Many Diocesan and Private Catholic Schools Find Success Outside of Common Core

/in , /by
Click here for PDF

This publication is part of a series of reports on the Common Core State Standards Initiative and how those standards potentially impact Catholic education.

At least 33 Catholic dioceses and scores of private and independent Catholic schools across the United States have decided to take a cautious approach to the relatively new and untested “Common Core” and have opted out of using it so far. They have continued to use their own standards and curricula that have kept them at the top of the academic charts for decades. Their courage and conviction in not following the latest educational reform and sticking to what has been field-tested and fully vetted is worthy of review.  Here’s a brief overview of what some of these dioceses and schools have done.

The Archdiocese of Denver was among the first to acknowledge concerns and withhold acceptance of the Common Core State Standards (CCSS). Denver was soon followed by the Diocese of  Fargo and then the Dioceses of Pittsburgh,  Manchester, Lansing, Madison, and Superior. Each of these confident and high-performing dioceses issued formal statements justifying their decisions not to jump on the Common Core bandwagon. Many published statements by the bishop or superintendent.

In some cases, statements came after thoughtful and heartfelt input from parents and from concerned faithful Catholics who had grave concerns about bringing the Common Core standards into Catholic schools. The parents’ concerns included a worry about a decline of Catholic identity; that the strict college and career focus of the utilitarian standards did not properly focus on the integral development of students; that the standards were in places less rigorous, slowed math progression and reduced exposure to great literature; that the standards were untested; and that the standards were thrust upon the nation without full disclosure about their impact and even their content. One of the earliest and most insightful groups of parents was Pittsburgh Catholics Against Common Core, who appealed to Bishop David Zubik to rely on the Diocese of Pittsburgh’s more complete Catholic standards.  Bishop Zubik, after careful consideration, later issued a statement assuring that only fully Catholic resource materials would be used in the schools and participation in any federal student data sharing would not occur.

Other dioceses have followed with similar policies, since the Common Core standards starting manifesting themselves in Catholic schools in 2012.  The Diocese of Baker, Oregon, is among the most recent to reject the full implementation of the math and English language arts standards, stating earlier this spring, “there are more than a few reasons to be cautious about adopting Common Core.”  These include the lack of endorsement by some English and math professors present on the original validation committee and concerns about potential content issues with history, health education and social studies.

Other dioceses not using the CCSS include Little Rock, Nashville, and Wilmington. They have elected to continue the use of their own diocesan designed standards and curriculum guides. These tested and successful guides not only include specific standards but also resource material, formal and informal assessments, instructional approaches, student accommodations and suggestions for parental involvement.  Many of the standards, while self-selected, take into account some secular and professional standards and incorporate them into the diocesan designed program of study; the dioceses do not operate in a complete vacuum, although they do operate with a distinctly Catholic paradigm.

While it is uncertain from their websites whether other dioceses in Texas use the CCSS, the Diocese of Galveston-Houston and the Diocese of Dallas indicate that they use their own internally designed curriculum guides based on the National Council of Teachers of Mathematics (NCTM), the National Council of Teachers of English (NCTE), the Texas Essential Knowledge and Skills (TEKS), the Iowa Test of Basic Skills (ITBS) and the International Reading Association (IRA).  The Diocese of Austin bases its standards on the TEKS.  These three dioceses educate 39,462 school children or 51 percent of the total Catholic student population taught in Texas (McDonald & Schultz, 2015).

Adjacent to Texas, the Dioceses of Tulsa and Oklahoma City use their own internal, previously generated curriculum guides and make no reference to the use of Common Core standards. Similarly, the dioceses in Nebraska and Virginia, whose state school officers never elected to incorporate the standards, do not use the Common Core. The dioceses in these four cities and states add another 63,953 Catholic school children being educated without Common Core (McDonald & Schultz, 2015).

At least seven of these non-Common Core dioceses have their curricula online:  Charleston, Dallas, Denver, Galveston-Houston, Nashville, Superior and Tulsa. Some dioceses have offices for curriculum and instruction and are able to work on these areas full-time. These dioceses use the existing professional, state and national standards along with the professional expertise of curriculum designers, members of the clergy, religious orders and input from teachers to create guides or standards for their school systems.

One problem faced by these non-adopting dioceses is how to steer clear of both the Common Core standards and the instructional approaches the standards employ, when using textbooks and materials created by publishers whose goods are stamped “Common Core aligned”. This has raised, and continues to raise, concerns among parents who see these books and worksheets coming home after having been told Common Core standards are not utilized in their diocese.

Sandra Leatherwood, director of Catholic education for the Diocese of Charleston, addresses this issue by saying that although it’s awfully hard to get around the use of Common Core- marketed materials, schools don’t have to teach the Common Core Standards when they use these books. They can use their own created curriculum guides. Like most dioceses that work under the concept of subsidiarity, in the Diocese of Charleston, representative teachers from each school gather first to develop the math and English standards and then bring them back to the individual schools for internal review and comment. In her Diocese, Leatherwood said the local teachers have the autonomy to select the textbooks that best align to their own created curriculum.  Leatherwood emphatically stated that the issue is not whether the textbook is aligned to Common Core, but whether the textbook aligns to the diocesan curriculum.

A number of Catholic schools and dioceses have come to see that choosing the best materials and using the best instructional methods means not incorporating all of the instructional “shifts” required by the Common Core standards, such as reducing selections of classical literature or implementing a recreation of the 1990s  “Math Wars”..  These schools and dioceses require instructional approaches that promote rigor and perseverance by forcing students to think for extended periods of time, pushing their developmental capacity.  Reducing classical selections that portray man in all the scenarios of his perpetual struggle to survive and buying literature anthologies that look like commercials are something these dioceses and private independent schools have chosen not to do. Rather they focus on the use of proven pedagogy and proven curricula that facilitate the search for authentic and transparent truth, whether inside or outside the specific text that children encounter.

Most of the dioceses that have not implemented the Common Core emphasize on their websites and official statements the desire to prepare students for more than college and career. These dioceses have taken to heart the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops clarification that the Common Core standards are “insufficient” to guide Catholic education.  These dioceses are upfront that the purpose of their schools is to educate the whole child in a unique Catholic worldview, where educational accomplishments sit alongside other milestones of life. They emphasize that their educational efforts are ordered toward the fulfillment of the whole person, and they do not view knowledge as primarily a commodity to be bought, sold and amassed for worldly success.

A Catholic school’s primary concern is not that students measure up to the standards of the world so that they can compete in the race for economic security and academic stature. Rather, Catholic schools fulfill an evangelizing mission of providing opportunities for their students to encounter Christ in a personal and intimate way.  Instilling virtue, integral formation and development of the soul and pursuing authentic truth in a culture of relativism are all central to a Catholic school’s standards and curriculum.  Catholic schools are much more than the Common Core.

Acknowledging this, and the fact that the vast majority of schools in the nation are singing from one sheet of music and following one “way” of going about the complex human activity that is education, some dioceses have gone a little further and are exploring a liberal arts/ classical curriculum model using original source documents and a structured developmental pedagogy.  And both the Diocese of Marquette and the Kaukauna Catholic School System in the Diocese of Green Bay, Wisconsin, have decided to move toward the integration of English Language Arts and Social Studies into a combined Humanities program.

As with the best Catholic schools in the country, faith permeates the curriculum in these schools, but curriculum is framed around the historical development of Christianity and the developmental aptitudes of the child.  These schools are more concerned with process and excellence of content, rather than standards.  They are more concerned with setting a child’s imagination and creativity on fire, rather than unending mind-numbing assessments designed to quantify and measure learning so as to weed out bad schools and teachers.  Their classical, liberal-arts model emphasizes the use of inspired learning and authentic teacher-based assessment of student (not teacher or school) progress. Individualized attention, focus on tried and true stories emphasizing what is noble and normative of human excellence, happiness and flourishing, these schools are places of joy and intense academic growth.

There are many examples of individual schools seeking to break out of the cookie-cutter Common Core curricula and reclaim their rich heritage—and in the process, reclaim their market share.  Families stuck in Common Core schools are looking for something unique, something uncommon, something that will help their child stand out in a crowd, and more importantly help their child love school and love to learn for learning’s sake. Near-failing Catholic schools such as St. Jerome’s in Maryland have seen dramatic turnarounds by boldly proclaiming a Catholic and classical identity. Other schools formerly on the brink of closure such as St. John the Baptist Parish School in Ottsville, Penn., are seeking to follow suit and fight their way to prominence by being boldly Catholic and boldly counter-Common Core.

It’s not only existing Catholic schools that are recovering a sense of education that is beyond college and career; new schools are starting up to meet the need for something more than the Common Core.  The National Association of Private Catholic Independent Schools has seen a dramatic increase in membership since the Common Core started gaining a foothold in 2012. New private schools teaching the Catholic faith have sprung up in Arizona, the District of Columbia, Illinois, Minnesota, Missouri, South Carolina and Wisconsin.  Many of these schools are using a classical pedagogy and courses of study from foundational homeschool programs such as Kolbe Academy, Mother of Divine Grace and the new Chesterton Academies.  It is undetermined how many students these recognized members plus autonomous up-starts are teaching, but theirs is an upward trend (Donohue, 2014).  A newly formed support organization called  The Institute for Catholic Liberal Education has also seen rapid growth in the last two years, as it seeks to expose a hungry market to a comprehensive approach to education which is wholesome, weighty, meaningful, tested and soul-nourishing.

In time, there may be some fruits that come from the Common Core, but there is already plenty of good fruit on the table of classical and faith based-liberal arts schools.  The children are happy and well-fed.  Room for more fruit, once ripe and deemed healthful, can perhaps be made in the future with care.  Until then, there is much to feast upon while we wait—and waiting is something we Catholics do well.

References

Donohue, D. (2014). Private independent Catholic schools: Components of successful start-up schools. Accessible at http://gradworks.umi.com/35/81/3581846.html.

McDonald, D. & Schultz, M. (2015). The annual statistical report on schools, enrollment and staffing: United States Catholic elementary and secondary schools 2014-2015. (Arlington, VA: National Catholic Educational Association).

Disconnect between Common Core’s Literary Approach and Catholic Education’s Pursuit of Truth

/in , /by
Click here for PDF

Many of the Common Core State Standards for English Language Arts are, when taken in isolation and at face value, fairly innocuous.  Who, after all, could be against a fifth grader being  asked to “Compare and contrast two or more characters, settings or events in a story or drama, drawing on specific details in the text (e.g., how characters interact)”?  Other Standards are more disconcerting; for a detailed review, see the NAPCIS Annotated Common Core Standards.

But a substantial concern is with the guiding educational philosophies behind the Common Core. These philosophies are present in what the Common Core describes as its “instructional shifts” and are the promise behind the standards:

These Standards are not intended to be new names for old ways of doing business. They are a call to take the next step. It is time for states to work together to build on lessons learned from two decades of standards based reforms. It is time to recognize that standards are not just promises to our children, but promises we intend to keep. (National Governors Association Center for Best Practices & Council of Chief State School Officers, 2010, Intro.)

The Common Core is about new ways of doing business (i.e., new ways of educating). They are a new promise, the next step, in education.  As has been argued elsewhere, the Common Core was unveiled nationally even though, as a whole, it was untried and untested. However, far from delivering a new way of doing business, what the Common Core has done is privilege one way of educating. The designing consultants have simply taken one side in ongoing, com- plex, pedagogical issues.  The Common Core’s national scope has thereby crowded out other voices and philosophies and hampered intellectual and pedagogical diversity.

In the highly idiosyncratic, dynamic, complex and necessarily personal world of human intellectual formation, there are many paths to excellence.  Catholic schools, with their unique focus on integral human formation and the celebration of truth, beauty and goodness, should protect their voice and their viewpoints. Catholic schools should understand and be aware of the Common Core shifts, reject their narrow and utilitarian philosophies, and seek to counter the Common Core’s effects with a distinctly more holistic and complete Catholic educational experience.

This report focuses primarily on the English Language Arts (ELA) standards, as those tend to have a greater immediate effect on Catholic identity.  (However, math too is affected, as one side in the ongoing  “math wars” has unilaterally claimed power.)  The Common Core has taken one side of a complex debate about different literary and interpretive theories and the nature and purpose of literature.

It is possible, of course, that the authors of the ELA standards are not even fully aware of what they have done.  The standards’ main architect, David Coleman, is neither a professor of literature nor has he ever taught literature in the K-12 environment.  He is an educational consultant who happened to be in the right place at the right time with the right connections with the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation to take the lead in transforming American literary education. And—like Common Core funder Bill Gates, who never went to college—Coleman seems to have little regard for the transformative or transcendental power of literature.  He once advised educators in a Common Core presentation: “[A]s you grow up in this world, you realize people really don’t give a s–t about what you feel or what you think” and, “It is rare in a working environment that someone says, ‘Johnson, I need a market analysis by Friday but before that I need a compelling account of your childhood.’” For Coleman and Gates, reading seems to be about distilling facts, writing is about reports and education is about college and career readiness.

According to this utilitarian approach to education, we need to fix America’s schools to ensure that we are able to produce workers who can compete in the 21st century global economy.  In order to ensure our success, the logic goes, we need extensive testing to ensure quality control both in student learning and in teacher efficacy. Enter the computer-based, massive, Common Core testing system being rolled out across the country this spring. Two versions of a new test being used to assess both the students and teachers in their mastery of the Common Core have been unleashed on our schools, teachers and students.  Much more, no doubt, will be said on this subject as the scores and uses of the scores become evident.

It is perhaps in the challenge of computerized high-stakes testing that we find one of the reasons for the Common Core’s alignment with one literary theory over all others.  The method advanced by the writers of the standards is what they call Close Analytic Reading or Close Reading and is very similar to a literary approach used in the 1940s and 1950s called New Criticism (Brizee & Tompkins, 2011).  According to the Partnership for Assessment of Readiness for College and Careers (PARCC), one of the two testing consortia funded by the federal government to assess the standards:

Close, analytic reading stresses engaging with a text of sufficient complexity directly and examining meaning thoroughly and methodically, encouraging students to read and reread deliberately.  Directing student attention on the text itself empowers students to understand the central ideas and key supporting details.  It also enables students to reflect on the meanings of individual words and sentences; the order in which sentences unfold; and the development of ideas over the course of the text, which ultimately leads students to arrive at an understanding of the text as a whole. (PARCC, 2011, p. 7)

Close Reading/New Criticism allows for easier computer testing. There is the perception that if all we are testing is the text on the page, this will somehow be more objective.  Words are what they are.  The text in isolation can supposedly be tested in isolation with few variables and thus more accuracy. We can get to a simpler, fill-in-the-bubble “objective” response. This method may also be perceived as fairer to those who may not have robust life experiences to think about the meaning or implications of the text, even if the text comports with reality or truth outside of the text.  No opinions need to be considered or evaluated, which computers would have a hard time doing anyway.

So it’s an apparent win/win—the test gets more objective answers, and teaching gets easier since variables are reduced—but in fact the cost is quite high.  It is the eviscerating and over- simplification of the literary and reasoning experience.  Testing is often about limiting variables; education, on the other hand, is often about multiplying variables, about complexity, depth and richness that a student may very well miss if we are striving to get to the one, right bubbled answer.

The Close Reading/New  Criticism approach used by the Common Core not only assists in standardized testing, but it can also be used as a way to make sure that literature serves the pragmatic college and career focus of the Common Core.  From this perspective, the value of literature is not so much what it teaches us about how to live well, but that it teaches us how to read well (e.g. Just tell me what’s in the report, Johnson!).

Elements of New Criticism can be used as a means to this end by focusing simply on a systematic analysis of the text, objectifying the relationship between the text and its form, limiting the text to itself, and negating the reader ’s response and/or  the author’s intentions (Delahoyde, n.d.; Murfin & Ray, 1998).  New Criticism does not invite external socio-political or historical perspectives. As Delahoyde (n.d.) states:

The goal then is not the pursuit of sincerity or authenticity, but subtlety, unity, and integrity—and these are properties of the text, not the author.  The work is not the author ’s; it was detached at birth.  The author ’s intentions are “neither available nor desirable, [and] …meaning exists on the page, the meaning of the text is intrinsic and should not be confused with the author ’s intentions nor the work’s affective dimensions”. (Delahoyde, n.d., para. 3)

Here we see a limiting of the pursuit of truth by the actual formula used to analyze the text. Not only is the pursuit of truth limited in this approach, but the author ’s actual position is disregarded as well.

While the Close Reading approach advocated by the CCSS authors does rely heavily upon the search for the author ’s explicit and implied themes, many aspects of Close Reading are comparable to the New Criticism approach.  For instance, teachers are to give the text to the students with little to no background information and are not to add additional pieces of information to the discussion—something that other reading experts recommend doing (NCTE, 2004; Steven, 1982). The selected text itself sets the parameters of the discussion, and students are to answer questions from evidence within the text.

For example, here’s a Close Reading lesson from the Teaching Channel titled, The Omnivore’s Dilemma: The Secrets Behind What You Eat by Michael Pollan.  In the YouTube video (Stabrowski, 2014), the teacher demonstrates how to guide a group of students through a series of questions to see how the author has personified corn as an evil King and how corn has chased poor innocent animals and other crops off of the farm.  If the students do not arrive at the conclusion that corn is evil, then the teacher rewinds (meaning re-teaches) that portion of the lesson so that the students all understand this fact. Students read the text once to get the gist of the text. Then the teacher, or a good reader, reads the text aloud while the students listen and think about the text-dependent (pre-made) questions they are given to answer. When discussing the questions and answers, students are not to go outside of the text to research whether corn has any nutritional benefits or how it is exported to feed other countries.  They are not to bring up any personal thoughts about corn, only evidence from the text.  They are then instructed to correct or add to their answers, so that they are in conformity with the class discussion. Here we have a very concerted effort, and an entire class period, directed to making sure students have an exact understanding of the author ’s intentions, both explicit (with evidence from the text) and implied.  It is pretty hard for an elementary or middle school student to disagree, after this much effort has been put into understanding the author ’s viewpoint.

Pearson (2013), a member of the Common Core Validation Committee and proponent of the standards, has stated that Close Reading seems to squelch the activation of students’ prior knowledge (since all knowledge is remanded to the text), and the freedom to evaluate and compare is based upon this prohibited “outside” knowledge.  While he is concerned about the fact that cognitive learning theory is being neglected by this approach, he raises a more important issue: the suppression of freedom among the students and teachers to include other perspectives and considerations in addition to those advocated by the text and the author. Pearson explains this as the authors’ misunderstanding  about the process of comprehension and the fact that prior knowledge cannot be turned off or on at will. Pearson wonders if once a student learns about the authors’ points, can the student then use that information in the next selected reading of the author—extending the first selected text into the second, into the entire chapter, into the book—or must the reader be remanded to the selected piece in front of them?

In college and university literature departments around the country, discussions about the validity and applicability of various literary approaches in the pursuit of meaning are ongoing.  But for the teachers and students in American schools, the discussion has ended: Close Reading is it.

Our goal in teaching literature to kids is not just to prepare them for possible graduate school in English; our goal, especially in Catholic schools, is to form them and expose them to great, engaging, formative and normative literature and in the process instill in them a love and passion for reading great literature.  (See The Story Killers by Terrance Moore (2013) for an extended discussion of this point.)  Important to K-12 students is reading and engaging in well-crafted stories that will assist them in becoming wiser and better people, leading to more satisfying and richer lives. For our children, stories are not just about texts and techniques, but also about people and relationships.  Stories are not just about literary styles and interpretive complexities, but also about exploration into the imaginative and powerful terms surrounding the nature of reality, morality, faith and virtue. Great literature presents images of nobility and excellence—and their opposites—for our judgment and self-judgment, as we engage in deep and meaningful discussions about what it means to be a fully actualized, good human being. The textual technicalities and techniques, which are more easily tested and discussed using New Criticism and Close Reading, are means rather than ends in the K-12 literary experience—and this is most especially true for Catholic schools.

In Catholic schools, knowledge is attained when the human intellect, informed by the senses, judges things rightly.  Confining students to their own background knowledge or the point of view of the text rewards subjectivity and relativity, instead of Truth.   Concluding a lesson without having the opportunity to discuss other viewpoints that might in fact contain Truth, allows doubt, misinformation and even fallacy to solidify in the student’s mind. In catechesis, this would be like leaving students adrift after speaking about Creation and the Fall, putting off until later the promise of the Resurrection.  If these texts are so important to be analyzed in the light of close reading, then they are important enough to be read in the light of all of the viewpoints and perspectives that surround them.  As Fr. Robert Spitzer (2011) notes in a discussion of the pursuit of truth, there are far more errors of omission than commission, which means that leaving out data is just as harmful to the pursuit of truth as getting the wrong data or making logical errors.

Catholic educators, especially if they are using Common Core-developed texts and questions, need to look carefully at what texts and what questions are being left out. Their focus needs to be on the pursuit of the true, good and beautiful, not on getting the right answer on the Common Core test-inspired questions at the end of any publisher ’s provided worksheets. Catholic educators need to look deliberately and carefully at the real, rich and wonderful world outside the text. For the text, in combination with reality, may prove a mighty formative weapon. The text, in context, may very well brilliantly unveil reality—sometimes with life-changing effect. The purpose of reading is more than downloading text-limited knowledge. In addition, reading can sometimes simply be for pleasure, joy and wonder.  There is life outside of the Common Core and its tests.

Teachers in Catholic schools must move well beyond the Common Core in their much more profound efforts toward the integral formation of their students in mind, body and spirit. They do this through their intellectual and moral example, living the truth with love, and exposing their students to complex reality in all of its glorious manifestations.  In the Vatican’s document The Catholic School (1977), we read:

The school considers human knowledge as a truth to be discovered. In the measure in which subjects are taught by someone who knowingly and without restraint seeks the truth they are to that extent Christian. Discovery and awareness of truth leads man to the discovery of Truth itself.  (para. 41)

It also leads students to a discovery of Truth, Himself.  The purpose of our Catholic educational institutions, according to Pope Benedict (2008), is to first and foremost be a place where students can encounter the living God. Pope Benedict (2010) also reminds us that the purpose of our Catholic schools is to make saints!

Overuse of the methodology of Close Reading and a reconstituted literary approach of New Criticism is insufficient in the much broader and more complex pursuit of truth in which we are called to engage in our Catholic schools. There are other analytical tools and approaches in the field of literature that are also helpful to address the richness and power of literary possi- bility, creativity and passion. Among these are Reader/Response, Moral Criticism, and Struc- turalism (Brizee & Tompkins, 2011). Catholic students need rich exposure to Moral Criticism, which is more open to an analysis of the text’s teachings related to topics of wisdom, grace, beauty and virtue. (See http://www.westga.edu/~jmcclain/Literary%20Theory/moralintellectual_critical_appr.htm for more on Moral Criticism.)  This broader interpretive framework will better enable Catholic schools to avoid unnecessarily or unwittingly narrowing their efforts.

Former Secretary for the Congregation for Catholic Education, Archbishop Michael Miller, C.S.B., describes this dynamic when he warns:

All too many Catholic schools fall into the trap of a secular academic success culture, putting their Christological focus and its accompanying understanding of the human person in second place.  Christ is “fitted in” rather than being the school’s vital principle (2006, p. 26).

He goes on to say, “This conviction about the nature of truth is too important for Catholics to be confused about,” (p. 46) and “Unlike skeptics and relativists, Catholic educators share a specific belief about truth: that, to a limited but real extent, it can be attained and communicated to others.”  He warns that:

Catholic schools (should) take up the daunting task of freeing boys and girls from the insidious consequences of what Pope Benedict XVI has called the “dictatorship of relativism”—a dictatorship that cripples all genuine education. Catholic teachers are to cultivate in themselves and develop in others a passion for truth that defeats moral and cultural relativism.  They are to educate “in the truth.” (p. 46)

Our standards, Catholic school standards, are not synonymous with the Common Core State Standards. As the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops (USCCB) has pointed out, the Common Core Standards are in and of themselves insufficient to guide Catholic educational efforts (USCCB, 2014). Solomon (2003) states that standards represent a culture’s explicit statements that it “finds worthy of transmission” (p. 3). Our culture, as enshrined in the ubiquitous Common Core and its oppressive testing regimen, values a utilitarian approach to education that only half-prepares our students for life beyond high school graduation.  According to Archbishop Miller, “If a Catholic school is to deliver on its promise to provide students with an integral education, it must foster love for wisdom and truth, and must integrate faith, culture, and life” (p.45) by using instructional approaches that focus on much more than evidence from the text and whose horizon includes more than college and career.

There is much more to say regarding weaknesses in the Common Core ELA standards, especially another of the ELA shifts – graduated percentages of informational text.  The Common Core designers have errantly, without clear data or clear direction, mandated an increase in informational texts in all levels or all schools.  This, by necessity, means a  decrease in great literature.  More on this travesty will be forthcoming from The Cardinal Newman Society.

The Common Core’s dismissive attitude toward the transcendent power of literature is hopefully exposed not just by these articles but in reflecting again on Common Core architect David Coleman’s remarks, “[A]s you grow up in this world you realize people really don’t give a s–t about what you feel or what you think,” and “It is rare in a working environment that someone says, ‘Johnson, I need a market analysis by Friday but before that I need a compelling account of your childhood.’”  We can see how Catholic schools must completely reject these notions and their enshrinement in the Common Core.  We believe we are about authentic human excellence and human flourishing. We will, by happy circumstance, produce better workers and better scholars because we will produce better, more integrally developed, human persons.

Johnson may have a job, but will he have a life? Johnson’s boss may not care about what Johnson feels or thinks: but his wife will, and his children will, and his friends will, and his neighbors will, and if he is a teacher, his students will, and if he is a politician, his constituents will. And even his cynical boss may not care what Johnson thinks or feels, but his boss will care that Johnson thinks or feels. Johnson will not only be a stunted human being having learned under the Common Core, but he will also be a poorer employee.

Even public schools exist to produce thoughtful, productive and independent citizens in a democratic republic, not just workers and college students.   A strong democracy requires strong people, not just strong workers.  We need students to be more humanized in order to address the crisis and challenge of today’s world, not less.  This is not a time to set our sights on the “common” or the cultural status quo.  This is a time requiring vision and excellence.

In Catholic schools, we know we are not just producing workers and scholars, we are producing living, breathing, complex, contradictory, eternally destined, unrepeatable and immensely valuable human beings.  Our bishops and parishes do not support schools and keep them open to provide better “career and college readiness”.  They keep Catholic schools open to provide the liberation that comes from a thoughtful, loving and free encounter with the living God.  Catholic schools exist not for their pragmatic worldly usefulness, but rather to actuate the authentic freedom to which each person is called and to provide skills at apprehending and integrating reality, including that which transcends the text, in all of its fullness and glory.

References

Coleman, D., & Pimentel, S. (2012). Revised publishers’ criteria for the Common Core State Standards in English language arts and literacy, Grades 3–12. Retrieved from  http://www. corestandards.org/assets/Publishers_Criteria_for_3-12.pdf.

Benedict XVI, Pope Emeritus. (2008). Meeting with Catholic Educators: Address of His Holi- ness Benedict XVI. Retrieved from  http://w2.vatican.va/content/benedict-xvi/en/speech- es/2008/april/documents/hf_ben-xvi_spe_20080417_cath-univ-washington.html.

Benedict XVI, Pope Emeritus. (2010). Address of the Holy Father to pupils of St. Mary’s Univer- sity College. Retrieved from http://w2.vatican.va/content/benedict-xvi/en/speeches/2010/ september/documents/hf_ben-xvi_spe_20100917_mondo-educ.html.

Benedict, Pope Emeritus. (2014). Benedict XVI: Truth is not given up in the name of a desire for peace. Retrieved from  http://www.zenit.org/en/article/benedict-xvi-truth-is-not-given-up- in-the-name-of-a-desire-for-peace.

Brizee, A., & Tompkins, C. (2011). Form follows function: Russian formalism, new criticism, neo- Aristotelianism. Retrieved from https://owl.english.purdue.edu/owl/resource/722/03/.

Delahoyde, M. (n.d.). Introduction to literature: New criticism. Retrieved from  http://public. wsu.edu/~delahoyd/new.crit.html.

Miller, Michael. (2006). The Holy See’s teaching on Catholic education. Atlanta, GA: Solidarity Association.

Murfin, R., & Ray, S. (1998). The Bedford glossary of critical and literary terms. Retrieved from http://bcs.bedfordstmartins.com/virtualit/poetry/critical_define/crit_newcrit.html.

National Council of Teachers of English. (2004). On reading, learning to read, and effective reading instruction: An overview of what we know and how we know it. Retrieved from http://www.ncte.org/about/over/positions/category/read/118620.htm.

Partnership for Assessment of Readiness for College and Careers. (2011). PARCC model con- tent frameworks: English language arts/literacy  grades 3-11. Retrieved from  www.parccon- line.org/sites/parcc/files/PARCCMCFELALiteracyAugust2012_FINAL.pdf.

Pearson, P. (2013). Research foundations for the Common Core State Standards in English lan- guage arts. In S. Neuman and L. Gambrell (Eds.), Reading instruction in the age of Common Core State Standards. Newark, DE: International Reading Association. Retrieved from http:// www.scienceandliteracy.org/research/pdavidpearson.

Sacred Congregation for Catholic Education. (1977). The Catholic school. Rome, Italy: Sacred Congregation for Catholic Education.

Solomon, P. (2003). The curriculum bridge: From standards to actual classroom practice. Thou- sand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press, Inc.

Spitzer, Robert. (2011). Ten universal principles: A brief philosophy of the life issues. San Fran- cisco, CA: Ignatius Press.

Stabrowski, S. (2014). The omnivore’s dilemma: Close reading of a non-fiction text. Retrieved from https://www.teachingchannel.org/videos/omnivore-dilemma-close-reading-of-non- fiction-text-core-challenge.

Steven, K. (1982). Can we improve reading by teaching background information? Journal of Reading, 25, 326-329.

USCCB. (2014). Common core state standards FAQs. Retrieved from  http://www.usccb.org/ beliefs-and-teachings/how-we-teach/catholic-education/common-core-state-standards-faqs. cfm.

It’s About Navigating Life: The Importance of Philosophy & Theology

/in , /by

Here is one of the clearest criteria for choosing or judging a college: you can be almost certain that any college that has dropped philosophy and theology from its core curriculum is not serious about a liberal arts education. And in my experience I find that this is true of many of the colleges in America.

This raises two questions: (1) What are philosophy and theology, and why are they crucial to a young person’s education today? (2) Aren’t they outdated, impractical, abstract, irrelevant, elitist, superfluous and even dangerous to faith and sanity?

Some Definitions

“Philosophy” means “the love of wisdom.” Wisdom is the knowledge of ultimate causes, explanations and principles. It includes knowledge of values, not just facts. It gives you a “big picture,” a “world-view” and a “life-view.” It explores such questions as these: What is the essence of a human being? What is the meaning (value, goal, purpose) of human life? What is a good life? What is a good society? Are there higher laws than man’s laws? Are we here by chance or design? Are we fated or free? How do we know what is good or evil? How do we know anything? Is anything certain? Can reason prove (or disprove) the existence of God? Why do we suffer? Why do we die? Is there life after death?

Anyone who is simply not interested in these questions is less than fully human, less than fully reasonable. Reasonable persons, even if skeptical about the possibility of answering them, will not dismiss them as unanswerable without looking (that is not reason but prejudice) but will examine the claims of philosophers to have given reasonable answers to these questions before settling into a comfortable, fashionable skepticism.

Theology comes in two forms, philosophical and religious. Philosophical theology (“natural theology”) is a subdivision of philosophy. It uses natural human reason to explore the greatest of all questions, the questions about God. Religious theology (or “revealed theology”) is a rational exploration of the meaning and consequences of faith in a revealed religion—in our case, the “deposit of faith” or “Sacred Tradition” of the Catholic Church which comes from Christ and His apostles, and the scriptures they wrote.

In most Catholic universities today, Sacred Tradition is no longer sacred. It is treated as something to be “dissented” from (“diss” is the first part of “dissent”), as an enemy to enlightenment, progress, maturity and liberation, or at least as an embarrassment to be “tweaked,” “nuanced” or “massaged” rather than as a gift to be gratefully, faithfully and lovingly explored.

Most Catholic universities today have philosophy departments that are excellent spiritually as well as academically, but have deeply compromised theology departments. Their effect on students is much more often to weaken their faith than to strengthen it, not only in controversial moral issues such as abortion, contraception, cloning, euthanasia and sexual morality, but even in fundamental doctrines such as Christ’s divinity and resurrection and the historical truth of the Gospels.

We badly need good philosophy and theology. But why? To answer this question, look at where they are taught. They are taught in colleges and universities. So to find the “why” of philosophy and theology, we must find the “why” of colleges and universities.

The Goal of Education

Considering the trillions of dollars spent on universities by parents, governments and foundations, it is amazing that most of the people who go there (the students) and most of the people who pay for them (the parents and the government) never even ask, much less answer, this question: What is the purpose of the university? It is the most influential institution in Western civilization, and most of us don’t really know exactly why we entrust our children to them.

The commonest answer is probably to train them for a career. A B.A. looks good on your resume to prospective employers. That is not only a crass, materialistic answer, but also an illogical one. Consider what it means. It means that the reason students should study in universities is so that they can get high grade-point averages and thus get better jobs when they graduate.

What does “better jobs” mean? It means first of all, to most of them, better-paying jobs. But why do they need better paying jobs? For the money, of course. Silly question. But why do they need money? That is an even sillier question. Life has expenses. What life? Most of them hope to marry and raise families, and it takes a lot of money to do that. Why does a family need a lot of money? The two most expensive things a family needs money for are a house and a college education for the kids.

Ah, so a student should study to get high grades to get an impressive resume to get a good job, to finance his family when it sends his kids to college to study, to get high grades, et cetera, et cetera.

This is arguing in a circle. It is like a tiger pacing round and round his cage in a zoo. Is there a better answer? There is if you know some philosophy. Let’s look.

Probably the most commonsensical and influential philosopher of all time was Aristotle. Aristotle says that there are three “whys,” three purposes, ends or reasons for anyone ever to study and learn anything, in school or out of it. Thus there are three kinds of “sciences,” which he called “productive,” “practical” and “theoretical.” (Aristotle used “science” in a much broader way than we do, meaning any ordered body of knowledge through causes and reasons.)

The purpose of the “productive sciences” (which we today call technology) is to produce things, to make, improve or repair material things in the world, and thus to improve our world. Farming, surgery, shipbuilding, carpentry, writing and tailoring were examples in Aristotle’s era as well as ours, while ours also includes many new ones like cybernetics, aviation and electrical engineering.

The purpose of the “practical sciences” (which meant learning how to do or practice anything, how to act) is to improve your own behavior in some area of your own life. The two most important of these areas, Aristotle said, were ethics and politics. (Aristotle saw politics not as a pragmatic, bureaucratic business of running a state’s economy, but as social ethics, the science of the good life for a community.) Other examples of “practical sciences” include economics, athletics, rhetoric and military science.

The third kind of sciences is the “theoretical” or “speculative” (contemplative), i.e., those that seek the truth for its own sake, that seek to know just for the sake of knowing rather than for the sake of action or production (though, of course, they will have important practical application). These sciences include theology, philosophy, physics, astronomy, biology, psychology and math.

Theoretical sciences are more important than practical sciences for the very same reason practical sciences are more important than productive sciences: because their end and goal is more intimate to us. Productive sciences perfect some external thing in the material world that we use; practical sciences perfect our own action, our own lives; and theoretical sciences perfect our very selves, our souls, our minds. They make us bigger persons.

And that is the reason for going to college in the first place: not to make money, or things, or even to live better, but to be better, to be more, to grow your mind as you grow your body.

The Big Picture

What we have been doing for the last several paragraphs is philosophy. We need philosophy because we need to explore such reasons, reasons for studying, reasons for universities’ existence, even (especially) reasons for your own existence. For one of the primary questions all great philosophers ask is: What is the meaning of life, the reason for being, the point and purpose and end of human existence in this world?  If you don’t know that, you don’t know anything because you don’t know the point of everything. If you don’t know that, you may get all A’s in all your subjects, but you flunk Life.

The answer to that question for any intelligent, honest and serious Christian, Jew or Muslim is God. Supreme wisdom is about knowing God. And philosophy is the pursuit of wisdom. So philosophy is ultimately the pursuit of God, using the tools of natural human reason and theology by faith in supernatural divine revelation.

The “wisdom” philosophy pursues is not a factual knowledge like physics or history; but a knowledge, and understanding, and appreciation, of values, of what ought to be rather than merely what is. For instance, we need to know whether career (work) or family is more important, because most of us will invest enormous emotional and physical energy in both, and they will always compete and conflict to some extent.

We want to know the meaning of falling in love and romance and sex. What is its meaning, its purpose? For two generations now we have been asking every conceivable question (and many inconceivable questions, too), but not this one, not the very first and most basic one.

You see? Philosophy and theology raise the mind’s eyes to The Big Picture. If we can’t see that, we miss the forest and see only the trees; we count the syllables in the book of life but don’t know what kind of a story we are in.

Good Philosophy, Good Theology

One philosopher tells this story. (I paraphrase.) I was raised in a New York City slum. There were no books in my house. No one in my high school cared about education. I found an escape in the great 42nd Street library, where I devoured books indiscriminately. One day, I happened to read the famous “allegory of the cave” from Plato’s Republic. It changed my life. I found my identity. My life was that cave, and philosophy was the way out into another, bigger world. My mind was born that day. For the rest of my life I have explored the world outside the cave, the world of ideas, and taught others to do so. The biggest thrill in my life is finding among my students someone like me whom I can show that there is a way out of the cave, and that there is a bigger world outside.

That is why we all need to study philosophy (and, even more obviously, theology): because it is the discovery of another world, another kind of world, another kind of reality than the material world: the discovery that ideas are real, and that (in the words of a great book title) “ideas have consequences.”

The only alternative to good philosophy is bad philosophy. “I hate philosophy” is bad philosophy, but it is a philosophy: egotism. “Philosophy isn’t practical” is a philosophy: pragmatism. “Philosophy doesn’t turn me on” is a philosophy: hedonism.

Everyone has a philosophy, just as everyone has an emotional temperament and a moral character. Your only choice is between “knowing yourself” and thinking about your philosophy, or hiding from it and from yourself. But what you do not think about will still be there, and will still motivate you, and have consequences, and those consequences will affect all the people in your life up to the day of your death and far beyond it.

Your philosophy can quite likely and quite literally make the difference between heaven and hell. Saint Francis of Assisi and Adolf Hitler were not professional philosophers, but both had philosophies, and lived them, and went to heaven or hell according to their philosophies. That is how much of a difference thought can make: “Sow a thought, reap an act; sow an act, reap a habit; sow a habit, reap a character; sow a character, reap a destiny.” Buddha said, “All that we are is determined by our thoughts: it begins where our thoughts begin, it moves where our thoughts move, and it rests where our thoughts rest.”

Philosophy can lead you to God, and theology can lead you further into God (or away from Him). And God is the source of all truth, all goodness and all beauty; that is, of everything we value. (If that is not true, then God is not God.) All truth is God’s truth; when an atheist discovers some scientific truth, he is reading the mind of God, the Logos. All goodness is God’s goodness; when an agnostic secularist loves his neighbor, he is responding to divine grace. All beauty is God’s beauty; when a dissipated, confused and immoral artist creates a thing of beauty, he is using the image of God in his soul, being inspired by the Holy Spirit, however anonymously, and participating in God’s creative power.

Philosophy is a necessity if you want to understand our world. Bad philosophy is the source of most of the great errors in our world today. Errors in philosophy are devastating because they affect everything, as an error of an inch in surveying the angle of a property line will become an error of ten yards a mile down the line.

Most of the controversies in our world today can be understood and solved only by good philosophy and theology; for instance, the relation between world religions, especially Islam and Christianity; human life issues such as abortion, euthanasia and cloning; the justice of wars; the meaning of human sexuality and of the “sexual revolution”; the relation between mind and brain, and between human intelligence and “artificial intelligence”; the relation between creation and evolution; how far we are free and responsible and how far we are determined by biological heredity and social environment; the relation between morality and religion, and between religion and politics; and whether morality is socially relative or universal, unchanging and absolute.

Revealed theology claims to have the answers, or at least the principles that should govern the answers, to many of these questions. So theology is even more important than philosophy, if answers are more important than questions. And of course they are, for the whole point of asking a question, if you are honest, is the hope of finding an answer. It is nonsense to believe that “it is better to travel hopefully than to arrive,” and good philosophy refutes that self-contradiction. If it’s not better to arrive at your goal of truth than to strain after it, then truth is not really your goal at all, and the straining after it is a sham.

That is not, of course, to say that it is easy to arrive at the goal of truth, or that all we need is a set of answers we believe on the Church’s authority but do not understand. The truly respectful attitude toward the authority of the Church—which is an extension of the authority of Christ—is to let revealed truth permeate our minds and our lives like light, not simply to preserve that light by hiding it under a bushel basket. All “ideas have consequences,” especially divinely revealed ideas; and it is our job to lovingly draw out those consequences, like philosophers, and not to fear them, like heresy hunters, or to claim them as our own in a spirit of superiority to our divine teacher, like heretics.

Answering Objections

But there are objections to philosophy and theology out there. If this were not so, the teaching of these subjects would not have declined so precipitously. Let us briefly consider and answer some of them.

What can you do with philosophy and theology anyway? We have already answered that question by noting that it is the wrong question. The right question is what they can do with you.

But they’re so abstract! Yes, and that is their glory. To be incapable of abstraction is to be less than human, or a less than fully developed human. Animals and small children, for instance, are incapable of abstraction. They do not talk about Fate and Freedom, or Good and Evil, or Divinity and Humanity, or Life and Death (all abstractions). They talk only about hamburgers and French fries, boo boos and bandages, malls and cartoons. These things are not “the real world.” They are the shadows on the walls of Plato’s cave. Philosophy and theology are not fantasy. They are the escape from fantasy.

But philosophy is a dinosaur—it isn’t up to date, modern, popular, etc. No. Neither is wisdom, virtue, happiness, piety, fidelity, courage, peace or contentment.

What does philosophy have to do with real life? Everything. It is more important to know the philosophy of a prospective employee or employer, landlord or renter, friend or enemy, husband or wife, than their income, social class or politics.

Philosophy is elitist. It speaks of “Great Books” and “Great Ideas” and “Great Minds.” Yes, it does. At least good philosophy does. If you prefer crummy books, stupid ideas and tiny minds, you should not waste your money on college. If you believe that all ideas are equal, rather than all persons, you are confused and need a philosophy course. (Is the idea that all ideas are equal equal to the idea that they are not?)

“Philosophy bakes no bread.” It does not make you rich.  It is contemplative, like monasticism.  True. But why do we make money and bread? Is money our means (of exchange) to our end? Money is for bread, and bread is for man, and man is for truth. The ultimate end of human life is contemplative: knowing and appreciating the truth. We will not be baking bread or making money in Heaven, but we will be philosophizing.

Religion makes philosophy superfluous. If you have faith, you don’t need reason.  Yes, you do: you need reason to understand your faith. And you need reason to know whether your faith is the true faith. There are many fakes. And how do you know that unless you think about it? And if you don’t want to think about your faith, then either you aren’t really very interested in it, or you are afraid it is so weak that it will not endure the light. In that case you need a faith-lift.

But philosophy can be a danger to faith. Many have lost their faith through philosophy. Yes, and many have gained it, too. Of course, philosophy is dangerous. So is love, and trust, technology and money. Bad things are always misuses of good things. Wherever great harm is done, great help could have been done.

Final Things

This is especially true in theology. I know a chaplain who was ministering at the bedside of an old, dying man who had “lost his faith” and left the Church decades ago. The chaplain asked him what he believed about life after death, and the man replied that he had no idea where he was going and he didn’t think anyone else did either, because no one had any idea where they came from in the first place or why they are here.

The chaplain disagreed. He said, “You know the answers to those questions. You learned them as a little boy. You forgot them. But you can remember them now. It’s not too late. You learned the Baltimore Catechism, didn’t you? Yes, you did. Do you remember how it begins?”

The man wrinkled his brow, retrieving an old memory. “Yeah. It went like this: ‘Who made you? God made me. Why did God make you? God made me to know Him, to love Him and to serve Him in this world, and to be happy with Him forever in the next.” The man paused, lifted his eyes, and said, “You’re right. That’s true!” And a smile appeared on his face. And then he died.

You need philosophy and theology now because you will need it on your deathbed later.

 

piggy bank

Big Money, Hard Choices

/in /by

I’m not an education expert.  My expertise is in financial counseling, following an accounting career that put me at a Fortune 300 company overseeing the finances of a $250 million division.

Although the primary concerns of every Catholic family with college-bound men and women should be their exposure to truth and their continuing formation in the likeness of Christ, there are obvious financial considerations with every college decision.  These include career planning, paying tuition and related expenses, and choosing colleges that reasonably match your ability to pay.

My advice below is accumulated from years of advising Catholic families through my nonprofit service, Veritas Financial Ministries (VeritasFinancialMinistries.com), and adapted from several of my articles and books published by Our Sunday Visitor including Seven Steps to Becoming Financially Free: A Catholic Guide to Managing Your Money.  

Planning for a Career Yes, But Also for Life

Today most Americans view a college education as a ticket to a particular profession or at least a higher-paying job.  Period.

There’s no disputing the fact that what one chooses to study in college can have a significant impact on future career decisions, especially in the decade or so immediately following graduation.  This is an important consideration, especially given the rising costs of tuition and other expenses and competition for jobs.

Nevertheless, anyone interested in choosing a Catholic college or university clearly is thinking beyond career choices.  There are many important benefits—ultimately more important than career—to attending a faithfully Catholic college or university.  They include an education that helps students better understand their faith, the world and the roots of our society; a healthy campus environment that allows students to mature spiritually and socially in the image of Christ; and access to mentors who can help students discern their vocations to the priesthood or religious life, family life or the single state.  The college years frequently lead to the choice of a spouse; I can’t overstate the importance of selecting a college environment that draws other students who love and practice their Catholic faith.

So it is a mistake to view a Catholic college education as nothing more than preparation for a lucrative job, but to be realistic, it is also impossible for most students to separate college decisions from the implications for future employment and wellbeing.  As long as it is put in the proper context, a college or university’s impact on a student’s future employment and income deserves serious consideration.

It’s wise for a family to discuss and plan ahead for a graduate’s financial welfare, especially if the student seems likely to get married.  The fact that most young men and women develop and sometimes radically change their career interests while attending college does not mean that families shouldn’t plan for a student’s likely path after graduation—allowing sufficient flexibility in the plan for changing career goals and increasing awareness of God’s calling.

This gets to the question, “What am I going to do with the education I receive?”  The possibilities are many, including teaching, ministry, nursing, accounting, law, business, engineering, medicine, computer science and so on. With each of these, you have at least a reasonable sense of the earnings capacity associated with the degree, and you can plan your financial commitments accordingly.

Having some idea about a young adult’s particular career calling can help avoid costly mistakes in choosing the wrong college.  At the most basic level, it’s important to remember that a college education may not be the right choice at all.  Not everyone is of the “bent” to complete a four-year (or more) academic program.  Much time and money can be wasted trying to force a square peg into a round hole!  We all have different gifts and abilities, and some of us would do better to learn a trade or craft through an apprenticeship or vocational trade school.

For those who attend college, it’s important to remember that the dizzying pace of change in technology that has led to a global marketplace requires that workers in most fields be well-equipped to play their part in that economy.  That could mean obtaining an education beyond a core “Catholic liberal arts” formation—that is, one that’s focused on particular vocational training, such as medicine, law, business, nursing, teaching and so on. I’m a strong advocate of coupling a solid Catholic liberal arts program of study with the best vocational education the young adult can obtain, whether as an undergraduate student or in subsequent graduate studies and career training.

I do recommend the liberal arts, though, as the core of a college education.  The early college years, when students are typically between 18 and 22 years old, continue to be a time of searching about who they are and how they fit into this great big world.  This is a time for them to consider the more important questions about life, to solidify what they believe and why, and to do so in an environment that will foster a closer relationship with the Lord.  A solid Catholic liberal arts education helps the young adult find answers to these important life questions.  It also helps the young person place their vocation in the context of this bigger picture.

This is often accomplished at the best Catholic colleges and universities by immersing the student in theology, philosophy and the classics of Western civilization—at least for the general education component of their college experience.  Some students choose to make such a liberal arts program the focus of their four-year program.  This is a beautiful education, yet one that is hard to pin down from an “economic value” standpoint.  It can be an excellent spring board to graduate programs in law, theology or a number of other disciplines.

Paying for College

When it comes to a genuine Catholic education for our children, finances play a key role in two ways.  First, as parents, we have responsibility for providing the resources which allow our children to obtain a solid Catholic education, or helping students find ways to pay for college when we cannot.  Second, we are called to be a living example when it comes to applying Godly principles in the area of money management.

You need to decide for yourself whether and when it makes sense to go into debt, and how much debt is reasonable.  I strongly believe in minimizing one’s debt, but it can make sense to use debt prudently when you’re purchasing an appreciating asset.  Most often, this relates to the purchase of a home and possibly investment real estate, but it also holds true for obtaining a higher education. Many studies have shown that a college degree adds to one’s earning potential over the years—although this is only true in the aggregate, and there are many particular instances where a college degree does not significantly increase earning potential for an individual. So taking on some debt to obtain a college degree can make sense in some circumstances if done prudently.

But doing so also comes with risks.  In my counseling, one of the traps I see families falling into is the use of credit to pay bills without the resources to pay the balance off at the end of the month.  This results in ever-growing levels of debt with very high interest charges and takes precious resources away from your children.  Your financial blunders may very well force you to narrow the choices you make regarding the education of your children, and they may not necessarily be the choices you want to make.

I am concerned that today’s parents and students are too easily accepting more debt than they should as part of the financing package, especially when it comes to a degree that, on its own, doesn’t point to an adequate income to pay the debts off in a reasonable time frame.  Handling $50,000 in student loans is very different for an attorney than it is for a teacher at a Catholic school.  While there are certainly no guarantees that the lawyer’s career path will work out, one can make reasonable assumptions.  It is pretty clear that a teacher at a Catholic school will have a limited income, and heavy debts will be an incredible burden.

When the income is expected to be limited, I would look for a plan that can repay the debt in a period of three to five years after graduation.  That may mean some pretty radical lifestyle decisions immediately after college to keep expenses incredibly low so that the debts can be repaid quickly.  My sense is that student debt in the range of $15,000 is reasonable in such a situation.  With an educational plan where a higher income can at least be anticipated, additional debt is highly likely and is probably reasonable.

Debt is not the only option for paying for college expenses.  The federal government has enacted various legislation designed to ease the financial burden of higher education, including the Hope Scholarship Credit, Lifetime Learning Credit, Educational IRAs and 529 Savings Plans.  Several states have additional savings and financing plans worth looking at.

And don’t forget the possibility of scholarships and grants.  Depending on your child’s scholastic abilities and extracurricular activities, as well as your financial situation, these may provide a substantial portion of the overall college cost.  The Knights of Columbus offers a generous scholarship program for members’ children attending Catholic colleges and universities.  Ask your prospective college about special grant opportunities—often they are not well-promoted—and check around in your local community and with your employer.  Often students must apply for scholarships well in advance of the academic year.

The College Board’s website, www.collegeboard.com, can be a very helpful tool for better understanding how you can pay for a college education.

Your son or daughter can help too.  I’m a big believer in the student playing a substantive role in paying for their education.  They may have a greater appreciation for their education if they pay for a portion of it. That means work-study programs when possible, summer work, keeping living expenses low during the college years and having a plan immediately after the college years to aggressively tackle the debt incurred.  You’ll want to ensure that work doesn’t become an end in itself, causing the student’s grades to suffer with negative consequences for the future.

I remember the story of one young man who had a strong desire for an authentically Catholic liberal arts education.  He worked as a shepherd for three years beforehand to obtain the funding he needed.  He saw the value of the education and was willing to make the necessary sacrifices.

One final note.  Students may have the best of intentions to work hard when they finish school to pay their debts down.  But it’s a common occurrence during the college years that young men and women meet, grow in love, and marry shortly after they graduate.  This is a beautiful thing, but it may throw a wrench into plans to pay off debt.  While they both may have planned on working for a number of years, an early pregnancy may change all of those plans.  Make sure that you take this possibility into account as you consider education and funding alternatives.

Choosing a College Wisely

One of the calls I received on a radio program came from a woman whose daughter had been admitted to one of the top music schools in the country.  Unfortunately, the school wasn’t going to offer any scholarship money, and the total cost of the education was expected to be nearly $200,000.

The family had no savings that could be allocated for this purpose, so the woman wanted to know what I thought about borrowing the money so her daughter could attend the school.

My advice?  I let her know that it was great that her daughter had the talent to be admitted to a top school, but given the family’s financial situation and the fact that the school wasn’t offering any scholarship money, I didn’t see how it was practical for either the parents or the daughter to end up with that level of debt.  I suggested approaching a second-tier school where she might receive a substantial scholarship.

The listener wasn’t pleased.  She asked how I could limit her daughter’s possibilities.

As a parent, I want certain outcomes from higher education for my children.  I want a Catholic college or university to help my son or daughter develop into a Godly young adult with a deep love for Our Lord and the Catholic Church, and to be prepared to contribute to society as a responsible adult using his or her talents in an appropriate way.  I can do that within my financial means, even if it requires giving up some of the prestige and trappings of expensive private universities, or perhaps delaying college to avoid costly debt.

If you are committed to a Catholic education but simply don’t have the resources, consider enrolling for the first two years to get a solid Catholic, liberal arts foundation and a healthy campus environment, then transfer to a state university to finish a major.  Or consider a community college for the first two years, during which the student can continue to live at home and save money.  Both options are not ideal, but they can be ways to dramatically reduce the overall cost of college.

It’s not easy for any parent to limit a son’s or daughter’s options, but fortunately there is a great variety of Catholic institutions available to Catholic families, including those that are profiled in this guide because of their outstanding Catholic identity.

And I have great news: many of the colleges and universities that are recommended in The Newman Guide are less expensive than comparable institutions, and Catholic educators are typically committed to helping families with generous financial aid packages.

If you can find what you need in one of these institutions, and you have planned carefully how to pay for it, then you will have invested wisely in the final preparation of a young man or woman to know, love and serve God.

Phil Lenahan, treasurer at Catholic Answers and president of Veritas Financial Ministries, has counseled many families on financial issues. His extensive background in accounting included overseeing the finances of a $250 million division of a Fortune 300 company. He is the author of Seven Steps to Becoming Financially Free: A Catholic Guide to Managing Your Money which is available through Our Sunday Visitor.

Why Choose a Catholic College?

/in /by

Archbishop Lori

Most Rev. William E. Lori, Archbishop of Baltimore

Some days are unforgettable, like your first day as a college freshman is likely to be.

One of my unforgettable days occurred in the spring of 2008 when I gathered with many of my fellow bishops and Catholic educators to welcome our Holy Father, Pope Benedict XVI, to Washington, D.C.  He inspired us with the Church’s vision of a Catholic school or college as, first and foremost, a place to “encounter” God.

Now, that may not be what you had in mind for college.  Most students go to college eager to learn—especially to prepare for a career—and to make some good friends along the way.  Surely these are good things, but a Catholic education offers that and so much more.  A Catholic education is not only preparation for a career, but preparation for the rest of your life.

And that is why your choice of a college is so important!

Think for a moment about what you really want out of life, and how the next four years might help you get there.  We all desire to truly know who we are, why we are, where we came from, and where we are going. We yearn for what is true, beautiful, and good—something better than what our culture offers us today.

Whereas many American colleges have abandoned a strong core curriculum, a good Catholic education will help you consider the big questions of life by providing a foundation in Western thought and the Catholic intellectual tradition.  Then—in a faithful, high-quality Catholic college—you will consider the ethical implications of our Faith and the intersection of faith and reason in all of your courses, whether in the liberal arts or business or the sciences.

This is important because you cannot be a truly excellent and virtuous businessman, scientist, lawyer, or other professional without an awareness of how your work contributes to society and serves God.

A good Catholic college will take you beyond the limits of a typical college education and prepare you to experience life in a meaningful way.  During your four years in college, you are likely to discern not only a career but a vocation—married, single, religious life, priesthood—and may meet and fall in love with your future husband or wife.  You will most likely be living on campus in common with dozens or hundreds of your peers, and you will be developing habits for the rest of your life.  A good Catholic college will help you improve yourself physically, mentally, and socially in activities outside the classroom. It will help you strengthen your prayer life and to become a truly virtuous young man or woman.

For Catholics, life is certainly about career, but also so much more: marriage and family, serving the Church and our communities, and ultimately Heaven.  Together these are the most important things in life, and so ought to be seriously considered when choosing a college.

First, consider the dangers of a typical college education.  A lot of colleges are known for providing a good education.  But what is “good”?  If large numbers of students lose their faith in college—as the data tells us they do—then are students really getting a “good” education?  And at what cost?  One need only consider the high rates of substance abuse, abortions and social diseases, depression, and other maladies associated with college life to realize that certain situations may not be “good” for you at all.  Caution is also necessary in the classroom; what may seem to be “neutral” is often opposed to a Catholic worldview, and there may be significant biases in today’s studies of history, philosophy, medicine, psychology, and so on.

Unfortunately at too many colleges today, the typical campus culture does not help students grow, rather it arrests their growth and may set them on a path that they otherwise would not want to choose for themselves.  So it is important that you carefully consider the campus culture, the types of activities offered, and with what sort of fellow travelers you would be preparing for the rest of your life.

Now consider the possibilities of a faithful, Catholic education: studying the great works of mankind and coming to a fuller understanding of God, creation, philosophy, history, and science.  Knowing not only the facts but the reasons.  Learning not only skills but how to think clearly and rationally in any situation.  Having a great time, yes, but also cultivating virtue so that you become the man or woman you and your parents hope you will be.  Instead of enduring four years of the temptations of modern campus life, enjoying four years of a genuine Christian culture that cultivates love, respect, and fidelity.

What a wonderful opportunity you would have for four years!  Access to the Sacraments, spiritual direction, Bible studies, courses in authentic Catholic theology, community prayer, and much more is available to you at a strong Catholic college.

I pray that you choose this type of wonderful education for yourself, because I truly believe that it will benefit you personally—but also because our Church and our nation need well-formed and educated Catholics.  Our culture so greatly needs the contributions of intelligent, faithful Catholics in all walks of life.  As a college graduate, you will have opportunities to influence others in your family, of course, but also in your workplace, your community, and your parish.  And we need faithful, well-educated Catholics to serve in public office, to become your generation’s leaders on issues of religious freedom, moral concerns, and care for the poor.

As a bishop, I am so grateful for the work of Catholic educators and for what they provide young men and women like you.  We need dedicated lay men and women, living unified lives of faith, hope, and love, to sanctify the world through their work and their families. We need prayerful, zealous, and intelligent men and women to answer Christ’s call to the consecrated life.  We need a new generation of priests and missionaries to boldly and faithfully carry out the challenge of the New Evangelization.

For these reasons and more, it is so encouraging to me and my brother bishops that you have an opportunity to choose a college that provides an excellent academic education and that is deeply rooted in and faithful to the Catholic tradition.  This publication will help provide you the tools you need to make such a choice.

Most importantly, I pray that your college education helps you become the saint you are called to be.  To be a saint means to become, in the words of Catholic evangelist Mathew Kelly, “the best version of yourself.”  It will mean succeeding at every level while learning “to be in the world and not of the world.”  It will mean passing this on to others (evangelizing).  Thus, you will need the tools and opportunities necessary to allow you, by the grace of God, to think and act like Christ.

Read on and then discuss your college options with others who care for your future—including, I hope, your parish priest or other spiritual advisor.  Pray for guidance; and with your parents, I trust that you will come to a decision which will enhance your education and bring you closer to Christ, our Hope.

May God bless your college experience and the exciting life that lies before you!  This I pray in the name of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit.

Experiencing “Transgenderism” on Religious Campuses

/in , /by

On many fronts, the courts are weighing in on the extent to which religious institutions of higher education can follow their faith-based missions.  Recent rulings1 respecting “transgendered” students have granted some exemptions to religious colleges who have set limits on students who choose to live their life as a gender opposite from that in which they were born.

The Cases 

In the first case, a student applied to, and was accepted by, California Baptist University as a woman, but later publicly revealed that “she” was a transgendered male.  The judge ruled that the university was within its rights as a religious institution to expel the student, but at the same time stated that the university could not bar the student from public spaces or online programs. The judge reasoned that some places and programs, such as the library, counseling center, art gallery and online courses “have little or no values-based component … [and] do not require participants to adhere to any moral code of conduct.”  In this case, the university’s standards and behavioral code were accepted, but limited by the judge’s opinion about what was, and was not, material to its religious identity.  While on the surface this may seem to have some rational basis, it completely fails to recognize that for institutions that take their religious identity seriously, there is no area in which their values are extraneous.  For such institutions, their values are an integral, indivisible part of all that they are.  Such values touch every program, every space and every person—with many institutions having explicit behavioral contracts2 and policies3 for their faculty and students.

In the second case, the U.S. Department of Education (“DOE”) rejected a complaint filed on behalf of a “transgender” student (who identifies as a male) whom George Fox University (“Oregon’s Nationally Recognized Christian University”) refused to let reside in male student housing.  Title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972 bars gender discrimination by educational institutions, and the DOE has recently stated4 that Title IX covers transgender students.  GFU offered the student a private room, but the student claimed that “he” should be entitled to live with male friends just as other male students have that right.  The student’s lawyer is quoted as stating that the use of such exemptions “will do a lot of harm…  [The students] will be abused.”

Shane Windmeyer, executive director of Campus Pride5 (an organization that serves LGBT student leaders and campus organizations working to free campuses of anti-LGBT prejudice, bigotry and hate) wrote that it is “frightening…that  any private college is now encouraged to use ‘religion’ as a means to justify discrimination.” (quotes in the original)  He goes on to claim that transgender students face threats of harassment and physical violence:  “At the end of the day we must remember this is an issue of safety for transgender young people.”  This statement reflects a standard view that people who do not experience themselves as their biological gender are subject to a number of uncomfortable situations on a typical campus, including difficulty accessing healthcare, navigating their residence halls and utilizing locker and restroom facilities.

While undoubtedly some persons experience negative reactions—and several6 colleges have taken steps to try and address some of those instances—it is unclear that the incidents described above (i.e., abuse, bigotry, hate, violence) are common occurrences.  Rather, a digital search of “danger to transgender students in college” reveals a number of accounts in which students were uncomfortable and distressed by events on campus, but few accounts of violence7 or abuse.

From the data, it appears that while those who disagree with the case rulings above present their arguments in terms of abuse, violence, and safety, the real issue is much more simple: they are offended.  They don’t like the universities’ policies.

Of What Virtue? 

Certainly, any policy by a Christian institution (or any institution, for that matter) should be implemented in a manner that protects all persons’ right to live safely, and any boundaries necessary to that end should be firmly established on the virtues: charity, kindness and compassion among others.  Acts of violence and bigotry, when they occur, must be roundly condemned and reparations made.  But what of “non-offensiveness” as a virtue?  For sure, there is a place for sensitivity in civilized society, and community living requires a respect for human differences.  Yet, this, too, has limits—limits that have traditionally been defined by natural law8, a naturally-knowable and universally-binding law of right and wrong.  One’s gender identity, based upon one’s biological sex, would have clearly fallen into this type of naturally-known limit for many centuries.  The phenomena of gender confusion is not new, but what is new is the idea that this confusion is anything but disordered and something needing intervention and healing.

Unfortunately, gender bending isn’t the only fundamental issue facing shifting opinions with dire consequences for our culture today.  Take for example, the issue of proper human sexual interaction and procreation.  In generations past, it was taken for granted that sexual coupling and childbearing was reserved to marriage between a man and a woman.  Although same-sex marriage is capturing the headlines these days, it is important to consider that the real shift9 began a half-century ago when promiscuity began to be more-widely accepted.  Slowly but surely, the shift took place whereby it became “offensive” to “judge” a person who was exploring his or her sexuality prior to marriage, and some even suggested that such exploration was a healthy advancement beyond the “sexual repression” of the past.  What has come with this shift?  Increasing numbers of children without two parents, and the dire consequences10 that follow.

The normalization of behavior that violates natural law is dangerous; these universities are taking a difficult but laudable stand against the current cultural drift by being clear and unapologetic about their values.  Acquiescing to the demands of a limited number of students in opposition to a school’s core values paves the road to confusion and chaos for the remainder of our young people (not to mention the assault on their own sensibilities).

There is no essential conflict11 between non-discrimination and upholding one’s values. President Michael Lindsey of Gordon College, a liberal arts college that “retains its roots in the Christian faith” and which also has come under scrutiny12 for requesting an exemption, summarizes the issues well: “We have never barred categories of individuals from our campus and have no intention to do so now. We have always sought to be a place of grace and truth, and that remains the case.  As a Christian college, we are all followers of Christ.  As long as a student, a faculty member, or a staff member supports and lives by our community covenant documents, they are welcome to study or work at Gordon.”

Freedom on campuses in the United States is fundamental; such freedom is not, however, rampant license for forcing upon others one’s own predilections. Instead, it is freedom within the boundaries of the community which one joins.  No person is compelled to attend a college or university that has values and goals at odds with those that he or she holds.  But, when he or she chooses to do so, the virtue of integrity demands that he or she do so with the intent of accepting the education sought, on the terms on which it is offered—with the intent of accepting, and giving back.  Such giving involves fostering the mission of the school, upholding its values, and yes, even growing and changing on a personal level.

 

 

 

Private Affairs and Private Institutions

/in , /by
Click here for PDF

This article is part of a collaborative series between The Cardinal Newman Society and the Culture of Life Foundation on Catholic education policy from the perspective of theology, ethics and the moral law.

With government’s growing efforts to create a new norm for human sexuality, it should not be surprising that those who engage in sexual activity outside of the bonds of traditional marriage are becoming increasingly bold in disclosing their lifestyles.  While the impact of some of these disclosures may be limited to immediate family, friends, and perhaps neighbors, others reach a great deal further as the persons involved, teachers, for example, have formative roles with children.  While the response among public officials and school systems appears to be one of acceptance, if not celebration, there are, of course, many parents and colleagues who have concerns.  The media gives little traction to such concerns, pushing us to believe that the trend is towards openness to all variations of lifestyle, with no clear sense of where lines, if any, should be drawn.  Ignored completely are ample data demonstrating that a disproportionate number of those living alternative lifestyles engage in behaviors that place their physical health and wellbeing at higher risk.

The debate above is interesting enough, but add to it charged arguments respecting religious liberty and you have an interesting intersection making headlines of its own.  Two Catholic dioceses this year have faced the dilemma of teachers who are planning to marry same-sex partners, one going public via Facebook and the other directly contacting his school leadership to inform it of his plans.  These disclosures have raised a great debate.  What is the right thing for a diocese to do when an employee openly violates church teaching?  How do we balance justice and mercy, knowing that neither is possible without the other?  It should be noted that this is not only an issue of same-sex attracted persons, as heterosexual cohabitation presents a similar dilemma.

My colleague E. Christian Brugger will be addressing the proper ethical and moral reasoning that is central to this issue in coming briefs.  Today, I will reflect on how one might think about this issue with respect to its impact on the psychological development of the affected students.

Are You A Role Model?

Does it really matter what the teachers of our youth do in their personal lives?  Are the teens actually paying attention to their teacher’s lifestyle choices?  Research and theory would say “Yes.”

Psychological theory and research, originally articulated by Albert Bandura’s social learning theory, have long recognized that the examples set by significant adults have a great influence on the youth around them.  Adolescents are particularly apt to be influenced by adults because adolescence is the age of identity formation.  Positive role models have been found to have protective effects, especially for those adolescents who are exposed to negative adult behavior in the home.  What is critical for this discussion are the mechanisms through which this role modeling occurs.

Through a process known as “vicarious reinforcement,” people tend to model the behavior of individuals whose actions they see being rewarded, rewards being either praise or attention from others.  It is as if the observers were actually receiving the rewards themselves.  This creates a real problem then when a public figure who behaves poorly, rather than being publicly reprimanded, is publicly praised.  Vicarious learning will occur in either case.  The only question is what will be learned.  Therefore, how leaders address those situations where a teacher or principal chooses to violate the standards, or ignore the mission of the organization for which he works, is critical.

Researchers Brown and Trevino’s work on ethical leaders in business led them to conclude that in order to be perceived as an ethical leader, the individual must be seen as a moral person: a person who is honest, trustworthy, caring about people, open to input, respectful, and able to make principled decisions.  These last two factors, showing respect and being principled in making decisions, I suggest, are the weak links in our current culture.  Whatever other seemingly-positive character attributes might be demonstrated by an individual taking a provocative stand, the promotion of his own self-interest over that of the community’s needs disrupts his ability to meaningfully convey those attributes as strengths.

Supportive commentaries with respect to the teachers who have pursued same-sex marriage (teachers who, by the way, have acknowledged and consented to the prohibition against such acts in their employment contracts with the Catholic diocese for which they work) have focused exclusively on how caring and supportive these teachers are of students, highlighting their excellent teaching records and popularity in the school.  Mainstream media reports and current political trends take a similarly sympathetic view.

And herein lay the problem.  While not presuming to know, and certainly not judging, the motivations of the teachers involved in these particular cases, there are critical principles and dynamics at play that must be understood in order for the students in these schools to receive justice.

Defining The Role Model

To the extent that youth are persuaded by the popular notion that such behavior is a normal variation—free of any adverse consequences—and to be at least tolerated, if not fully embraced, they will be unable to see that in “coming out” the teacher has failed: he has failed to respect and uphold the integrity of the Church which he has agreed to serve.  Instead, students will see these teachers as besieged heroes and role models to be emulated.  Teens are already developmentally predisposed to challenge authority as they explore with their maturing minds, abstractions and ideas that were heretofore hidden.  This is a normal and healthy process.  However, it needs guidance and boundaries.  Historically, these have come from family, school, and church communities.  If these institutions begin to equivocate, then our youth are cast adrift on stormy seas.  Youth need and, research suggests, actually prefer, ethical role models.  It is in our nature as human persons to desire the good and to seek the truth.  Our youth thirst for this.  To deny them such goods is not only perilous, it is unjust.

While students might learn from the “teachable moment” of a teacher who is involved in a pregnancy out of wedlock, but then places the child for adoption or marries the other parent of the child, permanent, premeditated actions taken against known values and agreed contractual obligations is a different matter.  Although it is unpopular in the moment, and certainly challenging interpersonally, to dismiss a beloved teacher, the risk of confusion is too great to do otherwise, and, in the long run, the many adolescents who are better formed as a result will be grateful for it.

CNS Joins Amicus Brief Upholding Ministerial Exception – Conlon v InterVarsity Chirstian Fellowship, 6th Circuit

/in , /by

Click here to read.

Sharing the Joy of the Gospel in Student Life

/in , /by

Editor’s Note

This article is based on a presentation that the author made as part of a May 21, 2014, symposium on student life issues, entitled “Striving for Excellence as Student Life Leaders,” sponsored by The Cardinal Newman Society.  Student life leaders at Catholic colleges and universities across the nation face the challenge of caring for the corporal and pastoral needs of their students, while assisting in their development of a personal relationship with Jesus Christ.  Pastoral care and evangelization are essential to the delivery of services traditionally encompassed under the umbrella of student life issues, particularly with regard to the manner in which student life personnel engage students of a Catholic university. The emphasis of the university as “Catholic” reinforces its purpose of striving for holiness and sanctification.  This is accomplished by all members of the university community integrating their faith within their daily lives.  From resident hall directors to athletic coaches to faculty members, every person charged with interacting with students has the opportunity to bring Christ to the student through that encounter.  Living and sharing the faith requires each agent of the New Evangelization to be bold, connected with the Church, her Gospel, and her pastoral presence, with a sense of urgency to bring others to Christ.

Introduction

At Franciscan University we are truly blessed that so many members of our University community are actively engaged in the faith and have that deep desire to respond to the Lord’s Great Commission to the apostles that is set forth in the final verses of Matthew’s Gospel: “Go, therefore, and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the holy Spirit, teaching them to observe all that I have commanded you. And behold, I am with you always, until the end of the age.” (Mt 28:19-20). Similar to any educational institution, teaching is an important component of our daily lives, particularly for those of us who have dedicated our lives to the classroom setting. But, each one of us has the additional obligation to teach about Jesus Christ. Each one of us has the obligation to preach the Good News. We do this with our words. We do this with our actions. We do this in response to the Great Commission with which we have been charged by virtue of our baptism.

It is especially appropriate that we consider topics such as the importance of proclaiming the Gospel in light of our recent celebration of the Year of Faith, which Benedict XVI, now Pope Emeritus, called for all members of the Christian faithful. In paragraph 7 of his apostolic letter Porta fidei,13 which announced the Year of Faith, Benedict invited all Christians to personally grow in faith, so that we might, in turn, evangelize others. He states:

[I]t is the love of Christ that fills our hearts and impels us to evangelize. Today as in the past, he sends us through the highways of the world to proclaim his Gospel to all the peoples of the earth (cf. Mt 28:19). Through his love, Jesus Christ attracts to himself the people of every generation: in every age he convokes the Church, entrusting her with the proclamation of the Gospel by a mandate that is ever new. Today too, there is a need for stronger ecclesial commitment to new evangelization in order to rediscover the joy of believing and the enthusiasm for communicating the faith. In rediscovering his love day by day, the missionary commitment of believers attains force and vigour that can never fade away. Faith grows when it is lived as an experience of love received and when it is communicated as an experience of grace and joy. It makes us fruitful, because it expands our hearts in hope and enables us to bear life-giving witness: indeed, it opens the hearts and minds of those who listen to respond to the Lord’s invitation to adhere to his word and become his disciples. Believers, so Saint Augustine tells us, “strengthen themselves by believing”. The saintly Bishop of Hippo had good reason to express himself in this way. As we know, his life was a continual search for the beauty of the faith until such time as his heart would find rest in God.14

As Benedict reminds us, our own faith grows when we live it out as an experience of the love that we have received from God. The more we embrace God’s love for us, the more our faith will grow. Furthermore, our faith, which is rooted in love, expands our hearts and enables us to witness to others of the importance of what we believe.

In his recent apostolic exhortation, Evangelii gaudium,15  Pope Francis presents a similar idea. Francis maintains:

We become fully human when we become more than human, when we let God bring us beyond ourselves in order to attain the fullest truth of our being. Here we find the source and inspiration of all our efforts at evangelization. For if we have received the love which restores meaning to our lives, how can we fail to share that love with others?16

How can we fail to share with others the love of God which restores meaning to our lives?

If we open our hearts and minds to truly listen to the Lord we are able to respond to His invitation to follow Him as His disciples. We, as believers, are strengthened by believing and, in turn, we are strengthened so that we can spread the Gospel to others.

This article will address the role of pastoral care and evangelization in the area of student life affairs. At Franciscan University of Steubenville, as I would anticipate at each Catholic university, pastoral care and evangelization are important components of how we engage our students in developing a personal relationship with Jesus Christ and also to reach out to many persons other than those who are enrolled as current students. Perhaps such issues are addressed primarily in campus ministry departments or by the Chaplain for a Catholic university. But I propose that pastoral care and evangelization are also essential to the delivery of services traditionally encompassed under the umbrella of student life issues, particularly with regard to the manner in which student life personnel engage students of a Catholic university. Of course, this paradigm necessarily begins with a recognition by student life personnel of their own need to grow in faith, to develop their personal relationship with Christ, and to be continuously converted to the Lord.

In his apostolic constitution Ex corde Ecclesiae,17 now Saint John Paul II did not dedicate specifically a portion of his constitution to student life issues. He did, however, provide guidance on topics that are closely related to what we understand in the United States as “student affairs” or “student life” issues. Ex corde Ecclesiae addresses both pastoral care and evangelization – topics that are certainly related to student life issues and which are also treated in Pope Francis’ apostolic exhortation Evangelii gaudium. Both documents provide to those who minister in the area of student life assistance with regard to how pastoral care and evangelization ought to be incorporated into their daily activities. We begin with the role of pastoral care in student life.

The Importance of Pastoral Care in Student Life

The Catholic university is described as an “academic community” that seeks to protect and advance the dignity of the human person through research, teaching and other activities in communities at the local, national and international levels.18  Each Catholic university, since it is in fact Catholic, must embrace the following essential characteristics:

  1. A Christian inspiration not only of individuals but of the university community as such;
  2. A continuing reflection in the light of the Catholic faith upon the growing treasury of human knowledge, to which it seeks to contribute by its own research;
  3. Fidelity to the Christian message as it comes to us through the Church;
  4. An institutional commitment to the service of the people of God and of the human family in their pilgrimage to the transcendent goal which gives meaning to life.19

As Saint John Paul II maintained, a Catholic university is certainly a community of scholars that advances the various branches of academic studies. But it is also an educational institution that embraces and advances the principles of Catholicism as a defining component of what it was established to be as a “Catholic university”. Consequently, Catholic ideals ought to permeate all activities of a Catholic university.

The emphasis on the university as “Catholic” promotes a Catholic university’s purpose. At its core, a Catholic university is to strive for holiness and sanctification. It does so through participation of members of the University community in the sacramental life of the Church. It also does so by promoting the teachings of the Catholic Church in a manner that delivers an authentically Catholic education. The community of a Catholic university is unique because its focus on Christ enables the community to promote the university’s Catholic identity. Saint John Paul II said:

A Catholic university pursues its objectives through its formation of an authentic human community animated by the spirit of Christ. The source of its unity springs from a common dedication to the truth, a common vision of the dignity of the human person, and ultimately, the person and message of Christ, which gives the institution its distinctive character. As a result of this inspiration, the community is animated by a spirit of freedom and charity; it is characterized by mutual respect, sincere dialogue and protection of the rights of individuals. It assists each of its members to achieve wholeness as human persons; in turn, everyone in the community helps in promoting unity, and each one, according to his or her role and capacity, contributes towards decisions which affect the community, and also towards maintaining and strengthening the distinctive Catholic character of the institution.20

Saint John Paul II went on to broadly define pastoral ministry as “that activity of the University which offers the members of the university community an opportunity to integrate religious and moral principles with their academic study and non-academic activities, thus integrating faith with life.”21  Because of their accessibility to students, student life staff members are in a position to help them to integrate “faith with life”, giving a “practical demonstration of its faith in its daily activity.”

Pastorally delivered care at all levels of a Catholic university provides the members of the university community with the opportunity to integrate their faith into their daily lives in the residence halls, the many and various activities that are student oriented, such as athletics, clubs or associations, or even in dealing with issues of student discipline. Residence hall directors and assistants physically live with the students and see them engage their spiritual highs and lows. Athletic coaches also meet the members of their teams on a daily basis for practice or on the long bus trip for an away game. Even the person at a Catholic university charged with meeting with students who have participated in some action that might lead to discipline has the opportunity to bring Christ to that student through their encounter.

At a Catholic university, there are also numerous occasions throughout the day for prayer and reflection. By engaging in such opportunities, student life personnel are able to bring to prayer the challenges they experience in their ministry and to, in turn, bring back to their ministry the insights that they receive in prayer. Saint John Paul II said that, “Catholic members of this community will be offered opportunities to assimilate Catholic teaching and practice into their lives and will be encouraged to participate in the celebration of the sacraments, especially the Eucharist as the most perfect act of community worship.”22 Through their words and example, student life representatives are also able to encourage other members of the University community to engage in these various spiritual opportunities.

In striving for excellence, student life personnel help members of a Catholic university community entrusted to their care to become more aware of the struggles of the poor and those that society has forgotten. In the various formation activities available in the residence halls or through participation in missionary outreach activities, student life representatives prepare students for active participation in the life of Church. Students should “become more aware of their responsibility towards those who are suffering physically or spiritually”23  beginning with those within their own academic community and carrying to our brothers and sisters in need who live beyond the University community. Students can also be assisted in becoming more aware of their particular vocation in life, whether it is to be married or to remain single, to be ordained or to be consecrated as a religious. There are many opportunities for student life staff to help the members of the University community entrusted to their care to be formed about the various vocations in the Church and to help students hear and respond to God’s special call for their lives. At Franciscan University of Steubenville, we are blessed to have chapels in our residence halls where the Blessed Sacrament is reserved. This allows the residents the opportunity throughout the course of the day – and even into the late night – for quiet time and reflection to discern God’s plan for them. Each residence hall also has a chaplain who is available at designated times throughout the week to offer spiritual direction or, in the case of priest chaplains, the sacrament of reconciliation. Forming faith sharing groups and encouraging participation in devotional exercises are just a few additional ways that student life representatives can assist students with their discernment.

Thus, at a Catholic university, pastoral care is not limited to the activities that go on in the university chapel. Pastoral care should not be separated from other aspects of university life. Pastoral ministry is integral to the university community and enhances the totality of a student’s university experience since faith is not an ancillary activity. Faith is constitutive of a Catholic university. Pastoral care is essential to the life of the university that is Catholic. The University’s focus on the spiritual development of the members of the University community is of primary importance in promoting the Catholic character of the institution.

Conclusion on Pastoral Ministry

There are many opportunities to provide pastoral care in the student life arena. On a daily basis, each person who is part of the Catholic university community has the chance to be the presence of Christ to the people that God has entrusted to their care. The action of being pastoral is itself a powerful invitation to evangelization, the topic to which we now turn.

The Importance of Evangelization in Student Life

In Ex corde Ecclesiae, Saint John Paul II also reflected on the importance of evangelization. He said: “The primary mission of the Church is to preach the Gospel in such a way that a relationship between faith and life is established in each individual and in the socio-cultural context in which individuals live and act and communicate with one another.”24 In Evangelii gaudium, Pope Francis indicates that “the primary reason for evangelizing is the love of Jesus which we have received.”25  Evangelization according to these principles should also be the goal of a student life department at a Catholic college or university since “each Catholic university makes an important contribution to the Church’s work of evangelization.”26

Throughout the pontificates of Popes John Paul II and Benedict XVI, and now Francis, we have learned about the ongoing development of what is referred to as the New Evangelization. Pope Francis encourages “the Christian faithful to embark upon a new chapter of evangelization, marked by … joy, while pointing out new paths for the Church’s journey in years to come.”27  In an attempt to describe the various components of the New Evangelization, one commentator suggested:

In essence, New Evangelization is comprised of three things: First, New Evangelization includes renewed spiritual devotion as well as renewed efforts in catechesis. We must know Jesus, and we must understand Christianity and the Catholic faith in particular. This renewed knowledge enables the second element, living our faith. And third, a natural extension of knowing and living our faith is to share it with others.28

Thus, the three key components of the New Evangelization are: personal renewal or conversion; living the faith; and sharing the faith with others. We begin with conversion.

Conversion

At Franciscan University we are familiar with the conversion of Saint Francis of Assisi. Francis, who had grown up with many fine things in his life and had many opportunities before him, gradually became unsure of whether he was living his life in the way that God had planned for him. Later in his life, Francis wrote in his Testament:

The Lord gave me, Brother Francis, thus to begin doing penance in this way: for when I was in sin, it seemed too bitter for me to see lepers. And then the Lord Himself led me among them and I showed mercy to them. And when I left them, what had seemed bitter to me was turned into sweetness of soul and body. And afterwards I delayed a little and left the world.29

Thus, according to Francis, it was his encounters with the lepers that led to his conversion. Being able to show mercy and compassion to the men and women whom society had forgotten caused Francis to reflect on his life. This reflection led to the deepening of his relationship with Christ. In his biography of Francis, Augustine Thompson, O.P. expounds upon these interactions and writes that Francis’

experience with [the lepers] had nothing to do with choices between wealth and poverty, knightly pride and humility, or even doing service instead of conducting business. It was a dramatic personal reorientation that brought forth spiritual fruit. As Francis showed mercy to these outcasts, he came to experience God’s own gift of mercy to himself. As he cleaned the lepers’ bodies, dressed their wounds, and treated them as human beings, not as refuse to be fled from in horror, his perceptions changed. What before was ugly and repulsive now caused him delight and joy not only spiritually, but also viscerally and physically. Francis’s aesthetic sense, so central to his personality, had been transformed, even inverted. The startled veteran sensed himself, by God’s grace and no power of his own, remade into a different man. Just as suddenly, the sins that had been tormenting him seemed to melt away, and Francis experienced a kind of spiritual rebirth and healing. Not long after this encounter, later accounts tell us … that Francis was walking down a road and met one of these same lepers. He embraced the man in his arms and kissed him. Francis’s spiritual nightmare was over; he had found peace.30

His spiritual nightmare was over. In being merciful, Francis came to know and accept God’s mercy. And that led to healing. That led to peace. Francis came to understand what Christ was asking him to do. With this renewed devotion to Christ, Francis’ life was changed and he felt compelled to leave behind his possessions and attachments to preach the Good News to others.

Although Francis linked his conversion with his encounters with the lepers, his conversion did not end there. Francis continued daily in his quest to encounter Christ and to draw closer to Christ. He focused on ongoing conversion throughout his entire life, seeking to redirect himself toward God and to draw others to Christ. Francis became so directed towards Christ that later on in his life he even bore the wounds of Christ on his own body.

Each of us has a story to tell about our encounter with Christ. Our own ongoing conversion must include the act of “turning away” from sin and those things that distract us from our pursuit of holiness. Going to confession and to Mass, or participating in Holy Hours, can only be effective for us if we are in fact “turning away” from those things that keep us from God. Members of a Catholic university community should focus their daily activities on Christ and turning towards Christ. Ongoing conversion is at the heart of being an authentic agent of the New Evangelization and, for that matter, at the heart of being Christian.

Our own encounter with Christ would lose its significance if we did not allow it to transform us in a way that leads us closer to Christ. Conversion demands a response. Conversion demands the transformation of our lives. Conversion causes us to share the fruits of conversion with others. As we draw closer to Christ, we need to share that gift with others through missionary action and through evangelization.

Pope Francis reminds us that:

An evangelizing community knows that the Lord has taken the initiative, he has loved us first, and therefore we can move forward, boldly take the initiative, go out to others, seek those who have fallen away, stand at the crossroads and welcome the outcast. Such a community has an endless desire to show mercy, the fruit of its own experience of the power of the Father’s infinite mercy.31

Thus personal conversion leads to participation in the New Evangelization on many levels. Personal conversion fosters a renewed spiritual devotion. It causes the follower of Christ to live the faith more authentically. And it demands that faith is to be shared with others.  We may never encounter a leper as part of our conversion, but the focus on personal conversion that enables us to live the faith that we hand on to others is essential to the New Evangelization. The same is true for student life representatives. A life focused on ongoing conversion is at the root of being an authentic agent of the New Evangelization in the residence hall, the athletic team, or in whatever area of activity the student life representative finds himself or herself. “Nemo dat quod non habet” – You cannot give what you do not have.

Living the Faith

In a 2012 address to a group of American bishops on the occasion of their ad limina visit to the Holy See, Benedict XVI emphasized the gravity that the problem of secularism presents:

It is imperative that the entire Catholic community in the United States come to realize the grave threats to the Church’s public moral witness presented by a radical secularism which finds increasing expression in the political and cultural spheres. The seriousness of these threats needs to be clearly appreciated at every level of ecclesial life. Of particular concern are certain attempts being made to limit that most cherished of American freedoms, the freedom of religion. Many of you have pointed out that concerted efforts have been made to deny the right of conscientious objection on the part of Catholic individuals and institutions with regard to cooperation in intrinsically evil practices. Others have spoken to me of a worrying tendency to reduce religious freedom to mere freedom of worship without guarantees of respect for freedom of conscience.32

Secularism often leads to the privatization of one’s faith. For some people who are influenced by the dominance of secularism in our society, it becomes challenging to identify any teaching as an absolute truth. And even if a person might personally believe in some truth, under the influence of secularism, he or she may become unwilling to commit to the absolute nature of that truth as it affects other people. They become reluctant to impose their beliefs on others and expect all persons to make their own assessment of what is truth and what is not.

Pope Francis acknowledges in his encyclical Lumen fidei33  that our society is drifting away from the recognition of absolute truths to the point that for many people “truth” becomes what is most convenient for them. In Lumen fidei 25, Pope Francis writes:

Today more than ever, we need to be reminded of this bond between faith and truth, given the crisis of truth in our age. In contemporary culture, [he continued] … truth is what makes life easier and more comfortable. In the end, what we are left with is relativism, in which the question of universal truth — and ultimately this means the question of God — is no longer relevant.34

In our culture today, we encounter the emergence of an attempt to seek a “more comfortable” truth when we are confronted with a distorted view on the appropriateness of contraception, abortion, marriage and euthanasia … that are all contrary to the teachings of the Church. This becomes very problematic as our society attempts to redefine our constitutionally guaranteed freedom of religion as a “freedom to worship,” which would permit us to choose how we worship on Sunday mornings, but would prohibit us from promoting the faith at other times and places. Pope Francis points out that this discourages some faithful Catholics from their God given right and duty to evangelize.

Many pastoral workers, although they pray, develop a sort of inferiority complex which leads them to relativize or conceal their Christian identity and convictions. This produces a vicious circle. They end up being unhappy with who they are and what they do; they do not identify with their mission of evangelization and this weakens their commitment. They end up stifling the joy of mission with a kind of obsession about being like everyone else and possessing what everyone else possesses. Their work of evangelization thus becomes forced, and they devote little energy and very limited time to it.35

If Catholic universities do not connect faith with daily life, if we fail to infuse residence life, athletics, student activities, etc., with the truths of the Catholic faith, then we ourselves are unwittingly reducing our God given and constitutionally guaranteed right to “freedom of religion” to a mere “freedom of worship”, and thereby buying into the very premises of secularism. In fact, if the culture, and ultimately, all men and women of faith, do not embrace the teachings of the Church – the absolute truths of the faith – and maintain the voice of faithful Catholics in the public square, the potential arises for much more serious consequences than secularism and relativism. We run the risk of rejecting Christ himself and at that point our lives become meaningless.

Being Agents of the Gospel

At first glance, many people might think that the younger members of our Church are the ones who are in need of learning the truths of the faith. But this is not always the case. At Franciscan University, I see our students and alumni as the ones who are in the best position to bring the New Evangelization to fruition. Pope Francis reminds us that “an evangelizing community is filled with joy; it knows how to rejoice always. It celebrates every small victory, every step forward in the work of evangelization.”36 Evangelizers live the joy of the Gospel and must listen patiently to our youth to appreciate their concerns and demands.37

Cardinal Donald Wuerl describes what he sees as the qualities needed for those persons who advance the New Evangelization. Cardinal Wuerl writes:

Today, the New Evangelization must show a boldness born of confidence in Christ. Examples abound of a quiet boldness: Saint Maximilian Kolbe, Blessed Teresa of Calcutta, and before them Blessed Miguel Pro as well as the recent martyrs of Lithuania, Spain, Mexico, and the more distant witness by the saints of Korea, Nigeria, and Japan.

The evangelizers for the New Evangelization need also a connectedness with the Church, her Gospel, and her pastoral presence. The authentication of what we proclaim and the verification of the truth of our message is vital. We must show how these are the words of everlasting life. We must witness to our communion with the Church and our solidarity with its pastors.

Another quality of the New Evangelization and, therefore, those engaged in it is a sense of urgency. Perhaps we need to see in Luke’s account of Mary’s visitation of Elizabeth a model for our own sense of urgency. The Gospel recounts how Mary set off in haste in a long and difficult journey from Nazareth to a hill country in the village of Judea. There was no time to be lost because her mission was so important.

Finally, when we look around and see the vast field open, waiting for us to sow seeds of new life, we must do so with joy. … [He continued], “Even bishops can smile.”

Our message should be one that inspires others joyfully to follow us along the path to the kingdom of God. Joy must characterize the evangelizer. Ours is a message of great joy; Christ is risen, Christ is with us. Whatever our circumstances, our witness should radiate with the fruits of the Holy Spirit, including love, peace, and joy.38

The agent of the New Evangelization must: be bold; be connected with the Church, her Gospel, and her pastoral presence; embrace a sense of urgency in delivering the message of the New Evangelization; and do so with great joy. That sounds to me like many students who participate in student life activities at a Catholic university. It also sounds to me like a description of the qualities needed for student life personnel at a Catholic university. The rest of us learn from their examples as we also engage the process of promoting the New Evangelization. As Pope Francis suggests in Evangelii gaudium, “Young people call us to renewed and expansive hope, for they represent new directives for humanity and open us up to the future.”39

Conclusion on Evangelization

The essence of the New Evangelization is embodied in our personal conversion, living the faith and being agents of the faith. The process begins with each one of us and our own need to once again fall in love with Christ over and over again so that we, too, can respond to his invitation to grow closer to Him and to share the faith with others.

Conclusion

In this article we reflected on the importance of pastoral care and evangelization in the area of student life. Much of what I have written has to do with things that we should say or do to help to form our students to deal with their own issues and to help them to become evangelizers. It is essential, however, that all efforts to be pastoral and to evangelize begin with the call to listen … to listen rather than just hear, to comprehend what our students are really saying so that their needs can be met in a pastoral manner with the openness for evangelization. Pope Francis highlights the importance of listening in Evangelii gaudium 171:

Today more than ever we need men and women who, on the basis of their experience of accompanying others, are familiar with processes which call for prudence, understanding, patience and docility to the Spirit, so that they can protect the sheep from wolves who would scatter the flock. We need to practice the art of listening, which is more than simply hearing. Listening, in communication, is an openness of heart which makes possible that closeness without which genuine spiritual encounter cannot occur. Listening helps us to find the right gesture and word which shows that we are more than simply bystanders. Only through such respectful and compassionate listening can we enter on the paths of true growth and awaken a yearning for the Christian ideal: the desire to respond fully to God’s love and to bring to fruition what he has sown in our lives.40

As we strive for excellence in student life, let us not forget that all pastoral care and evangelization efforts must first be rooted in listening. We must listen to those entrusted to our care. But most importantly we must listen to the voice of God leading and guiding us in the way in which we are to provide pastoral care and to evangelize. Excellence is found in being open to and embracing God’s will. And we can only hope to approach excellence when allowing ourselves to be led to that point by the Holy Spirit.

 

 

 

Catholic Schools, Firing Policies and Teacher Misconduct

/in , /by
Click here for PDF

This publication is the first in a collaborative series between The Cardinal Newman Society and the Culture of Life Foundation on complex moral issues in Catholic education policy.  These papers are intended to inform discussion and should not be regarded as definitive statements of policy or practice.  The views expressed herein are those of the author and not necessarily those of The Cardinal Newman Society or the Culture of Life Foundation.

The question which has been in the news recently is as follows: Should teachers, faculty members or school administrators be terminated if they are found to be guilty of grave moral misconduct in their private lives?

Because each Catholic school has elements unique to itself—mission statements, constituencies, financial needs—and each employment situation is unique, and the circumstances surrounding each instance of misconduct is unique, there is no “one-size-fits-all” answer to this question.  But certain consistent principles can be considered and practical measures taken to assist schools in responding well to the problem of employee misconduct.  This essay discusses both.

What’s the Fuss?

Why is this even a difficult question?  Why not just sack any employee guilty of misconduct, clean the slate and move on?  Or why not be merciful and always offer employees a second chance?  Both options could be licit; at the very least, neither is intrinsically evil.

It’s a difficult question because school officials, in seeking to do what is right, are aware that both alternatives—firing and not firing—risk causing unintentional harms that they are not interested in bringing about, and that could be very impacting on the welfare of the school and the Church.

Making a good decision means not only being realistic about unintentional harms, but assessing whether or not tolerating (but not intending) one or more of them might either violate some moral duty or be an obligation in virtue of some other duty.  Public relations (PR) concerns are often foremost on the minds of school authorities, and they are certainly not irrelevant.  But they are by no means the only—and usually not the most important—concerns, the foremost of which are a true concern to avoid scandal and to maintain the integrity of a school’s Christian witness.

The Fuss Is about Souls!

What’s at stake is ultimately the good of souls, especially the souls of students, and the integrity of the Catholic Church’s apostolic mission.  The first duty of a Catholic school is to bear witness through educational means to the splendor of truth, especially the truths of the Christian faith.  Fund raising, prestige, academic ranking and successful sports programs are important, but if school authorities forfeit their school’s true Catholic identity in their effort to achieve them, they fail in their first duty to their constituencies and to the Church, and worse, they betray Christ.

When it comes to considering termination, making a good decision can be difficult and laborious.  But as I tell my seminarians, moral decision-making is about loving.  And for those who exercise authority, loving means seeing and assessing all the relevant harms caused by one’s action or inaction.  Why?  Because every relevant harm is ultimately a harm to some human being.  And it is human beings who constitute “the foundation, the cause and the end of every social institution” (John XXIII, Mater et Magistra, no. 219).  Although some or even many of the foreseeable harms may not be decisive for settling questions concerning misconduct, no harm is irrelevant to these questions’ assessment.

With Whom Does Responsibility for this Decision Rest?

The development and execution of school policy fall to whoever has authority over the school’s employees, and over the school itself: e.g., members of the school’s senior administration, members of the board of directors; the superintendents of Catholic schools; and, ultimately, the diocesan bishop.  There will obviously be differences in the authority structure with non-diocesan Catholic schools, but the point here is clear: those who exercise authority bear responsibility.  At universities, senior faculty are sometimes also consulted, or committees set up to deal with grievances brought against faculty members.

Critical Importance of Hiring Procedures and Conduct Policies

While no set of procedures and no policy can anticipate every possible situation, schools can and should develop hiring procedures and conduct policies that establish a base-line for acceptable conduct for all employees, especially teachers, and specify clearly the results of violating the policies.  In dealing with the problem of employee misconduct, this is arguably the most important practical measure a Catholic apostolate can take to guard its religious identity.

Catholic Apostolates and Mission-Centered Hiring Policies

An “apostolate” is a community of Christian witnesses.  A “mission” is the community’s work.  Catholic schools and universities are—or ought to be—apostolates of the Church.

Hiring procedures should be in place to ensure that all employees support the apostolic identity and mission of the institution.  This is what the term “hiring for mission” means.  Although some jobs are more closely associated with the oral and public communication of the school’s mission, all employees share responsibility for protecting and promoting it.

This does not mean that all employees must be practicing Catholics.  However, it does mean, ordinarily, that a majority of employees should be practicing Catholics.  Otherwise, it will be difficult to ensure a consistent expression of the school’s mission and guarantee continuity of Catholic identity over time.  All other employees should understand, believe in, and be willing to support, the school’s mission.

It follows that:

School authorities ought to hire only people capable of cooperating in carrying out the school’s mission, and that means that they cannot be known to be persisting in any behavior or commitment objectively incompatible with Catholic moral teaching.

This is especially important for the hiring of faculty, as well as administrators who work closely with students (e.g., counselors).

Conduct Policies

This requirement should be supported by a clearly defined, written moral conduct policy.  It should be built into the job description and be an essential and legally binding part of any and every employment agreement.

If the school’s policy is:

  • clearly published and consistent with Catholic Church teaching;
  • closely keyed to the institutional mission statement; and
  • consistently and non-arbitrarily applied,

then there will be structures in place to guide decision making in circumstances where polices are violated.  Absent such a policy, each case will likely be treated differently, depending on the matter at issue and what sort of employment agreement and undertaking exists.  This leaves the institution much more vulnerable to running afoul of the law or being open to a civil suit.

Private vs. Professional Misconduct

My analysis is principally concerned with what school authorities should do in cases of grave misconduct in the private lives of employees.  By “private” I mean life outside of professional employment.  There will be different degrees of private misconduct (e.g., acts one doesn’t want known vs. ones that are flaunted even though they are not on “company time”); this essay concerns all degrees of “private” misconduct.  Once questionable behavior comes to the attention of someone who has authority over the individual, at that point the private becomes public for our purposes.

This essay does not consider misconduct in one’s professional life (e.g., sexual harassment on the job), though that also needs to be handled with consistency and good judgment.  Nor does it address the duties of school authorities to comply with law enforcement in cases where employees are undergoing criminal investigation.

“Grave” Misconduct: Serious Sin, Intransigence, Scandal

In moral theology, referring to a sin as “grave” implies it is a mortal sin.  I am using the term grave here more restrictively.  By “grave misconduct” I am referring to deliberate behavior that meets the following three conditions: first, it is gravely wrong (serious or mortally sinful in type); second, the employee is intransigent in doing it; and third, the situation is potentially an occasion of scandal.

In general, I think that actionable instances of private misconduct should meet all three conditions.

The first condition needs no explanation.  But the next two deserve comment.

Intransigence means that some misconduct is unapologetically habitual.  Some examples of behavior meeting the condition of intransigence could include:

  • Single employees who get pregnant or get someone pregnant and defend their behavior; cohabitating in sexually-active, non-marital relationships;
  • Employees engaged in promiscuous activities with same sex partners or with partners of the opposite sex;
  • Employees engaged in an adulterous relationship;
  • Employees who advocate for public policies explicitly aimed at advancing or defending abortion rights, same sex marriage, polygamy, euthanasia, experimenting on, freezing or destroying human embryos, cloning, or other gravely immoral acts.

Intransigence is not met if an employee engages in some misconduct, but expresses a sincere desire and resolve to change.  For example, if a female employee gets pregnant out of wedlock, or a single male gets a woman pregnant, but she or he sincerely repents, resolves to keep and raise or support the child according to Christian principles, or place the child for adoption, and is willing publicly to support the Church’s moral teaching on marriage and sexual morality, intransigence is not a factor.

Scandal means that the private behavior, if known, could destroy people’s faith, undermine the school’s Catholic identity and be an inducement to sin, especially to the students.  Some sins today are particularly dangerous to the welfare of souls.  Abortion and promiscuity—especially homosexual behavior—because they represent evils that many say are goods, can easily be occasions for scandal.  Since the indissolubility of marriage is also widely rejected, and even doubted by some Catholics, another act especially apt to give scandal could be actively dating when divorced without an annulment or dating an un-annulled divorced person.  If school authorities appear to be indifferent to these behaviors, the consequences can be unacceptable.

Intransigence is not absolutely necessary

As I said, I think that the three conditions ordinarily should be met before instances of misconduct become subject matter for dismissal.

Is this to say that grave misconduct by employees who do not express intransigence is not subject matter for dismissal?  No.  If school authorities have good reason to believe that an immoral act committed by an employee will cause scandal, then even if the employee is repentant, the welfare of the school may require dismissal.  Obviously, the greater the risk of scandal, the more seriously dismissal must be considered.

However, just as it is true that there is more joy in heaven over one sinner who repents than over ninety-nine righteous persons who need no repentance (Lk. 15:7), so it is true that Christians rejoice when their brothers and sisters repent.  It seems to me that evil-doing that is frankly, publicly and sincerely rejected through true repentance is rarely an occasion for another’s sin; and very often it is an occasion of moral growth for wrongdoers and those around them.

It follows that:

If school authorities think that scandal in the case of a repentant employee can be reasonably obviated by measures short of dismissal, they should adopt those measures.  If they do not think scandal can be avoided, then they may be obligated to terminate the employee’s employment.

Two Moral Requirements: Due Diligence and Moral Certitude

School authorities can come to suspect an employee of grave misconduct in several ways.  Employees might publicize their behaviors (including their views) on social media, by email or in scholarly publications.  Or, a member of the school community or somebody outside of it might accuse them of misconduct.

In either case, school authorities ought to carry out due diligence and only act when reasonable doubt has been removed.

Due diligence

The first priority should be to establish beyond a reasonable doubt whether or not the suspicion is true.  Christian charity requires that school authorities should assume the best of their employees until evidence proves otherwise.

The practice of anonymous accusation, not uncommon in Catholic institutions, should be rejected in all but the most extraordinary circumstances (e.g., in cases of danger to the informer).  Although it may be fair to ask authorities to maintain confidentiality when one is revealing sensitive information about oneself, if one accuses another of grave misconduct, one should, in justice, be willing to be made known to the accused.  And the accused, also as a matter of justice, should be given the opportunity to face his or her accuser.  It is not only gravely unjust—evil—to falsely accuse another; it is also unjust for authorities to accept and act on an accusation of grave misconduct without undertaking due diligence to establish its verity.

Upon a revelation of misconduct, school authorities ordinarily should first approach the employee and ask him or her charitably and without dissembling: “Did you do X?” or “Are you doing Y?”  If rumors are flying about, but no solid evidence has been presented, it would still be acceptable to ask the employee directly whether there is anything to the rumors.

Unless school authorities have reasons to suspect an employee’s honesty, a denial of guilt should be taken as sufficiently establishing the truth.

Moral certitude

Only after guilt has been established beyond a reasonable doubt—that is, when authorities have moral certitude of their employee’s guilt—should disciplinary measures be initiated.

And I do mean should be initiated.

Schools must not close their eyes to the grave immorality of their employees hoping it will go away.  It is not uncommon for schools to ignore the private but scandalous behavior of their employees, not acting upon it until the situation grows into an ugly PR problem, at which point, scandal has probably already occurred.

Although they should not take action in the absence of due diligence and moral certitude, as soon as these are fulfilled, they should not delay action because of a fear of unpleasant results.

Confidentiality vs. Secrecy

A common cause of disunity in Catholic educational institutions is inadequate communication between administration and other employees, especially faculty.  Although every person has a right to a good name, and idle curiosity should not be fed, confidentiality should not be taken to the extreme of secrecy.

All school employees share responsibility for contributing to, and maintaining, the conditions of the common good of the institution.  Consequently, they have a right to know at least the minimal facts of serious situations that bear upon that common good.

If a teacher or administrator is convicted of, and dismissed for, misconduct, I believe it is best for school authorities to give other school employees at least minimal information about the event (e.g., “so and so has been dismissed for misconduct”).  Details ordinarily need not be divulged.  Employees should be admonished not to give over to gossip or listening to gossip, or calumny or reviling.  They should be told that if they feel the need to discuss the situation further, they are free to contact proper channels within or outside the institution.

Harmful Effects of Terminating or Not-Terminating an Employee

I said above that making a good moral decision means assessing the potential consequences of adopting, or not adopting, alternatives under consideration.  In this final section, I elaborate on the kinds of unintentional harms that may follow upon the decisions to dismiss or not dismiss an employee for misconduct.

If there is a clear school policy, as I recommend above, some of the harms (especially in clear-cut cases of misconduct) may be less material to the analysis, but no reasonably-foreseeable harm of our actions is irrelevant to conscientious moral analysis.

Therefore, this final section is included to educate readers, especially those who hold positions of authority in Catholic education, of the types of issues that should be considered when undertaking a moral assessment of complex issues such as the one we are considering here.

Not Consequentialist or Proportionalist Reasoning

It bears noting that considering the harmful consequences attendant to a decision to terminate or not terminate is not consequentialist reasoning, the aim of which is to determine by appeal to consequences whether or not intending evil (as an end or means) is licit ‘under the circumstances.’  Evil alternatives should never be chosen and consequently should not be the subject matter of moral deliberation.  As soon as we conclude that some type of behavior would be intrinsically wrongful to choose, we should exclude it from our range of potentially-acceptable choices.

But once we have done this, we must have a reasonable concern for consequences.

Effects of terminating employment

What harmful (unintended) side effects are likely to be caused by terminating an employee for misconduct?

  1. Effects on school pedagogy: perhaps lose a good teacher;
  2. Effects upon students: alienate students who feel sympathy for the teacher;
  3. Effects upon faculty/administrators/other employees: generate or strengthen unhealthy factions within the institution;
  4. Effects on institution/diocese/Church: employee becomes a cause célèbre:
  • Provides an opportunity for those outside the institution who oppose the Church’s teaching to accuse the institution of intolerance, mean-spiritedness, unmercifulness, hypocrisy, etc.
  • Provokes lawsuits with financial implications for the institution.
  1. Effects upon the teacher: stigmatizes him/her which may make it hard to find a new job; perhaps precipitates financial difficulties, relational difficulties, etc.;
  2. Effects upon the innocent:
  • If a teacher gets pregnant, termination may cause harm to the unborn child; if he/she has other children, hardship may come to them.
  • If termination is carried out in a heavy-handed way, those in the community who are weak or ignorant, but good-willed, may be alienated from the Church.

If one or another of these harms can be avoided by undertaking remedial interventions that are not gravely burdensome to the institution, then, when a decision is made to terminate an employee for misconduct, school authorities should consider ways to make those interventions.

Effects of not terminating employment

What are some foreseeable unintentional harms of not terminating employment?

  1. Possibility of scandal: continuing employment may tempt others to sin:
  • Effects upon students: Students who see the school apparently tolerating the behavior may conclude that the behavior is legitimate; may even imitate it.
  • Effects on others outside the school: not taking decisive action can make the wrongdoing seem more acceptable, provide material for rationalization and self-deception, tempt the weak, and confuse the doubtful or ignorant.

Moral principle: if school authorities have good reasons to conclude that not taking decisive action, including termination, will cause scandal, then ordinarily they have an obligation to take appropriate action.  If the risk of scandal can be obviated by measures short of termination, then fear of scandal need not be decisive.

  1. Effects upon the school’s mission: by not taking decisive action, the school may fail in its duty to bear perspicuous witness to gospel values. Catholic schools, as a matter of basic identity, have an obligation to offer credible and charitable witness against these types of wrongdoing and for the goods violated by the misconduct.

Moral principle: if school authorities have good reasons to believe that their school’s apostolic integrity (i.e., its ability to carry out its mission) will be compromised by not taking decisive action, then ordinarily they are obliged to take that action.

  1. Effects upon the school’s Catholic reputation: by not taking decisive action the school may appear to be indifferent towards certain kinds of evildoing and hence lose the respect (as a Catholic institution) that all true apostolates deserve. For schools that have already lost this respect, school leaders should consider their response to employee misconduct in light of the need to restore their good (Catholic) name.
  2. Effects upon school authorities themselves: those in authority should ask whether tolerating grave misconduct in their employees would cause themselves (or other employees) to grow psychologically coarsened in relation to the goods/persons adversely affected by the wrongdoing, or cynical towards the duty to “fight the good fight” against certain widespread kinds of evil. They should take appropriate action against such coarsening and cynicism in themselves (and in their employees, especially faculty members).
  3. Effects upon school policy: not taking decisive action may establish a dubious precedent for resolving future cases; this should be avoided.
  4. Effects upon other schools: other schools may follow the example, when in fact their situations are quite different and demand a different response.
  5. Effects upon the wrongdoer: if wrongdoers are not disciplined, they may be strengthened in their wrongdoing and carry out further wrongful acts.
  6. Effects upon community harmony:
  • Members of the wider Catholic or Christian community, who hear about wrongdoing at a Catholic school and conclude that the school is indifferent to it, may grow alienated from the school and from relevant Church authorities.
  • Disharmony may also be caused between school authorities and possible victims of the wrongdoing, e.g., a spouse who was dumped by a school employee may perceive the school’s failure to terminate the spouse as the school’s indifference towards, or support for, the wrongdoing.

Other Morally Relevant Questions

A few other questions should also be asked:

  1. Are there special circumstances that strengthen the school’s reasons to terminate or not to terminate an employee? For example:
  • Is the employee especially vulnerable at this time for reasons unrelated to the misconduct?
  • Or is the misconduct so grave and the potential harms so widespread that attending to “special circumstances” might be unfair to others?
  • Is the employee recidivist in wrongdoing or is this a first offense?
  • Does he or she as a rule publicly support Catholic teaching or criticize it?
  1. Is the employee close to retirement?
  • If so, could the retirement be moved forward in such a way as to render unnecessary a precipitous termination?
  • In some instances, however, the institution may be obliged to say something publicly about the retirement, so that others do not come away with the mistaken belief—if it is indeed mistaken—that the authorities have done nothing about the misconduct.
  1. Can termination be carried out more discreetly? Could the employee be let go at the end of the contract year, rather than immediately, without undue harmful effects being caused?
  2. Do school authorities have good reasons to believe that terminating employment may prevent or mitigate future wrongdoing by the employee?
  • Certain kinds of decisive action may be advisable, and even obligatory, if doing so is likely to prevent future evildoing.
  • If, however, the intervention is unlikely to have any positive effect on the employee, this may not be a consideration.

Conclusion

This is an analysis of Christian principles important for properly understanding issues surrounding the termination of teachers/faculty, school administrators and other employees who have been found guilty of grave moral misconduct in their private lives.

The principles are offered to assist school authorities to establish clear and consistent policies regarding moral behavior for employment contracts, faculty handbooks, or other documents, which govern the conduct of school employees.  They also may be useful as a basis for the establishment of employment law respecting both the religious freedom of Catholic educational institutions and the rights of employees.