to Title IX in 20 U.S. Code § 1681 (a) (3).
- Executive action: Issue an executive order to forbid retaliation by any federal agency against religious educational institutions that claim the religious exemption to Title IX in 20 U.S. Code § 1681 (a) (3) (cf. non-retaliation provision in S. 815, the proposed Employment Non-Discrimination Act of 2013: “It shall be an unlawful employment practice for a covered entity to discriminate against an individual because such individual—(1) opposed any practice made an unlawful employment practice by this Act; or (2) made a charge, testified, assisted, or participated in any manner in an investigation, proceeding, or hearing under this Act”).
- Legislative action: Amend the law to forbid retaliation by any state or other entity or individual against religious educational institutions that claim the religious exemption to Title IX in 20 U.S. Code § 1681 (a) (3) (cf. non-retaliation provision in S. 815, proposed Employment Non-Discrimination Act of 2013: “It shall be an unlawful employment practice for a covered entity to discriminate against an individual because such individual—(1) opposed any practice made an unlawful employment practice by this Act; or (2) made a charge, testified, assisted, or participated in any manner in an investigation, proceeding, or hearing under this Act”).
Action: Restore original meaning of Title IX
As noted above, ED and EEOC have reinterpreted “sex discrimination” to force acceptance of new concepts of gender and sexual orientation. This ideological reinterpretation of the law threatens the religious freedom of religious schools and colleges.
- Executive action: Rescind any “Dear Colleague” letters, administrative rules, executive orders, or regulations (see 34 CFR Part 106) which re-interpret the law to define “sex” and “gender” as referring to anything other than the biologically-defined sex (male or female) of an individual at birth, or that require admittance of the opposite sex to gender-exclusive bathrooms, locker rooms, shower facilities, residences, and other facilities.
- Executive action: Issue an executive order defining “sex” and “gender” for the purposes of Title IX to refer only to the biologically-defined sex (male or female) of an individual at birth.
- Legislative action: Amend the law to define “sex” and “gender” for the purposes of Title IX to refer only to the biologically-defined sex (male or female) of an individual at birth.
Action: Deregulate higher education by eliminating Title IV trigger
Federal student loans and grants under Title IV of the Higher Education Act are intended to expand individuals’ access to higher education according to their need, but not to directly support educational institutions. They are “school choice” programs for postsecondary education.
Nevertheless, ED and the courts have determined that Title IV student aid is a trigger for federal regulation of colleges under Title IX and other ED regulations, the same as direct federal aid to colleges. Title IV is the “hook” that allows expansive federal regulation in higher education, which opens the door to conflicts over religious freedom at religious colleges. (See more explanation under “Higher Education Act” above.)
- Legislative action: Amend the Higher Education Act to ensure that Title IV funds are not considered federal support for educational institutions with regard to enforcement of Title IX.
Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964
Overview
Title VII forbids discrimination in employment on the basis of sex, race, color, national origin, and religion. The clear intent of Congress, when it enacted the Civil Rights Act, was to prohibit discrimination against the two “sexes”—male and female.
However, the EEOC and federal agencies have recently forced an ideological reinterpretation of “sex” in Title VII to include “gender identity”—even a person’s choice of gender that is different from their biological sex at birth. Far from advancing the original intent of the law, this “gender ideology” threatens women’s activities and employment opportunities (by permitting access to males) and women’s privacy and safety in the workplace (by permitting male access to women’s bathrooms, showers, locker rooms, etc.).
“Sex discrimination” is also being redefined for ideological purposes to forbid discrimination on the basis of “sexual orientation.” This was not the original intent of the law, but because attempts to legislate protection for “sexual orientation” have failed, the EEOC has simply reinterpreted existing law.
Finally, “sex discrimination” is being used to mandate employee health benefits that cover contraception and sterilization, regardless of medical benefit or necessity. While Title VII does not mandate abortion coverage in health plans, it does forbid employers from considering an employee’s participation in abortion when making employment decisions—even a religious employer with deeply held convictions against abortion and moral standards for employees.
Under this reinterpretation of Title VII, the religious freedom of Catholic educators to teach and witness to the Catholic faith is being violated. Catholics believe that man is created male or female, a fact of natural law and also the will of God. Human sexuality is properly ordered toward marriage between a man and a woman. A faithfully Catholic school or college must conform to an individual’s biological sex and expects students and employees to practice chastity outside of marriage. Abortion, sterilization, and contraception are serious offenses.
Title VII provides an exemption for religious employers with regard to religious discrimination, but it is unclear whether this exemption protects religiously-motivated personnel decisions that might be characterized as “sex” discrimination.
Action: Restore original meaning of Title VII
As noted above, federal agencies have reinterpreted “sex discrimination” to force acceptance of new concepts of gender and sexual orientation and to mandate support for contraception, sterilization, and abortion. This ideological reinterpretation of the law violates the religious freedom of religious schools and colleges.
- Executive action: Rescind any “dear colleague” letters, administrative rules, executive orders, or regulations (see 34 CFR Part 106) which re-interpret the law to define “sex” and “gender” as referring to anything other than the biologically-defined sex (male or female) of an individual at birth; require admittance of the opposite sex to gender-exclusive bathrooms, locker rooms, shower facilities, residences, and other facilities; or refer in any way to expanded benefits or accommodations for contraception, sterilization, or abortion.
- Executive action: Issue an executive order defining “sex” and “gender” for the purposes of Title VII to refer only to the biologically-defined sex (male or female) of an individual at birth and never to contraception, sterilization, or abortion.
- Legislative action: Amend the law to define “sex” and “gender” for the purposes of Title VII to refer only to the biologically-defined sex (male or female) of an individual at birth and never to contraception, sterilization, or abortion.
Action: Expand Title VII religious exemption
Given the attempts by federal agencies, courts, and legislators to redefine “sex discrimination” for ideological purposes, the threat posed by Title VII to religious organizations is significant. Unlike Title IX of the Higher Education Act, there is uncertain protection for religious employers under Title VII with regard to sex discrimination.
- Legislative action: Amend Title VII to explicitly exempt religious employers with regard to sex discrimination if the application of the law is inconsistent with the religious tenets of the employer.
Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (Obamacare)
Overview
In regulations implementing the Affordable Care Act, HHS has mandated coverage for sterilization and contraceptives, including some that can cause abortion, in health insurance plans. The “HHS mandate” does not exempt most religious employers.
In 2016 in Zubik v. Burwell, the U.S. Supreme Court unanimously overturned lower court rulings upholding the “HHS mandate” against the Little Sisters of the Poor and other challengers. The Court instructed the lower courts to seek “an approach going forward that accommodates the petitioner’s religious beliefs.” However, the matter has yet to be resolved by the courts.
HHS has also issued regulations under the Affordable Care Act that forbid covered health-related entities to discriminate on the basis of race, color, national origin, sex, age, or disability; included in the Department’s definition of sex (consistent with the EEOC) is “gender identity.” The regulations create a “transgender mandate,” under which covered entities—including religious colleges that receive HHS funds for medical education programs—must accept a person’s choice of gender that is different from their biological sex at birth. Legal experts also believe that the regulations prohibit most private health insurers—including those providing health benefits to employees of religious organizations—from categorically excluding coverage related to “gender transition” and from denying claims for “transgender” services that are comparable to other covered services. (For instance, if a hysterectomy is covered for serious medical reasons, it must be permitted for “transgender” purposes.)
The HHS also defines sex to include “termination of pregnancy.” Legal experts believe that the new HHS regulations may prohibit health insurers—including those providing health benefits to employees of religious organizations—from denying coverage for elective abortion.
In addition, HHS has refused to enforce federal law against states that violate religious freedom by mandating abortion benefits in state-regulated health plans, even for religious employers.
Action: End “HHS mandate”
In regulations implementing the Affordable Care Act, HHS has mandated coverage for sterilization and contraceptives, including some that can cause abortion, in health insurance plans. The “HHS mandate” does not exempt most religious employers.
- Executive action: Repeal regulations (26 CFR Part 54, 29 CFR Parts 2510 and 2590, 45 CFR Parts 147 and 156) mandating health insurance coverage for sterilization and contraception.
- Legislative action: Amend the Affordable Care Act to ensure that HHS cannot mandate health insurance coverage for sterilization or contraception.
Action: Exempt all religious organizations from “HHS mandate”
The “HHS mandate” for coverage for sterilization and contraceptives, including some that can cause abortion, in health insurance plans does not exempt most religious employers. HHS has offered various forms of “accommodation” to many but not all religious employers (26 CFR 54.9815-2713A, 29 CFR 2590.715-2713A, 45 CFR 147.131); those “accommodations” still force many employers to violate their deeply held religious beliefs.
- Executive action: Amend regulations (26 CFR Part 54, 29 CFR Parts 2510 and 2590, 45 CFR Parts 147 and 156) to exempt all religious organizations from mandatory health insurance coverage for sterilization and contraception if it conflicts with their religious beliefs.
- Legislative action: Amend the Affordable Care Act to ensure that HHS cannot require any individual or entity to purchase health insurance coverage that conflicts with the purchaser’s moral or religious beliefs.
Action: End abortion and transgender mandate
In regulations implementing Section 1557 of the Affordable Care Act and prohibiting sex discrimination, HHS has defined “sex” as including “gender identity” and “termination of pregnancy.” Not only does this directly impact covered religious entities, including religious colleges that receive HHS funds for medical education programs, but it also impacts most health insurers, including those that serve religious schools and colleges.
- Executive action: Issue an executive order defining “sex” and “gender” for the purposes of the Affordable Care Act to refer only to the biologically-defined sex (male or female) of an individual at birth and never to contraception, sterilization, or abortion.
- Executive action: Amend the regulations implementing Section 1557 of the Affordable Care Act to define “sex” and “gender” to refer only to the biologically-defined sex (male or female) of an individual at birth and never to contraception, sterilization, or abortion.
- Legislative action: Amend the Affordable Care Act to define “sex” and “gender” for the purposes of Section 1557 to refer only to the biologically-defined sex (male or female) of an individual at birth and never to contraception, sterilization, or abortion.
Action: Exempt religious organizations from abortion and transgender mandate
In HHS regulations implementing Section 1557 of the Affordable Care Act and prohibiting sex discrimination—by which “sex” is defined to include “gender identity” and “termination of pregnancy”—there is no exemption for covered religious entities or for individuals and employers that may have religious objections to the mandated coverage.
- Executive action: Amend the regulations implementing Section 1557 of the Affordable Care Act to exempt all religious organizations from enforcement of any provision that conflicts with their religious beliefs.
- Legislative action: Amend Section 1557 of the Affordable Care Act to exempt all religious organizations from enforcement of any provision that conflicts with their religious beliefs.
Action: Enforce Weldon Amendment against state mandates
In 2014, California interpreted the state Knox-Keene Act to mandate abortion coverage in state-regulated health insurance plans, with no exemption for religious employers.
Although the Federal Refusal Clause (the “Weldon amendment”) in the federal appropriations act for the Department of Health and Human Services (Consolidated Appropriations Act of 2012, Pub. L. No. 112-74, div. F, tit. V, § 507(d)(1), 125 Stat. 786, 1111 (2011)) prohibits federal, state, and local governments from “discrimination” against a health-care entity—including a health insurance plan—that “does not provide, pay for, provide coverage of, or refer for abortions,” HHS has refused to enforce the Weldon amendment against California. This invites other states to also ignore the law.
- Executive action: Require HHS to enforce the Weldon amendment by demanding that California rescind its mandate for abortion coverage in state-regulated health insurance plans.
Internal Revenue Service
Overview
The federal tax code provides substantial benefits that help families afford a Catholic education. Tax exemption for religious schools and colleges helps lower costs, and the loss of tax exemption because of political or ideological biases would be devastating. Tax advantages that help Catholic families pay for Catholic education are valuable opportunities to promote “school choice” without opening the door wide to federal regulation.
Action: Protect tax exemption for religious education
In 2015, during oral argument before the Supreme Court in the Obergefell v. Hodges case, the U.S. Solicitor General acknowledged that the tax-exempt status of religious organizations could be threatened if they fail to recognize same-sex marriages.
- Executive action: Ensure that the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) does not threaten the tax-exempt status of religious organizations, regardless of their beliefs about marriage.
- Executive action: Issue an executive order stating that with regard to tax status, licensing, government grants, and contracts, no entity of the federal government may penalize someone for acting on their conviction that marriage is between a man and a woman.
- Legislative action: Amend the Internal Revenue Code to protect the tax-exempt status of religious organizations, regardless of their beliefs about marriage.
Action: Increase tax benefits to support education expenses
Coverdell Education Savings Accounts allow money to grow tax-deferred, to be used tax-free for most elementary, secondary, and postsecondary education expenses. But since 2002, Congress has capped the amount that can be contributed per child to $2,000 per year. Section 529 plans allow prepayment of college education expenses and tax-advantaged savings; withdrawals for college tuition expenses are tax-free. The American Opportunity Tax Credit allows a federal income tax credit of up to $2,500 of college expenses per year; up to 40 percent of the credit is refundable.
- Legislative action: Increase or lift the $2,000 annual cap on contributions to Coverdell Education Savings Accounts to help families supporting students in schools and colleges, including religious institutions. Expand the program to cover homeschool expenses.
- Legislative action: Expand Section 529 plans to allow savings for elementary and secondary education expenses, including homeschooling.
- Legislative action: Increase the $2,500 American Opportunity Tax Credit to help families supporting students in college, including religious institutions. Expand the credit to also cover elementary and secondary education expenses, including homeschooling, thereby achieving President Trump’s promise of increasing school choice without inviting federal regulation of religious schools.
Equal Employment Opportunity Commission
Overview
The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) has issued opinions that endanger the religious freedom of religious employers. It has pressed the redefinition of sex discrimination to cover “gender identity,” family planning and abortion, and “sexual orientation.”
In 2009, the EEOC ruled that Belmont Abbey College in North Carolina—a faithful Catholic college—discriminated against women because it refused to cover contraception in its employee health plan, in accordance with the Catholic faith.
Action: Appoint defenders of religious freedom to EEOC
President Trump has an early opportunity to name a new chair of the EEOC (as of July 1, 2017), giving Republicans a 3-2 majority on the Commission, and he can immediately replace the departing legal counsel. The commissioner whose term is up next, Chai Feldblum in July 2018, is a former Georgetown University law professor whose advocacy for homosexual issues has been a grave threat to religious employers.
- Executive action: Appoint EEOC commissioners and staff members who respect religious freedom and will not misinterpret sex discrimination laws and regulations according to “gender ideology” and LGBT advocacy.
National Labor Relations Board
Overview
Despite the U.S. Supreme Court’s 1979 ruling in NLRB v. Catholic Bishop of Chicago, which forbids the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) to assert jurisdiction over employee relations in religious education, the NLRB has for decades asserted jurisdiction at the behest of labor unions.
In 2014, the Board abandoned its long-held policy of unconstitutionally determining the religious quality of colleges where unions sought to organize faculty members, but it took up a new unconstitutional test of the religious functions of particular employees. Since then, the NLRB has used its new test to declare jurisdiction over faculty members at Seattle University and Saint Xavier University, with the exception of those teaching theology or religious studies. This still violates NLRB v. Catholic Bishop of Chicago.
Action: Appoint defenders of religious freedom to NLRB
President Trump has an immediate opportunity to fill two vacant positions at the NLRB, giving Republicans a 3-2 majority on the Board. However, reports have indicated that Trump intends to delay his appointments until the spring or summer of 2017, which would leave a pro-union Democrat majority in place until the Senate confirms his appointments in late 2017.
Commissioner Philip Miscimarra has been a strong but lone defender of NLRB v. Catholic Bishop of Chicago; his term expires in December 2017. That will end the 3-2 majority on the Board until he is re-appointed or replaced.
The NLRB general counsel’s term expires in November 2017.
- Executive action: Appoint NLRB commissioners and staff members who respect religious freedom and will uphold the Supreme Court’s 1979 ruling in NLRB v. Catholic Bishop of Chicago. Immediately fill the two vacancies without delay. Reappoint Philip Miscimarra to another term.
District of Columbia
Overview
Under the protection of President Obama’s veto, the District of Columbia has been able to trample on the rights of religious schools and colleges without action from Congress. The successful D.C. voucher program has also been allowed to lapse.
Action: Repeal D.C. Human Rights Amendment Act
The Human Rights Amendment Act, approved by the District of Columbia (D.C.) Council in 2014, repealed the “Armstrong Amendment”— a provision of the D.C. code that Congress enacted in 1989 to ensure that religious schools and colleges could not be forced to officially endorse, fund, or provide other benefits to advocates of homosexual identity and conduct. Catholic schools and colleges are now under the threat of District action if they uphold Catholic teaching on sexuality and marriage.
- Legislative action: Repeal the D.C. Human Rights Amendment Act of 2014.
Action: Repeal D.C. Reproductive Health Non-Discrimination Act
In 2015, the U.S. House of Representatives voted to halt a District of Columbia law from going into effect, but the Senate failed to block it. The Reproductive Health Non-Discrimination Amendment Act expands the District’s definition of discrimination to include an employee’s “reproductive health” decisions, including family planning and abortion, without exemption for religious employers. This prevents Catholic schools and colleges from upholding standards of morality that are consistent with Catholic beliefs.
- Legislative action: Repeal the D.C. Reproductive Health Non-Discrimination Act of 2015.
Action: Restore D.C. Opportunity Scholarship Program
Until President Obama stopped including it in his budget after 2011, the D.C. Opportunity Scholarship Program provided vouchers to children from low-income families in the District of Columbia. It covered tuition and expenses at private schools.
- Legislative action: Restore the D.C. Opportunity Scholarship Program, supporting families’ choices of religious education and homeschooling.
First Amendment Protection
Overview
In its 2015 ruling in Obergefell v. Hodges, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that same-sex couples have a Constitutional right to civil marriage. The implications for Catholics are not yet certain, but there is reason to be concerned that the ruling will be used to restrict religious freedom for those who support traditional marriage.
Action: Protect Americans who support traditional marriage
The First Amendment Defense Act ensures that the federal government “shall not take any discriminatory action against a person, wholly or partially on the basis that such person believes or acts in accordance with a religious belief or moral conviction that marriage is or should be recognized as the union of one man and one woman, or that sexual relations are properly reserved to such a marriage.” President-elect Trump has pledged that he would sign the bill if approved by Congress.
- Legislative action: Pass the First Amendment Defense Act.
- Executive action: Issue an executive order stating that with regard to tax status, accreditation, licensing, government grants, and contracts, no entity of the federal government may penalize someone for acting on their conviction that marriage is between a man and a woman.
One Catholic College Temporarily Closes, But Another Springs Up
/in Blog Latest, PR Register Column/by Patrick ReillyIn 2008, the cover of Commonweal magazine proclaimed this headline: “Catholic to the Core: How One College Does It.” It celebrated the 10-course, four-year core curriculum and strong commitment to liberal education at Saint Joseph’s College in Rensselaer, Ind.
But last week, Saint Joseph’s announced that it would temporarily shut down its main campus with hopes of erasing its debt and starting over again. According to news reports about the college’s needs, dwindling endowment and inability to turn assets into cash, it seems the college has a very steep climb to get back on its feet—and it’s already facing a possible loss of accreditation.
Coincidentally or providentially, in the very same week, Thomas Aquinas College of Santa Paula, Calif., announced that it would be opening a new campus in Northfield, Mass., in the fall of 2018.
Depending on which model other Catholic colleges choose to follow, last week’s news may be a harbinger of future college closings or a hopeful sign of the renewal of Catholic education.
‘In all things to remain faithful’
Commonweal has never featured Thomas Aquinas College on its cover or even offered faint praise for the college—at least I could find none in its online archives. That’s a shame, because Thomas Aquinas exceeds Saint Joseph’s in its commitment to a strong core curriculum and liberal studies. But there are substantial differences between the institutions that, no doubt, explain the apathy of the “Catholic lite” authors at Commonweal and the excitement among many Catholic parents, priests and bishops about the ascendancy of Thomas Aquinas College.
The college has risen up both the Catholic and the secular rankings as one of the top colleges in the nation. It is highly recommended by National Catholic Register (“producing vocations at a time when vocations from far larger and better known Catholic universities have slowed to a trickle”), The Cardinal Newman Society (“impressive intellectual rigor that is matched by a commitment to orthodox Catholicism”), the American Council of Trustees and Alumni (curriculum is in top 2 percent of U.S. colleges), the Intercollegiate Studies Institute (“one of the strongest curricula in the U.S.”), Princeton Review, U.S. News and World Report, Kiplinger’s “Best Values in Private Colleges” and more.
But the real selling point about Thomas Aquinas College is its alumni, who bear all the marks of highly educated, highly capable and devotedly Catholic young men and women. Thomas Aquinas is second only to Princeton University for alumni satisfaction as measured by annual giving.
It’s incredible and contradicts all the secular “wisdom” that a staunchly faithful Catholic institution, unreservedly committed to the true Faith and to a pure liberal arts curriculum, can survive and even thrive in today’s American culture. But we see other confidently Catholic colleges in The Newman Guide doing well also. That bodes well for Catholic families.
Thomas Aquinas College embraces a strongly Catholic identity that is rooted in the firm conviction that the Catholic Faith is revealed truth and therefore foundational to higher studies. This carries through the curriculum, the residence halls, and the frequent activity at the stunningly beautiful campus chapel.
According to the college:
Reinventing a college
That’s simply not the way Saint Joseph’s has chosen to market itself. Relative to other Catholic colleges, Saint Joseph’s has demonstrated pride in its history as a missionary school for Native Americans and has taken steps to preserve its Catholic identity. And yet, there is something clearly different implied in the college’s appeal to “Gospel values” and “Christian humanism” than the integrated Catholic culture that Thomas Aquinas College embraces without reserve. Although Saint Joseph’s has held on to its strong core of liberal studies, I don’t believe that it could claim a program of Catholic formation and a curriculum and campus life that exude certainty that our Catholic Faith is where we meet the very source of knowledge and truth.
Cardinal Raymond Burke, when visiting Thomas Aquinas College, described the students as showing “a deep love of Christ, God Incarnate, and of His Church.” Most college admissions directors would say that doesn’t “sell” today. But Thomas Aquinas and other colleges are doing it. The waiting list is large enough to warrant a new east coast campus.
No doubt the editors of Commonweal would cringe at what might be perceived as a closed, non-diverse community at Thomas Aquinas. That’s one way to see it, although I think they’d find more diversity among the students than they assume, and it’s impossible not to be drawn to the beauty of Catholicism as soon as one steps onto the Santa Paula campus. Saint Joseph’s still has much of this also, especially with its large iconic chapel, although its presence seems more a tribute to the past than to a vibrant, living Catholic culture.
What I see at places like Thomas Aquinas College is a joyful, unapologetic embrace of our Catholic Faith as the door that opens our minds to true wisdom and virtue. If the purpose of a college is to teach and seek truth, then nothing Catholic—not our beliefs, ethics, practices or traditions—should be regarded as anti-intellectual or otherwise opposed to the work of the academy.
And so I question the exaggeration of another media headline: “Can a Small College Close to Reinvent Itself?” from the Chronicle of Higher Education last week. It detailed the efforts to save Saint Joseph’s by, it appears, primarily cutting programs and faculty to address its financial woes. Nothing is mentioned about emphasizing the college’s obvious market niche to recruit new students—its core curriculum and its Catholic identity. It won’t surprise me if the core curriculum goes away entirely in the new Saint Joseph’s College, if it manages to reopen.
From my perspective—after 25 years of urging Catholic higher education leaders to renew Catholic identity in fidelity and joyful service to the Church—that’s not “reinventing” a Catholic college at all. It’s tinkering with an old house that was long ago condemned by the higher education elite, which now dominates the surrounding community and has rezoned it for purposes that a small Catholic college can never fulfill. If Catholic colleges today want to compete in the same market as public universities and secular elite institutions, they’ll most likely close before long.
What might have been?
I can’t say that’s the primary reason Saint Joseph’s failed—especially since it held on to its Catholic identity better than many others—but a new, exciting embrace of the college’s roots might have helped bring students in. A cursory review of the college’s website reveals a Catholic baseline but little that would be especially attractive to someone seeking a faithful Catholic education. The college has no theology department, just majors combining philosophy and broad religious studies and a graduate program for lay ministers sponsored by the Diocese of Lafayette. Its campus ministry offers a daily Mass and a couple on Sundays, confessions, liturgical activities and Taize prayer. It sponsors a large number of service activities—which are important but found at most secular colleges today—and a pro-life club and LGBT “safe zone” training. Other campus clubs include the Spectrum Alliance for “people who fall anywhere on the spectrum of gender identities and sexual orientation.” Residence halls are mostly single-sex, a rare blessing even in Catholic colleges today.
Who knows what might have been, had Saint Joseph’s decided to fully embrace the model of Thomas Aquinas College? I doubt we’ll get a chance to see. But other colleges could get ahead of their debt and give it a try.
I think it’s certain that a small Catholic college that sees its identity as something of an historical note, recalling a Catholic culture that has disappeared, will not successfully compete with secular private and public higher education. But a college that restores Catholic culture—that lives it today and immerses its students in the beauty and wisdom of the Catholic tradition—will be blessed, I believe.
It’s exciting to see the new efforts like Pontifex University, a Catholic graduate arts school, and Our Lady Seat of Wisdom, a Canadian college that just got approval for a three-year bachelor’s degree. And there are many others in The Newman Guide that are growing with the support of Catholic families and increasing awareness of these faithful college options.
Thank you to all of these colleges for giving Catholic parents hope. Let’s pray for them, as it’s a difficult time for all small colleges, to be sure.
This article first appeared at The National Catholic Register.
Scalia and Gorsuch: Both Lamented ‘Liberalism’ in Catholic Education
/in Blog Latest, PR Register Column/by Patrick ReillyWhen President Donald Trump said he would nominate a Supreme Court justice in the mold of Justice Antonin Scalia, who died one year ago on Feb. 13, everyone knew that meant someone who shares Scalia’s originalist philosophy of constitutional law.
But who expected that the appointee, Neil Gorsuch, would be another Georgetown graduate? And one who apparently once shared the late Catholic jurist’s disapproval of “liberal” trends in Catholic education?
To be precise, Scalia graduated from the Jesuits’ Georgetown University in 1957, and Gorsuch graduated from Georgetown Preparatory School in 1985. But years earlier, both institutions sprang from the same Georgetown College that Father John Carroll (the future archbishop of Baltimore) founded in 1789. In fact, there was little distinction between the secondary school and the college for nearly a century. The Preparatory School finally separated and moved from Washington, D.C., to its present location in Bethesda, Maryland, in 1919.
‘Not Catholic Anymore’
When Father Carroll founded Georgetown, it was with great hope that the school would help firmly establish the Catholic Faith in America.
“The object nearest my heart now, and the only one that can give consistency to our religious views in this country, is the establishment of a school, and afterwards a Seminary for young clergymen,” he wrote in 1785 to Father Charles Plowden in England.
A historian at Georgetown Prep, Steve Ochs, has written that the College once embraced the traditional view of Catholic education—that its aim is to form young people in Christ and for Christ: “Most importantly, the Jesuits of Georgetown regarded the Christian formation of students as their primary mission. Knowledge and skills, although important, were approached as a means to an end: the knowledge and love of God.”
The University today, sadly, no longer has this view of education. This is most apparent in the dossier on Georgetown scandals that accompanied the late William Peter Blatty’s petition to the Vatican.
In 2014, Justice Scalia famously declared that “Georgetown University is not Catholic anymore.” In his days at Georgetown, Scalia said, “they rolled you out of bed to attend Mass. Not anymore.”
According to The Remnant:
The prior year, Scalia addressed Catholic students at the University of Virginia and also criticized Georgetown University:
“When I was at Georgetown, it was a very Catholic place. It’s not anymore—and that’s too bad,” Scalia said. “What has happened to Catholic universities, that they would lose their reason for being?”
He said the Catholic Church as a whole “has been in trouble for a while,” having lost some of its zeal for evangelization, for which Catholic education is the Church’s primary tool.
Need for Moral Formation
Justice Scalia didn’t come to that view toward the end of his life; he had deep concern for Georgetown and Catholic education generally for many years. In 1997, Scalia addressed The Cardinal Newman Society’s national conference in Washington, D.C., and he urged Catholic colleges to hold on to their Catholic beliefs:
Scalia believed strongly in the continued need for Catholic education in today’s society, “because of the moral environment in which its work is conducted—an environment that sternly disapproves what the Church teaches, and in most cases what traditional Christianity has always taught, to be sinful.”
For that reason, the Catholic college must not shy away from “moral formation,” he said. “Catholic universities cannot avoid that task, and indeed betray the expectations of tuition-paying Catholic parents if they shirk it,” he argued.
Again in 2011, in a speech given at Duquesne University School of Law, Scalia adviocated moral formation:
Scalia told the audience that moral formation “has nothing to do with making students better lawyers, but everything to do with making them better men and women. … Moral formation is a respectable goal for any educational institution, even a law school.”
He added, “A Catholic law school should be a place where it is clear, though perhaps unspoken, that the here-and-now is less important, when all is said and done, than the hereafter.”
An Episcopalian Conservative
Scalia’s high school experience, like his experience of 1950s Georgetown, was very good. He said that he became a “serious Catholic” at the Jesuit Xavier High School in New York, because of the “thoroughly religious atmosphere of the school.”
Gorsuch also attended a Jesuit high school, and like Scalia, he was a successful student. Scalia graduated in 1953 as valedictorian and first in his class at Xavier. Three decades later, Gorsuch was a top debater and was elected student body president at Georgetown Prep.
Both were fiercely conservative even as young men. “This kid was a conservative when he was 17 years old,” said Scalia’s classmate and future New York State official William Stern. “An archconservative Catholic. He could have been a member of the Curia. He was the top student in the class. He was brilliant, way above everybody else.”
Gorsuch, too, was openly conservative, but he found himself in a different environment than the “thoroughly religious” Xavier that Scalia attended. According to the Jesuit America magazine, Gorsuch sparred with both political and theological liberals at Georgetown Prep, even though he was an Episcopalian:
Nevertheless, America reports, Gorsuch was popular and appears to have had a sense of humor, which was the cause of a recent flurry of news reports claiming that President Trump’s Supreme Court nominee had founded and led a “Fascism Forever” club in high school.
Ochs, the historian who teaches at Georgetown Prep and remembers Gorsuch from years ago, explained to America that the club was “a total joke.” Among the activities that Gorsuch listed in his high school yearbook, he identified himself as “Founder and President” of the “Fascism Forever Club.” (He also claimed to be a “Lousy Spanish Student” and president of the “Committee to reform The Beast.”)
“There was no club at a Jesuit school about young fascists,” Ochs told America. “The students would create fictitious clubs; they would have fictitious activities. They were all inside jokes on their senior pages.”
But it was not all fun at the liberal Jesuit school, apparently.
“There were some teachers who were ultra-liberal, and he would spar with them in class, like in religion class specifically, I remember, but always in good nature,” Ochs told America.
Distinguished Alumni
There’s been no sparring with Georgetown Prep this year over its graduate’s nomination to the Supreme Court.
“We are proud to have a son of Georgetown Preparatory School, a Catholic, Jesuit school founded the same year the United States Supreme Court was established, nominated to the nation’s highest court,” said Father Scott R. Pilarz, S.J., the school’s president, in a public statement. “All of us at Prep send our prayers and best wishes.”
America also reports that 70 of Gorsuch’s 90 classmates wrote a letter to Senators urging his confirmation.
If their wish is granted, Gorsuch is widely expected to be a strong advocate on the Court for religious freedom and the protection of human life from abortion and physician-assisted suicide.
When accepting his nomination, Crux reports that Gorsuch thanked his “friends, family and faith” for keeping his feet on the ground.
This article first appeared at The National Catholic Register.
CNS Joins Amicus Brief Upholding ERISA Church Plan Exemption – Advocate Health v Stapleton, U.S. Supreme Court
/in Blog Amicus Briefs, Public Policy and Legal (General)/by Cardinal Newman Society StaffClick here to read.
U.S. Policy Priorities for Catholic Education
/in Mission and Governance Public Policy and Legal (General), Research and Analysis/by Patrick ReillyCatholic education provides many important benefits to American society. At a cost substantially less than public schools, Catholic elementary and secondary schools provide an outstanding education to nearly 2 million students, who tend to score high on national tests and succeed in college and career. More than 200 Catholic colleges and universities educate nearly 1 million students, preparing them to serve society in a wide variety of fields.
While business leaders lament the decline of communication, thinking, and problem-solving skills among job candidates, Catholic educators have maintained a strong emphasis on the core liberal arts and intellectual development.
Most importantly, graduates of Catholic schools are integrally formed in mind, body, and soul to give generous service to their fellow citizens. They exhibit strong character and virtue in an increasing secular and self-centered culture.
Nevertheless, Catholic educators face serious threats to their religious freedom emanating from their state and local governments and Washington, D.C. These have escalated significantly under the Obama administration, but some began much earlier. We now look with great hope to the incoming Trump administration and Congress to correct the many injustices and take lasting actions that will uphold Catholic educators’ First Amendment right to teach and witness to the Catholic faith by word and deed.
For that, Catholic educators and families would be most grateful and relieved, eager to focus on the essential task of raising young Americans to fulfill God’s calling and “make America great again.”
The following policy recommendations were developed by The Cardinal Newman Society, which promotes and defends faithful Catholic education, following substantial consultation with Catholic and other Christian education leaders, policy experts, and legal advisers. The proposals especially represent the concerns and needs of the Catholic schools recognized by the Newman Society’s Catholic Education Honor Roll and the Catholic colleges and universities recommended in our Newman Guide. These are institutions for which the freedom to teach and witness to the Catholic faith is essential to their mission and survival.
Elementary and Secondary Education Act
Overview
President Trump has proposed a $20 billion federal voucher program, while encouraging states to spend another $110 billion on vouchers. The program would aid students from low-income families and would likely redirect funds under Title I of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act, which are currently block-granted to states.
The school choice proposal could aid thousands of families attending or wishing to attend Catholic schools, but it also poses significant challenges for religious education. Schools must be allowed to freely maintain religious standards for education, and vouchers must not be permitted to open the door to substantial federal and state government regulation that would stifle diversity and religious values in education.
Already Catholic schools have struggled to preserve their unique identity and superior academic quality under the national Common Core movement. Although Catholic schools are not required to adopt state standards, many have yielded to the pressure to conform to standardized education and testing. Ending federal interference in school standards is an important step toward restoring diversity and innovation in education.
Action: Expand school choice without regulation
School choice presents a wonderful opportunity to help families afford a Catholic education—but only if it preserves the religious identity and quality of Catholic education, without opening the door to government regulation and coercion.
Action: End federal push for career- and college-focused standards
The federal incentives that the Obama administration used to coerce states to embrace the Common Core standards—the Race to the Top funds and waivers from No Child Left Behind—are already gone. But while the Every Student Succeeds Act (ESSA) prohibits ED from “federal mandates, direction, or control” over state standards for education, ED has plenty of opportunities to influence standards and testing. It is essential that the federal government gets out of the way, lets states work their way out of the Common Core stranglehold on innovation, and focus on state-level improvements that don’t nationalize education.
Higher Education Act
Overview
There has been a longstanding injustice in ED’s regulation of colleges based on the handling of student aid under Title IV of the Higher Education Act. In 1984, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in Grove City College v. Bell (465 U.S. 555) that a college that does not receive direct federal aid—but its students do receive aid for college education under Title IV—can be regulated under Title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972. Title IX applies only to colleges that receive federal financial assistance.
The clear intent of Title IV is to support the needs of students, not particular institutions. It is the students who are awarded the aid and who choose which institutions will receive the funds for tuition and expenses. Title IV is a form of “school choice” for needy college students; the aid can make it possible for students to choose among a wide variety of colleges that would otherwise be inaccessible.
The Grove City decision opened to door to substantial federal regulation of higher education. For religious colleges, this excessive government regulation invites conflicts with religious freedom. (See discussion of Title IX below.)
Another way Title IV funding opens the door to federal interference in higher education is by ED’s regulation of accrediting agencies, creating potential conflicts with the religious freedom of religious colleges. Under the Higher Education Act, accrediting associations determine which colleges a student may attend to receive Title IV aid. This politicizes accreditors, distorts their purpose as independent promoters of excellence in higher education, and invites ED regulation by its recognition of accreditor-gatekeepers. With regard to Title IV aid, the only remedy for a college that is unfairly treated by an accreditor is to request revocation of the accreditor’s standing with ED.
In addition to requirements under Title IX that violate religious freedom, other federal regulation and coercion poses concerns for religious colleges. The regulation of teacher preparation programs tends to diminish diversity and ignore the particular needs of schools and colleges, including religious institutions. Federal policies that disadvantage students who choose to focus their studies in the liberal arts or “humanities” are a misguided form of social engineering that disregards the great benefits of a religious, liberal-arts education.
Action: De-link student aid from Title IX
The U.S. Supreme Court has determined that the receipt of Title IV funds triggers a college’s obligation to comply with Title IX. Given attempts to redefine “sex” in Title IX to include “gender identity,” the link between student aid and Title IX is a serious threat to religious higher education.
Action: De-link accreditation from Title IV funding
Accrediting associations are the gatekeepers for federal aid under Title IV of the Higher Education Act. Currently the law (20 U.S. Code §1009 (b)) includes minimal protection for religious colleges by requiring that the accreditor “consistently applies and enforces standards that respect the stated mission of the institution of higher education, including religious missions.” The only remedy for religious colleges that may be unjustly discriminated against by an accreditor is to request revocation of the accreditor’s standing with the U.S. Department of Education.
Action: Deregulate teacher preparation
Religious educators strive to comply with state and accreditor expectations for teacher preparation, but federal government regulation of teacher preparation programs interferes with the independence of such programs and state decision making. It also raises concerns for religious freedom in programs that reside within religious colleges. In late 2016, ED issued regulations to increase federal oversight of teacher preparation.
Action: Refrain from discriminating against liberal arts majors
Federal policy proposals to disadvantage college students who focus their studies in the liberal arts or “humanities” are a misguided form of social engineering that disregards the great benefits of a religious, liberal-arts education. Complaints that liberal arts graduates have low earning potential have been greatly exaggerated and are often inaccurate. Many business executives prefer graduates with strong communications and reasoning skills. Regardless, liberal arts graduates contribute greatly to society and culture beyond simple measures of career success.
Threatening to control Title IV expenditures by discriminating against liberal arts majors or limiting students’ choices of college major and career is neither wise nor beneficial. It also disproportionately impacts students at religious colleges, who often concentrate their studies in the liberal arts.
Title IX of Education Amendments of 1972
Overview
Title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972 (20 U.S.C. §§ 1681–1688) forbids sex discrimination at schools and colleges that accept federal funds, but the law has recently been reinterpreted by the U.S. Department of Education (ED) in ways that harm women and violate religious freedom.
The clear intent of Congress, when it enacted Title IX in 1972, was to prohibit discrimination against the two “sexes”—male and female. This is indicated in the law. Enforcement of Title IX has emphasized parity for males and females, as in school and college athletics programs.
However, the EEOC and ED have recently forced an ideological reinterpretation of “sex” in Title IX to include “gender identity”—even a person’s choice of gender that is different from their biological sex at birth. Far from advancing the original intent of the law, this “gender ideology” threatens women’s athletics and other activities by permitting biological males to join and potentially dominate those activities. It also threatens women’s privacy and safety by permitting male access to women’s bathrooms, showers, locker rooms, and residences.
ED’s reinterpretation of Title IX to include gender identity unfairly prejudices Catholic educators who teach and witness to the Catholic faith. Catholics believe that man is created male or female, a fact of natural law and the will of God. Human sexuality is properly ordered toward marriage between a man and a woman. A faithfully Catholic school or college must conform to an individual’s biological sex and expects students and employees to practice chastity outside of marriage. Although Title IX provides an exemption for religious education, ED’s reinterpretation of “sex discrimination” unfairly indicates that religious institutions discriminate against women, and this can have a “trickle down” impact on state policy, accreditation, private funding, etc.
Moreover, Title IX’s religious exemption is not certain for many religious schools and colleges. ED has asserted its authority to pre-certify or deny eligibility for the exemption, a practice that is not indicated by the law. The law’s language describing the exemption could be unfairly interpreted to exclude independent and nondenominational religious institutions that are not legally controlled by an established church.
And still more, those institutions that receive ED’s preapproval for religious exemption—an exemption that is clearly indicated in the law—are being persecuted by advocacy groups, states, and ED itself.
Action: Clarify Title IX religious exemption
20 U.S. Code § 1681 (a) (3) provides a religious exemption to Title IX: “…this section shall not apply to an educational institution which is controlled by a religious organization if the application of this subsection would not be consistent with the religious tenets of such organization…”
It is important to clarify the words “controlled by a religious organization” to protect institutions that are “controlled” by religious beliefs but have no legal ties to a church. For instance, most Catholic colleges and many Catholic schools—even the most faithful to Catholic teachings—have no legal ties to the Catholic Church. There are also many nondenominational Christian schools and colleges that are strongly religious but not affiliated with any formal church.
Action: Uphold Title IX religious exemption
The religious exemption to Title IX (20 U.S. Code § 1681 (a) (3)) suggests automatic exemption for a qualifying school or college, if and when there may be a conflict with Title IX: “…this section shall not apply to an educational institution which is controlled by a religious organization if the application of this subsection would not be consistent with the religious tenets of such organization…”
Although not indicated by the law, ED has inappropriately asserted authority to pre-certify or deny a religious institution’s exemption to Title IX. A process has been established whereby an institution applies for an advance ruling from ED, which by its sole discretion may refuse to “approve” an exemption if, in its opinion, a school or college does not meet the standard of being “controlled by a religious organization.”
This puts ED in the position of potentially limiting an exemption that is clearly indicated by law; courts and the public may be prejudiced if ED rejects or even delays its ruling. It also suggests that exemption from Title IX depends on an institution’s assertion of the exemption prior to a dispute; in fact, the law demands exemption for religious institutions in every case of a religious conflict with Title IX, whether or not the exemption is claimed prior to the conflict or even at the time of the conflict.
Moreover, ED has recently been publishing on its website the names of institutions that it “approves” for Title IX exemptions. This has been done at the urging of states and advocacy groups that wish to shame and persecute religious institutions for obtaining these legally valid exemptions. In 2016, California legislators attempted to withhold state Cal Grants from religious colleges that appear on ED’s list of “unapproved” institutions. This is a form of persecution; religious organizations should not be punished or denigrated for their beliefs and for protecting their religious freedom against an ED reinterpretation of Title IX that is inconsistent with the law’s original purpose.
Action: Restore original meaning of Title IX
As noted above, ED and EEOC have reinterpreted “sex discrimination” to force acceptance of new concepts of gender and sexual orientation. This ideological reinterpretation of the law threatens the religious freedom of religious schools and colleges.
Action: Deregulate higher education by eliminating Title IV trigger
Federal student loans and grants under Title IV of the Higher Education Act are intended to expand individuals’ access to higher education according to their need, but not to directly support educational institutions. They are “school choice” programs for postsecondary education.
Nevertheless, ED and the courts have determined that Title IV student aid is a trigger for federal regulation of colleges under Title IX and other ED regulations, the same as direct federal aid to colleges. Title IV is the “hook” that allows expansive federal regulation in higher education, which opens the door to conflicts over religious freedom at religious colleges. (See more explanation under “Higher Education Act” above.)
Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964
Overview
Title VII forbids discrimination in employment on the basis of sex, race, color, national origin, and religion. The clear intent of Congress, when it enacted the Civil Rights Act, was to prohibit discrimination against the two “sexes”—male and female.
However, the EEOC and federal agencies have recently forced an ideological reinterpretation of “sex” in Title VII to include “gender identity”—even a person’s choice of gender that is different from their biological sex at birth. Far from advancing the original intent of the law, this “gender ideology” threatens women’s activities and employment opportunities (by permitting access to males) and women’s privacy and safety in the workplace (by permitting male access to women’s bathrooms, showers, locker rooms, etc.).
“Sex discrimination” is also being redefined for ideological purposes to forbid discrimination on the basis of “sexual orientation.” This was not the original intent of the law, but because attempts to legislate protection for “sexual orientation” have failed, the EEOC has simply reinterpreted existing law.
Finally, “sex discrimination” is being used to mandate employee health benefits that cover contraception and sterilization, regardless of medical benefit or necessity. While Title VII does not mandate abortion coverage in health plans, it does forbid employers from considering an employee’s participation in abortion when making employment decisions—even a religious employer with deeply held convictions against abortion and moral standards for employees.
Under this reinterpretation of Title VII, the religious freedom of Catholic educators to teach and witness to the Catholic faith is being violated. Catholics believe that man is created male or female, a fact of natural law and also the will of God. Human sexuality is properly ordered toward marriage between a man and a woman. A faithfully Catholic school or college must conform to an individual’s biological sex and expects students and employees to practice chastity outside of marriage. Abortion, sterilization, and contraception are serious offenses.
Title VII provides an exemption for religious employers with regard to religious discrimination, but it is unclear whether this exemption protects religiously-motivated personnel decisions that might be characterized as “sex” discrimination.
Action: Restore original meaning of Title VII
As noted above, federal agencies have reinterpreted “sex discrimination” to force acceptance of new concepts of gender and sexual orientation and to mandate support for contraception, sterilization, and abortion. This ideological reinterpretation of the law violates the religious freedom of religious schools and colleges.
Action: Expand Title VII religious exemption
Given the attempts by federal agencies, courts, and legislators to redefine “sex discrimination” for ideological purposes, the threat posed by Title VII to religious organizations is significant. Unlike Title IX of the Higher Education Act, there is uncertain protection for religious employers under Title VII with regard to sex discrimination.
Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (Obamacare)
Overview
In regulations implementing the Affordable Care Act, HHS has mandated coverage for sterilization and contraceptives, including some that can cause abortion, in health insurance plans. The “HHS mandate” does not exempt most religious employers.
In 2016 in Zubik v. Burwell, the U.S. Supreme Court unanimously overturned lower court rulings upholding the “HHS mandate” against the Little Sisters of the Poor and other challengers. The Court instructed the lower courts to seek “an approach going forward that accommodates the petitioner’s religious beliefs.” However, the matter has yet to be resolved by the courts.
HHS has also issued regulations under the Affordable Care Act that forbid covered health-related entities to discriminate on the basis of race, color, national origin, sex, age, or disability; included in the Department’s definition of sex (consistent with the EEOC) is “gender identity.” The regulations create a “transgender mandate,” under which covered entities—including religious colleges that receive HHS funds for medical education programs—must accept a person’s choice of gender that is different from their biological sex at birth. Legal experts also believe that the regulations prohibit most private health insurers—including those providing health benefits to employees of religious organizations—from categorically excluding coverage related to “gender transition” and from denying claims for “transgender” services that are comparable to other covered services. (For instance, if a hysterectomy is covered for serious medical reasons, it must be permitted for “transgender” purposes.)
The HHS also defines sex to include “termination of pregnancy.” Legal experts believe that the new HHS regulations may prohibit health insurers—including those providing health benefits to employees of religious organizations—from denying coverage for elective abortion.
In addition, HHS has refused to enforce federal law against states that violate religious freedom by mandating abortion benefits in state-regulated health plans, even for religious employers.
Action: End “HHS mandate”
In regulations implementing the Affordable Care Act, HHS has mandated coverage for sterilization and contraceptives, including some that can cause abortion, in health insurance plans. The “HHS mandate” does not exempt most religious employers.
Action: Exempt all religious organizations from “HHS mandate”
The “HHS mandate” for coverage for sterilization and contraceptives, including some that can cause abortion, in health insurance plans does not exempt most religious employers. HHS has offered various forms of “accommodation” to many but not all religious employers (26 CFR 54.9815-2713A, 29 CFR 2590.715-2713A, 45 CFR 147.131); those “accommodations” still force many employers to violate their deeply held religious beliefs.
Action: End abortion and transgender mandate
In regulations implementing Section 1557 of the Affordable Care Act and prohibiting sex discrimination, HHS has defined “sex” as including “gender identity” and “termination of pregnancy.” Not only does this directly impact covered religious entities, including religious colleges that receive HHS funds for medical education programs, but it also impacts most health insurers, including those that serve religious schools and colleges.
Action: Exempt religious organizations from abortion and transgender mandate
In HHS regulations implementing Section 1557 of the Affordable Care Act and prohibiting sex discrimination—by which “sex” is defined to include “gender identity” and “termination of pregnancy”—there is no exemption for covered religious entities or for individuals and employers that may have religious objections to the mandated coverage.
Action: Enforce Weldon Amendment against state mandates
In 2014, California interpreted the state Knox-Keene Act to mandate abortion coverage in state-regulated health insurance plans, with no exemption for religious employers.
Although the Federal Refusal Clause (the “Weldon amendment”) in the federal appropriations act for the Department of Health and Human Services (Consolidated Appropriations Act of 2012, Pub. L. No. 112-74, div. F, tit. V, § 507(d)(1), 125 Stat. 786, 1111 (2011)) prohibits federal, state, and local governments from “discrimination” against a health-care entity—including a health insurance plan—that “does not provide, pay for, provide coverage of, or refer for abortions,” HHS has refused to enforce the Weldon amendment against California. This invites other states to also ignore the law.
Internal Revenue Service
Overview
The federal tax code provides substantial benefits that help families afford a Catholic education. Tax exemption for religious schools and colleges helps lower costs, and the loss of tax exemption because of political or ideological biases would be devastating. Tax advantages that help Catholic families pay for Catholic education are valuable opportunities to promote “school choice” without opening the door wide to federal regulation.
Action: Protect tax exemption for religious education
In 2015, during oral argument before the Supreme Court in the Obergefell v. Hodges case, the U.S. Solicitor General acknowledged that the tax-exempt status of religious organizations could be threatened if they fail to recognize same-sex marriages.
Action: Increase tax benefits to support education expenses
Coverdell Education Savings Accounts allow money to grow tax-deferred, to be used tax-free for most elementary, secondary, and postsecondary education expenses. But since 2002, Congress has capped the amount that can be contributed per child to $2,000 per year. Section 529 plans allow prepayment of college education expenses and tax-advantaged savings; withdrawals for college tuition expenses are tax-free. The American Opportunity Tax Credit allows a federal income tax credit of up to $2,500 of college expenses per year; up to 40 percent of the credit is refundable.
Equal Employment Opportunity Commission
Overview
The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) has issued opinions that endanger the religious freedom of religious employers. It has pressed the redefinition of sex discrimination to cover “gender identity,” family planning and abortion, and “sexual orientation.”
In 2009, the EEOC ruled that Belmont Abbey College in North Carolina—a faithful Catholic college—discriminated against women because it refused to cover contraception in its employee health plan, in accordance with the Catholic faith.
Action: Appoint defenders of religious freedom to EEOC
President Trump has an early opportunity to name a new chair of the EEOC (as of July 1, 2017), giving Republicans a 3-2 majority on the Commission, and he can immediately replace the departing legal counsel. The commissioner whose term is up next, Chai Feldblum in July 2018, is a former Georgetown University law professor whose advocacy for homosexual issues has been a grave threat to religious employers.
National Labor Relations Board
Overview
Despite the U.S. Supreme Court’s 1979 ruling in NLRB v. Catholic Bishop of Chicago, which forbids the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) to assert jurisdiction over employee relations in religious education, the NLRB has for decades asserted jurisdiction at the behest of labor unions.
In 2014, the Board abandoned its long-held policy of unconstitutionally determining the religious quality of colleges where unions sought to organize faculty members, but it took up a new unconstitutional test of the religious functions of particular employees. Since then, the NLRB has used its new test to declare jurisdiction over faculty members at Seattle University and Saint Xavier University, with the exception of those teaching theology or religious studies. This still violates NLRB v. Catholic Bishop of Chicago.
Action: Appoint defenders of religious freedom to NLRB
President Trump has an immediate opportunity to fill two vacant positions at the NLRB, giving Republicans a 3-2 majority on the Board. However, reports have indicated that Trump intends to delay his appointments until the spring or summer of 2017, which would leave a pro-union Democrat majority in place until the Senate confirms his appointments in late 2017.
Commissioner Philip Miscimarra has been a strong but lone defender of NLRB v. Catholic Bishop of Chicago; his term expires in December 2017. That will end the 3-2 majority on the Board until he is re-appointed or replaced.
The NLRB general counsel’s term expires in November 2017.
District of Columbia
Overview
Under the protection of President Obama’s veto, the District of Columbia has been able to trample on the rights of religious schools and colleges without action from Congress. The successful D.C. voucher program has also been allowed to lapse.
Action: Repeal D.C. Human Rights Amendment Act
The Human Rights Amendment Act, approved by the District of Columbia (D.C.) Council in 2014, repealed the “Armstrong Amendment”— a provision of the D.C. code that Congress enacted in 1989 to ensure that religious schools and colleges could not be forced to officially endorse, fund, or provide other benefits to advocates of homosexual identity and conduct. Catholic schools and colleges are now under the threat of District action if they uphold Catholic teaching on sexuality and marriage.
Action: Repeal D.C. Reproductive Health Non-Discrimination Act
In 2015, the U.S. House of Representatives voted to halt a District of Columbia law from going into effect, but the Senate failed to block it. The Reproductive Health Non-Discrimination Amendment Act expands the District’s definition of discrimination to include an employee’s “reproductive health” decisions, including family planning and abortion, without exemption for religious employers. This prevents Catholic schools and colleges from upholding standards of morality that are consistent with Catholic beliefs.
Action: Restore D.C. Opportunity Scholarship Program
Until President Obama stopped including it in his budget after 2011, the D.C. Opportunity Scholarship Program provided vouchers to children from low-income families in the District of Columbia. It covered tuition and expenses at private schools.
First Amendment Protection
Overview
In its 2015 ruling in Obergefell v. Hodges, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that same-sex couples have a Constitutional right to civil marriage. The implications for Catholics are not yet certain, but there is reason to be concerned that the ruling will be used to restrict religious freedom for those who support traditional marriage.
Action: Protect Americans who support traditional marriage
The First Amendment Defense Act ensures that the federal government “shall not take any discriminatory action against a person, wholly or partially on the basis that such person believes or acts in accordance with a religious belief or moral conviction that marriage is or should be recognized as the union of one man and one woman, or that sexual relations are properly reserved to such a marriage.” President-elect Trump has pledged that he would sign the bill if approved by Congress.
‘Exorcist’ Author’s Canon Law Case Against Georgetown Continues
/in Blog Latest, PR Register Column/by Patrick ReillyWilliam Peter Blatty, best-selling author and Academy Award-winning screenwriter of The Exorcist, died Thursday at the age of 89 after battling a form of blood cancer. But his final work is still underway: a petition to the Vatican, seeking the enforcement of canon law to reform Georgetown University’s Catholic identity, is still in front of the Church’s highest court.
Although Bill Blatty is appreciated widely for his writing talent, great humor and one of the scariest movies ever made, we should also remember him as a faithful Catholic and a passionate advocate for Catholic education.
In many of his works, Blatty explored the depths of good and evil, psychology, theology and spirituality with great respect for his subject matter. And as he explained often, his objective was never “horror.” His was an inspiring human quest to catch a glimpse of God amid extraordinary experiences that test the soul.
In his last years, Blatty’s appeal to the Vatican to correct Georgetown’s wrongs demonstrated that his Catholic faith remained strong, as did his deep concern and love for the sincerely Catholic university that he attended in the 1940s.
Petition at Vatican
Manuel Miranda, a Georgetown alumnus who helped Blatty organize the petition, told me Monday that Blatty made arrangements before his death to keep the Vatican petition alive.
Blatty named Miranda his “alternate” in the canon law case. Miranda, a former president of The Cardinal Newman Society, served as Blatty’s legal counsel and helped him found the Father King Society of concerned Georgetown alumni, students, parents and faculty members. The case has worked its way through the Catholic hierarchy to the Vatican’s highest court, the Supreme Tribunal of the Apostolic Signatura, and the King Society’s canon lawyer will meet with the Signatura about the petition this week.
In May 2012, Blatty wrote a letter urging friends of Georgetown to join his canon law petition. “For 21 years now, Georgetown University has refused to comply with Ex corde Ecclesiae (“From the Heart of the Church”), and, therefore, with canon law,” Blatty wrote. “And, it seems as if every month GU gives another scandal to the faithful!”
The petition, which Blatty began thinking about filing a few years prior, was announced on the heels of Georgetown’s announcement that HHS Secretary Kathleen Sebelius was invited to speak at the university’s 2012 commencement. Sebelius, a Catholic, had expressed public support for abortion and led the implementation of the HHS contraception mandate. The mandate — which is still being fought in the courts — threatens the religious freedom of Catholic institutions and had been vigorously opposed by the U.S. bishops in numerous public statements before Georgetown invited Sebelius to campus.
At Blatty’s request, the Newman Society produced a dossier documenting the numerous Catholic identity abuses at Georgetown. Many but not all of these abuses have been reported, but the full dossier and petition have not yet been made public.
“Each of these scandals is proof of Georgetown’s non-compliance with Ex corde Ecclesiae and canon law,” Blatty wrote in 2012. “They are each inconsistent with a Catholic identity, and we all know it. A university in solidarity with the Church would not do these prideful things that do so much harm to our communion.”
In May 2013, the petition was submitted to Cardinal Donald Wuerl of the Archdiocese of Washington with the support of more than 1,200 “alumni, students, parents, teachers, and other laity from around the world.”
“After one year of work, the petition we submit today is 198 pages, 476 footnotes, 91 appendices, 124 witness statements, a commissioned 120-page institutional audit of Georgetown, a sworn certification of facts, and a legal opinion,” Miranda announced. “We have documented 23 years of scandals and dissidence, over 100 scandals in the most recent years alone.”
The Archdiocese of Washington advised that the petition be sent to the Vatican, and in October 2013, Blatty announced that the case was submitted to several dicasteries in Rome. The petition then had 2,000 supporters.
“What is profoundly interesting is that the very first remedy that we asked of the Archbishop of Washington, His Eminence, Donald Cardinal Wuerl, was: ‘If the Holy Spirit leads you to it and your conscience will allow it, to declare publicly that Georgetown University is compliant with Ex corde Ecclesiae, orients its institutional initiatives according to standards that are consistent with the norms and morality of the Church, and lives up to the title ‘Catholic,’” Blatty said in a statement at the time. “His Eminence opted not to do that.”
Impact uncertain
On April 4, 2014, Blatty received a response to the canon law petition from Archbishop Angelo Zani, secretary of the Vatican’s Congregation for Catholic Education. “Your communications to this Dicastery in the matter of Georgetown University. . . constitutes a well-founded complaint,” wrote Archbishop Zani. He added, “Our Congregation is taking the issue seriously, and is cooperating with the Society of Jesus in this regard.”
The petition has since been appealed to the Apostolic Signatura. It is not clear what communications have resulted between the Vatican and Georgetown University, but the Catholic identity abuses at Georgetown have continued with no indication that administrators will conform with Ex corde Ecclesiae.
Last March, for example, the Archdiocese of Washington chastised the university for hosting Planned Parenthood CEO Cecile Richards on campus — a woman responsible for the deaths of almost three million babies. The Archdiocese said Georgetown lacks an “environment of morality, ethics and human decency” on campus, and the archdiocesan newspaper went even further in denouncing the decision.
“Welcoming an ardent supporter of the violent taking of an unborn human life is deeply offensive and heart-rending to other Georgetown students, teachers, alumni and community members who believe in the Catholic teaching that all human life has God-given dignity from conception to natural death,” the paper stated in an editorial. “Apparently to some, the one group of people that it is acceptable to offend, even at a Catholic university, are Catholics.”
Richards used her platform at Georgetown to rally support for Planned Parenthood and the moral evils of abortion and contraception, potentially endangering students’ souls according to the Newman Society, which called on Georgetown to rescind the invitation.
Unfazed by criticism about giving a platform to America’s top abortion activist, Georgetown hosted a day-long strategy session for abortion activists in November 2016 who gathered to discuss the “injustices” of legal barriers to abortion. The event was capped off by a presentation meant to gather support for legislation that would force taxpayers to pay for abortions.
‘Our only recourse’
The scandals at Georgetown were heartbreaking to Blatty, who attended Georgetown on a full scholarship and had great respect for the Jesuits of his day. Matt Archbold wrote in 2013, “Blatty’s love of Georgetown runs deep and back to the time when he attended the Jesuit university. Georgetown wasn’t just the setting for the book and the classic film. ‘The film is in many ways a hymn to Georgetown,’ William Friedkin, the film’s director, recently told USA Today in an interview with him and Blatty to mark the film’s upcoming 40th anniversary.”
The canon law petition was not intended to punish Georgetown for its swing away from a once-strong Catholic identity, but instead Blatty wanted to spark reform.
“I believe [a canon law petition] is the only thing that can stop Georgetown in its path,” Blatty told The Cardinal Newman Society in a May 2012 interview. “Only firm Church action can save it and make it a great university. It is our only recourse. Our only hope.
“And not just at Georgetown,” he said. “I hope alumni from other colleges will contact me for help in submitting petitions regarding their colleges. I hope that Georgetown will see the light and alter its course.”
William Peter Blatty, requiescat in pace. It now remains for other good Catholics to continue your noble effort.
Newman Society Editor Adam Cassandra contributed substantially to writing this report.
This article first appeared at The National Catholic Register.
CNS Joins Amicus Brief Opposing Redefinition of Sex in Title IX – Gloucester County School Boad v G.G., U.S. Supreme Court
/in Blog Amicus Briefs, Public Policy and Legal (General)/by Cardinal Newman Society StaffClick here to read.
Father Scanlan Was America’s Pastor to Catholic Higher Education
/in Blog Latest, PR Register Column/by Patrick ReillyFather Michael Scanlan, T.O.R., who died Saturday, reformed Franciscan University of Steubenville and built it into one of America’s most faithful and vibrant centers of Catholic learning. He is rightly acknowledged as a foremost leader in the renewal of Catholic higher education.
More than that, I think it is fitting that he be remembered as America’s devoted pastor of Catholic higher education in the 20th century.
Why do I call him pastor, and not first president or leader or reformer? Because what I hear most from nearly everyone who knew him, is that he touched them personally and cared deeply for the souls he encountered, bringing them closer to Christ. That seems to be the heart of his success and his motivation.
Thousands of his students, faculty, staff, trustees and others who knew him would doubtless agree.
Also, by his priestly witness Father Scanlan was in effect a shepherd to all Catholic colleges and universities, helping launch the renewal of faithful higher education and setting an important example for other college leaders to follow.
He was, of course, not the only major figure in Catholic higher education in the last century or president of the largest Catholic university. But Father Scanlan deserves the accolade nonetheless—surely more than his early contemporary Father Theodore Hesburgh, who accumulated popularity, prestige and influence but led the University of Notre Dame (and probably many individual Catholics) down a path that ends tragically in relativism and secularism.
When Father Scanlan became Franciscan University’s president in 1974, most American colleges founded by Catholic religious orders were rapidly shedding their distinctive identity. Faithful laymen responded by founding Thomas Aquinas College, Magdalen College, Christendom College and Thomas More College of Liberal Arts. But there was something unique happening at Franciscan University: a saintly Franciscan friar was again answering God’s call to “rebuild my Church.”
By the influence of Franciscan’s graduates, Father Scanlan continues to do just that. And the Church should be very grateful.
University reformer
I have long admired Father Scanlan and met him on several occasions. But after his death, dwelling upon his life and impact, I was eager to know more about those first exciting years when he began to transform what was then called the College of Steubenville.
So I spoke by phone with Dr. Alan Schreck, chairman of Franciscan University’s theology department for about 14 years under Father Scanlan. He gave a moving account of the incredible work and vision of this giant of Catholic education.
While still a student in college, Dr. Schreck first met Father Scanlan shortly after he was asked by the college’s trustees to consider putting his name in for the presidency. Father asked the young theology student for prayers that he make the right decision. That greatly impressed Schreck, as did Father’s vision.
“I will be president only if they allow me to make Jesus Christ lord of every aspect of the college,” Dr. Schreck remembers him saying.
At the time, Father Scanlan was rector of the Franciscan seminary in Loretto, Penn., and a well-known figure in the Catholic charismatic renewal. He had a worldwide following. My father-in-law, who lived in the Philippines until the 1980s and was very active in charismatic prayer groups and conferences, impressed me with his memories and great fondness for Father Scanlan.
I have often wondered how difficult it must have been for Father Scanlan to pull back from his charismatic ministry to take up a college presidency. But Dr. Schreck says that’s not what happened: Father had an “incredible capacity for work” and served on the Catholic renewal’s national committee and as pastor for a local parish established for charismatic Catholics, even while serving as college president.
Today the charismatic influence of Father Scanlan is still apparent at Franciscan University, although it has never been an official characteristic of the institution. It certainly contributed to the college’s reform and growth, attracting Catholics who are on fire with love for Christ. For Father Scanlan, it was “just a dimension of being Catholic,” Dr. Schreck explains. Father’s primary concern for the college and its faculty members was that they be faithful to the Magisterium, which is why he required the oath of fidelity for professors.
While the changes drove away some administrators and teachers, they also attracted a variety of notable scholars. They were attracted to Father Scanlan’s “integrated vision,” says Dr. Schreck. This called for 1) “dynamic orthodoxy,” ensuring that faculty are “loyally Catholic” while “teaching in such a way that theology is alive and life-giving;” 2) student life “where students could grow humanly as well as academically;” and 3) stronger academic quality.
I think that Father Scanlan’s academic priorities are largely overlooked today, given his reputation as a spiritual guide and preacher. But Dr. Schreck says Father immediately insisted on hiring Ph.D.’s, a step above many other Catholic colleges that, in those days, frequently hired master’s level professors.
With the conviction that theology is “queen of the sciences,” Father insisted that Franciscan have a full department of theology. The College of Steubenville had only a few core theology courses in 1974, but no major. Dr. Schreck later worked with Father to hire stars like Dr. Scott Hahn, Father Francis Martin and Dr. Regis Martin, as well as philosopher Dr. John Crosby.
With regard to student life, Father Scanlan wanted to ensure full integration between the students’ studies, especially in theology, and their campus experience. He instituted “households,” small communities of students who pray together and support each other in their daily lives. Noticing that students tended to go to Mass on Saturday evening before partying, Father preached at Sunday Mass and gradually drew students in. Campus ministry was fully devoted to “preaching of the Gospel.”
All of this made Franciscan University the shining model on a hill that it is today. Other Catholic colleges have followed the example, each in their own way, once again building up faithful Catholic education in many states across the country.
Extraordinary leader
Brian Scarnecchia, who taught legal studies at Franciscan University for 20 years and is now an associate professor at Ave Maria School of Law, also has known Father Scanlan since the 1970s. He tells an amazing story of Father Scanlan before he became president—in the 1960s, when Father was a theology professor and honors dean at the college.
Rev. Martin Luther King, Jr., was killed in Memphis in the summer of 1968, and Steubenville was on the verge of a race riot. Because of the city’s great respect for Father Scanlan, the mayor took the extraordinary step of turning the city government over to him. Father’s tactic of placing one black and one white police officer in every police cruiser helped avoid a riot and likely saved the city from burning.
Scarnecchia also recalls when Father and Bishop Albert Ottenweller of Steubenville were arrested outside a Youngstown, Ohio, abortion clinic in 1989. Scarnecchia helped spring them and the other “Youngstown 47” from imprisonment at the National Guard Armory.
In court, the judge asked Father if he is familiar with the Bible passage, “Let every person be subordinate to the higher authorities” (Rom. 13:1). Father Scanlan asked whether the judge had heard the passage, “We must obey God rather than men” (Acts 5:29).
That’s not your typical college president.
I heard another tale straight from Father Scanlan a few years ago that, for me, exemplifies Father’s inventiveness, leadership and trust in God that brought him so much success. Unfortunately, I’ve not found a single person who confirms the story, so it will have to be categorized somewhere in the realm of legend.
Here’s what I recall: Father told me that when he became president of the College of Steubenville, the campus was a sore sight. One thing that particularly irked him was the lack of a proper lawn.
“There was no grass,” he said. That might have been a bit of exaggeration, but the college had no money for groundskeeping, and students had trampled much of the grass bare.
With no money, most college leaders would have turned to other problems with apparent solutions. Instead, Father prayed. And the answer he received meant fertilizing the lawn by a creative method that somehow involved the local sanitation authority. (Here’s where I’d love to get some confirmation—today there are all kinds of laws that keep garbage, or sewage, or whatever it was off private property—but that’s how I remember the story.)
In those days, a struggling Ohio college didn’t have central air conditioning. All summer, Father said, faculty and staff were faced with the terrible options of sweltering in hot buildings or opening up the windows. He said the smell was so bad, they chose to swelter.
Then, with that Irish twinkle in his eye, Father said, “But sure enough, we had grass by the time the students arrived in the fall. And we’ve had grass ever since!”
There are, no doubt, many anecdotes revealing Father Scanlan’s great capacity for looking above his challenges to the God Who makes all things right. No doubt this strength came from prayer.
Dr. Schreck recalls that Father would sometimes not get to his office until 11 a.m., because he spent his mornings in prayer.
“I don’t know how to turn this university around,” Father Scanlan admitted. “Only God can do that.”
Leader of the renewal
I asked Dr. Schreck whether Father had ever indicated any angst about leading the reform in Catholic higher education. His work was counter-cultural, and he bucked the secularizing trend among most Catholic colleges. Surely this didn’t please his peers at most other Catholic colleges.
On the other hand, Father Scanlan must have felt the responsibility of setting an example for other college leaders. He must have known that he was being watched, and thankfully he lived to see some of the enormous impact his example had—especially at the growing number of faithful Catholic colleges.
Didn’t the pressure of leading such important reform in the Church ever get to him?
Dr. Schreck doesn’t think so. In fact, he says that Father Scanlan stayed focused on the tasks that God set before him, and he didn’t seem to worry much about the bigger picture.
“If we do well what we’re doing, we will make an impact,” was Father’s outlook.
Father Scanlan did have the conviction that his vision for Franciscan University “was the future of Catholic institutions as they should be,” says Dr. Schreck, and that vision had real influence. He recalls a symposium some years ago following Father’s retirement, when leaders of several Catholic universities came to Franciscan to discuss the mission of Catholic higher education—a sign of their respect for Franciscan’s stature as a leading example of faithful education.
“He really wanted to do God’s will,” says Dr. Schreck. “If that happened, it was the grace of God” that would bring about other changes elsewhere, “as long as we remained faithful to the vision.”
Today Franciscan is pushing forward into online education, an opportunity and challenge that Father Scanlan never faced himself. But Dr. Schreck says the vision remains the same: to find ways to educate well, and to keep it Catholic.
That surely sounds like good counsel for any venture in Catholic education today. It would have met with much skepticism in the 1970s, when the very possibility of a Catholic college was being questioned. Today, we know for certain that Catholic education can be done well—and can be thoroughly Catholic—because of Father Scanlan’s extraordinary example.
He did what he set out to do: he made Jesus Christ lord of every aspect of his college, and of his life.
May God have mercy on Father Michael Scanlan’s soul and take him into His loving arms.
This article was originally published by National Catholic Register.
Resist This Compromise That Would Crush Catholics
/in Blog Latest, PR Register Column/by Patrick ReillyCatholics hoped for a reprieve from assaults on religious freedom following the November elections, but a very serious threat looms with so-called SOGI laws.
That’s why 80 Christian leaders — including four leading Catholic bishops and many Catholic education leaders — chose to make a bold statement this week rejecting such efforts as contrary to Christian and American values. I joined them on behalf of The Cardinal Newman Society, convinced that timidity and false compromise will bring ruin to our culture and our freedom to live and teach the Catholic Faith.
(Like the Manhattan Declaration, which has more than half a million signers in support of pro-life and pro-marriage principles, “Preserve Freedom, Reject Coercion” is hosted by The Colson Center for Christian Worldview and invites the public to join the initial 80 signers.)
SOGI stands for “sexual orientation and gender identity,” which are the loaded terms that activists want to be included in federal and state nondiscrimination laws. The Obama administration openly supports that goal, but it has only achieved incremental steps like the Education Department’s interpretation of Title IX to require schools and colleges to make bathrooms and locker rooms open to students who claim a gender different from their birth sex.
That interpretation of Title IX, which is clearly contrary to the original intent of Congress to prevent discrimination against women, will be scrutinized by the Supreme Court this term.
Still, the SOGI threat could worsen if politicians are persuaded by certain Christians who seem, astonishingly, willing to compromise in support of SOGI laws. It’s a serious tactical error to accept legal protections for “sexual orientation” and “gender identity” in exchange for tenuous exemptions for religious organizations.
That’s a bargain that gives up a bedrock principle — not only an article of faith, but a truth of human anthropology — in exchange exceptions that are unlikely to survive if our culture fully embraces what Pope Francis calls the modern “gender ideology.”
A Bad Deal
To be sure, a religious exemption to a SOGI law might protect religious schools, colleges, hospitals, etc. in the short term, and we should strive to include exemptions in any SOGI bill that seems likely to pass against our strong opposition.
But let’s not deceive ourselves! We cannot expect that activists will be content to allow religious “dissent” from their false ideology. Recent experience in California has shown how vicious lawmakers can be against religious colleges that have legitimately claimed religious exemptions to the Obama administration’s interpretation of Title IX.
In addition, the exemptions sought by some SOGI promoters provide no protection for individual Catholics and other Christians who believe as our faith teaches that there are two God-given sexes and marriage is between a man and a woman. It is a mistake for Catholic and other Christian organizations to cut a deal to try to provide themselves with some protection at the expense of leaving individuals at the mercy of runaway bureaucrats and activists. Just ask the bakers and photographers.
Regardless of whatever benefits a religious exemption to SOGI laws might provide some organizations, they are a poor exchange for the devastation that such laws would inflict on our culture. No society built on a false anthropology can long survive.
All of this aside, my greatest concern about accepting SOGI laws with religious exemptions is that it represents a compromise of truth and Christian values that simply cannot be embraced by Catholics and our Christian brethren. Whatever the motivation — and I truly believe that it is tactical and not any intentional betrayal of Christian values — the fact is that actively supporting SOGI laws directly contradicts Christian anthropology and denies truth. From my reading of the Bible and Catholic teaching, that is a line that Christians must not cross.
Thankfully, our bishops see the danger. This week’s statement against SOGI laws is signed by the following four leaders of the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops:
Of the 31 leaders of Christian colleges and schools who signed the statement, five are presidents of faithful Catholic colleges: Sister Mary Sarah Galbraith, O.P., of Aquinas College (Tenn.); James Towey of Ave Maria University; Father Sean Sheridan, T.O.R., of Franciscan University of Steubenville; Dr. Derry Connolly of John Paul the Great Catholic University; and Dr. William Fahey of Thomas More College of Liberal Arts.
And other prominent Catholics signed, including Ryan Anderson of The Heritage Foundation, Anthony Esolen of Providence College, Thomas Farr of Georgetown University, Robert George of Princeton University, Alan Sears of the Alliance Defending Freedom and George Weigel of the Ethics and Public Policy Center.
Full Statement
The text of this week’s statement, “Preserve Freedom, Reject Coercion,” is below. To join the statement or to see the full list of original signatures, go to http://www.colsoncenter.org/freedom.
This article was originally published by The National Catholic Register.
Gerard V. Bradley: Common Core Catastrophe
/in Academics, Blog Commentary, Common Core Latest/by Gerard V. BradleyEditor’s Note: This guest commentary by University of Notre Dame Law Professor Gerard V. Bradley was originally published on November 15, 2016, at Public Discourse, an online publication of the Witherspoon Institute, and is reprinted here with permission.
Pyrotechnics about unsecured e-mails, groping, pay-to-play, and multiple personality disorders suffocated what was—early in the 2016 election cycle—an essential discussion about the most far-reaching reform of K-12 schooling in our country’s history. “Common Core” is the latest, and by far the most comprehensive, plan for national educational standards. Developed by a select group of consultants and bankrolled by the Gates Foundation, Common Core was aggressively promoted by the Obama administration beginning in 2010. Within eighteen months, forty-six states adopted it, 90 percent of them egged on by a chance to snag federal dollars in the form of “Race to the Top” funds.
President-elect Donald Trump regularly denounced Common Core on the primary campaign trail, beginning with his speech to CPAC in 2015. This also gave him an opportunity to browbeat Jeb Bush, a fervent early supporter of this educational overhaul. Hillary Clinton’s criticism of Common Core was limited to lamenting its “poor implementation”; about the revision’s basic soundness and desirability, she expressed no doubt. Had she prevailed last Tuesday, Common Core would have been safe in the hands of Clinton constituencies who brought it to life, especially the public education establishment and the business oligarchs who want shovel-ready workers. The grassroots rebellion against Common Core (which “paused” its implementation in 2013 or triggered reassessment of it in a few states) would have been squeezed from the top down. Those rebels must refocus President Trump’s attention upon Common Core and persuade him to ignite a national movement to roll it back.
The stated objective of Common Core is to produce “college- and career-ready” high school graduates. Yet even its proponents concede that it only prepares students for community-college level work. In truth, Common Core is a dramatic reduction of the nature and purpose of education to mere workforce preparation.
In 2013, a group of 132 scholars, myself among them, spoke out against Common Core. Our criticism was and is sound:
One silver lining that could be expected in this gray cloud is a renaissance for Catholic schools. The overwhelming majority of Catholic children attend public schools, there being “educated” according to Common Core’s secularized workforce prescription. Catholic parents who are informed about Common Core could be expected to seize the moment and switch their kids to one of the Church’s thousands of elementary or high schools.
For the contrast between a sound Catholic education and Common Core could scarcely be sharper. That difference was illumined by us, the 132 scholars—Catholics all—who addressed our letter (which was subsequently made public) to each of America’s bishops:
The case for the incompatibility of Common Core with a Catholic education has now been extended, and completed, with the release of “After the Fall: Catholic Education Beyond the Common Core.” A joint publication of the Pioneer Institute and the American Principles Project, this white paper is authored by Anthony Esolen, Dan Guernsey, Jane Robbins, and Kevin Ryan. They observe that at
In a compact but rich Preface to “After the Fall,” former ambassadors to the Holy See Raymond Flynn and Mary Ann Glendon write that the “basic goal of Common Core is not genuine education, but rather the training and production of workers for an economic machine.” By contrast, Catholic schools have traditionally provided “a classical liberal-arts education” that seeks to “impart moral lessons and deep truths about the human condition.” Glendon and Flynn observe that religion and the integrated humanist education that Catholic educators have long offered have “never been more needed than they are in this era of popular entertainment culture, opioid epidemics, street-gang violence, wide achievement gaps, and explosive racial tensions.” Just so.
It is no wonder, then, that John Doerfler, Catholic Bishop of Marquette, Michigan, recently announced his rejection of Common Core, saying that adopting it would not “benefit the mission, Catholic identity or academic excellence of our schools.” Just so.
Bishop Doerfler is, however, in the minority. His rejection of Common Core is the exception, not the rule. In fact, most Catholic dioceses and archdioceses—approximately 100 (including New York and Los Angeles)—have adopted Common Core. This means that the vast majority of our nation’s Catholic schoolchildren will be taught from Common Core, whether they are enrolled in public or private Catholic schools.
“After the Fall” tells some of this sad tale. The de facto voice of Catholic education in America is the National Catholic Educational Association, to which about 85 percent of America’s 6500 Catholic schools belong. By May 2012, the NCEA was encouraging Catholic schools to embrace Common Core, gushing a bit later that it contained “high quality academic standards,” which would “in no way compromise the Catholic identity or educational program of a Catholic school.” Catholic school systems rushed to buy in. More recently and after much negative feedback, the NCEA has backed off its embrace of Common Core and has begun to provide some helpful resources and tools for teachers who have no choice but to teach within its strictures. But the damage of hasty adoption was done.
What could explain the mad rush? Anecdotal feedback to the Catholic scholars’ letter (which I not only signed but organized) strongly suggests that, in spite of so many enthusiastic public statements, Catholic educators recognized effortlessly that Common Core was deeply flawed. It is doubtful that any serious Catholic educator would have recommended adopting it, or anything like it, were it not for real or perceived pressure from public authorities and teachers’ organizations to do so. Their view seems to have been: Common Core is not good for a Catholic school, but it is not so bad that it needs to be rejected, at least where the local political and economic powers-that-be want us to go along with it. These Catholic educators thought that they could “work with” Common Core.
“After the Fall” carefully states and cogently refutes the pragmatic reasons offered by these Catholic educators for adopting Common Core. The study also shows—conclusively, in my judgment—that these educators’ pragmatic approach is ill-conceived in a deeper, more important, way: Common Core is so philosophically at odds with a sound Catholic education that an acceptable modus vivendi is unavailable. Trying to pour Common Core into such venerable wineskins will burst them.
I would add the further criticism that these educators’ accommodationism is shortsighted. It is ultimately a recipe for the demise of Catholic schools. Already a great many dedicated Catholic parents have withdrawn their children from Catholic schools due to low academic standards and substandard Catholic character. These parents homeschool or send their children to a burgeoning number of new “classical Christian” schools, which are almost always outside the control of the local Catholic educational establishment. Other dedicated parents send their children to decent public schools where they are available, reckoning that the avowedly secular atmosphere there at least portends no confusion about the content of the Catholic faith. Adopting Common Core will surely accelerate this exodus, a hemorrhage of precisely those students who should form a Catholic school’s backbone.
Left behind in many Catholic schools, especially but not only in Rust Belt cities, are non-Catholic students happy to escape under-performing public schools, as well as Catholics who are in it for sports, college prep, or an ambiance of social justice service projects. These are all good things, and a good Catholic school should have them if it can. But they are secondary features of a sound Catholic education, not essential ones. A perfectly good Catholic grade school might have no sports and no service projects, and a solid Catholic high school might enroll only a few students with serious college aspirations.
The important point is that the appetite (if you will) for an integral Catholic education is already perilously suppressed in a vast swath of this country’s Catholic schools. Students in them tolerate the distinctly Catholic quality of the education they are getting. But it is not a big reason for their attendance, and for some it is not a reason at all. Its decline would not deprive them of anything they came to a Catholic school to get. The decision of so many Catholic administrators and teachers to embrace Common Core probably reflects their recognition of exactly this unfortunate situation. They would give the students pretty much the education they want.
These schools are already far down the path of transition from providing a truly Catholic education (as it is so aptly described in “After the Fall”) to being more like a religiously inspired, affordable private alternative to dysfunctional public schools. The appeal of this denouement is undeniable: urban “Catholic” schools might be the best route up and out of the ghetto for thousands of non-Catholic children who deserve that opportunity. But this encouraging effect is and must be just that: a welcome side-benefit of providing a genuine Catholic education.
Vice President-elect Mike Pence is now in charge of the Trump transition. That is a good omen; as Indiana governor Pence heeded the grassroots rebellion against Common Core—led, as a matter of fact, by two very able moms (Erin Tuttle and Heather Crossin)—and orchestrated a significant modification of the curriculum. He should now be encouraged to recommend to Donald Trump the appointment of an Education Secretary who will release the pressure from Washington, and instead encourage the states to explore alternatives to Common Core.
For those interested in genuine Catholic education, the politics is local. School parents and others with the best interests of students at heart will have to seek, and insist politely, on receiving straight answers from principals and administrators about whether, and to what extent, Common Core is in their schools. In places such as Marquette, Michigan, officials from the bishop on down should be thanked for their stand against it. In the hundred or so jurisdictions where Common Core (or something practically indistinguishable from it) is in place, respectful but firm corrective action is needed, including the organization of parents who want more than workforce prep for their Catholic school children. The sponsors of “After the Fall”—American Principles Project and Pioneer Institute—have the resources and the experts to help.
How to Build a Healthy Political Culture in America
/in Blog Latest, PR Register Column/by Patrick ReillyLast month in the heat of the presidential campaign, Pope Francis indicated his dismay about the quality of the candidates and Americans’ depth of understanding of political issues.
Offering a “theoretical” response to a reporter’s question about the Trump-Clinton race, the Pope said on October 2, “When a country has two, three or four candidates who are unsatisfactory, it means that the political life of that country is perhaps overly ‘politicized’ but lacking in a political culture.”
For comparison he pointed to unnamed Latin American countries where people embrace political parties “for emotional reasons, without thinking clearly about the fundamentals, the proposals.”
The solution, he suggested, lies partly with our Catholic colleges. “One of the tasks of the Church and of higher education is to teach people to develop a political culture,” said the Holy Father.
I often find myself seeking a reliable interpreter for remarks made by Pope Francis, and his criticism of America being overly politicized but “lacking in a political culture” is no exception. And since my work at The Cardinal Newman Society promotes faithful Catholic education, I am also intrigued that the Holy Father would suggest that Catholic colleges are partly responsible for building a political culture. What does it all mean?
I consulted a faithful Catholic scholar in political science, Dr. Stephen Krason at the Franciscan University of Steubenville, who also serves as president of the national Society of Catholic Social Scientists and is author of the recent book, Challenging the Secular Culture: A Call to Christians.
I also communicated with James Towey, president of Ave Maria University, who has a long history of working with Catholic apostolates (including direct service with Saint Mother Teresa), was head of Florida’s health and human services department, and served as director of the White House Office of Faith-Based and Community Initiatives.
Healthy Culture Doesn’t Coerce or Suppress
To be clear, neither expert claims any certainty about what Pope Francis himself meant in his October 2 interview. But they agreed to help me shed some light on the claim that America is overly politicized without a healthy political culture, and how a Catholic college might contribute to building such a culture.
“A healthy political culture doesn’t indoctrinate, coerce or suppress, but instead welcomes and respects divergent opinion and beliefs,” Towey suggested. But he didn’t think that’s been America’s recent experience under the Obama administration.
“The United States is leaving an eight-year period where religious liberty and the rights of faith-based institutions, including those within higher learning, have been under constant, coercive attack,” Towey said. “America’s culture has become contaminated with a political correctness that now seems to strive to equate the words of Sacred Scripture with ‘hate speech.’”
Krason blamed “the ascendant leftist ideology, which has politicized virtually everything as it has turned away from the transcendent and sought to remake American life according to its grievously flawed vision.”
This, he said, is particularly apparent within the Democrat Party.
“It seems like one can’t be a Democrat without accepting in toto the ruling leftist ideology—probably because of the hold of rigid leftist interest groups on the Democratic Party and the fact that they and their followers provide so much of the funding,” he said.
But it goes beyond political partisanship to the culture itself, which is becoming increasingly hostile to Catholic values and practices.
“If you follow your faith beliefs and speak out on traditional marriage and family values or the so-called ‘gender rights movement,’ or if you don’t follow the script on global warming and pro-choice policies and refuse to march in the ‘armies of contraception,’ then you find yourself assailed as religious bigots, as hateful, as opposed to woman’s rights, and so forth,” Towey said. “That is not American, that kind of political correctness run amok.”
Instead, Krason said, a healthy political culture “would adhere to natural law and the traditional role of the political, which understands its centrality but does not allow it to consume and shape everything.”
Such a culture should be rooted in “basic moral principles” but have “a commonsensical, realist view about man, culture, and the political,” Krason said. It ought to “rely on human experience as its reference point, in a Burkean fashion,” and reject attempts “to implant ideology.” That’s what the American Left is doing, he warned, “increasingly in the manner of the French Revolutionaries.”
Looking to Catholic Colleges
So what can a Catholic college do about that? Ave Maria University has opted for a strong voice on issues that are important to the Church—especially resisting any sort of political or government coercion.
“People of faith have a right to be in the public square and influence the culture,” Towey insisted, while acknowledging intense opposition. “Those who champion mandatory political correctness and the orthodoxy of radical secularism will continue to try to banish devout Catholics and people of faith and stifle their influence.”
Whereas much of American higher education has been captured by political correctness, “Catholic colleges and universities aren’t called to conform to this nonsense but instead oppose it,” Towey said. He noted his university’s court fight against President Obama’s “HHS mandate” for contraceptive and sterilization coverage in health plans—a fight that in Catholic higher education has been left almost entirely to financially challenged but faithfully Catholic colleges in our Newman Guide, while nearly all large Catholic universities have never filed suit.
“Catholic colleges and universities—the very places where faith and reason intersect and inspire the hearts and minds of our youth—need to be at the forefront of the effort to shape a healthy political culture that is faith-friendly, worthy of human dignity, and consistent with our country’s noble history and values,” Towey said.
This occurs especially within the classroom. Krason believes that Catholic colleges should strive to “teach again sound philosophy and a political science based on it, and renew the notion of scholarship as aiming for the truth and a social science that makes conclusions according to the facts and evidence and also doesn’t pretend that one can or should be value-free.”
In essence, he said, it’s “a restoration of the liberal arts.”
“Catholic colleges and universities need to get back to the highest tradition of the liberal arts, where truth matters,” Krason said. “The right training of the mind will result in a better politics for and by the future citizens and leaders.”
Within political science, Krason recommended grounding programs in “sound realist philosophy, including sound ethics” and that colleges “teach Catholic social teaching” so that it is “permeated throughout much of their social science curriculum.”
All of this, however, first requires a renewal of fidelity and Catholic identity in most of America’s Catholic colleges. It doesn’t help, Krason said, if a Catholic college teaches philosophy the way secular institutions do—“just an exposure to different philosophical schools, with philosophy not seen as involving truths that reason can discern.” Likewise, Catholics shouldn’t be teaching political science “without a sound philosophical foundation, embodying an empiricism outlook, not paying any more attention to the forming of good citizens than they do the forming of the good human person.”
In other words, Catholic colleges “can’t help transform culture for the better—especially by helping to rightly form the students who are in their charge—when they are operating from the same flawed premises that the secular institutions are,” Krason said.
I wholeheartedly agree. If the Holy Father’s wish is that Catholic colleges will help build a healthy political culture in America, many of them need to first shed their obvious and often coercive political correctness and then find the conviction that undergirds Ave Maria University and other such faithful institutions.
It’s the graduates of such strongly Catholic colleges who will bring the sort of hope and change that is meaningful and good for America.
This article was originally published by The National Catholic Register.