The following considerations related to the Common Core were provided to Catholic bishops on November 13, 2013, in Baltimore, Maryland. The Cardinal Newman Society partnered with the National Association of Private Catholic and Independent Schools and the Catholic Education Foundation to present a seminar on the Common Core during the annual meeting of the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops.
This publication is part of a series of reports on the Common Core State Standards Initiative and how those standards potentially impact Catholic education.
Our core is the Catholic Faith.
The core purpose of Catholic education is student formation and nurturing souls.1 These must be the primary standards from which curriculum and teaching methods are developed and schools are assessed.
Catholic identity is not an add-on; it cannot be reduced to values and traditions to be “infused”2 into secular standards. The standards will determine how and what to teach and how schools are evaluated.
Catholic schools are successful because of their mission… period. Their emphasis on faith and formation points to classical curricula, good literature, reason and ethics, and individualized attention.
Mission drives standards; standards drive curriculum and teaching. Our mission and that of government schools are profoundly different, and different missions demand different standards.
Common Core is explicitly and only “college and career” focused. Our schools are focused on assisting our students to encounter Christ and to pursue truth, beauty and goodness. In the process, they are also well-prepared for college and life beyond.
Education should prepare students for life, but college and career cannot be the sole or primary objectives for Catholic school standards.3 Educating for secular ends leads to either pride or despair.
Our standards must inspire, not content with the minimum but pressing forward to- ward the maximum.
Catholic schools are already among the best in the nation.
On the federal NAEP tests, Catholic schools have significantly outperformed public schools for 20 years. Grade 8 scores in 2013: Reading 286 (public schools 226), Math 295 (public schools 284).4
In 2011, religious schools far outperformed public schools on the SAT: Reading 531 (public schools 449), Math 533 (public schools 506), Writing 528 (public schools 483).5
Parents care about Catholic identity, school environment and learning outcomes—in- cluding test scores and high school/college success. But they don’t seek conformity to public school standards.
Standards influence how and what students learn, but there is no certain correlation between standards and test scores. States with standards rated both “A” and “F” by the Fordham Institute report similar test scores.6
Catholic schools can excel on nationally normed, non-Common Core tests available for the next several years.7 Afterward, testing companies will be eager to serve our schools’ 2 million students.8
Avoiding Common Core will highlight Catholic school competitive advantages: choice, freedom, authentic difference, human excellence, Christian faith, proven, successful, safe, outstanding education.
Catholic schools already prepare for college and careers.
Catholic high schools have a 99% graduation rate (73% public schools), and 85% of Catholic high school graduates attend four-year colleges (44% public schools).9
Good teaching can ensure success on college entrance exams, even when Common Core-compliant, perhaps with some test preparation. The ACT is not changing signifi- cantly, so scores should be stable.10
Common Core is not required for Catholic schools.
No government or accreditor requires Catholic schools to adopt Common Core.
Some states may tie Common Core to funding. The Church should defend religious liberty and school choice without compromising Catholic schools’ autonomy.
We must lead with confidence; we do not follow in fear or from intimidation. We do not simply “get on board” because others are doing it. Common Core is becoming toxic, and every failure will be laid at our doorstep if we rush into this.
Common Core seeks radical change in education.
“The Common Core represents a fundamental shift in the teaching and learning process.”11 It proposes to fix broken public schools, but Catholic schools are not broken.
Common Core embraces theories of exploration learning and constructivism, conflict- ing with the proven method of direct instruction in younger grades.12
Common Core is largely a privately funded initiative of the morally reprehensible Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation,13 which pays the NCEA to promote Common Core.14
Common Core advocates reassure parents that the standards “are not a curriculum.”15 That’s a red herring. The standards are intended to drive changes in curriculum, teach- ing and assessment.16
Common Core is untested and experimental.
Before any intervention, there should be 1) a need and 2) empirical evidence that the need will be satisfied. Common Core offers neither; its standards have never been test- ed.17 They were developed by little-known “experts” with no solid research basis, de- spite misleading claims.18
Common Core’s proponents—the Gates Foundation, several state governors and school leaders, the Obama administration, and “big business”—have quietly avoided public scrutiny and accountability by working around Congress, state legislatures, and now Catholic school educators and parents.
Common Core’s emphasis on informational texts depends upon distortions of NAEP data and lacks solid evidence. The 2006 federal Progress in International Reading Literacy Study (PIRLS) found that higher literacy scores correlate to more reading of novels and less frequent reading of information.19
The Common Core standards are flawed.
Common Core demands greater emphasis on reading informational texts, with a cor- responding decrease in great literature.20 Some recommended (not required) texts are morally problematic.
Common Core imposes “reform math,” not our traditional and successful math pro- grams. It lowers standards: pre-algebra or algebra is no longer the eighth-grade norm, nor pre-calculus or calculus for 12th grade.2122
There is a misalignment with early grade expectations and lack of detail in upper grades.23
There is a lack of specific content knowledge; too much is simply skills-based.24
Common Core aims for nationalization, not pluralism.
The Church favors “a plurality of school systems” to “safeguard her objectives in the face of cultural pluralism” and increasing state control of education.25 Common Core seeks national uniformity.
Catholic schools risk losing autonomy by accepting national standards. The Church’s relationship to the state should focus on protecting autonomy and school choice, not embracing national uniformity.26
Common Core is quickly moving toward a state and federal government program. It is becoming a political issue in the states, and the Obama administration has tied it to federal funds.
It is not valid to argue that we must follow Common Core because we always follow state standards. This is something much more, aiming for nationalization and substan- tial change. Common Core is under intense scrutiny, in ways that state standards never were.
Common Core poses a creeping threat to schools’ Catholic identity.
Common Core reduces Catholic school autonomy and focuses assessment on secular objectives, thereby distracting educators from their core mission. Catholic schools have always been independent, but beware the secularizing path of Catholic universities, hospitals and charities.
Common Core’s priorities “crowd out” the elements of a rigorous, classical Catholic education, emphasizing skills and practicality over vocation and reasoning from a foundation of truth.
State and federal involvement in Common Core could lead to religious liberty viola- tions. Catholic schools’ protection depends on consistent Catholic identity27 — which Common Core diminishes.
Bishops, parents and educators are being ignored.
We can see no evidence that the NCEA and many diocesan educational leaders have listened to the bishops on Common Core, recognizing their canonical authority and responsibility for the Catholic identity of our schools.
Parents have been poorly informed and not consulted about Common Core changes in Catholic schools, despite their primary authority and responsibility for the education of their children.
Catholic school teachers and principals also have been poorly informed and not prop- erly consulted about Common Core. Among the nation’s best Catholic High School Honor Roll schools, 92% of principals have concerns about Common Core’s impact on Catholic identity.28
Should we not pause and more carefully study and evaluate the Common Core?
https://cardinalnewmansociety.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/04/Issue-Bulletin-Header-845-x-321-px-01.png13383521Cardinal Newman Society Staffhttps://cardinalnewmansociety.org/wp-content/uploads/CNS-logo-2C-450-tag2.pngCardinal Newman Society Staff2013-11-13 16:13:002020-05-18 16:41:24Do Catholic Schools Need the Common Core?
This publication is part of a series of reports on the Common Core State Standards Initiative and how those standards potentially impact Catholic education.
As of yet, there has been no serious effort to analyze the impact of the Common Core State Standards (CCSS)11 on Catholic education—one that engages Catholic school educators at all levels as well as parents, the primary educators of their children. In view of the current environment, it would seem reasonable for those in leadership positions in Catholic education to pause, reflect and plan prior to moving forward with either adopting or adapting the CCSS.
But in the complex environment of operating a Catholic school system, there may be instances where, for whatever reason, a Catholic School has decided to implement the Common Core State Standards. These schools claim that they are not entirely assimilating the troubled and controversial public school standards, but rather “adapting” the standards by changing them to fit with their Catholic mission and pursuit of academic excellence.
While such an attempt (sincerely implemented) is a step above merely copying the public school system, it does not address the fundamental conflict associated with the integral formation of students. Since standards drive curriculum, a Catholic curriculum must include standards that are integrated with the magisterial teachings of the Catholic Church.
For example, consider that Catholics have much to say about literature, history, science, and, above all, about Truth, goodness, and beauty. And, since the object of every academic disci- pline is truth, the Catholic curriculum should be based on the conviction that all truths ultimately converge in their source—God. This standard, among others, is sorely lacking in the Common Core.
If a Catholic school or school system chooses to take the more problematic road of adapting the Common Core Standards (as opposed to creating their own standards), the Catholic school system would greatly benefit from a public discussion (or basic research) about how—if at all—Catholic schools are actually changing the Common Core. Additionally, parents should ask their Catholic school officials what elements of the Common Core (if any) they have found necessary to change/adapt.
As yet, there has not been a significant study or public discussion as to what possible changes Catholic schools might be making in voluntarily implementing the Common Core in our schools. I would like to take the initiative to begin this discussion by enumerating ten important changes to consider.
1. Renounce the English Language Arts (ELA) Percentages for Literary and Informational Texts (which are not research-based).15
Do not alter your literature selections based on the standards. Stick with the best literature from recognized masters. Use great works with compelling themes that speak to the heart of the human condition across the ages. Do not remove poetry, drama or literature; conversely, do not artificially add more informational texts into your ELA program.
Throw out the Common Core Appendices. These claim to provide examples and recommended texts. Stick to your tried and true curriculum as much as possible if using Common Core Standards.
Move to actual documents and unadapted works. Middle and high school students should not use mass-produced anthologies. Give them the actual texts. This allows them to mark up the texts and keep them on their library shelves at home for future reference or re-reading. Also, a “between-the-covers book” slows down instruction and respects the dignity of the work. It allows the students to feel that they are getting the “real deal” and not an excerpt or adapted exposure to the brightest and most creative minds. Even if they do not read the entire work, students now have access to it.
Set your teachers and students free with authentic, un-sanitized texts and original questions and assignments. Because the Common Core allows for generic national lessons and lesson plans on topics presented in textbooks, there is a risk of homogenization and standardization, which runs contrary to human diversity and exploration.
3. Respond to the texts, not the Standards.
Do not use the Common Core Standards as the primary guide for inquiry into litera- ture. The Standards attempt to dissect literature into a set of measurable skills or generic questions.30 However, literary study should not be stuffed into a pre-determined standard or examined with canned questions, which do not directly emanate from the experience of reading a particular work. Literature needs to be unleashed and encountered “as litera- ture”—the product of a creative mind in dialogue with the reader in exploring the human condition. Treating literature simply as grist for the mill of college and career readiness saps its transformative power of inquiry and translation of experience. Yes, there are some relevant skills that the discipline of literary study requires, and the Common Core identifies some of these; however, development of these skills/tools should not become the goal of reading great works.
Stay away from canned materials and exemplar units. The best teaching is creative, adaptive and natural, as the teacher and students explore the wonders of reality together with joy, passion and excitement. Keep your teachers and instruction creative. Exemplar units and straight textbook “canned” instruction are fine for the teacher to consult so as to get an idea of how effective lessons and units can unfold; just make sure that they do not become the basis of your regular lessons. Some teachers may try to ensure test score suc- cess by not straying from the approved lessons, but authentic learning is often messy and organic—and risky. Beware that computer-based instruction can also be overly scripted and become a crutch and distraction.
4. Do not take the Common Core’s rightful emphasis on text-based arguments too far.
Do not follow the Common Core’s philosophy that the only way that a student can demonstrate knowledge gleaned from a text is using evidence from the text to support their claim. While careful textual citations of evidence is key, the Standards say that “student knowledge drawn from the text is demonstrated when the student uses evidence from the text to support the claim about the text. Hence, evidence and knowledge link directly to the text.” However, in Catholic schools, knowledge is attained and demonstrated when the human intellect, informed by the senses, judges things rightly. Our criteria include not only the text itself but also a rich and wonderful world outside the text (which the text might brilliantly unveil—sometimes with life-changing effect). Evidence and knowledge are certainly based on the text; however, they are ultimately grounded in truth, beauty and goodness. If we miss this, we miss everything about Catholic education.
Allow discussion about outside texts or ideas. Do not discourage middle and high school students from also making extensive references to other works; historical, philosophical and religious trends; or their “gut responses.” Do, however, be sure to require rigorous scrutiny of their positions and gut responses and link those back to explicit under- standings and assumptions about the world as well as the topic under exploration. Teach them to unpack their responses in clarity and truth—not to suppress them so as to simply stick to the world of the text or increase standardized test scores.
Conduct a little test preparation. Teach older students how to sanitize their normal “human” responses for the purposes of the standardized test evaluation.
5. Avoid premature use of technology, peer-editing, research and rhetorical pedagogy in place of good old-fashioned writing instruction.
Use pencil and paper when you teach writing to young children. Technology is only a teaching tool, not a magic smart pill. Using technology to write can wait. Do not panic that your elementary students will be “left behind” if you are still teaching them to handwrite. None of us over 40 had computers in school, but we have managed somehow to be smart, productive, technologically proficient 21st century learners. Technology is the easy part; thinking clearly and deeply is the hard part, and this can happen without extensive technology. We don’t know what type of technology our students will have at their disposal in 15 years, but we do know what type of brains they will have; we need to prepare those brains for maximum clarity and facility of thought.
Avoid the early emphasis on peer-editing (a teaching technique and not a standard) and the too early emphasis on research. The Common Core requires peer input and writing using a computer in 1st grade, and “research” with technology in 3rd grade. Younger children may not be ready to evaluate, process and synthesize another ’s work and insights and should focus on their own thinking and writing. It is easy to find out (or copy/plagiarize) what others think; it is harder to clarify your own thinking and find your own voice. Young students deserve adult guidance at this stage and not the faux guidance of their peers who cannot teach what they do not yet know.
Remember that the goal of writing is to communicate the truth. Writing should not be viewed simply through the Common Core lens of effective rhetoric, where students learn how to manipulate words and use standard grammar to produce a cogent, if not somewhat detached, argument.31 Writing should fundamentally be at the service of truth, beauty and goodness, and it should assist the student to articulate his or her understandings or insights based on penetration into reality. Naturally, since it is also a social activity, writ- ing should follow conventions of grammar and reason in service of the truth and effective communication. In sum, writing is ordered toward an explanation of one’s encounter with truth, goodness and beauty, but it can still attend to some of the Common Core’s skill- based focus.
6. Create your own explicit standards for your junior high and high school literature classes.
List the critical texts, time periods, authors and genres that you expect your students to cover. The Common Core Standards only chunk and repeat the same empty skills year after year. While this provides some generic guidance, it does not account for adequate content coverage or skills development necessary for effective high school literature.
7. Do not alter your math progression.
Keep mastery of the standard algorithms using multi-digits at the levels they are currently found. Do not delay these for a year as suggested by the CCSS. Keep addition/ subtraction in 2nd-3rd grade, multiplication in 4th, division in 5th.
Keep Algebra in 8th grade as the norm for your school. A non-algebra track for struggling students can also be offered for those who fall short of the norm.
Keep your geometry program unchanged. Do not follow the unorthodox and failed version presented in the Common Core.
Develop explicit standards for classes necessary for future science, technology, engineering or math (STEM) majors. There currently are no explicit standards for classes such as pre-calculus, trigonometry, statistics, number theory, calculus, etc.
8. Avoid the temptation to push “higher-ordered thinking skills” too quickly.
Give novices (that is, grade school students) the direct instruction that they need. Be extremely wary of Common Core “inspired” instruction that over-emphasizes or pushes higher-order thinking skills too far down into the younger grades, especially in math. This causes an unnecessary sense of confusion or failure, which can lead to frustration and dis- taste for math at an early age. Experts are the ones who benefit more from a constructivist/exploration-based environment, and properly educated high school students are typically entering this “expert” level of mathematical reasoning. Hours lost in prematurely forcing younger kids into expert/abstract thinking not only leads to frustration and a loss of confidence, but also it comes at the cost of exposure to necessary basics that they will need to become authentic experts in the future.
Continue to emphasize memorization in the younger grades. This is the raw material upon which abstract reasoning will draw, as their intellects naturally and gradually mature and bloom.
9. Avoid teaching to the tests.
Focus on good instruction, not this or that test. This is your competitive advantage in a Common Core test crazy environment. Enjoy having more time and freedom to teach; your students will flourish more in the long run. Catholic schools know this from years of experience with not getting trapped into incessant state testing. Authentic tests will expose authentic learning: good instruction trumps unnecessary testing.
Do still give norm-referenced tests with post-Common Core validity such as the Iowa’s to assist with student formation.
Do plan for SAT/ACT testing courses to be formally placed in your high school curriculum. Teach students in a discreet course “how” to take a standardized test and respond to prompts in a Common Core expected manner.
10. Keep the greatest distance possible between your curriculum and the Common Core Standards.
Do not cheerlead for the Common Core. If you are using the standards, that is one thing; there are many usable parts. However, there are also many deep problems with them (perhaps as with any set of standards). When parts fail or weaknesses become evident, you do not want to be married to them.
Do not praise the Common Core: Let it sink or stand on its own without your prior validation. The Common Core Standards are untested. They claim to be more rigorous and focused than many state standards, but that claim is up for debate. What is not up for debate is the fact that states with “rigorous and focused” standards do not have higher test scores than states judged to have poor standards. There is no correlation between state standards and test scores, as strange as that seems.
If you use the Standards, set them as sub-floor but not as a foundation for your Catholic education. The Common Core Standards can possibly be a partial and lower (but not critical) part of your larger more lofty efforts at complete human formation. Our foundation must always be Jesus Christ.
Interpret the Standards as loosely and broadly as possible. Do not attempt to tie daily instruction and lesson plans directly to the Common Core Standards as is required in many public schools. Nevertheless, it is possible with creativity and a healthy skepticism of the philosophies animating the Common Core Standards to give many of them a distant nod. This means essentially saying, “Well yes, when I glance at the Common Core Standards every now and then, I can point to places somewhere not too far from our grade level curriculum where we pretty much do something like that.” In other words, this approach entails not being faithful to the intent and explicit wording of the Common Core, but just acknowledging them close enough to get by.
Normally such behavior is witnessed when conscientious objectors face the tyranny of an unjust law or authority, and this is better than faithfully instituting the flawed Common Core program; but again, why would Catholic schools, who are not required to teach to the Common Core, select this less than ideal approach?
We do after all owe it to the world to witness to the Truth about authentic education and about the human person. We also owe a duty to the majority of Catholic children who at- tended public schools to voice our opposition to the flawed program to which they are being subjected. Some public school supporters of the Common Core point to our schools and say, “See, if the Catholic schools are using it, it must be good!”
With so many concerns, one wonders why Catholic schools would base their efforts on the Common Core at all. Catholic schools have had unparalleled and enviable success for decades using their own standards.
I am concerned that many Catholic schools may have jumped on the Common Core band- wagon too early. After all, the Standards have not had adequate opportunity to be vetted; no “body” of Catholic scholars or educators—especially the parents, the primary educators—has thoroughly explored or discussed them. There is no harm in hitting the pause button and continuing the conversation, as we watch the untested Common Core Standards unfold in the public school arena.
Regardless, as some Catholic schools choose to adapt the Common Core, it would benefit us all to discuss openly what is being adapted and why. As with any initial conversation, these remarks and ideas cry out for correction and expansion. I look forward to the conversation.
* The title has changes from the original, “10 Minimal Adaptations Catholic Schools Consider Making to the Common Core State Standards”
https://cardinalnewmansociety.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/04/Issue-Bulletin-Header-845-x-321-px-01.png13383521Dr. Dan Guernseyhttps://cardinalnewmansociety.org/wp-content/uploads/CNS-logo-2C-450-tag2.pngDr. Dan Guernsey2013-02-14 16:32:002020-05-18 16:47:1310 Critically Important Adaptations to the Common Core for Catholic Schools*
This Issue Brief takes a look at the new32 “Notice of Proposed Rulemaking” issued on February 1, 2013, by the Department of Health and Human Services concerning the federal mandate that health insurance plans, including those provided or arranged by non-exempt Catholic high schools, must include coverage of early abortion pills, contraception, sterilization, and related education and counseling for women with a reproductive capacity.
What was the government’s intent with the February 1st “Notice of Proposed Rulemaking”?
The Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (“NPRM”)33 sets forth a proposed (not final) structure for public comment on whether or how the government will respect religious objections to its coverage mandate of early abortion pills, contraception, and sterilization. It concerns three categories of entities with objections to the mandate. Generally, these categories are: (1) houses of worship; (2) all other religious non-profits; and (3) all other objectors.
Is this the final rule?
No, it will be finalized by August 1, 2013. The public may submit comments by April 8, 2013.
Who would be exempt from the mandate under the NPRM?
The NPRM proposes that basically only houses of worship would be exempt from the mandate. Exempt entities are called “religious employers,” and these must be either “churches, their integrated auxiliaries, and conventions or associations of churches,” or “the exclusively
religious activities of any religious order.” These categories are narrow and well-established in Internal Revenue Code section 6033(a)(3)(A)(i) and (iii). Many Catholic high schools might not fall into these categories. They should consult with an attorney or tax advisor to review whether or not they qualify.
Is this a change from the existing exemption?
In one respect, the NPRM proposes a change from the existing mandate exemption. Under the existing exemption, houses of worship are still the only entities eligible for an exemption, but in addition those houses of worship must function to inculcate beliefs, and must primarily hire and serve only those of their own faith. The NPRM proposes to remove the latter three requirements from the definition of exempt “religious employers,” but retain the fourth criteria by which the entity must be a house of worship, church, religious order, or the like as listed above. The NPRM insists that this change is a clarification, not a broadening of the exemption. Since houses of worship are still the only entities that qualify for an exemption, the NPRM’s changes “would not expand the universe of employer plans that would qualify for the exemption beyond that which was intended” in the existing rule.
In another respect, the new proposal appears to be worse for entities such as Catholic high schools. Under last year’s regulations, it was suggested that if a school’s employees received insurance from a diocese’s health plan, the school’s coverage would fall under the diocese’s exempt status as a church. See 77 Fed. Reg. 16,502. But the new proposed exemption intentionally removes this possibility and says employers will be treated separately: only if a school is itself a church or integrated auxiliary thereof will it be exempt, even if its employees use the diocesan health plan. 78 Fed. Reg. at 8,467. Thus, many schools that are affiliated with churches, but not integrated auxiliaries thereof, may lose their access to exempt insurance.
Is this a very narrow definition of “religious employer,” or one that is used commonly by the federal government?
This definition is extremely narrow compared to other federal laws providing for conscience exemptions. The 40-year-old bipartisan standard established throughout federal law, including in health and insurance coverage of items such as contraception, is to exempt any person or group with moral or religious objections. The Religious Freedom Restoration Act in particular requires the federal government to exempt any religious objector from rules such as this Mandate. The administration has instead constrained religious freedom by using a category in tax law that has no relationship to conscience, but instead relates to whether a group files its own 990 tax form. Even within that code section, the administration gerrymandered this rule by selecting subparts (i) and (iii) but not (ii) which includes other nonprofits. The administration apparently selected a category with the smallest possible scope it could find. This is consistent with its view that religious freedom really only inheres in worship and not in the exercise of religion outside a house of worship.
How would the NPRM deal with objections from colleges and other non-profits?
The NPRM proposes to apply the coverage mandate to all non-exempt entities, including religious groups. But for some religious non-profit groups, the NPRM proposes to accomplish this through what it calls an “accommodation.” The accommodation is a complex arrangement designed to create the impression that the religious organization is not involved in giving its employees access to objectionable items such as early abortion pills, while at the same time insisting that the employees will receive those items seamlessly with their employer’s own provision of coverage.
Their employees would still receive objectionable coverage from those groups’ own insurers or plan administrators, and would receive it “automatically,” so that the employees could not opt out of the coverage for themselves or their female family members.
What qualifies an organization for this “accommodation”?
The NPRM applies its accommodation to non-exempt “eligible organizations.” These should not be confused with exempt “religious employers” discussed above. (Exempt religious employers—houses of worship—are not subject to the accommodation scheme.) A non-exempt “eligible organization” is one that meets the following criteria:
The organization opposes providing coverage for some or all of the contraceptive services required to be covered under section 2713 of the PHS Act on account of religious objections.
The organization is organized and operates as a nonprofit entity.
The organization holds itself out as a religious organization.
Again, these “religious organizations” are those that do not fall within the exempt category of houses of worship discussed above.
How does the “accommodation” work for non-exempt “eligible organizations”?
The organization must sign a certification asserting that it meets the above-described criteria, keep the certification in its records “for examination upon request so that regulators, issuers, third party administrators, and plan participants and beneficiaries,” and provide the certification to the insurance issuer(s) and/or its self-insurance plan administrator(s) that the group pays for their ordinary duties.
Under the accommodation, once the religious group’s insurer or administrator receives that certification, the insurer or administrator is required to “automatically” provide the religious group’s employees and plan beneficiaries with insurance covering the objectionable items.
If the religious group uses an insurer, that insurer also becomes the insurer for the objectionable items. The NPRM claims that this insurance plan will be “separate” and will not be charged to the religious group. But it admits that there are up-front costs to the items, and it claims that these costs will be offset by the benefits of the primary insurance that the religious group is paying for (since, it theorizes, fewer childbirths will lead to lower costs).
What about self-insured non-profit religious groups?
If the religious group is self-insured, the NPRM proposes that it be required to use a plan administrator (even if it does not presently have one). When that plan administrator receives the certification it will take on the additional duties of finding an external insurance company to “automatically” issue insurance coverage of objectionable items to the religious group’s employees. The NPRM does not address the privacy implications of releasing employee health information to an insurance company with which the religious group never contracted, for a purpose to which the religious group objects.
The NPRM proposes that the costs of the objectionable items will be offset by rebates that the federal government will offer those insurers in the health “exchanges” otherwise implicated by the Affordable Care Act.
Is the NPRM correct that the “accommodation” does not implicate an objecting entity?
The NPRM imposes what is essentially a moral judgment that the “accommodation” frees objecting entities from culpability for coverage of objectionable items. Entities are not allowed to disagree with this moral judgment set forth by the government. Several factors might lead objecting entities to differ from the government’s moral viewpoint. Under the accommodation, the Affordable Care Act will still be requiring objecting entities with 50 or more full-time employees to provide health insurance coverage, and that coverage will be the trigger for the objectionable items to flow to its employees. The objectionable coverage will come from the same insurers or plan administrators that the religious group is paying. The provision of objectionable coverage will be triggered specifically by the religious group’s mandated delivery of its religious certification to its insurer or plan administrator. For insured entities, the costs of the objectionable items will allegedly be offset by the main plan the objecting entity is buying. For self-insured entities, the NPRM does not fully explain how costs will be offset. Unprecedented burdens and fiduciary duties will fall on insurers and plan administrators with whom religious groups contract, because of that contract. The NPRM does not fully explain how these additional burdens will not eventually be reflected in the ability of religious groups to contract with insurers or administrators in the first place.
What religious freedom allowances does the NPRM provide to other objectors?
None.
Neither an exemption nor a feigned accommodation is provided under the NPRM for: employees of religious non-profit groups who do not want free abortion-pill, contraception, sterilization and counseling coverage for themselves, their spouses or their daughters; non-profit groups that object to abortion-pills or contraception for non-religious reasons; insurance companies or plan administrators that object; religious families that earn a living running a business; or individuals that arrange for their own insurance coverage not through an employer.
Notably, the Affordable Care Act uses secular reasons to refrain from applying this mandate to tens of millions of other Americans, such as because a plan is “grandfathered” from many ACA regulations. Yet the government refuses to exempt most religious objectors.
Is the NPRM still subject to comment?
Yes. The NPRM is not final and the government will accept public comments until April 8, 2013, about any aspect of the proposal. The Alliance Defending Freedom work with The Cardinal Newman Society to prepare a formal comment and other institutions are welcome to join that comment. Individual organizations may also submit their own electronic comments to www.regulations.gov. All comments should reference file code CMS–9968–P.
If I have more questions, whom do I contact?
General questions can be address to Bob Laird at the Cardinal Newman Society’s Catholic High School Honor Roll, (703) 367-0333 x 106 or blaird@CardinalNewmanSociety.org. Specific questions about legal actions should be directed to Matt Bowman at Alliance Defending Freedom, 1-800-835-5233.
https://cardinalnewmansociety.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/04/Issue-Bulletin-Header-845-x-321-px-01.png13383521Matthew Bowmanhttps://cardinalnewmansociety.org/wp-content/uploads/CNS-logo-2C-450-tag2.pngMatthew Bowman2013-02-14 04:47:032021-07-23 14:15:43Questions and Answers About What the Latest HHS Mandate Rule Means for Catholic High Schools
This Issue Brief takes a look at the new34 “Notice of Proposed Rulemaking” issued on February 1, 2013, by the Department of Health and Human Services concerning the federal mandate that health insurance plans, including those provided or arranged by Catholic colleges, must include coverage of early abortion pills, contraception, sterilization, and related education and counseling for women with a reproductive capacity.
What was the government’s intent with the February 1st “Notice of Proposed Rulemaking”?
The Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (“NPRM”)35 sets forth a proposed (not final) structure for public comment on whether or how the government will respect religious objections to its coverage mandate of early abortion pills, contraception, and sterilization. It concerns three categories of entities with objections to the mandate. Generally, these categories are: (1) houses of worship; (2) all other religious non-profits; and (3) all other objectors.
Is this the final rule?
No, it will be finalized by August 1, 2013. The public may submit comments by April 8, 2013.
Who would be exempt from the mandate under the NPRM?
The NPRM proposes that basically only houses of worship would be exempt from the mandate. Exempt entities are called “religious employers,” and these must be either “churches, their integrated auxiliaries, and conventions or associations of churches,” or “the exclusively
religious activities of any religious order.” These categories are narrow and well-established in Internal Revenue Code section 6033(a)(3)(A)(i) and (iii). Most Catholic colleges know that they do not fall into these categories. They should consult with an attorney or tax advisor to review whether or not they qualify.
Is this a change from the existing exemption?
In one respect, the NPRM proposes a change from the existing mandate exemption. Under the existing exemption, houses of worship are still the only entities eligible for an exemption, but in addition those houses of worship must function to inculcate beliefs, and must primarily hire and serve only those of their own faith. The NPRM proposes to remove the latter three requirements from the definition of exempt “religious employers,” but retain the fourth criteria by which the entity must be a house of worship, church, religious order, or the like as listed above. The NPRM insists that this change is a clarification, not a broadening of the exemption. Since houses of worship are still the only entities that qualify for an exemption, the NPRM’s changes “would not expand the universe of employer plans that would qualify for the exemption beyond that which was intended” in the existing rule.
Is this a very narrow definition of “religious employer,” or one that is used commonly by the federal government?
This definition is extremely narrow compared to other federal laws providing for conscience exemptions. The 40-year-old bipartisan standard established throughout federal law, including in health and insurance coverage of items such as contraception, is to exempt any person or group with moral or religious objections. The Religious Freedom Restoration Act in particular requires the federal government to exempt any religious objector from rules such as this Mandate. The administration has instead constrained religious freedom by using a category in tax law that has no relationship to conscience, but instead relates to whether a group files its own 990 tax form. Even within that code section, the administration gerrymandered this rule by selecting subparts (i) and (iii) but not (ii) which includes other nonprofits. The administration apparently selected a category with the smallest possible scope it could find. This is consistent with its view that religious freedom really only inheres in worship and not in the exercise of religion outside a house of worship.
How would the NPRM deal with objections from colleges and other non-profits?
The NPRM proposes to apply the coverage mandate to all non-exempt entities, including religious groups. But for some religious non-profit groups, the NPRM proposes to accomplish this through what it calls an “accommodation.” The accommodation is a complex arrangement designed to create the impression that the religious organization is not involved in giving its employees access to objectionable items such as early abortion pills, while at the same time insisting that the employees will receive those items seamlessly with their employer’s own provision of coverage.
Their employees would still receive objectionable coverage from those groups’ own insurers or plan administrators, and would receive it “automatically,” so that the employees could not opt out of the coverage for themselves or their female family members.
What qualifies an organization for this “accommodation”?
The NPRM applies its accommodation to non-exempt “eligible organizations.” These should not be confused with exempt “religious employers” discussed above. (Exempt religious employers—houses of worship—are not subject to the accommodation scheme.) A non-exempt “eligible organization” is one that meets the following criteria:
The organization opposes providing coverage for some or all of the contraceptive services required to be covered under section 2713 of the PHS Act on account of religious objections.
The organization is organized and operates as a nonprofit entity.
The organization holds itself out as a religious organization.
Again, these “religious organizations” are those that do not fall within the exempt category of houses of worship discussed above.
How does the “accommodation” work for non-exempt “eligible organizations”?
The organization must sign a certification asserting that it meets the above-described criteria, keep the certification in its records “for examination upon request so that regulators, issuers, third party administrators, and plan participants and beneficiaries,” and provide the certification to the insurance issuer(s) and/or its self-insurance plan administrator(s) that the group pays for their ordinary duties.
Under the accommodation, once the religious group’s insurer or administrator receives that certification, the insurer or administrator is required to “automatically” provide the religious group’s employees and plan beneficiaries with insurance covering the objectionable items.
If the religious group uses an insurer, that insurer also becomes the insurer for the objectionable items. The NPRM claims that this insurance plan will be “separate” and will not be charged to the religious group. But it admits that there are up-front costs to the items, and it claims that these costs will be offset by the benefits of the primary insurance that the religious group is paying for (since, it theorizes, fewer childbirths will lead to lower costs).
What about self-insured non-profit religious groups?
If the religious group is self-insured, the NPRM proposes that it be required to use a plan administrator (even if it does not presently have one). When that plan administrator receives the certification it will take on the additional duties of finding an external insurance company to “automatically” issue insurance coverage of objectionable items to the religious group’s employees. The NPRM does not address the privacy implications of releasing employee health information to an insurance company with which the religious group never contracted, for a purpose to which the religious group objects.
The NPRM proposes that the costs of the objectionable items will be offset by rebates that the federal government will offer those insurers in the health “exchanges” otherwise implicated by the Affordable Care Act.
Is the NPRM correct that the “accommodation” does not implicate an objecting entity?
The NPRM imposes what is essentially a moral judgment that the “accommodation” frees objecting entities from culpability for coverage of objectionable items. Entities are not allowed to disagree with this moral judgment set forth by the government. Several factors might lead objecting entities to differ from the government’s moral viewpoint. Under the accommodation, the Affordable Care Act will still be requiring objecting entities with 50 or more full-time employees to provide health insurance coverage, and that coverage will be the trigger for the objectionable items to flow to its employees. The objectionable coverage will come from the same insurers or plan administrators that the religious group is paying. The provision of objectionable coverage will be triggered specifically by the religious group’s mandated delivery of its religious certification to its insurer or plan administrator. For insured entities, the costs of the objectionable items will allegedly be offset by the main plan the objecting entity is buying. For self-insured entities, the NPRM does not fully explain how costs will be offset. Unprecedented burdens and fiduciary duties will fall on insurers and plan administrators with whom religious groups contract, because of that contract. The NPRM does not fully explain how these additional burdens will not eventually be reflected in the ability of religious groups to contract with insurers or administrators in the first place.
What religious freedom allowances does the NPRM provide to other objectors?
None.
Neither an exemption nor a feigned accommodation is provided under the NPRM for: employees of religious non-profit groups who do not want free abortion-pill, contraception, sterilization and counseling coverage for themselves, their spouses or their daughters; non-profit groups that object to abortion-pills or contraception for non-religious reasons; insurance companies or plan administrators that object; religious families that earn a living running a business; or individuals that arrange for their own insurance coverage not through an employer.
Notably, the Affordable Care Act uses secular reasons to refrain from applying this mandate to tens of millions of other Americans, such as because a plan is “grandfathered” from many ACA regulations. Yet the government refuses to exempt most religious objectors.
How does the NPRM treat student health plans?
Student health plans that are arranged by “eligible organizations” are subject to the same “accommodation” that applies to employee health plans established by such organizations.
Is the NPRM still subject to comment?
Yes. The NPRM is not final and the government will accept public comments until April 8, 2013, about any aspect of the proposal. The Alliance Defending Freedom work with The Cardinal Newman Society to prepare a formal comment and other institutions are welcome to join that comment. Individual organizations may also submit their own electronic comments to www.regulations.gov. All comments should reference file code CMS–9968–P.
If I have more questions, whom do I contact?
General questions can be address to Bob Laird at the Cardinal Newman Society’s Center for the Advancement of Catholic Higher Education, (703) 367-0333 x 106 or blaird@CardinalNewmanSociety.org. Specific questions about legal actions should be directed to Matt Bowman at Alliance Defending Freedom, 1-800-835-5233.
https://cardinalnewmansociety.org/wp-content/uploads/Issue-Brief-Web-Header-845-x-321-px-01.png13383521Matthew Bowmanhttps://cardinalnewmansociety.org/wp-content/uploads/CNS-logo-2C-450-tag2.pngMatthew Bowman2013-02-14 04:40:062021-07-23 14:18:51Questions and Answers About What the Latest HHS Mandate Rule Means for Catholic Colleges
Across the universe of American higher education, increasing attention is being given to the weakening of general education standards. This study examines the general education requirements at Catholic colleges and universities. It compares the general education programs at 184 Catholic colleges and universities to all other American colleges and universities, to see if the Catholic colleges are more comprehensive (that is, devote a larger share of the curriculum to general education) and more coherent (that is, provide their students with a fairly well identified set of courses that provide a unified vision of the body of knowledge that the institution believes that all educated citizens should be familiar with). The study determines that Catholic colleges as a whole are more comprehensive and slightly more coherent than colleges and universities overall. Next, the study examines whether those colleges and universities included in the Newman Guide to Choosing a Catholic College differ substantially from the other Catholic colleges. The Newman Guide schools are, indeed, significantly more comprehensive and coherent than the other Catholic colleges and universities. Finally, the distinctive role of theology and philosophy in a Catholic education was examined. Catholic colleges and universities retain, to varying degrees, their commitment to the study of philosophy and theology, which serve as integrative disciplines within the curriculum. A surprising finding, however, was the extent to which the non-Newman Guide Catholic colleges and universities allow students to fulfill their theology requirements without actually studying Catholic theology.
General Education at Catholic Colleges and Universities
Pope Benedict XVI, in his 2008 address to U.S. Catholic educators, reminded them of the high calling of a university in the overall economy of salvation:
Set against personal struggles, moral confusion and fragmentation of knowledge, the noble goals of scholarship and education, founded on the unity of truth and in service of the person and the community, become an especially powerful instrument of hope.35
Throughout history and even today, in addition to supporting the intrinsic benefits of education for human development, the university plays a critical role in preparing students for successful careers. Universities have consistently struggled to balance the educational goals of pursuit of truth and moral development with the more instrumental goals of career preparation and skill development.36
In most American colleges and universities today, it is in the pursuit of a major field of study that students focus on developing the career-related skills and knowledge that they will take with them into the world. The more intrinsic benefits of higher education, such as those described by Pope Benedict, are emphasized and developed in the general education program which commonly precedes specialization.
A general education program attempts to provide an overview of the fundamental areas of human knowledge found in the traditional liberal arts. The curriculum may further aim at integration of knowledge by requiring interdisciplinary courses or otherwise encouraging interdisciplinary approaches to human problems. A well-designed general education curriculum will teach students to comprehend knowledge according to its proper order and in relation to other knowledge, developing what Blessed John Henry Newman called a “philosophical habit” of mind.
Historically, the means by which the American university (religious or secular) fulfilled its mission and oriented the student toward the unity of truth was through a core curriculum which gave all students in the university a common, integrated liberal arts education. In a core curriculum, particular courses are required of all students, or at least a broad set of students (for instance, enrolled in a certain school within a university). The university determines that every student should, at a minimum, have studied particular facts, concepts, themes, authors, literature, etc., while attaining an introductory or intermediate level of skill or knowledge in the disciplines of the liberal arts. A Catholic university, for instance, might expect students to graduate with a common foundation in Catholic theology and Western philosophy, literature, and history by studying particular texts, authors, leaders, etc. The prescribed core ensures that all students share a common education and can dialogue on common themes, resting on the university’s judgment about the importance of certain subject matter. Moreover, the courses in a well-designed core are highly integrated to illustrate the unity of truth across disciplines.
In 1884 the landscape of American higher education was changed forever, when Harvard University discarded its core and introduced an elective system at the heart of its curriculum.37 The unified set of courses that made up the core curriculum was replaced by a series of “distribution” requirements for graduation. The distribution model allows students to choose among many courses introducing them to a variety of disciplines and methods of inquiry, with less emphasis on the integration of knowledge across disciplines. The topics of the courses are varied; there is little or no effort to promote the study of common texts or topics. Whereas the core curriculum emphasizes a shared body of knowledge and a common basis for dialogue—in the United States, typically requiring students to contemplate classical works and the ideas that shaped Western civilization and Christianity—the distribution model often encourages a student’s encounter with a variety of perspectives and arguments, independent of a university’s judgment about the value of particular subject matter.
This elective, distribution system of general education rapidly overtook the more traditional core model in the late 19th and early 20th centuries. While Catholic colleges and universities held to a core model longer than most other types of universities, by the 1960s most of the Catholic institutions of higher education had joined the mainstream movement away from a unified core curriculum to a distribution, elective-based model. Unlike their secular counterparts, however, most Catholic colleges and universities retained vestiges of a unified, integrative curricular expression through their requirements that all students study philosophy and Catholic theology, ensuring that students recognize unifying themes and consider the great human questions when studying other disciplines.
This study will examine the ways in which contemporary Catholic colleges and universities approach the question of general education. If it is true that, as Blessed Newman implies, it is through the integration of the specialized branches of knowledge that a student “apprehends the great outlines of knowledge, the principles on which it rests, the scale of its parts, its lights and its shades, its great points and its little, as he otherwise cannot apprehend them,” and that this represents “the special fruit of the education furnished at a University,” the state of general education is of paramount importance for all who are interested in Catholic higher education.38
This study confirms that Catholic colleges and universities today, by and large, remain committed to general education requirements, distinguishing Catholic institutions from their counterparts with generally weaker standards. But most Catholic educators have embraced the distribution model of electives, abandoning the traditional core curriculum. Some remnant of a distinctive role for philosophy and religious studies remains in place at most Catholic institutions, although there is evidence of a declining emphasis on Catholic theology.
General Education in American Higher Education
Even in the secular universities, increasing attention is being given to the disappearance of core curricula, the weakening of general education standards, and the need for attention to liberal arts education for undergraduates. With the rise of the research university, with its hyper-specialization and concomitant growth of faculty allegiance to their specialties, there has been an overall de-emphasis on undergraduate general education, and in particular declining interest in curricular integration. A National Association of Scholars (NAS) study in 1996 documented the diminishing role of general education in the undergraduate experience.39 This study demonstrates that not only has the distribution model of general education achieved near-total hegemony in the American higher education system, but also that the proportion of the overall curriculum devoted to any form of general education has been steadily shrinking over the course of the 20th century. In 1914, the average student devoted about 55 percent of the credits needed for graduation to general education requirements; by 1993, this was down to 33 percent.
More recently, the Association of American Colleges and Universities (AACU) commissioned a study to analyze trends in this area, and this study reinforced the picture of a profound movement away from the concept of an integrative curriculum to a highly specialized, even fragmented, educational experience.40 The AACU study confirmed the reduced portion of the curriculum that is devoted to general education. Only 6 percent of the respondents indicated that half or more of the credits needed for graduation are devoted to general education; more than 25 percent of the respondents indicated that a third or less were so devoted. In most of these institutions, several of these requirements can be fulfilled in the course of pursuing a major, so there are even fewer credit hours that are specifically devoted to general learning, rather than the specialized education that makes up the major field of study.
The vast majority of institutions (80 percent) follow a distribution model of general education, in which students select courses from various categories to fulfill the general education requirements. While most of these colleges provide some guidance to students with regard to specific courses or common experiences, the fundamental model is a choice-based approach to general education, with the emphasis on exposure to different fields of study rather than engagement with specific intellectual content.
One could conclude, then, that over time general education in America has become both less comprehensive (that is, less a significant and robust part of the overall educational experience) and less coherent (that is, less a unified and common set of courses designed to present an integrated approach to knowledge).
This report seeks to evaluate how the overall trends in American higher education are reflected in Catholic colleges and universities. The general education programs at Catholic colleges and universities have been examined and categorized with respect to their coherence and comprehensiveness. Since a distinctive attribute of Catholic core curricula has traditionally been a strong emphasis on theology and philosophy, this study also considers the role these disciplines currently play in the general education programs at Catholic institutions of higher education. Finally, this study examines the correlation between the structure of the general education program and the Catholic identity of the institution.
The general education programs at 184 Catholic, four-year, co-educational colleges and universities in the United States were examined. While there are 251 institutions of higher education recognized by the Association of Catholic Colleges and Universities, many of those are not relevant to this study. Excluded are exclusively graduate-level institutions, two-year colleges, seminaries, conservatories, and specialized health-care institutions. Two colleges were eliminated because of insufficient information regarding their general education programs.
Data was collected online from college catalogs. The information was drawn from the catalog that included the Fall 2009 semester. The content of required theology courses was drawn from the information available online in August 2012.
Comprehensiveness of General Education at Catholic Colleges and Universities
The comprehensiveness of general education programs was determined simply by the overall number of credit hours required. The incredible complexity of many of today’s general education programs made even this classification difficult, so several methodological definitions and decisions were required. General education was defined as required courses that all students had to pass in order to graduate. If, as was the case in some large universities, there were different general education programs for different degrees (i.e., general education for the school of nursing, the school of business, etc.), the classification was based on the “college of arts and sciences” or equivalent degree program.
These general education requirements could be specific courses (all students must pass English 101, for example), distribution requirements (all students must take an English course), or an evaluated competency (all students must either pass English 101 or score an 85 percent or higher on the freshman writing exam). Competency requirements were only counted as part of general education if they substituted for required coursework (so, for example, some colleges require students to demonstrate computer skills, but that was not counted toward general education, because no computer literacy class is required if they do not pass the test). In most cases, courses taken to fulfill general education requirements may also count for major requirements (so American history might be a requirement for general education, but it could also count toward courses needed for a history major). A few colleges do not allow any course taken in a student’s major field to count for general education, which has the effect of increasing the number of general education requirements; however, it was impossible to account for this given the wide variation in student majors.
The very nature of most general education systems, with their wide array of choices and possible substitutions, made it difficult to make uniform determinations of exactly how many credit hours were required to complete the program. Within institutions there can be variation from student to student. For example, many institutions require language to a third semester competency; some students need to take any language courses, while others take nine to 12 hours of language instruction.
It seemed best to classify programs in fairly broad ranges, rather than attempt a precise ranking based on a specific calculation of credit hours. Therefore, those institutions which require, on average, 55 credit hours or more of general education (almost half of the credit hours required for a degree and the average amount of general education required 100 years ago) were classified as having a high level of comprehensiveness. Those which require from 45 to 54 hours (more than a third, but less than half, and generally above the median 46.4 hours reported in the AACU survey) were classified as medium, while those which require 44 hours or fewer (roughly one third or less of the required credit hours) were classified as low.
While it is impossible to make direct comparisons with the studies done either for the NAS or the AACU, because the methodology was different, it is possible to draw some general conclusions. Catholic colleges and universities tend to devote more of their curriculum to general education than is normal in U.S. higher education (see Figure 1). As noted above, about half of the colleges in the AACU survey would fall into the low range in this classification, but at Catholic institutions, 76 percent fall into the medium or high ranges of general education comprehensiveness, indicating a distinctive commitment to general education requirements in Catholic higher education.
FIGURE 1
Coherence of General Education at Catholic Colleges and Universities
How coherent are the general education programs at Catholic colleges and universities? General education programs were classified based on the proportion of general education credit hours that were elective (that is, a course chosen from a list of options) and what proportion were required.
In some cases, a small range of choice was allowed, such that the college or university retained significant direction over what the student learns. Most institutions allow students to choose which language they will study for their foreign language requirement. Most institutions will place students into the appropriate mathematics course based on their proficiency. And, in some cases, students might choose between British and American literature to fulfill a literature requirement. In situations like these, where the choice is either skill-dependent or limited to three or fewer options, this study classifies the credits as “required” even though there is some element of choice.41
Once again, institutions were placed within ranges. Those which require particular courses for more than half the total general education curriculum were considered to have high coherence; those between one third and one half were considered medium; and those below one-third were considered low.
The results show that Catholic colleges and universities, much like their non-Catholic peers, have largely abandoned a strongly coherent core curriculum (see Figure 2 below). Eighteen percent of the Catholic institutions assign half or more of their general education courses. Only 44 percent require as much as one-third of the courses that comprise the general education curriculum.
FIGURE 2
Thus, while Catholic colleges and universities generally remain distinctive with regard to the comprehensiveness of their general education programs, they, like their non-Catholic counterparts, have embraced curricular choice as the dominant mode of delivering general education. Many today lack a coherent vision of the subjects and knowledge that should be commonly learned by all students.
Influence of Strong Catholic Identity
Given the wide range of commitment to Catholic identity in Catholic higher education and the historical correlation between Catholic colleges and a strong core curriculum, it seems appropriate to analyze whether there are significant differences among Catholic institutions. This study looks specifically at the 19 Catholic colleges and universities which were included in the online edition of TheNewman Guide to Choosing a Catholic College as of the fall of 200942, which identifies colleges that “give priority to their Catholic identity and actively practice it.”
Although the Newman Guide colleges vary considerably from one another (some are extremely small and dedicated solely to the liberal arts, while others are much larger and have a wide variety of academic programs), as a group they are clearly distinctive when compared with the overall universe of Catholic higher education. Not only do they demonstrate strong Catholic identity, but their general education programs are significantly more comprehensive (see Figure 3 below).
FIGURE 3
None of the Newman Guide colleges falls into the low category for comprehensiveness of general education, whereas 78 percent fall into the high category. Nearly the same percentage of other Catholic colleges and universities are in the medium or low category. The green “all” bar is included as a reminder of how the entire group, both Newman Guide and other Catholic institutions, is categorized.
Similarly, the Newman Guide colleges show strong coherence in their general education requirements, compared to other Catholic institutions (see Figure 4 below). Sixty-eight percent of the Newman Guide institutions fall into the high category on the coherence scale, whereas 87percent of the other Catholic colleges and universities are in the medium and low categories.
FIGURE 4
Philosophy and Theology in General Education
Most Catholic colleges and universities require students to take some philosophy and theology courses. As Alisdair MacIntyre has pointed out, this distinctive attribute of Catholic institutions reflects their commitment to helping students integrate knowledge and bring the tools of faith and reason to bear upon the fundamental questions they encounter in other disciplines, and so refine their capacity for sound judgment43.
Likewise Blessed John Paul II, in the apostolic constitution Ex corde Ecclesiae, indicated that philosophy and theology have a special role in providing the unifying framework for the pursuit of truth that should mark the Catholic university:
Aided by the specific contributions of philosophy and theology, university scholars will be engaged in a constant effort to determine the relative place and meaning of each of the various disciplines within the context of a vision of the human person and the world that is enlightened by the Gospel, and therefore by a faith in Christ, the Logos, as the centre of creation and of human history44.
Thus, it is appropriate that these disciplines play a special and significant role in the curriculum of a Catholic college or university. While the amount of philosophy and theology required varies significantly, from one course per semester in each discipline over four years to just one course total in either discipline45, 75 percent of Catholic colleges and universities require at least three courses in some combination of these two disciplines.
However, the size of the philosophy and theology requirement does not tell the whole picture. The integrative function that theology plays in the traditional conception of the Catholic university is that it gives students the opportunity to examine all of their learning in the light of the truths of the Catholic faith. For that to happen, obviously, the theology requirement would have to offer students those truths—that is, students would have to study genuine Catholic theology.
To be clear, it is not the purpose of this study to judge the quality or faithfulness of theology courses. But the descriptions of courses permitted to satisfy the theology requirements of general education programs at Catholic institutions were examined to determine if they were Catholic theology at all, by their own definition. In other words, if the description stated that the course covered Catholic (or, in fact, any Christian) theology, no further investigation into the content or approach of the course was carried out.
Also, the general education requirements were examined to ensure that theology courses are in fact required. At almost every Catholic institution, students can study Catholic theology if they wish. The question being considered is whether they are required to do so. A requirement which could be satisfied by taking a course that is not Catholic theology, even if Catholic theology courses would also be accepted, has not been labeled a Catholic theology requirement.
According to these criteria, in 54 percent of the Catholic colleges and universities studied, the “theology” requirement could be satisfied without actually studying Catholic theology. In a few of these institutions, there is no theology requirement at all. Students may be required to take courses in either philosophy or theology, and so the requirement can be fulfilled entirely with philosophy courses. Often the theology requirement is actually a “religious studies” requirement; religious studies is an academic discipline which focuses on the study of religion as a social phenomenon, but without any basis in a particular faith. Or students may be permitted to study comparative religions or the theology of non-Christian faiths such as Hinduism or Buddhism.
The pervasiveness of the theology requirement, then, does not necessarily coincide with a commitment to ensure that all students are instructed in the truths of the Catholic faith.
Moreover, this area reveals the sharpest divergence between the Newman Guide institutions and other Catholic colleges and universities (see Figure 5 below). While all of the Newman Guide schools require Catholic theology, 61 percent of other Catholic institutions do not.
FIGURE 5
Conclusion
This study shows that Catholic colleges and universities remain somewhat distinctive within the universe of American colleges and universities, with significantly more comprehensive general education programs. But many Catholic institutions have followed their non-Catholic counterparts by embracing a distribution approach to general education and eliminating common core requirements.
Catholic colleges and universities retain, to varying degrees, their commitment to the study of philosophy and theology, which serve as integrative disciplines within the curriculum. A surprising finding, however, was the extent to which Catholic colleges and universities allow students to fulfill their theology requirements without studying Catholic theology.
A closer look revealed that those Catholic institutions that most clearly and pervasively embraced their Catholic identity (specifically, those that were identified in the online edition of The Cardinal Newman Society’s Newman Guide to Choosing a Catholic College as of fall 2009) are much more likely to provide their students with a comprehensive, coherent general education program with a significant emphasis on philosophy and theology as integrative disciplines, and a definite requirement that students study Catholic theology.
https://cardinalnewmansociety.org/wp-content/uploads/Center-for-the-Study-of-Catholic-Higher-Education-845-x-321-px.png13383521Kimberly Shankmanhttps://cardinalnewmansociety.org/wp-content/uploads/CNS-logo-2C-450-tag2.pngKimberly Shankman2012-10-02 20:54:002020-05-19 11:44:26General Education at Catholic Colleges and Universities
The problems of binge drinking and the hook up culture are well-known, widespread, and detrimental to the educational mission of any university. Moreover, these behaviors should especially concern Catholic universities, which seek to develop the whole person—socially, morally, and spiritually.
Every Catholic university, as a university, is an academic community which, in a rigorous and critical fashion, assists in the protections and advancement of human dignity.… Students are challenged…to continue the search for truth and for meaning throughout their lives, since “the human spirit must be cultivated in such a way that there results a growth in its ability to wonder, to understand, to contemplate, to make personal judgments, and to develop a religious, moral, and social sense” (c.f., Gaudium et Spes, 59).46
Beyond the classroom, Catholic universities have a pastoral concern for student development:
Pastoral ministry is that activity of the University which offers the members of the university community an opportunity to integrate religious and moral principles with their academic study and non-academic activities, thus integrating faith with life…. Pastoral ministry is an indispensable means by which Catholic students can, in fulfillment of their baptism, be prepared for active participation in the life of the Church; it can assist in developing and nurturing the value of marriage and family life, fostering vocations to the priesthood and religious life, stimulating the Christian commitment of the laity and imbuing every activity with the spirit of the Gospel.47
Moral development in the Catholic intellectual tradition is linked to true human happiness. But what is happiness, and how can we find it? The answers to these questions provide the proper intellectual context for considering the common practices on America’s Catholic campuses.
Choosing True Happiness
Drawing on the work of Saint Thomas Aquinas, Jesuit Father Robert J. Spitzer identifies four levels of happiness in his book, Healing the Culture.48 Level one happiness is bodily pleasure obtained by drink, food, drugs, or sex. Level two happiness has to do with competitive advantage in terms of money, fame, power, popularity, or other material goods. Level three happiness involves loving and serving other people. And level four happiness is found in loving and serving God. Although we may desire each level of happiness, not every level provides equal and lasting contentment. The key to Spitzer’s work is the desire or need to move up the “happiness ladder,” at least to the point of moving from level two to levels three and four.
In life, we are often faced with a choice between one level of happiness or another. For example, the Olympic athlete chooses success in athletics (level two) over pleasures of the body (level one), which might be found in abusing drugs or alcohol.
One can attain more level one happiness by sleeping late on Monday morning, but would sacrifice level two happiness by not be able to earn money at work. On the other hand, one could gain more of a level two happiness by cheating others out of their money, but would be sacrificing a level three happiness by unfairly using them rather than helping them. Since daily living often requires a choice of one activity over another, practical wisdom is the virtue that enables one to make decisions which will lead to true happiness.
The first and lowest level of happiness — pleasures of the senses — has several advantages. It is based on our animal instincts. It arrives quickly, can be intense, and can leave almost as fast as it arrives. Additionally, we build a tolerance to activities that bring us this level of happiness requiring more to achieve the same degree of pleasure. Such pleasures can lead to addictions; and to the addict, enslavement in the pleasure is opposed to true level one happiness. This superficial happiness is easy to attain, but our own human instinct provides us with a desire for something more meaningful and important in life.
The next level of happiness provides greater meaning and significance than the first. It involves a desire for success—not just keeping up with the Joneses, but surpassing them in money, fame, popularity or status. We celebrate such achievements as a culture: the valedictorian, the star athlete, the millionaire. But such success can lead to a superficial happiness related to the degree of success. Personal success can quickly lead to a satisfaction at this level with no desire to move past the ego.
There is nothing inherently wrong with worldly success (level two) or with bodily pleasures (level one). Rather, when these become the ultimate goals of life, they trump the higher levels. Happiness, Aristotle taught, is activity in accordance with virtue. In order for us to be objectively happy, we need to engage in activities that accord with virtue, especially the virtue of love. As C. S. Lewis said, “Love is not affectionate feeling, but a steady wish for the loved person’s ultimate good as far as it can be obtained.”49 Without seeking higher levels of happiness, even if we subjectively feel good (for a while), we are missing out on objectively being happy.
The two great commandments given by Jesus: “You shall love the Lord, your God, with all your heart, with all your soul, and with all your mind…. You shall love your neighbor as yourself” (Mt 22:37,39), point to the two higher levels of happiness. If we truly love God, we will also love people, for they are made in His image and likeness. We cannot truly love God without also loving our neighbor. Indeed, the teachings of Jesus point us toward higher levels of happiness by guiding us toward this love: “A new commandment I give to you, love one another as I have loved you” (Jn 13:34). Levels three and four happiness seek what is truly good, true human flourishing and happiness.
Commenting on Aristotle, who argued that human happiness necessarily involves friendship, St. Thomas Aquinas added that we can be friends not only with other human beings, but also with God.50 Psychological research confirms this ancient wisdom. The happiest people have meaningful work that serves others acting in accordance with virtue; and have strong, loving relationships with their family, friends, and God.51 On average, people who practice their faith report greater happiness than those who do not. Practice of common religious teachings, such as practicing thanksgiving and forgiving those who trespass against us, bolster well-being and strengthen relationships — leading to greater happiness.52
It is in this context that we can better understand the ethical problem of binge drinking and the hook up culture. Both seek satisfaction at level one or two happiness in such a way as to undermine level three and level four happiness. Students can foster level three and four happiness not simply in volunteer projects but also in the classroom; but by developing their minds, students become better prepared to make a positive contribution to the well-being of others and to society. On the other hand, excessive use of alcohol hampers intellectual excellence, because students who binge drink are more likely to miss class, fall behind in schoolwork, and have health problems that interfere with academics.53 Binge drinking is the leading cause of death in young adults and leads to hundreds of fatal injuries each year and more than 1,399 unintentional, alcohol-related fatal injuries among college students in 1998 alone.54 Alcohol abuse leads to student health problems,55 including suicide.56
Although there is widespread acknowledgement that binge drinking undermines the academic and ethical mission of universities, it is less recognized that the hook up culture also hinders achieving that mission. The hook up culture hampers intellectual excellence in numerous ways. Sexual promiscuity is related to depression and lack of focus on academics as well as the distractions of pregnancy and pregnancy scares. Sexual promiscuity increases the likelihood of contracting sexually transmitted infections, endangers health, and distracts from an academic focus. Anne Hendershott notes that women are particularly at risk:
Nearly all of these studies suggest that women are at substantially more risk than men for feeling upset about the experience of engaging in casual sex. Glenn and Marquardt (2001) found that many women felt hurt after hooking up and confused about their future relations with the men with whom they hooked up with. Bisson and Levine found that it may be the combination of mismatched expectations and the lack of communication about the meaning of the encounter that leads to negative outcomes for some students. Research by Paul and Hayes (2002) found that for some of these relationships, it could be that the situations were unwanted or forced. When women feel pressured to engage in a casual sexual relationship, or if there is alcohol involved, there are more likely to be negative outcomes. One research team (Grello, 2006) found that students’ feelings of regret after hooking up were related to more depressive symptoms.57
In addition to academic growth, most Catholic universities also aim to foster the ethical development of students so that they are men and women for others with a sense of human solidarity. Binge drinking inhibits this development with an egocentric focus toward self, not exocentric toward service for others. In the Catholic intellectual tradition, both hooking up and binge drinking are serious sins, undermining love for God and neighbor. In their article, “College Students and Problematic Drinking: A Review of the Literature,” Lindsay S. Ham and Debra A. Hope highlight numerous findings that point to the negative effects of excessive drinking.58
Binge drinkers are more likely to commit crimes related to sexual assault and vandalism.
Binge drinkers are 25 times more likely to commit acts that they later regret, e.g., engage in sexual activity that is unplanned and/or unprotected; and get in trouble with law enforcement (Wechsler et al, 2002).
Binge drinkers negatively affect many other students who are subject to interrupted sleep, “baby-sitting” drunken students, insults, humiliation, unwanted sexual advances, assault, and rape (Hingson et al, 2002).
The hook up culture inhibits ethical development through a focus on private indulgence of using other people for pleasure, rather than on loving, committed relationships. Using other people for sexual pleasure, and then discarding them, is seriously damaging to level three and level four happiness. The hook up culture even impinges upon other students who choose not to hook up, especially roommates who get “sexiled” from their own dorm room to facilitate such activities.
The ramifications of unhealthy behaviors in both drinking and sex go beyond the physical, psychological, and social damage to the individuals partaking in the activities. They affect the entire campus community by undermining the reputation of the institution, damaging the relationship to the local community, increasing the operating costs of the institution, lowering the academic quality of the university, and diminishing the institution’s ability to attract and retain excellent students and faculty.59
While there is no perfect solution to these problems, meaningful and significant reductions of the extent of both are possible. Let us examine first educational strategies and then institutional strategies for dealing with both problems.
Educational Strategies
The first six weeks of the college experience are extremely important in establishing a student’s habits and identity. “The first six weeks of enrollment are critical to first-year student success. Because many students initiate heavy drinking during these early days of college, the potential exists for excessive alcohol consumption to interfere with successful adaptation to campus life.”60 Habits take root and patterns of behavior become established during this crucial period. Prior to arriving at college, high school students become socialized about what to expect through movies that depict university life as primarily revolving around wild parties and only marginally about academic or social development. These media depictions feed into what social psychologists call “pluralistic ignorance,” in which a majority falsely assumes that everyone else accepts a particular social norm. Students, especially first-year students, believe that college students binge drink and hook up much more than they actually do.61
Since students, especially first-year students, deeply desire to fit in socially, they look to social norms to define acceptable behavior. Studies have shown that the drive to “fit in” can motivate even more powerfully than the fear of potential risks and dangers.62 “We may be willing to give up our vices and cultivate new virtues if we believe that it will more firmly secure us a spot in our most cherished tribe.”63 These students, looking to fit in, drink and hook up to satisfy this misperceived social expectation about what is normal, acceptable, and typical. Often, students behave in ways that are contrary to what they actually want because of these (often inaccurate) social expectations.64 In the words of one study,
Male and female residents overestimated the alcohol use behavior and related attitudes among their floor mates. Results also showed that perceived norms were strongly related to individual drinking behaviors and permissive attitudes toward drinking. Moreover, feelings of connectedness to one’s residence hall were found to moderate this relationship. These findings identify a salient reference group to target in initiatives aimed at utilizing normative feedback to reduce alcohol-related risk in the first year of college.65
Among other causes, pluralistic ignorance drives excessive drinking and hook up culture.
Pre-arrival education
In order to combat pluralistic ignorance as well as inform students of the dangers of binge drinking, educational efforts could be made before the students arrive on campus. In tours of campus, student campus guides should be clear and consistent about university policy so that prospective students are made aware that this college is not a “party school.” This initial clarity may deter at least some students who are seeking an “animal house” experience rather than an academic experience from enrolling. The fewer such students who enroll, the better for the campus climate.
All incoming students might be required to take an online course that educates them about the dangerous effects of alcohol and drug abuse and combats widespread misperceptions about alcohol abuse on campus. One such course, “AlcoholEdu” is a web-based 2-3 hour alcohol abuse prevention program used at more than 500 universities nationwide.66 Independent research indicates that the program is successful in reducing:
alcohol problems in general and problems in the physiological, social, and victimization domains during the fall semester immediately after completion of the course. … AlcoholEdu for College appears to have beneficial short-term effects on victimization and the most common types of alcohol-related problems among freshmen. Universities may benefit the most by mandating AlcoholEdu for College for all incoming freshmen and by implementing this online course along with environmental prevention strategies.67
Similar online programs can be instituted to educate students about the dangers of sexual promiscuity as well as to dispel the myth that “everyone is hooking up.”
Once students arrive on campus, the educational efforts could be reinforced, especially for those most at risk: freshmen, athletes, and Greek system members. Posters can be put up in every dorm which advertise important facts about drinking in order to combat pluralistic ignorance. Pre-arrival surveys can be conducted on students. Once data has been collected and tabulated, internal marketing activity can stress for example, “89% of students at [your school] drink less than 3 times a week.” Ideally, the information should be quite specific, even broken down by dorms: “92% of women in [specific dorm name here] drink twice a week or less.” “77% of [specific dorm] men drink 6 or fewer drinks a week.” “81% of [specific dorm] women drink 4 or less drinks when they drink.” For further examples of such posters, see the link below.68
Education in chastity
In order to educate students about the dangers of the hook up culture, the Love and Fidelity Network developed poster campaigns to educate in chastity.69
The approach of the Love and Fidelity Network, which richly emphasizes the dangers of the hook up culture, can be supplemented with efforts to combat pluralistic ignorance. Mark Regnerus and Jeremy Uecker’s book Premarital Sex in America: How Young Americans Meet, Mate, and Think about Marrying (Oxford University Press, 2011) dispels numerous myths, that when believed, can prompt students into actions they would be less inclined to do. Rather than making informed decisions, students often act out of ignorance and mythical beliefs.
Many students believe the myth that everyone else in college is having sex and hooking up on a regular basis. In fact, one quarter of college students are virgins. Indeed, most college students are not in a sexual relationship, nor are they hooking up regularly. In fact, only one hookup per year is average for college students. Many students believe, “Only losers don’t have premarital sex.” In fact, those in college are more likely to abstain than those not in college. College virgins “tend to be a self-confident and accomplished lot.”70
It is also a myth that students who choose to abstain lack sexual desire or are less physically attractive than other students. Indeed, in comparison with those who never attended college, college students and college graduates have fewer sexual partners. Many students believe is that sex is needed in order to start a long-term relationship. In fact, Regnerus and Uecker point out, “[Just] 8 percent of both men and women reported having had sex first—before sensing romance—in at least one of their two most important relationships so far. [So] 92 percent of young adults said that nurturing romance and love…before sex. It is difficult to make it work the other way around.”71 Properly informed students are better able to make choices condusive to their health and happiness if they have such information.
During freshman orientation, persuasive speakers (ideally other students or recent graduates) can explicitly address binge drinking and the hook up culture. These speakers could address the issue making use of contemporary research about the possible negative consequences of unhealthy choices as well as addressing the pluralistic ignorance that abounds on both issues. They should also discuss the university’s policy for reducing such behavior and correcting student misbehavior. During the course of the year, these themes could be emphasized by other invited speakers sponsored by student life, campus ministry. Ideally, student groups like FOCUS or the Love and Fidelity Network can sponsor events and speakers.72
When suitable, faculty in appropriate classes can be encouraged to present information on the detrimental nature of binge drinking and casual sexual encounters. Such topics can be addressed in an academic way particularly in classes on moral philosophy, moral theology, sociology, psychology, and health. In a less formal setting, “Theology on Tap” may further contribute to informing students.
There may also be utility in distributing having booklets, pamphlets, brochures, and on-line media available for students treating these issues. Jason Evert’s booklet Pure Love (available in both secular and Catholic versions) makes a case for chastity. The U.S. Department of Health issued a brochure Beyond Hangovers: Understanding Alcohol’s Impact on Your Health. Seeking to accentuate the positive, I authored a booklet, How to Stay Catholic in College. If made widely available in the student residences, this reading material may help students make better decisions.
Around Valentine’s Day, a theme week could be organized to foster discussion on love, dating, and authentic understandings of femininity and masculinity. Similarly, colleges can recognize and foster National Collegiate Alcohol Awareness Week with education, sober events.
Institutional Strategies
Institutional changes can occur within the university to foster an environment which positively reinforces a campus culture conducive to academic excellence and ethical development. Three institutional strategies may help. First, in order to make a significant difference, a many different groups—both on campus and off campus—should cooperate to enhance the campus culture including campus ministry, resident life directors, and local law enforcement. “[T]he use of comprehensive, integrated programs with multiple complementary components that target: (1) individuals, including at-risk or alcohol-dependent drinkers, (2) the student population as a whole, and (3) the college and the surrounding community.”73 Finally, an institution of higher education can reduce rates of binge drinking and hook up culture through instituting single-sex housing.
Multi-pronged approach
It is best to begin with clear expectations of student behavior. The Code of Student Conduct should establish public regulations governing student consumption of alcohol as well as sexual behavior. Depending on the school, it may be suitable to have a dry campus, but if not, the expectation of responsible drinking should be made clear to the students. In terms of sexual behavior, these codes should indicates that marriage between one man and one woman is the only suitable context for a sexual relationships. Sexual activity of any kind outside of marriage are inconsistent with the teachings and moral values of the Catholic Church and are prohibited.
Studies indicate that active participation in religious services is linked to decreased rates of both binge drinking and hook up culture.74 Campus ministry, priests, religious, and other active Catholics on campus can invite and encourage student participation in religious services. As new students arrive on campus, such key leaders could be present in the dorms, greeting parents and students, making themselves as helpful as they can. Friendly invitations, wallet-size schedules of Masses and liturgies can be extended to Catholic students. Ideally, priests, religious sisters, or other committed Catholics would be present in the student residences. For non-Catholics, information can be shared about nearby religious services. In each student residence, campus ministers can make sure that Mass times are posted and advertisements (particularly early in the year) widely distributed to make students aware of liturgical opportunities. Competing events should not be scheduled during important university-wide events, like the Mass of the Holy Spirit. Resident assistants should set an example with regard to attendance at these liturgical celebrations.75 Campus ministry, priests, and religious on campus can also address issues of substance abuse and hook up culture both in the pulpit and in pastoral settings, and help fortify students to reduce unhealthy and ethically problematic behaviors. Greater religious involvement is linked to lesser levels of binge drinking and hook up culture.
Staff from student life should be careful, especially in the first six weeks for freshman, to have healthy programming available. Students should get into the habit early in their college careers of thinking of Friday night as bowling night, pool night, intramural night, anything other than party night.
It is essential that there is strong enforcement by resident assistants, campus security and police (especially during the first six weeks) of legal drinking limits. Many authority figures on campus “turn a blind eye” and ignore underage drinking. After every weekend, piles of empty beer cans are in the garbage outside freshmen dorms implies a tacit consent and cooperation with immoral and (for students under 21) illegal activity. Strict, swift, and consistent enforcement of legal drinking limits (including minor intoxication and minor in possession) during the first six weeks of the semester can have lasting beneficial effects. Police should check for drivers under the influence leaving and arriving on campus as well as minor intoxication, minor in possession, and public drunkenness. Resident directors and student life officials need to strictly enforce policies against underage drinking and overnight visitations. Student offenders might receive extra formation in drinking responsibly and, if needed, professional help in dealing with alcohol abuse and/or drug abuse. Resident assistants, often students themselves, often do not enforce rules “on the books” about underage drinking, excessive drinking, and having overnight opposite sex visitors. A common practice amounts to “don’t check, don’t report,” where only the most obvious and egregious violations are reported. This is passive cooperation that undermines the university’s academic and moral mission. The tacit approval given by student resident officials is quickly recognized by students, often to their own detriment.
An important element of combating underage drinking is partnering with the local community. The local community often suffers the effects of excessive college drinking by students and may be motivated to help reduce the problem. Campus-community partnerships have helped reduce alcohol abuse among students.
[One] intervention included a social marketing campaign, with prevention advertisements in the school newspaper, ads posted in public areas on campus, and ads distributed as postcards. The message in the ads warned students that “Drinking Driving Laws Are Strictly Enforced in the College Area.” These advertisements were backed up by strong media coverage on the local community stations and in the college paper. DUI checkpoints were operated by the campus police, with assistance from local city police and the highway patrol. The results were promising. One of the universities showed a “considerable drop” in the students’ reports of driving after drinking.76
The National Institute on Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism suggests that a multi-pronged approach is mostly likely to be successful.
Finally, universities must not be afraid of expelling or suspending serious offenders. Such strict action can be a deterrent to other students who quickly learn what behavior is and is not acceptable on campus.
Single-sex dorms
A vital institutional strategy for reducing binge drinking and hook up culture is the institution of single-sex dorms. Research indicates that students in single-sex residences are significantly less likely to engage in binge drinking and the hook up culture than students living in co-ed student residences.
Let’s look at the connection between binge drinking and co-ed dorms first. Writing in the May 2002 edition of the Journal of Alcohol Studies, Thomas C. Harford and colleagues reported,
Another finding in the present study indicated that students living in coed dormitories, when compared with students in single-gender dorms, incurred more problem consequences related to drinking…. The reported differences in problem consequences extend previous studies of underage alcohol use in the CAS (Wechsler et al., 2000), which found that college students residing in coed dormitories and fraternity/sorority house, when compared with students residing in single-gender dormitories, were more likely to report heavy episodic drinking.
The American Journal of Preventative Medicine (2000) and Journal of American College Health (2009) have reported similar findings.77
If students who enjoy risky behavior choose co-ed residences because they seek a more permissive atmosphere, then the differences between co-ed and single-sex residences reflect the kinds of people who choose them, rather than being caused by some difference between single-sex and co-ed residences. This explanation fails because in almost all cases, students did not select single-sex dormitories, but were placed in them by university officials. Since there was no selection, there can be no selection effect. Researchers found no differences in depression, impulsivity, extroversion, body image, or pro-social behavior tendencies between the two groups—all differences relevant to students’ likelihood to take risks.78
Why do co-ed residences have more binge drinking? A plausible explanation is that co-ed living creates a “party” expectation that students fulfill. College males want to get females to drink more, facilitating hookups. College men themselves drink more as “liquid courage” to approach women and as part of the process of encouraging female drinking (for instance, with drinking games). In order to demonstrate “equality” with male students and so as not to seem prudish, college females drink more than they otherwise would. Single-sex residences reduce this binge drinking dynamic.
Not surprisingly, single-sex residences also reduce the hook up culture. In a 2009 study in Journal of American College Health, B.J. Willoughby and J.S. Carroll found that “students living in co-ed housing were also more likely [than those in single-sex residences] to have more sexual partners in the last 12 months.” Further, those students were “more than twice as likely as students in gender-specific housing to indicate that they had had 3 or more sexual partners in the last year.”
After controlling for age, gender, race, education, family background, and religiosity, living in a co-ed dorm was associated with more sexual partners. Indeed, two thirds (63.2%) of students in gender-specific housing indicated that they had no sexual partners in the last year, whereas less than half of (44.3%) of students in co-ed housing indicated zero sexual partners in the last year.
Naturally, some objections may be raised to establishing single-sex residences, especially concerns about enrollment. Students may not prefer single-sex residences, so if a university institutes them, enrollment could plummet. However, many universities already have a few single-sex residences, and there is no evidence these residences lower enrolment even in part. Other colleges, such as the University of Notre Dame, have only single-sex residences yet have no problems with enrollment at all. If a student wants a “party school,” it may be better for the university environment if that student is deterred from enrolling because of single-sex residences.
Indeed, single-sex residences may benefit enrollment. Many parents would prefer to have single-sex residences for their children. Single-sex residences lead to the perception and the reality of a safer campus, especially for female students. Lower levels of binge drinking and participation in the hookup culture may also lead to higher graduation rates and a more academic atmosphere on campus, increasing prestige, which boosts enrollment.
Another objection is that a university is not a seminary. Division of males and females may be appropriate at a monastery, but not in a residence for college students. Students seek to attend a Catholic university, not a Catholic convent or rectory. This objection is widely exaggerating the proposal to have single-sex housing. No one is proposing that student residences have compulsory times of prayer like a convent. No one is proposing that student residences have mandatory “spiritual direction” like a monastery. Student residences at universities are not seminaries, but neither should they be visions of Animal House. An Animal House environment is not conducive to intellectual or moral development. As students at the University of Notre Dame can attest, there is much fun to be had and no monastic atmosphere in single-sex residences.
By reducing levels of binge drinking and participation in the hookup culture, universities committed to the academic and ethical growth of students can better fulfill their mission. The time has come to stop bemoaning campus culture and to take concrete steps to improve the situation. A move in the right direction was undertaken recently by President John Garvey of The Catholic University of America. In his Wall Street Journal op-ed,79 President Garvey explained why the school is reinstituting single-sex dorms. Someone might respond by saying: “Single-sex dorms won’t stop drinking or ‘hooking up’.”80 Of course, no one claimed that single sex dorms eliminate or stop all drinking or casual sex, so this is an example of the straw-man fallacy.
Not everyone agreed with President Garvey’s decision. One critic objected to the change noting, “His [President Garvey’s] explanation for the change has a let’s-protect-the-women ring to it that is decidedly out of step with the gender roles and expectations of today’s young women and young men.81 Yet, Garvey said nothing in the essay about women being at greater risk than men in terms of binge drinking and hook-up culture. However, if he had, he would have been correct. Campus culture puts young women at greater risk than young men. An equal amount of alcohol affects females more than males, and sexual promiscuity produces asymmetrical gender effects in terms of sexually transmitted infections, such as HPV and pelvic inflammatory disease. And then there is the risk of pregnancy.
Some people are skeptical that separating the residences of men and women will make any difference. For example, a critic of single-sex dorms has written:
Nothing in my 20 years of experience writing about young people suggests that reverting to the old days of male and female dorms will substantially reduce the frequency of drinking or casual sex. … He cites unnamed studies showing that students in co-ed dorms report having more sexual partners and consuming excessive amounts of alcohol more often.82
But studies do indeed justify Garvey’s view. Let me name a few:
In the journal Environment and Behavior, Jennifer E. Cross and co-authors write,
Women living on single-sex floors are about half as likely to consume as much [alcohol] as their peers living on coed floors. … Women living on a single-sex floor are significantly less likely to consume as frequently as their peers on coed floors.83
In the Journal of Alcohol Studies, Thomas C. Harford and colleagues found:
Students living in coed dormitories, when compared with students in single-gender dorms, incurred more problem consequences related to drinking … The reported differences in problem consequences extend previous studies of underage alcohol use in the CAS (Wechsler et al., 2000a), which found that college students residing in coed dormitories and fraternity/sorority house, when compared with students residing in single-gender dormitories, were more likely to report heavy episodic drinking.84
In the American Journal of Preventative Medicine, Wechsler and coauthors indicate:
Underage students who live in coed dormitories and fraternity or sorority houses are more likely to binge drink (OR51.7 and 6.2, respectively) than are students who live in single-sex dormitories.85
Finally, a 2009 study on binge drinking and hook-up culture in the Journal of American College Health by B.J. Willoughby and J.S. Carroll found that:
Students in co-ed halls were more than twice as likely as students living in gender-specific halls (56.4 percent versus 26.5 percent) to indicate that they consume alcohol at least weekly. … Students in co-ed halls (41.5 percent) were nearly two and a half times more likely than students in gender-specific housing (17.6 percent) to report binge drinking on a weekly basis.86
Against this evidence, a critic of single-sex dorms cites a single anecdotal example: When women drink a lot, they do so with a group of women, at least as frequently, or more frequently, than with men. Author Liz Funk, a New York resident in her 20s who was raised as a Roman Catholic, attended a co-ed college with co-ed dorms. She remembers,
“Without the presence of guys, my friends and I had no problem throwing back three to eight drinks in a sitting. And on the occasions where accidents happened … it was always in an all-female context.”87
This anecdotal evidence does little to cast doubt on the academic research pointing to less binge drinking and fewer casual sexual encounters in single-sex dorms in comparison to co-ed dorms. It is true that other factors are relevant in terms of college drinking:
Where college students live — or with whom — has less to do with how much they drink than with other factors, including the level of alcohol they saw consumed at home; the cultural assumption, endorsed by older adults, that drinking is a rite of passage; the lack of instruction in how to drink responsibly; the drink promotions offered at clubs and bars near campus; and little or no enforcement, by local or campus authorities, of the legal drinking age.88
Of course, Garvey never said that the only factor involved in binge drinking is living environment. As a university president, many of these factors are beyond his control to change. But even if these other conditions are of greater importance, which may be right, it hardly follows that efforts should not be made to control the factors which can be controlled at the college level.
The critique continues: “Garvey believes that if women and men once again lived in segregated housing, they wouldn’t hook up as much.” But this is not a matter merely of belief, but of evidence. Willoughby and Carroll found that
students living in co-ed housing were also more likely than those in single sex residences: to have more sexual partners in the last 12 months, to have more recent sexual partners, were more than twice as likely as students in gender-specific housing to indicate that they had had 3 or more sexual partners in the last year. After controlling for age, gender, race, education, family background, and religiosity, living in a co-ed dorm was associated with more sexual partners two thirds (63.2 percent) of students in gender-specific housing indicated that they had no sexual partners in the last year, whereas less than half of (44.3 percent) of students in co-ed housing indicated zero sexual partners in the last year.89
Does self-selection explain away these differences? In fact, self-selection cannot explain the differences in drinking and hooking up because, in almost all cases as noted earlier, students did not select to live in single-sex dorms but were put into these dorms by university officials. With no selection, there can be no selection effect.
The selection effect may begin to play a role now at CUA and other schools with single-sex dorms, insofar as some students who want to party hard in college may choose not to go to those schools. I certainly hope that this is the case — then these universities will have fewer students who contribute to an Animal House atmosphere. The fewer Animal House students who enroll at a particular college, the better for that college.
One of the few reasons given in favor of co-ed dorms is that they facilitate friendships with the opposite sex. As one critic wrote, “one contribution of co-ed dorms: the ease with which members of this generation relate to each other as friends, and the depth of their understanding of the opposite sex. I can’t help but believe those qualities will help sustain their intimate partnerships in the future.”90
Single-sex dormitories hardly prohibit or deter young men and women from relating to each other as friends or from understanding the opposite sex. Single-sex dorms may even help. As President Garvey points out,
Shared living space might mean spending more hours with the opposite sex. But it often doesn’t foster the mutual respect necessary for real friendship. The prevalence of “hooking up” on college campuses is both a cause and a sign of this decline in solid friendships between men and women. When students “hook up,” they put sex before love. Our goal is not to make students think sex is bad. It’s not. But as those of us with a few more years of life know, when sex comes first, it’s often mistaken for love. Worse still, it can become a kind of recreational pleasure that lets people think they can live without love. Friendship between men and women – the kind that leads to healthy relationships and lasting marriages – requires that love come first.91
Indeed, Garvey’s perspective found confirmation in the experiences of students who reported that co-ed dormitories actually undermine rather than facilitate co-ed friendships. In their article, “Hooking Up and Opting Out,” Lisa Wade and Caroline Heldman point out, “Students found that friendships were difficult to establish and maintain because many cross-sex friends were also past or potential sexual partners.”92 Co-ed dorm life made non-sexual relationships more difficult. They continue: “Because hookup culture positioned everyone as a potential sexual partner, friendships were sexualized. Female students reported that it was nearly impossible to have male friends.”93 To paraphrase one student, you can label it, “friends with benefits, minus the friend part.”94
Single-sex dorms do not destroy the opportunities for opposite-sex friendships, but they do put an obstacle in the way of taking someone back to the dorm room for hooking up. This impediment may actually aid, rather than undermine, the fostering of meaningful intimate relationships both now and in the future. Indeed, as Mark Regnerus and Jeremy Uecker suggest in Premarital Sex in America How Young Americans Meet, Mate, and Think about Marrying (Oxford University Press, 2011), a man and woman who delay their sexual relationship are likely contribute to making their relationships last longer. They also note that young people who are veterans of many sexual relationships have a higher rate of divorce. Of course, students can learn from bad decisions, but the university should not make it easier to make bad decisions, especially bad decisions that can undermine the likelihood of satisfying marriages in the future. The desirability of sustaining intimate partnerships in the future (let’s call them “marriages”) — suggests that President Garvey made the right decision.
Households
Ideally these single-sex residences should be places that foster communal academic and ethical development. One way of fostering this type of community is the “household” residential choice found at Franciscan University Steubenville and other Catholic universities. In these households, which students report have a family feeling, there is a shared spiritual, academic, moral, and social atmosphere which begins with the student life staff providing an “institutional culture of chastity” throughout the university.95 The institutional culture emphasizes the positive rewards of living well rather than simply the negative aspects of binge drinking and the hook-up culture. Small faith communities can help students to find shared values and support. It may also be suitable, on certain campuses, to establish “substance-free” residence options to ratify student commitment to substance-free living.
Significant reduction in both binge drinking and hook up culture is a worthwhile goal and an achievable goal. Such a reduction would increase campus safety (especially for women), foster a more academic environment, and support the spiritual and moral developments of students. Of course, perfect behavior and an absolute elimination of unhealthy activities is impossible, but we should not let the impossibility of the perfection deter us from pursuing a better course.
Appendix: Examples from Newman Guide Colleges
There are many ways to implement the strategies recommended in this paper, and many other strategies that might be considered. What follows is a selection of programs and policies identified during research for The Newman Guide to Choosing a Catholic College, which recommends 28 colleges, universities, and online programs for their strong Catholic identity. There are other good programs and policies to address binge drinking and the hook up culture at other Catholic and non-Catholic institutions. College officials would benefit from continual sharing of effective practices and observation of similar institutions.
It is interesting to note that while many of these strategies to promote sobriety could reasonably be employed to promote chastity—and pro-chastity programs and policies might be tweaked to promote sobriety—often colleges do not approach both topics in the same ways. An equal commitment to promoting both behaviors could quickly expand a college’s outreach to students without requiring much creativity.
Education
Freshman orientation
Many of the colleges include discussion of chastity and sobriety during freshman orientation programs, including explanation of college policies. DeSales University starts even before students arrive on campus, requiring them to complete a one-hour, online alcohol awareness program.
Belmont Abbey College has a policy on Christian Sexual Morality that is explained to freshmen during orientation. According to the College: “In keeping with John Paul II’s theology of the body, we make clear that sex is a gift from God to be enjoyed by those who have received the Sacrament of Marriage and for the purpose of the mutual good of the spouses and for bringing children into the world as a gift from God, in accord with Catholic teaching and Canon Law.”
Walsh University’s 12-week mandatory freshman credited course (General Education 100: First Year Institute) begins during opening weekend with a 45-minute presentation, “A Day in the Life of a Student.” The University explains: “Video vignettes performed by Walsh students depict choices every college student faces: academic, social, spiritual, physical. The vignettes provoke discussion of tools for self-awareness, personal responsibility, and critical thinking for making positive lifestyle choices. The vignette dealing with sexual choices discusses pro-abstinence. Most FYI faculty ask students to write reaction papers to the presentation, which sets out university expectations for student behavior aligned with the university’s mission as a Catholic university of distinction. Follow-up sessions occur in FYI under the topic ‘relationships’ and in residence halls, where the chaplain and others continue to promote chastity in leading ‘Let’s Talk Sex’ discussions by floor.”
The Catholic University of America provides “Alcohol 101” workshops in each first-year student residence hall within the first six weeks of the fall semester.
Lectures and classes
Several colleges present occasional speakers to discuss chastity, proper dating, and the role of marriage. Some of these programs are organized and repeated, such as DeSales University’s student presentation on impaired driving, “It’s Not an Accident, It’s a Choice,” and campus ministry programs “Off the Hook: The Hook-Up Culture and Our Escape from It” and “Single and Ready to Mingle: Campus Dating 101.” Ave Maria University, Mount St. Mary’s University, and others provide lectures and courses on the “Theology of the Body,” as taught by Blessed Pope John Paul II.
The University of Mary’s student health clinic sponsors a peer-education program, Health PRO (Peers Reaching Out), which sponsors numerous programs.
The Franciscan University of Steubenville’s Veritas Lecture Series, coordinated by the University’s student life office, addresses sexuality, dating, and marriage with discussion of related Catholic teachings.
Campus ministry at Mount St. Mary’s University sponsors a “Couples Ministry,” which organizes gatherings for couples who are dating to discuss their faith, as well as educational programs like “Healthy Relationships without the Baggage.” In “Love and Lattes” at the University of Mary, a four-week program sponsored by campus ministry, faithful Catholic couples talk to students about topics such as dating and chastity, faith and marriage, natural family planning, finances, conflict resolution, and parenting.
Priests and religious address moral issues during “Morals and Mocha” coffeehouse discussions at the University of Mary and “Theology on Tap” gatherings at pubs near the campuses of Aquinas College (Nashville) and Ave Maria University. At Thomas Aquinas College, the virtues of modesty and chastity are regularly addressed by chaplains in their sermons at daily Mass.
Several Catholic colleges welcome FOCUS missionaries (www.focus.org) on campus to lead Bible studies and promote chastity and sobriety through small-group activities.
Theme weeks
A number of colleges declare themes for weeks during the school year to present programs and activities in support of sobriety and chastity. Ave Maria University has an annual “Love Week” in February, devoted to hosting events and lectures that foster discussion on love, dating, the Theology of the Body, and other Catholic studies on sexuality. The Catholic University of America recognizes National Collegiate Alcohol Awareness Week, National Drunk and Drugged Driving Prevention Month, and Safe Spring Break Week with information distribution and campus-wide programming. The University of St. Thomas in Houston has an annual “Sexual Responsibility Week.”
Education for student offenders
When students violate campus policies, consequences can include education programs to help improve behavior. Ave Maria University purchased an online education module that provides basic alcohol information to students who violate the alcohol policy. According to AMU, “Through a review of topics related to safe consumption, characteristics of high risk drinking, positives and negatives of consumption, and social norms, students gain a better understanding of how irresponsible alcohol use can negatively impact their academics and personal lives. The anticipated outcome is that students will make better decisions in the future related to alcohol use.”
Likewise, Benedictine College will schedule an alcohol assessment with its counseling center if it has cause to worry that any student may have a problem with alcohol abuse. When students are found cohabiting in residence halls, the College may assign education initiatives or have the students meet with counselors, while losing the right to visitation even during daylight hours for a specified period of time.
Regulations
Dress code to encourage modesty
Christendom College, like several other colleges, maintains a dress code for the classroom, Mass, lunch, and special events. “Usually this includes a dress shirt and necktie for men and a dress or blouse with skirt or dress slacks for women. A jacket is also required for men at Sunday Mass and for speakers’ presentations.”
Ave Maria University is less specific, but students must dress “with modesty and prudence.” The student handbook offers them guidelines for dressing with dignity.
Regulations on entertainment
Ave Maria University requires that movies and television programs viewed on campus “should be in good taste and not offensive to Catholic morals and values.”
Regulating sex, romantic behavior
Some colleges expressly forbid sexual activity outside of marriage. The Catholic University of America’s Code of Student Conduct states, as paraphrased by the University, “that sexual relationships are designed by God to be expressed solely within a marriage between husband and wife. Sexual acts of any kind outside the confines of marriage are inconsistent with the teachings and moral values of the Catholic Church and are prohibited.”
Likewise, the University of Mary’s Community Standards for Students prohibits “sexual intimacy between persons who are not married to one another in the university’s residence halls.”
Christendom College has restrictions on public romantic displays of affection, and Thomas More College of Liberal Arts discourages “exclusive dating” during the first two years.
Dry campuses
All of the colleges have policies on alcohol, often prohibiting possession by anyone under the legal age and sometimes prohibiting minors from being in a room when others are consuming alcohol. But at the University of Mary and some other colleges, alcohol is not permitted for any student. Christendom College forbids on-campus drinking but makes exceptions for students over the age of 21 at some campus events, such as St. Patrick’s Day festivities and musical performance nights, called Pub Night.
Residence Halls
Residence life programs
Many of the colleges locate educational programs in the residence halls (see “Education” above). Benedictine College sponsors an annual Alcohol Free competition, inviting each residence hall to put on an alcohol-free event “which both serves as a model for how to engage in healthy activities without the use of alcohol and disseminates information about the dangers of abusing alcohol.”
Special housing
DeSales University offers specialized “substance-free” housing for students who forego all alcohol and tobacco use. The University of Mary permits students to choose roommates who are committed to abstaining from alcohol even off campus, and these students are grouped together in the residence halls.
The University of Mary also has established Saint Joseph’s Hall, a 30-bed facility for men who have made a commitment to live a virtuous life and support other residents in that commitment. Living in the facility with students is the retired Bishop of Bismarck and the current diocesan vocations director. A similar facility for women has been established with support from Benedictine Sisters who live on campus.
Mount St. Mary’s University offers a variety of themed housing and living-learning options. Students participating in the Summit Housing initiative adopt as a rule of life a “healthy living commitment” through outdoor activities, service projects, and abstinence from tobacco, alcohol and drugs.
Training for residence life staff
Belmont Abbey College, like many of the colleges, ensures that resident assistants are trained in authentic Catholic morality. “All resident directors study the virtues, Ex corde Ecclesiae, the Rule of St. Benedict, the Pope’s Theology of the Body, and the documents on the dignity of the human person and the vocation of women.”
The Catholic University of America provides alcohol education and training for resident assistants, orientation advisors, and resident ministers each summer. “Residential staff are expected to confront disruptive and unhealthy behaviors including those related to sexual activity.”
Faculty, priest presence in residence halls
Some colleges ask priests, religious, and faculty members to live in residence halls to assist and supervise students. At Holy Spirit College, the student residences in a nearby apartment community are proctored by faculty members. Thomas More College of Liberal Arts has a Dean of Men and a Dean of Women who help promote chastity in the residences.
Student Engagement
Peer clubs and programs
Some colleges have student clubs dedicated to promoting chastity through peer education, such as the Love Revealed club at Franciscan University of Steubenville. According to the University, the club “strives to enrich students’ understanding of the principles that uphold the goods of Marriage, Family, and Sexual Integrity.” The group emphasizes “that stable marriages and families and the moral character they cultivate are best supported by commitment to the integrity of sex and to the healthy sexual attitudes and behaviors that honor that integrity.”
At The Catholic University of America, student organizations such as Live Out Love, Vitae Familia, Students for Life, and CUAlternative “bring speakers to campus and host events that focus on love and relationships with emphasis on the Church’s teachings on marriage and family life,” according to CUA. “For example, the student group Vitae Familia hosted an event titled ‘Love. Relationships. College. How does college shape how you love?’ where two guest speakers addressed the importance of dating while in college.” Although Live Out Love focuses on teaching chastity to local middle-school and high-school students, it is student-led and engages CUA students in making arguments for sexual purity.
Students at Holy Spirit College likewise assist Moda Real, a virtue and modesty program for the Solidarity School and Mission, a Hispanic outreach program, that culminates in an annual modest fashion show.
Pro-life groups may help promote chastity. CUA’s Students for Life publishes a magazine titled The Choice: Pro-Life Answers to Today’s Tough Questions, including articles on purity and chastity, cohabitation, and natural family planning. The Crusaders for Life at the University of Dallas promotes Catholic teachings on chastity and abstinence.
Other groups may also address chastity. Kappa Phi Omega, the Catholic sorority at St. Gregory’s University, brings speakers on campus to address the impact that chastity and modesty have on our society. Even the Fra Angelico Art Club at Ave Maria University, which hosts events that examine true art and beauty, sponsors lectures on the Theology of the Body and an annual art exhibition to examine themes of love.
Campus ministry at Walsh University has a peer ministry program called Peacemakers, which trains upper-classmen to minister to students in the residence halls. In 2011-12 they helped organize monthly residence hall programs on topics including pornography (the University’s IT officers verified that residence hall hits on pornography sites fell 75 percent as a result), women’s dignity (attracting up to 80 women per session), and “Extraordinary Gentlemen.” Students in campus ministry also organized Theology of the Body discussions and assisted in the campus appearance of Christopher West.
Households
Several of the colleges encourage students to participate in voluntary “households,” which are spiritual communities of men or women that gather together to pray, encourage one another in chastity and virtue, perform works of mercy, and host events on campus. The concept is especially popular at Franciscan University of Steubenville, where about half the student body is involved in any of 45 households.
Women’s and men’s groups
Ave Maria University has a Genuine Feminine Club of female students who foster the development of feminine virtues and organize the “Genuine Feminine Conference” each spring.
At The Catholic University of America, males students can join Esto Vir to strive together to live a life of prayer, brotherhood, chastity, self-sacrifice, and fortitude. Female students can join Gratia Plena, a sisterhood of Catholic women that meets for fellowship, prayer and faith formation.
DeSales University sponsors Philotheas, a student-led, student only group for women desiring to mature in their Catholic faith through spiritual, religious, catechetical and social experiences, and support. Esto Vir (“Be a Man!”) is a group of men, who through social, educational, and spiritual activities strive to live as men of faith and virtue.
At the University of Mary, the Knights of Virtue (for men) and Vera Forma (for women) focus on the development of virtue and holiness, studying Scripture and the saints from a Christian but not exclusively Catholic perspective.
Administration
Administrative committees
Ave Maria University has an administration subcommittee specifically tasked with promoting chastity. The Student Activities Board, Student Government Association, Student Life Office, Campus Ministry, and Office of Housing and Residence Life all collaborate to develop initiatives to support and promote a culture of chastity.
At The Catholic University of America, the Alcohol and Other Drug Education (AODE) program is coordinated by the Office of the Dean of Students and supported by the Employee Assistance Program, Kane Fitness Center, Office of Residence Life, Student Health Services, and the Counseling Center.
https://cardinalnewmansociety.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/04/Catholic-Education-Report-Web-Header-845-x-321-px-01.png13383521Dr. Christopher Kaczorhttps://cardinalnewmansociety.org/wp-content/uploads/CNS-logo-2C-450-tag2.pngDr. Christopher Kaczor2012-10-01 03:58:522020-06-19 12:28:14Strategies for Reducing Binge Drinking and a “Hook-Up” Culture on Campus
On the level of higher education, many of you have pointed to a growing recognition on the part of Catholic colleges and universities of the need to reaffirm their distinctive identity in fidelity to their founding ideals and the Church’s mission in service to the Gospel. Yet much remains to be done…
Pope Benedict XVI, Ad limina Address to American Bishops, May 5, 2012
Catholic higher education is heir to the greatest intellectual, moral, and cultural patrimony in human history. It has a deeply satisfying answer to who and why man is. It’s beautiful because it’s true. It has nothing to be embarrassed about and every reason to be on fire with confidence and apostolic zeal. We only defeat ourselves—and we certainly don’t serve God—if we allow ourselves ever to think otherwise.
Archbishop Charles J. Chaput, A Heart on Fire: Catholic Witness and the Next America
Introduction
In the post-Vatican II period, Catholic colleges and universities in the United States have experienced a marked decrease in the numbers of their Catholic faculty. As we read in The Catholic University of America’s ten-year review of its application of the norms first promulgated by the Apostolic Constitution Ex corde Ecclesiae and affirmed by the U.S. Bishops in 199981, the twenty-year period from 1975 to 1995, especially, was a time when the identity of Catholic colleges and universities was undergoing much self-criticism and redefinition. Coupled with the decreased availability of religious and clerical personnel, owing to the vocations crisis, and an increased dependence upon lay faculty, the net result for Catholic University, concludes the University’s report, “was a decrease in hires of committed Roman Catholics as well as a decreased emphasis on formally tracking the religious preference of new faculty hires.” This result was characteristic of most Catholic colleges and universities in this period.82
The promulgation of Ex corde Ecclesiae in 1990 aimed to address this crisis of identity occurring in Catholic institutions of higher learning, and in the twenty-two years since its promulgation much progress has been made toward calling these institutions back to their “privileged task,” as Ex corde puts it, of uniting “existentially by intellectual effort two orders of reality that too frequently tend to be placed in opposition as though they were antithetical: the search for truth, and the certainty of already knowing the fount of truth” (Introduction, no. 1). However, the decline in numbers of Catholic faculty has, by and large, continued unabated. While certain institutions have demonstrated admirable pro-activity in responding to Ex corde’s norm that Catholic colleges and universities maintain a majority of Catholic faculty, others are struggling to maintain that majority as older and predominantly Catholic faculty retire. The issue, of course, is not simply about numbers; it is about sustaining the very character of Catholic institutions of higher learning. As Richard D. Breslin, professor of leadership and higher education at Saint Louis University, writes: “One can stipulate that if hiring practices are not addressed in the Catholic higher education community, some of these institutions will continue to be called Catholic and to call themselves Catholic, but they will have lost their real identity; they will have lost their souls. They will have done so precisely because their hiring practices failed to support and sustain the mission and philosophy of the university as Catholic.”87
The aim of this report is to survey current efforts by Catholic colleges and universities to avert this danger by means of their hiring practices. The institutions surveyed include twenty-five institutions included in the third edition of The Newman Guide to Choosing a Catholic College (October 2012), as well as selected institutions not in the Guide, including, by way of comparison, some non-Catholic ones. In particular, the report will focus on how Catholic colleges and institutions are going about “hiring for mission,” that is, how they are endeavoring to recruit and hire committed Catholic faculty, faculty who unite in their persons the search for truth within their respective disciplines, and the certainty by faith of already knowing the fount of truth. As a result of this survey, a better understanding will be achieved of the current trends and practices at Catholic colleges and universities when it comes to hiring for Catholic mission. This will help facilitate the later discernment of strengths and weaknesses, and the eventual advocacy of particular policies aimed at encouraging Catholic institutions to realize ever more faithfully their mission “in the heart of the Church.”96
The report will consist of two main parts. After a brief note on sources, the first part of the report will sketch some of the most noteworthy aims and challenges that must be acknowledged by Catholic institutions in forming any robust hiring for mission policy. The second part of the report will then present a variety of specific hiring-for-mission policies, ordered according to the stages of a typical academic hiring process.
A Note on Sources
Much of the research for this report was conducted online, first by surveying the web materials of Newman Guide institutions, as well as additional Catholic and non-Catholic institutions:
Newman Guide Colleges
Aquinas College (Tenn.)
Ave Maria University
Belmont Abbey College
Benedictine College
Catholic Distance University
Catholic University of America
Christendom College
College of St. Mary Magdalen
The College of Saint John Fisher & Thomas More
DeSales University
Franciscan University of Steubenville
Holy Apostles College and Seminary
Holy Spirit College
John Paul the Great Catholic University
Mount St. Mary’s University
Our Lady Seat of Wisdom Academy
Redeemer Pacific College
Saint Gregory’s University
Thomas Aquinas College
Thomas More College of Liberal Arts
University of Dallas
University of Mary
University of St. Thomas (Tex.)
Walsh University
Wyoming Catholic College
Other Catholic Colleges
Canisius College
Creighton University
John Carroll University
LeMoyne College
Loyola Marymount University
University of Notre Dame
University of St. Thomas (Minn.)
Non-Catholic Colleges
Baylor University
Bob Jones University
Brigham Young University
Colorado Christian University
Wheaton College
Personal interviews (all but two of which by telephone) were conducted with the following key administrators and faculty:
Terry Ball, Dean of the College of Religious Education, Brigham Young University
Christopher Blum, Professor of Humanities and Academic Dean, Thomas More College of Liberal Arts
Anne Carson Daly, Vice-President of Academic Affairs, Belmont Abbey College
Michael Dauphinais, Dean of Faculty, Ave Maria University
Rick Garris, Director of Human Relations, Colorado Christian University
Joshua Hochschild, Dean of the College of Humanities, Mount St. Mary’s University
Christopher Kaczor, Professor of Philosophy, Loyola Marymount University
Rev. Wilson D. Miscamble, C.S.C., Professor of History and former chair of the department, University of Notre Dame
Lawrence R. Poos, Dean of the School of Arts and Sciences, The Catholic University of America
Kimberly Shankman, Dean, Benedictine College
Steve Snyder, Vice-President for Academic Affairs, Christendom College
In an email exchange Dr. Don Briel, Director of the Center for Catholic Studies at the University of St. Thomas in St. Paul, furnished his forthcoming essay “Mission and Identity: The Role of Faculty,” discussed below.
At the end of this report is a linked appendix listing the institutions surveyed in the report.
Hiring for Catholic Mission: Aims & Challenges
The very concept of “hiring for mission” entails a clear understanding on the part of an institution of just what its mission is. In the next section of this report we’ll take a look at some specific examples of strong mission statements at Catholic colleges and universities. First, however, it would be useful to establish a more global view of the mission of such institutions, and further, the general sorts of hiring policies and practices entailed by it. In other words, we need to ask: what, generally speaking, is the institutional identity of a Catholic institution of higher learning, and what are the requirements this identity imposes upon the practice of hiring members to its faculty?
The best place to begin articulating an answer to this twofold question is Ex corde Ecclesiae, which outlines four “essential characteristics” of what makes a Catholic college or university truly Catholic:
a Christian inspiration not only of individuals but of the university community as such;
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;
fidelity to the Christian message as it comes to us through the Church;
an institutional commitment to the service of the people of God and of the human family in their pilgrimage to the transcendent goal which gives meaning to life (no. 13).
A paraphrase of these essential characteristics might read as follows:
A truly Catholic institution of higher learning is a Christian community dedicated, according to the principles and rightful autonomy of the various intellectual disciplines, to the pursuit and transmission of truth, under the inspiration and direction of the teaching authority of the Church, and in service to the Church and to the wider human family.
These four essential characteristics of a genuinely Catholic college or university can be further expounded, in particular the commitment to truth and its relationship to the institution’s evangelical mission. In an important paper addressing this very relationship, Dr. Don Briel, director of the Center for Catholic Studies at the University of St. Thomas in St. Paul, has identified three “concerns” that characterize the pursuit of truth at a Catholic college or university:
a concern for the exploration of and active commitment to the ultimate complementarity of faith and reason;
a sustained examination of the nature of the unity of knowledge in addition to discrete disciplinary research; and
a concern for the exploration of the distinctive character and present implications of the Catholic intellectual tradition.97
Briel here directs our attention to a Catholic institution’s mission to manifest the harmony between faith and reason; the ultimate integrity of the various ways in which truth is pursued; and the need for these various pursuits of truth to take place within the ongoing series of debates and inquiries that constitute the Catholic intellectual tradition.
In order to fulfill its mission, it is evident that a Catholic institution must seek to embody the most famous norm promulgated by Ex corde Ecclesiae: that “the number of non-Catholic teachers should not be allowed to constitute a majority within the Institution, which is and must remain Catholic” (Article 4, no. 4). A Catholic institution of higher learning is, according to Ex corde, a Christian community faithful to the Christian message as it comes to us through the Church. It is a community that seeks to harmonize its pursuit of truth with what is actually accepted by faith, to aim for an integration of its various pursuits so that the unity of truth is put on display, and thus to develop the living tradition of which its efforts form a part. By definition, then, a Catholic college or university requires a largely Catholic faculty. A predominantly Catholic presence on the faculty—a presence that is vigorous and not merely nominal—is essential to the achievement of a Catholic institution’s mission. In this regard Briel cites some trenchant remarks of Rev. James T. Burtchaell:
Every quality that a college or university desires as an institutional characteristic must be embodied in its faculty; they are what most make it what it is. To seek academic excellence would be in vain, for instance, unless at every evaluation of faculty and in every personnel decision this excellence were a quality openly sought after. If an institution professes to be Catholic, not just nominally but in ways that are intellectually inquisitive and morally committed, then it is similarly imperative that faculty and administrators unabashedly pursue and articulate those interests and those commitments in the recruitment and the advancement of colleagues. Neither intellectual excellence nor religious commitment nor any other positive value will exist within an institution unless each of those qualities is candidly recruited and evaluated and preferred in the appointments of its faculty. The result of such a positive process must be a faculty among whom seriously committed and intellectually accomplished Catholics predominate.98
In light of such considerations, many Catholic colleges and universities in the United States, most notably those recommended in The Newman Guide, have in recent decades given their hiring practices a fresh impetus. They have not only striven to establish faculties predominantly comprised, in Burtchaell’s words, of “seriously committed and intellectually accomplished Catholics,” but they have also worked hard at creating cultures within their institutions that attract and support this kind of scholar. Some institutions, like Thomas Aquinas College, Christendom College, and Thomas More College of Liberal Arts, were responding to the hiring crisis in Catholic higher education long before the promulgation of Ex corde. Others, like Belmont Abbey and the University of Notre Dame, have in recent years adopted new strategies in response to Ex corde. Still others, like Wyoming Catholic College and John Paul the Great Catholic University, have been created within the last decade as direct responses to Pope John Paul II’s call for a New Evangelization of culture.
Even this partial list of Catholic institutions indicates the great variety in kinds of Catholic college and university, a variety of mission that, according to Dr. Christopher Blum, academic dean at Thomas More College of Liberal Arts, impacts the way in which hiring for mission is conducted at different institutions. For example, at Thomas More College, an institution with fewer than one hundred students offering a single bachelor’s degree in the liberal arts, hiring for mission takes on a different shape than it does, say, at Belmont Abbey College, a much larger institution offering a variety of degree programs both inside and outside the liberal arts. At Thomas More, reports Dean Blum, all new hires must be prepared to teach in an interdisciplinary setting in tutorial formats with fewer than twenty students, an expectation that simply is not part of Belmont Abbey’s hiring process, which more conventionally hires to academic specialty. Because of its specific curricular approach, Thomas More—as well as similarly-structured institutions such as Thomas Aquinas College and Wyoming Catholic College—probably relies more than most institutions on an informal network of contacts when it comes to attracting candidates for open positions.
Different curricular approaches—indeed, the very differences between colleges and universities—distinguish the various approaches to Catholic higher education in the United States. For the purposes of this report we will assume that these structural differences in themselves do not negatively impact the pursuit of Catholic mission and the development of robust hiring-for-mission policies.99 A small college and a national research university can each in its own way be exemplary in all that it means to be a truly Catholic institution of higher learning. But other factors do present challenges to the mission of Catholic higher education, and thus to the hiring practices of Catholic institutions. These are challenges that arise from the lived situation of these Catholic colleges and universities: from their histories, their confrontations with and attitudes toward our increasingly secularized culture, even their geographical locations. What challenges are these?
A first and very obvious challenge is a legal one: to what degree, if any, can institutions inquire into the religious affiliation, or lack of it, of prospective candidates? It is a complex question, one outside the scope of this report. But it should be noted, at least, that, according to the Office of General Counsel at The Catholic University of America, “a common point of confusion is the idea that because equal opportunity law prohibits discrimination on the basis of religion, an employer may not exhibit a preference for someone of a certain religion. Many people do not realize that an exception exists for religious employers, including religious educational institutions. Both the United States Constitution and statutory law support this First Amendment right for religious educational institutions to hire members of their own religion on a preferential basis.”100
A second challenge is demographic. In their book, Catholic Higher Education101, Morey and Piderit characterize Catholic colleges demographically according to four models:
The Immersion Model: in which a vast majority of students are Catholic, the vast majority of faculty and administrators are Catholic, there is a broad array of Catholic courses in the academic sector, and a very strong nonacademic Catholic culture.
The Persuasion Model: in which the majority of students are Catholic, a significant number of faculty and administrators are Catholic, there is a small array of Catholic courses in the academic sector, and a strong nonacademic Catholic culture.
The Diaspora Model: in which a minority of students is Catholic, few faculty and administrators are Catholic, there is a minimal number of Catholic courses in academic sector, and a consistent Catholic culture in nonacademic areas.
The Cohort Two-Pronged Model: in which there exists a small cohort of well-trained and committed Catholic students and faculty, and a much larger group of students educated to be sensitive to religious issues with a view to influencing policy.
At first blush, the mission of Catholic institutions would seem to call all Catholic institutions to be classified demographically as (more or less) “immersion” schools. A school with “a small array of Catholic courses in the academic sector,” as in the “persuasion” model, would not appear to satisfy the three criteria of the Catholic pursuit of knowledge identified by Briel102; and the “disapora” and “cohort” models, with their low percentages of Catholic faculty, fall outside the norms of Ex corde. In any event, for any kind of school other than the “immersion” school to increase the numbers of its Catholic faculty it may well court resistance, especially perhaps from those non-Catholic, non-Christian, and non-theist members of the faculty, who may take the new impetus to be a negative comment on their own hires and on the accustomed diversity of the faculty. Peter Steinfels gives voice to this resistance when he writes:
Most major Catholic universities have had religiously diverse faculties for decades now, and many, especially urban universities, have similarly diverse student bodies. Any significant initiative to hire Catholics will prove offensive to non-Catholic members of the community and their Catholic colleagues. It will require a religious test alien to the academic culture of universities and injurious to the religious presence in scholarly life that Catholic universities should represent. It will stir from the get-go a degree of resistance that will be overcome by nothing short of top-down fiat disruptive of the university community.103
While there are things to dispute in this assessment, it at least clarifies the opposition that may well be faced as non-immersive institutions pursue more robust hiring-for-mission policies. Steinfels rightly notes that anxiety about new hiring initiatives will probably be felt especially at urban universities, where a greater demographic diversity is usually to be found, both on the faculty and among the students, than at institutions in less populated areas. Whether a school exists in the South and traditionally employs a large segment of non-Catholic faculty may also present a challenge to new hiring initiatives focused on Catholic mission.
A third challenge arises from what might be termed the concern for excellence. A common objection that arises when hiring-for-mission policies are debated is that such policies, in preferring the hiring of Catholics, jeopardize the institution’s pursuit of academic excellence—which presumably should be sought in whatever scholars may be found, no matter their religious identification or lack of it. John McGreevy, dean of the College of Arts and Letters at Notre Dame, adds the point that even when institutions aim to hire Catholics, they are confronted with a dramatic shortage of Catholic scholars.104 He cites a 2006 study claiming that, when it comes to tenure-track scholars in the arts and sciences and business at the fifty top-ranked research universities, only six percent self-identify as Catholics (McGreevy admits that the percentage is slightly higher at lesser-ranked universities). In response, McGreevy’s colleague in Notre Dame’s history department, the Rev. Wilson Miscamble, C.S.C., argues:
That (6%) figure may seem low relatively—and, incidentally, might prompt a curious person to wonder why Catholics (and religious believers in general) are so under-represented at the supposed top schools—but it actually represents a substantial raw number of faculty who are possible recruits to Notre Dame. Moreover, [McGreevy] substantially limits the recruiting pool by referencing only these major research schools. First-rate Catholic scholars also ply their trade at fine liberal arts colleges and at so-called second-tier research institutions, a group which includes Notre Dame itself. Furthermore, the community of Catholic intellectuals is hardly limited to the United States. Notre Dame has a valued tradition extending back for decades of recruiting non-American Catholic scholars like Waldemar Gurian and Stephen Kertesz which surely must be continued. (Of course, it still continues the practice of recruiting overseas but one wonders how effectively when the avowed atheist Jill Mann gained an appointment and the renowned Catholic scholar Eamon Duffy did not.) In short, the recruitment pool is significantly larger than [McGreevy] implies.105
Here, Miscamble challenges McGreevy on the fact that the six percent figure represents an actual low number of possible candidates for faculty positions at Notre Dame, while also reminding him that Notre Dame has an established tradition of hiring excellent scholars from abroad. But Miscamble also raises the deeper question of just what excellence means, both in itself and in relation to a particular institution and its academic needs. McGreevy limits the pool of acceptable Catholic scholars to those working at one of the top fifty research universities, assuming without question the criteria of that ranking as well as giving short shrift to scholars at so-called “lesser-ranked” institutions. The takeaway point is the following: when it comes to Catholic hiring, institutions have to decide what counts for them as excellent. In doing so, they must first apply the criteria set forth in Ex corde, as well as discern what sort of scholar is the best fit for their kind of curriculum. A versatile scholar with an interdisciplinary bent and a fondness for Socratic discussion will fit far better at a liberal arts school, for example, than a scholar with a highly specialized expertise.
The issue of specialization brings up a fourth challenge to Catholic hiring. Among the gravest threats to Catholic intellectual life today is the extreme amount of specialization within disciplines, and the compartmentalization that exists between disciplines. Apropos of this threat Alasdair MacIntyre observes:
The conception of the university presupposed by and embodied in the forms and activities of contemporary research universities is not just one that has nothing much to do with any particular conception of the universe, but one that suggests strongly that there is no such thing as the universe, no whole of which the subject matters studied by the various disciplines are all parts or aspects, but instead just a multifarious set of assorted subject matters.106
According to MacIntyre, the institutional form of the contemporary research university threatens the integration of human knowledge, a disintegration that in turn threatens the harmony between faith and reason that, as we have seen, is an essential aim of the Catholic intellectual quest. MacIntyre’s criticism of research universities aside, we can still admit that every institution of higher learning today has to do deal with the threat of specialization and compartmentalization. Hiring practices that seek to counteract this phenomenon must either wholly resist hiring for academic specialty or resist an ideal of academic specialization that favors the narrow intellectual furrow to the exclusion of an integrated view.
Small liberal arts-based institutions will have an easier time combating this threat of specialization and compartmentalization, but even they may well have to take up arms against it. Interestingly, Dr. Steven Snyder, vice-president for academic affairs at Christendom College, believes that when it comes to hiring for mission, the aim of acquiring a predominance of committed Catholic scholars is not enough. It is also important that the faculty share a “habit of communication in regard to common philosophical principles.” Even at a small, ideologically-driven college, remarks Snyder, intellectual divisions can arise, especially between scientists, on the one hand, and philosophers and theologians, on the other, due to their differing educational formations. A member of a biology faculty, for example, may be an exemplary Catholic, but have no sense of, perhaps even reject, the understanding of faith and reason that animates philosophy and theology. Specialization and compartmentalization are a constant, twin-headed threat to the Catholic intellectual life.
A fifth challenge to a renewal of Catholic hiring practices concerns the hiring of non-Catholic faculty. There is no question that non-Catholics can be welcome and productive members of a Catholic institution of higher learning. But there is a danger in assuming that non-Catholic scholars, in particular those whose work in some way impacts the Catholic intellectual tradition, are perfect substitutes for Catholic scholars. In his debate with Fr. Miscamble about Catholic hiring at Notre Dame, John McGreevy argues that “Miscamble’s preoccupation with the numbers also comes at the expense of ideas. Surely one responsibility of the faculty at a Catholic university is to cultivate possible areas of expertise that resonate with the long, rich heritage of Catholic Christianity.” But then McGreevy immediately adds: “This is not a confessional task. An appealing dimension of intellectual life at Notre Dame is that scholars from all backgrounds introduce our students to a range of subjects and areas not studied in such depth at other universities” (emphasis added). For McGreevy, then, as long as there are scholars on the faculty who are experts in fields that in some way “resonate with the long, rich heritage of Catholic Christianity,” then the Catholic research university has discharged its mission. But to call the assemblage of a faculty at a Catholic institution not a confessional task is surely too strong. Granted, a Catholic institution is entitled to make strategic hires of non-Catholics. But to accept a non-Catholic scholar working on a subject related to the Catholic tradition as a perfect substitute for a Catholic scholar, is to deny the supreme importance of the Catholic college or university being a community predominantly of Catholics pursuing their scholarly endeavors within the wider evangelical mission of their shared faith
A sixth and final challenge has to do with how to identify qualified Catholic candidates. Everyone agrees that when it comes to hiring Catholics, mere numbers are not enough. What an institution needs are Burtchaell’s “seriously committed and intellectually accomplished Catholics.” But how does an institution discern the religious commitment of job candidates? By having them check a box? By asking them directly? And how does it ascertain the Catholic commitment of faculty members as their careers proceed
As we turn now in the second part of the report to specific hiring-for-mission policies, it will not be the intention to show how each policy captures the essence of Catholic higher education according to the norms of Ex corde, or how each policy addresses one or more of the challenges just outlined—though much of this will be evident in the policies themselves. It will be enough if this first part of the report clearly frames some of the more important issues for those who will sift through these policies and evaluate those which will contribute to a set of best practices when it comes to hiring for mission.
Further Relevant Literature
1999 promulgation by the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops: The Application of Ex corde Ecclesiae for the United States:
Highly recommended is Wilson D. Miscamble, C.S.C., “Meeting the Challenge and Fulfilling the Promise: Mission and Method in Constructing a Great Catholic University,” in the Hesburgh volume cited in note 1.
This is an interesting article by Rev. Robert Niehoff, S.J., president of John Carroll University, on the importance of hiring for mission, the need to balance the “ideal” and the “possible” when it comes to mission hiring, and how the issue of mission by itself can never trump the need for excellent academic qualifications:
This article by Rev. James Heft, S.M., Alton Brooks Professor of Religion and president of the Institute for Advanced Catholic Studies at the University of Southern California, has a nice section on hiring for mission, exposing the false dichotomy between hiring for diversity and hiring for mission:
Mission Statements, Vision Statements, and Other Kinds of Statements and Policies Regarding Institutional Mission
Let us now turn to real initiatives being taken by Catholic colleges and universities that are successfully hiring for mission. As stated earlier, a strong hiring for mission policy presupposes a clear statement of mission as the cornerstone of its structure.
Mission Statements
Many institutions studied in preparation for this report have strong, even exemplary, missions statements. Here are some examples of the best:
Franciscan University of Steubenville Mission Statement:
The complete version of Franciscan’s mission statement is exemplary for its faithfulness to the Magisterium, its commitment to the Catholic liberal arts tradition, and its understanding of how a Catholic university should be a source of evangelical witness. Perhaps too long to quote in full, the last item in the Statement of Convictions that concludes the statement should at least be noted: “Therefore, the administration, faculty, and staff, in fostering an intellectual and faith community, are obligated to serve, lead, and guide the institution in a manner consistent with its overall mission.107
Ave Maria University Mission Statement:
Founded in fidelity to Christ and His Church in response to the call of Vatican II for greater lay witness in contemporary society, Ave Maria University exists to further teaching, research, and learning at the undergraduate and graduate levels in the abiding tradition of Catholic thought in both national and international settings. The University takes as its mission the sponsorship of a liberal arts education curriculum dedicated, as articulated in the apostolic constitution Ex corde Ecclesiae, to the advancement of human culture, the promotion of dialogue between faith and reason, the formation of men and women in the intellectual and moral virtues of the Catholic faith, and to the development of professional and pre-professional programs in response to local and societal needs. As an institution committed to Catholic principles, the University recognizes the importance of creating and maintaining an environment in which faith informs the life of the community and takes expression in all its programs. The University recognizes the central and indispensable role of the Ordinary of the Diocese of Venice in promoting and assisting in the preservation and strengthening of the University’s Catholic identity.
Christendom College Mission Statement:
Christendom College is a Catholic coeducational college institutionally committed to the Magisterium of the Roman Catholic Church.
The College provides a Catholic liberal arts curriculum grounded in natural and revealed truth, the purpose of which at both the undergraduate and graduate levels is to form the whole person for a life spent in the pursuit of truth and wisdom. Intrinsic to such an education is the formation of moral character and the fostering of the spiritual life. This education prepares students for their role as faithful, informed, and articulate members of Christ’s Church and society.
The particular mission of Christendom College, both at the undergraduate and graduate levels, is “to restore all things in Christ,” by forming men and women to contribute to the Christian renovation of the temporal order. This mission gives Christendom its name.
Benedictine College Mission Statement:
Benedictine College is an academic community sponsored by the monks of St. Benedict’s Abbey and the sisters of Mount St. Scholastica Monastery. Heir to the 1,500 years of Benedictine dedication to learning, Benedictine College in its own time is ordered to the goal of wisdom lived out in responsible awareness of oneself, God and nature, family and society. Its mission as a Catholic, Benedictine, liberal arts, residential college is the education of men and women within a community of faith and scholarship.
As a Catholic college, Benedictine College is committed to those beliefs and natural principles that form the framework of the Judeo-Christian tradition, and it is committed further to those specific matters of faith of the Roman Catholic tradition, as revealed in the person of Jesus Christ and handed down in the teachings of the Church. The college embraces students and faculty from all faiths who accept its goals, seeking in its members a personal commitment to the ideals and principles of a spiritual life and the expression of these in worship and action. Benedictine College promotes the growing involvement of religious and laity in the Church’s ministries.
As a college founded on the Benedictine tradition, Benedictine College inherits the themes handed on to us by the Benedictine family: peace, the balance of activity and contemplation, and the glorification of God in all undertakings. With the ideal of a common life vitalized by the spirit of St. Benedict, the members of the Benedictine College community can share work and prayer in common, faithful participation in the life of the community, attentive openness to the Word of God, deep concern for issues of justice and peace, and the pursuit of moderation, hospitality and care for the gifts of creation.
As a liberal arts college, Benedictine College is dedicated to provide a liberal arts education by means of academic programs based on a core of studies in the arts and sciences. Through these programs, the college guides students to refine their capacity for the pursuit and acquisition of truth, to appreciate the major achievements in thought and culture, and to understand the principles that sound theoretical and practical judgment require. In addition, the college provides education for careers through both professional courses of study and major programs in the liberal arts and sciences. As an essential element in its educational mission, Benedictine College fosters scholarship, independent research and performance in its students and faculty as a means of participating in and contributing to the broader world of learning.
As a residential college, Benedictine College supports and encourages the full development of its students through a community life that expresses and proclaims the worth and dignity of each individual. In a caring and supportive atmosphere, students are helped to develop a sense of meaningful purpose in life and encouraged to participate in programs which promote sound bodies, emotional balance and dedication to the welfare of others.
These and other strong mission statements share certain characteristics; they express:
fidelity to the Church’s Magisterium;
commitment to the pursuit of truth within the Catholic intellectual tradition, in particular the liberal arts tradition;
a desire to develop the whole person: intellectually, morally, spiritually;
a spirit of service to the wider culture understood as real Christian renewal; and
where relevant, a desire to promote the particular spiritual tradition of the institution’s founding (for example, the Benedictine tradition at Benedictine College and at Belmont Abbey College).
By way of comparison, it is useful to consider the most relevant portions of the mission statement of Brigham Young University:
The mission of Brigham Young University—founded, supported, and guided by The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints—is to assist individuals in their quest for perfection and eternal life. That assistance should provide a period of intensive learning in a stimulating setting where a commitment to excellence is expected and the full realization of human potential is pursued.
All instruction, programs, and services at BYU, including a wide variety of extracurricular experiences, should make their own contribution toward the balanced development of the total person. Such a broadly prepared individual will not only be capable of meeting personal challenge and change but will also bring strength to others in the tasks of home and family life, social relationships, civic duty, and service to mankind.
To succeed in this mission the university must provide an environment enlightened by living prophets and sustained by those moral virtues which characterize the life and teachings of the Son of God. In that environment these four major educational goals should prevail [of which only the first two will be cited, as being most relevant]:
All students at BYU should be taught the truths of the gospel of Jesus Christ. Any education is inadequate which does not emphasize that His is the only name given under heaven whereby mankind can be saved. Certainly all relationships within the BYU community should reflect devout love of God and a loving, genuine concern for the welfare of our neighbor.
Because the gospel encourages the pursuit of all truth, students at BYU should receive a broad university education. The arts, letters, and sciences provide the core of such an education, which will help students think clearly, communicate effectively, understand important ideas in their own cultural tradition as well as that of others, and establish clear standards of intellectual integrity…
In meeting these objectives BYU’s faculty, staff, students, and administrators should be anxious to make their service and scholarship available to The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints in furthering its work worldwide. In an era of limited enrollments, BYU can continue to expand its influence both by encouraging programs that are central to the Church’s purposes and by making its resources available to the Church when called upon to do so.
We believe the earnest pursuit of this institutional mission can have a strong effect on the course of higher education and will greatly enlarge Brigham Young University’s influence in a world we wish to improve.
And from the evangelical perspective, there is Wheaton College’s Statement of Faith and Educational Purpose; the Statement of Faith is “reaffirmed annually by its Board of Trustees, faculty, and staff….”108
Vision Statements
It is also worth noting the practice, employed for example by Christendom College and Benedictine College, of appending a vision statement to their statements of mission.
Other Kinds of Statements and Policies Regarding Institutional Mission
Following its vision statement, Christendom provides an eight-part essay that even further amplifies what it means to be a truly Catholic college.
Similarly Michael Dauphinais, dean of faculty at Ave Maria University, has produced the following message, with its accompanying video, explaining the nature of a liberal education in the Catholic tradition.
By way of introducing its faculty on its website, Franciscan University presents an overview of what it means to be a member of its faculty. There we read:
But what truly sets Franciscan’s professors apart from their peers is that they hold teaching and mentoring you as a sacred trust. They care not only about your GPA and your future career but about helping you become the man or woman God has called you to be from all eternity.
Moreover, on its website Wheaton College provides this overview of what a liberal education means in light of that institution’s evangelical mission.
Finally on the issue of mission, vision, and related statements, Dr. Anne Carson Daly, vice-president of academic affairs at Belmont Abbey College, stresses the importance of departmental mission statements being coordinated with the overall mission statement of the college or university. Consider in this light the mission statement of the Department of Biology at Belmont Abbey:
Department Mission: The Biology Department educates students in the discipline within the context of the Benedictine Liberal Arts tradition. In doing so, we understand biology as the study of life and life processes. The Biology Department believes that, in this modern world, knowledge of biological principles is necessary for every educated person. Such knowledge constitutes a vital part of that liberal learning whose goal, as John Henry Newman noted, is “fitness for the world.” We aim for the study of Biology to help students assess the many issues that face today’s world, enabling them to become responsible citizens and to promote the common good.
Departmental Goals: In Ex corde Ecclesiae, John Paul II states, “…a Catholic University is distinguished by its free search for the whole truth about nature, man, and God.” In biology, because of the limitations of the tools of science, we concentrate on the first two, the natural world and humans and our place in the realm of nature. It is the nature of biology to observe the fundamental symmetry of nature and the patterns and tempo in the evolution of organisms. In this way, biologists and scientists in general seek to understand the diversity, commonalities, and evolution of the natural world, and to appreciate the importance of assuming stewardship and preservation of the biological diversity of life….
Consider in this regard, too, the following mission statement of the School of Religious Education at Brigham Young:
The mission of Religious Education at Brigham Young University is to assist individuals in their efforts to come unto Christ by teaching the scriptures, doctrine, and history of the restored gospel of Jesus Christ through classroom instruction, gospel scholarship, and outreach to the larger community.
Identifying Potential Candidates
Now we want to begin to track the typical hiring process at Catholic colleges and universities, and highlight at the various stages of that process some of the more valuable policies and practices when it comes to hiring for mission.
More than one of the administrators spoken to in the preparation of this report argued that the more focused an institution’s mission is, and the more unabashedly Catholic it is, the more the institution is able to attract “seriously committed and intellectually accomplished Catholics.” Fr. Miscamble notes that three of Notre Dame’s recent hires, Bill Evans and Timothy Fuerst in economics and, a little further back, Brad Gregory in history—all top-flight scholars—came to Notre Dame precisely because of its Catholic mission. Gregory even left a tenured position at Stanford in order to do so. He also references Notre Dame’s Law School as a campus unit that over the years has built a superb faculty by aggressively hiring for mission.
Compare with this the situation at Colorado Christian University. With the administration’s support, Colorado Christian University has re-branded as an intensely religious institution, highlighting its Christian identity on its website and on job application materials. According to Rick Garris, director of human relations at CCU, this consistent emphasis on the school’s Christian identity functions as a pre-screening mechanism, attracting religious candidates and dissuading those of different or weak faiths. Applicants are further culled during the online portion of the application, which asks the potential employee to “talk about their faith.” Applicants who don’t provide an answer are automatically removed from the applicant pool.
We see in these examples of Notre Dame and CCU that a strong sense of mission distilled in the mission statement and embodied in the life of the institution is the first and foremost means of indentifying and attracting excellent Catholic job candidates. Responsibility for a strong Catholic culture starts, of course, at the top. Dr. Lawrence Poos, dean of the School of Arts and Sciences at The Catholic University of America, makes this point when he credits a former president of that institution, now Bishop David O’Connell of Trenton, NJ, for changing the culture at CUA by thematizing the issue of hiring for mission. But apart from—or better, given—the existence of a robust commitment to mission on campus, how are strong mission-driven candidates identified?
Most institutions identify potential candidates informally: through professional associations, scholarly publications, the candidate’s being a student of a respected scholar, job postings, and the like.
Notre Dame, however, has gone to uncommon lengths to make the identification of potential candidates more strategic by establishing its Office of Recruitment Support, currently headed by Rev. Robert Sullivan. The primary purpose of this office is to maintain a “database of scholars who have been identified as Catholic, either by the scholars themselves or through public means.” The office makes available an online .pdf brochure that explains the purpose of the database, which is to help “identify for faculty positions academically excellent potential candidates who can advance [Notre Dame’s] Catholic identity.” There is an online signup form for those who would like to contribute their own name; but other names are collected through informal networks of professional and spiritual association.
Terry Ball, dean of the College of Religious Education at Brigham Young University, reports that BYU draws potential faculty candidates either from Church of Latter-day Saints seminary programs, or by attracting recent graduates (some of whom may have enjoyed study grants from BYU) or faculty from other institutions. In the latter case, BYU employs standing search committees to help identify pools of potential candidates. Like other institutions, it also makes use of receptions at major professional meetings. Those candidates the University is especially interested in will often be invited to campus for a trial semester of teaching.
Forming the Search Committee
At some mid-sized to smaller institutions, the college or university president is significantly involved in hiring new faculty. At Christendom, the president even serves on the search committee for each and every new hire, as does the vice-president for academic affairs. Though such a policy would be impracticable at a large research institution such as Notre Dame, it remains imperative, as Fr. Miscamble states, that the president, vice-president for academic affairs or provost, and the deans stay as involved in the hiring process as possible, especially in regard to hiring for mission.
One way for the top administration to stay involved, even if they themselves are not serving on search committees, is for the president and dean to meet with the search committee to discuss mission issues in the context of the relevant discipline, as is done at Benedictine College. Another strategy is for the vice-president for academic affairs to play a significant role in the selection of the search committee, as occurs at Belmont Abbey, where the rules governing searches require the VPAA to appoint the chair of the search committee (usually the chair of the relevant department or division). Carson Daly explains that these rules also require her to pick an additional committee member from the relevant division, as well as to select another member from a pool of three divisional faculty suggested by the search chair. At Christendom, the relevant department chair joins the president and vice-president for academic affairs to make up the trio that is the standard search committee at that institution.
Another excellent practice is found in the School of Arts and Sciences at CUA. Dean Poos requires of each department pursuing a hire to submit to him a “search strategy document,” a written explanation of the department’s reasons for wanting to hire, with emphasis upon how the proposed position relates to the University’s Catholic mission.
As a search gets underway, as Mount St. Mary’s Dean Joshua Hochschild stresses, the importance of hiring for mission must continue to be a theme of conversation in the department itself. The policies and procedures of the institution must inspire water-cooler conversations among faculty about how this charge is to be taken up by the department. Names of potential candidates will no doubt already begin to surface through friendships, associations, and encounters in the field, and discussion of these potential candidates must include how they would fit with the Catholic mission of the institution.
Further Relevant Literature
This essay by Rev. James Heft, S.M. has an interesting section on hiring for mission in which he pursues strategies to enforce the point noted just above, that hiring for mission strategies very much require a “bottom up” approach (i.e., intensive conversations with departments and department chairs about hiring for mission), just as much or more than they require a “top down” approach:
When it comes to advertising positions, some schools display a page on their website that serves both as an extension of the mission statement and as a statement of what the school expects from future faculty, such as we find on the site of John Paul the Great Catholic University:
John Paul the Great Catholic University seeks to create a spiritually stimulating campus environment where students learn about Jesus Christ based on sacred Scripture, sacred Tradition, and the Catholic Church’s magisterium (teaching authority). There is a strong emphasis on traditional and time-enduring spiritual, moral, and social values.
All faculty involved with the teaching of the Catholic faith require a mandatum from the Bishop of San Diego. The mandatum documents the professor’s commitment and responsibility to teach authentic Catholic doctrine and to refrain from putting forth as Catholic teaching anything contrary to the Church’s magisterium.
JP Catholic University seeks to effect significant societal change by producing leaders committed to the application of Christ’s principles in the marketplace and in the workplace. JP Catholic seeks to graduate leaders who will passionately implement ethical business and employment practices. Graduates must strive to create workplaces that embody the principles of Jesus Christ in their interactions with all the publics of the enterprise – employees, customers, investors, suppliers, and community.
John Paul the Great Catholic University intentionally seeks to avoid causing controversy and confusion among its students in matters of faith. JP Catholic seeks to shape and form solid Catholic leaders and innovators poised to put into action the teachings of Jesus Christ, and not to become agitators for change on matters of doctrine.
All teaching faculty commit to harmony with Catholic Church teachings (the pope and bishops) in speech and action. Faculty, staff, students or volunteers who knowingly in public speech or actions take positions against the Catholic Church compromise their relationship with JP Catholic. JP Catholic expects all trustees, faculty and staff to celebrate the positive spiritual and entrepreneurial components of its mission and to eschew betraying or obstructing what the institution is striving to build. Students, faculty and staff come from all faiths, and the university has as a fundamental belief of mutual respect for diverse beliefs.
A similar directive to future applicants can be found on the website of Benedictine College:
Our Benedictine 2020: A Vision for Greatness strategic plan has made it a campus wide priority to: “Recruit, retain, and develop one of the great Catholic college faculties in America.”
The plan continues: “We believe that Benedictine College’s educational experience is enhanced by all aspects of our mission: community, faith and scholarship…
“Community: The first step to achieving academic excellence in a community of faith and scholarship is the ongoing development of one of the great Catholic college faculties in America….
“Faith: Benedictine College is committed to sharing with all members of our community the beauty and mystery of the Catholic faith as revealed in the person of Jesus Christ and handed down through the teachings of the Church….
“Scholarship: Academic excellence at Benedictine College is driven by faculty who exhibit strong commitment in their teaching and scholarship to provide an environment that prepares students with the best that has been thought and written. Faculty will develop graduates who are critical thinkers who read, speak, and write well, and are personally and professionally prepared for life’s challenges on a local and global scale. As faculty at a Catholic college, we embrace the distinctive challenge of Catholic education articulated by Pope Benedict XVI: to form the will, as well as the mind, of the students within our care.”
Also pertinent are the Collegiate Statutes promulgated by Thomas More College of Liberal Arts, which set up a strong set of expectations for potential faculty:
All Fellows [i.e., faculty members] are required to uphold the teaching and ethical norms of the Roman Catholic Church and to make the annual Profession of Faith and Oath of Fidelity in accord with the Apostolic Constitution Ex corde Ecclesiae. Those Fellows teaching courses in Sacred Scripture or Theology are expected to seek the mandatum from the local ordinary, the Bishop of Manchester, New Hampshire.
At Mount St. Mary’s, all candidates are shown, and told they would be expected to support, the first page of the Mount’s Governing Documents, which state:
The Board of Trustees reasserts the critical importance of the Catholic identity in all operations of the University. A strong Catholic identity is central to the mission of Mount St. Mary’s University. Therefore, all faculty, staff, administrators, executive officers and Trustees are to work in concert with and support this Catholic mission. The basic tenets of this Catholic mission at Mount St. Mary’s include:
The University is committed to the person and Gospel of Jesus Christ as the foundation of our values and attitudes which are reflected in our campus culture, policies and procedures.
The University fully understands, respects and follows the teachings of the Catholic Church.
The University is in full compliance with both the letter and spirit of Ex corde Ecclesiae.
The University recognizes the authority of the Holy See and the authority vested in the Archbishop of Baltimore regarding the Catholic nature and direction of Mount St. Mary’s University.
The School of Religious Education at Brigham Young University has also taken a pro-active approach to stating their expectations of future faculty. When one clicks on the FAQ section of the School’s website and scrolls down, one finds a policy statement regarding Hiring Future Faculty in Religious Education. “What are the criteria to be used in deciding whom to hire?” the statement begins, a question that is then discussed under five headings: Orientation, Gospel Scholarship, Teaching, Training and Credentials, and Citizenship. The first of these headings, Orientation, sets the foundational expectation of all future faculty of the School:
Orientation means having a firm testimony of an unquestioned commitment to the Savior and his gospel, to Joseph Smith, the Restoration, the Church, and the prophetic destiny of Brigham Young University. Other qualifications, no matter how impressive, do not override the necessity of this criterion.
Similarly, too, at Colorado Christian University, both applicants and existing employees are required to affirm their commitment to CCU’s statements of Faith, LifeStyle Expectations, and Strategic Objectives that demonstrate the institution’s evangelical principles.
Job Postings
Turning now to job advertisements themselves, consider this advertisement for a position currently available in Christendom College’s Department of English Language and Literature:
The Department of English Language and Literature at Christendom College seeks a full-time faculty appointment to begin August 15, 2013. This is an entry-level position.
The successful candidate will teach a 4/4 load that may include any of the literature courses in the core curriculum, major-oriented courses in literary criticism and/or poetics, and courses in his field of expertise. The department especially welcomes candidates who specialize in medieval literature. A Ph.D. and teaching experience are preferred, but the department will consider particularly well-qualified ABD candidates.
Christendom College, located in Virginia’s Shenandoah Valley, is a four-year Catholic liberal arts college whose faculty members take an annual, voluntary oath of fidelity to the Magisterium of the Church. Our faculty members enjoy being part of a community of Catholic scholars dedicated to excellence in teaching. For more information on the Christendom Mission and Vision statements, curriculum, and student life, see www.christendom.edu.
This advertisement is typical of what one tends to find in academic job postings—except for the final paragraph, which not only links the position advertised with the overall mission of the college (“Christendom College…is a four-year Catholic liberal arts college), but also alerts potential candidates that members of the Christendom faculty take a voluntary Oath of Fidelity to the Magisterium of the Church. In alerting potential candidates to this practice, Christendom makes abundantly clear what it expects from its faculty in terms of commitment to the school’s Catholic mission. Steve Snyder, vice-president for academic affairs at Christendom, underscores that the taking of the Oath of Fidelity is voluntary, but by mentioning even this voluntary practice in its job postings, Christendom puts the hiring for mission issue at the forefront and effectively winnows out potential candidates who might apply simply in the interests of finding a job.
A current job posting for a position in the History Department at Franciscan University also “requires support for Mission of the university.”
The Catholic University of America uses similar language in every one of its job postings:
The Catholic University of America is the national university of the Catholic Church and was founded as a center of research and scholarship. We seek candidates who, regardless of their religious affiliation, understand and will make a significant contribution to the university’s mission and goals.
Here, moreover, is a current advertisement produced by Benedictine College for a position available as an experimental physicist. This is a good example of a job posting for a position outside the humanities that strongly ties in the position to the Catholic mission of the college:
The Department of Physics and Astronomy at Benedictine College invites outstanding teacher-scholars to apply for a tenure track position for an Experimental Physicist starting in fall 2012. PhD required. Benedictine is a college growing in enrollment and reputation. The Department offers bachelor degrees in physics, astronomy, engineering physics and physics secondary ed. Nearly ¾ of our graduates go on to graduate or professional schools. The successful candidate should have a strong commitment to undergraduate Liberal Arts education. Teaching areas include introductory courses for the general student body and courses and laboratories at all levels for majors. The successful candidate will be expected to establish on-campus research experiences for students participating in our Discovery Program as well as in departmental research. Candidate’s background should include experience in experimental physics, complementing current faculty strengths in astronomy and theoretical physics.
Benedictine College, which has a full-time undergraduate enrollment of approximately 1600 students, is a mission-centered academic community. Its mission as a Catholic, Benedictine, liberal arts, residential college is the education of men and women within a community of faith and scholarship. Benedictine College provides a liberal arts education by means of academic programs based on a core of studies in the arts and sciences. In addition, the college provides education for careers through both professional courses of study and major programs in the liberal arts and sciences. As an essential element of its mission, Benedictine College fosters scholarship, independent research and performance in its students and faculty as a means of participating in and contributing to the broader world of learning.
Beyond disciplinary expertise, Benedictine College seeks faculty members eager to engage and support our mission. Application materials should discuss how you would contribute to the college’s Catholic, Benedictine, liberal arts identity.
Likewise, Notre Dame’s College of Engineering currently has a notice on its website for prospective applicants during the 2012-13 academic year which exhibits good coordination between the mission of the university and that of the College of Engineering—especially impressive for a discipline outside the humanities:
Notre Dame invites academically gifted applicants supportive of and dedicated to enhancing its mission as a Catholic research university, particularly women, members of historically underrepresented groups, and others who will enhance the diversity of its faculty to apply….
The Application
The most common way that hiring for mission is emphasized at the application stage is in the institution’s request for the applicant to compose a response to the university’s mission statement. Dean Michael Dauphinais at Ave Maria and Dean Christopher Blum at Thomas More College both stressed the need of this statement to convincingly show how the candidate’s teaching and scholarship relate to the Catholic mission of their respective institutions. The key question that Blum likes to see the candidate answer, either in the response to the mission statement or in the on-site interview, is “How do you perceive your own pursuit of wisdom as contributing to the Catholic intellectual tradition?” Steve Snyder likes the candidate’s response to the mission statement to reveal how the mission statement of Christendom aids the scholar in his or her intellectual life.
At Mount St. Mary’s University, application materials invite the candidate to address the mission of the institution in one of three ways:
Beyond disciplinary expertise, Mount St. Mary’s seeks faculty members eager to engage and support our Catholic identity. Application materials should discuss how you might contribute to the University’s Catholic liberal arts mission, how your work engages with the Catholic intellectual tradition, or how your own faith tradition informs your vocation as teacher and scholar.
About this aspect of the application Dean Hochschild remarks:
In addition to providing some sense of what a search committee should look for, it is just fairness and a favor to candidates to invite specific engagement in a cover letter. Without that, given the different types of Catholic universities and the different kinds of views that can be represented on a search committee, it is simply unfair to mention “Catholic identity” in a generic sense and then expect candidates to say anything in a cover letter.
We find that many candidates (and not just Catholics) welcome the opportunity to speak to these issues, and I know of more than one occasion where this language actually prompted someone to apply who wasn’t otherwise going to.
Narrowing the Field
The question of mission fit perhaps comes most forcefully into play in the activities by which the search committee, in conjunction with the upper administration, narrows the field of potential candidates—a field which at least in larger research universities can reach into the hundreds for a single position.
Institutions sometimes employ “first-round” phone interviews, or interviews at meetings of professional associations, in order to help winnow the field of candidates, interviews in which mission questions can play a part. For example, Baylor University in its phone interviews asks candidates specific questions not only about their religious affiliation, but also about the degree of their involvement in their church or parish. In order to help determine a short-list of candidates, The Catholic University of America’s College of Arts and Sciences follows the practice of many institutions in asking candidates to write a response to the university’s mission statement.
On-site interviews, which customarily include a lecture or “job talk,” as well as the teaching of a course, also help manifest the candidate’s serious commitment to, or alliance with, the religious mission of the institution. At this stage of the process various strategies are employed.
The candidate’s discussions with the search committee, for example, will include specific questions on Catholic mission. As Christopher Kaczor, professor of philosophy at Loyola Marymount University, explains about his own department’s procedures:
Our department does a good job hiring for mission by asking open-ended questions like the following, “LMU is a Catholic university. How do you see yourself contributing to the distinctive mission and identity of LMU?” Then, the candidate says whatever they say but it is often revelatory. The follow up questions are key. So, we might follow up with, “Well, how does your answer differ from what might be fitting at a non-Catholic university?” Or, “How does your research/teaching/service contribute to the promotion of justice and service of faith?” We try to get the candidate to talk at length about such questions and we’ve been successful in determining who would be a good fit for us.
At Mount St. Mary’s, Dean Hochschild reviews all the applications that come in for positions available in his school, taking special note of those candidates who write a good letter about Catholic mission. Hochschild underscores that he does not try to force a department into hiring a specific candidate, but he converses with departments before invitations for on-site interviews, and must approve all candidates. In explaining negative decisions to the committee, he harkens back to earlier conversations about the importance of hiring for mission. He also depends upon the support of the president and provost in supporting his decisions (the president, when possible, also interviews all candidates invited to campus for interviews). Usually, if three candidates come to campus for interviews at the Mount, then the president expects at least two to be Catholic. For Hochschild, “it is most important that at least two be well-versed in and show personal investment in the Catholic intellectual tradition, and all three show willingness and ability to engage that tradition.”
The Catholic University of America has a requirement that the president and provost be given an opportunity to review and approve the curriculum vitae of a candidate for a faculty position before that candidate is invited for an on-campus interview. Indeed, Dean Poos meets for an hour and a half with each candidate who interviews on campus for a position in his school, and makes discussion of the University’s mission a main focus of that interview. In these interviews Dean Poos asks the key question: “How would it be different for you to be a faculty member here than at, say, Ohio State?”
Helping narrow the field of job candidates at Ave Maria University is its policy that Catholics must form a majority in every department. At Ave Maria, too, the dean of faculty meets with the search committee to determine which candidates shall be invited for on-site interviews.
At Belmont Abbey, the vice-president for academic affairs as well as the president meet separately with all candidates during their on-site visits, and make a discussion about the mission statement of the college central to those interviews. At Christendom the procedure is the same, as it is, too, at Benedictine College, where the president and dean discuss with the candidate the relevance of mission to his or her daily life as a faculty member, preparing the candidate to integrate faith and reason in the classroom.
Finally, in Brigham Young University’s College of Religious Education, the entire faculty engages in voting on the candidates. The dean, president of the university, as well as the university board of trustees, then must approve the recommended candidate—with the board of trustees, not the president, having the final say. If the recommended candidate fails to win approval from either the dean, president, or the board, then the search committee is charged to recommend another candidate.
The Contract
The issue of the candidate’s commitment to Catholic mission need not end with the offering of a contract. Indeed, the contract itself can contain language that affirms the college’s or university’s expectations of the candidate in this regard. At Christendom, for instance, it is put into the candidate’s contract that public dissent from magisterial teachings is grounds for dismissal from the College. By public dissent is meant more what is published by the scholar than what may be spoken more or less off-hand at a public venue. The school’s procedure in such cases involves a request of judgment from the local ordinary.
Also at Christendom, new hires receive one-year, probationary contracts for each of their first three years of employment, in the midst of which he or she may be dismissed without cause. These probationary years help the school confirm both the scholarly excellence and Catholic commitment of the faculty member.
At The Catholic University of America, formal offers of employment to faculty and staff are accompanied by explicit references to the expectations of employees to respect and support the University’s Catholic mission:
The Catholic University of America was founded in the name of the Catholic Church and maintains a unique relationship with it. The University’s operations, policies and activities reflect this foundation and relationship and are conducted in accordance with its stated mission. Regardless of their religious or denominational affiliation, all employees are expected to respect and support the University’s mission in the fulfillment of their responsibilities and obligations appropriate to their appointment.
Though it is not a contractual component, the statement already alluded to on the website of John Paul the Great Catholic University at least raises the specter of contractual ramifications of public dissent from Magisterial teachings or conduct otherwise undermining of the mission of the University:
All teaching faculty commit to harmony with Catholic Church teachings (the pope and bishops) in speech and action. Faculty, staff, students or volunteers who knowingly in public speech or actions take positions against the Catholic Church compromise their relationship with JP Catholic. JP Catholic expects all trustees, faculty and staff to celebrate the positive spiritual and entrepreneurial components of its mission and to eschew betraying or obstructing what the institution is striving to build.
New Faculty Orientation and Beyond
At the point in which the candidate becomes a new member of the college’s faculty, the process of actually conforming his or her scholarly activities to the college’s specific expression of Catholic mission begins. Most colleges employ some kind of new faculty orientation in which to begin this process. This orientation to mission can be a one-time event, as for example at Baylor University and Benedictine College. At Benedictine the dean makes a presentation that involves discussion of Ex corde along with an introduction to the college’s Benedictine heritage.
But the orientation can also be a longer program. Brigham Young University conducts an eight-week new faculty seminar in which mission issues play a key part. Both BYU and Baylor also assign a faculty mentor to new faculty members in order to help them adapt to the culture of the institution—a practice that was not mentioned in the discussions with Catholic administrators about their new faculty orientation programs
At The Catholic University of America, as well, the provost conducts a mandatory year-long program of orientation and socialization to the academic culture at CUA for new full-time tenure-track and tenured faculty. The program includes a three-day retreat and then six two-hour luncheon meetings spread throughout the academic year. Discussion of Ex corde forms a part of the program.
Even more significantly at Catholic University, Dean Poos meets each semester with every pre-tenured faculty member in his school. In these meetings he takes the opportunity to discuss Ex corde with the faculty member, encouraging him or her to read and study the document, especially the section on characteristics of research at a Catholic university (no. 15). This is particularly important at CUA in that, in their tenure applications, faculty must write a reflection on how their teaching and scholarship relates to the Catholic mission of the institution.
Mount St. Mary’s likewise employs a year-long faculty development seminar for tenure-track faculty, directed by various faculty members (not just deans and theologians), a seminar which involves readings on liberal education and the Catholic university. Dean Hochschild was inspired to launch this kind of seminar by his experience of a similar faculty development seminar at Wheaton College. Belmont Abbey requires that all new faculty attend a presentation on the Benedictine heritage of the College.
As noted earlier, some schools use the Oath of Fidelity and Profession of Faith, along with the mandatum for faculty members teaching theology or Sacred Scripture, as ways of confirming faculty commitment to the purpose of their hire: to adhere whole-heartedly to the Catholic mission of the institution.
Taken together, all of these post-hire practices help cultivate the kind of mission-driven Catholic culture so imperative for a successful hiring-for-mission policy.
Further Relevant Literature
This July 2009 First Things article by John Larivee, F.K. Marsh, and Brian Engelland, “Ex corde and the Dilbert Effect,” lays out some good recommendations for implementing the demands of Ex corde in hiring:
The article by Richard D. Breslin mentioned in the Introduction outlines several advantages of hiring for mission and maintaining a strong Catholic identity. He asserts that schools which are faithful to their Catholic identity will attract more donors, which will free up capital to attract more students and employ professors with “star power.” However, achieving this “next level” of Catholic identity requires schools to hire candidates who, “establish the necessary linkage between their personal philosophy and the philosophy and mission of the institution.” He also points out that it has become unfashionable for interviews to ask about a candidate’s background, religious beliefs or philosophy. Because of these sloppy hiring practices, Breslin asserts that the institution risks “losing its soul.” Besides the aforementioned discomfort about touching on non-academic job requirements, the author also writes about the narrowness of a university’s personnel search, which is frequently carried out by a single department for a faculty member with a highly specialized skill set without any regard to the “institution as a whole.” After laying out these problems, Breslin goes on to lay out a specific series of “institutional action steps”:
Conduct an internal scan: A self-evaluation, instituted by the president and the board of trustees, which establishes the health of a school’s Catholic identity. It isn’t a “witch hunt;” rather, the purpose is to discover, “whether individual hiring units have taken seriously the responsibility of seeking qualified candidates who embrace or who are respectful of the institution’s mission and philosophy.”
Review Hiring Practices: Ensuring all the literature related to hiring includes a “serious segment associated with the Catholic mission.” Hiring teams should include at least one person who will inform the candidate that they are applying for a position at a Catholic institution, which entails certain responsibilities.
Make a Declaration of Intent: A revised statement about the school’s hiring practices and the community’s role in solidifying an institutional Catholic identity.
Develop Specific Literature: Similar to item 3, the school should revise its mission statement and policy statement to conform with its Catholic philosophy.
Review the Interview Process: The institution should make sure that its dedication to a strong Catholic Identity is reflected in all stages of its hiring process, not as a “litmus test” for candidates but as an informative conversation. Asking questions about a candidate’s philosophy and values emphasizes a school’s dedication to these items.
Here is a link to a long document on hiring for mission produced by Loyola Marymount University. The document contains many detailed articles pertaining to hiring for mission, ranging from overviews on the importance of hiring for mission to essays explaining the kinds of questions to ask candidates and how to frame those questions. Even more importantly, there is a chart which shows the difference between legally framed questions and questions that could be considered discriminatory and therefore grounds for a lawsuit. There is also a series of questions which Marymount submits to applicants pertaining to Catholic identity.
https://www.lmu.edu/AssetFactory.aspx?vid=43866
This is a link to a 2001 article by Heft and others on hiring for mission and the conflicting attitudes held about it by administrators and faculties at Catholic institutions. (A link to the first part of this two-part article was not available online.)
Here is a link to Creighton University’s guidelines for hiring for mission. The guidelines mention how the applicant’s interest in Catholic identity and mission is established at each stage of the hiring process (i.e., the listing for the job must mention the school’s Catholic identity, written applications should be screened based on how the candidate characterizes how they will “fit” into the mission of the school, and so on).
Hiring for mission: https://www.creighton.edu/ccas/facultyandstaff/hiringformission/index.php
Online Application for Faculty: https://careers.creighton.edu/applicants/jsp/shared/frameset/Frameset.jsp?time=1348499028750
–
John Carroll University
Job Description – Assistant Professor of Strategic Management: http://sites.jcu.edu/facultypositions/home-page/john-m-and-mary-jo-boler-school-of-business/assistant-professor-of-strategic-management/
Hiring for Mission: http://lemoyne.edu/tabid/2264/default.aspx
Job Description (Director, Office for Career Advising): http://lemoyne.interviewexchange.com/jobofferdetails.jsp;jsessionid=49964936D123D9D88C45E9F98C1D8D4C?JOBID=32412
Online Job Application (Personal Info Form): http://lemoyne.edu/AZIndex/HumanResources/FacultyStaff/PersonalDataForm/tabid/3039/e/1/Default.aspx
Faculty Position Description (Assistant Professor, German): https://jobs.stthomas.edu/postings/13692
Mission, Vision and Convictions: http://www.stthomas.edu/aboutust/mission/
Center for Catholic Studies: http://www.stthomas.edu/cathstudies/about/director/default.html
–
Wheaton College
Statement of Faith and Educational Purpose: http://www.wheaton.edu/About-Wheaton/Statement-of-Faith-and-Educational-Purpose
The liberal arts in the evangelical Christian tradition: http://www.wheaton.edu/Academics/Liberal-Arts
https://cardinalnewmansociety.org/wp-content/uploads/Center-for-the-Study-of-Catholic-Higher-Education-845-x-321-px.png13383521Dr. Daniel McInernyhttps://cardinalnewmansociety.org/wp-content/uploads/CNS-logo-2C-450-tag2.pngDr. Daniel McInerny2012-10-01 01:46:112020-05-22 16:17:09Hiring for Mission at Catholic Colleges and Universities: A Survey of Current Trends and Practices
On May 5, 2012, in his address to several American bishops during their required ad limina visit to Rome, His Holiness Pope Benedict XVI spoke on “religious education and the faith formation of the next generation of Catholics” in the United States. He said:
On the level of higher education, many of you have pointed to a growing recognition on the part of Catholic colleges and universities of the need to reaffirm their distinctive identity in fidelity to their founding ideals and the Church’s mission in service of the Gospel. Yet much remains to be done, especially in such areas as compliance with the mandate laid down in Canon 812 for those who teach theological disciplines.
The importance of this canonical norm as a tangible expression of ecclesial communion and solidarity in the Church’s educational apostolate becomes all the more evident when we consider the confusion created by instances of apparent dissidence between some representatives of Catholic institutions and the Church’s pastoral leadership: such discord harms the Church’s witness and, as experience has shown, can easily be exploited to compromise her authority and her freedom.109
Canon 812 of the Catholic Church’s Code of Canon Law states, “Those who teach theological disciplines in any institutes of higher studies whatsoever must have a mandate from the competent ecclesiastical authority.”110
The U.S. bishops’ 2001 guidelines for implementing Canon 812 describe the mandate, commonly identified by the Latin mandatum, as “fundamentally an acknowledgment by Church authority that a Catholic professor of a theological discipline is teaching within the full communion of the Catholic Church.” It recognizes “the professor’s commitment and responsibility to teach authentic Catholic doctrine and to refrain from putting forth as Catholic teaching anything contrary to the Church’s magisterium.”111 The mandatum is requested by the theologian in writing, and it is granted in writing by the local bishop who presides over the diocese where the theologian is employed.
The Holy Father’s new call for “compliance” with Canon 812 is something of a surprise for Americans. The mandatum has not received significant attention here since the 1990s, when it was vigorously opposed by major theological associations and the Association of Catholic Colleges and Universities, defended by the U.S. bishops and organizations including The Cardinal Newman Society and the Fellowship of Catholic Scholars, and widely debated in both Catholic and secular news media. One reason the topic has received little attention in the past decade is because it is very difficult for Catholics to identify which theologians have received the mandatum; many Catholic colleges and universities refuse to reveal such information, even to students and their families.
Now despite the long silence—or perhaps because of it—Pope Benedict has expressed concern about the lack of compliance with Canon 812, giving the matter renewed importance. Moreover, the Holy Father has declared that compliance with the mandatum is “especially” lacking in the work of Catholic colleges and universities to reaffirm their Catholic identity. This appears to assign to the colleges and universities some responsibility for compliance with Canon 812. In the United States, it is widely understood that it is the individual theologian’s responsibility to request the mandatum, drawing from the language of Canon 812. But many Catholic colleges and universities reject corresponding responsibilities—drawing from the nature of Canon 812 as a statute in the Code’s section on Catholic institutes of higher learning—to employ only Catholic theology professors who receive the mandatum and to disclose to students and others which theology professors have the mandatum.
In response to the Holy Father’s renewed attention to the mandatum, The Cardinal Newman Society has prepared the following report to provide Catholic families a better understanding of the mandatum, identify concerns about compliance with Canon 812, and suggest responsibilities of Catholic colleges and universities. We have invited several Church officials, college leaders, canon law experts, and theologians to contribute their insights. Quite appropriately, none of these wished to guess the personal concerns and intentions of the Holy Father, but they did identify serious compliance issues that may, we hope, find resolution in Catholic colleges and universities’ response to Pope Benedict’s charge.
Chief among those who responded to our queries is His Eminence Cardinal Raymond Burke, prefect of the Supreme Tribunal of the Apostolic Signatura and Archbishop Emeritus of St. Louis. He serves as the chief judge for the Vatican’s canon law courts and therefore has great influence on matters of canon law. Cardinal Burke is also a member of the Congregation for the Clergy and the Pontifical Council for Legislative Texts, and he is Ecclesiastical Advisor to The Cardinal Newman Society’s Center for the Advancement of Catholic Higher Education.
“The Holy Father only has a limited number of occasions during these ad limina visits to speak with bishops,” noted Cardinal Burke in his June 20th telephone interview with The Cardinal Newman Society, “and that he would devote one of the lengthier communications with the bishops to the subject [of the mandatum and Catholic higher education] certainly indicates to me that it is a serious concern on his part.”
His Excellency Bishop Joseph Martino, retired from the Diocese of Scranton and a long-time advisor to The Cardinal Newman Society, agrees that Pope Benedict’s address to the American bishops has real significance.
“The Pope does not bring up topics casually in his ad limina talks,” Bishop Martino told The Cardinal Newman Society. “When all of the Pope’s talks to the U.S.A. bishops during their recent ad limina visits are analyzed, you have a summary of the Pope’s pastoral ‘worries’ about the Catholic Church in the U.S.A.”
Resistance to the Mandatum
Catholic identity in Catholic higher education has been a significant concern of both the Vatican and the U.S. bishops for at least three decades. The mandatum is a key aspect of the Vatican’s response to secularization and theological dissent, and it is celebrated at several Catholic colleges and universities where theology professors are required to have the mandatum. Many other institutions, however, have resisted the mandatum, claiming it is an infringement on academic freedom and institutional autonomy.
In 1983 His Holiness, Blessed Pope John Paul II approved the revised Code of Canon Law, which for the first time in Church history included a section governing “Catholic universities and other institutes of higher studies”—including the mandatum requirement for theologians. But some American experts in canon law contended that the new section did not apply to most Catholic colleges and universities, because they are legally owned by trustees and not the Catholic Church. As a result, the mandatum was largely ignored.
In 1990 Blessed John Paul II resolved the matter with the constitution for Catholic higher education, Ex corde Ecclesiae,112 which assumes canonical jurisdiction over any college or university that has an “institutional commitment” to Catholic education, regardless of legal control. The constitution also insists on compliance with the mandatum.
Despite complaints from some theologians and academic societies, in 1999 the American bishops approved particular norms to implement Ex corde Ecclesiae in the United States,113 including the requirement that Catholic theology professors at Catholic colleges and universities obtain the mandatum. In 2001 the bishops issued guidelines for compliance with the mandatum.114 And last year the bishops completed a nationwide review of colleges’ and universities’ progress toward complying with Ex corde Ecclesiae, including specific discussion of the mandatum.115
Nevertheless, a 2011 survey of U.S. Catholic college and university leaders revealed that serious concerns remain. Forty-two percent of the respondents + Add New Issue said their institutions have neither a department nor a chair of Catholic theology as required by Ex corde Ecclesiae, and more than seven percent said that Catholic theology is not even taught in their institutions. More than a third (36 percent) said they did not know whether their theology professors have received the mandatum, 10 percent said some but not all of their theologians have received it, and another 6 percent said no professors have it.116
In June and July 2012, The Cardinal Newman Society contacted the public relations offices of the ten largest Catholic universities in America, ranked by their undergraduate student enrollment. We asked them to identify theology professors who have received the mandatum.
Only three of the ten universities replied by our deadline, and none provided the requested information. DePaul University spokesman John Holden wrote, “I believe this question misunderstands the mandatum process developed by the bishops. Faculty request the mandatum directly from the local ordinary. A university would not generally have this information.”
Father James Fitz, SM, vice president for mission and rector of the University of Dayton, reported likewise that the University views the mandatum “as a personal relationship between the theologian and the archbishop. …Therefore, the University does not have a list of those who have received the mandatum, nor does the University publish such a list.”
Marquette University spokeswoman Kate Venne explained that the mandatum is an obligation of the theologian, not the university, and information about who has the mandatum “is not something that is shared with the university or a department chair.”
The remaining seven large universities did not respond at all to our request: Boston College, Fordham University, Georgetown University, Loyola University Chicago, St. John’s University in New York, Saint Louis University, and the University of Notre Dame.
By contrast, other Catholic colleges and universities—including several that are recommended in The Newman Guide to Choosing a Catholic College117—have taken a much different approach to the mandatum. They see it as an institutional obligation to ensure that theology faculty have the mandatum, and they offer full disclosure to students and others.
In June and July 2012, The Cardinal Newman Society requested and received confirmation that all theology faculty have the mandatum at Aquinas College in Tennessee, Ave Maria University, Belmont Abbey College, Benedictine College, the College of Saint Mary Magdalen, DeSales University, Franciscan University of Steubenville, John Paul the Great Catholic University, Mount St. Mary’s University, St. Gregory’s University, Thomas More College of Liberal Arts, the University of St. Thomas in Texas, and Wyoming Catholic College. At The Catholic University of America, where the theology and religious studies department is a pontifical faculty, all professors have the similar missio canonica from the Archbishop of Washington.
The Mandatum and Catholic Higher Education
Pope Benedict’s May 5th address to U.S. bishops considers a key question: Is the mandatum only a theologian’s private, individual commitment of fidelity to the Church, or does it also have significance for a college or university’s Catholic identity? The Holy Father appears to confirm the latter.
Cardinal Burke reflected on Pope Benedict’s address in his interview with The Cardinal Newman Society. In that address, says Cardinal Burke, the Holy Father “mentions that some important efforts have been made, but that much remains to be done in terms of the Catholic identity of the Catholic colleges and universities, and then he cites specifically the implementation of Canon 812—namely that those who are teaching the theological disciplines in the Catholic university should have certification that they are teaching in communion with the Magisterium, the official teaching of the Church.”
So how is the mandatum important to the Catholic university? Cardinal Burke continues:
Well, it is the truth of the faith which is the highest goal of a Catholic education. Everything that a Catholic student studies at a university or college is directed ultimately to a knowledge of God and His plan for our world and for us.
And so everything that is taught at a Catholic university must relate in some way to this—what we might call this wisdom, this knowledge of God and of His plan for us. And it’s the professors of theology at the university who teach that highest form of learning, that learning towards which every other form of learning is directed at the university. And for that reason, of course, the Church wants to be sure that those who are teaching theology are sound and clear in their teaching.
…This is even more critical in our time in which we are living with a secularized culture, where there is so much confusion and error about the truth about ourselves, about our world, and the truth about God. So the Church is being particularly attentive that those who teach Catholic theology are indeed teaching in communion with the Magisterium.
The secularism in society, the errors which we find so commonly in many sectors of society, has its influence also on the Church. The Church must take her own prudent and necessary measures to make sure that error doesn’t enter in to the university level of the Catholic college where young people—and older people—are coming with the idea of obtaining a solid education to equip them for a lifetime of good and upright living. And that depends very much on the received theological education.
There are several indications that the Church regards compliance with the mandatum as integral to Catholic higher education. Most apparently, Canon 812 is situated in the section of the Code of Canon Law for Catholic universities. It was Ex corde Ecclesiae, the apostolic constitution on Catholic universities and not a document focused on theologians, that forced compliance with the mandatum seven years after Canon 812 had been published. The mandatum is a requirement of the U.S. bishops’ “Application of Ex corde Ecclesiae,” and it was a topic of the bishops’ review last year of the implementation of Ex corde Ecclesiae.
Asked for some insight into why Canon 812 would be situated in the Code’s section on Catholic higher education, Cardinal Burke again reiterated the Church’s great need for education that is faithful and authentic, which the mandatum helps ensure:
The Catholic university—and this is stated in a wonderful way in Ex corde Ecclesiae—provides a distinctive service in society of preparing young people, or even older people, in the various arts and sciences with a solid, Catholic foundation to their knowledge, earlier referred to as knowledge of God as He has revealed Himself to us in the Church.
And so the Church has always viewed the Catholic universities and Catholic colleges as a most important means of carrying out the work of evangelization. In other words, at the highest levels of the pursuit of knowledge there would be this fundamental obedience to the Word of God as spoken to us in our own hearts, in natural moral law and our consciences, and through the divine revelation, the Scriptures and the Tradition of the Church.
This is the great gift of the Catholic universities. They should be in our society leaders and powerful forces for the New Evangelization, for the teaching, celebration, and the goodness of the Catholic faith with a new enthusiasm and a new engagement.
Public Disclosure of the Mandatum
In his May 5th address, Pope Benedict describes the mandatum as “a tangible expression of ecclesial communion and solidarity in the Church’s educational apostolate.” The Cardinal Newman Society asked Cardinal Burke to explain how the mandatum is “tangible”:
It’s tangible in the sense that it’s a public declaration, in writing, on the part of the ecclesiastical authority that a theologian is teaching in communion with the Church, and people have a right to know that so that if you, for instance, are at a Catholic university or parents are sending their children to the Catholic university, they know that the professors who are teaching theological disciplines at the university are teaching in communion with the Church. They are assured in that by the public declaration of the diocesan bishop.
The mandatum, then, is by its nature a public act. “The fact that I teach in accord with the Magisterium is a public factor,” says Cardinal Burke. “That’s not some private, secret thing between myself and the Lord.”
Moreover, says Cardinal Burke, it’s the right of Catholic students and their families to know who has the mandatum:
Ultimately, the mandatum gives that assurance to students that, if they enroll in a given college or university, they can count upon receiving a solid education in Catholic theology. And that’s important, especially in an age in which there is so much confusion, even within the Church, with regard to teaching and discipline.
And so that is certainly a prime purpose of the mandatum, securing and ensuring the Catholic identity of a university, but at the same time, and inseparably from that, guaranteeing to the students and to all those who may be helping them to have a Catholic education that indeed the teaching of the faith which they will receive, and in those disciplines related to the faith, that the university is truly Catholic.
While all of this may come as a surprise to Americans whose experience of the mandatum has been as an entirely private matter between a bishop and a theologian, this is not the first time the Vatican has indicated the public nature of the mandatum. Blessed Pope John Paul II, speaking to American bishops in 2004 during their ad limina visit to Rome, said: “Catholic colleges and universities are called to offer an institutional witness of fidelity to Christ and to His word as it comes to us from the Church, a public witness expressed in the canonical requirement of the mandatum.”118
In 2007 Archbishop Michael Miller, CSB, then-secretary to the Vatican Congregation for Catholic Education, defended the rights of Catholic families in an address to Catholic college leaders gathered at the Franciscan University of Steubenville:
The Catholic faithful—both parents and students—have a right to the assurance, when choosing a university or a specific course, that those teaching theology are in full communion with the Church. While no law obliges the university to make known those who have the mandatum, and many Catholic universities prefer it that way, such silence frustrates the purpose of the law and deprives the faithful of their right to assurance about the doctrinal soundness of a given professor.119
Contrary to the American approach to the mandatum, Archbishop Miller recommended that Catholic colleges and universities assess their Catholic identity with the question, “Does the university have a procedure in place which will guarantee that the mandatum fills its purpose?”
The Cardinal Newman Society asked the opinion of Father Thomas Weinandy, OFM Cap., executive director of the Secretariat for Doctrine and Pastoral Practices of the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops. He says that theologians ought to be proud of receiving the mandatum, which is an honor “recognizing that theologians have a true vocation in the Church.”
I wouldn’t know why you wouldn’t want it to be public. The whole point is public recognition that somebody is truly a Catholic theologian. I don’t know why you would want to keep that hidden when the Church is bestowing the mandatum to recognize that somebody is truly a Catholic theologian.
Canon law counselor Robert Flummerfelt suggests that theologians prominently display the mandatum in their offices “in the same way that attorneys and professors hang their academic degrees, professional licenses, bar admissions, etc., in their offices for clients and students to see.” He adds that colleges and universities should identify professors with the mandatum “in literature and on the institution’s web site.”
Father James Conn, SJ, a canon law scholar at the Gregorian in Rome, has studied the mandatum extensively and has both written and given lectures to bishops and canonists on the subject. Currently a visiting professor at Boston College, Father Conn tells The Cardinal Newman Society that the mandatum’s purpose “is to declare that the teacher of theology is carrying out his function in communion with the teaching authority of the Church.” He adds:
The mandate is important because it gives assurance of doctrinal integrity in circumstances in which the faithful have a reasonable expectation of it. It guarantees, as it were, truth in advertising, even when the advertising is only implicit.
In view of what is asserted above, it is of course to be made public. The norm otherwise makes no sense.
Monsignor Stuart Swetland, director of The Cardinal Newman Society’s Center for the Advancement of Catholic Higher Education and vice president for Catholic mission at Mount St. Mary’s University, makes an interesting comparison to other public acts that involve private commitments:
You can’t get any more private than the act of marriage in one sense, but it’s almost always a public act. In the rarest cases of persecution or legal issues, you could have a secret marriage. The exception proves the rule that marriage is a public act.
Monsignor Swetland describes the mandatum as “an act of being in communion with the Church, a sign a professor who teaches theology is teaching in full communion with the Church.” Therefore, he argues, “It’s a counter sign to talk of something as building up the communion of the Church and then to keep it private. Communion is by its very nature for the community. To privatize something that is required seems to me to run counter to its purpose.”
But as for who is responsible for publicly disclosing recipients of the mandatum, canon law provides no clear answer. Cardinal Burke suggests:
With regard to who makes it public, I suspect that there could be a number of ways of doing that. The bishop, simply, when he gives the mandate, he could make that public in various ways, in the diocesan organs of communication and so forth because it is a public fact—that this is not some kind of secret thing where people don’t know, “Do you have the mandate or don’t you?”
So the bishop could make it known, and certainly I believe that there are Catholic universities which state publicly all of the professors in Catholic theology and the related disciplines at our university have the mandate, and a university would want to make that known for the sake of its own public integrity and also to reassure the students and parents and others who will be concerned.
And also, too, if I were teaching Catholic theology in a Catholic university or college or in a chair of Catholic theology, I would want people to know that I was doing so with a mandate from the diocesan bishop that certifies that my teaching is in communion with the Catholic faith.
Father Conn has similar thoughts:
Perhaps the theologian should make it public that a mandatum has been granted, though it is not clear what means should be used. Since the university is asserting its Catholic character, it is perhaps its responsibility to make the information public. Failing that, or for other reasons, the responsibility would fall upon the bishop.
Archbishop Elden Curtiss, retired from the Archdiocese of Omaha, told The Cardinal Newman Society that he believes it is “primarily” the responsibility of the bishop to release names: “The bishop should make it public because he’s saying to the people, ‘This is a reliable source of Catholic theology.’”
It was in 2001, when the U.S. bishops approved their mandatum guidelines, that Archbishop Curtiss first advocated publicly disclosing recipients of the mandatum. He later told theologians in his archdiocese that if they refused the mandatum, he would release their names.
Bishop Martino would place the responsibility for disclosure on the college or university:
The college should display its communion with the Bishop by being the appropriate entity to publish the names of those college professors with or without the mandatum. In the absence of the local college’s fulfillment of this act of ecclesial communion, the Bishop should publish the names and keep them published and updated, for example, on a diocesan website, for future inquirers.
The Mandatum in Faculty Hiring
Aside from disclosing whether professors have obtained the mandatum, is a Catholic college or university obligated to ensure that its professors have complied with Canon 812?
The common assumption in the United States has been that because Canon 812 makes reference only to the individual theologian—“Those who teach theological disciplines in any institutes of higher studies whatsoever must have a mandate from the competent ecclesiastical authority”—a college or university need not, and perhaps even should not, assume any responsibilities regarding the mandatum.
Indeed, the U.S. bishops’ 2001 guidelines declare, “The mandatum is an obligation of the professor, not of the university.” But while this fact seems to be universally accepted with regard to the act of requesting the mandatum from the local bishop—much as an individual in any profession would be responsible for obtaining appropriate certification—it seems clear that Catholic colleges and universities have responsibilities of their own.
The same 2001 guidelines, for instance, prescribe that if a new Catholic theology professor does not obtain the mandatum within the academic year or six months, whichever is longer, the bishop is to notify the college or university. Why notify the institution if it is not expected to make use of the information—or if it is not, as some universities argue, appropriate even to monitor which theology professors have received the mandatum?
Canon law experts tell The Cardinal Newman Society that Catholic colleges and universities have a certain obligation to monitor which professors have the mandatum… and more. Father Conn, for instance, argues it would be “inconsistent for Catholic universities to hire Catholic theologians who do not have a mandatum.”
Cardinal Burke likewise says that only theology professors with the mandatum should be employed at a Catholic institution:
…[T]he Catholic university will want that all its teachers of theology or the theological disciplines have a mandate and will not, of course, retain the professor in teaching Catholic theology or the theological disciplines who does not have a mandate, because to do so would be to call into question the whole raison d’etre of the university. If a Catholic university doesn’t distinguish itself for its care, that those who are teaching theology and the other theological disciplines are doing so in communion with the Magisterium, what reason does it have to exist?
“If a Catholic university or college has been given the title Catholic (Canon 808),” says canon law advisor Robert Flummerfelt, “then it is the obligation of that Catholic institution to employ individuals teaching in the theological disciplines to promote Catholic thought completely faithful to the teaching authority of the Church.”
Choosing theology professors who have the mandatum is “an additional sign of the commitment that the Catholic university has to promote and teach the Catholic faith authentically,” Flummerfelt says.
Here Canon 812 intersects with Canon 810, which describes a Catholic college or university’s obligations with regard to employing professors in all disciplines:
It is the responsibility of the authority who is competent in accord with the statutes to provide for the appointment of teachers to Catholic universities who, besides their scientific and pedagogical suitability, are also outstanding in their integrity of doctrine and probity of life; when those requisite qualities are lacking they are to be removed from their positions in accord with the procedure set forth in the statutes.
Archbishop Curtiss sees it as a matter of truth in advertising: “If a Catholic purports to be teaching Catholic theology, then he needs a mandatum.” On the other hand, “if he’s teaching some other kind of theology, then say so.”
Properly labeling professors and their courses, by clearly identifying what is authentic Catholic theology and what is not, would seem a related responsibility of the Catholic college or university.
The Mandatum and Non-Catholic Institutions
What about non-Catholic colleges and universities that employ Catholic theologians—does the mandatum apply only at Catholic institutions? The U.S. bishops’ 2001 guidelines for the mandatum concern only “Catholics who teach theological disciplines in a Catholic university,” and the mandatum is most often associated with Ex corde Ecclesiae and the renewal of Catholic identity in Catholic institutions.
But interestingly, Cardinal Burke tells The Cardinal Newman Society that he believes Canon 812 can be applied to theology professors at state, secular, and other religious colleges and universities as well:
My interpretation of the canon is that it applies to anyone who teaches in a public and formal way Catholic theology, in other words also someone who would hold a chair of Catholic theology in another institute.
In other words, let’s say that at some secular university a chair is founded of Catholic theology and the person who is teaching it publicly claims to be teaching Catholic theology, then it seems to me that that person needs a mandate, in other words needs certification on the part of the competent ecclesiastical authority, which would normally be the diocesan bishop, that he or she is teaching in communion with the Magisterium. Otherwise, you could end up in a situation where you’d have someone who holds a chair in Catholic theology who is teaching something that is contrary to the Catholic faith or even inimical to it.
Rescuing Theology
The Cardinal Newman Society interviewed several theology professors at Catholic institutions who responded favorably to Pope Benedict’s May 5th address. They indicate that in addition to protecting students from dissident professors, a renewed emphasis on the mandatum could improve theology departments at Catholic colleges and universities—but while the mandatum will help, much more needs to happen.
“The mandatum is important, but it has been pretty much disregarded in this country,” laments Father Edward O’Connor, CSC, theology professor emeritus at the University of Notre Dame. “Theologians don’t like to have anybody looking over their shoulders. I thought it was absolutely wrong that the mandatum was disregarded. We’ve got a lot of theologians in Catholic colleges who are not really Catholic.”
That, says Ave Maria University theology chairman and former Boston College theologian Father Matthew Lamb, is a problem with serious consequences:
Many of the pastoral problems bishops face find their roots in the failure of proper formation and education of the priests, religious, seminarians, and faithful in their dioceses as dissent spreads from theologians to the mass media and beyond. The recent sexual abuse scandals that have damaged so many sprang from failures in moral and theological formation and proper oversight. Those theologians now rejecting Magisterial teachings on the immorality of contraception, of abortion, of homosexual acts, and of euthanasia, as well as those rejecting Magisterial teachings on marriage, priesthood, and sacramental practice, are sowing the seeds of further scandals.
Father Lamb believes that “students, as well as their families,” should be told who has the mandatum, and Catholic institutions should not hire theologians without it. University of Scranton theologian Brian Benestad agrees, noting that strict employment policies are “especially important today since the defense of dissent by Catholic theologians seems to be the rule rather than the exception.”
It’s a matter of justice, says University of Dallas theologian Christopher Malloy:
Let us not forget that who most need protection in the true faith are the poor. The poor catechetically are those who want catechetical formation. We must protect and nurture these souls. Salvation is at stake, and purgatory is no cup of tea. Theologians who complain about their “rights” are forgetting that we are servants of Jesus Christ, and He came to feed the poor.
Any theologian who is unwilling to request the mandatum is “a bad Catholic theologian,” says Larry Chapp, professor of theology and former department chairman at DeSales University. That’s because “theology must focus on the ecclesial context of how Revelation is mediated to us, and that necessarily implies respect” for the Magisterium.
But Malloy adds:
Orthodoxy is the absolute minimum requirement of authentic theology. It is by no means a maximal requirement. This means that whoever is not orthodox is not fit to be a theologian. However, being orthodox does not make one a theologian, much less a good theologian. …Parents and students should use their nose in discerning whether or not a theologian is truly orthodox, who loves Jesus and the one Church that Jesus founded. It may be that a mandatum is issued, and yet a theologian is playing fast and loose with the magisterial teaching, especially in ways that most students are not able to detect but that have real, deleterious effects.
Mark Lowery, also a theology professor at the University of Dallas, worries that “some heterodox theologians who are angry about the mandatum might go ahead and sign it disingenuously.” For this, he proposes a solution:
The department of theology should have a regular presence on campus through talks (with responses), symposia on current topics, and the like. The student body should have fairly regular chances to see how their theologians’ minds tick. That strategy goes a long way in discovering what a signature on a mandatum really means.
Ultimately the mandatum is one tool toward the larger goal of promoting fidelity in Catholic theology and, more broadly, throughout Catholic higher education. Loyola University Chicago theologian Dennis Martin explains that the value of the mandatum is in shining a light on a discipline that needs to regain the trust of Catholic families:
[T]he mandatum puts the theologian on notice, makes him accountable when he’s tempted to disagree. It does not mean that the bishop approves of everything that theologian has written or will write or has said or will say in class. What it does is put the burden of conscience onto the theologian, first, to present the faith accurately and then, if he disagrees with it, to deal with that unfaithfulness in his conscience and acknowledge it to himself and students. No person of integrity will do that for very long.
The several theologians, bishops and canon law experts interviewed by The Cardinal Newman Society seem to agree that by ensuring compliance with Canon 812—not only compliance by individual theologians seeking the mandatum, but also colleges and universities eager to ensure that students receive theological instruction from professors who have the mandatum—Catholic colleges and universities can significantly strengthen their Catholic identity.
As expressed in Ex corde Ecclesiae, preserving Catholic identity requires hiring professors “who are both willing and able to promote that identity. The identity of a Catholic University is essentially linked to the quality of its teachers and to respect for Catholic doctrine.” For this reason, the mandatum is crucial to the integrity of a college or university as Catholic.
https://cardinalnewmansociety.org/wp-content/uploads/812px-Benedykt_xvi-crop-e1538412517514.jpg509811Cardinal Newman Society Staffhttps://cardinalnewmansociety.org/wp-content/uploads/CNS-logo-2C-450-tag2.pngCardinal Newman Society Staff2012-07-23 19:40:002020-05-18 11:54:00A Mandate for Fidelity: Pope Benedict Urges Compliance with Theologian’s Mandatum
This paper examines contemporary Catholic higher education and its unique role in preparing graduates, grounded in natural moral law, to respond to the increasing bioethical questions of the day.
The importance of both administrators and faculty articulating and embracing the mission of Catholic higher education, as they prepare graduates for a culture of relativism, is presented.
Curricular objectives, content and teaching strategies are recommended to address the most relevant bioethical dilemmas of the day. The importance of an integrated approach to examining these dilemmas, as well as a grounding in “core” content in philosophy and theology for all graduates regardless of discipline or concentration, are presented.
The interjection of government mandates into the void of bioethical resolutions is examined in relationship to the rights of conscience.
The paper concludes with examples of best practices, exemplifying the role of Catholic higher education as uniquely suited to advance the common good.
_
The goal of higher education is to prepare informed citizens to contribute to society in an effective manner, as participants as well as leaders. The nature of institutional sponsorship may dictate variances in the specific goals of higher education. Educational goals of state-sponsored institutions of higher education may include preparing “all students with the knowledge, skills, and credentials necessary to succeed in the workplace, in the community, in further education, in living enriched lives, and in being globally competent citizens.”114 Catholic higher education has a unique role in helping shape a society that respects natural moral law.120
The secular relativism embraced by the American culture has raised more questions than answers for the participants in modern society.121 Increasingly, within all disciplines, the study of ethics, especially applied ethics, has become critically important to preparing students for the challenges of such a culture.122 Historically, a graduate of an institution of higher education had at least a foundation in philosophy, and graduates of religiously sponsored institutions received a grounding in the faith of the founding religious community. Further, despite the discipline in which the student concentrated, he or she acquired a liberal education that fostered intellectual reasoning and provided a framework for ethical decision making effective for contributing to society.
A Catholic higher education institution, particularly one grounded in the liberal arts, should prepare its students to have some facility in the theological and philosophical principles that can shape secular debates.123 This also should be true for those institutions and departments that prepare graduates within applied disciplines, even if only achieved through prerequisite core courses for their major areas of study. Consistent with canon law, each discipline should also include classes in theologically grounded applied principles (ethics) to enable students to integrate these principles within the disciplines they are studying.124 In this way, methods of ethical reasoning could be synthesized and applied within the particular disciplines for which the student are being prepared.125 Most importantly, graduates of Catholic higher education should be prepared to assume a critical role in shaping a secular environment regarding respect for the human dignity of all persons, especially the vulnerable. This is one of the key aspects of Catholic bioethics education.126
Today medical research and technological developments outpace our ability to address easily the bioethical questions that necessarily arise. Graduates of Catholic higher education, regardless of their fields of study, more than ever need to be academically prepared to address and shape the ensuing bioethical debates in our society. Graduates of Catholic colleges and universities should be prepared to:
understand the impact of current scientific advances on society’s appreciation of the human person;
identify trends in resolving bioethical dilemmas by means of governmental mandates;
analyze current trends in bioethical politics impacting the public’s perceptions of current bioethical issues;
approach these bioethical dilemmas in a manner consistent with natural moral law;
and synthesize philosophical and theological foundations for the understanding of the dignity of the human person.
Faculty members not only need to be prepared to assume these educational challenges, but they also need to be committed to the mission and vision of the institutional sponsors. For theology faculty of Catholic institutions of higher education there is the additional requirement of the mandatum, first codified in canon law (can. 812) and subsequently reaffirmed in the apostolic constitution Ex corde Ecclesiae promulgated by Pope John Paul II in 1990. The mandatum aims to ensure that Catholic theologians “assent to Catholic doctrine according to the degree of authority with which it is taught.”127 Furthermore, consistent with canon law all faculties within Catholic higher education, especially those responsible for ethics courses, be they core or integrated courses, should respect the truths contained in natural moral law embraced by the Catholic Church (can. 810 §1):
§ 3. In ways appropriate to the different academic disciplines, all Catholic teachers are to be faithful to, and all other teachers are to respect, Catholic doctrine and morals in their research and teaching. In particular, Catholic theologians, aware that they fulfill a mandate received from the Church, are to be faithful to the Magisterium of the Church as the authentic interpreter of Sacred Scripture and Sacred Tradition.128
This paper, while not providing a curriculum framework for each discipline, will explore each of the challenges that professors at Catholic colleges and university face as they address some of the most disputed ethical questions of the day: embryonic stem cell research, assisted reproductive technologies, sexual assault protocols, transgender surgery, and care of those in the persistent vegetative state. Furthermore, this paper will identify the direction which Catholic higher education needs to take to ground its students in natural moral law, almost abandoned by today’s secular culture and its embrace of relativism. In this way graduates of Catholic higher education, regardless of their academic majors, can not only address the bioethical challenges they face but assume a critical role in resolving these challenges.
Catholic Higher Education’s Unique Role in Shaping a Society Respectful of Natural Moral Law
Pope Benedict XVI, in his address to Catholic educators during his 2008 visit to the United States, indicated how Catholic higher education plays a unique role in shaping a society respectful of natural moral law:
The Church’s primary mission of evangelization, in which educational institutions play a crucial role, is consonant with a nation’s fundamental aspiration to develop a society truly worthy of the human person’s dignity. …The Church’s mission, in fact, involves her in humanity’s struggle to arrive at truth. In articulating revealed truth she serves all members of society by purifying reason, ensuring that it remains open to the consideration of ultimate truths. Drawing upon divine wisdom, she sheds light on the foundation of human morality and ethics, and reminds all groups in society that it is not praxis that creates truth but truth that should serve as the basis of praxis.129
Moral truth is grounded in natural moral law, which directs practice within the academic disciplines, including the applied disciplines such as bioethics. The Catechism of the Catholic Church provides instruction on natural moral law:
Man participates in the wisdom and goodness of the Creator who gives him mastery over his acts and the ability to govern himself with a view to the true and the good. The natural law expresses the original moral sense which enables man to discern by reason the good and the evil, the truth and the lie: The natural law is written and engraved in the soul of each and every man, because it is human reason ordaining him to do good and forbidding him to sin… But this command of human reason would not have the force of law if it were not the voice and interpreter of a higher reason to which our spirit and our freedom must be submitted. (Leo XIII, Libertas praestantissimum, 597.)130
Natural moral law is not invented and then passed on through universities. As Saint Paul tells us, natural moral law is written on the hearts of men.131 Aristotelian understanding of morality or the “good” demonstrates this reality. As Aristotle observed, virtue is natural to humans. Virtue is a perfection of one’s nature, achieved through contemplation and by acting reasonably on behalf of ends perceived as goods in pursuit of happiness.132 Saint Thomas Aquinas explicates these truths when he states that God is the ultimate source of happiness and that virtue, while revealed through revelation, is never contrary to reason.133
Historically, society embraced these truths and the medical community codified them in practice standards. The Hippocratic Oath, now abandoned by most medical schools, reflected these standards: “I will not give a lethal drug to anyone if I am asked, nor will I advise such a plan; and similarly I will not give a woman a pessary to cause an abortion.”134 The oath was hailed as a pro-life phenomenon, not only by John Paul II,135 but also secular anthropologists such as Margaret Mead:
For the first time in our tradition there was a complete separation between killing and curing. Throughout the primitive world the doctor and the sorcerer tended to be the same person. He with the power to kill and the power to cure… He who had the power to cure would necessarily also be able to kill.
With the Greeks, the distinction was made clear. One profession, the followers of Asclepius, were to be dedicated completely to life under all circumstances, regardless of rank, age, or intellect—the life of a slave, the life of an emperor, the life of a foreign man, the life of a defective child…
But society always is attempting to make the physician into a killer—to kill the defective child at birth, to leave the sleeping pills beside the bed of a cancer patient…136
In fact, the leadership of the Catholic Hospital Association (CHA) initially was able to endorse the American College of Surgeons’ “Minimum Standard” (1919) as a code of ethics for Catholic hospitals. Rev. Charles B. Moulinier, SJ, CHA’s first president of the CHA, collaborated in the development of the “Minimum Standard.”137 This endeavor of the American College of Surgeons evolved into the Joint Commission on Accreditation of Healthcare Organizations in 1987, to which Catholic hospitals answer for accreditation today. However, very quickly it was recognized that Catholic health care required its own minimum standard. In 1921 CHA published its own set of requirements that established ethical standards for patient care while conforming to the “Minimum Standard.”138 Over the decades society began to embrace cultural relativism. Objective standards of morality in society and ethics in health care delivery were traded-in for the subjective standards of situation ethics,139 consequentialism140 and utilitarianism.141 Thus, it was not the Catholic Church that changed its understanding of professional obligations; society abandoned centuries of tradition that had protected the vulnerable from a redefinition of human dignity. By 1948,142 this necessitated Catholic health care to adopt its own ethical standards, consistent with the Catholic Church’s understanding of the good143 and the definition of the human person as a bearer of rights.144 The current version of these standards, promulgated by the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops and adopted as particular law by each diocesan bishop, is the Ethical and Religious Directives for Catholic Health Care Services.145
Phenomenal developments in medical technology have entered into a culture that has lost its rudder in terms of its obligations to the vulnerable. This is where the role of a Catholic university can have its greatest impact. The secular relativism embraced by contemporary American culture has raised more questions than answers, especially in the bioethical domain. Catholic university graduates who are grounded in philosophy, theology and applied bioethics regardless of their concentrations of study, are critically necessary for reclaiming a virtuous society, i.e., one that is natural to humans and grounded in natural moral law. As professionals, consumers of health care, and citizens who direct public policy, the potential contribution of Catholic university graduates to reshaping a society that is respectful of natural moral law is immeasurable.
Bioethics Competencies of Graduates
Graduates of Catholic institutions of higher education need to be able to dialogue meaningfully and contribute to resolving contemporary dilemmas concerning bioethics within a secular society. Regardless of the academic major, all graduates of Catholic higher education have a role to play not only in resolving the bioethical questions of the day, but also in shaping these bioethical debates. Before debating any bioethical question, graduates need to be able to identify the theological, philosophical, scientific, sociological and legal principles which guide the debates and provide direction to society. To do so requires an understanding of the aforementioned disciplines and the medical advances of the day, as well as a grounding in history pursuant to these very disciplines. When technological developments in medicine have outpaced society’s ability to answer ensuing bioethical questions, it is critical that graduates of Catholic colleges and universities have an accurate historical perspective of societal influences that impact and even create these bioethical dilemmas. Thus, all graduates of Catholic higher education need to be prepared for the five competencies cited in the introduction above.
Whether through an integrated approach within or among disciplines, within specific courses, or a combination of both, students will acquire the aforementioned competencies by gaining facility in the following areas. This creates obligations for faculty, faculty hiring practices, faculty retention and faculty development. The introduction above addressed the foundations of such obligations; the final section of this paper will provide more specific suggestions pursuant to these areas.
1st Competency:Understand the impact of current scientific developments on society’s appreciation of the human person.
Content Discovery of Oral Contraceptives146 Cybernetic, nanotechnologies, biotechnologies147 Assisted reproductive technologies148 Genetic therapies versus genetic engineering149 Transhumanism150 Embryonic cell research151 Neonatology Vaccine development; cell lines from aborted fetuses.152 Organ transplantation and definitions of death Rejection of aging Advanced life support and persistent vegetative state153 Faith and Reason154 not faith versus reason Human acts as moral acts155
Teaching Strategy
Teaching methods should be tailored to the cognitive and affective levels156 of each competency. Students need to understand fully the impact that scientific developments have on our understanding of the human person. Lecture/discussion and case studies, using current examples from the content listed, are suited to developing this competency. For example, the discovery of the oral contraceptive has changed the understanding of the role of human sexuality in relationships, marriage, family and society, creating numerous ethical dilemmas related to the engendering of children. Focus on these issues can be integrated among a number of disciplines, such as the natural sciences, the social sciences and the humanities, including philosophy and religion. Understanding the impact of current scientific advances on society’s appreciation of the human person can be enhanced through case analyses, developing affective competencies such as valuing (belief systems, natural law, human dignity). Acquiring competencies, which can be exercised in real life situations, requires practice similar to that required of psychomotor domain competencies.157 For students in the applied disciplines (e.g., nursing), clinical experiences and pre- and post-conferencing discussions for those experiences, provide invaluable opportunities to develop competency in applying the knowledge they are acquiring.
2nd Competency: Identify trends in resolving bioethical dilemmas by means of governmental mandates.
Content The First Amendment: what it really means Judicial redefinition of Constitutional rights The History of health care: A ministry or an industry158 “Table of Legal Mandates, State by State”159 Erosion of religious liberty through the courts Efforts to restore religious liberty160 Efforts of the Church to protect religious liberty161 Federal role in protection of human subjects in research162 Creation and enforcement of new “rights:” sexual orientation, gender identity, same-sex marriage, privacy as the foundation for the right to an abortion, the right to be parents, rights over the fetus, the right to die.163
Teaching Strategy
Knowledge in the social sciences is involved in the cognitive task of being able to identify trends in resolving bioethical dilemmas by means of governmental mandates. Lecture/discussion and debates are suited to developing this student ability, by using current examples from the content listed. For example, the changing laws protecting sexual orientation have created mandates on employers, for example Catholic schools, which impact the constitutionally protected free exercise of religion.164 Legal mandates can cause the government to be the source of the violation of religious liberty, which government was created to protect.165 Focus on these issues can be integrated among a number of disciplines, such as the social sciences, particularly political science and communication, and the humanities, including philosophy and religion. Herein the cognitive ability to identify trends in resolving bioethical dilemmas by means of governmental mandates can be developed through case analyses and field experiences. These experiences can develop in the student affective competencies, such as responding and contributing as a citizen to resolving the political controversies about such mandates. For students in the applied disciplines (e.g., pre-law, law), internships with faculty oversight and conferencing provide tangible opportunities to witness government attempting to resolve an ethical debate through legal mandates.
3rd Competency:Propose resolutions to selected bioethical dilemmas in a manner consistent with natural moral law.
Content Aristotle and the ethic of the good166 Aquinas and natural moral law167 Ethical theories: deontological and teleological168 Ethical and Religious Directives for Catholic Health Care Services169 Meaning of suffering170 Ordinary (proportionate) versus extraordinary means (disproportionate to benefit) Cooperation in moral/immoral acts171 Principle of double effect Moral certitude
Teaching Strategy
Application of knowledge is involved in the cognitive task of being able to propose resolutions to selected bioethical dilemmas in a manner consistent with natural moral law. Case studies are suited to developing this ability in students, by using current examples from the media. For example, the use of abortion in a pregnancy in which there are multiple fetuses and fetal or maternal health, or both, are at risk, would be a challenging case study. Competency to propose ethical resolutions requires prerequisite knowledge in the content areas listed under this competency, particularly natural moral law. Herein the role of philosophy and theology, as prerequisite courses regardless of the student’s discipline, is critical. The cognitive ability to apply theological principles and philosophical reasoning can be enhanced through case analyses that develop affective competencies such as problem solving and concern for others. As stated earlier, acquiring cognitive and affective domain competencies, which can be exercised in real life situations, requires practice similar to that required of psychomotor domain competencies. For students in the applied disciplines (e.g., pre-medicine), clinical experiences and pre- and post-conferencing for those experiences, provide invaluable opportunities to develop competency in applying the knowledge they are acquiring.
4th Competency:Analyze current trends in bioethical politics impacting the public’s perceptions of current bioethical issues.
Content Extremes: secular relativism and theocracy; versus democracy and religious liberty172 Managed care and health care costs The Sexual Revolution and the Women’s Movement: changing views on human sexuality, human life and marriage The embryo and fetus as a commodity/property Growth of the homosexual, lesbian, bisexual and transgendered advocacy movement Professional standards of practice and religious liberty Role of Catholic laity173
Teaching Strategy
The ability to analyze societal culture and its embrace of particular ethical theories (deontological, teleological, the ethic of the good, or natural moral law) is the requisite cognitive task needed to analyze current trends in bioethical politics impacting the public’s perceptions of current bioethical issues. A secular relativism174 and a utilitarian economic175 frequently dictate public perception and thus direct bioethical politics. Cross-discipline case studies are suited to developing this higher level ability in students, by using current examples from the content listed. For example, a required team-taught interdisciplinary course could be required of all students. Faculty from philosophy, theology, political science, sociology and psychology could engage the students in problem-based instruction in such areas as gender equity, human rights and religious liberty.176 Herein the cognitive ability to analyze current trends in bioethical politics impacting the public’s perceptions of current bioethical issues can also facilitate the development of affective competencies such as the organization of a value system (philosophy of life).177 Again acquiring cognitive and affective domain competencies, which can be exercised in real life situations, requires practice similar to that required of psychomotor domain competencies. For students in the applied disciplines (e.g., bioethics, chaplaincy, law), internships with faculty oversight and conferencing for those experiences, provide invaluable opportunities to directly analyze the bioethical politics shaping public perceptions of current bioethical issues.
5th Competency:Synthesize philosophical and theological foundations for the understanding of the dignity of the human person.
Content Human organisms versus human beings Dualism Human nature and the virtues Person as object Theology of the Body178 Apportioning moral worth Definitions of human dignity Cooperation in moral/immoral acts179
Teaching Strategy
The ability to integrate learning from a number of disciplines is the requisite cognitive task needed to synthesize philosophical and theological foundations for the understanding of the dignity of the human person. Regardless of the concentration of study, graduates need a solid grounding in philosophy and theology not only to contribute to contemporary society, but also to function in society effectively. Respect for human dignity, as explicated in natural moral law, enables one to engage the world with a consistent and predictable value system, demonstrating the affective competency of having a value complex.180 After the foundational core courses have been completed, the same cross-discipline case studies cited above are suited to developing this higher-level ability in students. Again, acquiring cognitive and affective domain competencies, which can be exercised in real life situations, requires practice similar to that required of psychomotor domain competencies. For students in all of the applied disciplines, clinical placements or internships with faculty oversight and conferencing for those experiences provide invaluable opportunities to synthesize the knowledge they are acquiring.
For all of the identified competencies and content, faculty from all disciplines need to be involved in enabling students to be successful. Whether through an integrated approach within or among disciplines, or within discrete courses, or ideally a combination of both methods, faculty must be able to guide students to these ends.
Current Bioethical Challenges
Phenomenal developments in medical technology have outpaced society’s ability to engage in a moral analysis of their impact on the human person and the commonweal. The rudder has become the utilitarian ethic within this void, endangering those who are seen as not contributing to society. These vulnerable human beings are frequently those who have no voice or no advocate.
Most interestingly, there are attempts to silence those who provide a voice for such vulnerable human beings. This is particularly true if those advocates speak from a faith-based perspective. The opposing outcry bases its arguments on a misrepresentation of the First Amendment, claiming violations of the separation of church and state. Thus, increasingly, the very government charged with the protection of religious liberty is being used to silence these advocates for the voiceless, violating the very rights government is charged to protect. As the constitutional scholar Stephen Carter stated, “The potential transformation of the Establishment Clause from a guardian of religious freedom into a guarantor of public secularism raises prospects at once dismal and dreadful.”181 Furthermore, those who refuse to engage in violating the human rights and dignity of the vulnerable are being coerced to do so by government mandates.
There have been efforts to assure the constitutionally protected rights of conscience. In December 2008 the United States Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) issued a final rule to ensure that HHS funds do not support practices or policies in violation of existing federal conscience protection laws.182 Very quickly, however, efforts to abrogate these rules were initiated, with seven state attorneys general joining the American Civil Liberties Union and Planned Parenthood, suing the federal government to accomplish this end. A significant number of members of Congress and President Barack Obama have advocated for passage of the federal Freedom of Choice Act, which will make abortion an entitlement.183 Thus, individual health care providers and Catholic health care agencies could be required to violate conscience and cooperate in the provision of abortions. The burgeoning list of such mandates is formidable, and how they impact the bioethical challenges at hand will be addressed in relationship to each respective area below.
Of great dismay is the fact that professional organizations, created to protect the professional practices of their members, are advocating for the violation of individual conscience in the provision of care. For example, the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists has advanced a policy which requires the violation of physicians’ consciences. They admonish that conscience only may be accommodated if first the duty to the patient is met; and even then physicians of conscience are required to refer patients to other providers who are willing to offer the morally illicit procedures. Such physicians of conscience are to locate their practices in proximity to these other providers, for easier access for their patients. Furthermore, in emergencies when a referral is impossible, the physician is to act against conscience.184 The American Medical Association’s Board of Trustees “supports legislation that would require individual pharmacists and pharmacy chains to fill legally valid prescriptions or to provide immediate referral to an appropriate alternative dispensing pharmacy without interference.”185
What becomes increasingly apparent is that Catholic higher education can and should be a critical force in preparing citizens, and particularly professionals, who are capable of articulating and asserting not only their own rights in the face of such coercion, but the rights of the voiceless as well.
Assisted Reproductive Technologies
With the delay in parenting, brought on by widespread use of contraception in our society, more persons find themselves beyond the age of maximum fertility when they decide to become parents. The average age of American women having their first child has increased from 21 years of age in 1970186 to 24.9 years of age in 2000.187 The peak of female fertility occurs before age 30.188 Approximately two percent of women of childbearing age in the United States had an infertility-related medical appointment in 2002.189 Furthermore, individuals are choosing to be single parents, and homosexual couples are seeking parenthood by engaging assisted reproductive technologies, resulting in a separation of the marital conjugal act from the engendering of children.
In 1987 the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith provided moral guidance to married couples seeking medical assistance with their fertility with its instruction Donum Vitae (DV).190 This instruction addressed the evolving questions of the day concerning respect for the origin of human life and the dignity of procreation. DV elucidated two fundamental values connected with assisted reproductive technologies: “the life of the human being called into existence and the special nature of the transmission of human life in marriage.”191 It condemned heterologous technologies (use of sperm or egg from at least one donor other than the married spouses192) while providing moral guidance for homologous technologies, including criteria to be used to evaluate the moral legitimacy of such therapies. Citing Pius XII, DV instructed, “A medical intervention respects the dignity of persons when it seeks to assist the conjugal act either in order to facilitate its performance or in order to enable it to achieve its objective once it has been normally performed.”193(II, B, N. 7) DV continued:
On the other hand, it sometimes happens that a medical procedure technologically replaces the conjugal act in order to obtain a procreation which is neither its result nor its fruit. In this case the medical act is not, as it should be, at the service of conjugal union but rather appropriates to itself the procreative function and thus contradicts the dignity and the inalienable rights of the spouses and of the child to be born.194
DV anticipated the abuses perpetuated on the human embryo (to be addressed in the next section) when it spoke against non-therapeutic human research on the embryo and fetus, and eugenic prenatal diagnosis. (I. 2.) Finally, the instruction called for all persons to be involved in assuring that civil law is reflective of moral law:
All men of good will must commit themselves, particularly within their professional field and in the exercise of their civil rights, to ensuring the reform of morally unacceptable civil laws and the correction of illicit practices. In addition, “conscientious objection” vis-a-vis such laws must be supported and recognized.195
In vitro fertilization opened the flood gates of abuse of the human embryo, from pre-implantation genetic diagnosis to unscrupulous multiple gestations, abortion, the creation of human-animal hybrids, and the legitimization of non-therapeutic fatal research on the “spare” embryos left un-implanted by their parents. Persons of goodwill sought to intervene and rescue the abandoned embryos through prenatal embryo adoption. Most notably, the Snowflake Program provided organized and life protecting methods for married couples to adopt, implant, gestate and raise these embryos into adulthood.196 Since this involved the condemned heterologous implantation of abandoned embryos, a dilemma was raised: was it morally licit to save the lives of these embryos through embryo adoption?
In 2008 the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith issued Dignitas Personae (DP). DP provided new guidance in the areas of techniques for assisting fertility, new forms of interception and contragestation, gene therapy, human cloning, the therapeutic use of stem cells, attempts at hybridization, and the use of human “biological material” of illicit origin. It provided more specificity pertaining to the illicit nature of certain assisted reproductive technologies, e.g., in vitro fertilization, intracytoplasmic sperm injection (ICSI), freezing of oocytes, pre-implantation diagnosis, the reduction (abortion) of embryos in multiple gestations, and the freezing of embryos (and the dilemma of their futures). Specifically, while not condemning embryo adoption, DP did not affirm it as morally licit:
The proposal that these embryos could be put at the disposal of infertile couples as a treatment for infertility is not ethically acceptable for the same reasons which make artificial heterologous procreation illicit as well as any form of surrogate motherhood; [DV II, A, 1-3] this practice would also lead to other problems of a medical, psychological and legal nature.
It has also been proposed, solely in order to allow human beings to be born who are otherwise condemned to destruction, that there could be a form of “prenatal adoption”. This proposal, praiseworthy with regard to the intention of respecting and defending human life, presents however various problems not dissimilar to those mentioned above.197
Similar to DV, DP calls for action stating that there is an “urgent need to mobilize consciences in favour of life.”198 Assisted reproductive technology has been one focus for legislative and judicial mandates impacting conscience. Increasingly state legislatures are requiring employers to provide insurance coverage for in vitro fertilization in employee health plans. Furthermore, the courts are dictating the violation of the physician’s conscience in providing these technologies to patients. In August 2007, the California Supreme Court ruled that the anti-discrimination rights of an infertile lesbian take precedence over the religious liberty of physicians who had limited their in vitro fertilization practice to married heterosexual couples.199 Catholic higher education should play a major role in awakening and forming consciences to contemporary and evolving moral dilemmas and equipping future citizens, professionals and scholars to address these dilemmas personally as well as in the public square.
Embryonic Stem Cell Research
The first embryonic stem cell was not extracted until 1998,200 eleven years after DV. Although animal cloning was first successful in 1996 with the cloning of Dolly the sheep,201 cloning of a human embryo was not achieved until 2001.202 Thus, while DV condemned non-therapeutic research on the human embryo and fetus, embryonic stem cell research and human cloning remained unaddressed. As the search increased for embryonic stem cells that would not cause rejection in their recipients, human cloning was seen as the answer. The creation and destruction of human embryos for research was justified.
DP clearly addresses this violation of human life:
Human cloning is intrinsically illicit in that, by taking the ethical negativity of techniques of artificial fertilization to their extreme, it seeks to give rise to a new human being without a connection to the act of reciprocal self-giving between the spouses and, more radically, without any link to sexuality. This leads to manipulation and abuses gravely injurious to human dignity. [DV I, 6]203
In less than a quarter of a century since DV, the speculated-upon Brave New World has become a reality.204 Despite the historic protections in federal law of the embryo, efforts have been successful in dehumanizing the embryo, erroneously calling the creation and destruction of the embryo with the support of tax dollars not only acceptable, but laudable. Where this has occurred, such public funding has placed a mandate on citizens, requiring the support this intrinsic evil with tax dollars.
Historically Congress has provided the same protection to the embryo and fetus as is provided to an infant. In 1975 the federal government established federal regulations for the protection of human embryos from the time of implantation in the womb.205 In 1985 Congress further clarified this standard by amending the National Institutes of Health reauthorization act providing research protections that are “the same for fetuses which are intended to be aborted and fetuses which are intended to be carried to term.”206 In 1996 Congress passed legislation to provide the same protections to the embryo; the Dickey-Wicker Amendment stated that federal funds are not to be used for the creation of human embryos for research purposes or for research in which embryos are destroyed, discarded, or knowingly subjected to risk of injury or death greater than that allowed for research on fetuses in utero. The ban defined “human embryo or embryos” as including any organism that is derived by fertilization, parthenogenesis, cloning or any other means from one or more human gametes (sperm or egg.).207
Yet federal protections are being eroded, and state legislatures are funding embryonic stem cell research in the name of economic development. This is despite the fact that embryonic stem cell research in humans has not been demonstrated to be clinically effective in humans. The ethical stem cell alternatives using adult sources of stem cells (including umbilical cord blood, amniotic fluid and placental sources) successfully have treated thousands of patients, from those with cardiac disease and pediatric brain tumors to the widely-known successes with blood diseases. Scientists have demonstrated that they are able to induce pluripotent stem cells from somatic cells without creating or destroying human embryos.208 All of these morally licit methods can obviate the problem of tissue rejection.
More fundamentally, however, government must respect and protect human life regardless of any utilitarian scientific advance. It cannot single out certain human beings as disposable, simply because their parents or society in general do not want them.
DP addressed this discrimination against embryos, abandoned to fatal research by their parents after pre-implantation diagnosis labeled the embryos unsuitable:
By treating the human embryo as mere “laboratory material”, the concept itself of human dignity is also subjected to alteration and discrimination. Dignity belongs equally to every single human being, irrespective of his parents’ desires, his social condition, educational formation or level of physical development.209
Catholic higher education can be of substantial assistance in demythologizing these public policy debates. Legislatures and the public have been misled by technical terminology into believing that falsely-labeled cloning bans actually ban cloning, when in fact they allow (and in many cases fund) the creation of human embryos for research and destruction. New and false terminologies, such as “pre-embryo,” have been created to deceive the public into believing that the embryo is not a human being. Those educated in the sciences, grounded in truth and natural law, not only can expose these falsehoods but also can articulate the resulting assault on the common good.
Sexual Assault Protocols
In 2006 the United States Food and Drug Administration (FDA) approved the dispensing of emergency contraception, Plan B, by a pharmacist without a prescription to male and female adults. In 2009, the FDA lowered the age to from adulthood to 17 years of age.[92]210 A number of states also promulgated legal provisions pertaining to pharmacist dispensing of emergency contraception.
Only a few states provide a pharmacist refusal provision based on conscience. When such provisions do exist, they are tenuous at best and require some mechanism for timely alternative access to emergency contraception. Increasingly, state legislatures mandate that emergency departments provide information about administration of, or arrangement for transportation to another facility for, emergency contraception to victims of sexual assault even when there is an indication that the medication could impede implantation of an engendered embryo.
State statutory conscience exemptions for such requirements are nearly non-existent. This is extremely problematic, particularly since the recent instruction of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, Dignitas Personae states:
It is true that there is not always complete knowledge of the way that different pharmaceuticals operate, but scientific studies indicate that the effect of inhibiting implantation is certainly present, even if this does not mean that such interceptives [intrauterine device and “morning-after pills”] cause an abortion every time they are used, also because conception does not occur after every act of sexual intercourse. It must be noted, however, that anyone who seeks to prevent the implantation of an embryo which may possibly have been conceived and who therefore either requests or prescribes such a pharmaceutical, generally intends abortion.211
Catholic health care has been in the forefront of compassionate care in the treatment of sexual assault victims. In fact, due to the possibility that treatment can impact two victims (the woman assaulted and the human being potentially being engendered), Catholic hospitals had holistic policies in place long before secular hospitals. Such policies include physical, psychological, spiritual and forensic parameters of care.212
The health care provider, however, must achieve the moral certitude, through appropriate testing, that the object of preventing ovulation with each administration of the emergency contraceptive can be achieved, rather than a potential post fertilization effect. By not testing to achieve the moral certitude that fertilization can be prevented when administering the emergency contraception, the health care provider could engage in immediate material cooperation with those intending the intrinsic evil of abortion. This would be true if the administration of emergency contraception is upon the request of the victim, or in response to a mandate from government, either of whose intentions are to prevent implantation of the embryo if fertilization cannot be prevented.213
State legislatures are dictating health care protocols that demand administration of emergency contraception without allowing for diagnostic testing to determine what effect the medication will have on the particular patient in question. This is not only a violation of conscience, but also the violation of informed consent as well as sound medical practice.
In situations such as these, informed citizens, consumers and professionals are key to informing the general population of the dangers of a constitutional government that violates its own constitution, by selecting which powerful groups are granted favoured status, e.g., those demanding reproductive “rights” over the rights of religious liberty. To articulate these constitutional violations requires some sophistication in a climate that does not want citizens to be confused by the facts. Catholic higher education is known for its pursuit of truth through scholarship and is well suited to accomplishing this end.
Transgender Surgery
The sexual culture is being defined by an international movement that equates all human sexuality as a “good,” regardless of whether it involves acts that are heterosexual, homosexual, lesbian, bi-sexual, transgendered, within marriage or non-monogamous. Such a philosophy radically redefines the nature of human sexuality, divorcing its proper unitive and procreative purposes. The societal role of heterosexual marriage and the children it begets is becoming marginalized, equated to all other unions in which people choose to engage. Numerous permutations of “marital rights” are being legislated, with corresponding obligations on others: reciprocal beneficiaries, domestic partnerships, civil unions and same-sex marriage.
There are new “rights” also being extended through what are called “gender identity” laws. All states prohibit discrimination based on gender. Thus, the newer “gender identity” legislative protections are being promoted in such a way that any attempt to allow for religious exemptions is being labeled a violation of civil rights. These new legal categories of relationships and behaviors are being legislated as “protected classes”214 equal to race, color, religion, sex or national origin and increasingly taking precedence over the rights of religious liberty. An example of this is the loss of the New Jersey tax-exempt status by a Methodist-sponsored camp ground which refused to allow a same-sex union ceremony in its marriage pavilion.215
The implications for employers and providers of services are significant. Gender identity “protections” could require employers such as Catholic schools to allow the first grade teacher to be identified as Ms. Jones on Monday and Mr. Jones on Tuesday, with respective appearances to match the identity. Furthermore, in the delivery of health care services, mandates pursuant to transgender surgery already have been faced by Catholic providers.216 Some states expressly prohibit discrimination against same-sex couples in adoption policies. This has had a significant impact on the ability of diocesan Catholic Charities to provide adoption services; for example, in March 2006 after 100 years of providing adoption services, Catholic Charities of Boston had to cease such services rather than comply with this mandate. More recently Catholic Charities of Worcester experienced the same fate.
Here, again, one of the major roles of Catholic higher education is to prepare graduates who are able and willing to articulate the moral and legal principles involved when legally created rights conflict. Those responsible for developing social policies need to have an appreciation that a viable society must be grounded in natural law. Furthermore, and perhaps most importantly, graduates of Catholic higher education need to be able to shape these debates consistent with the truth that natural moral law is not a religious belief, but a practical reality the acknowledgement and acceptance of which allows a society to survive.
Care of Those in a Persistent Vegetative State
The case of Terri Schiavo brought the issue of care of persons in a persistent vegetative state into the public domain.217 Much of the controversy surrounded whether or not her wishes concerning her care were being respected, especially since she had no advanced directive.218 Another controversy surrounded whether or not she truly was in a vegetative state. Politicians and judges and advocates for “death with dignity” and the “right to life” became involved with this case. The central question was whether Mrs. Schiavo had given her consent to the continuance of assisted nutrition and hydration, which were keeping her alive.
Regardless of the answers to these questions, there are fundamental moral principles operable in providing assisted nutrition and hydration to those in a persistent vegetative state. These principles were explicated in a response from the Vatican’s Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith (CDF) to a dubium from the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops. This response was not addressed to any one patient situation, but did address the moral questions generated by the Schiavo case. Specifically, the response stated:
The administration of food and water even by artificial means is, in principle, an ordinary and proportionate means of preserving life. It is therefore obligatory to the extent to which, and for as long as, it is shown to accomplish its proper finality, which is the hydration and nourishment of the patient. In this way suffering and death by starvation and dehydration are prevented… A patient in a “permanent vegetative state” is a person with fundamental human dignity and must, therefore, receive ordinary and proportionate care which includes, in principle, the administration of water and food even by artificial means.219
Society has embarked on the slippery slope of situation ethics, equating a person’s ability to lead what others determine is a “meaningful life” to human dignity. Human dignity is a redundant phase; such dignity is innate and synonymous with being human. It cannot be lost or taken away. Yet studies show that those who request physician assisted suicide fear the loss of such dignity.220 This translates into not wanting to be a burden and thus rejected by loved ones. The societal impact is significant. In jurisdictions where assisted suicide has become accepted policy, such as the Netherlands, there now is the provision for euthanasia for those who cannot consent, such as disabled infants.221
Public policy should be in the hands of the public, but an informed public which has been given all of the truths and the skills to uncover the truth, needed for shaping policies that impact the public good. Education focused only on the “how” and not the “why” has led to the ethical dilemmas of the day, be they biomedical, economic or social. This is where Catholic higher education, using an integrated theological and philosophical approach to ethics education, can be of immeasurable service to the commonweal. Below this paper will address more specific suggestions pursuant to these areas, concluding with a discussion of best practices.
Social Politics Impacting Bioethics Education
The fruits of the civil rights movement are good and bountiful in so many ways. The Civil Rights Act of 1964 made it illegal to discriminate against persons based on race, color, religion, sex or national origin. Incrementally, federal legislation was passed to protect other classes of persons facing discrimination, e.g., the 1968 Fair Housing Act added familial status and people with disabilities to such protected classes.222 Initially, these laws may have forced persons to change immoral and inhumane behaviors toward others, but eventually the changes in behaviors and associations led to positive changes in perceptions and beliefs. For the first time in history, with the election of Barack Obama, we have a president of the United States whose father was African and whose mother was Caucasian. Two women were advanced by their political parties for nomination or as a candidate for president or vice-president of the United States.223 The willingness of society to embrace diversity is palpable.
However, the civil rights movement has been hijacked by those attempting to advance their own cultural agendas which will redefine society as we know it. With these new agendas, non-discrimination only applies to those having the power to control the agenda. Thus the unborn human being with a disability who cannot speak for herself has no power and no rights. Those advocating for these vulnerable human beings become labeled as religious fanatics. Thus religion becomes marginalized and in effect the object of discrimination.
Case law is pitting religious liberty, supposedly constitutionally protected, against an increasing state interest in fostering equality between the sexes.224 Most alarmingly, gender identity is redefined to mean anything one chooses it to be at any time, and marriage and family are also so redefined.225 Again, any group advocating for maintaining heterosexual marriage and family as the social institution that is the fabric of society from its origin is labeled a bigot.
Health care professionals who wish to exercise conscience in the delivery of health care are labeled discriminatory. In fact they often are impeded from invoking their consciences in the exercise of their professions.226 Laws are advanced, such as the federal Freedom of Choice Act, with language that is a misnomer; the only free choices that will be protected are those choices which will violate the lives of the vulnerable.227 Conscience protections for health care professionals, enshrined in federal law since the 1973 Church amendments,228 are in jeopardy.
This is where the role of Catholic higher education enters: to help the future shapers of society to sort through the rhetoric, the misuse of terminology (deliberate and otherwise), and the misinterpretation of the federal and state constitutions which allow for the violation of human life, the Hippocratic practice of medicine and the role of marriage and family in society.
However, somewhere along the way, the mission of Catholic higher education has been attenuated. Herdershott attributes this secularization of mission to what she terms “status envy:” the attempt of Catholic higher education to achieve elite status at the expense of mission.229 She cites as the origin of this phenomenon an essay by Monsignor John Tracy Ellis, written over half a century ago. Ellis accused Catholic campus faculty of giving priority to students’ moral development over scholarship and intellectual excellence.230 Hendershott proceeds through an historical analysis in which Catholic higher education’s Catholic identity has been “defined down,” the mission secularized, theology confused and boundaries blurred. Most telling is her report of a survey of 7,200 incoming students of thirty-eight Catholic institutions of higher education, with a repeat of the same survey four years later. Between admission and graduation, student support for the following socially destructive behaviors increased as follows: legalized abortion (37.9 percent to 51.7 percent), premarital sex (27.5 percent to 48.0 percent), and same-sex marriage (52.4 percent to 69.5 percent).231
Many bioethical issues touch upon an understanding of the sacredness of human life from its engendering until natural death, human sexuality, and the sacredness of marriage and family. Clearly, social politics has impacted Catholic higher education and most notably in the area of bioethics education. With the results of the aforementioned survey one is left asking how well-versed are these graduates in natural moral law? How grounded are the faculty, and the curricula for which they are responsible, in natural moral law?
Faculty Obligations to Prepare Graduates Capable of Resolving Bioethical Dilemmas of the Day
The need to prepare graduates of Catholic higher education who are capable of resolving contemporary ethical dilemmas creates obligations for faculty, faculty hiring practices, and faculty retention and development policies.
There has been much confusion over the years concerning faculty rights, pursuant to academic freedom, and faculty obligations to embrace the mission of the institution for which they have agreed to be an agent of education. The need for educating students consistent with the mission of any institution with which faculty engage is not a parochial standard. Educational accrediting standards, regardless of the sponsorship of the institution of higher education, require that an institution has a mission statement which is manifested through its curriculum.232 This is not an invention of Catholic higher education administration.
Yet all one has to do is attend to the media to see some faculty in Catholic colleges claiming that such a requirement is a violation of academic freedom. A recent example can be seen in the outrage some faculty expressed when crucifixes were placed in classrooms of Boston College, claiming that this traditional Catholic practice creates an environment hostile to open intellectual discourse, thereby asking that we accept the absurdity of their implication that a Catholic college cannot implement its own mission.233
The concept of academic freedom is as misunderstood as the concept of the separation of church and state. The American Association of University Professors and Association of American Colleges and Universities agree that:
Teachers are entitled to full freedom in research and in the publication of the results, subject to the adequate performance of their other academic duties; but research for pecuniary return should be based upon an understanding with the authorities of the institution.
Teachers are entitled to freedom in the classroom in discussing their subject, but they should be careful not to introduce into their teaching controversial matter which has no relation to their subject. Limitations of academic freedom because of religious or other aims of the institution should be clearly stated in writing at the time of the appointment.234
While Dignitatis Humanae hails the right to freedom, both individual and communal, it also states that:
It is in accordance with their dignity as persons—that is, beings endowed with reason and free will and therefore privileged to bear personal responsibility—that all men should be at once impelled by nature and also bound by a moral obligation to seek the truth, especially religious truth. They are also bound to adhere to the truth, once it is known, and to order their whole lives in accord with the demands of truth.235
Somehow in the age of cultural relativism, the concept that academe is to be in search of eternal truths has been lost. Freedom, whether academic or social, became defined as freedom to do what one wants, not the more accurate definition consistent with natural law: freedom to act toward the good. Educators sometimes envision themselves as agents of social change, dissent and even civil disobedience. In recent history, colleges and universities were in the forefront of the 1960s civil rights movement and the anti-Vietnam War movement. While many engaged in laudable non-violent protests, for some the rallying against authority included violence which was praised as a strike for social justice. Enter the sexual revolution through the discovery of oral contraception,236 with the Church’s teaching on the inseparable unitive and procreative gifts of married love,237 and the Church became the target for scholarly dissent. Father Charles Curran sued The Catholic University of America for suspending him for his dissent from Church teaching. The Superior Court of the District of Columbia ruled against Curran, citing the pontifical nature of the university, and found that that there is “an ecclesiastical limit” on theological dissent.238 However, throughout the United States the conflicts continue, leading to confusion by students and often dismay by parents whose intent in sending their children to a Catholic institution of higher education may have been usurped by the unresolved tension between institutional mission and academic freedom.
There are Catholic institutions of higher education that have embraced this opportunity to clarify their unique role in education. In so doing, they have acknowledged that not all faculty upon hiring were grounded solidly in Catholic dogma, or were even Catholic. Such an acknowledgement recognizes the obligation to provide ongoing faculty development in Catholic doctrine. Some of the best contemporary practices also prepare faculty to be versed in the Church’s teaching on contemporary bioethical dilemmas, to enable them to prepare their graduates for the challenges they face in our culture.
Holy Apostles College and Seminary239 is a residential seminary and a commuter college located in the diocese of Norwich, Connecticut. The seminary was originally operated by the Missionaries of the Holy Apostles, an order of priests. In 1984 the order invited the three Roman Catholic diocesan bishops of Connecticut to join the Board of Directors, along with lay men and women. The bishop of the Diocese of Norwich serves as the school’s chancellor.
The integration of the college and the seminary enables the cultivation of lay, consecrated and ordained Catholic leaders for the purpose of evangelization in the modern world. There are four Bachelor of Arts major concentrations: Theology, Philosophy, English in the Humanities, and History in the Social Sciences. A firm grounding in the tradition of Catholic moral teaching and a clear understanding of the Church’s teaching on contemporary bioethical issues is essential for all students, enabling them to be leaders in evangelization. Every undergraduate and graduate class, whether in theology, philosophy, humanities or social sciences, is taught from the perspective of natural moral law with applications to key contemporary issues of human life and sexuality. Courses in sociology, psychology and biology, for example, reaffirm the truth of the person in light of the anthropology articulated by Pope John Paul II in the Theology of the Body.240
The goal of the undergraduate program is to provide a philosophically based Catholic honors liberal arts curriculum to prepare students for graduate study and most especially for life. Each student is required to take eight courses in philosophy: logic, ancient philosophy, medieval philosophy, metaphysics, epistemology, philosophy of man, and ethics and contemporary issues in philosophy. These courses educate in the true sense of the word: “to draw out from the students,” enabling them to discover the truth, the beauty and the good in the natural moral law accessible by right reason. A key goal is to enable each graduate to articulate correctly the basis in reason for Catholic moral teaching on contemporary bioethical issues.
Furthermore, each undergraduate student is required to take seven courses in theology. The Catechism of the Catholic Church241 is studied in its entirety over two semesters. Special emphasis is given to the “pillar” of moral teaching as this is the locus at which the Church faces most present-day difficulties in catechesis and culture. Courses in scripture, liturgy, spirituality and Church history are rooted in Pope John Paul’s exegesis of Genesis242 on sexuality, complementarity of the sexes, and the sacredness of every human life.
Holy Apostles has a very qualified and dedicated core of undergraduate professors. The small size of the student body, and thus its faculty, enable interdisciplinary collaboration and cohesiveness. This allows for a sharing of expertise. While courses are not team taught, it is not uncommon for faculty members to become guest lecturers in each others’ classes, bringing their particular expertise to the subject at hand. For example, a professor of philosophy conducted a seminar on the philosophical underpinnings of John Paul II’s Theology of the Body.243 The same kind of collaboration occurred with the study of the philosophical basis of Pope Paul VI’s encyclical on human life, Humanae Vitae.244 Philosophy is recognized as the “handmaid” of theology, and the two disciplines remain closely linked.
The focus of the undergraduate program is to provide an honors liberal arts curriculum with a view to specialization in graduate school. The school does not offer concentrations per se within the undergraduate majors. The student can, however, choose to exercise his or her elective courses to enhance preparation in bioethics.
The Pope John Paul II Bioethics Center was founded at Holy Apostles College and Seminary in 1982. The Center offers graduate courses in bioethics and a concentration of bioethics in the Master of Arts Degree in Theology. In addition, the Center sponsors lectures for the community at large and has published a number of important articles and monographs. The undergraduate students benefit from the public lectures and, with the permission of the Academic Dean, may enroll in advance placement graduate bioethics courses. The courses offered by the Bioethics Center are available on campus or via distance learning.
Faculty members of Holy Apostles are committed to ongoing education. Faculty are active participants in the Fides et Ratio summer seminars for undergraduate professors of Catholic colleges and universities in the United States.245 An important outcome of the summer seminars is to continue the seminar discussions at the institution of each participant. Ensuing campus-based faculty discussions have focused on important contemporary issues facing the Church. Common readings are prepared by each faculty member to facilitate quality discussion and mutual enrichment. The faculty also attend public lectures and conferences on bioethical issues.
In addition to the many formal educational opportunities offered to undergraduate students on bioethical topics, a culture permeates the campus in which a love of the Church and her teachings is palpable. The life of the College and Seminary is centered in the chapel. There is a Holy Hour for Life and Mercy each Saturday afternoon which includes readings and reflections from Pope John Paul II’s Evangelium Vitae.246 Students have the opportunity to pray and reflect at Adam’s Tomb on campus where a pre-born child is buried. The Holy Apostles Life League is very active with many lay and seminarian members participate through volunteering in life affirming activities. Through these experiences the undergraduate students have the opportunity to face contemporary bioethical issues firsthand. Furthermore, through organized contact with public officials students and faculty have become engaged in the political processes that shape public policy. As future professionals, consumers of health care, and citizens who direct public policy, Holy Apostles graduates, be they clergy or laity, are being prepared to reshape a society that is respectful of natural moral law.
We find another example of “best practices” at the University of Saint Thomas, an archdiocesan university in Saint Paul, Minnesota. The University of Saint Thomas sponsored a week-long seminar for faculty, funded by a Lilly Foundation Grant,247 “The Church and the Bioethical Public Square.” The seminar was conducted out of the Catholic Studies program and attracted faculty from diverse disciplines, as well as students and members of the surrounding community. This seminar was part of an organized effort to assure the incorporation of mission into efforts of the academic community.
Students, regardless of their major, are required to take two core courses in philosophy (“Philosophy of the Human Person” and “Ethics”) and three core courses in theology sequence. The theology sequence is quite unique in its sequential focus on assisting the student to integrate theological concepts into their encounter with culture. The first course is “The Christian Theological Tradition.” The other two courses can vary: the second-level course introduces students to the actual practice of theology through one of the major theological sub-disciplines (Scripture, morals, systematics). In the third course, the student is asked to examine the relationship between faith and culture in some aspect, e.g., “Theology and the Biomedical Revolution.” Recently initiated are what are termed “bridge courses” which pair theology and non-theology faculty in an examination of some cultural or professional topic, e.g., “Theology and Literature,” “Theology and Engineering,” “Theology and Medicine,” “Theology and Mass Media,” etc.
The University’s ongoing commitment to a liberal arts core course sequence is one of the key ways in which Catholic identity is promoted. As the director of the Masters Degree Programs in Catholic Studies stated: “You obviously don’t need to be a Catholic to appreciate the liberal arts, but as more and more colleges and universities simply give up on the notion of a ‘core’ tradition of liberal/humanistic studies, the very idea begins to take on a distinctively Catholic patina.”248
Likewise bioethics education devoid of grounding in natural moral law becomes an exercise in the subjective ethics of situation ethics, consequentialism and utilitarianism. Without a “core” tradition which also allows for “bridge courses” preparing graduates for the cultural relativism they are facing, graduates of Catholic higher education will be no different from other graduates. The mission of Catholic higher education will be lost, and the purpose for its existence extinct.
*The author wishes to express her appreciation to Dr. Stephen Napier, Ph.D., Staff Ethicist, National Catholic Bioethics Center, for his assistance with this paper.
References
Ascension Health. “A Sexual Assault Protocol for Catholic Hospitals.“ Ethics and Medics (June 2002 27:6).
ADAM Medical Encyclopedia (Atlanta, GA: ADAM, 2005). s.v. “Infertility,” updated February 5, 2008, http://www.nlm.nih.gov/medlineplus/ency/article/001191.htm.
Amato, Angelo, S.D.B., Titular Archbishop of Sila, Prefect for the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith. “Responses to Certain Questions of the USCCB Concerning Artificial Nutrition and Hydration” Ethics and Medics (vol. 32/no. 11, November 2007), p. 3.
American Association of University Professors and of the Association of American Colleges (now the Association of American Colleges and Universities). 1940 Statement of Principles on Academic Freedom and Tenure. Reprinted with editing and interpretive comments (January 1990), http://www.aaup.org/AAUP/pubsres/policydocs/contents/1940statement.htm.
Benedict XVI. Address to Catholic Educators. Washington, DC: The Catholic University of America (April 17, 2008).
Benedict XVI. Encyclical Letter Spe Salvi: In Hope We are Saved (November 30, 2007.
Berman, Harold J. “The Religious Clauses of the First Amendment in Historical Perspective.” Religion and Politics, ed. W. Laswon Taitte. Dallas: University of Texas Press (1989).
Bostrom, Nick. “The Transhumanist FAQ– A General Introduction.”World Transhumanist Assoc: Version 2.1 (2003).
Canon Law Society of America. Code of Canon Law: Latin–English Edition, New English Translation. Washington, D.C.: CLSA (1999).
Carter, Stephen L. The Culture of Disbelief: How American Law and Politics Trivialize Religious Devotion. New York: Basic Books (1993).
Catholic Charities of the Diocese of Albany v. Gregory V. Serio, New York Court of Appeals, no. 110 (October 19, 2006), 16, http://www.nycourts.gov/ctapps/decisions/oct06/110opn06.pdf. by the New York State Court of Appeals.
Cibelli, Jose B., et al. “The First Human Cloned Embryo.” Scientific American (November 24, 2001), http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?id=0008B8F9-AC62-1C75-9B81809EC588EF21.
College of Liberal Arts & Sciences at UNC Charlotte. “Mission and Vision.” Center for Professional and Applied Ethics. University of North Carolina at Charlotte, http://www.ethics.uncc.edu/.
Committee on the Status and Future of the Profession. The Role of Philosophy Programs in Higher Education. Newark, DE: American Philosophical Association (Nov 2008).
Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith. Declaration on Euthanasia (May 5, 1980).
Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith. Declaration on Procured Abortion (1974).
Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith. Instruction Dignitas Personae on Certain Bioethical Questions (8 September 2008).
Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith. (Donum Vitae)Respect for Human Life (22 February 1987).
Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith. “Responses to Certain Questions of the USCCB Concerning Artificial Nutrition and Hydration (August 1, 2007), with Accompanying Commentary.” Reprinted in Ethics & Medics 32.11 (November 2007): 3.
Curran, Charles E. Catholic Moral Theology in the United States: A History. Georgetown: Georgetown Univ. Press (2008).
Ellis, John Tracy. “American Catholics and the Intellectual Life.” Thought 30 (Autumn 1955), 351-388.
Fletcher, Joseph. Situation Ethics: the New Morality. Westminster: John Knox Press (1997).
Gilson, Etienne et al. Thomisim: The Philosophy of Thomas Aquinas. Toronto: Pontifical Institute of Mediaeval Studies (2002).
Glazer, E. “Problem Based Instruction.” In M. Orey (Ed.). Emerging perspectives on learning, teaching, and technology (2001), Retrieved 18 February 2009, from http://projects.coe.uga.edu/epltt/
Gronlund, Norman E. Stating Objectives for Classroom Instruction, Second Edition New York: Macmillan Publishing Co., Inc. (1978).
Hardon, Fr. John A., S.J. The Meaning of Virtue in Thomas Aquinas. Manassas, VA: Trinity Communications, Taken from the “Great Catholic Books Newsletter” (Volume II, Number 1), http://www.ewtn.com/library/SPIRIT/MEANVIR.TXT.
Charlene Hastings vs. Seton Medical Center et al. Superior Court of California, County of San Francisco (CGC-07-470336, 20 Sept 2008).
Hendershott, Anne. Status Envy: The Politics of Catholic Higher Education (New Brunswick, NJ: Transaction Publishers, 2009).
Hilliard, Marie T. “Contraceptive Mandates and the Avoidance of Culpable Negligence,” Urged on by Christ: Catholic Health Care in Tension with Contemporary Culture, Philadelphia, PA: National Catholic Bioethics Center (2007), 127-142.
Hilliard, Marie T. “Dignitas Personae and Emergency Contraception.” Ethics and Medics (February 2009, 34:2).
Hollowell, Kelly. “Distorting Science for the Secular Agenda.” WorldNet Daily (April 17, 2004), http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=38081.
Huxley, Aldous. Brave New World (London: HarperCollins, first Perennial Modern Classics edition, 1932).
Indiana Commission for Higher Education. “Aspirations for Indiana Post Secondary Education: Student Success” (June, 08, 2007).
John XXIII. Encyclical Pacem et Terris, 11 April 1963. English Translation in The Pope Speaks, 9 (1963), 13-48.
John Paul II. Catechism of the Catholic Church, English Translation. Washington, DC: USCCB, Second Edition (2000).
John Paul II. Encyclical Letter Evangelium vitae, 25 Mar. 1995 (7 Dec. 2007), http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/john_paul_ii/encyclicals/documents/hf_jp-ii_enc_25031995_evangelium-vitae_en.html.
John Paul II. Post-Synodal Apostolic Exhortation Christifideles Laici:On the Vocation and the Mission of the Lay Faithful in the Church and in the World (Washington, D.C.: United States Catholic Conference, 1988).
John Paul II. Address to those taking part in the International Congress of Moral Theology (April 10,1986), 1; Insegnamenti IX, 1 (1986).
John Paul II. Apconst Ex corde Ecclesiae (Vatican: Libreria Editrice, August 15, 1990).
John Paul II. Apostolic Letter Salvifici Doloris: On the Christian Meaning of Human Suffering. Washington: United States Catholic Conference (1984).
John Paul II. Encyclical Letter Veritatis Splendor:The Splendor of Truth (Washington, D.C.: United States Catholic Conference, 1993).
Kleinsman, John. “Surveying a Catholic Approach to Bioethics.” The Nathaniel Report: Issue Seven. The Nathaniel Centre: The New Zealand Catholic Bioethics Centre (2002).
National Library of Medicine, National Institutes of Health. “History of Medicine: Hippocratic Oath.” Greek Medicine (11 Sept 2002), http://www.nlm.nih.gov/hmd/greek/greek_oath.html.
The North Central Association of Colleges and Schools. The Higher Learning Commission Institutional Accreditation: An Overview. Chicago: Higher Learning Commission, NCA (2003).
North Coast Women’s Care Medical Group, Inc., et al., v. San Diego County Superior Court. California Supreme Court (Super. Ct. No. GIC770165, 18 August 2008).
O’Reilly, Kevin B. “Oregon still stands alone: Ten years of physician-assisted suicide.” AMNews (May 12, 2008).
Paul VI. Declaration on Religious Freedom Dignitatis Humanae: On the Right of the Person and of Communities to Social and Civil Freedom in Matters Religious (Dec. 7, 1965).
Paul VI. Pastoral Constitution on the Church in the Modern World Gaudium et Spes (Dec 7, 1965).
Paul VI. Encyclical Letter, Humanae Vitae: On the Regulation of Birth. Washington DC: US Conference of Catholic Bishops (1968).
Payton, Rita Jean. “A Bioethical Program for Baccalaureate Nursing Students” in Ethics in Nursing Practice and Education, ed. American Nurses Association Committee on Ethics. Kansas City, MO: ANA (1980) 53-65.
Peet, Judy. “State withdraws tax break for Ocean Grove pavilion.” Real-Time News (Sept 17, 2007), http://www.nj.com/news/index.ssf/2007/09/state_withdraws_tax_break_for.html.
Pius XII. “Discourse to those taking part in the 4th International Congress of Catholic Doctors” (September 29, 1949). AAS 41 (1949).
Pontifical Academy for Life. letter, “Moral Reflections on Vaccines Prepared from Cells Derived from Aborted Human Fetuses” (June 9, 2005).
President’s Council on Bioethics. Beyond Therapy: Biotechnology and the Pursuit of Happiness. Washington, D.C. (October 2003), http://bioethics.gov/topics/beyond_index.html.
Second Vatican Ecumenical Council. Decree on the Apostolate of the Laity. Apostolicam Actuositatem (1965), no. 1.
Smith, Prof. Randall B. “Christianity and the Liberal Arts: Intellectual Community as a Foundation for Faith.” Joy in the Truth: The Catholic University in the New Millennium. Notre Dame: Center for Ethics and Culture, Proceedings (Sept 30, 2003), Colloquium Session 3.
Stanford University. Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Feb 9, 2006), http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/consequentialism/.
Thomson, James A., et al. “Embryonic Stem Cell Lines Derived from Human Blastocysts.” Science 6: Vol. 282. no. 5391 (November 1998), pp. 1145 – 1147.
United States Conference of Catholic Bishops. New American Bible. Washington, DC: USCCB (1991).
United States Conference of Catholic Bishops. Ethical and Religious Directives for Catholic Health Care Services, 4th ed. Washington, D.C.: USCCB (2001).
United States Department of Health and Human Services. “Ensuring that Department of Health and Human Services Funds Do Not Support Coercive or Discriminatory Policies or Practices in Violation of Federal Law.” Federal Register: 73:245 (December 19, 2008), Rules and Regulations, pp. 78071-78101.
United States Department of Health and Human Services. “Title 45: Public Welfare.” CFR (46.204), http://www.hhs.gov/ohrp/humansubjects/guidance/45cfr46.htm#46.204.
United States Department of Health and Human Services, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. “Assisted Reproductive Technology.” Updated February 9, 2009, http://www.cdc.gov/ART/.
United States Food and Drug Administration, Center for Drug Evaluation and Research. “Plan B: Questions and Answers” (August 24, 2006, updated December 14, 2006), http://www.fda.gov/cder/drug/infopage/planB/planBQandA20060824.htm.
United States Senate, Joint Economic Committee. “Fact Sheet: Investing in Raising Children” (February 2007).
Weir, Richard. “Boston College in the Cross Hair: Outrage over Crucifixes Hung in Classrooms.” Boston Herald (Feb 12, 2009), http://www.bostonherald.com/news/regional/view.bg?articleid=1151661.
West, Christopher. Theology of the Body Explained, Revised Edition, from John Paul II’s 129 Wednesday audiences between 1979-1984. Boston, MA: Pauline Books and Media (2007).
Yamanaka, S., et al. “Generation of germline-competent induced pluripotent stem cells.” Nature 448 (2007), 313-7.
https://cardinalnewmansociety.org/wp-content/uploads/Center-for-the-Study-of-Catholic-Higher-Education-845-x-321-px.png13383521Dr. Marie Hilliardhttps://cardinalnewmansociety.org/wp-content/uploads/CNS-logo-2C-450-tag2.pngDr. Marie Hilliard2011-06-02 21:02:182020-05-19 13:04:05Bioethics Studies in Catholic Higher Education
Do Catholic Schools Need the Common Core?
/in Academics Common Core, Research and Analysis/by Cardinal Newman Society StaffThe following considerations related to the Common Core were provided to Catholic bishops on November 13, 2013, in Baltimore, Maryland. The Cardinal Newman Society partnered with the National Association of Private Catholic and Independent Schools and the Catholic Education Foundation to present a seminar on the Common Core during the annual meeting of the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops.
This publication is part of a series of reports on the Common Core State Standards Initiative and how those standards potentially impact Catholic education.
Our core is the Catholic Faith.
Catholic schools are already among the best in the nation.
Catholic schools already prepare for college and careers.
Common Core is not required for Catholic schools.
Common Core seeks radical change in education.
Common Core is untested and experimental.
The Common Core standards are flawed.
Common Core aims for nationalization, not pluralism.
Common Core poses a creeping threat to schools’ Catholic identity.
Bishops, parents and educators are being ignored.
10 Critically Important Adaptations to the Common Core for Catholic Schools*
/in Academics Common Core, Research and Analysis/by Dr. Dan GuernseyThis publication is part of a series of reports on the Common Core State Standards Initiative and how those standards potentially impact Catholic education.
As of yet, there has been no serious effort to analyze the impact of the Common Core State Standards (CCSS)11 on Catholic education—one that engages Catholic school educators at all levels as well as parents, the primary educators of their children. In view of the current environment, it would seem reasonable for those in leadership positions in Catholic education to pause, reflect and plan prior to moving forward with either adopting or adapting the CCSS.
But in the complex environment of operating a Catholic school system, there may be instances where, for whatever reason, a Catholic School has decided to implement the Common Core State Standards. These schools claim that they are not entirely assimilating the troubled and controversial public school standards, but rather “adapting” the standards by changing them to fit with their Catholic mission and pursuit of academic excellence.
While such an attempt (sincerely implemented) is a step above merely copying the public school system, it does not address the fundamental conflict associated with the integral formation of students. Since standards drive curriculum, a Catholic curriculum must include standards that are integrated with the magisterial teachings of the Catholic Church.
For example, consider that Catholics have much to say about literature, history, science, and, above all, about Truth, goodness, and beauty. And, since the object of every academic disci- pline is truth, the Catholic curriculum should be based on the conviction that all truths ultimately converge in their source—God. This standard, among others, is sorely lacking in the Common Core.
If a Catholic school or school system chooses to take the more problematic road of adapting the Common Core Standards (as opposed to creating their own standards), the Catholic school system would greatly benefit from a public discussion (or basic research) about how—if at all—Catholic schools are actually changing the Common Core. Additionally, parents should ask their Catholic school officials what elements of the Common Core (if any) they have found necessary to change/adapt.
As yet, there has not been a significant study or public discussion as to what possible changes Catholic schools might be making in voluntarily implementing the Common Core in our schools. I would like to take the initiative to begin this discussion by enumerating ten important changes to consider.
1. Renounce the English Language Arts (ELA) Percentages for Literary and Informational Texts (which are not research-based).15
2. Reduce textbook use when possible.29
3. Respond to the texts, not the Standards.
4. Do not take the Common Core’s rightful emphasis on text-based arguments too far.
5. Avoid premature use of technology, peer-editing, research and rhetorical pedagogy in place of good old-fashioned writing instruction.
6. Create your own explicit standards for your junior high and high school literature classes.
7. Do not alter your math progression.
8. Avoid the temptation to push “higher-ordered thinking skills” too quickly.
9. Avoid teaching to the tests.
10. Keep the greatest distance possible between your curriculum and the Common Core Standards.
With so many concerns, one wonders why Catholic schools would base their efforts on the Common Core at all. Catholic schools have had unparalleled and enviable success for decades using their own standards.
I am concerned that many Catholic schools may have jumped on the Common Core band- wagon too early. After all, the Standards have not had adequate opportunity to be vetted; no “body” of Catholic scholars or educators—especially the parents, the primary educators—has thoroughly explored or discussed them. There is no harm in hitting the pause button and continuing the conversation, as we watch the untested Common Core Standards unfold in the public school arena.
Regardless, as some Catholic schools choose to adapt the Common Core, it would benefit us all to discuss openly what is being adapted and why. As with any initial conversation, these remarks and ideas cry out for correction and expansion. I look forward to the conversation.
* The title has changes from the original, “10 Minimal Adaptations Catholic Schools Consider Making to the Common Core State Standards”
Questions and Answers About What the Latest HHS Mandate Rule Means for Catholic High Schools
/in Mission and Governance Public Policy and Legal (General), Research and Analysis/by Matthew BowmanThis Issue Brief takes a look at the new32 “Notice of Proposed Rulemaking” issued on February 1, 2013, by the Department of Health and Human Services concerning the federal mandate that health insurance plans, including those provided or arranged by non-exempt Catholic high schools, must include coverage of early abortion pills, contraception, sterilization, and related education and counseling for women with a reproductive capacity.
What was the government’s intent with the February 1st “Notice of Proposed Rulemaking”?
The Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (“NPRM”)33 sets forth a proposed (not final) structure for public comment on whether or how the government will respect religious objections to its coverage mandate of early abortion pills, contraception, and sterilization. It concerns three categories of entities with objections to the mandate. Generally, these categories are: (1) houses of worship; (2) all other religious non-profits; and (3) all other objectors.
Is this the final rule?
No, it will be finalized by August 1, 2013. The public may submit comments by April 8, 2013.
Who would be exempt from the mandate under the NPRM?
The NPRM proposes that basically only houses of worship would be exempt from the mandate. Exempt entities are called “religious employers,” and these must be either “churches, their integrated auxiliaries, and conventions or associations of churches,” or “the exclusively
religious activities of any religious order.” These categories are narrow and well-established in Internal Revenue Code section 6033(a)(3)(A)(i) and (iii). Many Catholic high schools might not fall into these categories. They should consult with an attorney or tax advisor to review whether or not they qualify.
Is this a change from the existing exemption?
In one respect, the NPRM proposes a change from the existing mandate exemption. Under the existing exemption, houses of worship are still the only entities eligible for an exemption, but in addition those houses of worship must function to inculcate beliefs, and must primarily hire and serve only those of their own faith. The NPRM proposes to remove the latter three requirements from the definition of exempt “religious employers,” but retain the fourth criteria by which the entity must be a house of worship, church, religious order, or the like as listed above. The NPRM insists that this change is a clarification, not a broadening of the exemption. Since houses of worship are still the only entities that qualify for an exemption, the NPRM’s changes “would not expand the universe of employer plans that would qualify for the exemption beyond that which was intended” in the existing rule.
In another respect, the new proposal appears to be worse for entities such as Catholic high schools. Under last year’s regulations, it was suggested that if a school’s employees received insurance from a diocese’s health plan, the school’s coverage would fall under the diocese’s exempt status as a church. See 77 Fed. Reg. 16,502. But the new proposed exemption intentionally removes this possibility and says employers will be treated separately: only if a school is itself a church or integrated auxiliary thereof will it be exempt, even if its employees use the diocesan health plan. 78 Fed. Reg. at 8,467. Thus, many schools that are affiliated with churches, but not integrated auxiliaries thereof, may lose their access to exempt insurance.
Is this a very narrow definition of “religious employer,” or one that is used commonly by the federal government?
This definition is extremely narrow compared to other federal laws providing for conscience exemptions. The 40-year-old bipartisan standard established throughout federal law, including in health and insurance coverage of items such as contraception, is to exempt any person or group with moral or religious objections. The Religious Freedom Restoration Act in particular requires the federal government to exempt any religious objector from rules such as this Mandate. The administration has instead constrained religious freedom by using a category in tax law that has no relationship to conscience, but instead relates to whether a group files its own 990 tax form. Even within that code section, the administration gerrymandered this rule by selecting subparts (i) and (iii) but not (ii) which includes other nonprofits. The administration apparently selected a category with the smallest possible scope it could find. This is consistent with its view that religious freedom really only inheres in worship and not in the exercise of religion outside a house of worship.
How would the NPRM deal with objections from colleges and other non-profits?
The NPRM proposes to apply the coverage mandate to all non-exempt entities, including religious groups. But for some religious non-profit groups, the NPRM proposes to accomplish this through what it calls an “accommodation.” The accommodation is a complex arrangement designed to create the impression that the religious organization is not involved in giving its employees access to objectionable items such as early abortion pills, while at the same time insisting that the employees will receive those items seamlessly with their employer’s own provision of coverage.
Their employees would still receive objectionable coverage from those groups’ own insurers or plan administrators, and would receive it “automatically,” so that the employees could not opt out of the coverage for themselves or their female family members.
What qualifies an organization for this “accommodation”?
The NPRM applies its accommodation to non-exempt “eligible organizations.” These should not be confused with exempt “religious employers” discussed above. (Exempt religious employers—houses of worship—are not subject to the accommodation scheme.) A non-exempt “eligible organization” is one that meets the following criteria:
The organization opposes providing coverage for some or all of the contraceptive services required to be covered under section 2713 of the PHS Act on account of religious objections.
The organization is organized and operates as a nonprofit entity.
The organization holds itself out as a religious organization.
Again, these “religious organizations” are those that do not fall within the exempt category of houses of worship discussed above.
How does the “accommodation” work for non-exempt “eligible organizations”?
The organization must sign a certification asserting that it meets the above-described criteria, keep the certification in its records “for examination upon request so that regulators, issuers, third party administrators, and plan participants and beneficiaries,” and provide the certification to the insurance issuer(s) and/or its self-insurance plan administrator(s) that the group pays for their ordinary duties.
Under the accommodation, once the religious group’s insurer or administrator receives that certification, the insurer or administrator is required to “automatically” provide the religious group’s employees and plan beneficiaries with insurance covering the objectionable items.
If the religious group uses an insurer, that insurer also becomes the insurer for the objectionable items. The NPRM claims that this insurance plan will be “separate” and will not be charged to the religious group. But it admits that there are up-front costs to the items, and it claims that these costs will be offset by the benefits of the primary insurance that the religious group is paying for (since, it theorizes, fewer childbirths will lead to lower costs).
What about self-insured non-profit religious groups?
If the religious group is self-insured, the NPRM proposes that it be required to use a plan administrator (even if it does not presently have one). When that plan administrator receives the certification it will take on the additional duties of finding an external insurance company to “automatically” issue insurance coverage of objectionable items to the religious group’s employees. The NPRM does not address the privacy implications of releasing employee health information to an insurance company with which the religious group never contracted, for a purpose to which the religious group objects.
The NPRM proposes that the costs of the objectionable items will be offset by rebates that the federal government will offer those insurers in the health “exchanges” otherwise implicated by the Affordable Care Act.
Is the NPRM correct that the “accommodation” does not implicate an objecting entity?
The NPRM imposes what is essentially a moral judgment that the “accommodation” frees objecting entities from culpability for coverage of objectionable items. Entities are not allowed to disagree with this moral judgment set forth by the government. Several factors might lead objecting entities to differ from the government’s moral viewpoint. Under the accommodation, the Affordable Care Act will still be requiring objecting entities with 50 or more full-time employees to provide health insurance coverage, and that coverage will be the trigger for the objectionable items to flow to its employees. The objectionable coverage will come from the same insurers or plan administrators that the religious group is paying. The provision of objectionable coverage will be triggered specifically by the religious group’s mandated delivery of its religious certification to its insurer or plan administrator. For insured entities, the costs of the objectionable items will allegedly be offset by the main plan the objecting entity is buying. For self-insured entities, the NPRM does not fully explain how costs will be offset. Unprecedented burdens and fiduciary duties will fall on insurers and plan administrators with whom religious groups contract, because of that contract. The NPRM does not fully explain how these additional burdens will not eventually be reflected in the ability of religious groups to contract with insurers or administrators in the first place.
What religious freedom allowances does the NPRM provide to other objectors?
None.
Neither an exemption nor a feigned accommodation is provided under the NPRM for: employees of religious non-profit groups who do not want free abortion-pill, contraception, sterilization and counseling coverage for themselves, their spouses or their daughters; non-profit groups that object to abortion-pills or contraception for non-religious reasons; insurance companies or plan administrators that object; religious families that earn a living running a business; or individuals that arrange for their own insurance coverage not through an employer.
Notably, the Affordable Care Act uses secular reasons to refrain from applying this mandate to tens of millions of other Americans, such as because a plan is “grandfathered” from many ACA regulations. Yet the government refuses to exempt most religious objectors.
Is the NPRM still subject to comment?
Yes. The NPRM is not final and the government will accept public comments until April 8, 2013, about any aspect of the proposal. The Alliance Defending Freedom work with The Cardinal Newman Society to prepare a formal comment and other institutions are welcome to join that comment. Individual organizations may also submit their own electronic comments to www.regulations.gov. All comments should reference file code CMS–9968–P.
If I have more questions, whom do I contact?
General questions can be address to Bob Laird at the Cardinal Newman Society’s Catholic High School Honor Roll, (703) 367-0333 x 106 or blaird@CardinalNewmanSociety.org. Specific questions about legal actions should be directed to Matt Bowman at Alliance Defending Freedom, 1-800-835-5233.
Questions and Answers About What the Latest HHS Mandate Rule Means for Catholic Colleges
/in Mission and Governance Public Policy and Legal (General), Research and Analysis/by Matthew BowmanThis Issue Brief takes a look at the new34 “Notice of Proposed Rulemaking” issued on February 1, 2013, by the Department of Health and Human Services concerning the federal mandate that health insurance plans, including those provided or arranged by Catholic colleges, must include coverage of early abortion pills, contraception, sterilization, and related education and counseling for women with a reproductive capacity.
What was the government’s intent with the February 1st “Notice of Proposed Rulemaking”?
The Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (“NPRM”)35 sets forth a proposed (not final) structure for public comment on whether or how the government will respect religious objections to its coverage mandate of early abortion pills, contraception, and sterilization. It concerns three categories of entities with objections to the mandate. Generally, these categories are: (1) houses of worship; (2) all other religious non-profits; and (3) all other objectors.
Is this the final rule?
No, it will be finalized by August 1, 2013. The public may submit comments by April 8, 2013.
Who would be exempt from the mandate under the NPRM?
The NPRM proposes that basically only houses of worship would be exempt from the mandate. Exempt entities are called “religious employers,” and these must be either “churches, their integrated auxiliaries, and conventions or associations of churches,” or “the exclusively
religious activities of any religious order.” These categories are narrow and well-established in Internal Revenue Code section 6033(a)(3)(A)(i) and (iii). Most Catholic colleges know that they do not fall into these categories. They should consult with an attorney or tax advisor to review whether or not they qualify.
Is this a change from the existing exemption?
In one respect, the NPRM proposes a change from the existing mandate exemption. Under the existing exemption, houses of worship are still the only entities eligible for an exemption, but in addition those houses of worship must function to inculcate beliefs, and must primarily hire and serve only those of their own faith. The NPRM proposes to remove the latter three requirements from the definition of exempt “religious employers,” but retain the fourth criteria by which the entity must be a house of worship, church, religious order, or the like as listed above. The NPRM insists that this change is a clarification, not a broadening of the exemption. Since houses of worship are still the only entities that qualify for an exemption, the NPRM’s changes “would not expand the universe of employer plans that would qualify for the exemption beyond that which was intended” in the existing rule.
Is this a very narrow definition of “religious employer,” or one that is used commonly by the federal government?
This definition is extremely narrow compared to other federal laws providing for conscience exemptions. The 40-year-old bipartisan standard established throughout federal law, including in health and insurance coverage of items such as contraception, is to exempt any person or group with moral or religious objections. The Religious Freedom Restoration Act in particular requires the federal government to exempt any religious objector from rules such as this Mandate. The administration has instead constrained religious freedom by using a category in tax law that has no relationship to conscience, but instead relates to whether a group files its own 990 tax form. Even within that code section, the administration gerrymandered this rule by selecting subparts (i) and (iii) but not (ii) which includes other nonprofits. The administration apparently selected a category with the smallest possible scope it could find. This is consistent with its view that religious freedom really only inheres in worship and not in the exercise of religion outside a house of worship.
How would the NPRM deal with objections from colleges and other non-profits?
The NPRM proposes to apply the coverage mandate to all non-exempt entities, including religious groups. But for some religious non-profit groups, the NPRM proposes to accomplish this through what it calls an “accommodation.” The accommodation is a complex arrangement designed to create the impression that the religious organization is not involved in giving its employees access to objectionable items such as early abortion pills, while at the same time insisting that the employees will receive those items seamlessly with their employer’s own provision of coverage.
Their employees would still receive objectionable coverage from those groups’ own insurers or plan administrators, and would receive it “automatically,” so that the employees could not opt out of the coverage for themselves or their female family members.
What qualifies an organization for this “accommodation”?
The NPRM applies its accommodation to non-exempt “eligible organizations.” These should not be confused with exempt “religious employers” discussed above. (Exempt religious employers—houses of worship—are not subject to the accommodation scheme.) A non-exempt “eligible organization” is one that meets the following criteria:
The organization opposes providing coverage for some or all of the contraceptive services required to be covered under section 2713 of the PHS Act on account of religious objections.
The organization is organized and operates as a nonprofit entity.
The organization holds itself out as a religious organization.
Again, these “religious organizations” are those that do not fall within the exempt category of houses of worship discussed above.
How does the “accommodation” work for non-exempt “eligible organizations”?
The organization must sign a certification asserting that it meets the above-described criteria, keep the certification in its records “for examination upon request so that regulators, issuers, third party administrators, and plan participants and beneficiaries,” and provide the certification to the insurance issuer(s) and/or its self-insurance plan administrator(s) that the group pays for their ordinary duties.
Under the accommodation, once the religious group’s insurer or administrator receives that certification, the insurer or administrator is required to “automatically” provide the religious group’s employees and plan beneficiaries with insurance covering the objectionable items.
If the religious group uses an insurer, that insurer also becomes the insurer for the objectionable items. The NPRM claims that this insurance plan will be “separate” and will not be charged to the religious group. But it admits that there are up-front costs to the items, and it claims that these costs will be offset by the benefits of the primary insurance that the religious group is paying for (since, it theorizes, fewer childbirths will lead to lower costs).
What about self-insured non-profit religious groups?
If the religious group is self-insured, the NPRM proposes that it be required to use a plan administrator (even if it does not presently have one). When that plan administrator receives the certification it will take on the additional duties of finding an external insurance company to “automatically” issue insurance coverage of objectionable items to the religious group’s employees. The NPRM does not address the privacy implications of releasing employee health information to an insurance company with which the religious group never contracted, for a purpose to which the religious group objects.
The NPRM proposes that the costs of the objectionable items will be offset by rebates that the federal government will offer those insurers in the health “exchanges” otherwise implicated by the Affordable Care Act.
Is the NPRM correct that the “accommodation” does not implicate an objecting entity?
The NPRM imposes what is essentially a moral judgment that the “accommodation” frees objecting entities from culpability for coverage of objectionable items. Entities are not allowed to disagree with this moral judgment set forth by the government. Several factors might lead objecting entities to differ from the government’s moral viewpoint. Under the accommodation, the Affordable Care Act will still be requiring objecting entities with 50 or more full-time employees to provide health insurance coverage, and that coverage will be the trigger for the objectionable items to flow to its employees. The objectionable coverage will come from the same insurers or plan administrators that the religious group is paying. The provision of objectionable coverage will be triggered specifically by the religious group’s mandated delivery of its religious certification to its insurer or plan administrator. For insured entities, the costs of the objectionable items will allegedly be offset by the main plan the objecting entity is buying. For self-insured entities, the NPRM does not fully explain how costs will be offset. Unprecedented burdens and fiduciary duties will fall on insurers and plan administrators with whom religious groups contract, because of that contract. The NPRM does not fully explain how these additional burdens will not eventually be reflected in the ability of religious groups to contract with insurers or administrators in the first place.
What religious freedom allowances does the NPRM provide to other objectors?
None.
Neither an exemption nor a feigned accommodation is provided under the NPRM for: employees of religious non-profit groups who do not want free abortion-pill, contraception, sterilization and counseling coverage for themselves, their spouses or their daughters; non-profit groups that object to abortion-pills or contraception for non-religious reasons; insurance companies or plan administrators that object; religious families that earn a living running a business; or individuals that arrange for their own insurance coverage not through an employer.
Notably, the Affordable Care Act uses secular reasons to refrain from applying this mandate to tens of millions of other Americans, such as because a plan is “grandfathered” from many ACA regulations. Yet the government refuses to exempt most religious objectors.
How does the NPRM treat student health plans?
Student health plans that are arranged by “eligible organizations” are subject to the same “accommodation” that applies to employee health plans established by such organizations.
Is the NPRM still subject to comment?
Yes. The NPRM is not final and the government will accept public comments until April 8, 2013, about any aspect of the proposal. The Alliance Defending Freedom work with The Cardinal Newman Society to prepare a formal comment and other institutions are welcome to join that comment. Individual organizations may also submit their own electronic comments to www.regulations.gov. All comments should reference file code CMS–9968–P.
If I have more questions, whom do I contact?
General questions can be address to Bob Laird at the Cardinal Newman Society’s Center for the Advancement of Catholic Higher Education, (703) 367-0333 x 106 or blaird@CardinalNewmanSociety.org. Specific questions about legal actions should be directed to Matt Bowman at Alliance Defending Freedom, 1-800-835-5233.
CNS Joins Amicus Brief Opposing HHS Contraceptive Mandate – Wheaton College & Belmont Abbey College v. Sebelius, D.C. Circuit
/in Blog Amicus Briefs, Public Policy and Legal (General)/by Cardinal Newman Society StaffClick here to read.
General Education at Catholic Colleges and Universities
/in Academics Curriculum, Research and Analysis/by Kimberly ShankmanExecutive Summary
Across the universe of American higher education, increasing attention is being given to the weakening of general education standards. This study examines the general education requirements at Catholic colleges and universities. It compares the general education programs at 184 Catholic colleges and universities to all other American colleges and universities, to see if the Catholic colleges are more comprehensive (that is, devote a larger share of the curriculum to general education) and more coherent (that is, provide their students with a fairly well identified set of courses that provide a unified vision of the body of knowledge that the institution believes that all educated citizens should be familiar with). The study determines that Catholic colleges as a whole are more comprehensive and slightly more coherent than colleges and universities overall. Next, the study examines whether those colleges and universities included in the Newman Guide to Choosing a Catholic College differ substantially from the other Catholic colleges. The Newman Guide schools are, indeed, significantly more comprehensive and coherent than the other Catholic colleges and universities. Finally, the distinctive role of theology and philosophy in a Catholic education was examined. Catholic colleges and universities retain, to varying degrees, their commitment to the study of philosophy and theology, which serve as integrative disciplines within the curriculum. A surprising finding, however, was the extent to which the non-Newman Guide Catholic colleges and universities allow students to fulfill their theology requirements without actually studying Catholic theology.
General Education at Catholic Colleges and Universities
Pope Benedict XVI, in his 2008 address to U.S. Catholic educators, reminded them of the high calling of a university in the overall economy of salvation:
Throughout history and even today, in addition to supporting the intrinsic benefits of education for human development, the university plays a critical role in preparing students for successful careers. Universities have consistently struggled to balance the educational goals of pursuit of truth and moral development with the more instrumental goals of career preparation and skill development.36
In most American colleges and universities today, it is in the pursuit of a major field of study that students focus on developing the career-related skills and knowledge that they will take with them into the world. The more intrinsic benefits of higher education, such as those described by Pope Benedict, are emphasized and developed in the general education program which commonly precedes specialization.
A general education program attempts to provide an overview of the fundamental areas of human knowledge found in the traditional liberal arts. The curriculum may further aim at integration of knowledge by requiring interdisciplinary courses or otherwise encouraging interdisciplinary approaches to human problems. A well-designed general education curriculum will teach students to comprehend knowledge according to its proper order and in relation to other knowledge, developing what Blessed John Henry Newman called a “philosophical habit” of mind.
Historically, the means by which the American university (religious or secular) fulfilled its mission and oriented the student toward the unity of truth was through a core curriculum which gave all students in the university a common, integrated liberal arts education. In a core curriculum, particular courses are required of all students, or at least a broad set of students (for instance, enrolled in a certain school within a university). The university determines that every student should, at a minimum, have studied particular facts, concepts, themes, authors, literature, etc., while attaining an introductory or intermediate level of skill or knowledge in the disciplines of the liberal arts. A Catholic university, for instance, might expect students to graduate with a common foundation in Catholic theology and Western philosophy, literature, and history by studying particular texts, authors, leaders, etc. The prescribed core ensures that all students share a common education and can dialogue on common themes, resting on the university’s judgment about the importance of certain subject matter. Moreover, the courses in a well-designed core are highly integrated to illustrate the unity of truth across disciplines.
In 1884 the landscape of American higher education was changed forever, when Harvard University discarded its core and introduced an elective system at the heart of its curriculum.37 The unified set of courses that made up the core curriculum was replaced by a series of “distribution” requirements for graduation. The distribution model allows students to choose among many courses introducing them to a variety of disciplines and methods of inquiry, with less emphasis on the integration of knowledge across disciplines. The topics of the courses are varied; there is little or no effort to promote the study of common texts or topics. Whereas the core curriculum emphasizes a shared body of knowledge and a common basis for dialogue—in the United States, typically requiring students to contemplate classical works and the ideas that shaped Western civilization and Christianity—the distribution model often encourages a student’s encounter with a variety of perspectives and arguments, independent of a university’s judgment about the value of particular subject matter.
This elective, distribution system of general education rapidly overtook the more traditional core model in the late 19th and early 20th centuries. While Catholic colleges and universities held to a core model longer than most other types of universities, by the 1960s most of the Catholic institutions of higher education had joined the mainstream movement away from a unified core curriculum to a distribution, elective-based model. Unlike their secular counterparts, however, most Catholic colleges and universities retained vestiges of a unified, integrative curricular expression through their requirements that all students study philosophy and Catholic theology, ensuring that students recognize unifying themes and consider the great human questions when studying other disciplines.
This study will examine the ways in which contemporary Catholic colleges and universities approach the question of general education. If it is true that, as Blessed Newman implies, it is through the integration of the specialized branches of knowledge that a student “apprehends the great outlines of knowledge, the principles on which it rests, the scale of its parts, its lights and its shades, its great points and its little, as he otherwise cannot apprehend them,” and that this represents “the special fruit of the education furnished at a University,” the state of general education is of paramount importance for all who are interested in Catholic higher education.38
This study confirms that Catholic colleges and universities today, by and large, remain committed to general education requirements, distinguishing Catholic institutions from their counterparts with generally weaker standards. But most Catholic educators have embraced the distribution model of electives, abandoning the traditional core curriculum. Some remnant of a distinctive role for philosophy and religious studies remains in place at most Catholic institutions, although there is evidence of a declining emphasis on Catholic theology.
General Education in American Higher Education
Even in the secular universities, increasing attention is being given to the disappearance of core curricula, the weakening of general education standards, and the need for attention to liberal arts education for undergraduates. With the rise of the research university, with its hyper-specialization and concomitant growth of faculty allegiance to their specialties, there has been an overall de-emphasis on undergraduate general education, and in particular declining interest in curricular integration. A National Association of Scholars (NAS) study in 1996 documented the diminishing role of general education in the undergraduate experience.39 This study demonstrates that not only has the distribution model of general education achieved near-total hegemony in the American higher education system, but also that the proportion of the overall curriculum devoted to any form of general education has been steadily shrinking over the course of the 20th century. In 1914, the average student devoted about 55 percent of the credits needed for graduation to general education requirements; by 1993, this was down to 33 percent.
More recently, the Association of American Colleges and Universities (AACU) commissioned a study to analyze trends in this area, and this study reinforced the picture of a profound movement away from the concept of an integrative curriculum to a highly specialized, even fragmented, educational experience.40 The AACU study confirmed the reduced portion of the curriculum that is devoted to general education. Only 6 percent of the respondents indicated that half or more of the credits needed for graduation are devoted to general education; more than 25 percent of the respondents indicated that a third or less were so devoted. In most of these institutions, several of these requirements can be fulfilled in the course of pursuing a major, so there are even fewer credit hours that are specifically devoted to general learning, rather than the specialized education that makes up the major field of study.
The vast majority of institutions (80 percent) follow a distribution model of general education, in which students select courses from various categories to fulfill the general education requirements. While most of these colleges provide some guidance to students with regard to specific courses or common experiences, the fundamental model is a choice-based approach to general education, with the emphasis on exposure to different fields of study rather than engagement with specific intellectual content.
One could conclude, then, that over time general education in America has become both less comprehensive (that is, less a significant and robust part of the overall educational experience) and less coherent (that is, less a unified and common set of courses designed to present an integrated approach to knowledge).
This report seeks to evaluate how the overall trends in American higher education are reflected in Catholic colleges and universities. The general education programs at Catholic colleges and universities have been examined and categorized with respect to their coherence and comprehensiveness. Since a distinctive attribute of Catholic core curricula has traditionally been a strong emphasis on theology and philosophy, this study also considers the role these disciplines currently play in the general education programs at Catholic institutions of higher education. Finally, this study examines the correlation between the structure of the general education program and the Catholic identity of the institution.
The general education programs at 184 Catholic, four-year, co-educational colleges and universities in the United States were examined. While there are 251 institutions of higher education recognized by the Association of Catholic Colleges and Universities, many of those are not relevant to this study. Excluded are exclusively graduate-level institutions, two-year colleges, seminaries, conservatories, and specialized health-care institutions. Two colleges were eliminated because of insufficient information regarding their general education programs.
Data was collected online from college catalogs. The information was drawn from the catalog that included the Fall 2009 semester. The content of required theology courses was drawn from the information available online in August 2012.
Comprehensiveness of General Education at Catholic Colleges and Universities
The comprehensiveness of general education programs was determined simply by the overall number of credit hours required. The incredible complexity of many of today’s general education programs made even this classification difficult, so several methodological definitions and decisions were required. General education was defined as required courses that all students had to pass in order to graduate. If, as was the case in some large universities, there were different general education programs for different degrees (i.e., general education for the school of nursing, the school of business, etc.), the classification was based on the “college of arts and sciences” or equivalent degree program.
These general education requirements could be specific courses (all students must pass English 101, for example), distribution requirements (all students must take an English course), or an evaluated competency (all students must either pass English 101 or score an 85 percent or higher on the freshman writing exam). Competency requirements were only counted as part of general education if they substituted for required coursework (so, for example, some colleges require students to demonstrate computer skills, but that was not counted toward general education, because no computer literacy class is required if they do not pass the test). In most cases, courses taken to fulfill general education requirements may also count for major requirements (so American history might be a requirement for general education, but it could also count toward courses needed for a history major). A few colleges do not allow any course taken in a student’s major field to count for general education, which has the effect of increasing the number of general education requirements; however, it was impossible to account for this given the wide variation in student majors.
The very nature of most general education systems, with their wide array of choices and possible substitutions, made it difficult to make uniform determinations of exactly how many credit hours were required to complete the program. Within institutions there can be variation from student to student. For example, many institutions require language to a third semester competency; some students need to take any language courses, while others take nine to 12 hours of language instruction.
It seemed best to classify programs in fairly broad ranges, rather than attempt a precise ranking based on a specific calculation of credit hours. Therefore, those institutions which require, on average, 55 credit hours or more of general education (almost half of the credit hours required for a degree and the average amount of general education required 100 years ago) were classified as having a high level of comprehensiveness. Those which require from 45 to 54 hours (more than a third, but less than half, and generally above the median 46.4 hours reported in the AACU survey) were classified as medium, while those which require 44 hours or fewer (roughly one third or less of the required credit hours) were classified as low.
While it is impossible to make direct comparisons with the studies done either for the NAS or the AACU, because the methodology was different, it is possible to draw some general conclusions. Catholic colleges and universities tend to devote more of their curriculum to general education than is normal in U.S. higher education (see Figure 1). As noted above, about half of the colleges in the AACU survey would fall into the low range in this classification, but at Catholic institutions, 76 percent fall into the medium or high ranges of general education comprehensiveness, indicating a distinctive commitment to general education requirements in Catholic higher education.
FIGURE 1
Coherence of General Education at Catholic Colleges and Universities
How coherent are the general education programs at Catholic colleges and universities? General education programs were classified based on the proportion of general education credit hours that were elective (that is, a course chosen from a list of options) and what proportion were required.
In some cases, a small range of choice was allowed, such that the college or university retained significant direction over what the student learns. Most institutions allow students to choose which language they will study for their foreign language requirement. Most institutions will place students into the appropriate mathematics course based on their proficiency. And, in some cases, students might choose between British and American literature to fulfill a literature requirement. In situations like these, where the choice is either skill-dependent or limited to three or fewer options, this study classifies the credits as “required” even though there is some element of choice.41
Once again, institutions were placed within ranges. Those which require particular courses for more than half the total general education curriculum were considered to have high coherence; those between one third and one half were considered medium; and those below one-third were considered low.
The results show that Catholic colleges and universities, much like their non-Catholic peers, have largely abandoned a strongly coherent core curriculum (see Figure 2 below). Eighteen percent of the Catholic institutions assign half or more of their general education courses. Only 44 percent require as much as one-third of the courses that comprise the general education curriculum.
FIGURE 2
Thus, while Catholic colleges and universities generally remain distinctive with regard to the comprehensiveness of their general education programs, they, like their non-Catholic counterparts, have embraced curricular choice as the dominant mode of delivering general education. Many today lack a coherent vision of the subjects and knowledge that should be commonly learned by all students.
Influence of Strong Catholic Identity
Given the wide range of commitment to Catholic identity in Catholic higher education and the historical correlation between Catholic colleges and a strong core curriculum, it seems appropriate to analyze whether there are significant differences among Catholic institutions. This study looks specifically at the 19 Catholic colleges and universities which were included in the online edition of The Newman Guide to Choosing a Catholic College as of the fall of 200942, which identifies colleges that “give priority to their Catholic identity and actively practice it.”
Although the Newman Guide colleges vary considerably from one another (some are extremely small and dedicated solely to the liberal arts, while others are much larger and have a wide variety of academic programs), as a group they are clearly distinctive when compared with the overall universe of Catholic higher education. Not only do they demonstrate strong Catholic identity, but their general education programs are significantly more comprehensive (see Figure 3 below).
FIGURE 3
None of the Newman Guide colleges falls into the low category for comprehensiveness of general education, whereas 78 percent fall into the high category. Nearly the same percentage of other Catholic colleges and universities are in the medium or low category. The green “all” bar is included as a reminder of how the entire group, both Newman Guide and other Catholic institutions, is categorized.
Similarly, the Newman Guide colleges show strong coherence in their general education requirements, compared to other Catholic institutions (see Figure 4 below). Sixty-eight percent of the Newman Guide institutions fall into the high category on the coherence scale, whereas 87percent of the other Catholic colleges and universities are in the medium and low categories.
FIGURE 4
Philosophy and Theology in General Education
Most Catholic colleges and universities require students to take some philosophy and theology courses. As Alisdair MacIntyre has pointed out, this distinctive attribute of Catholic institutions reflects their commitment to helping students integrate knowledge and bring the tools of faith and reason to bear upon the fundamental questions they encounter in other disciplines, and so refine their capacity for sound judgment43.
Likewise Blessed John Paul II, in the apostolic constitution Ex corde Ecclesiae, indicated that philosophy and theology have a special role in providing the unifying framework for the pursuit of truth that should mark the Catholic university:
Thus, it is appropriate that these disciplines play a special and significant role in the curriculum of a Catholic college or university. While the amount of philosophy and theology required varies significantly, from one course per semester in each discipline over four years to just one course total in either discipline45, 75 percent of Catholic colleges and universities require at least three courses in some combination of these two disciplines.
However, the size of the philosophy and theology requirement does not tell the whole picture. The integrative function that theology plays in the traditional conception of the Catholic university is that it gives students the opportunity to examine all of their learning in the light of the truths of the Catholic faith. For that to happen, obviously, the theology requirement would have to offer students those truths—that is, students would have to study genuine Catholic theology.
To be clear, it is not the purpose of this study to judge the quality or faithfulness of theology courses. But the descriptions of courses permitted to satisfy the theology requirements of general education programs at Catholic institutions were examined to determine if they were Catholic theology at all, by their own definition. In other words, if the description stated that the course covered Catholic (or, in fact, any Christian) theology, no further investigation into the content or approach of the course was carried out.
Also, the general education requirements were examined to ensure that theology courses are in fact required. At almost every Catholic institution, students can study Catholic theology if they wish. The question being considered is whether they are required to do so. A requirement which could be satisfied by taking a course that is not Catholic theology, even if Catholic theology courses would also be accepted, has not been labeled a Catholic theology requirement.
According to these criteria, in 54 percent of the Catholic colleges and universities studied, the “theology” requirement could be satisfied without actually studying Catholic theology. In a few of these institutions, there is no theology requirement at all. Students may be required to take courses in either philosophy or theology, and so the requirement can be fulfilled entirely with philosophy courses. Often the theology requirement is actually a “religious studies” requirement; religious studies is an academic discipline which focuses on the study of religion as a social phenomenon, but without any basis in a particular faith. Or students may be permitted to study comparative religions or the theology of non-Christian faiths such as Hinduism or Buddhism.
The pervasiveness of the theology requirement, then, does not necessarily coincide with a commitment to ensure that all students are instructed in the truths of the Catholic faith.
Moreover, this area reveals the sharpest divergence between the Newman Guide institutions and other Catholic colleges and universities (see Figure 5 below). While all of the Newman Guide schools require Catholic theology, 61 percent of other Catholic institutions do not.
FIGURE 5
Conclusion
This study shows that Catholic colleges and universities remain somewhat distinctive within the universe of American colleges and universities, with significantly more comprehensive general education programs. But many Catholic institutions have followed their non-Catholic counterparts by embracing a distribution approach to general education and eliminating common core requirements.
Catholic colleges and universities retain, to varying degrees, their commitment to the study of philosophy and theology, which serve as integrative disciplines within the curriculum. A surprising finding, however, was the extent to which Catholic colleges and universities allow students to fulfill their theology requirements without studying Catholic theology.
A closer look revealed that those Catholic institutions that most clearly and pervasively embraced their Catholic identity (specifically, those that were identified in the online edition of The Cardinal Newman Society’s Newman Guide to Choosing a Catholic College as of fall 2009) are much more likely to provide their students with a comprehensive, coherent general education program with a significant emphasis on philosophy and theology as integrative disciplines, and a definite requirement that students study Catholic theology.
Strategies for Reducing Binge Drinking and a “Hook-Up” Culture on Campus
/in Student Formation Research and Analysis, Student Residences/by Dr. Christopher KaczorThe problems of binge drinking and the hook up culture are well-known, widespread, and detrimental to the educational mission of any university. Moreover, these behaviors should especially concern Catholic universities, which seek to develop the whole person—socially, morally, and spiritually.
Beyond the classroom, Catholic universities have a pastoral concern for student development:
Moral development in the Catholic intellectual tradition is linked to true human happiness. But what is happiness, and how can we find it? The answers to these questions provide the proper intellectual context for considering the common practices on America’s Catholic campuses.
Choosing True Happiness
Drawing on the work of Saint Thomas Aquinas, Jesuit Father Robert J. Spitzer identifies four levels of happiness in his book, Healing the Culture.48 Level one happiness is bodily pleasure obtained by drink, food, drugs, or sex. Level two happiness has to do with competitive advantage in terms of money, fame, power, popularity, or other material goods. Level three happiness involves loving and serving other people. And level four happiness is found in loving and serving God. Although we may desire each level of happiness, not every level provides equal and lasting contentment. The key to Spitzer’s work is the desire or need to move up the “happiness ladder,” at least to the point of moving from level two to levels three and four.
In life, we are often faced with a choice between one level of happiness or another. For example, the Olympic athlete chooses success in athletics (level two) over pleasures of the body (level one), which might be found in abusing drugs or alcohol.
One can attain more level one happiness by sleeping late on Monday morning, but would sacrifice level two happiness by not be able to earn money at work. On the other hand, one could gain more of a level two happiness by cheating others out of their money, but would be sacrificing a level three happiness by unfairly using them rather than helping them. Since daily living often requires a choice of one activity over another, practical wisdom is the virtue that enables one to make decisions which will lead to true happiness.
The first and lowest level of happiness — pleasures of the senses — has several advantages. It is based on our animal instincts. It arrives quickly, can be intense, and can leave almost as fast as it arrives. Additionally, we build a tolerance to activities that bring us this level of happiness requiring more to achieve the same degree of pleasure. Such pleasures can lead to addictions; and to the addict, enslavement in the pleasure is opposed to true level one happiness. This superficial happiness is easy to attain, but our own human instinct provides us with a desire for something more meaningful and important in life.
The next level of happiness provides greater meaning and significance than the first. It involves a desire for success—not just keeping up with the Joneses, but surpassing them in money, fame, popularity or status. We celebrate such achievements as a culture: the valedictorian, the star athlete, the millionaire. But such success can lead to a superficial happiness related to the degree of success. Personal success can quickly lead to a satisfaction at this level with no desire to move past the ego.
There is nothing inherently wrong with worldly success (level two) or with bodily pleasures (level one). Rather, when these become the ultimate goals of life, they trump the higher levels. Happiness, Aristotle taught, is activity in accordance with virtue. In order for us to be objectively happy, we need to engage in activities that accord with virtue, especially the virtue of love. As C. S. Lewis said, “Love is not affectionate feeling, but a steady wish for the loved person’s ultimate good as far as it can be obtained.”49 Without seeking higher levels of happiness, even if we subjectively feel good (for a while), we are missing out on objectively being happy.
The two great commandments given by Jesus: “You shall love the Lord, your God, with all your heart, with all your soul, and with all your mind…. You shall love your neighbor as yourself” (Mt 22:37,39), point to the two higher levels of happiness. If we truly love God, we will also love people, for they are made in His image and likeness. We cannot truly love God without also loving our neighbor. Indeed, the teachings of Jesus point us toward higher levels of happiness by guiding us toward this love: “A new commandment I give to you, love one another as I have loved you” (Jn 13:34). Levels three and four happiness seek what is truly good, true human flourishing and happiness.
Commenting on Aristotle, who argued that human happiness necessarily involves friendship, St. Thomas Aquinas added that we can be friends not only with other human beings, but also with God.50 Psychological research confirms this ancient wisdom. The happiest people have meaningful work that serves others acting in accordance with virtue; and have strong, loving relationships with their family, friends, and God.51 On average, people who practice their faith report greater happiness than those who do not. Practice of common religious teachings, such as practicing thanksgiving and forgiving those who trespass against us, bolster well-being and strengthen relationships — leading to greater happiness.52
It is in this context that we can better understand the ethical problem of binge drinking and the hook up culture. Both seek satisfaction at level one or two happiness in such a way as to undermine level three and level four happiness. Students can foster level three and four happiness not simply in volunteer projects but also in the classroom; but by developing their minds, students become better prepared to make a positive contribution to the well-being of others and to society. On the other hand, excessive use of alcohol hampers intellectual excellence, because students who binge drink are more likely to miss class, fall behind in schoolwork, and have health problems that interfere with academics.53 Binge drinking is the leading cause of death in young adults and leads to hundreds of fatal injuries each year and more than 1,399 unintentional, alcohol-related fatal injuries among college students in 1998 alone.54 Alcohol abuse leads to student health problems,55 including suicide.56
Although there is widespread acknowledgement that binge drinking undermines the academic and ethical mission of universities, it is less recognized that the hook up culture also hinders achieving that mission. The hook up culture hampers intellectual excellence in numerous ways. Sexual promiscuity is related to depression and lack of focus on academics as well as the distractions of pregnancy and pregnancy scares. Sexual promiscuity increases the likelihood of contracting sexually transmitted infections, endangers health, and distracts from an academic focus. Anne Hendershott notes that women are particularly at risk:
In addition to academic growth, most Catholic universities also aim to foster the ethical development of students so that they are men and women for others with a sense of human solidarity. Binge drinking inhibits this development with an egocentric focus toward self, not exocentric toward service for others. In the Catholic intellectual tradition, both hooking up and binge drinking are serious sins, undermining love for God and neighbor. In their article, “College Students and Problematic Drinking: A Review of the Literature,” Lindsay S. Ham and Debra A. Hope highlight numerous findings that point to the negative effects of excessive drinking.58
The hook up culture inhibits ethical development through a focus on private indulgence of using other people for pleasure, rather than on loving, committed relationships. Using other people for sexual pleasure, and then discarding them, is seriously damaging to level three and level four happiness. The hook up culture even impinges upon other students who choose not to hook up, especially roommates who get “sexiled” from their own dorm room to facilitate such activities.
The ramifications of unhealthy behaviors in both drinking and sex go beyond the physical, psychological, and social damage to the individuals partaking in the activities. They affect the entire campus community by undermining the reputation of the institution, damaging the relationship to the local community, increasing the operating costs of the institution, lowering the academic quality of the university, and diminishing the institution’s ability to attract and retain excellent students and faculty.59
While there is no perfect solution to these problems, meaningful and significant reductions of the extent of both are possible. Let us examine first educational strategies and then institutional strategies for dealing with both problems.
Educational Strategies
The first six weeks of the college experience are extremely important in establishing a student’s habits and identity. “The first six weeks of enrollment are critical to first-year student success. Because many students initiate heavy drinking during these early days of college, the potential exists for excessive alcohol consumption to interfere with successful adaptation to campus life.”60 Habits take root and patterns of behavior become established during this crucial period. Prior to arriving at college, high school students become socialized about what to expect through movies that depict university life as primarily revolving around wild parties and only marginally about academic or social development. These media depictions feed into what social psychologists call “pluralistic ignorance,” in which a majority falsely assumes that everyone else accepts a particular social norm. Students, especially first-year students, believe that college students binge drink and hook up much more than they actually do.61
Since students, especially first-year students, deeply desire to fit in socially, they look to social norms to define acceptable behavior. Studies have shown that the drive to “fit in” can motivate even more powerfully than the fear of potential risks and dangers.62 “We may be willing to give up our vices and cultivate new virtues if we believe that it will more firmly secure us a spot in our most cherished tribe.”63 These students, looking to fit in, drink and hook up to satisfy this misperceived social expectation about what is normal, acceptable, and typical. Often, students behave in ways that are contrary to what they actually want because of these (often inaccurate) social expectations.64 In the words of one study,
Among other causes, pluralistic ignorance drives excessive drinking and hook up culture.
Pre-arrival education
In order to combat pluralistic ignorance as well as inform students of the dangers of binge drinking, educational efforts could be made before the students arrive on campus. In tours of campus, student campus guides should be clear and consistent about university policy so that prospective students are made aware that this college is not a “party school.” This initial clarity may deter at least some students who are seeking an “animal house” experience rather than an academic experience from enrolling. The fewer such students who enroll, the better for the campus climate.
All incoming students might be required to take an online course that educates them about the dangerous effects of alcohol and drug abuse and combats widespread misperceptions about alcohol abuse on campus. One such course, “AlcoholEdu” is a web-based 2-3 hour alcohol abuse prevention program used at more than 500 universities nationwide.66 Independent research indicates that the program is successful in reducing:
Similar online programs can be instituted to educate students about the dangers of sexual promiscuity as well as to dispel the myth that “everyone is hooking up.”
Once students arrive on campus, the educational efforts could be reinforced, especially for those most at risk: freshmen, athletes, and Greek system members. Posters can be put up in every dorm which advertise important facts about drinking in order to combat pluralistic ignorance. Pre-arrival surveys can be conducted on students. Once data has been collected and tabulated, internal marketing activity can stress for example, “89% of students at [your school] drink less than 3 times a week.” Ideally, the information should be quite specific, even broken down by dorms: “92% of women in [specific dorm name here] drink twice a week or less.” “77% of [specific dorm] men drink 6 or fewer drinks a week.” “81% of [specific dorm] women drink 4 or less drinks when they drink.” For further examples of such posters, see the link below.68
Education in chastity
In order to educate students about the dangers of the hook up culture, the Love and Fidelity Network developed poster campaigns to educate in chastity.69
The approach of the Love and Fidelity Network, which richly emphasizes the dangers of the hook up culture, can be supplemented with efforts to combat pluralistic ignorance. Mark Regnerus and Jeremy Uecker’s book Premarital Sex in America: How Young Americans Meet, Mate, and Think about Marrying (Oxford University Press, 2011) dispels numerous myths, that when believed, can prompt students into actions they would be less inclined to do. Rather than making informed decisions, students often act out of ignorance and mythical beliefs.
Many students believe the myth that everyone else in college is having sex and hooking up on a regular basis. In fact, one quarter of college students are virgins. Indeed, most college students are not in a sexual relationship, nor are they hooking up regularly. In fact, only one hookup per year is average for college students. Many students believe, “Only losers don’t have premarital sex.” In fact, those in college are more likely to abstain than those not in college. College virgins “tend to be a self-confident and accomplished lot.”70
It is also a myth that students who choose to abstain lack sexual desire or are less physically attractive than other students. Indeed, in comparison with those who never attended college, college students and college graduates have fewer sexual partners. Many students believe is that sex is needed in order to start a long-term relationship. In fact, Regnerus and Uecker point out, “[Just] 8 percent of both men and women reported having had sex first—before sensing romance—in at least one of their two most important relationships so far. [So] 92 percent of young adults said that nurturing romance and love…before sex. It is difficult to make it work the other way around.”71 Properly informed students are better able to make choices condusive to their health and happiness if they have such information.
During freshman orientation, persuasive speakers (ideally other students or recent graduates) can explicitly address binge drinking and the hook up culture. These speakers could address the issue making use of contemporary research about the possible negative consequences of unhealthy choices as well as addressing the pluralistic ignorance that abounds on both issues. They should also discuss the university’s policy for reducing such behavior and correcting student misbehavior. During the course of the year, these themes could be emphasized by other invited speakers sponsored by student life, campus ministry. Ideally, student groups like FOCUS or the Love and Fidelity Network can sponsor events and speakers.72
When suitable, faculty in appropriate classes can be encouraged to present information on the detrimental nature of binge drinking and casual sexual encounters. Such topics can be addressed in an academic way particularly in classes on moral philosophy, moral theology, sociology, psychology, and health. In a less formal setting, “Theology on Tap” may further contribute to informing students.
There may also be utility in distributing having booklets, pamphlets, brochures, and on-line media available for students treating these issues. Jason Evert’s booklet Pure Love (available in both secular and Catholic versions) makes a case for chastity. The U.S. Department of Health issued a brochure Beyond Hangovers: Understanding Alcohol’s Impact on Your Health. Seeking to accentuate the positive, I authored a booklet, How to Stay Catholic in College. If made widely available in the student residences, this reading material may help students make better decisions.
Around Valentine’s Day, a theme week could be organized to foster discussion on love, dating, and authentic understandings of femininity and masculinity. Similarly, colleges can recognize and foster National Collegiate Alcohol Awareness Week with education, sober events.
Institutional Strategies
Institutional changes can occur within the university to foster an environment which positively reinforces a campus culture conducive to academic excellence and ethical development. Three institutional strategies may help. First, in order to make a significant difference, a many different groups—both on campus and off campus—should cooperate to enhance the campus culture including campus ministry, resident life directors, and local law enforcement. “[T]he use of comprehensive, integrated programs with multiple complementary components that target: (1) individuals, including at-risk or alcohol-dependent drinkers, (2) the student population as a whole, and (3) the college and the surrounding community.”73 Finally, an institution of higher education can reduce rates of binge drinking and hook up culture through instituting single-sex housing.
Multi-pronged approach
It is best to begin with clear expectations of student behavior. The Code of Student Conduct should establish public regulations governing student consumption of alcohol as well as sexual behavior. Depending on the school, it may be suitable to have a dry campus, but if not, the expectation of responsible drinking should be made clear to the students. In terms of sexual behavior, these codes should indicates that marriage between one man and one woman is the only suitable context for a sexual relationships. Sexual activity of any kind outside of marriage are inconsistent with the teachings and moral values of the Catholic Church and are prohibited.
Studies indicate that active participation in religious services is linked to decreased rates of both binge drinking and hook up culture.74 Campus ministry, priests, religious, and other active Catholics on campus can invite and encourage student participation in religious services. As new students arrive on campus, such key leaders could be present in the dorms, greeting parents and students, making themselves as helpful as they can. Friendly invitations, wallet-size schedules of Masses and liturgies can be extended to Catholic students. Ideally, priests, religious sisters, or other committed Catholics would be present in the student residences. For non-Catholics, information can be shared about nearby religious services. In each student residence, campus ministers can make sure that Mass times are posted and advertisements (particularly early in the year) widely distributed to make students aware of liturgical opportunities. Competing events should not be scheduled during important university-wide events, like the Mass of the Holy Spirit. Resident assistants should set an example with regard to attendance at these liturgical celebrations.75 Campus ministry, priests, and religious on campus can also address issues of substance abuse and hook up culture both in the pulpit and in pastoral settings, and help fortify students to reduce unhealthy and ethically problematic behaviors. Greater religious involvement is linked to lesser levels of binge drinking and hook up culture.
Staff from student life should be careful, especially in the first six weeks for freshman, to have healthy programming available. Students should get into the habit early in their college careers of thinking of Friday night as bowling night, pool night, intramural night, anything other than party night.
It is essential that there is strong enforcement by resident assistants, campus security and police (especially during the first six weeks) of legal drinking limits. Many authority figures on campus “turn a blind eye” and ignore underage drinking. After every weekend, piles of empty beer cans are in the garbage outside freshmen dorms implies a tacit consent and cooperation with immoral and (for students under 21) illegal activity. Strict, swift, and consistent enforcement of legal drinking limits (including minor intoxication and minor in possession) during the first six weeks of the semester can have lasting beneficial effects. Police should check for drivers under the influence leaving and arriving on campus as well as minor intoxication, minor in possession, and public drunkenness. Resident directors and student life officials need to strictly enforce policies against underage drinking and overnight visitations. Student offenders might receive extra formation in drinking responsibly and, if needed, professional help in dealing with alcohol abuse and/or drug abuse. Resident assistants, often students themselves, often do not enforce rules “on the books” about underage drinking, excessive drinking, and having overnight opposite sex visitors. A common practice amounts to “don’t check, don’t report,” where only the most obvious and egregious violations are reported. This is passive cooperation that undermines the university’s academic and moral mission. The tacit approval given by student resident officials is quickly recognized by students, often to their own detriment.
An important element of combating underage drinking is partnering with the local community. The local community often suffers the effects of excessive college drinking by students and may be motivated to help reduce the problem. Campus-community partnerships have helped reduce alcohol abuse among students.
The National Institute on Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism suggests that a multi-pronged approach is mostly likely to be successful.
Finally, universities must not be afraid of expelling or suspending serious offenders. Such strict action can be a deterrent to other students who quickly learn what behavior is and is not acceptable on campus.
Single-sex dorms
A vital institutional strategy for reducing binge drinking and hook up culture is the institution of single-sex dorms. Research indicates that students in single-sex residences are significantly less likely to engage in binge drinking and the hook up culture than students living in co-ed student residences.
Let’s look at the connection between binge drinking and co-ed dorms first. Writing in the May 2002 edition of the Journal of Alcohol Studies, Thomas C. Harford and colleagues reported,
The American Journal of Preventative Medicine (2000) and Journal of American College Health (2009) have reported similar findings.77
If students who enjoy risky behavior choose co-ed residences because they seek a more permissive atmosphere, then the differences between co-ed and single-sex residences reflect the kinds of people who choose them, rather than being caused by some difference between single-sex and co-ed residences. This explanation fails because in almost all cases, students did not select single-sex dormitories, but were placed in them by university officials. Since there was no selection, there can be no selection effect. Researchers found no differences in depression, impulsivity, extroversion, body image, or pro-social behavior tendencies between the two groups—all differences relevant to students’ likelihood to take risks.78
Why do co-ed residences have more binge drinking? A plausible explanation is that co-ed living creates a “party” expectation that students fulfill. College males want to get females to drink more, facilitating hookups. College men themselves drink more as “liquid courage” to approach women and as part of the process of encouraging female drinking (for instance, with drinking games). In order to demonstrate “equality” with male students and so as not to seem prudish, college females drink more than they otherwise would. Single-sex residences reduce this binge drinking dynamic.
Not surprisingly, single-sex residences also reduce the hook up culture. In a 2009 study in Journal of American College Health, B.J. Willoughby and J.S. Carroll found that “students living in co-ed housing were also more likely [than those in single-sex residences] to have more sexual partners in the last 12 months.” Further, those students were “more than twice as likely as students in gender-specific housing to indicate that they had had 3 or more sexual partners in the last year.”
After controlling for age, gender, race, education, family background, and religiosity, living in a co-ed dorm was associated with more sexual partners. Indeed, two thirds (63.2%) of students in gender-specific housing indicated that they had no sexual partners in the last year, whereas less than half of (44.3%) of students in co-ed housing indicated zero sexual partners in the last year.
Naturally, some objections may be raised to establishing single-sex residences, especially concerns about enrollment. Students may not prefer single-sex residences, so if a university institutes them, enrollment could plummet. However, many universities already have a few single-sex residences, and there is no evidence these residences lower enrolment even in part. Other colleges, such as the University of Notre Dame, have only single-sex residences yet have no problems with enrollment at all. If a student wants a “party school,” it may be better for the university environment if that student is deterred from enrolling because of single-sex residences.
Indeed, single-sex residences may benefit enrollment. Many parents would prefer to have single-sex residences for their children. Single-sex residences lead to the perception and the reality of a safer campus, especially for female students. Lower levels of binge drinking and participation in the hookup culture may also lead to higher graduation rates and a more academic atmosphere on campus, increasing prestige, which boosts enrollment.
Another objection is that a university is not a seminary. Division of males and females may be appropriate at a monastery, but not in a residence for college students. Students seek to attend a Catholic university, not a Catholic convent or rectory. This objection is widely exaggerating the proposal to have single-sex housing. No one is proposing that student residences have compulsory times of prayer like a convent. No one is proposing that student residences have mandatory “spiritual direction” like a monastery. Student residences at universities are not seminaries, but neither should they be visions of Animal House. An Animal House environment is not conducive to intellectual or moral development. As students at the University of Notre Dame can attest, there is much fun to be had and no monastic atmosphere in single-sex residences.
By reducing levels of binge drinking and participation in the hookup culture, universities committed to the academic and ethical growth of students can better fulfill their mission. The time has come to stop bemoaning campus culture and to take concrete steps to improve the situation. A move in the right direction was undertaken recently by President John Garvey of The Catholic University of America. In his Wall Street Journal op-ed,79 President Garvey explained why the school is reinstituting single-sex dorms. Someone might respond by saying: “Single-sex dorms won’t stop drinking or ‘hooking up’.”80 Of course, no one claimed that single sex dorms eliminate or stop all drinking or casual sex, so this is an example of the straw-man fallacy.
Not everyone agreed with President Garvey’s decision. One critic objected to the change noting, “His [President Garvey’s] explanation for the change has a let’s-protect-the-women ring to it that is decidedly out of step with the gender roles and expectations of today’s young women and young men.81 Yet, Garvey said nothing in the essay about women being at greater risk than men in terms of binge drinking and hook-up culture. However, if he had, he would have been correct. Campus culture puts young women at greater risk than young men. An equal amount of alcohol affects females more than males, and sexual promiscuity produces asymmetrical gender effects in terms of sexually transmitted infections, such as HPV and pelvic inflammatory disease. And then there is the risk of pregnancy.
Some people are skeptical that separating the residences of men and women will make any difference. For example, a critic of single-sex dorms has written:
But studies do indeed justify Garvey’s view. Let me name a few:
Against this evidence, a critic of single-sex dorms cites a single anecdotal example: When women drink a lot, they do so with a group of women, at least as frequently, or more frequently, than with men. Author Liz Funk, a New York resident in her 20s who was raised as a Roman Catholic, attended a co-ed college with co-ed dorms. She remembers,
“Without the presence of guys, my friends and I had no problem throwing back three to eight drinks in a sitting. And on the occasions where accidents happened … it was always in an all-female context.”87
This anecdotal evidence does little to cast doubt on the academic research pointing to less binge drinking and fewer casual sexual encounters in single-sex dorms in comparison to co-ed dorms. It is true that other factors are relevant in terms of college drinking:
Of course, Garvey never said that the only factor involved in binge drinking is living environment. As a university president, many of these factors are beyond his control to change. But even if these other conditions are of greater importance, which may be right, it hardly follows that efforts should not be made to control the factors which can be controlled at the college level.
The critique continues: “Garvey believes that if women and men once again lived in segregated housing, they wouldn’t hook up as much.” But this is not a matter merely of belief, but of evidence. Willoughby and Carroll found that
Does self-selection explain away these differences? In fact, self-selection cannot explain the differences in drinking and hooking up because, in almost all cases as noted earlier, students did not select to live in single-sex dorms but were put into these dorms by university officials. With no selection, there can be no selection effect.
The selection effect may begin to play a role now at CUA and other schools with single-sex dorms, insofar as some students who want to party hard in college may choose not to go to those schools. I certainly hope that this is the case — then these universities will have fewer students who contribute to an Animal House atmosphere. The fewer Animal House students who enroll at a particular college, the better for that college.
One of the few reasons given in favor of co-ed dorms is that they facilitate friendships with the opposite sex. As one critic wrote, “one contribution of co-ed dorms: the ease with which members of this generation relate to each other as friends, and the depth of their understanding of the opposite sex. I can’t help but believe those qualities will help sustain their intimate partnerships in the future.”90
Single-sex dormitories hardly prohibit or deter young men and women from relating to each other as friends or from understanding the opposite sex. Single-sex dorms may even help. As President Garvey points out,
Indeed, Garvey’s perspective found confirmation in the experiences of students who reported that co-ed dormitories actually undermine rather than facilitate co-ed friendships. In their article, “Hooking Up and Opting Out,” Lisa Wade and Caroline Heldman point out, “Students found that friendships were difficult to establish and maintain because many cross-sex friends were also past or potential sexual partners.”92 Co-ed dorm life made non-sexual relationships more difficult. They continue: “Because hookup culture positioned everyone as a potential sexual partner, friendships were sexualized. Female students reported that it was nearly impossible to have male friends.”93 To paraphrase one student, you can label it, “friends with benefits, minus the friend part.”94
Single-sex dorms do not destroy the opportunities for opposite-sex friendships, but they do put an obstacle in the way of taking someone back to the dorm room for hooking up. This impediment may actually aid, rather than undermine, the fostering of meaningful intimate relationships both now and in the future. Indeed, as Mark Regnerus and Jeremy Uecker suggest in Premarital Sex in America How Young Americans Meet, Mate, and Think about Marrying (Oxford University Press, 2011), a man and woman who delay their sexual relationship are likely contribute to making their relationships last longer. They also note that young people who are veterans of many sexual relationships have a higher rate of divorce. Of course, students can learn from bad decisions, but the university should not make it easier to make bad decisions, especially bad decisions that can undermine the likelihood of satisfying marriages in the future. The desirability of sustaining intimate partnerships in the future (let’s call them “marriages”) — suggests that President Garvey made the right decision.
Households
Ideally these single-sex residences should be places that foster communal academic and ethical development. One way of fostering this type of community is the “household” residential choice found at Franciscan University Steubenville and other Catholic universities. In these households, which students report have a family feeling, there is a shared spiritual, academic, moral, and social atmosphere which begins with the student life staff providing an “institutional culture of chastity” throughout the university.95 The institutional culture emphasizes the positive rewards of living well rather than simply the negative aspects of binge drinking and the hook-up culture. Small faith communities can help students to find shared values and support. It may also be suitable, on certain campuses, to establish “substance-free” residence options to ratify student commitment to substance-free living.
Significant reduction in both binge drinking and hook up culture is a worthwhile goal and an achievable goal. Such a reduction would increase campus safety (especially for women), foster a more academic environment, and support the spiritual and moral developments of students. Of course, perfect behavior and an absolute elimination of unhealthy activities is impossible, but we should not let the impossibility of the perfection deter us from pursuing a better course.
Appendix: Examples from Newman Guide Colleges
There are many ways to implement the strategies recommended in this paper, and many other strategies that might be considered. What follows is a selection of programs and policies identified during research for The Newman Guide to Choosing a Catholic College, which recommends 28 colleges, universities, and online programs for their strong Catholic identity. There are other good programs and policies to address binge drinking and the hook up culture at other Catholic and non-Catholic institutions. College officials would benefit from continual sharing of effective practices and observation of similar institutions.
It is interesting to note that while many of these strategies to promote sobriety could reasonably be employed to promote chastity—and pro-chastity programs and policies might be tweaked to promote sobriety—often colleges do not approach both topics in the same ways. An equal commitment to promoting both behaviors could quickly expand a college’s outreach to students without requiring much creativity.
Education
Freshman orientation
Many of the colleges include discussion of chastity and sobriety during freshman orientation programs, including explanation of college policies. DeSales University starts even before students arrive on campus, requiring them to complete a one-hour, online alcohol awareness program.
Belmont Abbey College has a policy on Christian Sexual Morality that is explained to freshmen during orientation. According to the College: “In keeping with John Paul II’s theology of the body, we make clear that sex is a gift from God to be enjoyed by those who have received the Sacrament of Marriage and for the purpose of the mutual good of the spouses and for bringing children into the world as a gift from God, in accord with Catholic teaching and Canon Law.”
Walsh University’s 12-week mandatory freshman credited course (General Education 100: First Year Institute) begins during opening weekend with a 45-minute presentation, “A Day in the Life of a Student.” The University explains: “Video vignettes performed by Walsh students depict choices every college student faces: academic, social, spiritual, physical. The vignettes provoke discussion of tools for self-awareness, personal responsibility, and critical thinking for making positive lifestyle choices. The vignette dealing with sexual choices discusses pro-abstinence. Most FYI faculty ask students to write reaction papers to the presentation, which sets out university expectations for student behavior aligned with the university’s mission as a Catholic university of distinction. Follow-up sessions occur in FYI under the topic ‘relationships’ and in residence halls, where the chaplain and others continue to promote chastity in leading ‘Let’s Talk Sex’ discussions by floor.”
The Catholic University of America provides “Alcohol 101” workshops in each first-year student residence hall within the first six weeks of the fall semester.
Lectures and classes
Several colleges present occasional speakers to discuss chastity, proper dating, and the role of marriage. Some of these programs are organized and repeated, such as DeSales University’s student presentation on impaired driving, “It’s Not an Accident, It’s a Choice,” and campus ministry programs “Off the Hook: The Hook-Up Culture and Our Escape from It” and “Single and Ready to Mingle: Campus Dating 101.” Ave Maria University, Mount St. Mary’s University, and others provide lectures and courses on the “Theology of the Body,” as taught by Blessed Pope John Paul II.
The University of Mary’s student health clinic sponsors a peer-education program, Health PRO (Peers Reaching Out), which sponsors numerous programs.
The Franciscan University of Steubenville’s Veritas Lecture Series, coordinated by the University’s student life office, addresses sexuality, dating, and marriage with discussion of related Catholic teachings.
Campus ministry at Mount St. Mary’s University sponsors a “Couples Ministry,” which organizes gatherings for couples who are dating to discuss their faith, as well as educational programs like “Healthy Relationships without the Baggage.” In “Love and Lattes” at the University of Mary, a four-week program sponsored by campus ministry, faithful Catholic couples talk to students about topics such as dating and chastity, faith and marriage, natural family planning, finances, conflict resolution, and parenting.
Priests and religious address moral issues during “Morals and Mocha” coffeehouse discussions at the University of Mary and “Theology on Tap” gatherings at pubs near the campuses of Aquinas College (Nashville) and Ave Maria University. At Thomas Aquinas College, the virtues of modesty and chastity are regularly addressed by chaplains in their sermons at daily Mass.
Several Catholic colleges welcome FOCUS missionaries (www.focus.org) on campus to lead Bible studies and promote chastity and sobriety through small-group activities.
Theme weeks
A number of colleges declare themes for weeks during the school year to present programs and activities in support of sobriety and chastity. Ave Maria University has an annual “Love Week” in February, devoted to hosting events and lectures that foster discussion on love, dating, the Theology of the Body, and other Catholic studies on sexuality. The Catholic University of America recognizes National Collegiate Alcohol Awareness Week, National Drunk and Drugged Driving Prevention Month, and Safe Spring Break Week with information distribution and campus-wide programming. The University of St. Thomas in Houston has an annual “Sexual Responsibility Week.”
Education for student offenders
When students violate campus policies, consequences can include education programs to help improve behavior. Ave Maria University purchased an online education module that provides basic alcohol information to students who violate the alcohol policy. According to AMU, “Through a review of topics related to safe consumption, characteristics of high risk drinking, positives and negatives of consumption, and social norms, students gain a better understanding of how irresponsible alcohol use can negatively impact their academics and personal lives. The anticipated outcome is that students will make better decisions in the future related to alcohol use.”
Likewise, Benedictine College will schedule an alcohol assessment with its counseling center if it has cause to worry that any student may have a problem with alcohol abuse. When students are found cohabiting in residence halls, the College may assign education initiatives or have the students meet with counselors, while losing the right to visitation even during daylight hours for a specified period of time.
Regulations
Dress code to encourage modesty
Christendom College, like several other colleges, maintains a dress code for the classroom, Mass, lunch, and special events. “Usually this includes a dress shirt and necktie for men and a dress or blouse with skirt or dress slacks for women. A jacket is also required for men at Sunday Mass and for speakers’ presentations.”
Ave Maria University is less specific, but students must dress “with modesty and prudence.” The student handbook offers them guidelines for dressing with dignity.
Regulations on entertainment
Ave Maria University requires that movies and television programs viewed on campus “should be in good taste and not offensive to Catholic morals and values.”
Regulating sex, romantic behavior
Some colleges expressly forbid sexual activity outside of marriage. The Catholic University of America’s Code of Student Conduct states, as paraphrased by the University, “that sexual relationships are designed by God to be expressed solely within a marriage between husband and wife. Sexual acts of any kind outside the confines of marriage are inconsistent with the teachings and moral values of the Catholic Church and are prohibited.”
Likewise, the University of Mary’s Community Standards for Students prohibits “sexual intimacy between persons who are not married to one another in the university’s residence halls.”
Christendom College has restrictions on public romantic displays of affection, and Thomas More College of Liberal Arts discourages “exclusive dating” during the first two years.
Dry campuses
All of the colleges have policies on alcohol, often prohibiting possession by anyone under the legal age and sometimes prohibiting minors from being in a room when others are consuming alcohol. But at the University of Mary and some other colleges, alcohol is not permitted for any student. Christendom College forbids on-campus drinking but makes exceptions for students over the age of 21 at some campus events, such as St. Patrick’s Day festivities and musical performance nights, called Pub Night.
Residence Halls
Residence life programs
Many of the colleges locate educational programs in the residence halls (see “Education” above). Benedictine College sponsors an annual Alcohol Free competition, inviting each residence hall to put on an alcohol-free event “which both serves as a model for how to engage in healthy activities without the use of alcohol and disseminates information about the dangers of abusing alcohol.”
Special housing
DeSales University offers specialized “substance-free” housing for students who forego all alcohol and tobacco use. The University of Mary permits students to choose roommates who are committed to abstaining from alcohol even off campus, and these students are grouped together in the residence halls.
The University of Mary also has established Saint Joseph’s Hall, a 30-bed facility for men who have made a commitment to live a virtuous life and support other residents in that commitment. Living in the facility with students is the retired Bishop of Bismarck and the current diocesan vocations director. A similar facility for women has been established with support from Benedictine Sisters who live on campus.
Mount St. Mary’s University offers a variety of themed housing and living-learning options. Students participating in the Summit Housing initiative adopt as a rule of life a “healthy living commitment” through outdoor activities, service projects, and abstinence from tobacco, alcohol and drugs.
Training for residence life staff
Belmont Abbey College, like many of the colleges, ensures that resident assistants are trained in authentic Catholic morality. “All resident directors study the virtues, Ex corde Ecclesiae, the Rule of St. Benedict, the Pope’s Theology of the Body, and the documents on the dignity of the human person and the vocation of women.”
The Catholic University of America provides alcohol education and training for resident assistants, orientation advisors, and resident ministers each summer. “Residential staff are expected to confront disruptive and unhealthy behaviors including those related to sexual activity.”
Faculty, priest presence in residence halls
Some colleges ask priests, religious, and faculty members to live in residence halls to assist and supervise students. At Holy Spirit College, the student residences in a nearby apartment community are proctored by faculty members. Thomas More College of Liberal Arts has a Dean of Men and a Dean of Women who help promote chastity in the residences.
Student Engagement
Peer clubs and programs
Some colleges have student clubs dedicated to promoting chastity through peer education, such as the Love Revealed club at Franciscan University of Steubenville. According to the University, the club “strives to enrich students’ understanding of the principles that uphold the goods of Marriage, Family, and Sexual Integrity.” The group emphasizes “that stable marriages and families and the moral character they cultivate are best supported by commitment to the integrity of sex and to the healthy sexual attitudes and behaviors that honor that integrity.”
At The Catholic University of America, student organizations such as Live Out Love, Vitae Familia, Students for Life, and CUAlternative “bring speakers to campus and host events that focus on love and relationships with emphasis on the Church’s teachings on marriage and family life,” according to CUA. “For example, the student group Vitae Familia hosted an event titled ‘Love. Relationships. College. How does college shape how you love?’ where two guest speakers addressed the importance of dating while in college.” Although Live Out Love focuses on teaching chastity to local middle-school and high-school students, it is student-led and engages CUA students in making arguments for sexual purity.
Students at Holy Spirit College likewise assist Moda Real, a virtue and modesty program for the Solidarity School and Mission, a Hispanic outreach program, that culminates in an annual modest fashion show.
Pro-life groups may help promote chastity. CUA’s Students for Life publishes a magazine titled The Choice: Pro-Life Answers to Today’s Tough Questions, including articles on purity and chastity, cohabitation, and natural family planning. The Crusaders for Life at the University of Dallas promotes Catholic teachings on chastity and abstinence.
Other groups may also address chastity. Kappa Phi Omega, the Catholic sorority at St. Gregory’s University, brings speakers on campus to address the impact that chastity and modesty have on our society. Even the Fra Angelico Art Club at Ave Maria University, which hosts events that examine true art and beauty, sponsors lectures on the Theology of the Body and an annual art exhibition to examine themes of love.
Campus ministry at Walsh University has a peer ministry program called Peacemakers, which trains upper-classmen to minister to students in the residence halls. In 2011-12 they helped organize monthly residence hall programs on topics including pornography (the University’s IT officers verified that residence hall hits on pornography sites fell 75 percent as a result), women’s dignity (attracting up to 80 women per session), and “Extraordinary Gentlemen.” Students in campus ministry also organized Theology of the Body discussions and assisted in the campus appearance of Christopher West.
Households
Several of the colleges encourage students to participate in voluntary “households,” which are spiritual communities of men or women that gather together to pray, encourage one another in chastity and virtue, perform works of mercy, and host events on campus. The concept is especially popular at Franciscan University of Steubenville, where about half the student body is involved in any of 45 households.
Women’s and men’s groups
Ave Maria University has a Genuine Feminine Club of female students who foster the development of feminine virtues and organize the “Genuine Feminine Conference” each spring.
At The Catholic University of America, males students can join Esto Vir to strive together to live a life of prayer, brotherhood, chastity, self-sacrifice, and fortitude. Female students can join Gratia Plena, a sisterhood of Catholic women that meets for fellowship, prayer and faith formation.
DeSales University sponsors Philotheas, a student-led, student only group for women desiring to mature in their Catholic faith through spiritual, religious, catechetical and social experiences, and support. Esto Vir (“Be a Man!”) is a group of men, who through social, educational, and spiritual activities strive to live as men of faith and virtue.
At the University of Mary, the Knights of Virtue (for men) and Vera Forma (for women) focus on the development of virtue and holiness, studying Scripture and the saints from a Christian but not exclusively Catholic perspective.
Administration
Administrative committees
Ave Maria University has an administration subcommittee specifically tasked with promoting chastity. The Student Activities Board, Student Government Association, Student Life Office, Campus Ministry, and Office of Housing and Residence Life all collaborate to develop initiatives to support and promote a culture of chastity.
At The Catholic University of America, the Alcohol and Other Drug Education (AODE) program is coordinated by the Office of the Dean of Students and supported by the Employee Assistance Program, Kane Fitness Center, Office of Residence Life, Student Health Services, and the Counseling Center.
Hiring for Mission at Catholic Colleges and Universities: A Survey of Current Trends and Practices
/in Mission and Governance Hiring for Mission, Research and Analysis/by Dr. Daniel McInernyIntroduction
In the post-Vatican II period, Catholic colleges and universities in the United States have experienced a marked decrease in the numbers of their Catholic faculty. As we read in The Catholic University of America’s ten-year review of its application of the norms first promulgated by the Apostolic Constitution Ex corde Ecclesiae and affirmed by the U.S. Bishops in 199981, the twenty-year period from 1975 to 1995, especially, was a time when the identity of Catholic colleges and universities was undergoing much self-criticism and redefinition. Coupled with the decreased availability of religious and clerical personnel, owing to the vocations crisis, and an increased dependence upon lay faculty, the net result for Catholic University, concludes the University’s report, “was a decrease in hires of committed Roman Catholics as well as a decreased emphasis on formally tracking the religious preference of new faculty hires.” This result was characteristic of most Catholic colleges and universities in this period.82
The promulgation of Ex corde Ecclesiae in 1990 aimed to address this crisis of identity occurring in Catholic institutions of higher learning, and in the twenty-two years since its promulgation much progress has been made toward calling these institutions back to their “privileged task,” as Ex corde puts it, of uniting “existentially by intellectual effort two orders of reality that too frequently tend to be placed in opposition as though they were antithetical: the search for truth, and the certainty of already knowing the fount of truth” (Introduction, no. 1). However, the decline in numbers of Catholic faculty has, by and large, continued unabated. While certain institutions have demonstrated admirable pro-activity in responding to Ex corde’s norm that Catholic colleges and universities maintain a majority of Catholic faculty, others are struggling to maintain that majority as older and predominantly Catholic faculty retire. The issue, of course, is not simply about numbers; it is about sustaining the very character of Catholic institutions of higher learning. As Richard D. Breslin, professor of leadership and higher education at Saint Louis University, writes: “One can stipulate that if hiring practices are not addressed in the Catholic higher education community, some of these institutions will continue to be called Catholic and to call themselves Catholic, but they will have lost their real identity; they will have lost their souls. They will have done so precisely because their hiring practices failed to support and sustain the mission and philosophy of the university as Catholic.”87
The aim of this report is to survey current efforts by Catholic colleges and universities to avert this danger by means of their hiring practices. The institutions surveyed include twenty-five institutions included in the third edition of The Newman Guide to Choosing a Catholic College (October 2012), as well as selected institutions not in the Guide, including, by way of comparison, some non-Catholic ones. In particular, the report will focus on how Catholic colleges and institutions are going about “hiring for mission,” that is, how they are endeavoring to recruit and hire committed Catholic faculty, faculty who unite in their persons the search for truth within their respective disciplines, and the certainty by faith of already knowing the fount of truth. As a result of this survey, a better understanding will be achieved of the current trends and practices at Catholic colleges and universities when it comes to hiring for Catholic mission. This will help facilitate the later discernment of strengths and weaknesses, and the eventual advocacy of particular policies aimed at encouraging Catholic institutions to realize ever more faithfully their mission “in the heart of the Church.”96
The report will consist of two main parts. After a brief note on sources, the first part of the report will sketch some of the most noteworthy aims and challenges that must be acknowledged by Catholic institutions in forming any robust hiring for mission policy. The second part of the report will then present a variety of specific hiring-for-mission policies, ordered according to the stages of a typical academic hiring process.
A Note on Sources
Much of the research for this report was conducted online, first by surveying the web materials of Newman Guide institutions, as well as additional Catholic and non-Catholic institutions:
Newman Guide Colleges
Other Catholic Colleges
Non-Catholic Colleges
Personal interviews (all but two of which by telephone) were conducted with the following key administrators and faculty:
In an email exchange Dr. Don Briel, Director of the Center for Catholic Studies at the University of St. Thomas in St. Paul, furnished his forthcoming essay “Mission and Identity: The Role of Faculty,” discussed below.
At the end of this report is a linked appendix listing the institutions surveyed in the report.
Hiring for Catholic Mission: Aims & Challenges
The very concept of “hiring for mission” entails a clear understanding on the part of an institution of just what its mission is. In the next section of this report we’ll take a look at some specific examples of strong mission statements at Catholic colleges and universities. First, however, it would be useful to establish a more global view of the mission of such institutions, and further, the general sorts of hiring policies and practices entailed by it. In other words, we need to ask: what, generally speaking, is the institutional identity of a Catholic institution of higher learning, and what are the requirements this identity imposes upon the practice of hiring members to its faculty?
The best place to begin articulating an answer to this twofold question is Ex corde Ecclesiae, which outlines four “essential characteristics” of what makes a Catholic college or university truly Catholic:
A paraphrase of these essential characteristics might read as follows:
These four essential characteristics of a genuinely Catholic college or university can be further expounded, in particular the commitment to truth and its relationship to the institution’s evangelical mission. In an important paper addressing this very relationship, Dr. Don Briel, director of the Center for Catholic Studies at the University of St. Thomas in St. Paul, has identified three “concerns” that characterize the pursuit of truth at a Catholic college or university:
Briel here directs our attention to a Catholic institution’s mission to manifest the harmony between faith and reason; the ultimate integrity of the various ways in which truth is pursued; and the need for these various pursuits of truth to take place within the ongoing series of debates and inquiries that constitute the Catholic intellectual tradition.
In order to fulfill its mission, it is evident that a Catholic institution must seek to embody the most famous norm promulgated by Ex corde Ecclesiae: that “the number of non-Catholic teachers should not be allowed to constitute a majority within the Institution, which is and must remain Catholic” (Article 4, no. 4). A Catholic institution of higher learning is, according to Ex corde, a Christian community faithful to the Christian message as it comes to us through the Church. It is a community that seeks to harmonize its pursuit of truth with what is actually accepted by faith, to aim for an integration of its various pursuits so that the unity of truth is put on display, and thus to develop the living tradition of which its efforts form a part. By definition, then, a Catholic college or university requires a largely Catholic faculty. A predominantly Catholic presence on the faculty—a presence that is vigorous and not merely nominal—is essential to the achievement of a Catholic institution’s mission. In this regard Briel cites some trenchant remarks of Rev. James T. Burtchaell:
In light of such considerations, many Catholic colleges and universities in the United States, most notably those recommended in The Newman Guide, have in recent decades given their hiring practices a fresh impetus. They have not only striven to establish faculties predominantly comprised, in Burtchaell’s words, of “seriously committed and intellectually accomplished Catholics,” but they have also worked hard at creating cultures within their institutions that attract and support this kind of scholar. Some institutions, like Thomas Aquinas College, Christendom College, and Thomas More College of Liberal Arts, were responding to the hiring crisis in Catholic higher education long before the promulgation of Ex corde. Others, like Belmont Abbey and the University of Notre Dame, have in recent years adopted new strategies in response to Ex corde. Still others, like Wyoming Catholic College and John Paul the Great Catholic University, have been created within the last decade as direct responses to Pope John Paul II’s call for a New Evangelization of culture.
Even this partial list of Catholic institutions indicates the great variety in kinds of Catholic college and university, a variety of mission that, according to Dr. Christopher Blum, academic dean at Thomas More College of Liberal Arts, impacts the way in which hiring for mission is conducted at different institutions. For example, at Thomas More College, an institution with fewer than one hundred students offering a single bachelor’s degree in the liberal arts, hiring for mission takes on a different shape than it does, say, at Belmont Abbey College, a much larger institution offering a variety of degree programs both inside and outside the liberal arts. At Thomas More, reports Dean Blum, all new hires must be prepared to teach in an interdisciplinary setting in tutorial formats with fewer than twenty students, an expectation that simply is not part of Belmont Abbey’s hiring process, which more conventionally hires to academic specialty. Because of its specific curricular approach, Thomas More—as well as similarly-structured institutions such as Thomas Aquinas College and Wyoming Catholic College—probably relies more than most institutions on an informal network of contacts when it comes to attracting candidates for open positions.
Different curricular approaches—indeed, the very differences between colleges and universities—distinguish the various approaches to Catholic higher education in the United States. For the purposes of this report we will assume that these structural differences in themselves do not negatively impact the pursuit of Catholic mission and the development of robust hiring-for-mission policies.99 A small college and a national research university can each in its own way be exemplary in all that it means to be a truly Catholic institution of higher learning. But other factors do present challenges to the mission of Catholic higher education, and thus to the hiring practices of Catholic institutions. These are challenges that arise from the lived situation of these Catholic colleges and universities: from their histories, their confrontations with and attitudes toward our increasingly secularized culture, even their geographical locations. What challenges are these?
A first and very obvious challenge is a legal one: to what degree, if any, can institutions inquire into the religious affiliation, or lack of it, of prospective candidates? It is a complex question, one outside the scope of this report. But it should be noted, at least, that, according to the Office of General Counsel at The Catholic University of America, “a common point of confusion is the idea that because equal opportunity law prohibits discrimination on the basis of religion, an employer may not exhibit a preference for someone of a certain religion. Many people do not realize that an exception exists for religious employers, including religious educational institutions. Both the United States Constitution and statutory law support this First Amendment right for religious educational institutions to hire members of their own religion on a preferential basis.”100
A second challenge is demographic. In their book, Catholic Higher Education101, Morey and Piderit characterize Catholic colleges demographically according to four models:
The Immersion Model: in which a vast majority of students are Catholic, the vast majority of faculty and administrators are Catholic, there is a broad array of Catholic courses in the academic sector, and a very strong nonacademic Catholic culture.
The Persuasion Model: in which the majority of students are Catholic, a significant number of faculty and administrators are Catholic, there is a small array of Catholic courses in the academic sector, and a strong nonacademic Catholic culture.
The Diaspora Model: in which a minority of students is Catholic, few faculty and administrators are Catholic, there is a minimal number of Catholic courses in academic sector, and a consistent Catholic culture in nonacademic areas.
The Cohort Two-Pronged Model: in which there exists a small cohort of well-trained and committed Catholic students and faculty, and a much larger group of students educated to be sensitive to religious issues with a view to influencing policy.
At first blush, the mission of Catholic institutions would seem to call all Catholic institutions to be classified demographically as (more or less) “immersion” schools. A school with “a small array of Catholic courses in the academic sector,” as in the “persuasion” model, would not appear to satisfy the three criteria of the Catholic pursuit of knowledge identified by Briel102; and the “disapora” and “cohort” models, with their low percentages of Catholic faculty, fall outside the norms of Ex corde. In any event, for any kind of school other than the “immersion” school to increase the numbers of its Catholic faculty it may well court resistance, especially perhaps from those non-Catholic, non-Christian, and non-theist members of the faculty, who may take the new impetus to be a negative comment on their own hires and on the accustomed diversity of the faculty. Peter Steinfels gives voice to this resistance when he writes:
While there are things to dispute in this assessment, it at least clarifies the opposition that may well be faced as non-immersive institutions pursue more robust hiring-for-mission policies. Steinfels rightly notes that anxiety about new hiring initiatives will probably be felt especially at urban universities, where a greater demographic diversity is usually to be found, both on the faculty and among the students, than at institutions in less populated areas. Whether a school exists in the South and traditionally employs a large segment of non-Catholic faculty may also present a challenge to new hiring initiatives focused on Catholic mission.
A third challenge arises from what might be termed the concern for excellence. A common objection that arises when hiring-for-mission policies are debated is that such policies, in preferring the hiring of Catholics, jeopardize the institution’s pursuit of academic excellence—which presumably should be sought in whatever scholars may be found, no matter their religious identification or lack of it. John McGreevy, dean of the College of Arts and Letters at Notre Dame, adds the point that even when institutions aim to hire Catholics, they are confronted with a dramatic shortage of Catholic scholars.104 He cites a 2006 study claiming that, when it comes to tenure-track scholars in the arts and sciences and business at the fifty top-ranked research universities, only six percent self-identify as Catholics (McGreevy admits that the percentage is slightly higher at lesser-ranked universities). In response, McGreevy’s colleague in Notre Dame’s history department, the Rev. Wilson Miscamble, C.S.C., argues:
Here, Miscamble challenges McGreevy on the fact that the six percent figure represents an actual low number of possible candidates for faculty positions at Notre Dame, while also reminding him that Notre Dame has an established tradition of hiring excellent scholars from abroad. But Miscamble also raises the deeper question of just what excellence means, both in itself and in relation to a particular institution and its academic needs. McGreevy limits the pool of acceptable Catholic scholars to those working at one of the top fifty research universities, assuming without question the criteria of that ranking as well as giving short shrift to scholars at so-called “lesser-ranked” institutions. The takeaway point is the following: when it comes to Catholic hiring, institutions have to decide what counts for them as excellent. In doing so, they must first apply the criteria set forth in Ex corde, as well as discern what sort of scholar is the best fit for their kind of curriculum. A versatile scholar with an interdisciplinary bent and a fondness for Socratic discussion will fit far better at a liberal arts school, for example, than a scholar with a highly specialized expertise.
The issue of specialization brings up a fourth challenge to Catholic hiring. Among the gravest threats to Catholic intellectual life today is the extreme amount of specialization within disciplines, and the compartmentalization that exists between disciplines. Apropos of this threat Alasdair MacIntyre observes:
According to MacIntyre, the institutional form of the contemporary research university threatens the integration of human knowledge, a disintegration that in turn threatens the harmony between faith and reason that, as we have seen, is an essential aim of the Catholic intellectual quest. MacIntyre’s criticism of research universities aside, we can still admit that every institution of higher learning today has to do deal with the threat of specialization and compartmentalization. Hiring practices that seek to counteract this phenomenon must either wholly resist hiring for academic specialty or resist an ideal of academic specialization that favors the narrow intellectual furrow to the exclusion of an integrated view.
Small liberal arts-based institutions will have an easier time combating this threat of specialization and compartmentalization, but even they may well have to take up arms against it. Interestingly, Dr. Steven Snyder, vice-president for academic affairs at Christendom College, believes that when it comes to hiring for mission, the aim of acquiring a predominance of committed Catholic scholars is not enough. It is also important that the faculty share a “habit of communication in regard to common philosophical principles.” Even at a small, ideologically-driven college, remarks Snyder, intellectual divisions can arise, especially between scientists, on the one hand, and philosophers and theologians, on the other, due to their differing educational formations. A member of a biology faculty, for example, may be an exemplary Catholic, but have no sense of, perhaps even reject, the understanding of faith and reason that animates philosophy and theology. Specialization and compartmentalization are a constant, twin-headed threat to the Catholic intellectual life.
A fifth challenge to a renewal of Catholic hiring practices concerns the hiring of non-Catholic faculty. There is no question that non-Catholics can be welcome and productive members of a Catholic institution of higher learning. But there is a danger in assuming that non-Catholic scholars, in particular those whose work in some way impacts the Catholic intellectual tradition, are perfect substitutes for Catholic scholars. In his debate with Fr. Miscamble about Catholic hiring at Notre Dame, John McGreevy argues that “Miscamble’s preoccupation with the numbers also comes at the expense of ideas. Surely one responsibility of the faculty at a Catholic university is to cultivate possible areas of expertise that resonate with the long, rich heritage of Catholic Christianity.” But then McGreevy immediately adds: “This is not a confessional task. An appealing dimension of intellectual life at Notre Dame is that scholars from all backgrounds introduce our students to a range of subjects and areas not studied in such depth at other universities” (emphasis added). For McGreevy, then, as long as there are scholars on the faculty who are experts in fields that in some way “resonate with the long, rich heritage of Catholic Christianity,” then the Catholic research university has discharged its mission. But to call the assemblage of a faculty at a Catholic institution not a confessional task is surely too strong. Granted, a Catholic institution is entitled to make strategic hires of non-Catholics. But to accept a non-Catholic scholar working on a subject related to the Catholic tradition as a perfect substitute for a Catholic scholar, is to deny the supreme importance of the Catholic college or university being a community predominantly of Catholics pursuing their scholarly endeavors within the wider evangelical mission of their shared faith
A sixth and final challenge has to do with how to identify qualified Catholic candidates. Everyone agrees that when it comes to hiring Catholics, mere numbers are not enough. What an institution needs are Burtchaell’s “seriously committed and intellectually accomplished Catholics.” But how does an institution discern the religious commitment of job candidates? By having them check a box? By asking them directly? And how does it ascertain the Catholic commitment of faculty members as their careers proceed
As we turn now in the second part of the report to specific hiring-for-mission policies, it will not be the intention to show how each policy captures the essence of Catholic higher education according to the norms of Ex corde, or how each policy addresses one or more of the challenges just outlined—though much of this will be evident in the policies themselves. It will be enough if this first part of the report clearly frames some of the more important issues for those who will sift through these policies and evaluate those which will contribute to a set of best practices when it comes to hiring for mission.
Further Relevant Literature
1999 promulgation by the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops: The Application of Ex corde Ecclesiae for the United States:
Highly recommended is Wilson D. Miscamble, C.S.C., “Meeting the Challenge and Fulfilling the Promise: Mission and Method in Constructing a Great Catholic University,” in the Hesburgh volume cited in note 1.
This is an interesting article by Rev. Robert Niehoff, S.J., president of John Carroll University, on the importance of hiring for mission, the need to balance the “ideal” and the “possible” when it comes to mission hiring, and how the issue of mission by itself can never trump the need for excellent academic qualifications:
This article by Rev. James Heft, S.M., Alton Brooks Professor of Religion and president of the Institute for Advanced Catholic Studies at the University of Southern California, has a nice section on hiring for mission, exposing the false dichotomy between hiring for diversity and hiring for mission:
Mission Statements, Vision Statements, and Other Kinds of Statements and
Policies Regarding Institutional Mission
Let us now turn to real initiatives being taken by Catholic colleges and universities that are successfully hiring for mission. As stated earlier, a strong hiring for mission policy presupposes a clear statement of mission as the cornerstone of its structure.
Mission Statements
Many institutions studied in preparation for this report have strong, even exemplary, missions statements. Here are some examples of the best:
Franciscan University of Steubenville Mission Statement:
Ave Maria University Mission Statement:
Christendom College Mission Statement:
Benedictine College Mission Statement:
These and other strong mission statements share certain characteristics; they express:
By way of comparison, it is useful to consider the most relevant portions of the mission statement of Brigham Young University:
The mission of Brigham Young University—founded, supported, and guided by The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints—is to assist individuals in their quest for perfection and eternal life. That assistance should provide a period of intensive learning in a stimulating setting where a commitment to excellence is expected and the full realization of human potential is pursued.
All instruction, programs, and services at BYU, including a wide variety of extracurricular experiences, should make their own contribution toward the balanced development of the total person. Such a broadly prepared individual will not only be capable of meeting personal challenge and change but will also bring strength to others in the tasks of home and family life, social relationships, civic duty, and service to mankind.
To succeed in this mission the university must provide an environment enlightened by living prophets and sustained by those moral virtues which characterize the life and teachings of the Son of God. In that environment these four major educational goals should prevail [of which only the first two will be cited, as being most relevant]:
In meeting these objectives BYU’s faculty, staff, students, and administrators should be anxious to make their service and scholarship available to The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints in furthering its work worldwide. In an era of limited enrollments, BYU can continue to expand its influence both by encouraging programs that are central to the Church’s purposes and by making its resources available to the Church when called upon to do so.
We believe the earnest pursuit of this institutional mission can have a strong effect on the course of higher education and will greatly enlarge Brigham Young University’s influence in a world we wish to improve.
And from the evangelical perspective, there is Wheaton College’s Statement of Faith and Educational Purpose; the Statement of Faith is “reaffirmed annually by its Board of Trustees, faculty, and staff….”108
Vision Statements
It is also worth noting the practice, employed for example by Christendom College and Benedictine College, of appending a vision statement to their statements of mission.
Other Kinds of Statements and Policies Regarding Institutional Mission
Following its vision statement, Christendom provides an eight-part essay that even further amplifies what it means to be a truly Catholic college.
Similarly Michael Dauphinais, dean of faculty at Ave Maria University, has produced the following message, with its accompanying video, explaining the nature of a liberal education in the Catholic tradition.
By way of introducing its faculty on its website, Franciscan University presents an overview of what it means to be a member of its faculty. There we read:
Moreover, on its website Wheaton College provides this overview of what a liberal education means in light of that institution’s evangelical mission.
Finally on the issue of mission, vision, and related statements, Dr. Anne Carson Daly, vice-president of academic affairs at Belmont Abbey College, stresses the importance of departmental mission statements being coordinated with the overall mission statement of the college or university. Consider in this light the mission statement of the Department of Biology at Belmont Abbey:
Consider in this regard, too, the following mission statement of the School of Religious Education at Brigham Young:
Identifying Potential Candidates
Now we want to begin to track the typical hiring process at Catholic colleges and universities, and highlight at the various stages of that process some of the more valuable policies and practices when it comes to hiring for mission.
More than one of the administrators spoken to in the preparation of this report argued that the more focused an institution’s mission is, and the more unabashedly Catholic it is, the more the institution is able to attract “seriously committed and intellectually accomplished Catholics.” Fr. Miscamble notes that three of Notre Dame’s recent hires, Bill Evans and Timothy Fuerst in economics and, a little further back, Brad Gregory in history—all top-flight scholars—came to Notre Dame precisely because of its Catholic mission. Gregory even left a tenured position at Stanford in order to do so. He also references Notre Dame’s Law School as a campus unit that over the years has built a superb faculty by aggressively hiring for mission.
Compare with this the situation at Colorado Christian University. With the administration’s support, Colorado Christian University has re-branded as an intensely religious institution, highlighting its Christian identity on its website and on job application materials. According to Rick Garris, director of human relations at CCU, this consistent emphasis on the school’s Christian identity functions as a pre-screening mechanism, attracting religious candidates and dissuading those of different or weak faiths. Applicants are further culled during the online portion of the application, which asks the potential employee to “talk about their faith.” Applicants who don’t provide an answer are automatically removed from the applicant pool.
We see in these examples of Notre Dame and CCU that a strong sense of mission distilled in the mission statement and embodied in the life of the institution is the first and foremost means of indentifying and attracting excellent Catholic job candidates. Responsibility for a strong Catholic culture starts, of course, at the top. Dr. Lawrence Poos, dean of the School of Arts and Sciences at The Catholic University of America, makes this point when he credits a former president of that institution, now Bishop David O’Connell of Trenton, NJ, for changing the culture at CUA by thematizing the issue of hiring for mission. But apart from—or better, given—the existence of a robust commitment to mission on campus, how are strong mission-driven candidates identified?
Most institutions identify potential candidates informally: through professional associations, scholarly publications, the candidate’s being a student of a respected scholar, job postings, and the like.
Notre Dame, however, has gone to uncommon lengths to make the identification of potential candidates more strategic by establishing its Office of Recruitment Support, currently headed by Rev. Robert Sullivan. The primary purpose of this office is to maintain a “database of scholars who have been identified as Catholic, either by the scholars themselves or through public means.” The office makes available an online .pdf brochure that explains the purpose of the database, which is to help “identify for faculty positions academically excellent potential candidates who can advance [Notre Dame’s] Catholic identity.” There is an online signup form for those who would like to contribute their own name; but other names are collected through informal networks of professional and spiritual association.
Terry Ball, dean of the College of Religious Education at Brigham Young University, reports that BYU draws potential faculty candidates either from Church of Latter-day Saints seminary programs, or by attracting recent graduates (some of whom may have enjoyed study grants from BYU) or faculty from other institutions. In the latter case, BYU employs standing search committees to help identify pools of potential candidates. Like other institutions, it also makes use of receptions at major professional meetings. Those candidates the University is especially interested in will often be invited to campus for a trial semester of teaching.
Forming the Search Committee
At some mid-sized to smaller institutions, the college or university president is significantly involved in hiring new faculty. At Christendom, the president even serves on the search committee for each and every new hire, as does the vice-president for academic affairs. Though such a policy would be impracticable at a large research institution such as Notre Dame, it remains imperative, as Fr. Miscamble states, that the president, vice-president for academic affairs or provost, and the deans stay as involved in the hiring process as possible, especially in regard to hiring for mission.
One way for the top administration to stay involved, even if they themselves are not serving on search committees, is for the president and dean to meet with the search committee to discuss mission issues in the context of the relevant discipline, as is done at Benedictine College. Another strategy is for the vice-president for academic affairs to play a significant role in the selection of the search committee, as occurs at Belmont Abbey, where the rules governing searches require the VPAA to appoint the chair of the search committee (usually the chair of the relevant department or division). Carson Daly explains that these rules also require her to pick an additional committee member from the relevant division, as well as to select another member from a pool of three divisional faculty suggested by the search chair. At Christendom, the relevant department chair joins the president and vice-president for academic affairs to make up the trio that is the standard search committee at that institution.
Another excellent practice is found in the School of Arts and Sciences at CUA. Dean Poos requires of each department pursuing a hire to submit to him a “search strategy document,” a written explanation of the department’s reasons for wanting to hire, with emphasis upon how the proposed position relates to the University’s Catholic mission.
As a search gets underway, as Mount St. Mary’s Dean Joshua Hochschild stresses, the importance of hiring for mission must continue to be a theme of conversation in the department itself. The policies and procedures of the institution must inspire water-cooler conversations among faculty about how this charge is to be taken up by the department. Names of potential candidates will no doubt already begin to surface through friendships, associations, and encounters in the field, and discussion of these potential candidates must include how they would fit with the Catholic mission of the institution.
Further Relevant Literature
This essay by Rev. James Heft, S.M. has an interesting section on hiring for mission in which he pursues strategies to enforce the point noted just above, that hiring for mission strategies very much require a “bottom up” approach (i.e., intensive conversations with departments and department chairs about hiring for mission), just as much or more than they require a “top down” approach:
Advertising the Position
Statements of Expectation
When it comes to advertising positions, some schools display a page on their website that serves both as an extension of the mission statement and as a statement of what the school expects from future faculty, such as we find on the site of John Paul the Great Catholic University:
A similar directive to future applicants can be found on the website of Benedictine College:
Also pertinent are the Collegiate Statutes promulgated by Thomas More College of Liberal Arts, which set up a strong set of expectations for potential faculty:
At Mount St. Mary’s, all candidates are shown, and told they would be expected to support, the first page of the Mount’s Governing Documents, which state:
The Board of Trustees reasserts the critical importance of the Catholic identity in all operations of the University. A strong Catholic identity is central to the mission of Mount St. Mary’s University. Therefore, all faculty, staff, administrators, executive officers and Trustees are to work in concert with and support this Catholic mission. The basic tenets of this Catholic mission at Mount St. Mary’s include:
The School of Religious Education at Brigham Young University has also taken a pro-active approach to stating their expectations of future faculty. When one clicks on the FAQ section of the School’s website and scrolls down, one finds a policy statement regarding Hiring Future Faculty in Religious Education. “What are the criteria to be used in deciding whom to hire?” the statement begins, a question that is then discussed under five headings: Orientation, Gospel Scholarship, Teaching, Training and Credentials, and Citizenship. The first of these headings, Orientation, sets the foundational expectation of all future faculty of the School:
Similarly, too, at Colorado Christian University, both applicants and existing employees are required to affirm their commitment to CCU’s statements of Faith, LifeStyle Expectations, and Strategic Objectives that demonstrate the institution’s evangelical principles.
Job Postings
Turning now to job advertisements themselves, consider this advertisement for a position currently available in Christendom College’s Department of English Language and Literature:
This advertisement is typical of what one tends to find in academic job postings—except for the final paragraph, which not only links the position advertised with the overall mission of the college (“Christendom College…is a four-year Catholic liberal arts college), but also alerts potential candidates that members of the Christendom faculty take a voluntary Oath of Fidelity to the Magisterium of the Church. In alerting potential candidates to this practice, Christendom makes abundantly clear what it expects from its faculty in terms of commitment to the school’s Catholic mission. Steve Snyder, vice-president for academic affairs at Christendom, underscores that the taking of the Oath of Fidelity is voluntary, but by mentioning even this voluntary practice in its job postings, Christendom puts the hiring for mission issue at the forefront and effectively winnows out potential candidates who might apply simply in the interests of finding a job.
A current job posting for a position in the History Department at Franciscan University also “requires support for Mission of the university.”
The Catholic University of America uses similar language in every one of its job postings:
Here, moreover, is a current advertisement produced by Benedictine College for a position available as an experimental physicist. This is a good example of a job posting for a position outside the humanities that strongly ties in the position to the Catholic mission of the college:
The Department of Physics and Astronomy at Benedictine College invites outstanding teacher-scholars to apply for a tenure track position for an Experimental Physicist starting in fall 2012. PhD required. Benedictine is a college growing in enrollment and reputation. The Department offers bachelor degrees in physics, astronomy, engineering physics and physics secondary ed. Nearly ¾ of our graduates go on to graduate or professional schools. The successful candidate should have a strong commitment to undergraduate Liberal Arts education. Teaching areas include introductory courses for the general student body and courses and laboratories at all levels for majors. The successful candidate will be expected to establish on-campus research experiences for students participating in our Discovery Program as well as in departmental research. Candidate’s background should include experience in experimental physics, complementing current faculty strengths in astronomy and theoretical physics.
Benedictine College, which has a full-time undergraduate enrollment of approximately 1600 students, is a mission-centered academic community. Its mission as a Catholic, Benedictine, liberal arts, residential college is the education of men and women within a community of faith and scholarship. Benedictine College provides a liberal arts education by means of academic programs based on a core of studies in the arts and sciences. In addition, the college provides education for careers through both professional courses of study and major programs in the liberal arts and sciences. As an essential element of its mission, Benedictine College fosters scholarship, independent research and performance in its students and faculty as a means of participating in and contributing to the broader world of learning.
Beyond disciplinary expertise, Benedictine College seeks faculty members eager to engage and support our mission. Application materials should discuss how you would contribute to the college’s Catholic, Benedictine, liberal arts identity.
Likewise, Notre Dame’s College of Engineering currently has a notice on its website for prospective applicants during the 2012-13 academic year which exhibits good coordination between the mission of the university and that of the College of Engineering—especially impressive for a discipline outside the humanities:
The Application
The most common way that hiring for mission is emphasized at the application stage is in the institution’s request for the applicant to compose a response to the university’s mission statement. Dean Michael Dauphinais at Ave Maria and Dean Christopher Blum at Thomas More College both stressed the need of this statement to convincingly show how the candidate’s teaching and scholarship relate to the Catholic mission of their respective institutions. The key question that Blum likes to see the candidate answer, either in the response to the mission statement or in the on-site interview, is “How do you perceive your own pursuit of wisdom as contributing to the Catholic intellectual tradition?” Steve Snyder likes the candidate’s response to the mission statement to reveal how the mission statement of Christendom aids the scholar in his or her intellectual life.
At Mount St. Mary’s University, application materials invite the candidate to address the mission of the institution in one of three ways:
About this aspect of the application Dean Hochschild remarks:
Narrowing the Field
The question of mission fit perhaps comes most forcefully into play in the activities by which the search committee, in conjunction with the upper administration, narrows the field of potential candidates—a field which at least in larger research universities can reach into the hundreds for a single position.
Institutions sometimes employ “first-round” phone interviews, or interviews at meetings of professional associations, in order to help winnow the field of candidates, interviews in which mission questions can play a part. For example, Baylor University in its phone interviews asks candidates specific questions not only about their religious affiliation, but also about the degree of their involvement in their church or parish. In order to help determine a short-list of candidates, The Catholic University of America’s College of Arts and Sciences follows the practice of many institutions in asking candidates to write a response to the university’s mission statement.
On-site interviews, which customarily include a lecture or “job talk,” as well as the teaching of a course, also help manifest the candidate’s serious commitment to, or alliance with, the religious mission of the institution. At this stage of the process various strategies are employed.
The candidate’s discussions with the search committee, for example, will include specific questions on Catholic mission. As Christopher Kaczor, professor of philosophy at Loyola Marymount University, explains about his own department’s procedures:
At Mount St. Mary’s, Dean Hochschild reviews all the applications that come in for positions available in his school, taking special note of those candidates who write a good letter about Catholic mission. Hochschild underscores that he does not try to force a department into hiring a specific candidate, but he converses with departments before invitations for on-site interviews, and must approve all candidates. In explaining negative decisions to the committee, he harkens back to earlier conversations about the importance of hiring for mission. He also depends upon the support of the president and provost in supporting his decisions (the president, when possible, also interviews all candidates invited to campus for interviews). Usually, if three candidates come to campus for interviews at the Mount, then the president expects at least two to be Catholic. For Hochschild, “it is most important that at least two be well-versed in and show personal investment in the Catholic intellectual tradition, and all three show willingness and ability to engage that tradition.”
The Catholic University of America has a requirement that the president and provost be given an opportunity to review and approve the curriculum vitae of a candidate for a faculty position before that candidate is invited for an on-campus interview. Indeed, Dean Poos meets for an hour and a half with each candidate who interviews on campus for a position in his school, and makes discussion of the University’s mission a main focus of that interview. In these interviews Dean Poos asks the key question: “How would it be different for you to be a faculty member here than at, say, Ohio State?”
Helping narrow the field of job candidates at Ave Maria University is its policy that Catholics must form a majority in every department. At Ave Maria, too, the dean of faculty meets with the search committee to determine which candidates shall be invited for on-site interviews.
At Belmont Abbey, the vice-president for academic affairs as well as the president meet separately with all candidates during their on-site visits, and make a discussion about the mission statement of the college central to those interviews. At Christendom the procedure is the same, as it is, too, at Benedictine College, where the president and dean discuss with the candidate the relevance of mission to his or her daily life as a faculty member, preparing the candidate to integrate faith and reason in the classroom.
Finally, in Brigham Young University’s College of Religious Education, the entire faculty engages in voting on the candidates. The dean, president of the university, as well as the university board of trustees, then must approve the recommended candidate—with the board of trustees, not the president, having the final say. If the recommended candidate fails to win approval from either the dean, president, or the board, then the search committee is charged to recommend another candidate.
The Contract
The issue of the candidate’s commitment to Catholic mission need not end with the offering of a contract. Indeed, the contract itself can contain language that affirms the college’s or university’s expectations of the candidate in this regard. At Christendom, for instance, it is put into the candidate’s contract that public dissent from magisterial teachings is grounds for dismissal from the College. By public dissent is meant more what is published by the scholar than what may be spoken more or less off-hand at a public venue. The school’s procedure in such cases involves a request of judgment from the local ordinary.
Also at Christendom, new hires receive one-year, probationary contracts for each of their first three years of employment, in the midst of which he or she may be dismissed without cause. These probationary years help the school confirm both the scholarly excellence and Catholic commitment of the faculty member.
At The Catholic University of America, formal offers of employment to faculty and staff are accompanied by explicit references to the expectations of employees to respect and support the University’s Catholic mission:
Though it is not a contractual component, the statement already alluded to on the website of John Paul the Great Catholic University at least raises the specter of contractual ramifications of public dissent from Magisterial teachings or conduct otherwise undermining of the mission of the University:
New Faculty Orientation and Beyond
At the point in which the candidate becomes a new member of the college’s faculty, the process of actually conforming his or her scholarly activities to the college’s specific expression of Catholic mission begins. Most colleges employ some kind of new faculty orientation in which to begin this process. This orientation to mission can be a one-time event, as for example at Baylor University and Benedictine College. At Benedictine the dean makes a presentation that involves discussion of Ex corde along with an introduction to the college’s Benedictine heritage.
But the orientation can also be a longer program. Brigham Young University conducts an eight-week new faculty seminar in which mission issues play a key part. Both BYU and Baylor also assign a faculty mentor to new faculty members in order to help them adapt to the culture of the institution—a practice that was not mentioned in the discussions with Catholic administrators about their new faculty orientation programs
At The Catholic University of America, as well, the provost conducts a mandatory year-long program of orientation and socialization to the academic culture at CUA for new full-time tenure-track and tenured faculty. The program includes a three-day retreat and then six two-hour luncheon meetings spread throughout the academic year. Discussion of Ex corde forms a part of the program.
Even more significantly at Catholic University, Dean Poos meets each semester with every pre-tenured faculty member in his school. In these meetings he takes the opportunity to discuss Ex corde with the faculty member, encouraging him or her to read and study the document, especially the section on characteristics of research at a Catholic university (no. 15). This is particularly important at CUA in that, in their tenure applications, faculty must write a reflection on how their teaching and scholarship relates to the Catholic mission of the institution.
Mount St. Mary’s likewise employs a year-long faculty development seminar for tenure-track faculty, directed by various faculty members (not just deans and theologians), a seminar which involves readings on liberal education and the Catholic university. Dean Hochschild was inspired to launch this kind of seminar by his experience of a similar faculty development seminar at Wheaton College. Belmont Abbey requires that all new faculty attend a presentation on the Benedictine heritage of the College.
As noted earlier, some schools use the Oath of Fidelity and Profession of Faith, along with the mandatum for faculty members teaching theology or Sacred Scripture, as ways of confirming faculty commitment to the purpose of their hire: to adhere whole-heartedly to the Catholic mission of the institution.
Taken together, all of these post-hire practices help cultivate the kind of mission-driven Catholic culture so imperative for a successful hiring-for-mission policy.
Further Relevant Literature
This July 2009 First Things article by John Larivee, F.K. Marsh, and Brian Engelland, “Ex corde and the Dilbert Effect,” lays out some good recommendations for implementing the demands of Ex corde in hiring:
The article by Richard D. Breslin mentioned in the Introduction outlines several advantages of hiring for mission and maintaining a strong Catholic identity. He asserts that schools which are faithful to their Catholic identity will attract more donors, which will free up capital to attract more students and employ professors with “star power.” However, achieving this “next level” of Catholic identity requires schools to hire candidates who, “establish the necessary linkage between their personal philosophy and the philosophy and mission of the institution.” He also points out that it has become unfashionable for interviews to ask about a candidate’s background, religious beliefs or philosophy. Because of these sloppy hiring practices, Breslin asserts that the institution risks “losing its soul.” Besides the aforementioned discomfort about touching on non-academic job requirements, the author also writes about the narrowness of a university’s personnel search, which is frequently carried out by a single department for a faculty member with a highly specialized skill set without any regard to the “institution as a whole.” After laying out these problems, Breslin goes on to lay out a specific series of “institutional action steps”:
Here is a link to a long document on hiring for mission produced by Loyola Marymount University. The document contains many detailed articles pertaining to hiring for mission, ranging from overviews on the importance of hiring for mission to essays explaining the kinds of questions to ask candidates and how to frame those questions. Even more importantly, there is a chart which shows the difference between legally framed questions and questions that could be considered discriminatory and therefore grounds for a lawsuit. There is also a series of questions which Marymount submits to applicants pertaining to Catholic identity.
This is a link to a 2001 article by Heft and others on hiring for mission and the conflicting attitudes held about it by administrators and faculties at Catholic institutions. (A link to the first part of this two-part article was not available online.)
Here is a link to Creighton University’s guidelines for hiring for mission. The guidelines mention how the applicant’s interest in Catholic identity and mission is established at each stage of the hiring process (i.e., the listing for the job must mention the school’s Catholic identity, written applications should be screened based on how the candidate characterizes how they will “fit” into the mission of the school, and so on).
Appendix A
Linked Digest of Institutions Surveyed
Newman Guide Colleges
Aquinas College
Mission Statement: http://www.aquinascollege.edu/welcome/vision-values.php
Norms related to Ex corde Ecclesiae: http://www.aquinascollege.edu/academics/index.php
Online Application Form For Faculty: http://www.aquinascollege.edu/main/employmentDetails.php?employmentID=36
Legal Hiring Disclaimer: http://www.aquinascollege.edu/main/legal.php
Job Listing (nursing faculty): http://www.aquinascollege.edu/main/employmentDetails.php?employmentID=36
Ave Maria University
Mission Statement: http://www.avemaria.edu/AboutAveMaria/OurCatholicIdentityandMission.aspx
Online Application Form for Faculty: http://www.avemariahr.org/docs/file/Application%20for%20Employment%20edited.pdf
Instructions to Faculty Applicants (education): http://www.avemaria.edu/Jobs/FacultyPosition.aspx
–
Belmont Abbey College
Mission Statement: http://www.belmontabbeycollege.edu/Visionstatement/mission-statement.aspx
Belmont vs EEOC Details: http://www.belmontabbeycollege.edu/eeoc/
–
Benedictine College
Mission Statement: http://www.benedictine.edu/about/missionvalues
Norms related to Ex corde Ecclesiae: http://www.benedictine.edu/about/missionvalues/ex-corde-ecclesiae
Online Applications Form: http://www.benedictine.edu/sites/default/files/application_benedictine_employment_fbd_072808.pdf
Instructions to Faculty Applicants (English): http://www.benedictine.edu/english-faculty
–
Catholic Distance University
Mission Statement (page 2): http://www.cdu.edu/images/currentCDUcatalog.pdf
Ex corde: http://www.cdu.edu/documents/welcome/ex-corde.html
–
Catholic University of America
Mission Statement: http://www.cua.edu/about-cua/mission-statement.cfm
Faculty Job Description (Health Information Technology/Intelligence Analysis): http://slis.cua.edu/about/employment.cfm#Faculty
Norms related to Ex corde Ecclesiae: http://www.pageturnpro.com/The-Catholic-University-of-America/26705-Ex-Corde/index.html#1
–
Christendom College
Mission Statement: http://www.christendom.edu/about/mission.php
Faculty Job Description (English): http://www.christendom.edu/about/job-pdfs/job%20announcement%202013.pdf
Online Application Form: http://www.christendom.edu/about/CCapplication.pdf
College of St. Mary Magdalen
Mission Statement: http://www.magdalen.edu/about-us/mission-statement.asp
–
The College of Saints John Fisher & Thomas More
Coat of Arms: http://www.fishermore.edu/the-fisher-more-college-coat-of-arms/
–
DeSales University
Mission Statement: http://www.desales.edu/home/about/academic-excellence/philosophy-mission
Employment Mission: http://www.desales.edu/home/about/people/employment
Catholic Identity: http://desales.edu/home/about/our-heritage/catholic-identity
Faculty Job Descriptions (bottom of page): http://www.desales.edu/home/about/people/employment
–
Franciscan University of Steubenville
Mission Statement: http://www.franciscan.edu/AboutFUS/Mission/
Norms Related to Ex corde Ecclesiae: http://www.franciscan.edu/PassionatelyCatholic/
Instructions for Faculty Applicants (History): http://www.franciscan.edu/EmploymentListings/History/August2013/
Passionately Catholic: http://www.franciscan.edu/PassionatelyCatholic/
–
Holy Spirit College
Mission Statement: http://www.holyspiritcollege.org/mission.html
Hiring for mission and Ex corde Info: http://www.holyspiritcollege.org/authentic-catholic-college.html
–
John Paul the Great Catholic University
Mission Statement: http://www.jpcatholic.com/about/vision.php
Online Applications: http://www.jpcatholic.com/academics/openings.php
Instructions for Faculty Applicants/Job descriptions: http://www.jpcatholic.com/about/fidelity.php
–
Mount St. Mary’s University
Mission Statement: http://www.msmary.edu/presidents_office/mission-statement/
Ex corde Norms: http://www.msmary.edu/presidents_office/docs/2006-07_Catholic_Iden_Mission.pdf
Hiring Guidelines: http://www.msmary.edu/administration/human-resources/pdfs2/Professional-Search_Procedures_rev%20Aug%2007.pdf
–
Our Lady Seat of Wisdom
Mission Statement: http://seatofwisdom.org/about_us/about_us/vision-and-values.html
Oath of Fidelity: http://seatofwisdom.org/news/latest/bishop-mulhall-presides-over-opening-mass-and-faculty-oath-of-fidelity.html
–
Redeemer Pacific College
Mission Statement: http://twu.ca/academics/calendar/2012-2013/affiliate-institutions/redeemer-pacific-college/purpose.html
–
Thomas Aquinas College
Mission Statement: http://www.thomasaquinas.edu/about/mission-history
Norms Related to Ex corde Ecclesiae: http://www.thomasaquinas.edu/a-catholic-life
Oath of Fidelity for Faculty: http://www.thomasaquinas.edu/catholic-life/oath-fidelity
Profession of Faith: http://www.thomasaquinas.edu/catholic-life/oath-fidelity
–
Thomas More College of Liberal Arts
Mission Statement/ President’s Message: http://www.thomasmorecollege.edu/about/mission/
Ex corde info: http://www.thomasmorecollege.edu/about/commitment-to-the-church/ex-corde-ecclesiae/
Fidelity to Faith: http://www.thomasmorecollege.edu/about/commitment-to-the-church/
Hiring For mission: http://www.thomasmorecollege.edu/about/commitment-to-the-church/mandatum/
–
University of Dallas
Mission Statement: http://www.udallas.edu/about/mission.html
Hiring for mission: http://www.udallas.edu/offices/provost/missionandvision.html
Online Application Form: http://www.udallas.edu/offices/hr/employmentapplication.html
–
University of Mary
Mission Statement: http://www.umary.edu/about/mission/missionidentity.php
Hiring for mission: http://www.umary.edu/jobs/
Applicant Info Packet About Mission Hiring: http://www.umary.edu/pdflibrary/applicantinfopacket.pdf
–
University of Saint Thomas
Mission Statement: http://www.stthom.edu/About_UST/Our_Story/Index.aqf
Norms Related to Ex corde Ecclesiae: http://www.stthom.edu/Public/index.asp?Friendly_Flag=1&page_ID=3778
Online Application for Faculty (theology position): http://www.stthom.edu/Offices_Services/Offices/Human_Resources/Employment/FullTime_Faculty/School_of_Theology.aqf
–
Walsh University
Mission Statement: http://www.walsh.edu/our-mission2
Hiring Samples: http://www.walsh.edu/faculty18
–
Wyoming Catholic College
Mission Statement: http://www.wyomingcatholiccollege.com/about-wcc/index.aspx
Hiring for mission: http://www.wyomingcatholiccollege.com/about-wcc/education/index.aspx
Oath of Fidelity / Profession of Faith: http://www.wyomingcatholiccollege.com/about-wcc/ex-corde-ecclesiae/index.aspx
Norms Related to Ex corde Ecclesiae: http://www.wyomingcatholiccollege.com/about-wcc/ex-corde-ecclesiae/index.aspx
Non-Guide Schools Surveyed
Bob Jones University
Doctrinal Statement: http://www.bju.edu/about-bju/creed.php
–
Brigham Young University
Mission Statement: http://aims.byu.edu/
Hiring for mission: http://www.byu.edu/hr/?q=job-seekers/faq/ecclesiastical-questions
Online Application for Faculty: https://yjobs.byu.edu/applicants/jsp/shared/frameset/Frameset.jsp?time=1348493161821
Liberal Arts Applications: https://yjobs.byu.edu/applicants/jsp/shared/frameset/Frameset.jsp?time=1348493161821
Job Description – English Department: http://english.byu.edu/jobs/
School of Religious Education Policy for Future Faculty: http://religion.byu.edu/questions-and-policies
–
Baylor University
Mission Statement: http://www.baylor.edu/profuturis/
Hiring for mission: http://www.baylor.edu/hr/index.php?id=79065
Online Liberal Arts Application: http://www.baylor.edu/hr/index.php?id=91190
–
Canisius College
Mission Statement: http://www.canisius.edu/about-canisius/mission/
Hiring for Mission: http://www.canisius.edu/about-canisius/mission/hiring/
Online Application: http://www.canisius.edu/dotAsset/4346d10f-a0b8-4bc9-83d3-7d523698c465.pdf
Job Description – Faculty Position (organizational studies): https://www.google.com/url?q=http://www.canisius.edu/dotAsset/f6541fdc-7b5a-47e5-a021-ee8cde5a87a8.doc&sa=U&ei=0MltUIC5OrG70AH_xIHoAg&ved=0CAcQFjAA&client=internal-uds-cse&usg=AFQjCNE6I6yF4XthmMXmXwbTV1HCKC89ZQ
–
Colorado Christian University
Mission Statement: http://www.ccu.edu/welcome/mission.asp
“About Us”: http://www.ccu.edu/employment/about/
Job Description – Event Manager: https://ch.tbe.taleo.net/CH10/ats/careers/requisition.jsp?org=CCU&cws=1&rid=1036
Job Description – English Affiliate Faculty: https://ch.tbe.taleo.net/CH10/ats/careers/requisition.jsp?org=CCU&cws=1&rid=858
Behavior Expectations: http://www.ccu.edu/employment/lifestyle.asp
Statement of Faith (required to ‘affirm their commitment’ to this): http://www.ccu.edu/welcome/webelieve.asp
Strategic Objectives: http://www.ccu.edu/strategicobjectives/default.asp
–
Creighton University
Mission Statement: http://www.creighton.edu/mission/
Hiring for mission: https://www.creighton.edu/ccas/facultyandstaff/hiringformission/index.php
Online Application for Faculty: https://careers.creighton.edu/applicants/jsp/shared/frameset/Frameset.jsp?time=1348499028750
–
John Carroll University
Job Description – Assistant Professor of Strategic Management: http://sites.jcu.edu/facultypositions/home-page/john-m-and-mary-jo-boler-school-of-business/assistant-professor-of-strategic-management/
Online Application: http://webmedia.jcu.edu/hr/files/2011/02/Application.pdf
Mission and Identity Statement: http://sites.jcu.edu/mission/pages/vision-mission-core-values-and-strategic-initiatives-statement/
Catholicity Statement: http://sites.jcu.edu/mission/pages/catholicity-statement/
–
Leymone College
Mission Statement: http://lemoyne.edu/tabid/482/Default.aspx
Hiring for Mission: http://lemoyne.edu/tabid/2264/default.aspx
Job Description (Director, Office for Career Advising): http://lemoyne.interviewexchange.com/jobofferdetails.jsp;jsessionid=49964936D123D9D88C45E9F98C1D8D4C?JOBID=32412
Online Job Application (Personal Info Form): http://lemoyne.edu/AZIndex/HumanResources/FacultyStaff/PersonalDataForm/tabid/3039/e/1/Default.aspx
–
Loyola Marymount University
Mission Statement: http://www.lmu.edu/about/mission/Mission_Statement.htm
Statement of Non-Discrimination: http://www.lmu.edu/Assets/Statement+of+Non-Discrimination.pdf
Faculty Job Description (Law Professor): https://jobs.lmu.edu/postings/8085
Hiring for Mission best practices document: http://www.lmu.edu/AssetFactory.aspx?vid=43866
–
University of Notre Dame
Mission Statement: http://www.nd.edu/about/mission-statement/
Description of hiring practices: http://hr.nd.edu/nd-faculty-staff/forms-policies/applicant-screening/
Norms Related to Ex corde Ecclesiae: http://catholicmission.nd.edu/
Faculty Position Description (photography): https://jobs.nd.edu/applicants/jsp/shared/position/JobDetails_css.jsp?postingId=204215
Equal Opportunity Statement: http://hr.nd.edu/nd-faculty-staff/forms-policies/about-notre-dame/
–
University of St. Thomas (Minn.)
Faculty Position Description (Assistant Professor, German): https://jobs.stthomas.edu/postings/13692
Mission, Vision and Convictions: http://www.stthomas.edu/aboutust/mission/
Center for Catholic Studies: http://www.stthomas.edu/cathstudies/about/director/default.html
–
Wheaton College
Statement of Faith and Educational Purpose: http://www.wheaton.edu/About-Wheaton/Statement-of-Faith-and-Educational-Purpose
The liberal arts in the evangelical Christian tradition: http://www.wheaton.edu/Academics/Liberal-Arts
A Mandate for Fidelity: Pope Benedict Urges Compliance with Theologian’s Mandatum
/in Academics Mandatum, Research and Analysis/by Cardinal Newman Society StaffIntroduction
On May 5, 2012, in his address to several American bishops during their required ad limina visit to Rome, His Holiness Pope Benedict XVI spoke on “religious education and the faith formation of the next generation of Catholics” in the United States. He said:
Canon 812 of the Catholic Church’s Code of Canon Law states, “Those who teach theological disciplines in any institutes of higher studies whatsoever must have a mandate from the competent ecclesiastical authority.”110
The U.S. bishops’ 2001 guidelines for implementing Canon 812 describe the mandate, commonly identified by the Latin mandatum, as “fundamentally an acknowledgment by Church authority that a Catholic professor of a theological discipline is teaching within the full communion of the Catholic Church.” It recognizes “the professor’s commitment and responsibility to teach authentic Catholic doctrine and to refrain from putting forth as Catholic teaching anything contrary to the Church’s magisterium.”111 The mandatum is requested by the theologian in writing, and it is granted in writing by the local bishop who presides over the diocese where the theologian is employed.
The Holy Father’s new call for “compliance” with Canon 812 is something of a surprise for Americans. The mandatum has not received significant attention here since the 1990s, when it was vigorously opposed by major theological associations and the Association of Catholic Colleges and Universities, defended by the U.S. bishops and organizations including The Cardinal Newman Society and the Fellowship of Catholic Scholars, and widely debated in both Catholic and secular news media. One reason the topic has received little attention in the past decade is because it is very difficult for Catholics to identify which theologians have received the mandatum; many Catholic colleges and universities refuse to reveal such information, even to students and their families.
Now despite the long silence—or perhaps because of it—Pope Benedict has expressed concern about the lack of compliance with Canon 812, giving the matter renewed importance. Moreover, the Holy Father has declared that compliance with the mandatum is “especially” lacking in the work of Catholic colleges and universities to reaffirm their Catholic identity. This appears to assign to the colleges and universities some responsibility for compliance with Canon 812. In the United States, it is widely understood that it is the individual theologian’s responsibility to request the mandatum, drawing from the language of Canon 812. But many Catholic colleges and universities reject corresponding responsibilities—drawing from the nature of Canon 812 as a statute in the Code’s section on Catholic institutes of higher learning—to employ only Catholic theology professors who receive the mandatum and to disclose to students and others which theology professors have the mandatum.
In response to the Holy Father’s renewed attention to the mandatum, The Cardinal Newman Society has prepared the following report to provide Catholic families a better understanding of the mandatum, identify concerns about compliance with Canon 812, and suggest responsibilities of Catholic colleges and universities. We have invited several Church officials, college leaders, canon law experts, and theologians to contribute their insights. Quite appropriately, none of these wished to guess the personal concerns and intentions of the Holy Father, but they did identify serious compliance issues that may, we hope, find resolution in Catholic colleges and universities’ response to Pope Benedict’s charge.
Chief among those who responded to our queries is His Eminence Cardinal Raymond Burke, prefect of the Supreme Tribunal of the Apostolic Signatura and Archbishop Emeritus of St. Louis. He serves as the chief judge for the Vatican’s canon law courts and therefore has great influence on matters of canon law. Cardinal Burke is also a member of the Congregation for the Clergy and the Pontifical Council for Legislative Texts, and he is Ecclesiastical Advisor to The Cardinal Newman Society’s Center for the Advancement of Catholic Higher Education.
“The Holy Father only has a limited number of occasions during these ad limina visits to speak with bishops,” noted Cardinal Burke in his June 20th telephone interview with The Cardinal Newman Society, “and that he would devote one of the lengthier communications with the bishops to the subject [of the mandatum and Catholic higher education] certainly indicates to me that it is a serious concern on his part.”
His Excellency Bishop Joseph Martino, retired from the Diocese of Scranton and a long-time advisor to The Cardinal Newman Society, agrees that Pope Benedict’s address to the American bishops has real significance.
“The Pope does not bring up topics casually in his ad limina talks,” Bishop Martino told The Cardinal Newman Society. “When all of the Pope’s talks to the U.S.A. bishops during their recent ad limina visits are analyzed, you have a summary of the Pope’s pastoral ‘worries’ about the Catholic Church in the U.S.A.”
Resistance to the Mandatum
Catholic identity in Catholic higher education has been a significant concern of both the Vatican and the U.S. bishops for at least three decades. The mandatum is a key aspect of the Vatican’s response to secularization and theological dissent, and it is celebrated at several Catholic colleges and universities where theology professors are required to have the mandatum. Many other institutions, however, have resisted the mandatum, claiming it is an infringement on academic freedom and institutional autonomy.
In 1983 His Holiness, Blessed Pope John Paul II approved the revised Code of Canon Law, which for the first time in Church history included a section governing “Catholic universities and other institutes of higher studies”—including the mandatum requirement for theologians. But some American experts in canon law contended that the new section did not apply to most Catholic colleges and universities, because they are legally owned by trustees and not the Catholic Church. As a result, the mandatum was largely ignored.
In 1990 Blessed John Paul II resolved the matter with the constitution for Catholic higher education, Ex corde Ecclesiae,112 which assumes canonical jurisdiction over any college or university that has an “institutional commitment” to Catholic education, regardless of legal control. The constitution also insists on compliance with the mandatum.
Despite complaints from some theologians and academic societies, in 1999 the American bishops approved particular norms to implement Ex corde Ecclesiae in the United States,113 including the requirement that Catholic theology professors at Catholic colleges and universities obtain the mandatum. In 2001 the bishops issued guidelines for compliance with the mandatum.114 And last year the bishops completed a nationwide review of colleges’ and universities’ progress toward complying with Ex corde Ecclesiae, including specific discussion of the mandatum.115
Nevertheless, a 2011 survey of U.S. Catholic college and university leaders revealed that serious concerns remain. Forty-two percent of the respondents + Add New Issue said their institutions have neither a department nor a chair of Catholic theology as required by Ex corde Ecclesiae, and more than seven percent said that Catholic theology is not even taught in their institutions. More than a third (36 percent) said they did not know whether their theology professors have received the mandatum, 10 percent said some but not all of their theologians have received it, and another 6 percent said no professors have it.116
In June and July 2012, The Cardinal Newman Society contacted the public relations offices of the ten largest Catholic universities in America, ranked by their undergraduate student enrollment. We asked them to identify theology professors who have received the mandatum.
Only three of the ten universities replied by our deadline, and none provided the requested information. DePaul University spokesman John Holden wrote, “I believe this question misunderstands the mandatum process developed by the bishops. Faculty request the mandatum directly from the local ordinary. A university would not generally have this information.”
Father James Fitz, SM, vice president for mission and rector of the University of Dayton, reported likewise that the University views the mandatum “as a personal relationship between the theologian and the archbishop. …Therefore, the University does not have a list of those who have received the mandatum, nor does the University publish such a list.”
Marquette University spokeswoman Kate Venne explained that the mandatum is an obligation of the theologian, not the university, and information about who has the mandatum “is not something that is shared with the university or a department chair.”
The remaining seven large universities did not respond at all to our request: Boston College, Fordham University, Georgetown University, Loyola University Chicago, St. John’s University in New York, Saint Louis University, and the University of Notre Dame.
By contrast, other Catholic colleges and universities—including several that are recommended in The Newman Guide to Choosing a Catholic College117—have taken a much different approach to the mandatum. They see it as an institutional obligation to ensure that theology faculty have the mandatum, and they offer full disclosure to students and others.
In June and July 2012, The Cardinal Newman Society requested and received confirmation that all theology faculty have the mandatum at Aquinas College in Tennessee, Ave Maria University, Belmont Abbey College, Benedictine College, the College of Saint Mary Magdalen, DeSales University, Franciscan University of Steubenville, John Paul the Great Catholic University, Mount St. Mary’s University, St. Gregory’s University, Thomas More College of Liberal Arts, the University of St. Thomas in Texas, and Wyoming Catholic College. At The Catholic University of America, where the theology and religious studies department is a pontifical faculty, all professors have the similar missio canonica from the Archbishop of Washington.
The Mandatum and Catholic Higher Education
Pope Benedict’s May 5th address to U.S. bishops considers a key question: Is the mandatum only a theologian’s private, individual commitment of fidelity to the Church, or does it also have significance for a college or university’s Catholic identity? The Holy Father appears to confirm the latter.
Cardinal Burke reflected on Pope Benedict’s address in his interview with The Cardinal Newman Society. In that address, says Cardinal Burke, the Holy Father “mentions that some important efforts have been made, but that much remains to be done in terms of the Catholic identity of the Catholic colleges and universities, and then he cites specifically the implementation of Canon 812—namely that those who are teaching the theological disciplines in the Catholic university should have certification that they are teaching in communion with the Magisterium, the official teaching of the Church.”
So how is the mandatum important to the Catholic university? Cardinal Burke continues:
There are several indications that the Church regards compliance with the mandatum as integral to Catholic higher education. Most apparently, Canon 812 is situated in the section of the Code of Canon Law for Catholic universities. It was Ex corde Ecclesiae, the apostolic constitution on Catholic universities and not a document focused on theologians, that forced compliance with the mandatum seven years after Canon 812 had been published. The mandatum is a requirement of the U.S. bishops’ “Application of Ex corde Ecclesiae,” and it was a topic of the bishops’ review last year of the implementation of Ex corde Ecclesiae.
Asked for some insight into why Canon 812 would be situated in the Code’s section on Catholic higher education, Cardinal Burke again reiterated the Church’s great need for education that is faithful and authentic, which the mandatum helps ensure:
Public Disclosure of the Mandatum
In his May 5th address, Pope Benedict describes the mandatum as “a tangible expression of ecclesial communion and solidarity in the Church’s educational apostolate.” The Cardinal Newman Society asked Cardinal Burke to explain how the mandatum is “tangible”:
The mandatum, then, is by its nature a public act. “The fact that I teach in accord with the Magisterium is a public factor,” says Cardinal Burke. “That’s not some private, secret thing between myself and the Lord.”
Moreover, says Cardinal Burke, it’s the right of Catholic students and their families to know who has the mandatum:
While all of this may come as a surprise to Americans whose experience of the mandatum has been as an entirely private matter between a bishop and a theologian, this is not the first time the Vatican has indicated the public nature of the mandatum. Blessed Pope John Paul II, speaking to American bishops in 2004 during their ad limina visit to Rome, said: “Catholic colleges and universities are called to offer an institutional witness of fidelity to Christ and to His word as it comes to us from the Church, a public witness expressed in the canonical requirement of the mandatum.”118
In 2007 Archbishop Michael Miller, CSB, then-secretary to the Vatican Congregation for Catholic Education, defended the rights of Catholic families in an address to Catholic college leaders gathered at the Franciscan University of Steubenville:
Contrary to the American approach to the mandatum, Archbishop Miller recommended that Catholic colleges and universities assess their Catholic identity with the question, “Does the university have a procedure in place which will guarantee that the mandatum fills its purpose?”
The Cardinal Newman Society asked the opinion of Father Thomas Weinandy, OFM Cap., executive director of the Secretariat for Doctrine and Pastoral Practices of the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops. He says that theologians ought to be proud of receiving the mandatum, which is an honor “recognizing that theologians have a true vocation in the Church.”
Canon law counselor Robert Flummerfelt suggests that theologians prominently display the mandatum in their offices “in the same way that attorneys and professors hang their academic degrees, professional licenses, bar admissions, etc., in their offices for clients and students to see.” He adds that colleges and universities should identify professors with the mandatum “in literature and on the institution’s web site.”
Father James Conn, SJ, a canon law scholar at the Gregorian in Rome, has studied the mandatum extensively and has both written and given lectures to bishops and canonists on the subject. Currently a visiting professor at Boston College, Father Conn tells The Cardinal Newman Society that the mandatum’s purpose “is to declare that the teacher of theology is carrying out his function in communion with the teaching authority of the Church.” He adds:
Monsignor Stuart Swetland, director of The Cardinal Newman Society’s Center for the Advancement of Catholic Higher Education and vice president for Catholic mission at Mount St. Mary’s University, makes an interesting comparison to other public acts that involve private commitments:
Monsignor Swetland describes the mandatum as “an act of being in communion with the Church, a sign a professor who teaches theology is teaching in full communion with the Church.” Therefore, he argues, “It’s a counter sign to talk of something as building up the communion of the Church and then to keep it private. Communion is by its very nature for the community. To privatize something that is required seems to me to run counter to its purpose.”
But as for who is responsible for publicly disclosing recipients of the mandatum, canon law provides no clear answer. Cardinal Burke suggests:
Father Conn has similar thoughts:
Archbishop Elden Curtiss, retired from the Archdiocese of Omaha, told The Cardinal Newman Society that he believes it is “primarily” the responsibility of the bishop to release names: “The bishop should make it public because he’s saying to the people, ‘This is a reliable source of Catholic theology.’”
It was in 2001, when the U.S. bishops approved their mandatum guidelines, that Archbishop Curtiss first advocated publicly disclosing recipients of the mandatum. He later told theologians in his archdiocese that if they refused the mandatum, he would release their names.
Bishop Martino would place the responsibility for disclosure on the college or university:
The Mandatum in Faculty Hiring
Aside from disclosing whether professors have obtained the mandatum, is a Catholic college or university obligated to ensure that its professors have complied with Canon 812?
The common assumption in the United States has been that because Canon 812 makes reference only to the individual theologian—“Those who teach theological disciplines in any institutes of higher studies whatsoever must have a mandate from the competent ecclesiastical authority”—a college or university need not, and perhaps even should not, assume any responsibilities regarding the mandatum.
Indeed, the U.S. bishops’ 2001 guidelines declare, “The mandatum is an obligation of the professor, not of the university.” But while this fact seems to be universally accepted with regard to the act of requesting the mandatum from the local bishop—much as an individual in any profession would be responsible for obtaining appropriate certification—it seems clear that Catholic colleges and universities have responsibilities of their own.
The same 2001 guidelines, for instance, prescribe that if a new Catholic theology professor does not obtain the mandatum within the academic year or six months, whichever is longer, the bishop is to notify the college or university. Why notify the institution if it is not expected to make use of the information—or if it is not, as some universities argue, appropriate even to monitor which theology professors have received the mandatum?
Canon law experts tell The Cardinal Newman Society that Catholic colleges and universities have a certain obligation to monitor which professors have the mandatum… and more. Father Conn, for instance, argues it would be “inconsistent for Catholic universities to hire Catholic theologians who do not have a mandatum.”
Cardinal Burke likewise says that only theology professors with the mandatum should be employed at a Catholic institution:
“If a Catholic university or college has been given the title Catholic (Canon 808),” says canon law advisor Robert Flummerfelt, “then it is the obligation of that Catholic institution to employ individuals teaching in the theological disciplines to promote Catholic thought completely faithful to the teaching authority of the Church.”
Choosing theology professors who have the mandatum is “an additional sign of the commitment that the Catholic university has to promote and teach the Catholic faith authentically,” Flummerfelt says.
Here Canon 812 intersects with Canon 810, which describes a Catholic college or university’s obligations with regard to employing professors in all disciplines:
Archbishop Curtiss sees it as a matter of truth in advertising: “If a Catholic purports to be teaching Catholic theology, then he needs a mandatum.” On the other hand, “if he’s teaching some other kind of theology, then say so.”
Properly labeling professors and their courses, by clearly identifying what is authentic Catholic theology and what is not, would seem a related responsibility of the Catholic college or university.
The Mandatum and Non-Catholic Institutions
What about non-Catholic colleges and universities that employ Catholic theologians—does the mandatum apply only at Catholic institutions? The U.S. bishops’ 2001 guidelines for the mandatum concern only “Catholics who teach theological disciplines in a Catholic university,” and the mandatum is most often associated with Ex corde Ecclesiae and the renewal of Catholic identity in Catholic institutions.
But interestingly, Cardinal Burke tells The Cardinal Newman Society that he believes Canon 812 can be applied to theology professors at state, secular, and other religious colleges and universities as well:
Rescuing Theology
The Cardinal Newman Society interviewed several theology professors at Catholic institutions who responded favorably to Pope Benedict’s May 5th address. They indicate that in addition to protecting students from dissident professors, a renewed emphasis on the mandatum could improve theology departments at Catholic colleges and universities—but while the mandatum will help, much more needs to happen.
“The mandatum is important, but it has been pretty much disregarded in this country,” laments Father Edward O’Connor, CSC, theology professor emeritus at the University of Notre Dame. “Theologians don’t like to have anybody looking over their shoulders. I thought it was absolutely wrong that the mandatum was disregarded. We’ve got a lot of theologians in Catholic colleges who are not really Catholic.”
That, says Ave Maria University theology chairman and former Boston College theologian Father Matthew Lamb, is a problem with serious consequences:
Father Lamb believes that “students, as well as their families,” should be told who has the mandatum, and Catholic institutions should not hire theologians without it. University of Scranton theologian Brian Benestad agrees, noting that strict employment policies are “especially important today since the defense of dissent by Catholic theologians seems to be the rule rather than the exception.”
It’s a matter of justice, says University of Dallas theologian Christopher Malloy:
Any theologian who is unwilling to request the mandatum is “a bad Catholic theologian,” says Larry Chapp, professor of theology and former department chairman at DeSales University. That’s because “theology must focus on the ecclesial context of how Revelation is mediated to us, and that necessarily implies respect” for the Magisterium.
But Malloy adds:
Mark Lowery, also a theology professor at the University of Dallas, worries that “some heterodox theologians who are angry about the mandatum might go ahead and sign it disingenuously.” For this, he proposes a solution:
Ultimately the mandatum is one tool toward the larger goal of promoting fidelity in Catholic theology and, more broadly, throughout Catholic higher education. Loyola University Chicago theologian Dennis Martin explains that the value of the mandatum is in shining a light on a discipline that needs to regain the trust of Catholic families:
The several theologians, bishops and canon law experts interviewed by The Cardinal Newman Society seem to agree that by ensuring compliance with Canon 812—not only compliance by individual theologians seeking the mandatum, but also colleges and universities eager to ensure that students receive theological instruction from professors who have the mandatum—Catholic colleges and universities can significantly strengthen their Catholic identity.
As expressed in Ex corde Ecclesiae, preserving Catholic identity requires hiring professors “who are both willing and able to promote that identity. The identity of a Catholic University is essentially linked to the quality of its teachers and to respect for Catholic doctrine.” For this reason, the mandatum is crucial to the integrity of a college or university as Catholic.
Bioethics Studies in Catholic Higher Education
/in Academics Research and Analysis, Science and Health Studies/by Dr. Marie HilliardExecutive Summary
This paper examines contemporary Catholic higher education and its unique role in preparing graduates, grounded in natural moral law, to respond to the increasing bioethical questions of the day.
The importance of both administrators and faculty articulating and embracing the mission of Catholic higher education, as they prepare graduates for a culture of relativism, is presented.
Curricular objectives, content and teaching strategies are recommended to address the most relevant bioethical dilemmas of the day. The importance of an integrated approach to examining these dilemmas, as well as a grounding in “core” content in philosophy and theology for all graduates regardless of discipline or concentration, are presented.
The interjection of government mandates into the void of bioethical resolutions is examined in relationship to the rights of conscience.
The paper concludes with examples of best practices, exemplifying the role of Catholic higher education as uniquely suited to advance the common good.
_
The goal of higher education is to prepare informed citizens to contribute to society in an effective manner, as participants as well as leaders. The nature of institutional sponsorship may dictate variances in the specific goals of higher education. Educational goals of state-sponsored institutions of higher education may include preparing “all students with the knowledge, skills, and credentials necessary to succeed in the workplace, in the community, in further education, in living enriched lives, and in being globally competent citizens.”114 Catholic higher education has a unique role in helping shape a society that respects natural moral law.120
The secular relativism embraced by the American culture has raised more questions than answers for the participants in modern society.121 Increasingly, within all disciplines, the study of ethics, especially applied ethics, has become critically important to preparing students for the challenges of such a culture.122 Historically, a graduate of an institution of higher education had at least a foundation in philosophy, and graduates of religiously sponsored institutions received a grounding in the faith of the founding religious community. Further, despite the discipline in which the student concentrated, he or she acquired a liberal education that fostered intellectual reasoning and provided a framework for ethical decision making effective for contributing to society.
A Catholic higher education institution, particularly one grounded in the liberal arts, should prepare its students to have some facility in the theological and philosophical principles that can shape secular debates.123 This also should be true for those institutions and departments that prepare graduates within applied disciplines, even if only achieved through prerequisite core courses for their major areas of study. Consistent with canon law, each discipline should also include classes in theologically grounded applied principles (ethics) to enable students to integrate these principles within the disciplines they are studying.124 In this way, methods of ethical reasoning could be synthesized and applied within the particular disciplines for which the student are being prepared.125 Most importantly, graduates of Catholic higher education should be prepared to assume a critical role in shaping a secular environment regarding respect for the human dignity of all persons, especially the vulnerable. This is one of the key aspects of Catholic bioethics education.126
Today medical research and technological developments outpace our ability to address easily the bioethical questions that necessarily arise. Graduates of Catholic higher education, regardless of their fields of study, more than ever need to be academically prepared to address and shape the ensuing bioethical debates in our society. Graduates of Catholic colleges and universities should be prepared to:
Faculty members not only need to be prepared to assume these educational challenges, but they also need to be committed to the mission and vision of the institutional sponsors. For theology faculty of Catholic institutions of higher education there is the additional requirement of the mandatum, first codified in canon law (can. 812) and subsequently reaffirmed in the apostolic constitution Ex corde Ecclesiae promulgated by Pope John Paul II in 1990. The mandatum aims to ensure that Catholic theologians “assent to Catholic doctrine according to the degree of authority with which it is taught.”127 Furthermore, consistent with canon law all faculties within Catholic higher education, especially those responsible for ethics courses, be they core or integrated courses, should respect the truths contained in natural moral law embraced by the Catholic Church (can. 810 §1):
This paper, while not providing a curriculum framework for each discipline, will explore each of the challenges that professors at Catholic colleges and university face as they address some of the most disputed ethical questions of the day: embryonic stem cell research, assisted reproductive technologies, sexual assault protocols, transgender surgery, and care of those in the persistent vegetative state. Furthermore, this paper will identify the direction which Catholic higher education needs to take to ground its students in natural moral law, almost abandoned by today’s secular culture and its embrace of relativism. In this way graduates of Catholic higher education, regardless of their academic majors, can not only address the bioethical challenges they face but assume a critical role in resolving these challenges.
Catholic Higher Education’s Unique Role in Shaping a Society Respectful of Natural Moral Law
Pope Benedict XVI, in his address to Catholic educators during his 2008 visit to the United States, indicated how Catholic higher education plays a unique role in shaping a society respectful of natural moral law:
Moral truth is grounded in natural moral law, which directs practice within the academic disciplines, including the applied disciplines such as bioethics. The Catechism of the Catholic Church provides instruction on natural moral law:
Natural moral law is not invented and then passed on through universities. As Saint Paul tells us, natural moral law is written on the hearts of men.131 Aristotelian understanding of morality or the “good” demonstrates this reality. As Aristotle observed, virtue is natural to humans. Virtue is a perfection of one’s nature, achieved through contemplation and by acting reasonably on behalf of ends perceived as goods in pursuit of happiness.132 Saint Thomas Aquinas explicates these truths when he states that God is the ultimate source of happiness and that virtue, while revealed through revelation, is never contrary to reason.133
Historically, society embraced these truths and the medical community codified them in practice standards. The Hippocratic Oath, now abandoned by most medical schools, reflected these standards: “I will not give a lethal drug to anyone if I am asked, nor will I advise such a plan; and similarly I will not give a woman a pessary to cause an abortion.”134 The oath was hailed as a pro-life phenomenon, not only by John Paul II,135 but also secular anthropologists such as Margaret Mead:
In fact, the leadership of the Catholic Hospital Association (CHA) initially was able to endorse the American College of Surgeons’ “Minimum Standard” (1919) as a code of ethics for Catholic hospitals. Rev. Charles B. Moulinier, SJ, CHA’s first president of the CHA, collaborated in the development of the “Minimum Standard.”137 This endeavor of the American College of Surgeons evolved into the Joint Commission on Accreditation of Healthcare Organizations in 1987, to which Catholic hospitals answer for accreditation today. However, very quickly it was recognized that Catholic health care required its own minimum standard. In 1921 CHA published its own set of requirements that established ethical standards for patient care while conforming to the “Minimum Standard.”138 Over the decades society began to embrace cultural relativism. Objective standards of morality in society and ethics in health care delivery were traded-in for the subjective standards of situation ethics,139 consequentialism140 and utilitarianism.141 Thus, it was not the Catholic Church that changed its understanding of professional obligations; society abandoned centuries of tradition that had protected the vulnerable from a redefinition of human dignity. By 1948,142 this necessitated Catholic health care to adopt its own ethical standards, consistent with the Catholic Church’s understanding of the good143 and the definition of the human person as a bearer of rights.144 The current version of these standards, promulgated by the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops and adopted as particular law by each diocesan bishop, is the Ethical and Religious Directives for Catholic Health Care Services.145
Phenomenal developments in medical technology have entered into a culture that has lost its rudder in terms of its obligations to the vulnerable. This is where the role of a Catholic university can have its greatest impact. The secular relativism embraced by contemporary American culture has raised more questions than answers, especially in the bioethical domain. Catholic university graduates who are grounded in philosophy, theology and applied bioethics regardless of their concentrations of study, are critically necessary for reclaiming a virtuous society, i.e., one that is natural to humans and grounded in natural moral law. As professionals, consumers of health care, and citizens who direct public policy, the potential contribution of Catholic university graduates to reshaping a society that is respectful of natural moral law is immeasurable.
Bioethics Competencies of Graduates
Graduates of Catholic institutions of higher education need to be able to dialogue meaningfully and contribute to resolving contemporary dilemmas concerning bioethics within a secular society. Regardless of the academic major, all graduates of Catholic higher education have a role to play not only in resolving the bioethical questions of the day, but also in shaping these bioethical debates. Before debating any bioethical question, graduates need to be able to identify the theological, philosophical, scientific, sociological and legal principles which guide the debates and provide direction to society. To do so requires an understanding of the aforementioned disciplines and the medical advances of the day, as well as a grounding in history pursuant to these very disciplines. When technological developments in medicine have outpaced society’s ability to answer ensuing bioethical questions, it is critical that graduates of Catholic colleges and universities have an accurate historical perspective of societal influences that impact and even create these bioethical dilemmas. Thus, all graduates of Catholic higher education need to be prepared for the five competencies cited in the introduction above.
Whether through an integrated approach within or among disciplines, within specific courses, or a combination of both, students will acquire the aforementioned competencies by gaining facility in the following areas. This creates obligations for faculty, faculty hiring practices, faculty retention and faculty development. The introduction above addressed the foundations of such obligations; the final section of this paper will provide more specific suggestions pursuant to these areas.
1st Competency: Understand the impact of current scientific developments on society’s appreciation of the human person.
Content
Discovery of Oral Contraceptives146
Cybernetic, nanotechnologies, biotechnologies147
Assisted reproductive technologies148
Genetic therapies versus genetic engineering149
Transhumanism150
Embryonic cell research151
Neonatology
Vaccine development; cell lines from aborted fetuses.152
Organ transplantation and definitions of death
Rejection of aging
Advanced life support and persistent vegetative state153
Faith and Reason154 not faith versus reason
Human acts as moral acts155
Teaching Strategy
Teaching methods should be tailored to the cognitive and affective levels156 of each competency. Students need to understand fully the impact that scientific developments have on our understanding of the human person. Lecture/discussion and case studies, using current examples from the content listed, are suited to developing this competency. For example, the discovery of the oral contraceptive has changed the understanding of the role of human sexuality in relationships, marriage, family and society, creating numerous ethical dilemmas related to the engendering of children. Focus on these issues can be integrated among a number of disciplines, such as the natural sciences, the social sciences and the humanities, including philosophy and religion. Understanding the impact of current scientific advances on society’s appreciation of the human person can be enhanced through case analyses, developing affective competencies such as valuing (belief systems, natural law, human dignity). Acquiring competencies, which can be exercised in real life situations, requires practice similar to that required of psychomotor domain competencies.157 For students in the applied disciplines (e.g., nursing), clinical experiences and pre- and post-conferencing discussions for those experiences, provide invaluable opportunities to develop competency in applying the knowledge they are acquiring.
2nd Competency: Identify trends in resolving bioethical dilemmas by means of governmental mandates.
Content
The First Amendment: what it really means
Judicial redefinition of Constitutional rights
The History of health care: A ministry or an industry158
“Table of Legal Mandates, State by State”159
Erosion of religious liberty through the courts
Efforts to restore religious liberty160
Efforts of the Church to protect religious liberty161
Federal role in protection of human subjects in research162
Creation and enforcement of new “rights:” sexual orientation, gender identity, same-sex marriage, privacy as the foundation for the right to an abortion, the right to be parents, rights over the fetus, the right to die.163
Teaching Strategy
Knowledge in the social sciences is involved in the cognitive task of being able to identify trends in resolving bioethical dilemmas by means of governmental mandates. Lecture/discussion and debates are suited to developing this student ability, by using current examples from the content listed. For example, the changing laws protecting sexual orientation have created mandates on employers, for example Catholic schools, which impact the constitutionally protected free exercise of religion.164 Legal mandates can cause the government to be the source of the violation of religious liberty, which government was created to protect.165 Focus on these issues can be integrated among a number of disciplines, such as the social sciences, particularly political science and communication, and the humanities, including philosophy and religion. Herein the cognitive ability to identify trends in resolving bioethical dilemmas by means of governmental mandates can be developed through case analyses and field experiences. These experiences can develop in the student affective competencies, such as responding and contributing as a citizen to resolving the political controversies about such mandates. For students in the applied disciplines (e.g., pre-law, law), internships with faculty oversight and conferencing provide tangible opportunities to witness government attempting to resolve an ethical debate through legal mandates.
3rd Competency: Propose resolutions to selected bioethical dilemmas in a manner consistent with natural moral law.
Content
Aristotle and the ethic of the good166
Aquinas and natural moral law167
Ethical theories: deontological and teleological168
Ethical and Religious Directives for Catholic Health Care Services169
Meaning of suffering170
Ordinary (proportionate) versus extraordinary means (disproportionate to benefit)
Cooperation in moral/immoral acts171
Principle of double effect
Moral certitude
Teaching Strategy
Application of knowledge is involved in the cognitive task of being able to propose resolutions to selected bioethical dilemmas in a manner consistent with natural moral law. Case studies are suited to developing this ability in students, by using current examples from the media. For example, the use of abortion in a pregnancy in which there are multiple fetuses and fetal or maternal health, or both, are at risk, would be a challenging case study. Competency to propose ethical resolutions requires prerequisite knowledge in the content areas listed under this competency, particularly natural moral law. Herein the role of philosophy and theology, as prerequisite courses regardless of the student’s discipline, is critical. The cognitive ability to apply theological principles and philosophical reasoning can be enhanced through case analyses that develop affective competencies such as problem solving and concern for others. As stated earlier, acquiring cognitive and affective domain competencies, which can be exercised in real life situations, requires practice similar to that required of psychomotor domain competencies. For students in the applied disciplines (e.g., pre-medicine), clinical experiences and pre- and post-conferencing for those experiences, provide invaluable opportunities to develop competency in applying the knowledge they are acquiring.
4th Competency: Analyze current trends in bioethical politics impacting the public’s perceptions of current bioethical issues.
Content
Extremes: secular relativism and theocracy; versus democracy and religious liberty172
Managed care and health care costs
The Sexual Revolution and the Women’s Movement: changing views on human sexuality, human life and marriage
The embryo and fetus as a commodity/property
Growth of the homosexual, lesbian, bisexual and transgendered advocacy movement
Professional standards of practice and religious liberty
Role of Catholic laity173
Teaching Strategy
The ability to analyze societal culture and its embrace of particular ethical theories (deontological, teleological, the ethic of the good, or natural moral law) is the requisite cognitive task needed to analyze current trends in bioethical politics impacting the public’s perceptions of current bioethical issues. A secular relativism174 and a utilitarian economic175 frequently dictate public perception and thus direct bioethical politics. Cross-discipline case studies are suited to developing this higher level ability in students, by using current examples from the content listed. For example, a required team-taught interdisciplinary course could be required of all students. Faculty from philosophy, theology, political science, sociology and psychology could engage the students in problem-based instruction in such areas as gender equity, human rights and religious liberty.176 Herein the cognitive ability to analyze current trends in bioethical politics impacting the public’s perceptions of current bioethical issues can also facilitate the development of affective competencies such as the organization of a value system (philosophy of life).177 Again acquiring cognitive and affective domain competencies, which can be exercised in real life situations, requires practice similar to that required of psychomotor domain competencies. For students in the applied disciplines (e.g., bioethics, chaplaincy, law), internships with faculty oversight and conferencing for those experiences, provide invaluable opportunities to directly analyze the bioethical politics shaping public perceptions of current bioethical issues.
5th Competency: Synthesize philosophical and theological foundations for the understanding of the dignity of the human person.
Content
Human organisms versus human beings
Dualism
Human nature and the virtues
Person as object
Theology of the Body178
Apportioning moral worth
Definitions of human dignity
Cooperation in moral/immoral acts179
Teaching Strategy
The ability to integrate learning from a number of disciplines is the requisite cognitive task needed to synthesize philosophical and theological foundations for the understanding of the dignity of the human person. Regardless of the concentration of study, graduates need a solid grounding in philosophy and theology not only to contribute to contemporary society, but also to function in society effectively. Respect for human dignity, as explicated in natural moral law, enables one to engage the world with a consistent and predictable value system, demonstrating the affective competency of having a value complex.180 After the foundational core courses have been completed, the same cross-discipline case studies cited above are suited to developing this higher-level ability in students. Again, acquiring cognitive and affective domain competencies, which can be exercised in real life situations, requires practice similar to that required of psychomotor domain competencies. For students in all of the applied disciplines, clinical placements or internships with faculty oversight and conferencing for those experiences provide invaluable opportunities to synthesize the knowledge they are acquiring.
For all of the identified competencies and content, faculty from all disciplines need to be involved in enabling students to be successful. Whether through an integrated approach within or among disciplines, or within discrete courses, or ideally a combination of both methods, faculty must be able to guide students to these ends.
Current Bioethical Challenges
Phenomenal developments in medical technology have outpaced society’s ability to engage in a moral analysis of their impact on the human person and the commonweal. The rudder has become the utilitarian ethic within this void, endangering those who are seen as not contributing to society. These vulnerable human beings are frequently those who have no voice or no advocate.
Most interestingly, there are attempts to silence those who provide a voice for such vulnerable human beings. This is particularly true if those advocates speak from a faith-based perspective. The opposing outcry bases its arguments on a misrepresentation of the First Amendment, claiming violations of the separation of church and state. Thus, increasingly, the very government charged with the protection of religious liberty is being used to silence these advocates for the voiceless, violating the very rights government is charged to protect. As the constitutional scholar Stephen Carter stated, “The potential transformation of the Establishment Clause from a guardian of religious freedom into a guarantor of public secularism raises prospects at once dismal and dreadful.”181 Furthermore, those who refuse to engage in violating the human rights and dignity of the vulnerable are being coerced to do so by government mandates.
There have been efforts to assure the constitutionally protected rights of conscience. In December 2008 the United States Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) issued a final rule to ensure that HHS funds do not support practices or policies in violation of existing federal conscience protection laws.182 Very quickly, however, efforts to abrogate these rules were initiated, with seven state attorneys general joining the American Civil Liberties Union and Planned Parenthood, suing the federal government to accomplish this end. A significant number of members of Congress and President Barack Obama have advocated for passage of the federal Freedom of Choice Act, which will make abortion an entitlement.183 Thus, individual health care providers and Catholic health care agencies could be required to violate conscience and cooperate in the provision of abortions. The burgeoning list of such mandates is formidable, and how they impact the bioethical challenges at hand will be addressed in relationship to each respective area below.
Of great dismay is the fact that professional organizations, created to protect the professional practices of their members, are advocating for the violation of individual conscience in the provision of care. For example, the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists has advanced a policy which requires the violation of physicians’ consciences. They admonish that conscience only may be accommodated if first the duty to the patient is met; and even then physicians of conscience are required to refer patients to other providers who are willing to offer the morally illicit procedures. Such physicians of conscience are to locate their practices in proximity to these other providers, for easier access for their patients. Furthermore, in emergencies when a referral is impossible, the physician is to act against conscience.184 The American Medical Association’s Board of Trustees “supports legislation that would require individual pharmacists and pharmacy chains to fill legally valid prescriptions or to provide immediate referral to an appropriate alternative dispensing pharmacy without interference.”185
What becomes increasingly apparent is that Catholic higher education can and should be a critical force in preparing citizens, and particularly professionals, who are capable of articulating and asserting not only their own rights in the face of such coercion, but the rights of the voiceless as well.
Assisted Reproductive Technologies
With the delay in parenting, brought on by widespread use of contraception in our society, more persons find themselves beyond the age of maximum fertility when they decide to become parents. The average age of American women having their first child has increased from 21 years of age in 1970186 to 24.9 years of age in 2000.187 The peak of female fertility occurs before age 30.188 Approximately two percent of women of childbearing age in the United States had an infertility-related medical appointment in 2002.189 Furthermore, individuals are choosing to be single parents, and homosexual couples are seeking parenthood by engaging assisted reproductive technologies, resulting in a separation of the marital conjugal act from the engendering of children.
In 1987 the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith provided moral guidance to married couples seeking medical assistance with their fertility with its instruction Donum Vitae (DV).190 This instruction addressed the evolving questions of the day concerning respect for the origin of human life and the dignity of procreation. DV elucidated two fundamental values connected with assisted reproductive technologies: “the life of the human being called into existence and the special nature of the transmission of human life in marriage.”191 It condemned heterologous technologies (use of sperm or egg from at least one donor other than the married spouses192) while providing moral guidance for homologous technologies, including criteria to be used to evaluate the moral legitimacy of such therapies. Citing Pius XII, DV instructed, “A medical intervention respects the dignity of persons when it seeks to assist the conjugal act either in order to facilitate its performance or in order to enable it to achieve its objective once it has been normally performed.”193(II, B, N. 7) DV continued:
DV anticipated the abuses perpetuated on the human embryo (to be addressed in the next section) when it spoke against non-therapeutic human research on the embryo and fetus, and eugenic prenatal diagnosis. (I. 2.) Finally, the instruction called for all persons to be involved in assuring that civil law is reflective of moral law:
In vitro fertilization opened the flood gates of abuse of the human embryo, from pre-implantation genetic diagnosis to unscrupulous multiple gestations, abortion, the creation of human-animal hybrids, and the legitimization of non-therapeutic fatal research on the “spare” embryos left un-implanted by their parents. Persons of goodwill sought to intervene and rescue the abandoned embryos through prenatal embryo adoption. Most notably, the Snowflake Program provided organized and life protecting methods for married couples to adopt, implant, gestate and raise these embryos into adulthood.196 Since this involved the condemned heterologous implantation of abandoned embryos, a dilemma was raised: was it morally licit to save the lives of these embryos through embryo adoption?
In 2008 the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith issued Dignitas Personae (DP). DP provided new guidance in the areas of techniques for assisting fertility, new forms of interception and contragestation, gene therapy, human cloning, the therapeutic use of stem cells, attempts at hybridization, and the use of human “biological material” of illicit origin. It provided more specificity pertaining to the illicit nature of certain assisted reproductive technologies, e.g., in vitro fertilization, intracytoplasmic sperm injection (ICSI), freezing of oocytes, pre-implantation diagnosis, the reduction (abortion) of embryos in multiple gestations, and the freezing of embryos (and the dilemma of their futures). Specifically, while not condemning embryo adoption, DP did not affirm it as morally licit:
Similar to DV, DP calls for action stating that there is an “urgent need to mobilize consciences in favour of life.”198 Assisted reproductive technology has been one focus for legislative and judicial mandates impacting conscience. Increasingly state legislatures are requiring employers to provide insurance coverage for in vitro fertilization in employee health plans. Furthermore, the courts are dictating the violation of the physician’s conscience in providing these technologies to patients. In August 2007, the California Supreme Court ruled that the anti-discrimination rights of an infertile lesbian take precedence over the religious liberty of physicians who had limited their in vitro fertilization practice to married heterosexual couples.199 Catholic higher education should play a major role in awakening and forming consciences to contemporary and evolving moral dilemmas and equipping future citizens, professionals and scholars to address these dilemmas personally as well as in the public square.
Embryonic Stem Cell Research
The first embryonic stem cell was not extracted until 1998,200 eleven years after DV. Although animal cloning was first successful in 1996 with the cloning of Dolly the sheep,201 cloning of a human embryo was not achieved until 2001.202 Thus, while DV condemned non-therapeutic research on the human embryo and fetus, embryonic stem cell research and human cloning remained unaddressed. As the search increased for embryonic stem cells that would not cause rejection in their recipients, human cloning was seen as the answer. The creation and destruction of human embryos for research was justified.
DP clearly addresses this violation of human life:
In less than a quarter of a century since DV, the speculated-upon Brave New World has become a reality.204 Despite the historic protections in federal law of the embryo, efforts have been successful in dehumanizing the embryo, erroneously calling the creation and destruction of the embryo with the support of tax dollars not only acceptable, but laudable. Where this has occurred, such public funding has placed a mandate on citizens, requiring the support this intrinsic evil with tax dollars.
Historically Congress has provided the same protection to the embryo and fetus as is provided to an infant. In 1975 the federal government established federal regulations for the protection of human embryos from the time of implantation in the womb.205 In 1985 Congress further clarified this standard by amending the National Institutes of Health reauthorization act providing research protections that are “the same for fetuses which are intended to be aborted and fetuses which are intended to be carried to term.”206 In 1996 Congress passed legislation to provide the same protections to the embryo; the Dickey-Wicker Amendment stated that federal funds are not to be used for the creation of human embryos for research purposes or for research in which embryos are destroyed, discarded, or knowingly subjected to risk of injury or death greater than that allowed for research on fetuses in utero. The ban defined “human embryo or embryos” as including any organism that is derived by fertilization, parthenogenesis, cloning or any other means from one or more human gametes (sperm or egg.).207
Yet federal protections are being eroded, and state legislatures are funding embryonic stem cell research in the name of economic development. This is despite the fact that embryonic stem cell research in humans has not been demonstrated to be clinically effective in humans. The ethical stem cell alternatives using adult sources of stem cells (including umbilical cord blood, amniotic fluid and placental sources) successfully have treated thousands of patients, from those with cardiac disease and pediatric brain tumors to the widely-known successes with blood diseases. Scientists have demonstrated that they are able to induce pluripotent stem cells from somatic cells without creating or destroying human embryos.208 All of these morally licit methods can obviate the problem of tissue rejection.
More fundamentally, however, government must respect and protect human life regardless of any utilitarian scientific advance. It cannot single out certain human beings as disposable, simply because their parents or society in general do not want them.
DP addressed this discrimination against embryos, abandoned to fatal research by their parents after pre-implantation diagnosis labeled the embryos unsuitable:
Catholic higher education can be of substantial assistance in demythologizing these public policy debates. Legislatures and the public have been misled by technical terminology into believing that falsely-labeled cloning bans actually ban cloning, when in fact they allow (and in many cases fund) the creation of human embryos for research and destruction. New and false terminologies, such as “pre-embryo,” have been created to deceive the public into believing that the embryo is not a human being. Those educated in the sciences, grounded in truth and natural law, not only can expose these falsehoods but also can articulate the resulting assault on the common good.
Sexual Assault Protocols
In 2006 the United States Food and Drug Administration (FDA) approved the dispensing of emergency contraception, Plan B, by a pharmacist without a prescription to male and female adults. In 2009, the FDA lowered the age to from adulthood to 17 years of age.[92]210 A number of states also promulgated legal provisions pertaining to pharmacist dispensing of emergency contraception.
Only a few states provide a pharmacist refusal provision based on conscience. When such provisions do exist, they are tenuous at best and require some mechanism for timely alternative access to emergency contraception. Increasingly, state legislatures mandate that emergency departments provide information about administration of, or arrangement for transportation to another facility for, emergency contraception to victims of sexual assault even when there is an indication that the medication could impede implantation of an engendered embryo.
State statutory conscience exemptions for such requirements are nearly non-existent. This is extremely problematic, particularly since the recent instruction of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, Dignitas Personae states:
Catholic health care has been in the forefront of compassionate care in the treatment of sexual assault victims. In fact, due to the possibility that treatment can impact two victims (the woman assaulted and the human being potentially being engendered), Catholic hospitals had holistic policies in place long before secular hospitals. Such policies include physical, psychological, spiritual and forensic parameters of care.212
The health care provider, however, must achieve the moral certitude, through appropriate testing, that the object of preventing ovulation with each administration of the emergency contraceptive can be achieved, rather than a potential post fertilization effect. By not testing to achieve the moral certitude that fertilization can be prevented when administering the emergency contraception, the health care provider could engage in immediate material cooperation with those intending the intrinsic evil of abortion. This would be true if the administration of emergency contraception is upon the request of the victim, or in response to a mandate from government, either of whose intentions are to prevent implantation of the embryo if fertilization cannot be prevented.213
State legislatures are dictating health care protocols that demand administration of emergency contraception without allowing for diagnostic testing to determine what effect the medication will have on the particular patient in question. This is not only a violation of conscience, but also the violation of informed consent as well as sound medical practice.
In situations such as these, informed citizens, consumers and professionals are key to informing the general population of the dangers of a constitutional government that violates its own constitution, by selecting which powerful groups are granted favoured status, e.g., those demanding reproductive “rights” over the rights of religious liberty. To articulate these constitutional violations requires some sophistication in a climate that does not want citizens to be confused by the facts. Catholic higher education is known for its pursuit of truth through scholarship and is well suited to accomplishing this end.
Transgender Surgery
The sexual culture is being defined by an international movement that equates all human sexuality as a “good,” regardless of whether it involves acts that are heterosexual, homosexual, lesbian, bi-sexual, transgendered, within marriage or non-monogamous. Such a philosophy radically redefines the nature of human sexuality, divorcing its proper unitive and procreative purposes. The societal role of heterosexual marriage and the children it begets is becoming marginalized, equated to all other unions in which people choose to engage. Numerous permutations of “marital rights” are being legislated, with corresponding obligations on others: reciprocal beneficiaries, domestic partnerships, civil unions and same-sex marriage.
There are new “rights” also being extended through what are called “gender identity” laws. All states prohibit discrimination based on gender. Thus, the newer “gender identity” legislative protections are being promoted in such a way that any attempt to allow for religious exemptions is being labeled a violation of civil rights. These new legal categories of relationships and behaviors are being legislated as “protected classes”214 equal to race, color, religion, sex or national origin and increasingly taking precedence over the rights of religious liberty. An example of this is the loss of the New Jersey tax-exempt status by a Methodist-sponsored camp ground which refused to allow a same-sex union ceremony in its marriage pavilion.215
The implications for employers and providers of services are significant. Gender identity “protections” could require employers such as Catholic schools to allow the first grade teacher to be identified as Ms. Jones on Monday and Mr. Jones on Tuesday, with respective appearances to match the identity. Furthermore, in the delivery of health care services, mandates pursuant to transgender surgery already have been faced by Catholic providers.216 Some states expressly prohibit discrimination against same-sex couples in adoption policies. This has had a significant impact on the ability of diocesan Catholic Charities to provide adoption services; for example, in March 2006 after 100 years of providing adoption services, Catholic Charities of Boston had to cease such services rather than comply with this mandate. More recently Catholic Charities of Worcester experienced the same fate.
Here, again, one of the major roles of Catholic higher education is to prepare graduates who are able and willing to articulate the moral and legal principles involved when legally created rights conflict. Those responsible for developing social policies need to have an appreciation that a viable society must be grounded in natural law. Furthermore, and perhaps most importantly, graduates of Catholic higher education need to be able to shape these debates consistent with the truth that natural moral law is not a religious belief, but a practical reality the acknowledgement and acceptance of which allows a society to survive.
Care of Those in a Persistent Vegetative State
The case of Terri Schiavo brought the issue of care of persons in a persistent vegetative state into the public domain.217 Much of the controversy surrounded whether or not her wishes concerning her care were being respected, especially since she had no advanced directive.218 Another controversy surrounded whether or not she truly was in a vegetative state. Politicians and judges and advocates for “death with dignity” and the “right to life” became involved with this case. The central question was whether Mrs. Schiavo had given her consent to the continuance of assisted nutrition and hydration, which were keeping her alive.
Regardless of the answers to these questions, there are fundamental moral principles operable in providing assisted nutrition and hydration to those in a persistent vegetative state. These principles were explicated in a response from the Vatican’s Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith (CDF) to a dubium from the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops. This response was not addressed to any one patient situation, but did address the moral questions generated by the Schiavo case. Specifically, the response stated:
Society has embarked on the slippery slope of situation ethics, equating a person’s ability to lead what others determine is a “meaningful life” to human dignity. Human dignity is a redundant phase; such dignity is innate and synonymous with being human. It cannot be lost or taken away. Yet studies show that those who request physician assisted suicide fear the loss of such dignity.220 This translates into not wanting to be a burden and thus rejected by loved ones. The societal impact is significant. In jurisdictions where assisted suicide has become accepted policy, such as the Netherlands, there now is the provision for euthanasia for those who cannot consent, such as disabled infants.221
Public policy should be in the hands of the public, but an informed public which has been given all of the truths and the skills to uncover the truth, needed for shaping policies that impact the public good. Education focused only on the “how” and not the “why” has led to the ethical dilemmas of the day, be they biomedical, economic or social. This is where Catholic higher education, using an integrated theological and philosophical approach to ethics education, can be of immeasurable service to the commonweal. Below this paper will address more specific suggestions pursuant to these areas, concluding with a discussion of best practices.
Social Politics Impacting Bioethics Education
The fruits of the civil rights movement are good and bountiful in so many ways. The Civil Rights Act of 1964 made it illegal to discriminate against persons based on race, color, religion, sex or national origin. Incrementally, federal legislation was passed to protect other classes of persons facing discrimination, e.g., the 1968 Fair Housing Act added familial status and people with disabilities to such protected classes.222 Initially, these laws may have forced persons to change immoral and inhumane behaviors toward others, but eventually the changes in behaviors and associations led to positive changes in perceptions and beliefs. For the first time in history, with the election of Barack Obama, we have a president of the United States whose father was African and whose mother was Caucasian. Two women were advanced by their political parties for nomination or as a candidate for president or vice-president of the United States.223 The willingness of society to embrace diversity is palpable.
However, the civil rights movement has been hijacked by those attempting to advance their own cultural agendas which will redefine society as we know it. With these new agendas, non-discrimination only applies to those having the power to control the agenda. Thus the unborn human being with a disability who cannot speak for herself has no power and no rights. Those advocating for these vulnerable human beings become labeled as religious fanatics. Thus religion becomes marginalized and in effect the object of discrimination.
Case law is pitting religious liberty, supposedly constitutionally protected, against an increasing state interest in fostering equality between the sexes.224 Most alarmingly, gender identity is redefined to mean anything one chooses it to be at any time, and marriage and family are also so redefined.225 Again, any group advocating for maintaining heterosexual marriage and family as the social institution that is the fabric of society from its origin is labeled a bigot.
Health care professionals who wish to exercise conscience in the delivery of health care are labeled discriminatory. In fact they often are impeded from invoking their consciences in the exercise of their professions.226 Laws are advanced, such as the federal Freedom of Choice Act, with language that is a misnomer; the only free choices that will be protected are those choices which will violate the lives of the vulnerable.227 Conscience protections for health care professionals, enshrined in federal law since the 1973 Church amendments,228 are in jeopardy.
This is where the role of Catholic higher education enters: to help the future shapers of society to sort through the rhetoric, the misuse of terminology (deliberate and otherwise), and the misinterpretation of the federal and state constitutions which allow for the violation of human life, the Hippocratic practice of medicine and the role of marriage and family in society.
However, somewhere along the way, the mission of Catholic higher education has been attenuated. Herdershott attributes this secularization of mission to what she terms “status envy:” the attempt of Catholic higher education to achieve elite status at the expense of mission.229 She cites as the origin of this phenomenon an essay by Monsignor John Tracy Ellis, written over half a century ago. Ellis accused Catholic campus faculty of giving priority to students’ moral development over scholarship and intellectual excellence.230 Hendershott proceeds through an historical analysis in which Catholic higher education’s Catholic identity has been “defined down,” the mission secularized, theology confused and boundaries blurred. Most telling is her report of a survey of 7,200 incoming students of thirty-eight Catholic institutions of higher education, with a repeat of the same survey four years later. Between admission and graduation, student support for the following socially destructive behaviors increased as follows: legalized abortion (37.9 percent to 51.7 percent), premarital sex (27.5 percent to 48.0 percent), and same-sex marriage (52.4 percent to 69.5 percent).231
Many bioethical issues touch upon an understanding of the sacredness of human life from its engendering until natural death, human sexuality, and the sacredness of marriage and family. Clearly, social politics has impacted Catholic higher education and most notably in the area of bioethics education. With the results of the aforementioned survey one is left asking how well-versed are these graduates in natural moral law? How grounded are the faculty, and the curricula for which they are responsible, in natural moral law?
Faculty Obligations to Prepare Graduates Capable of Resolving Bioethical Dilemmas of the Day
The need to prepare graduates of Catholic higher education who are capable of resolving contemporary ethical dilemmas creates obligations for faculty, faculty hiring practices, and faculty retention and development policies.
There has been much confusion over the years concerning faculty rights, pursuant to academic freedom, and faculty obligations to embrace the mission of the institution for which they have agreed to be an agent of education. The need for educating students consistent with the mission of any institution with which faculty engage is not a parochial standard. Educational accrediting standards, regardless of the sponsorship of the institution of higher education, require that an institution has a mission statement which is manifested through its curriculum.232 This is not an invention of Catholic higher education administration.
Yet all one has to do is attend to the media to see some faculty in Catholic colleges claiming that such a requirement is a violation of academic freedom. A recent example can be seen in the outrage some faculty expressed when crucifixes were placed in classrooms of Boston College, claiming that this traditional Catholic practice creates an environment hostile to open intellectual discourse, thereby asking that we accept the absurdity of their implication that a Catholic college cannot implement its own mission.233
The concept of academic freedom is as misunderstood as the concept of the separation of church and state. The American Association of University Professors and Association of American Colleges and Universities agree that:
While Dignitatis Humanae hails the right to freedom, both individual and communal, it also states that:
Somehow in the age of cultural relativism, the concept that academe is to be in search of eternal truths has been lost. Freedom, whether academic or social, became defined as freedom to do what one wants, not the more accurate definition consistent with natural law: freedom to act toward the good. Educators sometimes envision themselves as agents of social change, dissent and even civil disobedience. In recent history, colleges and universities were in the forefront of the 1960s civil rights movement and the anti-Vietnam War movement. While many engaged in laudable non-violent protests, for some the rallying against authority included violence which was praised as a strike for social justice. Enter the sexual revolution through the discovery of oral contraception,236 with the Church’s teaching on the inseparable unitive and procreative gifts of married love,237 and the Church became the target for scholarly dissent. Father Charles Curran sued The Catholic University of America for suspending him for his dissent from Church teaching. The Superior Court of the District of Columbia ruled against Curran, citing the pontifical nature of the university, and found that that there is “an ecclesiastical limit” on theological dissent.238 However, throughout the United States the conflicts continue, leading to confusion by students and often dismay by parents whose intent in sending their children to a Catholic institution of higher education may have been usurped by the unresolved tension between institutional mission and academic freedom.
There are Catholic institutions of higher education that have embraced this opportunity to clarify their unique role in education. In so doing, they have acknowledged that not all faculty upon hiring were grounded solidly in Catholic dogma, or were even Catholic. Such an acknowledgement recognizes the obligation to provide ongoing faculty development in Catholic doctrine. Some of the best contemporary practices also prepare faculty to be versed in the Church’s teaching on contemporary bioethical dilemmas, to enable them to prepare their graduates for the challenges they face in our culture.
Holy Apostles College and Seminary239 is a residential seminary and a commuter college located in the diocese of Norwich, Connecticut. The seminary was originally operated by the Missionaries of the Holy Apostles, an order of priests. In 1984 the order invited the three Roman Catholic diocesan bishops of Connecticut to join the Board of Directors, along with lay men and women. The bishop of the Diocese of Norwich serves as the school’s chancellor.
The integration of the college and the seminary enables the cultivation of lay, consecrated and ordained Catholic leaders for the purpose of evangelization in the modern world. There are four Bachelor of Arts major concentrations: Theology, Philosophy, English in the Humanities, and History in the Social Sciences. A firm grounding in the tradition of Catholic moral teaching and a clear understanding of the Church’s teaching on contemporary bioethical issues is essential for all students, enabling them to be leaders in evangelization. Every undergraduate and graduate class, whether in theology, philosophy, humanities or social sciences, is taught from the perspective of natural moral law with applications to key contemporary issues of human life and sexuality. Courses in sociology, psychology and biology, for example, reaffirm the truth of the person in light of the anthropology articulated by Pope John Paul II in the Theology of the Body.240
The goal of the undergraduate program is to provide a philosophically based Catholic honors liberal arts curriculum to prepare students for graduate study and most especially for life. Each student is required to take eight courses in philosophy: logic, ancient philosophy, medieval philosophy, metaphysics, epistemology, philosophy of man, and ethics and contemporary issues in philosophy. These courses educate in the true sense of the word: “to draw out from the students,” enabling them to discover the truth, the beauty and the good in the natural moral law accessible by right reason. A key goal is to enable each graduate to articulate correctly the basis in reason for Catholic moral teaching on contemporary bioethical issues.
Furthermore, each undergraduate student is required to take seven courses in theology. The Catechism of the Catholic Church241 is studied in its entirety over two semesters. Special emphasis is given to the “pillar” of moral teaching as this is the locus at which the Church faces most present-day difficulties in catechesis and culture. Courses in scripture, liturgy, spirituality and Church history are rooted in Pope John Paul’s exegesis of Genesis242 on sexuality, complementarity of the sexes, and the sacredness of every human life.
Holy Apostles has a very qualified and dedicated core of undergraduate professors. The small size of the student body, and thus its faculty, enable interdisciplinary collaboration and cohesiveness. This allows for a sharing of expertise. While courses are not team taught, it is not uncommon for faculty members to become guest lecturers in each others’ classes, bringing their particular expertise to the subject at hand. For example, a professor of philosophy conducted a seminar on the philosophical underpinnings of John Paul II’s Theology of the Body.243 The same kind of collaboration occurred with the study of the philosophical basis of Pope Paul VI’s encyclical on human life, Humanae Vitae.244 Philosophy is recognized as the “handmaid” of theology, and the two disciplines remain closely linked.
The focus of the undergraduate program is to provide an honors liberal arts curriculum with a view to specialization in graduate school. The school does not offer concentrations per se within the undergraduate majors. The student can, however, choose to exercise his or her elective courses to enhance preparation in bioethics.
The Pope John Paul II Bioethics Center was founded at Holy Apostles College and Seminary in 1982. The Center offers graduate courses in bioethics and a concentration of bioethics in the Master of Arts Degree in Theology. In addition, the Center sponsors lectures for the community at large and has published a number of important articles and monographs. The undergraduate students benefit from the public lectures and, with the permission of the Academic Dean, may enroll in advance placement graduate bioethics courses. The courses offered by the Bioethics Center are available on campus or via distance learning.
Faculty members of Holy Apostles are committed to ongoing education. Faculty are active participants in the Fides et Ratio summer seminars for undergraduate professors of Catholic colleges and universities in the United States.245 An important outcome of the summer seminars is to continue the seminar discussions at the institution of each participant. Ensuing campus-based faculty discussions have focused on important contemporary issues facing the Church. Common readings are prepared by each faculty member to facilitate quality discussion and mutual enrichment. The faculty also attend public lectures and conferences on bioethical issues.
In addition to the many formal educational opportunities offered to undergraduate students on bioethical topics, a culture permeates the campus in which a love of the Church and her teachings is palpable. The life of the College and Seminary is centered in the chapel. There is a Holy Hour for Life and Mercy each Saturday afternoon which includes readings and reflections from Pope John Paul II’s Evangelium Vitae.246 Students have the opportunity to pray and reflect at Adam’s Tomb on campus where a pre-born child is buried. The Holy Apostles Life League is very active with many lay and seminarian members participate through volunteering in life affirming activities. Through these experiences the undergraduate students have the opportunity to face contemporary bioethical issues firsthand. Furthermore, through organized contact with public officials students and faculty have become engaged in the political processes that shape public policy. As future professionals, consumers of health care, and citizens who direct public policy, Holy Apostles graduates, be they clergy or laity, are being prepared to reshape a society that is respectful of natural moral law.
We find another example of “best practices” at the University of Saint Thomas, an archdiocesan university in Saint Paul, Minnesota. The University of Saint Thomas sponsored a week-long seminar for faculty, funded by a Lilly Foundation Grant,247 “The Church and the Bioethical Public Square.” The seminar was conducted out of the Catholic Studies program and attracted faculty from diverse disciplines, as well as students and members of the surrounding community. This seminar was part of an organized effort to assure the incorporation of mission into efforts of the academic community.
Students, regardless of their major, are required to take two core courses in philosophy (“Philosophy of the Human Person” and “Ethics”) and three core courses in theology sequence. The theology sequence is quite unique in its sequential focus on assisting the student to integrate theological concepts into their encounter with culture. The first course is “The Christian Theological Tradition.” The other two courses can vary: the second-level course introduces students to the actual practice of theology through one of the major theological sub-disciplines (Scripture, morals, systematics). In the third course, the student is asked to examine the relationship between faith and culture in some aspect, e.g., “Theology and the Biomedical Revolution.” Recently initiated are what are termed “bridge courses” which pair theology and non-theology faculty in an examination of some cultural or professional topic, e.g., “Theology and Literature,” “Theology and Engineering,” “Theology and Medicine,” “Theology and Mass Media,” etc.
The University’s ongoing commitment to a liberal arts core course sequence is one of the key ways in which Catholic identity is promoted. As the director of the Masters Degree Programs in Catholic Studies stated: “You obviously don’t need to be a Catholic to appreciate the liberal arts, but as more and more colleges and universities simply give up on the notion of a ‘core’ tradition of liberal/humanistic studies, the very idea begins to take on a distinctively Catholic patina.”248
Likewise bioethics education devoid of grounding in natural moral law becomes an exercise in the subjective ethics of situation ethics, consequentialism and utilitarianism. Without a “core” tradition which also allows for “bridge courses” preparing graduates for the cultural relativism they are facing, graduates of Catholic higher education will be no different from other graduates. The mission of Catholic higher education will be lost, and the purpose for its existence extinct.
*The author wishes to express her appreciation to Dr. Stephen Napier, Ph.D., Staff Ethicist, National Catholic Bioethics Center, for his assistance with this paper.
References
Ascension Health. “A Sexual Assault Protocol for Catholic Hospitals.“ Ethics and Medics (June 2002 27:6).
ADAM Medical Encyclopedia (Atlanta, GA: ADAM, 2005). s.v. “Infertility,” updated February 5, 2008, http://www.nlm.nih.gov/medlineplus/ency/article/001191.htm.
Amato, Angelo, S.D.B., Titular Archbishop of Sila, Prefect for the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith. “Responses to Certain Questions of the USCCB Concerning Artificial Nutrition and Hydration” Ethics and Medics (vol. 32/no. 11, November 2007), p. 3.
American Association of University Professors and of the Association of American Colleges (now the Association of American Colleges and Universities). 1940 Statement of Principles on Academic Freedom and Tenure. Reprinted with editing and interpretive comments (January 1990), http://www.aaup.org/AAUP/pubsres/policydocs/contents/1940statement.htm.
American College of Surgeons Board of Regents. “Minimum Standard,” History and Archives of the American College of Surgeons (December 20, 1919), http://www.facs.org/archives/minimumhighlight.html.
Benedict XVI. Address to Catholic Educators. Washington, DC: The Catholic University of America (April 17, 2008).
Benedict XVI. Encyclical Letter Spe Salvi: In Hope We are Saved (November 30, 2007.
Berman, Harold J. “The Religious Clauses of the First Amendment in Historical Perspective.” Religion and Politics, ed. W. Laswon Taitte. Dallas: University of Texas Press (1989).
Bostrom, Nick. “The Transhumanist FAQ– A General Introduction.”World Transhumanist Assoc: Version 2.1 (2003).
Canon Law Society of America. Code of Canon Law: Latin–English Edition, New English Translation. Washington, D.C.: CLSA (1999).
Carter, Stephen L. The Culture of Disbelief: How American Law and Politics Trivialize Religious Devotion. New York: Basic Books (1993).
Catholic Charities of the Diocese of Albany v. Gregory V. Serio, New York Court of Appeals, no. 110 (October 19, 2006), 16, http://www.nycourts.gov/ctapps/decisions/oct06/110opn06.pdf. by the New York State Court of Appeals.
Cibelli, Jose B., et al. “The First Human Cloned Embryo.” Scientific American (November 24, 2001), http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?id=0008B8F9-AC62-1C75-9B81809EC588EF21.
College of Liberal Arts & Sciences at UNC Charlotte. “Mission and Vision.” Center for Professional and Applied Ethics. University of North Carolina at Charlotte, http://www.ethics.uncc.edu/.
Committee on the Status and Future of the Profession. The Role of Philosophy Programs in Higher Education. Newark, DE: American Philosophical Association (Nov 2008).
Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith. Declaration on Euthanasia (May 5, 1980).
Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith. Declaration on Procured Abortion (1974).
Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith. Instruction Dignitas Personae on Certain Bioethical Questions (8 September 2008).
Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith. (Donum Vitae) Respect for Human Life (22 February 1987).
Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith. “Responses to Certain Questions of the USCCB Concerning Artificial Nutrition and Hydration (August 1, 2007), with Accompanying Commentary.” Reprinted in Ethics & Medics 32.11 (November 2007): 3.
Curran, Charles E. Catholic Moral Theology in the United States: A History. Georgetown: Georgetown Univ. Press (2008).
Ellis, John Tracy. “American Catholics and the Intellectual Life.” Thought 30 (Autumn 1955), 351-388.
Fletcher, Joseph. Situation Ethics: the New Morality. Westminster: John Knox Press (1997).
Gilson, Etienne et al. Thomisim: The Philosophy of Thomas Aquinas. Toronto: Pontifical Institute of Mediaeval Studies (2002).
Glazer, E. “Problem Based Instruction.” In M. Orey (Ed.). Emerging perspectives on learning, teaching, and technology (2001), Retrieved 18 February 2009, from http://projects.coe.uga.edu/epltt/
Gronlund, Norman E. Stating Objectives for Classroom Instruction, Second Edition New York: Macmillan Publishing Co., Inc. (1978).
Hardon, Fr. John A., S.J. The Meaning of Virtue in Thomas Aquinas. Manassas, VA: Trinity Communications, Taken from the “Great Catholic Books Newsletter” (Volume II, Number 1), http://www.ewtn.com/library/SPIRIT/MEANVIR.TXT.
Charlene Hastings vs. Seton Medical Center et al. Superior Court of California, County of San Francisco (CGC-07-470336, 20 Sept 2008).
Hendershott, Anne. Status Envy: The Politics of Catholic Higher Education (New Brunswick, NJ: Transaction Publishers, 2009).
Hilliard, Marie T. “Contraceptive Mandates and the Avoidance of Culpable Negligence,” Urged on by Christ: Catholic Health Care in Tension with Contemporary Culture, Philadelphia, PA: National Catholic Bioethics Center (2007), 127-142.
Hilliard, Marie T. “Dignitas Personae and Emergency Contraception.” Ethics and Medics (February 2009, 34:2).
Hollowell, Kelly. “Distorting Science for the Secular Agenda.” WorldNet Daily (April 17, 2004), http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=38081.
Huxley, Aldous. Brave New World (London: HarperCollins, first Perennial Modern Classics edition, 1932).
Indiana Commission for Higher Education. “Aspirations for Indiana Post Secondary Education: Student Success” (June, 08, 2007).
John XXIII. Encyclical Pacem et Terris, 11 April 1963. English Translation in The Pope Speaks, 9 (1963), 13-48.
John Paul II. Catechism of the Catholic Church, English Translation. Washington, DC: USCCB, Second Edition (2000).
John Paul II. Encyclical Letter Evangelium vitae, 25 Mar. 1995 (7 Dec. 2007), http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/john_paul_ii/encyclicals/documents/hf_jp-ii_enc_25031995_evangelium-vitae_en.html.
John Paul II. Encyclical Letter Fides et Ratio (Sept. 15, 1998), http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/john_paul_ii/encyclicals/documents/hf_jp-ii_enc_15101998_fides-et-ratio_en.html.
John Paul II. Post-Synodal Apostolic Exhortation Christifideles Laici: On the Vocation and the Mission of the Lay Faithful in the Church and in the World (Washington, D.C.: United States Catholic Conference, 1988).
John Paul II. Address to those taking part in the International Congress of Moral Theology (April 10,1986), 1; Insegnamenti IX, 1 (1986).
John Paul II. Apconst Ex corde Ecclesiae (Vatican: Libreria Editrice, August 15, 1990).
John Paul II. Apostolic Letter Salvifici Doloris: On the Christian Meaning of Human Suffering. Washington: United States Catholic Conference (1984).
John Paul II. Encyclical Letter Veritatis Splendor:The Splendor of Truth (Washington, D.C.: United States Catholic Conference, 1993).
Kleinsman, John. “Surveying a Catholic Approach to Bioethics.” The Nathaniel Report: Issue Seven. The Nathaniel Centre: The New Zealand Catholic Bioethics Centre (2002).
Kraut, R. “Aristotle’s Ethics.” Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (July 17, 2007), 2. “The Human Good and the Function of Argument,” http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/aristotle-ethics/#HumGooFunArg.
Levine, Maurice. Psychiatry and Ethics. New York: G. Braziller (1972).
Liggio, Leonard P. “Smith and Utilitarian Economic Freedom.” Literature of Liberty (October/December 1978, vol. 1, No. 4, 1978).
Lindemann, H. and M. Verkerk. “Ending the Life of a Newborn: The Groningen Protocol.” The Hastings Center Report (Jan-Feb 2008), 42-51.
McLaren A. “Cloning: pathways to a pluripotent future.” Science 288: 5472 (2000), 1775–80, doi:10.1126/science.288.5472.1775. PMID 10877698.
Mill, John Stuart. “Utilitarianism.” Fraser’s Magazine (1861).
Morey, Melanie M. and John J. Piderit, S.J. Catholic Higher Education: A Culture in Crisis. New York City: Oxford Univ. Press (2006).
McMurtrie, Beth . “Catholic Colleges Fail to Impart Church’s Teachings, Study’s Author Says.” The Chronicle of Higher Education 49 (March 21, 2003), A 38.
National Catholic Bioethics Center. “Table of Legal Mandates, State by State” (Updated quarterly), http://www.ncbcenter.org/MandatedProcedures.pdf.
National Library of Medicine, National Institutes of Health. “History of Medicine: Hippocratic Oath.” Greek Medicine (11 Sept 2002), http://www.nlm.nih.gov/hmd/greek/greek_oath.html.
The North Central Association of Colleges and Schools. The Higher Learning Commission Institutional Accreditation: An Overview. Chicago: Higher Learning Commission, NCA (2003).
North Coast Women’s Care Medical Group, Inc., et al., v. San Diego County Superior Court. California Supreme Court (Super. Ct. No. GIC770165, 18 August 2008).
O’Reilly, Kevin B. “Oregon still stands alone: Ten years of physician-assisted suicide.” AMNews (May 12, 2008).
Paul VI. Declaration on Religious Freedom Dignitatis Humanae: On the Right of the Person and of Communities to Social and Civil Freedom in Matters Religious (Dec. 7, 1965).
Paul VI. Pastoral Constitution on the Church in the Modern World Gaudium et Spes (Dec 7, 1965).
Paul VI. Encyclical Letter, Humanae Vitae: On the Regulation of Birth. Washington DC: US Conference of Catholic Bishops (1968).
Payton, Rita Jean. “A Bioethical Program for Baccalaureate Nursing Students” in Ethics in Nursing Practice and Education, ed. American Nurses Association Committee on Ethics. Kansas City, MO: ANA (1980) 53-65.
Peet, Judy. “State withdraws tax break for Ocean Grove pavilion.” Real-Time News (Sept 17, 2007), http://www.nj.com/news/index.ssf/2007/09/state_withdraws_tax_break_for.html.
Pius XII. “Discourse to those taking part in the 4th International Congress of Catholic Doctors” (September 29, 1949). AAS 41 (1949).
Pontifical Academy for Life. letter, “Moral Reflections on Vaccines Prepared from Cells Derived from Aborted Human Fetuses” (June 9, 2005).
President’s Council on Bioethics. Beyond Therapy: Biotechnology and the Pursuit of Happiness. Washington, D.C. (October 2003), http://bioethics.gov/topics/beyond_index.html.
Second Vatican Ecumenical Council. Decree on the Apostolate of the Laity. Apostolicam Actuositatem (1965), no. 1.
Smith, Prof. Randall B. “Christianity and the Liberal Arts: Intellectual Community as a Foundation for Faith.” Joy in the Truth: The Catholic University in the New Millennium. Notre Dame: Center for Ethics and Culture, Proceedings (Sept 30, 2003), Colloquium Session 3.
Stanford University. Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Feb 9, 2006), http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/consequentialism/.
Thomson, James A., et al. “Embryonic Stem Cell Lines Derived from Human Blastocysts.” Science 6: Vol. 282. no. 5391 (November 1998), pp. 1145 – 1147.
UNECE. “Trends in Europe and North America.” The Statistical Yearbook of the Economic Commission for Europe (2005), http://www.unece.org/stats/trends2005/Sources/115_B_Mean%20age%20of%20women%20at%20the%20birth%20of%20the%20first%20child.pdf.
United States Conference of Catholic Bishops. New American Bible. Washington, DC: USCCB (1991).
United States Conference of Catholic Bishops. Ethical and Religious Directives for Catholic Health Care Services, 4th ed. Washington, D.C.: USCCB (2001).
United States Department of Health and Human Services. “Ensuring that Department of Health and Human Services Funds Do Not Support Coercive or Discriminatory Policies or Practices in Violation of Federal Law.” Federal Register: 73:245 (December 19, 2008), Rules and Regulations, pp. 78071-78101.
United States Department of Health and Human Services. “Title 45: Public Welfare.” CFR (46.204), http://www.hhs.gov/ohrp/humansubjects/guidance/45cfr46.htm#46.204.
United States Department of Health and Human Services, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. “Assisted Reproductive Technology.” Updated February 9, 2009, http://www.cdc.gov/ART/.
United States Food and Drug Administration, Center for Drug Evaluation and Research. “Plan B: Questions and Answers” (August 24, 2006, updated December 14, 2006), http://www.fda.gov/cder/drug/infopage/planB/planBQandA20060824.htm.
United States Senate, Joint Economic Committee. “Fact Sheet: Investing in Raising Children” (February 2007).
Weir, Richard. “Boston College in the Cross Hair: Outrage over Crucifixes Hung in Classrooms.” Boston Herald (Feb 12, 2009), http://www.bostonherald.com/news/regional/view.bg?articleid=1151661.
West, Christopher. Theology of the Body Explained, Revised Edition, from John Paul II’s 129 Wednesday audiences between 1979-1984. Boston, MA: Pauline Books and Media (2007).
Yamanaka, S., et al. “Generation of germline-competent induced pluripotent stem cells.” Nature 448 (2007), 313-7.