The “Hook-Up” Culture on Catholic Campuses: A Review of the Literature

/in , /by

The dynamics surrounding intimate relationships among Catholic college students is of special concern to Catholic families and educators, because these relationships often and eventually lead to marriage.  The Catholic Church teaches that marriage is instituted and ordained by God as the union of one man with one woman, and that sexual behavior is reserved for marriage.  This review of social science literature considers whether the student culture on Catholic college and university campuses reinforces these teachings and facilitates the pathway from healthy intimate relationships to marriage.

Throughout history, our society has provided ways to encourage “pair bonding” through providing opportunity situations.  Historically, colleges and universities—especially Catholic colleges and universities—believed that they needed to play an active role in helping their students find happiness and meaningful relationships with those of the opposite sex during their years on campus.  Providing what sociologists call “opportunity situations” used to play an important role in the student life on most college campuses, because at one time the adults leading these schools recognized how important it is that young people meet each other, fall in love, and form families.

Until the 1980s, most colleges and universities—secular as well as sectarian—believed it was their duty to offer opportunity situations including dances, clubs and other recreational activities, designed to help their students create and maintain healthy and satisfying intimate relationships.  Even single-sex Catholic colleges used to arrange school-sponsored and supervised dances (often called “mixers”) with neighboring schools to facilitate the opportunity for those at the all-male school to meet those from the all-female school.  College administrators used to believe that they needed to take care of their students—both academically and socially.  But, as most Catholic colleges moved from single-sex to co-educational in the 1970s and 80s, the perceived need for such “mixers” disappeared.

Today, it appears that many student life administrators have moved from a pro-active role in helping to facilitate healthy pair bonding to a reactive role in helping to pick up the pieces and repairing the very real damages when a degraded campus culture of casual sex emerges.  The conventional wisdom is that students are best left to their own devices in meeting and mating.  This paper finds significant consequences for both the individual and the institution.

A damage assessment

During the past decade, there has been a growing body of literature examining the dating attitudes, values and behavior of contemporary college students.  An emerging number of scholars are conducting research which examines how young people meet, mate and decide to marry.  There is a growing body of data that points to a degraded student culture on many college campuses—including Catholic college campuses (Bogle, 2008; Freitas, 2008; Burdette, Ellison, Hill and Glenn, 2009).  This paper provides a systematic review of the research literature identifying the culture and examining the very real damage that has been done by abandoning the in loco parentis role that colleges and universities used to play in terms of encouraging healthy social relationships.  The purpose of our paper is to provide a systematic summary of the social science literature that has been published in the last twenty years on the dating and mating behavior of college students—and assessing what many of these researchers have identified as the very real damage that has been done by the embrace of this culture.

We have organized these findings into four sections based on specific issues related to sexuality on campus.  The first section is the most comprehensive, because it defines the hook-up culture and identifies the extent of the problem of casual sexual behavior on college campuses—both Catholic and non-Catholic.  While most studies of the hook-up culture on campus do not differentiate by religious affiliation, we provide a comprehensive look at the ones that investigate the differences in sexual behavior by students attending a Catholic college and those who do not.

Following this, the second section considers the “costs” that such a culture has incurred in terms of the psychological, spiritual and physical damages associated with such behavior.  Sexually transmitted diseases, unintended pregnancies and abortions—as well as a long list of psychological costs including poor self-esteem, depression and sadness—have been correlated with the emergence of the hook-up culture on campus.  There is also anecdotal evidence that students who engage in the culture of casual sex that permeates many Catholic campuses find themselves moving away from a commitment to formerly held religious beliefs and practices.  In addition to a decline in Church attendance by those who are participating in the hook-up culture, there is anecdotal evidence of a reduction in religious feelings and perceived closeness to God.

In the third portion of this report, we consider the role of alcohol in encouraging and expanding the hook-up culture.  Nearly all of the researchers who are studying the hook-up campus culture have found that alcohol is implicated as a correlate—if not necessarily as a causal factor—in the hook-up culture.  Because of this, we devote a substantial portion of our literature review to the data describing the expansion of the use of alcohol by college students through permissive policies of on-campus drinking in the dorms and at social functions, and the role alcohol plays in the hook-up culture—especially on Catholic campuses.

The fourth section of our report investigates the impact of campus polices and especially those who are hired to implement them.  While more research in this area is needed, there is evidence that student life personnel are not a strong deterrent to a campus hook-up culture—and neither are co-ed residence halls.

We conclude by looking closely at the counter-culture that is emerging on many Catholic and secular campuses as students are taking the lead in promoting chastity and fidelity.  We also offer suggestions for additional research.

Defining the Hook-Up Culture on College Campuses

In 2001, the Times Higher Education Supplement (Marcus, 2001) published the results of a survey of 1,000 American university women which indicated that “dating is dead.”  The Chronicle of Higher Education (Mulhauser, 2001) followed up with an analysis of the data on dating and found that few female college seniors surveyed were asked out on dates during their college years.  This confirms dozens of other anecdotal studies.

Almost two-thirds of the participants in the Marcus study said that they were unhappy with the emptiness of their social lives.  Most respondents complained that the culture on their campuses consisted of either having sex without necessarily progressing to a relationship, or forming a long-standing and intense bond with a man without any anticipation of a future life with that man.  Most of the female respondents to this survey were disappointed with their campus culture.

Still, we have to avoid the temptation to look at the college dating behavior of previous generations through rose-colored glasses.  The idealized notion of the traditional date in which the male invites the female out to dinner or to a movie, picks her up and pays for the date is one that we often refer to when we lament the loss of traditional dating behavior.  But those who lived and dated during those times know that even then the traditional dating scene was less than ideal.  In some instances, females were left out of dating entirely because they were viewed as less physically attractive than other female students.  For some male students, the anxiety involved in inviting a female student on a date was overwhelming.  For these students, college became a lonely time of weekends spent watching others involved in the social scene on campus.

Researchers have found that anxiety characterized the traditional dating culture for many female and male students.  This was especially true in the “college mixer” setting.  In a now-classic article entitled “Fear and Loathing at the College Mixer” (Schwartz and Lever, 1976), we learn that at the traditional college mixer, “physical appearance is about the only criterion being used to evaluate people.”  This produces a situation filled with tension—especially for female college students.  When one is repeatedly rejected through the course of an evening, the experience can be shattering to one’s self image.  Study authors conclude that “students reported feelings of ugliness, fatness, clumsiness and so forth during and after the mixer situation.”   Even for males, the mixer is not always an optimal experience:  “My first impression of a mixer in my freshman year reminded me of cattle auctions I’d seen, where huge crowds of inspectors and buyers and such would climb the entryways and this group of very frightened creatures would charge through the middle” (Schwartz and Lever, 1976).

While traditional dating behavior was more formal and well defined, today’s male and female social interactions are much more casual and inclusive.  Contemporary student life is more spontaneous.  Unlike in the past when the male student would telephone the female student several days in advance to ask her on a date to a specific place at a specific time, today’s students use text messaging to get in touch and meet right away.

In fact, some researchers believe that instant messaging, Facebook and texting play an important role in creating a culture that contributes to casual sexual relationships—what has become known on campus as a “hook-up culture” (Bogle, 2008).  But the reality is that college campuses—including Catholic college campuses—have been moving toward a hook-up culture for more than thirty years.  In the late 1970s, it began to become common for college students to shift from traditional dating to group partying.  Even in these early days, it was not uncommon for men and women to pair off at the end of a night of partying in order for a sexual encounter to occur.  Traditional dating was disappearing by 1980.

Larry Lance (2007) provides an excellent overview of the changes in college students’ attitudes about sex, marriage and the family from 1940 to 2000.  This study reveals dramatic changes in students’ willingness to make moral judgments about the sexual behaviors of other college students—reflecting the growing cultural relativism in the greater society.  When this type of casual sexual behavior was “defined down,” the rate of such behaviors began to rise because it then became the “new normal.”

Whatever the origins, the reality is that hooking up has become the dominant script for forming sexual and romantic relationships on Catholic and secular campuses.  And, although the term hooking up is ambiguous in meaning, students generally use the phrase to refer to a physical encounter between two people who are largely unfamiliar with one another or otherwise briefly acquainted (Burdette, Ellison, Hill and Glenn, 2009; Glenn and Marquardt, 2001; Paul, McManus and Hayes, 2000).  Most importantly, hook-ups carry no anticipation of a future relationship (Bogle, 2008; England, Shafer, and Fogarty, 2007).

Studies of the extent of the hook-up culture on campus can be divided into categories by the methods used in collecting data.  Some of the richest data is derived from qualitative studies like those done by Kathleen Bogle and Donna Freitas.  Although Freitas supplemented her interviews with survey data, most of the qualitative studies draw from in-depth interviews with a small, non-representative sample of students.  This source of qualitative data provide us with a deeper understanding of the meaning of the hook-up, but the anecdotal nature of the studies make generalization difficult.  To address this, we have found a growing number of large-scale quantitative studies using representative samples of the hook-up campus culture by sociologists like Norval Glenn, Elizabeth Marquardt, Amy Burdette, Christopher Ellison, and Terrence Hill (2009).  These new quantitative studies help increase reliability and add credibility to the qualitative work.

Does religion make a difference?

Studying the relationship between religion and casual sexual behavior is more complex than one might think.  While there are several studies which attempt to measure the effects of religiosity on engaging in casual sexual behavior, most do not differentiate between students who simply state that they have an affiliation with a certain religious denomination, and those who actively participate in religious activity through Church attendance or bible study and adhere to Church teachings on social and moral issues.

The best studies are those which take a multi-dimensional look at religiosity.  This approach was identified more than fifty years ago by Glock (1962).  These dimensions include experiential (feeling or emotional), ritualistic (participating in religious activities or attendance), ideological (beliefs), intellectual (knowledge), and consequential (effects in the secular world).

In addition to Catholicism, nearly all world religions encourage adherents to conform to their teachings on sexual behavior.  Religious teachings on sexuality must be presented clearly to the faithful by the faithful.  If those who are engaged in teaching about the religion are not fully committed to the truth of what they are teaching, those receiving that instruction will likely not find it to be true either.  Only to the degree that moral teaching is expressed by the attitudes and actions of Catholics themselves can it make a difference in the lives of those Catholics.  If students actually want to challenge the secular culture, students and their campus leaders have to have a firm knowledge of, and commitment to Catholic teachings on social and moral behaviors.

For this reason, the studies which simply look at religious denomination as a predictor of hooking-up behavior cannot be viewed as sufficient.  A multi-dimensional view of religiosity which includes beliefs, knowledge, participation and emotion of college students is certainly the better way to look at the effects of religion on this type of sexual behavior.

An excellent example of a multi-dimensional approach to studying the relationship between religion and sexuality is the study by Penhollow, Young and Denny (2005), which demonstrated that for both female and male college students, those who reported  infrequent worship attendance and weak religious feelings were more likely to report participating in non-marital sexual behaviors.  Although the study did not specifically study “hooking-up behavior,” they found that the strength of religious conviction and participation in religious activities are more important than religious denomination or affiliation in predicting whether or not an individual engages in non-marital sex.

Follow-up studies by Penhollow, Young and Bailey (2005, 2007) looked specifically at the relationship between hooking-up behavior and two measures of religiosity: church attendance and religious feeling.  Findings revealed that for both females and males, church attendance was negatively related to some forms of hooking-up behaviors (the more frequent the church attendance, the less frequent the hooking-up behavior), but religious feeling was only significant in reducing hooking-up behavior for males.  For females, the emotional attachment to religion had little impact on their decision to participate in hooking-up behaviors.

One important consideration offered by Penhollow, Young and Denny (2005) is that in doing research on the correlates of participating in the hook-up culture, it is possible that just as religiosity has an effect on hooking-up behavior, the converse may be true; it is just as likely that “sexual experiences influence religiosity” (Penhollow et al, 2005:81).

For evidence of the likelihood that engaging in casual sexual experiences affects the commitment to participating in one’s religious behavior, it is helpful to recall classic research published in the Journal of Marriage and the Family by Thornton and Camburn (1989).  This study indicated that those individuals who engage in premarital sex actually “become” less religiously involved.  It is possible that those students who engage in short term acts of sexual behavior (the hook-up) also decrease religious involvement.  This should come as no surprise to most faithful Catholics who have been taught about the ways in which immoral behavior can lead to additional forms of immorality and eventually a turning away from God and the sacraments.

Looking specifically at those who identify themselves as “Catholic,” Elizabeth Stoddard (1996) surveyed 235 never-married heterosexual college students enrolled at a west coast independent university and found significant differences in the sexual behavior of students of differing religious orientation.  Stoddard’s study differed from the others because she looked closely at “religious orientation” (categorized as intrinsic, indiscriminately pro-religious and non-religious).  Intrinsic students were those who indicated clearly that they “belonged” to a specific denomination.  She found that most intrinsic students were significantly less likely to participate in premarital sexual intercourse—except for Roman Catholics.  For the Catholic students in the Stoddard study, affiliation with the Catholic Church made no difference in reducing the rate of engaging in premarital sexual behavior.

Yet, when church attendance is factored into the equation of religiosity and sexual behavior, we most often find that church attendance has a significant effect on decreasing the likelihood of engaging in hooking-up behavior.  Susan Harris Eaves (2007) found that religious affiliation and church attendance had a negative effect on first intercourse, number of sexual intercourse partners, number of oral sex partners and number of one-night stands.

This study joins a growing list of studies that indicate that it is “attendance,” and not belief or affiliation, that has the dampening effect on the decision to engage in casual sex.  Most studies find a negative relationship between religiosity and sexual activity—the higher the religiosity, the lower the sexual activity.  For example, in her dissertation, Peggy Sue Sadeghin (1989) surveyed 483 college undergraduates and found that the more religious students were much less likely to engage in sexual behavior.  In contrast, Jacynth Fennell (2000) looked at the relationship between religious beliefs and found “non-significant differences between those who had sex and those who did not.”  This indicates that religious beliefs, in and of themselves, had no effect on the decision to participate in premarital sex.

A major quantitative study which employs a multidimensional measure of religion to explore the relationship between religion and hooking-up behavior was recently published in the Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion by Burdette, Ellison, Hill, and Glenn (2009).  For this survey, a national sample of 1,000 college women participated in a telephone interview designed to examine the dating and courtship attitudes and values of contemporary college women.

To measure “hooking-up behavior,” respondents were asked: “Now, some people say that a hook-up is when a girl and a guy get together for a physical encounter and do not necessarily expect anything further.  Since you have been at school have you experienced a hook-up?” Approximately 38 percent of the respondents indicated that they had engaged in a “hook-up.”

To measure religious denomination, the Burdette team used six groupings including: Catholic, conservative Protestant, mainline Protestant, other Christian, other religious faith, and non-affiliated.  In addition to these religious affiliation variables, respondents were also asked about the frequency of church attendance, and were queried about their subjective religiousness (“How religious do you consider yourself to be?”)   Beyond these individual religion variables, the researchers classified colleges and universities each respondent attended according to their institutional affiliation.  In order to be classified, the school had to display a religious mission statement and advertise religion in their promotional materials; the school also had to sponsor religious activities and /or employ religiously affiliated faculty and staff.  It was not enough that the school have a historic affiliation with a certain faith.  Rather, the school had to have “an active and apparent religious presence on campus.”

The Burdette study is important to Catholic educators because of these religious affiliation variables, but critics have noted the study’s limitations.  Of the 1,000 college women surveyed, only 31 percent were Catholic and only six percent attended Catholic colleges.  In sum, only 39 Catholic women attending Catholic colleges were interviewed, though there are tens of thousands of Catholic women attending college in the United States.  Only 16 Catholic colleges were represented.  Thus, while the study’s findings are important, it is clear that further research is needed in this area.

In the data it had available, the Burdette team found important religious differentials in hooking-up behavior.  While holding a conservative Protestant affiliation reduced the odds of hooking up, holding a Catholic affiliation increased the odds of hooking up.  Indeed, students who identified themselves as Catholics displayed roughly a 72 percent increase in the odds of hooking up compared to those women with no religious affiliation.

Yet, for all respondents—including Catholics and Protestants—religious involvement reduced the odds of hooking up at college, and this pattern was driven by religious service attendance rather than religious affiliation or subjective religiousness.  The authors suggest that “co-religionist networks may be particularly important during the college years, when individuals have increased dating and sexual opportunities, yet little or no supervision.  Further, religious service attendance may be a greater predictor of religious commitment once an individual has left home, given that church attendance is not always voluntary for adolescents.”

The authors surmise that “being Catholic,” in and of itself, yields few protective effects from engaging in casual sexual behavior, and, in fact, that Catholic women are actually more likely than their unaffiliated counterparts to have hooked up.  Still, only 24 percent of Catholic women who attended church on a weekly basis reported having hooked up compared to 38 percent of their nonreligious counterparts.  In contrast, 50 percent of Catholic women who reported infrequent church attendance and low levels of subjective religiousness hooked up at college compared to 38 percent of those with no religious affiliation.

Immoral communities

Kathleen Bogle, author of Hooking Up: Sex, Dating and Relationships on Campus (2008), found “no differences” between the hooking-up behavior of students at a large state university and the same behavior on a Roman Catholic campus.  She found that while some of the students she interviewed believed that there were more anonymous hook-up encounters at the state university due to the larger size of the student population, most of the Catholic college students she interviewed did not believe that the religious affiliation of their university affected hooking up in any way.  In fact, “most of them believed the religious connection did not make any difference.”

But the study by Burdette, Ellison, Hill and Glenn (2007) points to a more serious problem on Catholic campuses.  The survey indicated that “women attending colleges and universities affiliated with the Catholic Church are almost four times as likely to have participated in hooking up compared with women at secular schools.” Attending a conservative Protestant college was not associated with having engaged in hooking-up behavior.  Although the small sample of Catholic college students suggests the need for further verification, the results are troubling.

Unlike students on evangelical or conservative Protestant campuses, students on Catholic campuses do not constitute what the authors identify as a “moral community.”  When Catholic students enter college, it appears that they do not enter with the same level of religious commitment or knowledge of their faith as their Protestant counterparts.  The Catholic women in the study report significantly lower levels of subjective religiousness than both conservative and mainline Protestant respondents.  Thus, on Catholic campuses, with large numbers of Catholic students, the authors conclude that “it may be that university investments in religious instruction and education are too little too late for some students.”

Without a foundation of religious socialization during childhood and early adolescence, religious messages may be poorly received.  As a result, while the Catholic universities may contain a majority of students affiliated with the Catholic Church, the authors of the study conclude that these young adults may not “ratify religious principles in the social environment,” a critical component of what these authors identify as the moral communities thesis.  For instance, in an entry titled Sex and the Catholic Campus posted on www.bustedhalo.com, Fordham student Julia Tier reflects on how the Catholic faith is just “not relevant” for those living on a Catholic campus.

In their 2005 book Soul Searching, Christian Smith and Melinda Denton argue that current Catholic college students no longer arrive on campus with the kind of religious socialization that used to take place within Catholic elementary and high schools.  They write that today’s “Catholic schools have grown into college prep academies with competitive admissions standards and hefty tuition rates, serving the more privileged of their communities, whether Catholic or not, and more dedicated by demand of parents to getting their students admitted to prestigious colleges than to teaching them about the Trinity, sin, the Virgin Mary, the atonement and faithful Christian living.”  Many Catholic students seem to arrive on Catholic college campuses with little idea about what the Church teaches about sexual morality.  Smith and Denton maintain that “most Catholic teenagers now pass through a Church system that has not fully come to terms with its own institutional deficit and structural vacuum with regard to providing substantial distinctive Catholic socialization, education and pastoral ministry for its teenagers.”

This poor socialization for Catholic teenagers is often continued when they arrive on Catholic campuses and may be confronted with theology professors who are committed to providing a critical perspective of the Catholic faith rather than instruction on what the faith teaches.  Students on these Catholic campuses may learn to critique their religion before they even learn what the Catholic Church actually teaches.

For this reason, some researchers like Burdette, Ellison, Hill and Glenn (2007:546) point out that “Catholic universities in particular may face an uphill battle in attempting to create moral communities.”  They cite research by Regnerus (2003) which demonstrates that for a sustainable moral community to emerge, there must not only be a critical mass of adherents, there must also be an actively religious majority that reinforces specific religious principles in the general social environment.  As a result, religion becomes a group property, rather than just a matter of individual preference.

Church-attending Protestants tend to enter college with higher levels of religious commitment than their Catholic counterparts and are less likely to reduce their commitment during young adulthood.  In her study of the hook-up culture, Donna Freitas, the author of Sex and the Soul: Juggling Sexuality, Spirituality, Romance, and Religion on America’s College Campuses, found that the one type of college that stood out from the trend toward “hooking up” was the evangelical Christian college.

To understand the hook-up culture, Freitas collected responses from students at seven colleges and universities—a mix of public, private, evangelical and Catholic institutions.  She found that for students at evangelical colleges, unlike students at Catholic colleges, religion is the center of everything, from campus life to student identity.  She writes, “At all the other campuses it is really hard for students to see sex and religion in relation to each other.”  Freitas found that at the evangelical colleges, there was not a hook-up culture that pressured students.  Rather, it was a “purity” culture that encouraged chastity and marriage, a culture of shared morality that exists on the evangelical college campus.

While this may be true for evangelical colleges, this still does not explain why female Catholic college students enrolled on Catholic campuses are more likely to hook up—even more likely than those on secular campuses.  Some researchers suggest that a hook-up culture can emerge when females outnumber males on campus (Rhoads, Webber and VanVleet, 2010).  Many Catholic campuses have far greater numbers of female students than males, and some researchers suggest that women are competing for men on these campuses.  The anthropologist Elizabeth Cashdan found that where there are more men than women, women usually set the ground rules; where there are more women than men, men get to set the ground rules.  At most Catholic colleges, more than 50 percent of the undergraduates are women and they may feel pressured to compete sexually for men.  But the reality remains that similar gender disparities exist on evangelical Christian campuses where females outnumber males by significant percentages.

In an attempt to explain the differences in the rate of hooking-up behavior for Catholic college students, Burdette, Ellison, Hill and Glenn (2007:547) suggest that selection effects may be operating.  By this they mean that some parents may encourage their daughters to attend Catholic colleges because “they perceive their child’s dating behavior to be problematic.  Parents who view their daughters as bad girls may send them to religious schools in hopes of constraining dating behaviors.”  This could help explain the variation in females engaging in “hooking up” on Catholic campuses.  But further analysis by these researchers did not support possible selection effects.  They did not find that female Catholic college students differed dramatically from those entering secular colleges, so the researchers dismissed selection factors as the answer to the differences in rates of hooking up.

Instead, Burdette, Ellison, Hill and Glenn (2007) suggest that the more likely reason that women at Catholic colleges and universities are more likely to hook up compared to their counterparts at secular schools can be attributed to the fact that in comparison with other colleges—including secular colleges—the policies surrounding alcohol and dorm visitation are more permissive at Catholic colleges than elsewhere.  Also, compared to secular colleges, Catholic schools bring together men and women who have much in common not only religiously but socially as well.  And unlike their Protestant counterparts, many Catholic students arrive on campus never having learned much about Church or Scriptural teachings on sexual morality.

These contributing factors at Catholic colleges have led Burdette, Ellison, Hill and Glenn (2007:546) to conclude: “Quite unintentionally, the combination of these three factors may create an environment that is conducive to casual physical encounters.” Additional research on the culture that has emerged on Catholic campuses, published by Donna Freitas in Sex and the Soul, supports many of their conclusions.

Freitas’ book reveals that there is a culture of “openness” about the sexual behavior of other students: “One young woman told me that at her Catholic school, by the end of the second month in her first-year residence hall, students had developed a kind of catalog about who was experienced at what and who was not experienced at all… Several young women told me that once they lost their virginity, they felt as though they might as well continue.  After all, once you’ve done it, what’s the point of stopping?”

Freitas found that for a minority of students virginity was important and writes that when she was interviewing female students on one Catholic campus, students were about to enter into a lottery for on-campus apartments and residence hall rooms for the following year.  A group of five women, all of whom were virgins, stood out among everyone else.  They called themselves “Virgins ‘R Us.”

Although virginity was not the norm on many of the campuses she studied, Freitas did not find that there was a stigma associated with virginity: “The woman telling me the story is not a virgin herself, but she is quick to argue that virginity is a perfectly legitimate choice for some people.”  Another student on a Catholic campus told Freitas, “I have a friend in the hall who has been with her boyfriend for three years and she wants to wait for marriage, and I think that is an amazing decision.  I think people really respect people that make that decision.”  Still, Freitas adds that this same student also talks about virginity not as a personal choice, but as a sign of feeling unwanted and of lacking in self-esteem.  When a campus develops a “hook-up culture” those who are not part of that culture can easily feel like outsiders.  This points to the real costs of the hook-up culture on both the institution and the individual.

Costs of a Hook-Up Campus Culture

There are individual costs and institutional costs that accrue when a hook-up culture emerges on a Catholic campus.  All students are affected because such a culture can permeate the entire campus.

To understand this culture it is helpful to review some of the interviews Freitas conducted with Catholic college students.  These interviews reveal a culture of “theme parties” that have become a “campus tradition” on many campuses—including some Catholic campuses.  These are parties or events where students dress up according to a particular set of stereotypes including: “pimps and ho’s,” “CEOs and office ho’s,” and “golf pros and tennis ho’s.”   Freitas writes: “By their very design, most theme parties are about sex and power, with guys in the dominant position—the CEO and the sports pros—and girls acting the part of the sexually submissive, sexually suggestive, sexually available, and sexually willing ho’s at their beck and call.”  While such activity surely does not involve most students, it can have an effect on the entire campus—even beyond those who are attending the parties.

A study published by Armstrong, Hamilton and Sweeney (2006), described a “party dorm” as having a “hedonistic culture.” They came to this conclusion after holding sixteen group interviews and forty-two individual interviews with residents of what became known as a “party dorm” (because of the drinking and sexual behavior) and found that sexual assault was a “predictable outcome” of such a culture.

Such a culture can negatively affect relationships and friendships between students.  There are several studies which describe the phenomenon known as “friends with benefits” on college campuses—including Catholic college campuses—or relationships that fit neither the traditional definition of a friendship nor a romantic relationship.  The phenomenon of “friends with benefits” and the movement to casual sex most likely begins long before students enter college.

Drawing upon a sample of 125 students, Melissa Bisson (2004) found that 60 percent of the students polled have had this type of relationship.  Although some respondents indicate that “sex can complicate a friendship by bringing forth desires for commitment,” Bisson believes that these relationships can be desirable because they incorporate trust and comfort while avoiding romantic commitment.

In contrast, Feldman, Cauffman, Jensen and Arnett (2000) found that “friends with benefits” can lead to feelings of betrayal:  “Because loyalty and trust are viewed as key requirements for relationships with friends as well as with romantic partners, acts of betrayal which violate the trust on which these relationships are based are viewed as serious transgressions.”

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

These differential outcomes for female students is not surprising to evolutionary anthropologists like John Townsend whose research has led him to believe that many women go through an experimental stage when they try casual sex.  Townsend also points out that women almost always end up rejecting it.  For women, sexual intercourse produces feelings of “vulnerability” and of being used when they cannot get the desired emotional investment from their partners.  In Townsend’s studies, that occurs even among the most sexually liberated women.  Despite their freethinking attitudes, their emotions make it impossible for them to enjoy casual sex (cited by Rhoads, Webber and VanVleet, 2010).

Several studies have documented the possible negative outcomes for both women and men involved in the hook-up culture.  A survey of 832 college students’ hooking-up experiences by Owen, Rhoades, Stanley and Fincham (2007) points to the problem inherent in attempting to determine  psychological outcomes of hooking-up behavior.  It is the problem of directionality—or trying to determine whether students who had low psychological well-being were more likely to engage in an activity that did not benefit their mental health, or if it was the encounter which contributed to lower psychological well-being.  For example, it is likely that students who have a negative experience with hooking up may feel that they were not treated fairly by their partner after their encounter.  Or, it may be that one partner, but not the other partner, did not see the encounter as consensual.

Owen, et al. (2007) also report that negative emotional reactions were tied to less general acceptance of hooking up itself.  It may be that holding negative attitudes about hooking up and then doing so anyway creates dissonance that causes a negative emotional reaction; or it could be that having a negative experience results in less accepting attitudes about hooking up.  This makes it difficult to make confident assertions that it is the hooking-up behavior that causes the negative emotional reactions.

Beyond psychological outcomes for individuals engaging in hooking-up behavior, it is important to look at the physical costs for individuals who engage in hooking-up behavior.  There is a great deal of research on the individual outcomes of engaging in risky sexual behavior in terms of unplanned pregnancies and sexually transmitted diseases.  There is also the perception that those who engage in this risky sexual behavior—especially women who engage in this behavior—are somehow “damaged” by their choice to do this.  A major study of the sexual behavior of 71,860 college students by the American College Health Association revealed that a growing number of female college students are reporting having acquired sexually transmitted infections, diseases, or complications including the human papillomavirus, genital herpes, chlamydia, pelvic inflammatory disease, HIV and gonorrhea.

Kathleen Bogle’s study points to the negative impact of this lifestyle for female students.  She writes that women are far more likely than men to get a bad reputation for how they conduct themselves in the hookup culture.  Women can get a bad reputation for many different things including how often they hook up, who they hook up with, how far they go sexually during a hook-up, and how they dress when they go out at night where hooking up may happen.  Bogle points out that men who are very active in the hook-up culture may be called “players,” while women are still viewed as “sluts” if they are perceived as having hooked up too often or with the wrong people.

This continued “double standard” is reflected in a memorable interview of a male college student published in Sex and the Soul by Donna Freitas.  The student told Freitas about what he identified as “the dirty girls” on his campus, who are perceived by others (and himself) as having hooked up too much.  This young man mentioned that after a while, no one wanted to hook up with these girls because they feared contracting a sexually transmitted disease.  The data compiled by the American College Health Association reveals that this is a valid fear.

It is clear that there remain gender differences in perceptions of those who are engaged in the hook-up culture.  Freitas and Bogle both introduce the concept of the “walk of shame,” which refers to a female college student walking home the next morning after a hook-up encounter, wearing the same outfit she was wearing the evening prior.  Given that students dress differently for “going out” than during the daytime for class, it is obvious to all when a student is doing the walk of shame.  The fact that they even use the word “shame” is revealing.  If all students accept hooking up as a way of campus life, and believe that everyone is doing it, then using the word shame cannot be understood.  But students continue to be ambivalent about hooking up itself—and some are shameful.

Beyond the individual physical and psychological costs, there is evidence that the culture that has emerged on many Catholic campuses now carries spiritual costs.  While we cannot attribute these spiritual costs directly to the hook-up culture, we can suggest that the degraded student culture can be related.  A recent study done by researchers at Georgetown University (2010)  tracking changes in the behavior and attitudes of college students during their years on Catholic campuses reveals that 31 percent of Catholic students enrolled in Catholic colleges and universities report that they have “moved away” from the pro-life teachings of the Catholic Church during their college years.  Comparing Catholic students enrolled at Catholic institutions with Catholic students enrolled in private and public colleges and universities reveal that those enrolled in Catholic schools were less likely to move toward Catholic Church teachings on abortion than those enrolled in non-Catholic institutions.  While 16 percent of Catholics enrolled in Catholic schools claim to have moved to a pro-life position, 17 percent of Catholic students enrolled in public colleges and 18 percent of Catholic students enrolled in private non-sectarian colleges moved in the pro-life direction.

In addition to increased support for abortion, the Georgetown study revealed that 39 percent of Catholic students enrolled on Catholic campuses claim that they have moved further away from their Church’s definition of marriage as a union of one woman and one man.  On this issue, more Catholic students on Catholic campuses moved toward supporting gay marriage than those enrolled in private religious (non-Catholic) colleges, and showed just slightly less increased support for gay marriage than those enrolled in public colleges and private non-sectarian colleges.

Beyond Catholic college student support for gay marriage and abortion, the Georgetown data indicate that these students decrease their participation rates in religious activities such as Mass attendance and prayer.  While we cannot claim that the hook-up culture contributes to a change in Church attendance and support for abortion and gay marriage, we can propose the likelihood that once a Catholic campus adopts a culture that is counter to Church teachings on sexual morality, support for all Church teachings declines.

Alcohol as a Correlate of Hook-Up Behavior

One of the leading organizations addressing the effects of substance abuse is the National Center on Addiction and Substance Abuse (CASA) at Columbia University.  Led by Joseph A. Califano, Jr., the former U.S. Secretary of Health, Education and Welfare, CASA convened a commission in the early 1990s to look into the substance abuse situation at America’s colleges and universities.  The commission issued two reports—The Smoke-Free Campus (1993) and Rethinking Rites of Passage (1994)—and was chaired by Reverend Edward Malloy, C.S.C., now President Emeritus of the University of Notre Dame, who also serves on the board of CASA.  In 2002, CASA reconvened the commission and tasked it with determining what, if any, progress had been made.  The commission produced a report titled Wasting the Best and the Brightest: Substance Abuse at America’s Colleges and Universities, which reveals, among other things, a significant public health crisis on campuses throughout the country.

Califano summarized the report’s findings: “The college culture of alcohol and other drug abuse is linked to poor student academic performance, depression, anxiety, risky sex, rape, suicide and accidental death, property damage, vandalism, fights and a host of medical problems.” Teenage pregnancy, sexual assault and prostitution are also mentioned as results of substance abuse.  For Catholics, this is not just a “public health” crisis, but also a moral and a spiritual crisis.  Califano makes an important point: at Catholic colleges and universities, there is both an “added incentive” and a “special obligation” to confront the problems of substance abuse and casual sex.  “Students…are made in God’s image, with an inherent human dignity that should not be debased by excessive use of alcohol” (CASA, 2007).”

Sadly, the CASA study reveals that there is no reason to believe that Catholic institutions fare any better than other colleges and universities around the country.  In 2005, New York City’s Fordham University ranked first in self-reported campus alcohol violations, with 905 incidents—four times as many as the second-ranked New York University.  At the College of the Holy Cross, a series of incidents arose out of the combination of alcohol and sex: in 1996, a female student who was drinking heavily reported having been raped; in 1998, a car accident killed a drunk student; in 2000, a drunk student was killed by a train; and in 2002, a fight between two drunk students resulted in a death.

In 2010, 44 Notre Dame students were arrested for under-age drinking at an off-campus party.  South Bend police responded to a call about a fight near a roadway and discovered the Notre Dame student party.  Nate Montana, the son of former Notre Dame standout Joe Montana was among 11 Notre Dame athletes arrested among the 44 students on misdemeanor charges of underage drinking at a party.

CASA recommends a set of policies to colleges and universities in an effort both to prevent and reduce alcohol abuse on campus.  First, policies should be clear, as should the consequences of violating them be.  CASA advocates a ban on alcohol in dorms, in most common areas, at on-campus parties, and at sporting events.  Both the faculty and staff, as well as students and their parents, should be educated on the problems of substance abuse.  At Georgetown University, for instance, all freshmen are required to be educated about alcohol abuse.  Further, the college should be diligent in monitoring the rates of consumption and target students who are at risk, providing them with the opportunity for treatment.

It is important to look at what factors influence students’ decisions to drink.  Most notably, it is living arrangements.  Drinking varies depending on where a student lives.  The Task Force encourages parents to inquire about campus alcohol policies when their high school student is trying to choose the right college.  The parent should ask how the college enforces underage drinking prevention and what procedures are used to notify parents about consumption and abuse.  Drinking rates tend to be the highest in fraternity and sorority housing, so the parent should see if alcohol-free dorms are available.  Additionally, the number of alcohol-related injuries and deaths at the campus is an important statistic to find out.  (For recent data describing the consequences of the emergence of a culture of alcohol and drugs on campus, see Appendix A.)

Dangerous liaisons

So what is the connection between the use of drugs and alcohol and student sexual behavior? Another CASA study, Dangerous Liaisons: Substance Abuse and Sexual Behavior (1999), revealed that teens who drink or use drugs are “much more likely to have sex, initiate it at younger ages…and have multiple partners.” These students are more likely to contract sexually-transmitted diseases (STDs) or AIDS and experience unplanned pregnancies.  The 1999 report analyzed data collected from interviews with over 34,000 teenagers and 100 experts in relevant fields.

The study also revealed that while 63 percent of teens who use alcohol and 70 percent of teens who are frequent drinkers have had sex, only 26 percent of those who have never drank have had sex.  Further, the survey found that 23 percent of sexually active teens and young adults in America (about 5.6 million 15- to 24-year-olds) report having unprotected sex because they were drinking or using drugs at the time.  Of these, 29 percent say that, due to alcohol and drug use, they did “more sexually then they had planned.” Fifty percent said that people their age mix alcohol or drugs and sex “a lot,” and 37 percent want more information about “how alcohol or drugs might affect decision about having sex.”

In an attempt to discover whether alcohol consumption by college students leads to sexual behavior that would not have otherwise occurred, Meilman (1993) discovered that of 439 randomly selected undergraduate students, 35 percent had participated in “alcohol-induced” sexual activity.  For the half of these students who had intercourse, many admitted to having unprotected sex at least one time while under the influence of alcohol.  In another study at the University of Virginia, the College of William and Mary and Dartmouth College, almost 40 percent of college students reported having engaged in sexual behavior “as a direct result” of consuming alcohol (Meilman et al., 1993).

Desiderato and Crawford (1995) point out that risky sex—unprotected sex and deceptiveness from partners—has led to an alarmingly high rate of STDs among young adults.  In their study, 47 percent of participants did not use a condom, 19 percent had STDs at the time, and one-third of those with STDs admitted that they did not inform their partner of their infection.  Many studies have noted the negative relationship between consuming alcohol and condom use (Leigh and Morrison, 1991; Donovan and McEwan, 1995).  Many students—58 percent of males and 48 percent of females—consumed alcohol immediately before their first sexual experience (Clapper & Lipsitt, 1991).

In short, says Califano, “For parents and religious leaders who believe that sexual abstinence before marriage is a moral imperative, this report signals the particular importance of persuading teens not to drink alcohol or use illegal drugs.” The urgency and duty can be extended to college administrators, especially those at Catholic colleges and universities.

So help me God: The role of religion

A CASA white paper titled “So Help Me God: Substance Abuse, Religion and Spirituality” examines the link between religion and the prevention and treatment of substance abuse.  The 2001 report observes a strong connection between one’s religious practices and a lower risk of abusing drugs and alcohol.  As part of the study, CASA surveyed administrators at seminaries and schools of theology, inquiring about their perceptions of the scope of the problem of substance abuse.  CASA’s research indicates that God, religion and spirituality are important factors in preventing and treating substance abuse, and that weekly church attendance significantly reduces the risk of drinking and drug use.

The data collected from teenagers is revealing.  Teens who do not consider themselves religious are almost three times as likely to binge drink as teens who consider religion to be important.  Teens who do not attend religious services weekly are twice as likely to drink than teens who do attend weekly religious services.

On the college campus, CASA discovered that students with no religious affiliation reported higher levels of drinking than those who identified as either Catholic or Protestant.  But while religious activity lowers the risk of drinking among college students, the heaviest drinkers among college students are men, whites and Roman Catholics to whom religion is not important.

It is evident that when students have strong religious convictions and participate in religious activities, they consume less alcohol and therefore are less likely to engage in casual sex.

Most religions prohibit or restrict the use of substances, but there is a variation in strictness.  Judaism and Christianity draw the concept of moderation from, among other passages of Scripture, this verse from Proverbs: “Do not join those who drink too much wine or gorge themselves on meat” (23:20).  Historically, the Catholic Church has not required abstinence from its members, but teaches that believers must use self-control.  Both Judaism and Christianity admonish drunkenness as sinful; St. Paul tells the Corinthians not to conduct themselves in “reveling and drunkenness” (1 Corinthians 5:11).

When CASA asked Catholic college presidents if they saw substance abuse as a problem on their campus, 73.9 percent saw it as a very important problem, and 26.1 percent saw it as somewhat important.

Student Personnel and Residence Life Policies

Many student affairs officers on Catholic campuses say the most important issues they face are issues of sexual behavior and identity (Bickel, 2001).  In her dissertation study, Catherine Bickel explored how four residence life leaders from two Midwestern Catholic colleges worked with students who had sexual concerns (over issues like promiscuity and homosexuality) that were in conflict with Catholic teachings.  The author identified nine important findings which indicated that residence hall directors received little, if any training about how to operate in an environment identified as Catholic.  Because of this lack of training, residence hall directors made a variety of assumptions about students, colleagues, the institution’s expectations and Catholic teachings.  Bickel claimed that “students lead the way on issues in conflict with Catholic doctrine” rather than student affairs professionals or leaders.  She also found that there was a concern on the part of some residence life leaders of the “conservative reaction of students and parents” to issues surrounding sexual behavior, identity and orientation.  While Bickel is clearly sympathetic to the need for a non-judgmental attitude for residential life staff, her study points to this area as one that needs further research.

It is clear that on many Catholic campuses, residence life leaders appear to have little idea about Catholic teachings on sexuality.  This uncertainty about Catholic teachings on sexual morality may actually encourage a hook-up culture by creating a non-judgmental culture that conveys tacit approval for sexual behaviors counter to Church teachings.

Bickel’s research is given support from a study by Sandra Estanek (1996) published in Current Issues in Catholic Higher Education which revealed that many of the most difficult issues relating to the Catholic identity of Catholic colleges and universities are confronted not by teachers in the classroom, but by student affairs administrators responding to students, especially to sexual behavior and sexual identity problems.

In her book, Hooking Up: Sex, Dating and Relationships on Campus, Kathleen Bogle points out that the contemporary college campus (both Catholic and secular) is conducive to hooking up: there is a relatively homogeneous population living in close proximity to each other with no strictly enforced rules monitoring their behavior.  This fosters a sense of safety or comfort—students share the mantra that college is a time to party.

Christopher Kaczor, Loyola Marymount University philosophy professor and author of How to Stay Catholic in College, writes in First Things, “The answer is single-sex student residences.  Research indicates that students in single-sex residences are significantly less likely to engage in binge drinking and the hookup culture than students living in co-ed student residences” (Kaczor, 2011).  He cites several studies supporting his claim (Harford et al., 2002; Wechsler et al., 2000; Willoughby and Carroll, 2009).

In particular, studies analyzing data from the Harvard School of Public Health College Alcohol Study (CAS) have found that “students living in coed dormitories, when compared with students in single-gender dorms, incurred more problem consequences related to drinking…  The reported differences in problem consequences extend previous studies of underage alcohol use in the CAS, which found that college students residing in coed dormitories and fraternity/sorority house, when compared with students residing in single-gender dormitories, were more likely to report heavy episodic drinking” (Harford et al., 2002).  Nearly twice as many students in coed dorms (39.1 percent) reported binge drinking in the last two weeks than students in single-sex halls (20.6 percent) (Wechsler et al., 2000).

That prevalence of “risk-taking,” say Willoughby and Carroll (2009), is as common with casual sex as it is with drinking.  Despite using different survey data from Harvard’s College Alcohol Study, they similarly found that students in co-ed halls were more than twice as likely to engage in binge-drinking or drink alcohol at least once a week.  But students in co-ed dorms were also more likely to view pornography and have “permissive attitudes toward sexual activity.”  They were more than twice as likely (12.6 percent) to have three or more sexual partners in the last twelve months than students in single-sex residences (4.9 percent).

An important question asked by researchers about such data is whether “students who enjoy risky behavior choose co-ed residences because they seek a more permissive atmosphere. So, the differences between co-ed and single sex residences reflect the kinds of people who choose them, rather than being caused by some difference between single-sex and co-ed residences” (Kaczor, 2011).  But Harford, et al. (2002) found similar background characteristics for students choosing co-ed and single-sex dorms, and so reported only “limited evidence for self-selection.”  Willoughby and Carroll (2009) controlled for students’ religion and other variables but found that the residential differences remained significant.  They concluded that selection “does not play a large role” in the association between risky behavior and residence type.

On a growing number of secular campuses, there is movement toward offering students the opportunity to share co-ed bedrooms—perhaps an indication of things to come on certain Catholic campuses, where student life policies often follow secular trends in American higher education.  According to an article in The Chronicle of Higher Education (Borrego, 2001), Swarthmore introduced co-ed housing in part to provide a residential alternative for gay students.  For some, finding a same-sex roommate comfortable with their sexuality was difficult.  Gay students had begun complaining to the college’s housing committee that mandatory same-gender housing was “heterosexist.”  The approval of “gender-neutral” housing at nearby George Washington University in 2010 had students at Georgetown University excited.  They requested a similar policy at the Jesuit Catholic university, and the vice president for student affairs said that he was open to discussing it with the student government (Maglio, 2010).

In a May 2000 article in the National Review, John Biaggio, then the President of Tufts University, refused to implement co-ed rooms explaining that, “While we realize many of our students are sexually active, we don’t see it as our role to encourage it.  I am not saying we are prudish.  We are not acting in loco parentis.  But we are dealing with life-threatening venereal diseases here.”  The Chronicle of  Higher Education (2009) reported that Tufts banned “any sex act in a dorm room while one’s roommate is present” and further stipulated that “any sexual activity in the room should not interfere with a roommate’s privacy, study habits or sleep.”  The office said that the policy stemmed from a significant number of complaints by students uncomfortable with what their roommates were doing in the room.  The Tufts Daily newspaper (Kan, 2009) reported that “the sex policy is intended as a tool to facilitate conversation and compromise between roommates rather than simply proscribe behavior.”  Distancing herself from any perceptions of a judgmental attitudes and the in loco parentis role, one residence hall administrator said that “we want to make perfectly clear that we do not want to hinder someone from engaging in any personal or private activity.”

Research indicates that students tend to overestimate the hook-up culture on their campuses.  A study published in the Journal of American College Health revealed that although 49.1 percent of students (71,860 students at 107 institutions of higher education) reported having engaged in sexual intercourse during their college years, students tend to think that twice as many students are sexually active than actually are.  This perception that “everyone” is engaged in the hook-up culture can contribute to expanding the hook-up culture, because it provides tacit permission to those who are considering participation in the practice.  Students begin to view the behavior as a “normal” part of college life.

For a culture to emerge on Catholic campuses that values chastity and respect for Church teachings on sexual morality, there must a true collaboration between students and student life administrators.  But the literature indicates that on some campuses the student life administrators, many of whom came of age in the freewheeling 1970s, lag behind the more conservative students in creating such a culture.

Creating a Campus Culture That Values Chastity

Discouraged by the hook-up culture on their campuses, there appears to be a student counter-culture emerging.  Student initiated and led, this counterculture is intended to reclaim sexual integrity on campuses.  The Elizabeth Anscombe Society at Providence College, for example, claims to “equip students with the knowledge and social science data that will help them navigate their personal romantic relationships in a happy and healthy way.”  Viviana Garcia, founder and former co-president of the Providence College Anscombe Society, writes that “in the spirit of writer Flannery O’Connor, who held that we have to push as hard as the age that pushes against you, these students are holding fast to their conviction that sexual intimacy can only bring happiness within the committed relationship of marriage” (Garcia, 2009).

The first Elizabeth Anscombe Society was started at Princeton University in 2005. Named for the famed Cambridge philosophy professor and intellectual defender of traditional sexual ethics, the mission of the organization is to “foster an atmosphere where sex is dignified, respectful and beautiful; where human relationships are affirming and supportive; where motherhood is not put at odds with feminism; and where no one is objectified, instrumentalized or demeaned.”

Similar groups are emerging on Catholic campuses.  In 2004, students at the University of Notre Dame launched the Edith Stein Project.  Drawing from the Apostolic letter of Pope John Paul II titled “On the Dignity and Vocation of Women,” Notre Dame students—both men and women—have held conferences each year to discuss issues of gender, sexuality and human dignity.  The coordinators of the Edith Stein Project write that they wish to “examine the degrading attitudes toward our own dignity that are often taken for granted and to question their root causes… we offer that their common cause is a general misunderstanding of the true nature and dignity of the human person.”

The 6th Annual Edith Stein Project Conference in February 2011 was titled “Irreplaceable You: Vocation, Identity, and the Pursuit of Happiness.” The conference drew from Pope John Paul II’s Apostolic proclamation that “Every Life is a Vocation.”  Conference organizers write, “Each one of us is called to perform an irreplaceable role in the Body of Christ that only we can perform, simply by the virtue of being ourselves in our own distinctive situation.” They promise that the conference will “draw on the richness of Catholic teaching on authentic personhood and sexuality, including presentations on masculinity and femininity, marriage, lay vocation, the priesthood and religious life, the family, homosexuality, Pope John Paul II’s theology of the body and student life.”

At Boston College, there is a group of male students whose mission is to “seek to create a brotherhood of Christian men dedicated to leading virtuous lives.”  The Sons of St. Patrick gather each week in a campus dormitory to discuss philosophy, literature and God.  Fr. Paul McNellis, S.J., a professor in the Philosophy Department who helped with the group’s creation, said that about four years ago some of his former students asked if he would be the moderator for the group.  In an interview for the campus newspaper, Fr. McNellis said: “They wanted a group that got together regularly in fellowship to discuss important topics.  However the topics gradually became more religious as the Sons realized that the strongest bond between them was their shared faith.”

In an interview published in The Heights, Fr. McNellis said the students wanted to live a Christian life without compromise, especially in the way they treated women, and thus to help each other become good men and future good husbands and fathers (Gu, 2010).  In a follow-up interview in The Heights, Fr. McNellis directly addressed the problems inherent in the hook-up culture: “When men get involved in the hook-up culture, they regress.  It infantilizes them.  They develop habits of thinking about themselves and women which are antithetical to being a good husband a good father” (Morrison, 2010).

Fr. McNellis said his motivation to address the male response to the hook-up culture stemmed from his observations of student life: “the thing that struck me as a difference from when I was in college was how little women now expect of men” (Morrison, 2010).  What he sees as “women’s dwindling faith in male behavior” may have been caused by the rise in the divorce rate, the spike in births out of wedlock, and the collapse of the dating culture.  The Sons of St. Patrick are attempting to reverse this culture.  To do that, Fr. McNellis points out that students need to “shed their ties with the hook-up culture in order to start developing the values that are necessary to being a faithful spouse or responsible father.”  He believes that the resurgence of the dating culture can cure the hook-up culture.  He believes that many students want the dating culture to come back, pointing to the “yearly student scramble to obtain tickets to the formal Middlemarch Dance” as evidence of student desire for an alternative to the current hook-up culture.

Such small groups of students, of course, cannot change the culture alone.  From the moment they step on campus for freshman orientation, college students are steeped in the radicalism-turned-orthodoxy that is the hook-up culture.  Students need support from the administration and the faculty to counter that culture.  They need to help create alternative campus environments that counter the cultural pressure that has “normalized” sexual deviance.  Students need an alternative to the culture of sexual permissiveness that currently shapes students’ expectations.  They need help creating moral communities in which Church teachings on sexual morality are understood and cherished.

Recommendations for Further Study

While we have seen that the published literature offers some idea of sexuality on college campuses—and Catholic campuses in particular—Catholic educators would benefit greatly by allowing and even encouraging more extensive research on student behaviors and the impact of college policies, programs and campus life on sexual attitudes and activity.

We suggest specific areas that warrant further research:

Causes and consequences of the hook-up culture for males

Much of the research on hooking up on college campuses focuses on female students.  It is assumed that women are often victims of the hook-up culture.  But anecdotal evidence exists that males also suffer consequences from the student culture on many campuses.

Measurable consequences of the hook-up culture

What is the incidence of STDs, pregnancy and abortion on Catholic campuses, and how does it compare to other colleges?  Is there evidence of psychological consequences from student sexual activity?  How does sexual activity impact academic performance?

Differences between Protestant and Catholic college campuses and their students

It is clear that the culture on evangelical campuses is dramatically different from that on Catholic campuses.  What can Catholic campus administrators learn from them?  Why do students behave differently at evangelical institutions?  Why do Catholic students behave differently from evangelical students?

Alcohol and drug abuse on Catholic campuses

CASA has provided some very good research on substance abuse on college campuses, showing a link to increased sexual activity.  Additional research looking particularly at substance abuse on Catholic campuses and among Catholic students, and exploring further the link to sexual activity would be helpful to Catholic college leaders.  Do policies and programs that have been effective in reducing alcohol and drug abuse correlate with declines in student sexual activity?

Co-ed dormitory housing

Whereas single-sex student housing was the norm at Catholic colleges a few decades ago, most have transitioned to co-ed halls, with men and women often separated by wing or floor.  As a consequence, the opportunities for sexual activity in campus housing have clearly increased.  Some Catholic colleges, like the University of Notre Dame and those with a strong Catholic identity, continue to offer single-sex housing.  A year into his tenure as the president of the Catholic University of America, John Garvey announced that the university would return to single-sex housing.  Writing in the Wall Street Journal, Garvey observes the destructive nature of binge drinking and the hook-up culture, as well as the role of the university in instilling virtue. There is a great need for additional research on whether the co-ed dormitory living contributes to the emergence of a hook-up campus culture, as anecdotal evidence suggests.  What are the measurable benefits and costs of co-ed residence halls?

Appendix A

As far back as 1999, a majority of college presidents identified alcohol abuse as one of the most serious problems facing students on campus.  In April 2002, a Federal Task Force of the National Advisory Council on Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism issued a report titled A Call to Action: Changing the Culture of Drinking at U.S. Colleges.  The Task Force—composed of college presidents, researchers and students—spent three years extensively analyzing the literature on the use of alcohol on college campuses.  In a section called “What Parents Need to Know About College Drinking,” the reader is presented with a litany of disturbing statistics:

Death: 1,400 college students die each year from alcohol-related unintentional injuries, including motor vehicle crashes.

Injury: 500,000 college students are unintentionally injured under the influence of alcohol.

Assault: More than 600,000 college students are assaulted by another student who has been drinking.

Sexual Abuse: More than 70,000 college students are victims of alcohol-related sexual assault or date rape.

Unsafe Sex: 400,000 college students have sex without taking precautions against STDs, and more than 100,000 college students report having been too intoxicated to know if they consented to having sex.

Academic Problems: About 25 percent of college students report academic consequences of their drinking including missing class, falling behind, doing poorly on exams or papers, and receiving lower grades overall.

Health Problems/Suicide Attempts: More than 150,000 college students develop an alcohol-related health problem, and between 1.2 and 1.5 percent of college students indicate that they tried to commit suicide within the past year due to drinking or drug use.

Drunk Driving: In 2001, 2.1 million college students reported driving under the influence of alcohol.

Vandalism: About 11 percent of college students report that they have damaged property while under the influence of alcohol.

Property Damage: More than 25 percent of administrators from schools with low drinking levels and more than 50 percent from schools with high drinking levels say their campuses have a “moderate” or “major” problem with alcohol-related property damage.

Police Involvement: About 5 percent of college students are involved with the police or campus security as a result of their drinking.  About 110,000 students are arrested for alcohol-related violations, such as public drunkenness or driving under the influence.

Alcohol Abuse and Dependence: 31 percent of college students met criteria for a diagnosis of alcohol abuse and 6 percent for alcohol dependence in the past 12 months.

About the Authors

Dr. Anne Hendershott is the 2010-2011 John Paul II Fellow in Student Development for the Center for the Advancement of Catholic Higher Education. She served 15 years at the University of San Diego as director of urban studies and chair of the sociology department until 2008, when she moved to New York to become distinguished visiting professor of urban studies at King’s College.  Her articles have appeared in The Wall Street Journal, World Magazine and National Review, and her books include Status Envy: The Politics of Catholic Higher Education, The Politics of Abortion, Moving for Work and The Reluctant Caregivers. Hendershott received her B.A. and M.S. degrees from Central Connecticut State University and her Ph.D. in Sociology from Kent State University.

Nicholas Dunn has served as a research assistant to Dr. Hendershott for two years.  He is a senior at The King’s College in New York City, where he studies philosophy, politics and economics.  He has written for Human Life Review and Catholic World Report and was a research intern at the Catholic Family and Human Rights Institute at the United Nations.

Bibliography

Armstrong, Elizabeth; Hamilton, Laura; and Sweeney, Brian.  “Sexual Assault on Campus: A Multilevel, Integrative Approach to Party Rape,” Social Problems (November 2006), 53 (4): 483-499.

Bickel, Catherine Mary.  “Residential Life Professionals on Catholic Campuses:  A Qualitative Study of How They Assist Students with Issues of Sexual Behavior and Identity” (2001).  Dissertation submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the Doctorate at Indiana University.

Bisson, Melissa.  “Have Your Cake and Eat it Too: Negotiating a Friends with Benefits Relationship” (2004).  Master’s Thesis completed in partial fulfillment for the Master’s Degree at Michigan State University.

Bogle, Kathleen.  Hooking Up: Sex, Dating and Relationships on Campus (New York: New York University Press, 2008).

Borrego, Ann Marie.  “Today’s Students Want to Have Sex, But Not with Their Roommates,” The Chronicle of Higher Education (December 21, 2001).

Burdette, Amy; Ellison, Christopher; Hill, Terrence; and Glenn, Norval.  “Hooking Up at College: Does Religion Make a Difference?” Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion (2009), 48 (3): 535-551.

Desiderato, L. L., and Crawford, H. J.  “Risky sexual behavior in college students: Relationships between number of sexual partners, disclosure of previous risky behavior, and alcohol use,” Journal of Youth and Adolescence (1995), 24: 55–68.

Donovan, C., and McEwan, R.  “A review of the literature examining the relationship between alcohol use and HIV-related sexual risk-taking in young people,” Addiction (1995), 90: 319-328.

Eaves, Susan Harris.  “Attachment Style, Self-Esteem, and Perceived Peer Norms as Predictors of Sexually Risky Behavior among College Students,” (2007).  Dissertation completed in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the Doctor of Philosophy at Mississippi State University.

England, Paula; Shafer, Emily Fitzgibbons; and Fogarty, Alison.  “Hooking Up and Forming Romantic Relationships on Today’s College Campuses,” in M. Kimmel and A. Aronson (eds.), The Gendered Society Reader, 3rd edition (New York: Oxford University Press, 2007).

Estanek, Sandra.  “A Study of Student Affairs Practice at Catholic Colleges and Universities,” Current Issues in Catholic Higher Education (1996), 16: 63-72.

Feldman, Shirley; Cauffman, Elizabeth; Jensen, Lene Arnett; and Arnett, Jeffrey J.  “The Unacceptability of Betrayal: A Study of College Students’ Evaluations of Sexual Betrayal by a Romantic Partner and Betrayal of a Friend’s Confidence,” Journal of Youth and Adolescence (2000), 29 (4): 499-523.

Fennell, Jacynth.  “The Relationship Between Religious Beliefs, Moral Development, Self  Control, Peer Pressure, Self Esteem and Premarital Sex” (2000).  Dissertation completed in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the Doctor of Philosophy at Andrews University, Michigan.

Freitas, Donna.  Sex and the Soul: Juggling Sexuality, Spirituality, Romance, and Religion on America’s College Campuses (New York: Oxford University Press, 2008).

Garcia, Viviana M.  “Resisting in the Age of Infidelity,” MercatorNet (July 15, 2010).

Glenn, Norval and Marquardt, Elizabeth.  “Hooking Up, Hanging Out, and Hoping for Mr. Right:       College Women on Dating and Mating Today” (New York: Institute for American Values, 2001).

Glock, Charles.  “On the Study of Religious Commitment,” Religious Education, 42 (July-August 1962), 98-110.

Grello, Catherine; Welsh, Deborah; and Harper, Melinda.  “No Strings Attached: The Nature of Casual        Sex in College Students,” Journal of Sex Research (2006), 43 (3): 255-267.

Gu, James.  “Sons of St. Patrick Form a Brotherhood of Faith,” The Heights (March 29, 2010).

Harford, Thomas; Wechsler, Henry; and Muthen, Bengt.  “The Impact of Current Residence and High School Drinking on Alcohol Problems Among College Students,” Journal of Studies on Alcohol (2002), 63: 271-279.

Johnson, Luke Timothy.  “Sex and American Catholics,” Annual Currie Lecture in Law and Religion, Emory University, Atlanta, GA (October 9, 2002).

Kaczor, Christopher.  “Rethinking Single Sex Dorms,” First Things (May 12, 2011).

Kan, Ellen.  “New Rules Regulate Sexual Activity in Tufts University Dorm Rooms,” Tufts Daily Wire (September 25, 2009).

Lance, Larry.  “College Student Sexual Morality Revisited,” College Student Journal (September 2007).

Leigh, B. C.; Morrison, D. M.; Trocki, K.; and Temple, M. T.  “Sexual behavior of American adolescents: Results from a U.S. national survey,” Journal of Adolescent Health (2004), 15: 117–125.

Maglio, Alice.  “Gender-Blind Talks in Store,” The Hoya (Nov. 16, 2010).

Marcus, Jon.  “Virgins and Casual Sisters Spurn Dating,” The Times Higher Education Supplement (August 2001), 1502: 10.

Meilman, P.W.  “Alcohol-induced sexual behavior on campus,” Journal of American College Health (1993), 42 (1): 27-31.

Morrison, Daniel.  “Hookup Culture Elicits Response from McNellis,” The Heights (March 25, 2010).

Mulhauser, Dana.  “Dating Among College Student is all but Dead, Survey Finds,” The Chronicle of Higher Education (August 2001), 47 (48): A51.

National Center on Addiction and Substance Abuse (CASA).  Dangerous Liaisons: Substance Abuse and Sexual Behavior (New York: 1999).

—. Wasting the Best and the Brightest: Substance Abuse at America’s Colleges and Universities (New York: 2007).

Owen, Jesse; Rhoades, Galena; Stanley, Scott; and Fincham, Frank.  “Hooking-Up Among College Students: Demographic and Psychosocial Correlates,” Archives of Sexual Behavior (2007).

Paul, E.L; McManus, B.; and Hayes, A.  “Hookups: Characteristics and correlates of college students spontaneous and anonymous sexual experiences,” Journal of Sex Research (2000), 37: 76-88.

Paul, E. L. and K. A. Hayes.  “The Casualties of Casual Sex. A Qualitative Exploration of the Phenomenology of College Students’ Hookups,” Journal of Social and Personal Relationships (2002), 19: 639-661.

Penhollow, Tina; Young, Michael; and Bailey, William.  “Relationship Between Religiosity and Hooking Up Behavior,” American Journal of Health Education (November/December 2007), 38 (6): 338-345.

Penhollow, Tina; Young, Michael; and Denny, George.  “The Impact of Religiosity on the Sexual Behaviors of College Students,” American Journal of Health Education (March/April, 2005), 36 (2): 75-83.

Schwartz, Pepper and Lever, Janet.  “Fear and Loathing at the College Mixer,” Journal of Contemporary Ethnography (1976), 4 (4): 413-431.

Regnerus, Mark.  “Moral Communities and Adolescent Delinquency,” Sociological Quarterly (September 2003), 44 (4): 523-554.

Rhoads, Steven; Webber, Laura; and Van Vleet, Diana.  “The Emotional Costs of Hooking Up,” The Chronicle of Higher Education (June 20, 2010).

Sadeghin, Peggy Sue.  “Religion and Reproductive Roulette” (1989).  Master’s Thesis completed in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the Master’s Degree at the University of Texas at Arlington.

Smith, Christian and Denton, Melinda.  Soul Searching: The Religious and Spiritual Life of American Teenagers (New York: Oxford University Press, 2005).

Stoddard, Elizabeth.  Religious Orientation and Sexual Behavior of College Students (1996).Dissertation completed in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the Doctor of Philosophy at Oregon State University.

The Chronicle of Higher Education.  “Tufts University Bans Student Sex When Roommates are Present” (September 28, 2009).

Thornton, Aarland and Camburn, Donald.  “Religious Participation and Adolescent Sexual Behavior and Attitudes,” Journal of Marriage and the Family, Vol. 51, No. 3 (August 1989).

Tier, Julia.  “Sex and the Catholic Campus,” <www.bustedhalo.com> (January 29, 2004).

Wechsler, Henry; Kuo, Meichun; Lee, Hang; and Dowdall, George.  “Environmental Correlates of Underage Alcohol Use and Related Problems of College Students,” American Journal of Preventive Medicine (2000), 19 (1): 24-29.

Willoughby, Brian and Carroll, Jason.  “The Impact of Living in Co-ed Resident Halls on Risk-Taking Among College Students,” Journal of American College Health (2009), 58 (3): 241-246.

The NLRB’s Assault on Religious Liberty

/in , /by
Click here for PDF

In January 2011, an acting regional director of the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) sparked a national outcry with his ruling requiring Manhattan College, a Christian Brothers institution, to recognize a faculty union and comply with federal labor law despite the College’s religious identity.  The Board’s pending review of that decision could have a far-reaching impact on religious liberty in the United States and the future of unionization at Catholic colleges and universities.

When the ruling was issued, it received significant media attention for the wrong reasons.  The case was portrayed as a sudden turn against Catholic colleges’ religious liberty.  One national newspaper reported that it was “the first time an NLRB body has tried to force a religious institution to allow unions.”

In fact, the NLRB has claimed jurisdiction over Catholic colleges and universities for decades, forcing institutions to recognize faculty unions despite the potential interference with their ability to enforce their religious missions—a violation of religious liberty under the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.

Because the evolution of the Board’s reasoning is essential to understanding the impact of the Manhattan College case, this paper summarizes key NLRB and federal court decisions since the 1979 Supreme Court ruling in NLRB v. The Catholic Bishop of Chicago, et al.  It should be noted that this paper addresses only the matter of NLRB jurisdiction over Catholic colleges and universities, but not arguments for and against unions outside the purview of federal law.

NLRB v. The Catholic Bishop of Chicago (1979)1

Catholic Bishop was a watershed moment in the protection of religious institutions from undue government intrusion.  It has served as the primary basis upon which the NLRB evaluates requests from Catholic colleges and universities for exemptions from the Board’s jurisdiction and from collective bargaining with faculty.

But in the NLRB’s early years of enforcing the National Labor Relations Act of 1935, the question of Catholic schools and colleges was moot.  The NLRB declined to assert jurisdiction over any nonprofit educational institution, arguing that the nonprofit status precluded substantial commercial activity.  It was not until 1970 that the NLRB reversed its position in response to the growing influence of leading universities, claiming jurisdiction over Cornell University2 as well as other schools, colleges and universities.

Still through most of the 1970s, the NLRB did not consider whether the agency might be intruding on the First Amendment rights of Catholic colleges and universities.  The Board asserted jurisdiction over Catholic institutions including Fordham University in New York City;3 Manhattan College in Riverdale, New York;4 Seton Hill College in Greensburg, Pennsylvania;5 Saint Francis College in Loretto, Pennsylvania;6 and even the U.S. bishops’ national university, The Catholic University of America in Washington, D.C.7  In all of these cases, the bargaining units included teaching faculty.

The question of religious liberty was raised, however, by Catholic parochial schools.  In 1975, the NLRB established a “completely religious” test8 that exempted only Catholic schools with no secular education, such as seminaries to train young men for the priesthood.  Even when a school was owned and operated by the Catholic Church, the NLRB determined that:

Regulation of labor relations does not violate the First Amendment when it involves a minimal intrusion on religious conduct and is necessary to obtain [the National Labor Relations Act’s] objective.9

It required the Supreme Court in the 1979 case NLRB v. The Catholic Bishop of Chicago, et al. to introduce the concept of religious freedom to the NLRB.  Under consideration were lay faculty unions at Catholic parochial schools in the dioceses of Chicago and Fort Wayne-South Bend.  The federal Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit had ruled that both the Free Exercise Clause and the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment prevented the NLRB from asserting jurisdiction over a Catholic school with regard to teachers, and it dismissed the NLRB’s “completely religious” test for exemption:

We find the standard itself to be a simplistic black or white, purported rule containing no borderline demarcation of where ‘completely religious’ takes over or, on the other hand, ceases.  In our opinion the dichotomous ‘completely religious-merely religiously associated’ standard provides no workable guide to the exercise of discretion.  The determination that an institution is so completely a religious entity as to exclude any viable secular components obviously implicates very sensitive questions of faith and tradition.10

Agreeing that the NLRB’s jurisdiction over Catholic schools with regard to faculty unions posed significant First Amendment concerns, and finding that Congress had not clearly expressed its intent that teachers in church-operated schools would be covered by the National Labor Relations Act, the Supreme Court upheld the Circuit Court ruling.  How this might impact Catholic colleges and universities, however, was a matter left to the NLRB and lower courts.

College of Notre Dame (1979)11

In September 1979, the NLRB considered an appeal from the College of Notre Dame in Belmont, California, to a regional director’s assertion of jurisdiction over the Catholic college.  It was the first case before the Board in which a Catholic college claimed a right to refuse collective bargaining according to the Supreme Court ruling in Catholic Bishop.

The regional director had asserted that the Supreme Court’s First Amendment concerns in Catholic Bishop were irrelevant to the College’s interests, because the Court had been concerned only with lay teachers in “church-operated” elementary and secondary schools.  This limited the effective reach of Catholic Bishop in three ways: it could be applied only to elementary and secondary schools, not colleges or other institutions; it applied only to schools deemed to be “church-operated,” as distinct from schools that were church-affiliated but legally independent from an established church; and it applied only to bargaining units of teachers, not non-teaching employees.

The NLRB agreed with the regional director’s first restriction, contending that a college education does not typically involve “substantial religious activity and purpose” like the Catholic schools involved in Catholic Bishop, even at a religious college.  Therefore the government would not become entangled in religious matters if a college were subjected to NLRB oversight.  The Board cited the Supreme Court ruling in Tilton v. Richardson:

There are generally significant differences between the religious aspects of church-related institutions of higher learning and parochial elementary and secondary schools. …Since religious indoctrination is not a substantial purpose or activity of these church-related colleges and universities, there is less likelihood than in primary and secondary schools that religion will permeate the area of secular education.”12

The NLRB also agreed that the College was not controlled by the Catholic Church:

Because an independent board of trustees, not the diocese or the Order, controls the institution, and because there is no administrative or financial connection at all between the diocese or the Order and the school, the College of Notre Dame is not church-operated within the meaning of Catholic Bishop.

The NLRB acknowledged that the College of Notre Dame had clear ties to the Catholic Church.  The college was established in 1851 by the Order of Sisters of Notre Dame de Namur.  At the time of the NLRB’s review, nine of the college’s fifteen trustees were Sisters of Notre Dame, and one-third of the faculty was affiliated with religious orders.  The college required that the president, an ex officio member of the board of trustees, belong to the founding Order.

But this was insufficient for the NLRB to regard the College as church-controlled.  Legal ownership of the college had been transferred from the Sisters of Notre Dame de Namur to a board of trustees independent of the Order and the Archdiocese of San Francisco.  The NLRB found no evidence of property owned or funds contributed by the Sisters or the Archdiocese.

The regional director’s third limitation on Catholic Bishop—that it did not apply to non-teaching employees, such as the service and maintenance employees who were the focus of this particular case—was not taken up by the NLRB, which said the issue was moot since it had determined that Catholic Bishop did not apply to the College for other reasons.  Nevertheless, the teachers-only restriction would be cited in future cases.

Having rejected the College’s standing for exemption from the National Labor Relations Act under Catholic Bishop, the NLRB could have ended its deliberations.  Instead the Board proceeded to consider whether the College was sufficiently religious to pose a risk of government entanglement with religion by forcing collective bargaining and asserting NLRB jurisdiction over the College—the Supreme Court’s primary concern in Catholic Bishop.  The further investigation was clearly unnecessary after the Board had already determined that Catholic Bishop was not relevant.  But the NLRB may not have been confident of its limited application of Catholic Bishop and may have wanted to insure that its ruling was not overturned by a federal court.  The NLRB continued to devote substantial time and effort to such evaluations in future cases.

The Board’s investigation turned up some positive signs of Catholicity.  According to the student handbook, the college aimed “to assist the student to acquire a deeper understanding of Christianity in its Catholic interpretation, to live and experience it relevantly, and to provide knowledge of other Christian and non-Christian religions.”  Crucifixes hung in most classrooms.

But the NLRB also found evidence of secularization underneath the Catholic trappings.  It described the undergraduate curriculum as “nonsectarian,” requiring only two general religion courses in a wide variety of subjects including Judaism and Islam.  And the Board reported that faculty were hired “without regard to religious preference,” the school calendar listed no religious holidays, and students were never required to attend Mass.

Interestingly, the NLRB found it relevant that the College received federal grants and participated in federal and state student aid programs.  The concern might reasonably have been related to the question of church control over the College, in which regard the NLRB has established a pattern of examining whether an employer is substantially funded by the Catholic bishops or a religious order.  But here—and in future rulings—the Board seemed to imply that acceptance of government assistance is a sign that a college or university lacks a strongly religious purpose.

Lewis University (1982)13

Three years later in 1982, Lewis University in Romeville, Illinois, unsuccessfully opposed a faculty union and challenged the NLRB’s application of Catholic Bishop.  The NLRB held firmly to its position that “Catholic Bishop applies only to parochial elementary and secondary schools, not to institutions of higher learning such as Lewis University.”  The Board cited both College of Notre Dame and another 1979 ruling against Barber-Scotia College,14 which was affiliated with the United Presbyterian Church.

Lewis University had clear ties to the Catholic Church.  It was founded in 1930 by the Archdiocese of Chicago, which later transferred ownership to the newly formed Diocese of Joliet.  The Brothers of the Christian Schools were asked to handle day-to-day management, and their involvement with the University continued even after 1974, when control shifted to an independent board of trustees.  The NLRB found that more than a third of the trustees, seven out of nineteen, were Christian Brothers at the time of its review, and the chairman was the order’s provincial.

Nevertheless, the NLRB determined that Lewis University was not church-operated.  Although seven trustees were Christian Brothers, the University’s bylaws required that a majority (ten) of the trustees must be members of the order, and the NLRB looked unfavorably at the order’s failure to exercise its right of control.  The Board also noted the lack of control by the Diocese of Joliet and the University’s acceptance of state and federal aid.

With regard to the University’s religious identity, the NLRB found that courses available to fulfill students’ required six credits of “religious studies” were “not limited to Catholicism.”  Faculty members were not required to be Catholic.

In addition to pleading for an exemption under Catholic Bishop, Lewis University tried a new argument that had been successful just months earlier for Duquesne University of the Holy Ghost in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania.15  Although Duquesne had initially contested a regional director’s assertion that Catholic Bishop does not apply to colleges, the University dropped the argument on appeal before the NLRB, instead relying on a new Supreme Court ruling in NLRB v. Yeshiva University.16  The Court had ruled that full-time professors at Yeshiva were “managerial” employees who had a significant role in management of the University, and therefore they could be excluded from collective bargaining.  The strategy worked for Duquesne, and the NLRB ruled that the University was exempt from recognizing a union of full-time members of its law faculty.

Lewis University was not so successful.  The NLRB ruled that its full-time professors were not managerial employees as in Yeshiva University, because at Lewis they did not have final authority over significant University operations and did not “effectively formulate and effectuate the policies of the Employer.”

Universidad Central de Bayamon (1984)17

The 1984 case of the Universidad Central de Bayamon, a historically Dominican university in Puerto Rico, introduced a new dilemma for the NLRB: if Catholic Bishop exempted parochial elementary and secondary schools but not colleges from the National Labor Relations Act, how should the Board regard a Catholic university that operates a Catholic school?  Also, was there a possibility of entanglement with religion if the NLRB claimed jurisdiction over a university that operated a program to prepare seminarians for the priesthood?

Although the Universidad Central de Bayamon could claim both situations—with a seminarian program and two Catholic schools—the NLRB determined that the University must recognize a union of full-time teaching personnel.

Among the University’s programs was the Center for Dominican Studies in the Caribbean (CEDOC), a two-year Master of Divinity program that was open to lay students, especially those who intended to teach in Catholic schools, but was primarily intended to partially prepare seminarians for the priesthood.  The NLRB found that the curriculum was “primarily religious in content,” and that the Center required all courses to be taught “within the limits of the Roman Catholic tradition.”  To claim jurisdiction over CEDOC would unconstitutionally involve the NLRB in religious matters pertaining to CEDOC’s faculty.

But rather than exempt the entire University from collective bargaining, the NLRB ruled that only CEDOC employees could be excluded from the faculty union.  This was possible, the Board decided, because CEDOC had its own director and hired and paid for its own professors; it was “not wholly and structurally integrated with Respondent.”

The University also owned a Catholic elementary school and a Catholic elementary/secondary school, in part to offer teacher-training to the University’s students.  The schools were governed by the University’s board of trustees and president, and their director was vice president of the University.  Despite this formal oversight, however, the NLRB concluded that the schools operated largely independent of the University and the Catholic Church, with their own principals, budgets and authority to hire teachers.

Both schools required their teachers to “keep those norms of behavior which are dictated by the School and the Catholic Church.” Like CEDOC, the NLRB determined that the schools were thoroughly Catholic, and it would be “an impermissible entanglement between government and religion” to require the University to bargain with the schools’ teachers.  But because of the schools’ operational independence, a union of full-time University faculty would not interfere with religious education at the schools.  The University could exclude the schools’ teachers from collective bargaining, but still had to recognize a faculty union.

As for Central de Bayamon’s standing with regard to Catholic Bishop, the NLRB repeated its argument that the Supreme Court had focused narrowly on union organization of Catholic elementary and secondary school teachers, not colleges.  Also, the Board concluded that the University was not “owned, financed or controlled by the Dominican Order or by the Roman Catholic Church, and that the University’s academic mission is secular.”

Central de Bayamon was founded by the Order of the Dominican Fathers in 1961 but became independent in 1970.  The NLRB noted that the local Archdiocese of San Juan had no “administrative nor secular control over the institution,” owned no University property and contributed no funds as of 1984.  The only assistance from the Order was an interest-free mortgage on certain property.  Although six of the University’s ten trustees were Dominicans, the NLRB reported the president’s testimony that the board of trustees “does not consult with or report to the Order.”

The NLRB concluded: “There is no dispute that Respondent has been recognized as a Catholic university, but this recognition has had no effect on the manner that the University has been administered or on its curriculum offerings.”  But in fact there did seem to be some dispute about the University’s recognition by the Church, even according to the Board’s findings.  The NLRB reported, presumably referring to the Archbishop of San Juan:

Indeed, the highest ranking official in the Catholic Church in San Juan testified, without contradiction, that as the Employer does not comply with any of the requisites set forth by the Catholic Church, the Employer is not a Catholic university and that it has repeatedly refused to submit to any direction or control by the Catholic Church.

But to the contrary, the University claimed that it had been “recognized by and affiliated with the Sacred Congregation of Catholic Education in Rome as a Catholic institution.”  And the NLRB acknowledged a formal agreement between the University and the Church:

The recognition agreement vests on the Bishop of San Juan only the authority to oversee those aspects of university life and functions dealing with pastoral or religious matters and is specific in adding: “This right to oversee is understood not to extend to matters which usually fall within the university administration competency.”  Although the agreement grants the Bishop the right to attend meetings of the board of trustees where pastoral matters are going to be discussed, no such meetings have been held and the Bishop has not attended any meetings, nor has he been invited to them or solicited an invitation.

As in College of Notre Dame and Lewis University, the NLRB proceeded to evaluate the Catholic identity of the Universidad Central de Bayamon.  The University’s education, argued the NLRB, was “entirely secular.”  The Articles of Incorporation defined the University’s purpose as providing “a humanistic education at an academic level.”  The Board found that students were not required to attend Mass or study the Catholic religion; a required three-credit course offered “a comparison of various religions.”  The Catholic Church was not involved with student admissions or faculty hiring, neither students nor professors had to be Catholic, and professors “do not have to commit themselves in writing to support the mission of the Church.”

The NLRB repeatedly noted the University’s participation in federal aid programs.  At the conclusion of its argument that the University is primarily secular, the Board admonished: “Respondent’s posture regarding its religious affiliation is hardly consistent with its demonstrated, repeated attempts, often successful, to receive Federal grants for its programs.”

As in Lewis University, the NLRB also considered whether Central de Bayamon University’s full-time professors were managerial employees and therefore ineligible for unionization, according to the Supreme Court ruling in Yeshiva University.   The NLRB ruled that the University’s professors had insufficient control over operations and therefore were not managerial.

But the NLRB did not have the last word.  Central de Bayamon University refused to comply with the ruling, and the Board petitioned the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit to enforce its directives.  In the Court’s ruling in 1986, it split evenly on whether the NLRB correctly applied Catholic Bishop.  The split ruling meant that the Court was unable to enforce the NLRB’s jurisdiction over the University, and so the University was not forced to bargain with its employees.

In an opinion written by future Supreme Court Justice Stephen Breyer, which proved influential in future court cases, three of the Circuit Court judges argued that the very act of inquiring whether an employer was sufficiently religious was contrary to the First Amendment concerns in Catholic Bishop.  They were satisfied that the University was not church-controlled within the meaning of Catholic Bishop, even though it demonstrated a secular purpose with a “subsidiary religious mission.”

The judges also rejected the NLRB’s position that Catholic Bishop did not apply to colleges and universities.  They argued that Catholic Bishop did not clearly distinguish Catholic colleges from Catholic schools, and that the National Labor Relations Act did not explicitly contemplate jurisdiction over religious employers regardless of whether they are schools, colleges or other institutions.  Moreover, they asserted that the risk of “state/religion entanglement” in a Catholic university was comparable to that of a Catholic elementary or secondary school under the jurisdiction of the NLRB.

But with a split court and no clear court precedent on these questions, the judges invited confirmation: “Whether this kind of institution of higher education falls within the strictures of Catholic Bishop is, in our view, an important, likely recurring, question that calls for Supreme Court guidance.”

St. Joseph’s College (1986)18

A 1986 case concerning St. Joseph’s College in Standish, Maine, brought about an important reversal by the NLRB.  The Board consented to apply the Supreme Court ruling in Catholic Bishop to colleges and universities as well as elementary and secondary schools:

After careful consideration, we are now of the opinion that the Supreme Court’s holding in Catholic Bishop is not limited to parochial elementary and secondary schools, but rather applies to all schools regardless of the level of education provided.  There is no language in Catholic Bishop limiting the Court’s holding to parochial elementary and secondary schools. …we find that we can more properly accommodate first amendment concerns by considering the application of Catholic Bishop to all educational institutions on a case-by-case basis.

Given the timing of the D.C. Circuit Court’s split ruling in the case of Central de Bayamon University, which had been issued nearly five months earlier, it seems possible that the NLRB’s turnabout was influenced by Judge Breyer’s opinion in that case.  But nowhere in the Board’s new ruling was the Circuit Court referenced.

Although the reversal meant that prior cases including those cited above were partially overruled, the NLRB stood behind its findings that the College of Notre Dame, Lewis University and the Universidad Central de Bayamon were not church-operated.  But for St. Joseph’s College, it was a different story.  The NLRB found that the College was, in fact, “church-operated within the meaning of” Catholic Bishop and therefore could refuse to recognize a faculty union.

Key to this ruling was the significant involvement of the College’s founding religious order, the Sisters of Mercy.  The Sisters founded St. Joseph College in 1912 and maintained control over the institution with a two-tiered governance.  The board of trustees, always chaired by the Mother General of the Sisters of Mercy, had final authority over the College.  The Mother General selected the other six trustees; at the time of the NLRB review, all were Sisters of Mercy.  The trustees controlled the corporation’s investments and assets and appointed the College president.

A second body, the board of governors, managed day-to-day operations of the College.  Composed of 24 to 36 members, at least one-third of the governors had to be members of the founding Order.  The governors were required to ensure that College policies were consistent with the Catholic faith and the College’s mission.  The board included a representative of the Bishop of Portland:

…whose responsibility is to insure that the College, in its teachings, does not contradict the teachings of the Catholic Church with respect to faith and morals.  According to the chairman of the board of trustees, if the Bishop finds such a contradiction, he can take appropriate action, including asking for the discharge of the faculty member involved and/or making a determination as to which books shall be used by the College.  There is no evidence, however, that the Bishop has ever exercised this power.

The NLRB found that the Sisters of Mercy held low-interest and interest-free loans to the College totaling approximately $1,765,000.  Administrators told the Board that “the College could not survive without the financial support of the Order.”

Selection criteria for the president, as described by the NLRB, included: “be a practicing Catholic, have a valid marriage, be pro Church, religion, and the mission of St. Joseph’s College, and to accept and support the objectives of the ‘sponsoring body.’”

Sisters of Mercy held 18 teaching and administrative positions at the College, including dean and treasurer of the College.  The NLRB noted that, since 1981, new professors were required to sign a statement that the professor “considers it a part of his duty to promote the objectives and goals of the College… the Sisters of Mercy of Maine.”

The NLRB also found a strong Catholic identity at St. Joseph’s College.  Promoted as “the Catholic College of Maine,” the College attracted Catholics who comprised 80 percent of the student body.  Mass was voluntary, but for Catholic students, the six required credits in religious studies had to concern Catholicism.  The NLRB concluded, but did not seem concerned, that the remaining subjects were taught in a manner comparable to secular colleges.

Teachers were forbidden to “inculcate ideas contrary to the official position of the Pope with the Bishops in matters of Faith and Morals.”

Although there is no evidence of any faculty discharges for any reason, the president of the College testified that faculty could and would be dismissed if their personal lives were not in harmony with the teachings of the Catholic Church or if they advocated ideas, in or out of the classroom, which were contrary to Catholic beliefs.

Based on these findings, the NLRB concluded that by asserting jurisdiction over St. Joseph’s College, it would violate the warning in Catholic Bishop that government must avoid entanglement with religion, thereby presenting “a significant risk that the First Amendment will be infringed.”

We particularly find that the College’s requirement that faculty members conform to Catholic doctrine and agree on hire “to promote the objectives and goals… of the Sisters of Mercy of Maine,” not merely the objectives and goals of the College itself, would necessarily involve the Board in an “inquiry into the good faith of a position asserted by the clergy-administrators” in the resolution of common unfair labor practices involving discipline or discharge, a result clearly disapproved of by the Court in Catholic Bishop.

University of Great Falls (1997, 2000)19

The Religious Freedom Restoration Act of 1993 (RFRA)20 introduced a new factor into NLRB rulings on the exemption of religious employers from the National Labor Relations Act.  RFRA states, “Government shall not substantially burden a person’s exercise of religion even if the burden results from a rule of general applicability,” unless the burden is necessary for the “furtherance of a compelling government interest” and is the least restrictive means of serving that interest.

In 1996, the University of Great Falls in Great Falls, Montana, argued that the Catholic university was exempt from recognizing a faculty union according to Catholic Bishop, and also that the NLRB’s jurisdiction over the University would violate the Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA).  Without comment, the Board declined to reconsider a regional director’s decision to reject the argument with regard to Catholic Bishop.

As for RFRA, the NLRB initially agreed to consider the University’s arguments.  But just prior to the Board’s ruling, in the 1997 case City of Bourne v. Flores,21 the Supreme Court invalidated a portion of RFRA as it applied to state and local governments, finding that it violated the separation of powers in the Fourteenth Amendment.  Although the Court’s ruling did not invalidate the law as it pertains to the federal government, the NLRB inexplicably declared moot the University’s argument with regard to RFRA following the Flores decision.

The NLRB therefore dismissed the appeal, upholding the regional director’s claim of jurisdiction over the University and rejecting the University’s additional claim that its faculty members were not managerial.

But it did not end there.  The University of Great Falls continued to refuse collective bargaining with its professors and was ordered to report again to the NLRB in the year 2000.  This time the Board acknowledged that the Supreme Court had not rendered RFRA moot with regard to the federal government, and so the Board addressed for the first time the impact of RFRA on the National Labor Relations Act’s jurisdiction over a Catholic university.

A violation of RFRA must constitute a substantial burden on religious practices.  The NLRB noted that the legislative intent behind RFRA was to restore legal standards of religious liberty that existed prior to the Supreme Court’s 1990 decision in Employment Division v. Smith.22  The Board therefore reasoned that it could continue to rely on Catholic Bishop as it had done prior to RFRA, and that its standard of avoiding even a “substantial risk of infringement” on religious activity was well within RFRA’s prohibition on an actual “substantial burden.”  So while the NLRB acknowledged the applicability of RFRA to its jurisdiction over Catholic employers, it decided that the law had no practical impact on its deliberations.

Returning, then, to Catholic Bishop, the NLRB ruled that the University of Great Falls was not church-controlled.

In making this finding, the regional director examined and relied on a number of factors.  The regional director found that neither the Order nor the Catholic Church is involved directly in the day-to-day administration of the University, including such matters as hiring and firing of faculty, modifying the curriculum, and purchasing educational supplies and materials.  In this regard, the Respondent’s board of trustees, which is overwhelmingly composed of lay persons, possesses the final approval authority on such personnel matters as faculty sabbaticals, tenure, and promotions, as well as on financial, academic, and student affairs issues.  Further, the evidence shows that the Respondent is not financially dependent on the Order or the Church.

And according to form, the NLRB also considered the extent of the University’s religious identity, echoing the regional director’s finding that “the University’s purpose and function are primarily secular.”  Here the regional director helpfully summarized eight tests of a “substantial religious character” (numbering added to original text):

The Board has not relied solely on [1] the employer’s affiliation with a religious organization, but rather has evaluated [2] the purpose of the employer’s operations, [3] the role of the unit employees in effectuating that purpose, and [4] the potential effects if the Board exercised jurisdiction.  The Board considers such factors as [5] the involvement of the religious institution in the daily operation of the school, the degree to which the school has [6] a religious mission and [7] curriculum, and [8] whether religious criteria are used for the appointment and evaluation of faculty.

Without undertaking its own review of the University of Great Falls, the NLRB concluded that the regional director had “ample grounds” for determining that the University was “primarily secular.”  Although the University had been associated with the Sisters of Providence since its founding in 1932:

…the regional director relied, among other things, on the following: (1) the curriculum does not require the Catholic faith to be emphasized, nor is there in fact a particular emphasis on Catholicism; (2) the Respondent’s board of trustees is not required to establish policies consistent with the Catholic religion; (3) the University’s president and other administrators are lay persons who need not be members of the Catholic faith; (4) faculty members are not required to be Catholics, to teach Catholic doctrine, or to support the Church or its teachings; (5) students may come from any religious background, and no preference is given to applicants of the Catholic faith; of approximately 1,450 students, only about 32 percent are Catholic; and (6) although undergraduate students are required to take one course in religious studies, the course does not have to be one involving Catholicism.

Again, despite the finding against the University of Great Falls, the NLRB did not have the last word.  The University petitioned the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit for review in September 2000.23  The University argued not only that the NLRB had no jurisdiction over the University under Catholic Bishop, but also that the Board’s investigation of the University’s religious character was itself a violation of its First Amendment rights under Catholic Bishop.  The University also repeated its argument that it was exempt from NLRB jurisdiction under RFRA.

The University was joined in its struggle by three Catholic universities which filed amicus briefs, including The Catholic University of America, the University of the Incarnate Word and Saint Leo University—but not the Association of Catholic Colleges and Universities, the National Conference of Catholic Bishops, or any individual bishop.  Supporting briefs were filed by several Seventh-Day Adventist organizations and universities, the Association of Southern Baptist Colleges and Schools, the Association of Christian Schools International, Baylor University (Baptist) and Brigham Young University (Mormon).

The Circuit Court’s 2002 ruling repudiated the NLRB’s past 23 years of intruding on the religious freedom of Catholic colleges.  The Court agreed with the University of Great Falls that the NLRB should never have investigated the University’s policies and activities in an attempt to judge its religious character.  “The Board reached the wrong conclusion because it applied the wrong test,” the Court reasoned.  It noted that while the federal courts usually defer to agencies’ interpretations of “ambiguous statutory language,” the courts place a higher priority on “constitutional avoidance”—meaning they will try to avoid constitutional questions when it is reasonable to do so.

According to the Circuit Court, the NLRB had improperly interpreted Catholic Bishop as inviting the agency’s judgment as to whether an employer is religious according to certain standards.  Instead, the Supreme Court in Catholic Bishop was primarily interested in avoiding unnecessary conflict with the First Amendment, which was possible because the National Labor Relations Act did not explicitly place religious employers under its jurisdiction or specify criteria by which a religious institution could seek an exemption to the law.  It could simply be assumed that First Amendment concerns prevail when an employer sincerely claims a religious mission and identity.

In Catholic Bishop, the Supreme Court was concerned that NLRB jurisdiction over Catholic schools:

…will necessarily involve inquiry into the good faith of the position asserted by the clergy administrators and its relationship to the schools’ religious mission.  …It is not only the conclusions that may be reached by the Board which may impinge on rights guaranteed by the Religion Clauses, but also the very process of inquiry leading to findings and conclusions.

By evaluating whether a Catholic university was sufficiently religious, the Circuit Court ruled, the NLRB “has engaged in the sort of intrusive inquiry that Catholic Bishop sought to avoid.”  The Court cited the plurality opinion in the Supreme Court case Mitchell v. Helms,24  rejecting “inquiry into… religious views” as “not only unnecessary but also offensive,” and declaring that “[i]t is well established, in numerous other contexts, that courts should refrain from trolling through a person’s or institution’s religious beliefs.”

Rejecting the NLRB’s intrusive test of an employers’ religiosity, the Court prescribed a three-part test for exemption from the National Labor Relations Act, drawn partly from Judge Breyer’s opinion in Universidad Central de Bayamon v. NLRB:

  1. The institution “‘holds itself out to students, faculty and community’ as providing a religious educational environment.”
  2. The institution “is organized as a ‘nonprofit’.”
  3. The institution “is affiliated with, or owned, operated, or controlled, directly or indirectly, by a recognized religious organization, or with an entity, membership of which is determined, at least in part, with reference to religion.”

The Court was confident that this test “avoids the constitutional infirmities” of the NLRB investigations of religious character:

Our approach… does not intrude upon the free exercise of religion nor subject the institution to questioning about its motives or beliefs.  It does not ask about the centrality of beliefs or how important the religious mission is to the institution.  Nor should it.

The Court was not concerned that exempting institutions simply because they claim a religious identity would invite fraudulent claims by secular institutions.  It cited the Supreme Court ruling Boy Scouts of America v. Dale,25 in which the Court found that if an institution publicly holds itself out to be religious, the Court “cannot doubt that [it] sincerely holds this view.”

While public religious identification will no doubt attract some students and faculty to the institution, it will dissuade others.  In other words, it comes at a cost.  Such market responses will act as a check on institutions falsely identify [sic] themselves as religious merely to obtain exemption from the NLRA.  Thus, the requirement of public identification helps to ensure that only bona fide religious institutions are exempted.

Because the Court found that the University of Great Falls easily met its three-part test and was therefore exempt from NLRB jurisdiction, it did not consider the University’s exemption under RFRA.  But the Court did criticize the NLRB’s reliance on Catholic Bishop as sufficient for meeting the standards of RFRA.  An institution that is not exempt from collective bargaining under Catholic Bishop, the Court reasoned, might still endure a “substantial burden” on its “exercise of religion” because of collective bargaining generally or because of a particular remedy imposed by the NLRB.

Manhattan College (Pending)

Despite the D.C. Circuit Court’s repudiation of the NLRB’s religious character test, the Board has not yet embraced the Court’s three-part test prescribed in University of Great Falls v. NLRB, leaving staff to follow Board precedent with the religious character test.  In 2003, the NLRB’s general counsel advised Barry University in Miami Shores, Florida, that it was exempt from NLRB jurisdiction under Catholic Bishop—but only after concluding that “the University’s board of trustees and administration adhere to and seek to fulfill a stated religious mission.”26  In 2008, a NLRB regional director decided that the University of Detroit Mercy in Detroit, Michigan, is not exempt from NLRB jurisdiction because neither of the University’s two sponsoring religious orders, the Society of Jesus and the Sisters of Mercy, “or the Catholic Church, is involved in its day-to-day operations.”

In 2008 the D.C. Circuit Court chastised the NLRB for continuing to violate the First Amendment with its investigations into whether colleges were “religious” enough.  In this case, the Board refused to exempt a Presbyterian college—Carroll College of Waukesha, Wisconsin—under RFRA.  The College’s attorneys had conceded NLRB jurisdiction under Catholic Bishop, but then changed their minds when they appealed the case to the Circuit Court.  The Court ruled in favor of the College:

After our decision in Great Falls, Carroll is patently beyond the NLRB’s jurisdiction.  Great Falls created a bright-line test of the Board’s jurisdiction according to which we ask three questions easily answered with objective criteria.

From Carroll’s public representations, it is readily apparent that the college holds itself out to all as providing a religious educational environment.  That it is a nonprofit affiliated with a Presbyterian synod is beyond dispute.  From the Board’s own review of Carroll’s publicly available documents, see Carroll Coll., 345 N.L.R.B. at 254–55, it should have known immediately that the college was entitled to a Catholic Bishop exemption from the NLRA’s collective bargaining requirements.27

Still, NLRB staff employees continue to apply the Board’s religious character test absent a clear Board ruling that embraces the D.C. Circuit Court’s more lenient three-part test for exemption.  In 2010, the NLRB general counsel rejected a request by Marquette University in Milwaukee, Wisconsin, for exemption from recognizing a union of security guards—not only because the unit did not include teaching faculty, but because “the Board has not adopted the D.C. Circuit’s three-part test for determining whether to assert jurisdiction over religiously-operated employers.”28  Revealing a clear preference on the matter, the general counsel contrasted the Board’s “thorough” religious character assessment with the Court’s “superficial” test.

This year the NLRB has an opportunity to accept the Circuit Court’s three-part test, if it so chooses.  The Board has agreed to consider an appeal of an acting regional director’s ruling against Manhattan College in Riverdale, New York, which contends that the acting director inappropriately asserted jurisdiction over the Christian Brothers institution, citing the Circuit Court ruling in Great Falls.

But even as Catholic educators hope for an end to more than three decades of federal intrusion under the NLRB’s religious character test, the Manhattan case poses a new difficulty.  Not only did the acting director find that Manhattan College failed the Board’s religious character test, but he also anticipated Circuit Court review and concluded that the College failed to meet a strict interpretation of the Court’s three-part test.  Catholic educators and religious liberty advocates will be watching closely to see whether the NLRB or the Circuit Court, should the case be appealed, will accept the acting director’s interpretation and thereby limit exemptions from the National Labor Relations Act even if Great Falls becomes precedent.

With regard to Catholic Bishop, Manhattan College began its dispute with the NLRB more than a decade ago.  In 1996 a regional director concluded that the College was “a Church-sponsored institution within the meaning of Catholic Bishop” and dismissed a petition from full-time and part-time faculty seeking to unionize.  But the faculty appealed, and the director reversed her decision in a 1999 ruling, finding also that the College’s professors were not “managerial.”  The victory for the union organizers was short-lived; in 2000 the faculty voted against forming a union.

In 2010 the College’s adjunct faculty petitioned the NLRB to force the College to recognize its union.  The acting regional director, noting the Board’s 1999 decision that the College was not “church-operated,” considered whether anything significant had changed at the College.  In so doing, he conducted the sort of investigation of the College’s religious character that the D.C.  Circuit Court had found to be unconstitutional.

The acting director found much at Manhattan College that clearly distinguished it as Catholic.  It was listed in the U.S. bishops’ Official Catholic Directory as a Catholic institution in the Archdiocese of New York.  The bylaws required that the Brother Provincial of the District of Eastern North America of the Christian Brothers (or his designee) and at least five Christian Brothers “to the extent one is available” serve on the Board of Trustees.  The Provincial was designated vice-chairman and served on the Executive Committee.

In December 2002, the College and the Christian Brothers had agreed to a “Sponsorship Covenant” celebrating the two parties’ “intertwined history” since 1853.  The Covenant established the position of Vice President of Mission, asserting that the College was “[f]irst and foremost… a Catholic institution” that “has always been sponsored by the Christian Brothers.”  It required the College, when hiring new employees, to “discuss the mission statement, the College’s Catholic identity, and its Lasallian tradition” and to favor Christian Brothers as candidates.  The president had to be someone “strong in the knowledge and in the practice of the Catholic faith and who understands and values the Lasallian Tradition.”

Nevertheless, the acting regional director determined that the College was “owned, operated and controlled by an independent Board of Trustees, not by the Catholic Church or any religious entity.”  Despite assigning six trustee positions to Christian Brothers, the College’s bylaws allowed for up to 37 trustees, including no fewer than 10 lay alumni.  And although Christian Brothers had traditionally served as president, the 2002 Covenant allowed for a layman—and in 2009, the first lay president was appointed.

And despite the required discussions of the College’s Catholic identity with new hires, “it is also clear that it is not a requirement that candidates be Catholic or have a belief in God in order to be hired.”  The application for adjunct faculty required applicants to attest that they have read and will “abide by” the College’s mission statement, but assured them that it placed “no obligation whatsoever on anyone as far as their personal beliefs or religious practices are concerned.”

As for financial control, half the assets of the College were designated to the Christian Brothers upon dissolution of the College, and the acting regional director estimated that the Brothers contributed about $100,000 per year to the institution.  But the College also received about $350,000 per year from the State of New York toward its $84 million budget.

The acting director found that students at Manhattan College were required to complete three courses in Religious Studies, including one in Catholic Studies—“an academic course on the Catholic intellectual tradition and does not require students to learn prayers, learn Catholic rituals, or express Christian faith.”  Students did not have to be Catholic to be admitted.

The mission statement identified the College as an “independent Catholic institution of higher learning” but described its purposes in largely secular terms:

Established in 1853, the College is founded upon the Lasallian tradition of excellence in teaching, respect for individual dignity, and commitment to social justice inspired by the innovator of modern pedagogy, John Baptist de la Salle.  The mission of Manhattan College is to provide a contemporary, person-centered educational experience characterized by high academic standards, reflection on faith, value and ethics, and life-long career preparation.  This is achieved in two ways: by offering students programs which integrate a broad liberal education with a concentration in specific disciplines in the arts and sciences or with professional preparation in business, education and engineering; and by nurturing a caring, pluralistic campus community.

Other documents reviewed by the acting regional director found repeated affirmations of the College’s Catholic character—but independent of Catholic Church control, without indoctrination or any imposition on students and faculty, and recognizing professors’ academic freedom.  A 1999 “Trustees Report” provided to faculty applicants stated:

There is no intention on the part of the Board, the administration, or the faculty to impose Church affiliation and religious observance as a condition for hiring or admission, to set quotas based on religious affiliation, to require loyalty oaths, attendance at religious services, or courses in Catholic theology.

The acting regional director determined that the College was not church-controlled within the meaning of Catholic Bishop, and the role of adjunct faculty did “not involve propagating religious faith in any way.”  But he went beyond the NLRB’s religious character test to apply the D.C. Circuit Court’s three-part test for exemption from NLRB jurisdiction, despite noting that the Board had not yet adopted the Court’s test.  “Even applying the D.C. Circuit test here,” he concluded, “jurisdiction would still be proper.”

Whether the Circuit Court would agree is doubtful.  In Great Falls and in Carroll College, the Court seemed content to accept a stated religious affiliation as sufficient to meet the first prong of its test, that the college or university “‘holds itself out to students, faculty and community’ as providing a religious educational environment.”  Manhattan College clearly identifies itself as a Catholic institution, albeit without the sort of religious criteria for admission, hiring and coursework that might be found elsewhere.

Instead, the acting regional director took on the task of determining whether the College offered a genuine “religious educational environment,” entering into the sort of judgment about religious character that the Circuit Court sought to avoid.  In so doing, the director concluded that Manhattan College did not offer a religious environment despite claiming a Catholic identity.

The ruling cites a number of College materials in support of this conclusion.  A student admissions brochure, for instance, “makes certain references to St. John Baptist de La Salle, but does not include any reference to the Catholic Church or Catholicism.”  It described Lasallian education in largely secular terms:

Learning De La Salle style means that your teachers are exceptional, devoted to a personal approach that centers on you and your success.  That what you learn is both practical and cutting-edge.  That values and compassion lie at the heart of whatever you do. …The Lasallian education is about embracing a full, caring and meaningful life.

Likewise the Application for Admission “contains no reference whatsoever to religion, faith, or the Church” and required an essay describing career and educational goals.

An employee recruitment brochure listed the “LaSallian Core Principles: including ‘Faith in the Presence of God,’ as well as ‘Respect for all Persons,’ ‘Quality Education,’ ‘Inclusive Community,’ and ‘Concern for the Poor and Social Justice.’”  The acting regional director argued that the repeated references to LaSallian education did not seem to indicate a particularly religious environment that would lead to First Amendement conflicts with NLRB jurisdiction.

While the College may well be affiliated with the Church and take pride in its historical relationship with the Church, the College’s public representations clearly demonstrate that it is not providing a ‘religious educational environment’ and therefore, even under the D.C. Circuit test, the Board should exercise jurisdiction over the College.

In its pending appeal to the NLRB, Manhattan College argues that the acting regional director ignored numerous examples of how the College lives out its Catholic identity and professes it to prospective students and faculty.  The College argues that the director improperly defined the LaSallian heritage as largely secular.

Most importantly, however, the College challenges the acting regional director’s examination of its materials for evidence of a truly “religious educational environment” as itself a violation of the College’s religious liberty and the D.C. Circuit Court’s rulings.

The federal appellate courts have followed Catholic Bishop with a consistent series of decisions which set out parameters for the NLRB’s permissible inquiry and the application of the First Amendment jurisdictional bar to religious colleges. …Those proscriptions and limitations were pervasively ignored by the Region in this case.

Facing the Future

Manhattan College’s prospects on appeal to the NLRB are not certain.  The Board is faced with three crucial choices: 1) follow the Circuit Court’s apparent direction by declining jurisdiction over Manhattan College and any institution that simply claims a religious identity, according to the Court’s three-part test; 2) interpret the Court’s test in such a way as to assert jurisdiction over Manhattan College and other religious institutions that are judged to offer something less than a “religious educational environment;” or 3) ignore the Circuit Court and continue to apply the Board’s intrusive religious character test.

The third option is a real possibility, even though the NLRB knows that rulings appealed to the D.C. Circuit Court are likely to be overturned.  That awkward situation could only be remedied by a new Supreme Court decision.  As stated in 1957, it has been

…the Board’s consistent policy for itself to determine whether to acquiesce in the contrary views of a circuit court of appeals or whether, with due deference to the court’s opinion, to adhere to its previous holding until the Supreme Court of the United States has ruled otherwise.29

If the NLRB persists with its religious character test, it will at least be helpful if the Board offers some clarification of what it is looking for.  As indicated in Table 1, the Board has not always been consistent in the aspects of a college’s Catholic identity which it considers when evaluating the degree of church control and religious character.  This paper considers only rulings by the NLRB and not its regional staff prior to the Manhattan College case; different factors may be considered or disregarded by NLRB staff in regional decisions.

So there remains much uncertainty in rulings involving Catholic colleges, although the final standard seems to be that staff cannot overrule Board precedent.  Until the Board explicitly accepts the Circuit Court’s Great Falls test, regional directors and the general counsel are bound to assess a college’s religious character on a case-by-case basis.

And yet, adding to the confusion is a single exception.  In a 2005 ruling concerning non-teaching employees of The Salvation Army, the NLRB determined:

For the purposes of this case, we assume that the [D.C. Circuit] Court’s test governs the exercise of the Board’s jurisdiction over religiously affiliated educational institution [sic].30

The ruling provides no explanation for why the Great Falls test was applied “for the purposes of this case.”  Nevertheless, the Board asserted jurisdiction because The Salvation Army is not an educational institution according to Catholic Bishop.  Subsequent decisions by regional staff—even in cases concerning educational institutions, including the University of Detroit Mercy, Manhattan College and Marquette University—have simply disregarded Salvation Army, even while claiming that staff must follow NLRB precedent in applying its religious character test.

The response of the D.C. Circuit Court, should a NLRB ruling in the Manhattan College case be appealed, is rather easy to predict if the Board chooses option one or three—following the Court’s lead or outright rejecting it.  But should the Board accept the argument of its acting regional director, limiting the ability of religious colleges and universities to meet the Great Falls test, it will be interesting to see how the Circuit Court responds.

The outcome of the Manhattan College case is likely to have a profound impact on Catholic higher education.  It could determine the future of faculty unions.  It may free Catholic colleges and universities from NLRB jurisdiction, or it may be a significant setback for the religious liberty of Catholic educators.  And it could impact other college relations with the federal government if the same First Amendment concerns are applied to requests for exemption from federal law.

Meanwhile, legal experts have advised The Center for the Advancement of Catholic Higher Education that a Catholic college or university’s best protection from religious liberty violations is to faithfully follow the guidelines established by the Catholic Church for Catholic higher education.  The norms of Ex corde Ecclesiae, if followed in both letter and spirit, should be sufficient in most cases to claim a religious identity that impacts curriculum, personnel, campus life, and all activities of the institution.  A new assessment guide published by The Center31 may be helpful to college leaders in self-evaluating their religious identity and preparing for any challenge from a federal agency or court.

The Becket Fund for Religious Liberty warns that Catholic institutions must be able to demonstrate that their religious identity is “bona fide” and “sincerely held,” or they may be unable to claim religious exemptions to federal law.32  Kevin Theriot, Senior Counsel for the Alliance Defense Fund, believes the Vatican and bishops have made this easier with clear standards of Catholic identity: “Catholic colleges and universities have an advantage over other religious institutions in that the Catholic Church’s Canon Law and the Apostolic Constitution Ex corde Ecclesiae lay out the requirements for a college to be considered Catholic.”33

Moreover, an appropriate easing of NLRB jurisdiction over Catholic institutions does not lessen the reality of the “market check” cited by the D.C. Circuit Court.  There is reason to ask not only whether the NLRB should be evaluating a college’s Catholic identity, but also why the NLRB or anyone else who conducts a reasonable evaluation could conclude that the Catholic identity is not strong.  If the public perception is that the fact of a Catholic label is not indicative of a pervasive Catholic identity, then that is a far more important matter than whether to recognize a faculty union—and the question of protecting religious liberty is essentially moot.

(Click to enlarge)

About the Author

Patrick Reilly is the founder and president of The Cardinal Newman Society. He has written numerous articles and is a frequent commentator on Catholic higher education for the media. He is a co-editor of The Newman Guide to Choosing a Catholic College, The Enduring Nature of the Catholic University and Newman’s Idea of a University: The American Response. He has served as editor and researcher for the Capital Research Center, executive director of Citizens for Educational Freedom, higher education analyst for the U.S. House of Representatives education committee, program analyst for the Postsecondary Division of the U.S. Department of Education, and media consultant to the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops.

 

 

 

Assessing Catholic Identity: A Handbook for Catholic College and University Leaders

/in , /by
Click here for PDF

Contents:

Assessing Catholic Identity

Institutional Identity
Mission Statement, Governing Documents & Statutes
Policies, Programs & Commitments
Relationship with Diocesan Bishop
Cooperation

Leadership & Administration
Board of Trustees
Administration and Non-Faculty Employees

Faculty & Academics
Faculty
Curriculum
Theology
Research

Students & Campus Life
Pastoral Ministry
Student Life

Assessing Catholic Identity

It is important that Catholic colleges and universities develop means of assessing their Catholic identity in conformity to common and essential elements of Catholic higher education.  Because of increasing threats to the religious liberty of Catholic institutions by secular regulators, judges and legislators, it is also urgent that Catholic colleges and universities clearly document and defend their Catholic identity.

As the U.S. bishops and Catholic college and university leaders work toward full implementation of the Apostolic Constitution for Catholic Universities, Ex corde Ecclesiae, they are faced with great inconsistencies in how American colleges and universities live out their Catholic identity.  There is a healthy diversity of Catholic institutions in the United States, each with a distinct identity and charism, suggesting different ways of providing a Catholic higher education.  But there are also essential, core elements of any Catholic higher education.  A college or university that is committed to a strong Catholic identity will regularly self-evaluate its success in meeting both shared and particular standards.

This handbook summarizes magisterial guidance on Catholic higher education and proposes self-assessment review questions that college and university leaders may use to help strengthen their institutions’ Catholic identity, with regard to the core elements of Catholic higher education.

“To date, the Holy See’s primary concern at every level is encouraging the fostering and, if necessary, the reclaiming of the Catholic identity of institutions of higher learning,” explained Archbishop J. Michael Miller, then Secretary for the Vatican Congregation of Catholic Education, to American college and university leaders in 2005.34 “It does this, as we shall see, by insisting, first, on the university’s institutional commitment to the Church and, second, on its fidelity to the Catholic faith in all its activities.”

Archbishop Miller framed the issue like this:

Perhaps now is the time to move the debate over the Catholic identity of institutions of higher education to a different level.  Instead of sterile arguments over how “Catholic-lite” a university can be and still be “Catholic,” the question to be engaged becomes: how does a Catholic university honestly and effectively provide a Christian presence in the world of higher education?  The burden of proof now falls on the university itself.  The challenge thus becomes whether a Catholic university can develop the institutional arrangements that clearly demonstrate its willingness to participate in the Church’s evangelizing mission as well as to serve the common good.35

How does a Catholic college or university assess whether it is meeting this “burden of proof”?

Earlier that year during a meeting at the Vatican, Archbishop Miller encouraged American college and university leaders to identify and measure “benchmarks of Catholicity” such as:

Concern for social justice

Sacramental and devotional life

Curriculum – are theology and the Christian tradition core elements?

Percentage of Catholics among faculty, trustees, and staff

Religious and doctrinal attitudes of students over time

Practice of the faith – do students pray, go to Mass, express an interest in religious vocations, etc.?36

These “benchmarks” reflected not the vision for Catholic higher education of a single Vatican official, but instead were drawn directly from the Church’s definition of Catholic higher education in  Ex corde Ecclesiae and forged into a set of practical objectives that would be appropriate for self-assessment.  Archbishop Miller further explained the concept in a 2007 address at the Franciscan University of Steubenville:

Assessment is not an end in itself but should be directed toward enhancing the university’s Catholic identity.  It is of little use to draw up a list of markers of Catholicity that are then ticked off to show the institution’s compliance.  Rather, I would suggest, measurable strategies should be put in place that require the university to deepen its Catholic character, moving it from where it is now to where it wishes to be in the future.37

In January 2006, The Cardinal Newman Society convened a private meeting with presidents and trustees of more than a dozen Catholic colleges and universities to discuss how self-assessment could help Catholic institutions protect and strengthen their Catholic identity.  This and subsequent meetings led to the creation of The Cardinal Newman Society’s Center for the Advancement of Catholic Higher Education, which in part provides an annual forum for presidents of faithful Catholic colleges and universities to collaboratively face the challenges of Catholic higher education.

These and other Catholic colleges and universities have embraced the task of renewing and strengthening their Catholic identity, with encouragement and a growing sense of urgency from the Vatican, Catholic bishops, Catholic families and educators.  But without a process of self-evaluation, it will be difficult if not impossible for Catholic college leaders to effectively assess, document and strengthen the Catholic identity of their institutions.

The Church’s call to embrace the authentic mission of Catholic higher education is reason enough for colleges and universities to begin self-evaluation.  In addition, the Catholic bishops and Catholic families—a key market for student recruits and donations—are increasingly aware of the great diversity among Catholic colleges and universities, and many want evidence of

Catholic identity.  There are also growing external threats to Catholic institutions that provide an urgent reason for them to proactively tend to their Catholic identity.

For instance, Catholic identity takes on added importance as courts, regulators and legislators are using the law to pressure colleges and universities to compromise their Catholic mission.  Threats to Catholic identity include laws mandating student and employee health insurance coverage for prescription contraceptives and employee benefits for same-sex couples.  Catholic educators’ best, and maybe only, protection against such laws may be exemptions for religious organizations as required by the First Amendment to the Constitution.

In two studies commissioned by The Cardinal Newman Society’s Center for the Advancement of Catholic Higher Education, legal experts in religious freedom advise Catholic colleges and universities that their legal status as “religious” institutions requires consistent adherence to religious principles.  The Becket Fund for Religious Liberty warns that Catholic institutions must be able to demonstrate that their religious identity is “bona fide” and “sincerely held,” or they may be unable to claim religious exemptions to offensive laws.38  Kevin Theriot of the Alliance Defense Fund believes the Vatican has made this easier with clear standards of Catholic identity: “Catholic colleges and universities have an advantage over other religious institutions in that the Catholic Church’s Canon Law and the Apostolic Constitution Ex corde Ecclesiae lay out the requirements for a college to be considered Catholic.”39

Recent adverse rulings from the federal Equal Employment Opportunities Commission and National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) regarding the religious freedom of Belmont Abbey College and Manhattan College, respectively, are but two examples of the dangers facing Catholic institutions.  In the latter case, NLRB staff refused to recognize Manhattan College as a religious employer for reasons that echo the norms of Ex corde Ecclesiae.

In order to protect their religious liberty and their Catholic identity, Catholic colleges and universities must be able to demonstrate institutional commitment to their Catholic mission and compliance with the provisions of Church law.  A regular process of self-evaluation will help them document and defend their Catholic identity.

So the need for self-assessment is clear.  But how might leaders of Catholic colleges and universities begin an assessment of Catholic identity?  This paper will propose one option.

For each practical subject area, The Center for the Advancement of Catholic Higher Education offers first a summary of magisterial guidance on the question of Catholic identity and second proposes review questions to help college and university leaders develop instruments for self-evaluation of Catholic identity.  This paper builds from discussions at our annual meetings with presidents and the 2007 lecture by Archbishop Miller delivered at the Franciscan University of Steubenville, during which he proposed specific “benchmark” questions in the same manner that we have replicated here.

The proposed review questions are carefully selected to accurately reflect both the letter and the spirit of Ex corde Ecclesiae and key Church documents.  There are other important Church documents and instructions that might prove useful—for instance, Pope Benedict XVI’s address to Catholic educators at The Catholic University of America in 2008.  We decided to emphasize only clear mandates from the Vatican and the U.S. bishops, under the authority of Canon Law, so as to avoid subjectivity when choosing other sources for reflection.  Institutions may, and indeed probably should, go beyond the Church’s juridical guidelines when developing their self-assessment questions, but institutional obligations under Church law provide a good baseline.  Each college or university will also want to take into account its mission statement, founding documents, the charism and educational approach of an affiliated religious order, and similar guidance.

Pope John Paul II issued Ex corde Ecclesiae, the Apostolic Constitution on Catholic Universities, more than twenty years ago.  The constitution and the U.S. bishops’ 1999 Application of Ex corde Ecclesiae to the United States give full definition to the Catholic college or university for the first time in the long history of Catholic higher education.  Both the Application and the Apostolic Constitution with its lengthy discussion of Catholic identity are instructive for the purposes of assessing the Catholic college or university.  In respect to the core elements of Catholic higher education, these two documents and the Code of Canon Law from which they proceed suggest universal standards applicable to every institution.

Ex corde Ecclesiae assigns primary responsibility for maintaining and strengthening Catholic identity to the board of trustees or similar governing body—but shared in appropriate respects by the administrators, faculty, staff and students, and under the essential oversight of the local bishop.  It therefore seems appropriate and necessary that trustees initiate regular and comprehensive internal evaluations of an institution’s Catholic identity, welcoming the input and questions of the local bishop.  Such evaluations should inform all policies and activities and should engage the entire community of employees and students.  The results should be communicated in appropriate ways, so as to be useful to every member of the college or university community.

A periodic self-evaluation can be helpful in other ways.  Ex corde Ecclesiae expects that a Catholic college or university will clearly convey its Catholic identity in a public manner, and results from an internal review of Catholic identity can help explain and promote the unique benefits of a Catholic education.  The president and trustees of a Catholic college or university are also expected to maintain close and frequent communication with the local Catholic bishop, periodically reporting to him on matters of Catholic identity; an internal review could be an ideal opportunity to document such matters and to establish a framework for continuing dialogue.

There are, no doubt, many reasonable ways a Catholic college or university could assess its Catholic identity.  An assessment might be in written form, or it might engage the community in dialogue.  It might be measurable according a strict scale, or it might encourage nuanced responses to open-ended questions.  It might focus on identifying shortcomings, or it might conform to institutional objectives for progress.

What seems essential to any self-evaluation is that it conforms fully and accurately to the Church’s definition of a Catholic college or university, as presented in Ex corde Ecclesiae and related magisterial documents—most importantly, the U.S. bishops’ Application of Ex corde Ecclesiae to the United States and the Code of Canon Law.

We pray that the following summary of magisterial guidance and proposed questions will help Catholic college and university leaders ensure “a Christian presence in the university world”40 where “each and every aspect of your learning communities reverberates within the ecclesial life of faith.”41

Institutional Identity

Mission Statement, Governing Documents & Statutes

Ex corde Ecclesiae General Norms, Art. 1, §3

“A University established or approved by the Holy See, by an Episcopal Conference or another Assembly of Catholic Hierarchy, or by a diocesan Bishop is to incorporate these General Norms and their local and regional applications into its governing documents, and conform its existing Statutes both to the General Norms and to their applications, and submit them for approval to the competent ecclesiastical Authority.  It is contemplated that other Catholic Universities, that is, those not established or approved in any of the above ways, with the agreement of the local ecclesiastical Authority, will make their own the General Norms and their local and regional applications, internalizing them into their governing documents, and, as far as possible, will conform their existing Statutes both to these General Norms and to their applications.”

Ex corde Ecclesiae General Norms, Art. 2, §1

“A Catholic University, like every university, is a community of scholars representing various branches of human knowledge.  It is dedicated to research, to teaching, and to various kinds of service in accordance with its cultural mission.”

Ex corde Ecclesiae General Norms, Art. 2, §2

“A Catholic University, as Catholic, informs and carries out its research, teaching, and all other activities with Catholic ideals, principles and attitudes.  It is linked with the Church either by a formal, constitutive and statutory bond or by reason of an institutional commitment made by those responsible for it.”

Ex corde Ecclesiae General Norms, Art. 2, §3

“Every Catholic University is to make known its Catholic identity, either in a mission statement or in some other appropriate public document, unless authorized otherwise by the competent ecclesiastical Authority.  The University, particularly through its structure and its regulations, is to provide means which will guarantee the expression and the preservation of this identity in a manner consistent with §2.”

Ex corde Ecclesiae General Norms, Art. 3, §§1-4

“A Catholic University may be established or approved by the Holy See, by an Episcopal Conference or another Assembly of Catholic Hierarchy, or by a diocesan Bishop.

“With the consent of the diocesan Bishop, a Catholic University may also be established by a Religious Institute or other public juridical person.

“A Catholic University may also be established by other ecclesiastical or lay persons; such a University may refer to itself as a Catholic University only with the consent of the competent ecclesiastical Authority, in accordance with the conditions upon which both parties shall agree.

“In the cases of §§1 and 2, the Statutes must be approved by the competent ecclesiastical Authority.”

Ex corde Ecclesiae, §1

“By vocation, the Universitas magistrorum et scholarium is dedicated to research, to teaching and to the education of students who freely associate with their teachers in a common love of knowledge.  With every other University it shares that gaudium de veritate, so precious to Saint Augustine, which is that joy of searching for, discovering and communicating truth in every field of knowledge.  A Catholic University’s privileged task is ‘to unite existentially by intellectual effort two orders of reality that too frequently tend to be placed in opposition as though they were antithetical: the search for truth, and the certainty of already knowing the fount of truth’.”  (Citation from Pope John Paul II, “Discourse to the Institut Catholique de Paris,” June 1, 1980)

Ex corde Ecclesiae, §4

“It is the honour and responsibility of a Catholic University to consecrate itself without reserve to the cause of truth. …Without in any way neglecting the acquisition of useful knowledge, a Catholic University is distinguished by its free search for the whole truth about nature, man and God. …By means of a kind of universal humanism a Catholic University is completely dedicated to the research of all aspects of truth in their essential connection with the supreme Truth, who is God.  It does this without fear but rather with enthusiasm, dedicating itself to every path of knowledge, aware of being preceded by him who is ‘the Way, the Truth, and the Life’, the Logos, whose Spirit of intelligence and love enables the human person with his or her own intelligence to find the ultimate reality of which he is the source and end and who alone is capable of giving fully that Wisdom without which the future of the world would be in danger.”

Ex corde Ecclesiae, §12

“Every Catholic University, as a university, is an academic community which, in a rigorous and critical fashion, assists in the protection and advancement of human dignity and of a cultural heritage through research, teaching and various services offered to the local, national and international communities.”

Ex corde Ecclesiae, §§1­3-14

“Since the objective of a Catholic University is to assure in an institutional manner a Christian presence in the university world confronting the great problems of society and culture, every Catholic University, as Catholic, must have the following essential characteristics: ‘(1) a Christian inspiration not only of individuals but of the university community as such; (2) a continuing reflection in the light of the Catholic faith upon the growing treasury of human knowledge, to which it seeks to contribute by its own research; (3) fidelity to the Christian message as it comes to us through the Church; (4) an institutional commitment to the service of the people of God and of the human family in their pilgrimage to the transcendent goal which gives meaning to life.

“In the light of these four characteristics, it is evident that besides the teaching, research and services common to all Universities, a Catholic University, by institutional commitment, brings to its task the inspiration and light of the Christian message.  In a Catholic University, therefore, Catholic ideals, attitudes and principles penetrate and inform university activities in accordance with the proper nature and autonomy of these activities.  In a word, being both a University and Catholic, it must be both a community of scholars representing various branches of human knowledge, and an academic institution in which Catholicism is vitally present and operative.’”  (Citation from L’Université Catholique dans le monde moderne. Document final du 2ème Congrès des Délégués des Universités Catholiques, Rome, Nov. 20-29, 1972)

Ex corde Ecclesiae, §27

“One consequence of its essential relationship to the Church is that the institutional fidelity of the University to the Christian message includes a recognition of and adherence to the teaching authority of the Church in matters of faith and morals.”

Ex corde Ecclesiae, §30

“The basic mission of a University is a continuous quest for truth through its research, and the preservation and communication of knowledge for the good of society.  A Catholic University participates in this mission with its own specific characteristics and purposes.”

Application of Ex corde Ecclesiae for United States Particular Norms, Art. 1, §2

“Those universities established or approved by the Holy See, by the NCCB [now USCCB], by other hierarchical assemblies, or by individual diocesan bishops are to incorporate, by reference and in other appropriate ways, the general and particular norms into their governing documents and conform their existing statutes to such norms.  Within five years of the effective date of these particular norms, Catholic universities are to submit the aforesaid incorporation for review and affirmation to the university’s competent ecclesiastical authority.

“Other Catholic universities are to make the general and particular norms their own, include them in the university’s official documentation by reference and in other appropriate ways, and, as much as possible, conform their existing statutes to such norms.  These steps to ensure their Catholic identity are to be carried out in agreement with the diocesan bishop of the place where the seat of the university is situated.

“Changes in statutes of universities established by the hierarchy, religious institutes or other public juridic persons that substantially affect the nature, mission or Catholic identity of the university require the approval of competent ecclesiastical authority.”

Application of Ex corde Ecclesiae for United States Particular Norms, Art. 1, §3

“Those establishing or sponsoring a Catholic university have an obligation to make certain that they will be able to carry out their canonical duties in a way acceptable under relevant provisions of applicable federal and state law, regulations and procedures.”

Application of Ex corde Ecclesiae for United States Particular Norms, Art. 2, §1

“The purpose of a Catholic university is education and academic research proper to the disciplines of the university.  Since it enjoys the institutional autonomy appropriate to an academic institution, its governance is and remains internal to the institution itself.  This fundamental purpose and institutional autonomy must be respected and promoted by all, so that the university may effectively carry out its mission of freely searching for all truth.”

Application of Ex corde Ecclesiae for United States Particular Norms, Art. 2, §5

“A responsibility of every Catholic university is to affirm its essential characteristics, in accord with the principles of Ex corde Ecclesiae, through public acknowledgment in its mission statement and/or its other official documentation of its canonical status and its commitment to the practical implications of its Catholic identity, including but not limited to those specified in Part One, Section 7 of this document.”

Application of Ex corde Ecclesiae for United States, §7

“In order to maintain and safeguard their freely-chosen Catholic identity, it is important for Catholic universities to set out clearly in their official documentation their Catholic character….”

Questions for Self-Assessment

How do the institution’s mission statement and/or governing documents:

  1. make known the institution’s Catholic identity and canonical status?42
  2. include or reference the General Norms of Ex corde Ecclesiae and the Particular Norms of the Application of Ex corde Ecclesiae for the United States?43
  3. ensure compliance with each of these Norms?44
  4. explain the mission of the institution in accord with the purposes of a Catholic university as described in Ex corde Ecclesiae45, especially the following essential characteristics:46
    1. a Christian inspiration not only of individuals but of the university community
      as such;
    2. a continuing reflection in the light of the Catholic faith upon the growing treasury of human knowledge, to which it seeks to contribute by its own research;
    3. fidelity to the Christian message as it comes to us through the Church; and
    4. an institutional commitment to the service of the people of God and of the human family in their pilgrimage to the transcendent goal which gives meaning to life?
  5. express the institution’s recognition of the teaching authority of the Catholic Church on matters of faith and morals?47
  6. express the institution’s commitment to the practical implications of its Catholic identity, including but not limited to:
    1. commitment to Catholic ideals, principles, and attitudes in carrying out research, teaching, and all other university activities, including activities of officially-recognized student and faculty organizations and associations, and with due regard for academic freedom and the conscience of every individual?48
    2. commitment to serve others, particularly the poor, underprivileged, and vulnerable members of society?49
    3. commitment of witness of the Catholic faith by Catholic administrators and teachers, especially those teaching the theological disciplines, and acknowledgment and respect on the part of non-Catholic teachers and administrators of the university’s Catholic identity and mission?50
    4. commitment to provide courses for students on Catholic moral and religious principles and their application to critical areas such as human life and other issues of social justice?51
    5. commitment to care pastorally for the students, faculty, administration, and staff?52
    6. commitment to provide personal services (health care, counseling, and guidance) to students, as well as administration and faculty, in conformity with the Church’s ethi-
    7. cal and religious teaching and directives?53
    8. commitment to create a campus culture and environment that is expressive and supportive of a Catholic way of life?54

Policies, Programs & Commitments

Ex corde Ecclesiae General Norms, Art. 2, §2

“A Catholic University, as Catholic, informs and carries out its research, teaching, and all other activities with Catholic ideals, principles and attitudes.”

Ex corde Ecclesiae General Norms, Art. 2, §3

“The University, particularly through its structure and its regulations, is to provide means which will guarantee the expression and the preservation of this identity in a manner consistent with §2.”

Ex corde Ecclesiae General Norms, Art. 2, §4

“Catholic teaching and discipline are to influence all university activities, while the freedom of conscience of each person is to be fully respected.  Any official action or commitment of the University is to be in accord with its Catholic identity.”

Ex corde Ecclesiae, §21

“[T]he community is animated by a spirit of freedom and charity; it is characterized by mutual respect, sincere dialogue, and protection of the rights of individuals.”

Ex corde Ecclesiae, §27

“Catholic members of the university community are also called to a personal fidelity to the Church with all that this implies.  Non-Catholic members are required to respect the Catholic character of the University, while the University in turn respects their religious liberty.”

Ex corde Ecclesiae, §34

“Every Catholic University feels responsible to contribute concretely to the progress of the society within which it works: for example it will be capable of searching for ways to make university education accessible to all those who are able to benefit from it, especially the poor or members of minority groups who customarily have been deprived of it.”

Application of Ex corde Ecclesiae for United States Particular Norms, Art. 2, §4

“Recognizing the dignity of the human person, a Catholic university, in promoting its own Catholic identity and fostering Catholic teaching and discipline, must respect the religious liberty of every individual, a right with which each is endowed by nature.”

Application of Ex corde Ecclesiae for United States Particular Norms, Art. 5, §1

“The university shall develop and maintain a plan for fulfilling its mission that communicates and develops the Catholic intellectual tradition, is of service to the Church and society, and encourages the members of the university community to grow in the practice of the faith.  The university plan should address intellectual and pastoral contributions to the mission of communicating Gospel values, service to the poor, social justice initiatives, and ecumenical and inter-religious activities.”

Application of Ex corde Ecclesiae for United States, §7

“In order to maintain and safeguard their freely-chosen Catholic identity, it is important for Catholic universities… to implement in practical terms their commitment to the essential elements of Catholic identity, including the following: Commitment to be faithful to the teachings of the Catholic Church; Commitment to Catholic ideals, principles and attitudes in carrying out research, teaching and all other university activities… and with due regard for academic freedom and the conscience of every individual; Commitment to serve others, particularly the poor, underprivileged and vulnerable members of society….”

Vatican Council II, Declaration on Christian Education Gravissimum Educationis, §32

“Matriculation should be readily available to students of real promise, even though they be of slender means, especially to students from the newly emerging nations.”

United States Conference of Catholic Bishops, Catholics in Political Life

“The Catholic community and Catholic institutions should not honor those who act in defiance of our fundamental moral principles.  They should not be given awards, honors, or platforms which would suggest support for their actions.”

Questions for Self-Assessment

How are each of the institution’s distinct programs, activities, and commitments informed and carried out with Catholic ideals, principles, and attitudes?55

How are each of the institution’s academic, personnel, student, and other policies informed and carried out with Catholic ideals, principles, and attitudes?56

How do the institution’s academic, personnel, student, and other policies:

  1. ensure that members of the college or university community relate to each other with mutual respect and sincere dialogue?57
  2. protect the individual rights and religious liberty and conscience of all members of the college or university community?58
  3. ensure that Catholic members of the college or university community demonstrate fidelity to the Catholic Church in all their activities?59
  4. ensure that non-Catholic members of the college or university community respect the Catholic character of the institution?60
  5. help make education at the college or university available to students from low-income families, minority groups who customarily have been deprived of an equivalent education, and students from newly emerging nations?61
  6. implement in practical terms the institution’s commitment to be faithful to the teachings of the Catholic Church?62
  7. implement in practical terms the institution’s commitment to serve others, particularly the poor, underprivileged, and vulnerable members of society?63
  8. ensure that individuals who act in defiance of the Catholic Church’s fundamental moral principles are not honored, including awards, honors, or platforms which would suggest support for their actions?64

Has the institution developed a plan for fulfilling its mission that communicates and develops the Catholic intellectual tradition, is of service to the Church and society, and encourages the members of the university community to grow in the practice of the faith?65

How does the plan address these concerns?66

How does the plan address intellectual and pastoral contributions to the mission of communicating Gospel values, service to the poor, social justice initiatives, and ecumenical and inter-religious activities?67

How does the institution maintain this plan and prescribed activities?68

Relationship with Diocesan Bishop

Code of Canon Law, Canon 808

“Even if it really be Catholic, no university may bear the title or name Catholic university without the consent of the competent ecclesiastical authority.”

Code of Canon Law, Canon 809

“If it is possible and advantageous the conferences of bishops are to see to it that universities or at least faculties are established, suitably distributed throughout their territory, in which the various disciplines are to be investigated and taught with due regard for their academic autonomy, and with due consideration for Catholic doctrine.”

Code of Canon Law, Canon 810, §2

“The conference of bishops and the diocesan bishops concerned have the duty and right of being vigilant that in these universities the principles of Catholic doctrine are faithfully observed.”

Code of Canon Law, Canon 812

“It is necessary that those who teach theological disciplines in any institute of higher studies have a mandate from the competent ecclesiastical authority.”

Code of Canon Law, Canon 813

“The diocesan bishop is to have serious pastoral care for students by erecting a parish for them or by assigning priests for this purpose on a stable basis; he is also to provide for Catholic university centers at universities, even non-Catholic ones, to give assistance, especially spiritual to young people.”

Ex corde Ecclesiae General Norms, Art. 3, §§1-4

“A Catholic University may be established or approved by the Holy See, by an Episcopal Conference or another Assembly of Catholic Hierarchy, or by a diocesan Bishop.

“With the consent of the diocesan Bishop, a Catholic University may also be established by a Religious Institute or other public juridical person.

“A Catholic University may also be established by other ecclesiastical or lay persons; such a University may refer to itself as a Catholic University only with the consent of the competent ecclesiastical Authority, in accordance with the conditions upon which both parties shall agree.

“In the cases of §§ 1 and 2, the Statutes must be approved by the competent ecclesiastical Authority.”

Ex corde Ecclesiae General Norms, Art. 5, §§1-3

“Every Catholic University is to maintain communion with the universal Church and the Holy See; it is to be in close communion with the local Church and in particular with the diocesan Bishops of the region or nation in which it is located….

“Each Bishop has a responsibility to promote the welfare of the Catholic Universities in his diocese and has the right and duty to watch over the preservation and strengthening of their Catholic character.  If problems should arise concerning this Catholic character, the local Bishop is to take the initiatives necessary to resolve the matter, working with the competent university authorities in accordance with established procedures and, if necessary, with the help of the Holy See.

“Periodically, each Catholic University, to which Article 3, 1 and 2 refers, is to communicate relevant information about the University and its activities to the competent ecclesiastical Authority.  Other Catholic Universities are to communicate this information to the Bishop of the diocese in which the principal seat of the Institution is located.”

Ex corde Ecclesiae General Norms, Art. 6, §2

“A sufficient number of qualified people—priests, religious, and lay persons—are to be appointed to provide pastoral ministry for the university community, carried on in harmony and cooperation with the pastoral activities of the local Church under the guidance or with the approval of the diocesan Bishop.”

Ex corde Ecclesiae, §27

“Every Catholic University, without ceasing to be a University, has a relationship to the Church that is essential to its institutional identity. …One consequence of its essential relationship to the Church is that the institutional fidelity of the University to the Christian message includes a recognition of and adherence to the teaching authority of the Church in matters of faith and morals.”

Ex corde Ecclesiae, §28

“Bishops have a particular responsibility to promote Catholic Universities, and especially to promote and assist in the preservation and strengthening of their Catholic identity, including the protection of their Catholic identity in relation to civil authorities.  This will be achieved more effectively if close personal and pastoral relationships exist between University and Church authorities, characterized by mutual trust, close and consistent cooperation and continuing dialogue.  Even when they do not enter directly into the internal governance of the University, Bishops ‘should be seen not as external agents but as participants in the life of the Catholic University’.”  (Citation from Pope John Paul II, “Address to Leaders of Catholic Higher Education,” Xavier University of Louisiana, U.S.A., Sept. 12, 1987)

Ex corde Ecclesiae, §29

“Because of their interrelated roles, dialogue between Bishops and theologians is essential; this is especially true today, when the results of research are so quickly and so widely communicated through the media.”

Application of Ex corde Ecclesiae for United States Particular Norms, Art. 2, §5

“With due regard for the common good and the need to safeguard and promote the integrity and unity of the faith, the diocesan bishop has the duty to recognize and promote the rightful academic freedom of professors in Catholic universities in their search for truth.”

Application of Ex corde Ecclesiae for United States Particular Norms, Art. 3, §1-4

“A Catholic university may be established, or an existing university approved, by the Holy See, the National Conference of Catholic Bishops, other hierarchical assemblies, or individual diocesan bishops.  It may also be established by a religious institute or some other public juridic person, or by individual Catholics, acting singly or in association, with proper ecclesiastical approval.  At the time of its establishment the university should see to it that its canonical status is identified, including the ecclesiastical authority by which it has been established or approved or to which it otherwise relates.  The statutes of Catholic universities established by hierarchical authority or by religious institutes or other public juridic persons must be approved by competent ecclesiastical authority.  No university may assume the title Catholic without the consent of the competent ecclesiastical authority.”

Application of Ex corde Ecclesiae for United States Particular Norms, Art. 4, §2

“The board [of trustees] should develop effective ways of relating to and collaborating with the local bishop and diocesan agencies on matters of mutual concern.”

[Footnote reads: “In individual situations, it may be possible and appropriate to invite the diocesan bishop or his delegate to be a member of the board itself. In other cases, arranging periodic meetings to address the university’s Catholic identity and mission may prove more practical and effective.”]

Application of Ex corde Ecclesiae for United States Particular Norms, Art. 4, §3

“The administration should be in dialogue with the local bishop about ways of promoting Catholic identity and the contribution that the university can make to the life of the Church in the area.”

Application of Ex corde Ecclesiae for United States Particular Norms, Art. 4, §4

“Both the university and the bishops, aware of the contributions made by theologians to Church and academy, have a right to expect them to present authentic Catholic teaching.  Catholic professors of the theological disciplines have a corresponding duty to be faithful to the Church’s magisterium as the authoritative interpreter of Sacred Scripture and Sacred Tradition.  Catholics who teach the theological disciplines in a Catholic university are required to have a mandatum granted by competent ecclesiastical authority.

“i.  The mandatum is fundamentally an acknowledgment by Church authority that a Catholic professor of a theological discipline is a teacher within the full communion of the Catholic Church.

“ii.  The mandatum should not be construed as an appointment, authorization, delegation or approbation of one’s teaching by Church authorities.  Those who have received a mandatum teach in their own name in virtue of their baptism and their academic and professional competence, not in the name of the Bishop or of the Church’s magisterium.

[Footnote reads: “[I]t is not the responsibility of a Catholic university to seek the mandatum; this is a personal obligation of each professor.  If a particular professor lacks a mandatum and continues to teach a theological discipline, the university must determine what further action may be taken in accordance with its own mission and statutes (see canon 810, §1).”]

“iii.  The mandatum recognizes the professor’s commitment and responsibility to teach authentic Catholic doctrine and to refrain from putting forth as Catholic teaching anything contrary to the Church’s magisterium.

“iv.  The following procedure is given to facilitate, as of the effective date of this Application, the process of requesting and granting the mandatum.  Following the approval of the Application, a detailed procedure will be developed outlining the process of requesting and granting (or withdrawing) the mandatum.

“1.  The competent ecclesiastical authority to grant the mandatum is the bishop of the diocese in which the Catholic university is located; he may grant the mandatum personally or through a delegate.

[Footnote reads: “The attestation or declaration of the professor that he or she will teach in communion with the Church can be expressed by the profession of faith and oath of fidelity or in any other reasonable manner acceptable to the one issuing the mandatum.”]

“2.  Without prejudice to the rights of the local bishop, a mandatum, once granted, remains in effect wherever and as long as the professor teaches unless and until withdrawn by competent ecclesiastical authority.

[Footnote reads: “Although the general principle is that, once granted, there is no need for the mandatum to be granted again by another diocesan bishop, every diocesan bishop has the right to require otherwise in his own diocese.”]

“3.  The mandatum should be given in writing.  The reasons for denying or removing a mandatum should also be in writing.”

[Footnote reads: “Administrative acts in the external forum must be in writing (c. 37).  The writing not only demonstrates the fulfillment of canon 812, but, in cases of denial or removal, it permits the person who considers his or her rights to have been injured to seek recourse. See canons 1732-1739.”]

Application of Ex corde Ecclesiae for United States Particular Norms, Art. 5, §2

“In accordance with Church teaching and the universal law of the Church, the local Bishop has a responsibility to promote the welfare of the Catholic universities in his diocese and to watch over the preservation and strengthening of their Catholic character.  Bishops should, when appropriate, acknowledge publicly the service of Catholic universities to the Church and support the institution’s Catholic identity if it is unjustifiably challenged.  Diocesan and university authorities should commit themselves mutually to regular dialogues to achieve the goals of Ex corde Ecclesiae according to local needs and circumstances.  University authorities and the local diocesan bishop should develop practical methods of collaboration that are harmonious with the university’s structure and statutes. Similar forms of collaboration should also exist between the university and the religious institute to which it is related by establishment or tradition.”

[Footnote reads: “The following are some suggestions for collaboration: (a) Arranging for the diocesan bishop or his delegate and members of the religious institute to be involved in the university’s governance, perhaps through representation on the board of trustees or in some other appropriate manner.  (b) Sharing the university’s annual report with the diocesan bishop and the religious institute, especially in regard to matters affecting Catholic identity and the religious institute’s charism.  (c) Scheduling regular pastoral visits to the university on the part of the diocesan bishop and the religious institute’s leadership and involving the members of the diocese and the institute in campus ministry.  (d) Collaborating on evangelization and on the special works of the religious institute.  (e) Conducting dialogues on matters of doctrine and pastoral practice and on the development of spirituality in accordance with the religious institute’s charism.  (f) Resolving issues affecting the university’s Catholic identity in accordance with established procedures. (See ECE, II, Art. 5, §2 and ECE footnote 51.)  (g) Participating together in ecumenical and inter-faith endeavors.  (h) Contributing to the diocesan process of formulating the quinquennial report to the Holy See.”]

Application of Ex corde Ecclesiae for United States Particular Norms, Art. 5, §2

“Doctrinal Responsibilities: Approaches to Promoting Cooperation and Resolving Misunderstandings between Bishops and Theologians, approved and published by the National Conference of Catholic Bishops, June 17, 1989, can serve as a useful guide for diocesan bishops, professors of the theological disciplines and administrators of universities to promote informal cooperation and collaboration in the Church’s teaching mission and the faithful observance within Catholic universities of the principles of Catholic doctrine.  Disputes about Church doctrine should be resolved, whenever possible, in an informal manner.  At times, the resolution of such matters may benefit from formal doctrinal dialogue as proposed by Doctrinal Responsibilities and adapted by the parties in question.”

[Footnote reads: “When such disputes are not resolved within the limits of informal or formal dialogue, they should be addressed in a timely manner by the competent ecclesiastical authority through appropriate doctrinal and administrative actions, taking into account the requirements of the common good and the rights of the individuals and institutions involved.”]

Application of Ex corde Ecclesiae for United States Particular Norms, Art. 5, §2

“The National Conference of Catholic Bishops [now USCCB], through an appropriate committee structure, should continue to dialogue and collaborate with the Catholic academic community and its representative associations about ways of safeguarding and promoting the ideals, principles and norms expressed in Ex corde Ecclesiae.”

Application of Ex corde Ecclesiae for United States Particular Norms, Art. 6, §§1-5

“The diocesan bishop has overall responsibility for the pastoral care of the university’s students, faculty, administration and staff.

“The university, in cooperation with the diocesan bishop, shall make provision for effective campus ministry programs, including the celebration of the sacraments, especially the Eucharist and penance, other liturgical celebrations, and opportunities for prayer and spiritual reflection.

“When selecting pastoral ministers—priests, deacons, religious and lay persons—to carry on the work of campus ministry, the university authorities should work closely with the diocesan bishop and interested religious institutes.  Without prejudice to the provision of canon 969, §2, priests and deacons must enjoy pastoral faculties from the local ordinary in order to exercise their ministry on campus.

“With due regard for religious liberty and freedom of conscience, the university, in cooperation with the diocesan bishop, should collaborate in ecumenical and interfaith efforts to care for the pastoral needs of students, faculty and other university personnel who are not Catholic.

“In these pastoral efforts, the university and the diocesan bishop should take account of the prescriptions and recommendations issued by the Holy See and the guidance and pastoral statements of the National Conference of Catholic Bishops.”

Application of Ex corde Ecclesiae for United States, §2

“The richness of communion illuminates the ecclesial relationship that unites the distinct, and yet complementary, teaching roles of bishops and Catholic universities.  In the light of communion, the teaching responsibilities of the hierarchy and of the Catholic universities retain their distinctive autonomous nature and goal but are joined as complementary activities contributing to the fulfillment of the Church’s universal teaching mission.  The communion of the Church embraces both the pastoral work of bishops and the academic work of Catholic universities, thus linking the bishops’ right and obligation to communicate and safeguard the integrity of Church doctrine with the right and obligation of Catholic universities to investigate, analyze and communicate all truth freely.”

Application of Ex corde Ecclesiae for United States, §4

“Mutual trust goes beyond the personalities of those involved in the relationship.  The trust is grounded in a shared baptismal belief in the truths that are rooted in Scripture and Tradition, as interpreted by the Church, concerning the mystery of the Trinity: God the Father and Creator, who works even until now; God the Son and incarnate Redeemer, who is the Way and the Truth and the Life; and God the Holy Spirit, the Paraclete, whom the Father and Son send.  In the spirit of communio, the relationship of trust between university and Church authorities, based on these shared beliefs with their secular and religious implications, is fostered by mutual listening, by collaboration that respects differing responsibilities and gifts, and by a solidarity that mutually recognizes respective statutory limitations and responsibilities.”

Application of Ex corde Ecclesiae for United States, §5

“It is highly desirable that representatives of both educational institutions and Church authorities jointly identify, study, and pursue solutions to issues concerning social justice, human life and the needs of the poor.”

Application of Ex corde Ecclesiae for United States, §5

“A structure and strategy to insure ongoing dialogue and cooperation should be established by university and Church authorities.”

Application of Ex corde Ecclesiae for United States, §7

“Catholic universities should make every effort to enhance their communion with the hierarchy so that through this special relationship they may assist each other to accomplish the mission to which they are mutually committed.”

Questions for Self-Assessment

How has the institution ensured that the local diocesan bishop consents to its identification as a “Catholic” college or university?69

How has the institution ensured that the institution’s governing documents have been reviewed and/or approved by the local diocesan bishop, if required according to the institution’s canonical status and method of establishment?70

How does the institution periodically communicate relevant information about the Catholic character of the institution and its activities to the local diocesan bishop or other competent ecclesiastical authority under Canon Law?71

How does the institution strive to develop a close personal and pastoral relationship with the local diocesan bishop—characterized by mutual trust, close and consistent cooperation, and continuing dialogue—such that the bishop is seen as a participant in the life of the institution?72

How does the institution ensure dialogue between the local diocesan bishop and those who teach theological disciplines?73

How does the institution ensure regular dialogue with the local diocesan bishop and diocesan authorities about ways of promoting Catholic identity, how to achieve the goals of Ex corde Ecclesiae according to local needs and circumstances, and the contribution that the institution can make to the life of the Church in the area?74

How does the institution ensure regular dialogue on these matters with the religious institute to which it is related by establishment or tradition, if applicable?75

How does the institution defer in practical ways to the authority of the local diocesan bishop and the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops to remain vigilant that the principles of Catholic doctrine are faithfully observed at the institution?76

How does the institution defer in practical ways to the authority of the local diocesan bishop to watch over the preservation and strengthening of the Catholic character of the institution, including any initiative of the bishop to resolve problems?77

How does the institution defer in practical ways to the authority of the local diocesan bishop over the pastoral care of the college or university community, including campus ministry programs, liturgical activities, and the appointment of pastoral ministers?78

How does the institution ensure that those who teach theological disciplines have a mandatum according to the procedures established by the local diocesan bishop?79

How does the institution work jointly with Catholic Church authorities to jointly identify, study, and pursue solutions to issues concerning social justice, human life, and the needs of
the poor?80

Cooperation

Ex corde Ecclesiae General Norms, Art. 7, §1

“In order better to confront the complex problems facing modern society, and in order to strengthen the Catholic identity of the Institutions, regional, national and international cooperation is to be promoted in research, teaching, and other university activities among all Catholic Universities, including Ecclesiastical Universities and Faculties.  Such cooperation is also to be promoted between Catholic Universities and other Universities, and with other research and educational Institutions, both private and governmental.”

Ex corde Ecclesiae General Norms, Art. 7, §2

“Catholic Universities will, when possible and in accord with Catholic principles and doctrine, cooperate with government programmes and the programmes of other national and international Organizations on behalf of justice, development and progress.”

Ex corde Ecclesiae, §35

“[S]ince the economic and personal resources of a single Institution are limited, cooperation in common research projects among Catholic Universities, as well as with other private and governmental institutions, is imperative.  In this regard, and also in what pertains to the other fields of the specific activity of a Catholic University, the role played by various national and international associations of Catholic Universities is to be emphasized.  Among these associations the mission of The International Federation of Catholic Universities, founded by the Holy See, is particularly to be remembered.”

Ex corde Ecclesiae, §37

“In its service to society, a Catholic University will relate especially to the academic, cultural and scientific world of the region in which it is located.  Original forms of dialogue and collaboration are to be encouraged between the Catholic Universities and the other Universities of a nation on behalf of development, of understanding between cultures, and of the defence of nature in accordance with an awareness of the international ecological situation.”

Ex corde Ecclesiae, §41

“Close cooperation between pastoral ministry in a Catholic University and the other activities within the local Church, under the guidance or with the approval of the diocesan Bishop, will contribute to their mutual growth.”

Application of Ex corde Ecclesiae for United States Particular Norms, Art. 7, §§1-2

“Catholic universities should commit themselves to cooperate in a special way with other Catholic universities, institutions and professional associations, in the United States and abroad, in order to build up the entire Catholic academic community.

“In collaborating with governmental agencies, regional associations, and other universities, whether public or private, Catholic universities should give corporate witness to and promote the Church’s social teaching and its moral principles in areas such as the fostering of peace and justice, respect for all human life, the eradication of poverty and unjust discrimination, the development of all peoples and the growth of human culture.”

Questions for Self-Assessment

How does the institution cooperate with other Catholic colleges and universities in research, teaching, and other activities to strengthen the Catholic identity of the institutions and confront problems facing modern society?81

How does the institution, in accord with Catholic principles and doctrine, cooperate with non-Catholic colleges and universities in research, teaching, and other activities to confront problems facing modern society?82

How does the institution dialogue and collaborate with other colleges and universities in the United States on behalf of development, understanding between cultures, and defense of nature in accordance with an awareness of the international ecological situation?83

How does the institution, in accord with Catholic principles and doctrine, cooperate with government programs and the programs of other national and international organizations on behalf of justice, development, and progress?84

In its cooperative activities with other entities, how does the institution give witness to the Church’s social teaching and its moral principles in areas such as the fostering of peace and justice, respect for all human life, the eradication of poverty and unjust discrimination, the development of peoples, and the growth of human culture?85

How does the institution ensure close cooperation between the institution’s pastoral ministry and the other activities within the local Church, under the guidance or with the approval of the local diocesan bishop?86

Leadership & Administration

Board of Trustees

Ex corde Ecclesiae General Norms, Art. 4, §1

“The responsibility for maintaining and strengthening the Catholic identity of the University rests primarily with the University itself.  …[T]his responsibility is entrusted principally to university authorities (including, when the positions exist, the Chancellor and/or a Board of Trustees or equivalent body)… The identity of a Catholic University is essentially linked to the quality of its teachers and to respect for Catholic doctrine.  It is the responsibility of the competent Authority to watch over these two fundamental needs in accordance with what is indicated in Canon Law.”

Application of Ex corde Ecclesiae for United States Particular Norms, Art. 2, §6

“The university (in particular, the trustees, administration, and faculty) should take practical steps to implement its mission statement in order to foster and strengthen its Catholic nature and character.”

[Footnote reads: “In this regard, the university may wish to establish a ‘mission effectiveness committee’ or some other appropriate structure to develop methods by which Catholics may promote the university’s Catholic identity and those who are not Catholic may acknowledge and respect this identity.”]

Application of Ex corde Ecclesiae for United States Particular Norms, Art. 4, §2

“Each member of the board must be committed to the practical implications of the university’s Catholic identity as set forth in its mission statement or equivalent document.  To the extent possible, the majority of the board should be Catholics committed to the Church.  The board should develop effective ways of relating to and collaborating with the local bishop and diocesan agencies on matters of mutual concern.

[Footnote reads: “In individual situations, it may be possible and appropriate to invite the diocesan bishop or his delegate to be a member of the board itself. In other cases, arranging periodic meetings to address the university’s Catholic identity and mission may prove more practical and effective.”]

Application of Ex corde Ecclesiae for United States Particular Norms, Art. 4, §2

“The board should analyze ecclesiastical documents on higher education, such as Ex corde Ecclesiae and this Application, and develop specific ways of implementing them appropriate to the structure and life of the university.  The board should see to it that the university periodically undertakes an internal review of the congruence of its mission statement, its courses of instruction, its research program, and its service activity with the ideals, principles and norms expressed in Ex corde Ecclesiae.”

Questions for Self-Assessment

How are prospective and current members of the Board of Trustees and other governing boards informed of their responsibility for maintaining and strengthening the Catholic identity of the institution?87

How does the institution ensure that a majority of the members of the Board of Trustees and other governing boards are Catholics who are committed to the Catholic Church?88

How have the Board of Trustees and other governing boards:

  1. developed and implemented effective ways of relating to and collaborating with the local diocesan bishop and diocesan agencies on matters of mutual concern?89
  2. analyzed ecclesiastical documents on higher education, including Ex corde Ecclesiae and the Application of Ex corde Ecclesiae for the United States, and developed and carried out specific ways of implementing them appropriate to the structure and life of the university?90
  3. developed and implemented a plan to undertake a periodic review of the congruence of the institution’s mission statement, courses of instruction, research program, and service activity with the ideals, principles, and norms expressed in Ex corde Ecclesiae?91

Administration & Non-Faculty Employees

Code of Canon Law, Canon 833

“The following persons are obliged to make a profession of faith personally in accord with a formula approved by the Apostolic See: …in the presence of the grand chancellor or, in his absence, in the presence of the local ordinary, or in the presence of their delegates, the rector of an ecclesiastical or Catholic university at the beginning of the rector’s term of office….”

Ex corde Ecclesiae General Norms, Art. 4, §1

“The responsibility for maintaining and strengthening the Catholic identity of the University rests primarily with the University itself.  [T]his responsibility is entrusted principally to university authorities (including, when the positions exist, the Chancellor and/or a Board of Trustees or equivalent body), it is shared in varying degrees by all members of the university community, and therefore calls for the recruitment of adequate university personnel, especially teachers and administrators, who are both willing and able to promote that identity.  The identity of a Catholic University is essentially linked to the quality of its teachers and to respect for Catholic doctrine.  It is the responsibility of the competent Authority to watch over these two fundamental needs in accordance with what is indicated in Canon Law.”

Ex corde Ecclesiae General Norms, Art. 4, §2

“All teachers and all administrators, at the time of their appointment, are to be informed about the Catholic identity of the Institution and its implications, and about their responsibility to promote, or at least to respect, that identity.”

Ex corde Ecclesiae General Norms, Art. 4, §4

“Those university teachers and administrators who belong to other Churches, ecclesial communities, or religions, as well as those who profess no religious belief, and also all students, are to recognize and respect the distinctive Catholic identity of the University.”

Ex corde Ecclesiae, §24

“Directors and administrators in a Catholic University promote the constant growth of the University and its community through a leadership of service; the dedication and witness of the non-academic staff are vital for the identity and life of the university.”

Ex corde Ecclesiae, §27

“Catholic members of the university community are also called to a personal fidelity to the Church with all that this implies.  Non-Catholic members are required to respect the Catholic character of the University, while the University in turn respects their religious liberty.”

Application of Ex corde Ecclesiae for United States Particular Norms, Art. 2, §6

“The university (in particular, the trustees, administration, and faculty) should take practical steps to implement its mission statement in order to foster and strengthen its Catholic nature and character.”

[Footnote reads: “In this regard, the university may wish to establish a ‘mission effectiveness committee’ or some other appropriate structure to develop methods by which Catholics may promote the university’s Catholic identity and those who are not Catholic may acknowledge and respect this identity.”]

Application of Ex corde Ecclesiae for United States Particular Norms, Art. 4, §3

“The university president should be a Catholic.”

[Footnote reads: “Upon assuming the office of president for the first time, a Catholic should express his or her commitment to the university’s Catholic identity and to the Catholic faith in accordance with canon 833, §7 (see also Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, Formula Professio Fidei et Iusiurandum, July 1, 1988, AAS 81 [1989] 104-106; and Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, Rescriptum ex audientia SS. mi Quod Attinet, September 19, 1989, AAS 81 [1989] 1169).  When a candidate who is not a Catholic is being considered for appointment as president of a Catholic university, the university should consult with the competent ecclesiastical authority about the matter.  In all cases, the president should express his or her commitment to the university’s Catholic mission and identity.”]

Application of Ex corde Ecclesiae for United States Particular Norms, Art. 4, §3

“The administration should inform faculty and staff at the time of their appointment regarding the Catholic identity, mission and religious practices of the university and encourage them to participate, to the degree possible, in the spiritual life of the university.”

Application of Ex corde Ecclesiae for United States, §7

“In order to maintain and safeguard their freely-chosen Catholic identity, it is important for Catholic universities… to implement in practical terms their commitment to the essential elements of Catholic identity, including the following: …Commitment of witness of the Catholic faith by Catholic administrators and teachers, especially those teaching the theological disciplines, and acknowledgment and respect on the part of non-Catholic teachers and administrators of the university’s Catholic identity and mission….”

Questions for Self-Assessment

How does the institution ensure that the president (or equivalent executive official) is a Catholic?92

How does the institution ensure that the president (or equivalent executive official) expresses commitment to the institution’s Catholic identity and (if Catholic) makes the Vatican-approved profession of faith at the beginning of the president’s term of office?93

How does the institution ensure that each official and non-faculty employee is informed at the time of their appointment about the Catholic identity of the institution and its implications, and their responsibility to promote—or if not Catholic, to at least respect—that Catholic identity?94

How does the institution ensure that each official and non-faculty employee is both willing and able to maintain and strengthen the Catholic identity of the institution, under the direction of the governing board(s)?95

How does the institution ensure that each official and non-faculty employee implements
in practical terms the commitment to maintain and strengthen the Catholic identity of the institution?96

How does the institution invite official and non-faculty employees to participate in the spiritual life of the institution?97

How does each Catholic official and non-faculty employee witness to the Catholic faith?98

Faculty & Academics

Faculty

Code of Canon Law, Canon 810, §1

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

Ex corde Ecclesiae General Norms, Art. 2, §5

“Freedom in research and teaching is recognized and respected according to the principles and methods of each individual discipline, so long as the rights of the individual and of the community are preserved within the confines of the truth and the common good.”

Ex corde Ecclesiae General Norms, Art. 4, §1

“The responsibility for maintaining and strengthening the Catholic identity of the University rests primarily with the University itself.  While this responsibility is entrusted principally to university authorities (including, when the positions exist, the Chancellor and/or a Board of Trustees or equivalent body), it is shared in varying degrees by all members of the university community, and therefore calls for the recruitment of adequate university personnel, especially teachers and administrators, who are both willing and able to promote that identity.  The identity of a Catholic University is essentially linked to the quality of its teachers and to respect for Catholic doctrine.  It is the responsibility of the competent Authority to watch over these two fundamental needs in accordance with what is indicated in Canon Law.”

Ex corde Ecclesiae General Norms, Art. 4, §2

“All teachers and all administrators, at the time of their appointment, are to be informed about the Catholic identity of the Institution and its implications, and about their responsibility to promote, or at least to respect, that identity.”

Ex corde Ecclesiae General Norms, Art. 4, §3

“In ways appropriate to the different academic disciplines, all Catholic teachers are to be faithful to, and all other teachers are to respect, Catholic doctrine and morals in their research and teaching.”

Ex corde Ecclesiae General Norms, Art. 4, §4

“Those university teachers and administrators who belong to other Churches, ecclesial communities, or religions, as well as those who profess no religious belief, and also all students, are to recognize and respect the distinctive Catholic identity of the University.  In order not to endanger the Catholic identity of the University or Institute of Higher Studies, the number of non-Catholic teachers should not be allowed to constitute a majority within the Institution, which is and must remain Catholic.”

Ex corde Ecclesiae, §12

“Every Catholic university… guarantees its members academic freedom, so long as the rights of the individual person and of the community are preserved within the confines of the truth and the common good.”

[Footnote reads: “‘[A]cademic freedom’ is the guarantee given to those involved in teaching and research that, within their specific specialized branch of knowledge, and according to the methods proper to that specific area, they may search for the truth wherever analysis and evidence leads them, and may teach and publish the results of this search, keeping in mind the cited criteria, that is, safeguarding the rights of the individuals and of society within the confines of the truth and the common good.”]

Ex corde Ecclesiae, §22

“University teachers should seek to improve their competence and endeavour to set the content, objectives, methods, and results of research in an individual discipline within the framework of a coherent world vision.  Christians among the teachers are called to be witnesses and educators of authentic Christian life, which evidences attained integration between faith and life, and between professional competence and Christian wisdom.  All teachers are to be inspired by academic ideals and by the principles of an authentically human life.”

Ex corde Ecclesiae, §27

“Catholic members of the university community are also called to a personal fidelity to the Church with all that this implies.  Non-Catholic members are required to respect the Catholic character of the University, while the University in turn respects their religious liberty.”

Application of Ex corde Ecclesiae for United States Particular Norms, Art. 2, §2

“Academic freedom is an essential component of a Catholic university.  The university should take steps to ensure that all professors are accorded ‘a lawful freedom of inquiry and of thought, and of freedom to express their minds humbly and courageously about those matters in which they enjoy competence.’  In particular, ‘[t]hose who are engaged in the sacred disciplines enjoy a lawful freedom of inquiry and of prudently expressing their opinions on matters in which they have expertise, while observing the submission [obsequio] due to the magisterium of the Church.’”  (Citation in first instance from Vatican Council II, Pastoral

Constitution on the Church in the Modern World Gaudium et Spes, 62; second instance from Code of Canon Law, Canon 218.)

Application of Ex corde Ecclesiae for United States Particular Norms, Art. 2, §6

“The university (in particular, the trustees, administration, and faculty) should take practical steps to implement its mission statement in order to foster and strengthen its Catholic nature and character.”

[Footnote reads: “In this regard, the university may wish to establish a ‘mission effectiveness committee’ or some other appropriate structure to develop methods by which Catholics may promote the university’s Catholic identity and those who are not Catholic may acknowledge and respect this identity.”]

Application of Ex corde Ecclesiae for United States Particular Norms, Art. 4, §3

“The administration should inform faculty and staff at the time of their appointment regarding the Catholic identity, mission and religious practices of the university and encourage them to participate, to the degree possible, in the spiritual life of the university.”

Application of Ex corde Ecclesiae for United States Particular Norms, Art. 4, §4

“In accordance with its procedures for the hiring and retention of professionally qualified faculty and relevant provisions of applicable federal and state law, regulations and procedures, the university should strive to recruit and appoint Catholics as professors so that, to the extent possible, those committed to the witness of the faith will constitute a majority of the faculty.  All professors are expected to be aware of and committed to the Catholic mission and identity of their institutions.  All professors are expected to exhibit not only academic competence and good character but also respect for Catholic doctrine.  When these qualities are found to be lacking, the university statutes are to specify the competent authority and the process to be followed to remedy the situation.”

Application of Ex corde Ecclesiae for United States, §7

“In order to maintain and safeguard their freely-chosen Catholic identity, it is important for Catholic universities… to implement in practical terms their commitment to the essential elements of Catholic identity, including the following: …Commitment to Catholic ideals, principles and attitudes in carrying out research, teaching and all other university activities, including activities of officially-recognized student and faculty organizations and associations… Commitment of witness of the Catholic faith by Catholic administrators and teachers, especially those teaching the theological disciplines, and acknowledgment and respect on the part of non-Catholic teachers and administrators of the university’s Catholic identity and mission….”

Questions for Self-Assessment

How does the institution ensure that at least a majority of faculty members are Catholics who are committed to the witness of the faith?99

How does the institution ensure that each faculty member is informed at the time of their appointment about the Catholic identity of the institution and its implications, and their responsibility to promote—or if not Catholic, to at least respect—that Catholic identity?100

How does the institution ensure that each faculty member is both willing and able to maintain and strengthen the Catholic identity of the institution, under the direction of the governing board(s) and administrative officials?101

How does the institution ensure that each faculty member implements in practical terms the commitment to promote—or if not Catholic, to at least respect—the Catholic identity of the institution?102

How does the institution ensure that each faculty member implements in practical terms the commitment to maintain and strengthen the Catholic identity of the institution?103

How does the institution ensure the appointment of faculty members who, besides their professional suitability, are also outstanding in their integrity of doctrine and probity of life?104

When these qualities are lacking, how does the institution ensure that faculty members are removed from their positions?105

How does the institution invite faculty members to participate in the spiritual life of the institution?106

How does each Catholic faculty member witness to the Catholic faith and authentic Christian life, demonstrating integration between faith and life and between professional competence and Christian wisdom?107

How does each faculty member demonstrate commitment to academic ideals and the principles of an authentically human life?108

How does each faculty member strive to improve their competence and endeavor to set the content, objectives, methods, and results of research in their particular discipline within the framework of a coherent world vision which conforms to Catholic teaching?109

How does the institution ensure that officially recognized faculty organizations and associations conform to Catholic ideals, principles, and attitudes?110

How does the institution guarantee its faculty members a freedom of inquiry and of prudently expressing their opinions on matters in which they have expertise, while observing the submission due to the magisterium of the Church, the rights of individuals and the community, the confines of the truth and the common good, and the methods proper to their particular discipline?111

How does the institution respond to violations and abuses of academic freedom?112

Curriculum

Ex corde Ecclesiae General Norms, Art. 4, §5

“The education of students is to combine academic and professional development with formation in moral and religious principles and the social teachings of the Church; the programme of studies for each of the various professions is to include an appropriate ethical formation in that profession.  Courses in Catholic doctrine are to be made available to all students.”

Ex corde Ecclesiae, §7

“Scientific and technological discoveries create an enormous economic and industrial growth, but they also inescapably require the correspondingly necessary search for meaning in order to guarantee that the new discoveries be used for the authentic good of individuals and of human society as a whole. If it is the responsibility of every University to search for such meaning, a Catholic University is called in a particular way to respond to this need: its Christian inspiration enables it to include the moral, spiritual and religious dimension in its research, and to evaluate the attainments of science and technology in the perspective of the totality of the human person.”

Ex corde Ecclesiae, §9

Ex corde Ecclesiae intends “that the students of these institutions become people outstanding in learning, ready to shoulder society’s heavier burdens and to witness the faith to the world.”

Ex corde Ecclesiae, §20

“Given the close connection between research and teaching, the research qualities indicated above will have their influence on all teaching.  While each discipline is taught systematically and according to its own methods, interdisciplinary studies, assisted by a careful and thorough study of philosophy and theology, enable students to acquire an organic vision of reality and to develop a continuing desire for intellectual progress.  In the communication of knowledge, emphasis is then placed on how human reason in its reflection opens to increasingly broader questions, and how the complete answer to them can only come from above through faith.  Furthermore, the moral implications that are present in each discipline are examined as an integral part of the teaching of that discipline so that the entire educative process be directed towards the whole development of the person.  Finally, Catholic theology, taught in a manner faithful to Scripture, Tradition, and the Church’s Magisterium, provides an awareness of the Gospel principles which will enrich the meaning of human life and give it a new dignity.  Through research and teaching the students are educated in the various disciplines so as to become truly competent in the specific sectors in which they will devote themselves to the service of society and of the Church, but at the same time prepared to give the witness of their faith to the world.”

Ex corde Ecclesiae, §23

“Students are challenged to pursue an education that combines excellence in humanistic and cultural development with specialized professional training.  Most especially, they are challenged to continue the search for truth and for meaning throughout their lives, since ‘the human spirit must be cultivated in such a way that there results a growth in its ability to wonder, to understand, to contemplate, to make personal judgments, and to develop a religious, moral, and social sense.’  This enables them to acquire or, if they have already done so, to deepen a Christian way of life that is authentic.  They should realize the responsibility of their professional life, the enthusiasm of being the trained ‘leaders’ of tomorrow, of being witnesses to Christ in whatever place they may exercise their profession.”

Ex corde Ecclesiae, §31

“Through teaching and research, a Catholic University offers an indispensable contribution to the Church.  In fact, it prepares men and women who, inspired by Christian principles and helped to live their Christian vocation in a mature and responsible manner, will be able to assume positions of responsibility in the Church.”

Ex corde Ecclesiae, §34

“The Christian spirit of service to others for the promotion of social justice is of particular importance for each Catholic University, to be shared by its teachers and developed in its students.  The Church is firmly committed to the integral growth of all men and women.  The Gospel, interpreted in the social teachings of the Church, is an urgent call to promote ‘the development of those peoples who are striving to escape from hunger, misery, endemic diseases and ignorance; of those who are looking for a wider share in the benefits of civilization and a more active improvement of their human qualities; of those who are aiming purposefully at their complete fulfilment’. …A Catholic University also has the responsibility, to the degree that it is able, to help to promote the development of the emerging nations.”  (Citation from Pope Paul VI, Encyclical Letter Populorum Progressio)

Ex corde Ecclesiae, §36

“Through programmes of continuing education offered to the wider community, by making its scholars available for consulting services, by taking advantage of modern means of communication, and in a variety of other ways, a Catholic University can assist in making the growing body of human knowledge and a developing understanding of the faith available to a wider public, thus expanding university services beyond its own academic community.”

Ex corde Ecclesiae, §49

“[A]ll the basic academic activities of a Catholic University are connected with and in harmony with the evangelizing mission of the Church: …education offered in a faith-context that forms men and women capable of rational and critical judgment and conscious of the transcendent dignity of the human person; professional training that incorporates ethical values and a sense of service to individuals and to society….”

Application of Ex corde Ecclesiae for United States Particular Norms, Art. 4, §5

“With due regard for the principles of religious liberty and freedom of conscience, students should have the opportunity to be educated in the Church’s moral and religious principles and social teachings and to participate in the life of faith.  Catholic students have a right to receive from a university instruction in authentic Catholic doctrine and practice, especially from those who teach the theological disciplines. …Courses in Catholic doctrine and practice should be made available to all students.  Catholic teaching should have a place, if appropriate to the subject matter, in the various disciplines taught in the university.  Students should be provided with adequate instruction on professional ethics and moral issues related to their profession and the secular disciplines.”

Questions for Self-Assessment

How does the education for each student:

  1. combine academic and professional development with formation in moral and religious principles, the social teachings of the Catholic Church, and their application to critical issues such as human life and other issues of social justice?113
  2. include instruction in authentic Catholic doctrine and practice?114
  3. include interdisciplinary studies, assisted by a careful and thorough study of philosophy
    and theology, helping students acquire an organic vision of reality?115
  4. consider the moral implications that are present in each discipline?116
  5. develop the Christian spirit of service to others for the promotion of social justice?117
  6. prepare the student to be outstanding in learning, ready to shoulder society’s heavier burdens and to witness the faith to the world?118

How does each program of professional studies include appropriate Catholic ethical formation in that profession and develop a sense of service to individuals and society?119

How do programs in science and technology evaluate the attainments of science and technology in the perspective of the totality of the human person?120

How does the institution offer its services and make knowledge and understanding of the faith available to the public beyond its own academic community?121

Theology

Code of Canon Law, Canon 811, §§1-2

“The competent ecclesiastical authority is to provide that at Catholic universities there be erected a faculty of theology, an institute of theology, or at least a chair of theology so that classes may be given for lay students.  In the individual Catholic universities classes should be given which treat in a special way those theological questions which are connected with the disciplines of their faculties.”

Code of Canon Law, Canon 812

“It is necessary that those who teach theological disciplines in any institute of higher studies have a mandate from the competent ecclesiastical authority.”

Code of Canon Law, Canon 833

“The following persons are obliged to make a profession of faith personally in accord with a formula approved by the Apostolic See: …in the presence of the rector, if the rector is a priest, or the local ordinary, or their delegates and at the beginning of the rector’s term of office, teachers in any universities whatsoever who teach disciplines which deal with faith or morals….”

Ex corde Ecclesiae General Norms, Art. 4, §3

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

Ex corde Ecclesiae General Norms, Art. 4, §5

“The education of students is to combine academic and professional development with formation in moral and religious principles and the social teachings of the Church; the programme of studies for each of the various professions is to include an appropriate ethical formation in that profession.  Courses in Catholic doctrine are to be made available to all students.”

Ex corde Ecclesiae, §19

“Theology plays a particularly important role in the search for a synthesis of knowledge as well as in the dialogue between faith and reason.  It serves all other disciplines in their search for meaning, not only by helping them to investigate how their discoveries will affect individuals and society but also by bringing a perspective and an orientation not contained within their own methodologies.  In turn, interaction with these other disciplines and their discoveries enriches theology, offering it a better understanding of the world today, and making theological research more relevant to current needs.  Because of its specific importance among the academic disciplines, every Catholic University should have a faculty, or at least a chair, of theology.”

Ex corde Ecclesiae, §20

“Catholic theology, taught in a manner faithful to Scripture, Tradition, and the Church’s Magisterium, provides an awareness of the Gospel principles which will enrich the meaning of human life and give it a new dignity.”

Ex corde Ecclesiae, §29

“Theology has its legitimate place in the University alongside other disciplines.  It has proper principles and methods which define it as a branch of knowledge.  Theologians enjoy this same freedom so long as they are faithful to these principles and methods. …[S]ince theology seeks an understanding of revealed truth whose authentic interpretation is entrusted to the Bishops of the Church, it is intrinsic to the principles and methods of their research and teaching in their academic discipline that theologians respect the authority of the Bishops, and assent to Catholic doctrine according to the degree of authority with which it is taught.  Because of their interrelated roles, dialogue between Bishops and theologians is essential; this is especially true today, when the results of research are so quickly and so widely communicated through the media.”

Application of Ex corde Ecclesiae for United States Particular Norms, Art. 2, §2

“In particular, ‘[t]hose who are engaged in the sacred disciplines enjoy a lawful freedom of inquiry and of prudently expressing their opinions on matters in which they have expertise, while observing the submission [obsequio] due to the magisterium of the Church.’”  (Citation from Code of Canon Law, Canon 218)

Application of Ex corde Ecclesiae for United States Particular Norms, Art. 4, §4

“Catholic theology should be taught in every Catholic university, and, if possible, a department or chair of Catholic theology should be established.  Academic events should be organized on a regular basis to address theological issues, especially those relative to the various disciplines taught in the university.  Both the university and the bishops, aware of the contributions made by theologians to Church and academy, have a right to expect them to present authentic Catholic teaching.  Catholic professors of the theological disciplines have a corresponding duty to be faithful to the Church’s magisterium as the authoritative interpreter of Sacred Scripture and Sacred Tradition.  Catholics who teach the theological disciplines in a Catholic university are required to have a mandatum granted by competent ecclesiastical authority.

“i.  The mandatum is fundamentally an acknowledgment by Church authority that a Catholic professor of a theological discipline is a teacher within the full communion of the Catholic Church.

“ii.  The mandatum should not be construed as an appointment, authorization, delegation or approbation of one’s teaching by Church authorities.  Those who have received a mandatum teach in their own name in virtue of their baptism and their academic and professional competence, not in the name of the Bishop or of the Church’s magisterium.

[Footnote reads: “[I]t is not the responsibility of a Catholic university to seek the mandatum; this is a personal obligation of each professor.  If a particular professor lacks a mandatum and continues to teach a theological discipline, the university must determine what further action may be taken in accordance with its own mission and statutes (see canon 810, §1).”]

“iii.  The mandatum recognizes the professor’s commitment and responsibility to teach authentic Catholic doctrine and to refrain from putting forth as Catholic teaching anything contrary to the Church’s magisterium.

“iv.  The following procedure is given to facilitate, as of the effective date of this Application, the process of requesting and granting the mandatum.  Following the approval of the Application, a detailed procedure will be developed outlining the process of requesting and granting (or withdrawing) the mandatum.

“1.  The competent ecclesiastical authority to grant the mandatum is the bishop of the diocese in which the Catholic university is located; he may grant the mandatum personally or through a delegate.

[Footnote reads: “The attestation or declaration of the professor that he or she will teach in communion with the Church can be expressed by the profession of faith and oath of fidelity or in any other reasonable manner acceptable to the one issuing the mandatum.”]

“2.  Without prejudice to the rights of the local bishop, a mandatum, once granted, remains in effect wherever and as long as the professor teaches unless and until withdrawn by competent ecclesiastical authority.

[Footnote reads: “Although the general principle is that, once granted, there is no need for the mandatum to be granted again by another diocesan bishop, every diocesan bishop has the right to require otherwise in his own diocese.”]

“3.  The mandatum should be given in writing.  The reasons for denying or removing a mandatum should also be in writing.”

[Footnote reads: “Administrative acts in the external forum must be in writing (c. 37).  The writing not only demonstrates the fulfillment of canon 812, but, in cases of denial or removal, it permits the person who considers his or her rights to have been injured to seek recourse. See canons 1732-1739.”]

Application of Ex corde Ecclesiae for United States Particular Norms, Art. 4, §5

“With due regard for the principles of religious liberty and freedom of conscience, students should have the opportunity to be educated in the Church’s moral and religious principles and social teachings and to participate in the life of faith.  Catholic students have a right to receive from a university instruction in authentic Catholic doctrine and practice, especially from those who teach the theological disciplines. …Courses in Catholic doctrine and practice should be made available to all students.”

Application of Ex corde Ecclesiae for United States Particular Norms, Art. 5, §2

“Doctrinal Responsibilities: Approaches to Promoting Cooperation and Resolving Misunderstandings between Bishops and Theologians, approved and published by the National Conference of Catholic Bishops, June 17, 1989, can serve as a useful guide for diocesan bishops, professors of the theological disciplines and administrators of universities to promote informal cooperation and collaboration in the Church’s teaching mission and the faithful observance within Catholic universities of the principles of Catholic doctrine.  Disputes about Church doctrine should be resolved, whenever possible, in an informal manner.  At times, the resolution of such matters may benefit from formal doctrinal dialogue as proposed by Doctrinal Responsibilities and adapted by the parties in question.”

Application of Ex corde Ecclesiae for United States, §5

“Within their academic mission of teaching and research, in ways appropriate to their own constituencies and histories, including their sponsorship by religious communities, institutions offer courses in Catholic theology that reflect current scholarship and are in accord with the authentic teaching of the Church.”

Application of Ex corde Ecclesiae for United States, §7

“In order to maintain and safeguard their freely-chosen Catholic identity, it is important for Catholic universities… to implement in practical terms their commitment to the essential elements of Catholic identity, including the following: …Commitment of witness of the Catholic faith by Catholic administrators and teachers, especially those teaching the theological disciplines, and acknowledgment and respect on the part of non-Catholic teachers and administrators of the university’s Catholic identity and mission; …Commitment to provide courses for students on Catholic moral and religious principles and their application to critical areas such as human life and other issues of social justice….”

Vatican Council II, Declaration on Christian Education Gravissimum Educationis, §32

“In Catholic universities where there is no faculty of sacred theology there should be established an institute or chair of sacred theology in which there should be lectures suited to lay students.”

Questions for Self-Assessment

How does the institution maintain a faculty, institute, or chair of Catholic theology with courses for lay students?122

How does the institution ensure that students have access to courses which treat in a special way those theological questions with are connected with each particular discipline?123

How does the institution provide academic events on a regular basis to address theological issues, especially those relative to the various disciplines taught in the university?124

How does the institution ensure that each individual hired to teach a theological discipline:

  1. has a mandatum according to the procedures established by the local diocesan bishop?125
  2. makes the Vatican-approved profession of faith at the beginning of the individual’s employment?126
  3. is faithful to the Magisterium of the Catholic Church as the authentic interpreter of Sacred Scripture and Sacred Tradition and assents to Catholic doctrine according to the degree of authority with which it is taught?127
  4. teaches in a manner faithful to Scripture, Tradition, and the Catholic Church’s Magisterium?128
  5. remain faithful to the principles and methods proper to Catholic theology?129

Research

Ex corde Ecclesiae General Norms, Art. 5, §1

“In ways consistent with its nature as a University, a Catholic University will contribute to the Church’s work of evangelization.”

Ex corde Ecclesiae, §7

“Scientific and technological discoveries create an enormous economic and industrial growth, but they also inescapably require the correspondingly necessary search for meaning in order to guarantee that the new discoveries be used for the authentic good of individuals and of human society as a whole. If it is the responsibility of every University to search for such meaning, a Catholic University is called in a particular way to respond to this need: its Christian inspiration enables it to include the moral, spiritual and religious dimension in its research, and to evaluate the attainments of science and technology in the perspective of the totality of the human person.”

Ex corde Ecclesiae, §15

“A Catholic University, therefore, is a place of research, where scholars scrutinize reality with the methods proper to each academic discipline, and so contribute to the treasury of human knowledge.  Each individual discipline is studied in a systematic manner; moreover, the various disciplines are brought into dialogue for their mutual enhancement.  In a Catholic University, research necessarily includes (a) the search for an integration of knowledge, (b) a dialogue between faith and reason, (c) an ethical concern, and (d) a theological perspective.”

Ex corde Ecclesiae, §16

“[A] University, and especially a Catholic University, ‘has to be a ‘living union’ of individual organisms dedicated to the search for truth.  …It is necessary to work towards a higher synthesis of knowledge, in which alone lies the possibility of satisfying that thirst for truth which is profoundly inscribed on the heart of the human person.’  Aided by the specific contributions of philosophy and theology, university scholars will be engaged in a constant effort to determine the relative place and meaning of each of the various disciplines within the context of a vision of the human person and the world that is enlightened by the Gospel, and therefore by a faith in Christ, the Logos, as the centre of creation and of human history.”  (Pope John Paul II, “Allocution to the International Congress on Catholic Universities,” April 25, 1989)

Ex corde Ecclesiae, §17

“In promoting this integration of knowledge, a specific part of a Catholic University’s task is to promote dialogue between faith and reason, so that it can be seen more profoundly how faith and reason bear harmonious witness to the unity of all truth.”

Ex corde Ecclesiae, §18

“Because knowledge is meant to serve the human person, research in a Catholic University is always carried out with a concern for the ethical and moral implications both of its methods and of its discoveries.”

Ex corde Ecclesiae, §32

“A Catholic University, as any University, is immersed in human society; as an extension of its service to the Church, and always within its proper competence, it is called on to become an ever more effective instrument of cultural progress for individuals as well as for society.  Included among its research activities, therefore, will be a study of serious contemporary problems in areas such as the dignity of human life, the promotion of justice for all, the quality of personal and family life, the protection of nature, the search for peace and political stability, a more just sharing in the world’s resources, and a new economic and political order that will better serve the human community at a national and international level.  University research will seek to discover the roots and causes of the serious problems of our time, paying special attention to their ethical and religious dimensions.

“If need be, a Catholic University must have the courage to speak uncomfortable truths which do not please public opinion, but which are necessary to safeguard the authentic good of society.”

Ex corde Ecclesiae, §33

“A specific priority is the need to examine and evaluate the predominant values and norms of modern society and culture in a Christian perspective, and the responsibility to try to communicate to society those ethical and religious principles which give full meaning to human life.  In this way a University can contribute further to the development of a true Christian anthropology, founded on the person of Christ, which will bring the dynamism of the creation and redemption to bear on reality and on the correct solution to the problems of life.”

Ex corde Ecclesiae, §34

“The Christian spirit of service to others for the promotion of social justice is of particular importance for each Catholic University, to be shared by its teachers and developed in its students.  The Church is firmly committed to the integral growth of all men and women.  The Gospel, interpreted in the social teachings of the Church, is an urgent call to promote ‘the development of those peoples who are striving to escape from hunger, misery, endemic diseases and ignorance; of those who are looking for a wider share in the benefits of civilization and a more active improvement of their human qualities; of those who are aiming purposefully at their complete fulfilment’.”  (Citation from Pope Paul VI, Encyclical Letter Populorum Progressio)

Ex corde Ecclesiae, §35

“In its attempts to resolve these complex issues that touch on so many different dimensions of human life and of society, a Catholic University will insist on cooperation among the different academic disciplines, each offering its distinct contribution in the search for solutions….”

Ex corde Ecclesiae, §45

“A Catholic University must become more attentive to the cultures of the world of today, and to the various cultural traditions existing within the Church in a way that will promote a continuous and profitable dialogue between the Gospel and modern society.  Among the criteria that characterize the values of a culture are above all, the meaning of the human person, his or her liberty, dignity, sense of responsibility, and openness to the transcendent.  To a respect for persons is joined the preeminent value of the family, the primary unit of every human culture.  Catholic Universities will seek to discern and evaluate both the aspirations and the contradictions of modern culture, in order to make it more suited to the total development of individuals and peoples.  In particular, it is recommended that by means of appropriate studies, the impact of modern technology and especially of the mass media on persons, the family, and the institutions and whole of modem culture be studied deeply.  Traditional cultures are to be defended in their identity, helping them to receive modern values without sacrificing their own heritage, which is a wealth for the whole of the human family.  Universities, situated within the ambience of these cultures, will seek to harmonize local cultures with the positive contributions of modern cultures.”

Ex corde Ecclesiae, §46

“An area that particularly interests a Catholic University is the dialogue between Christian thought and the modern sciences.  …Such dialogue concerns the natural sciences as much as the human sciences which posit new and complex philosophical and ethical problems.  The Christian researcher should demonstrate the way in which human intelligence is enriched by the higher truth that comes from the Gospel: ‘The intelligence is never diminished, rather, it is stimulated and reinforced by that interior fount of deep understanding that is the Word of God, and by the hierarchy of values that results from it… In its unique manner, the Catholic University helps to manifest the superiority of the spirit, that can never, without the risk of losing its very self, be placed at the service of something other than the search for truth.’”  (Citation from Pope Paul VI, to the Delegates of The International Federation of Catholic Universities, Nov. 27, 1972)

Ex corde Ecclesiae, §47

“Besides cultural dialogue, a Catholic University, in accordance with its specific ends, and keeping in mind the various religious-cultural contexts, following the directives promulgated by competent ecclesiastical authority, can offer a contribution to ecumenical dialogue.  It does so to further the search for unity among all Christians.  In inter-religious dialogue it will assist in discerning the spiritual values that are present in the different religions.”

Ex corde Ecclesiae, §49

“[A]ll the basic academic activities of a Catholic University are connected with and in harmony with the evangelizing mission of the Church: research carried out in the light of the Christian message which puts new human discoveries at the service of individuals and society; …the dialogue with culture that makes the faith better understood, and the theological research that translates the faith into contemporary language.”

Application of Ex corde Ecclesiae for United States, §5

“It is highly desirable that representatives of both educational institutions and Church authorities jointly identify, study, and pursue solutions to issues concerning social justice, human life and the needs of the poor.”

Vatican Council II, Declaration on Christian Education Gravissimum Educationis, 32

“Since science advances by means of the investigations peculiar to higher scientific studies, special attention should be given in Catholic universities and colleges to institutes that serve primarily the development of scientific research.”

Questions for Self-Assessment

How does the institution ensure that research and other academic activities of the institution and its faculty include the following necessary characteristics:

  1. the search for an integration of knowledge, by determining the relative place and meaning of each of the various disciplines in relation to Christ as the center of creation and human history?130
  2. dialogue between faith and reason?131
  3. concern for the ethical and moral implications of its methods and discoveries?132
  4. a moral, spiritual, and religious dimension from a Catholic theological perspective?133

How do research and other academic activities of the institution and its faculty:

  1. serve the development of scientific knowledge?134
  2. evaluate the attainments of science and technology in the Christian perspective of the totality of the human person and the higher truth that comes from the Gospel?135
  3. study the roots and causes of serious contemporary problems, paying special attention to their ethical and religious dimensions, in areas such as the dignity of human life, the promotion of justice for all, the quality of personal and family life, the protection of nature, the search for peace and political stability, a more just sharing in the world’s resources, and a new economic and political order that will better serve the human community at a national and international level?136
  4. examine and evaluate from a Christian perspective the predominant values and norms of modern society and culture, including the impact of modern technology and the mass media?137
  5. help communicate to society the ethical and religious principles which give full meaning to human life?138
  6. contribute to ecumenical dialogue, according to the directives of ecclesiastical authority?139
  7. otherwise contribute to the Catholic Church’s work of evangelization?140

How does the institution ensure cooperation among the different academic disciplines in research and other academic activities?141

Students & Campus Life

Pastoral Ministry

Code of Canon Law, Canon 813

“The diocesan bishop is to have serious pastoral care for students by erecting a parish for them or by assigning priests for this purpose on a stable basis; he is also to provide for Catholic university centers at universities, even non-Catholic ones, to give assistance, especially spiritual to young people.”

Ex corde Ecclesiae General Norms, Art. 6, §1

“A Catholic University is to promote the pastoral care of all members of the university community, and to be especially attentive to the spiritual development of those who are Catholics.  Priority is to be given to those means which will facilitate the integration of human and professional education with religious values in the light of Catholic doctrine, in order to unite intellectual learning with the religious dimension of life.”

Ex corde Ecclesiae General Norms, Art. 6, §2

“A sufficient number of qualified people—priests, religious, and lay persons—are to be appointed to provide pastoral ministry for the university community, carried on in harmony and cooperation with the pastoral activities of the local Church under the guidance or with the approval of the diocesan Bishop.  All members of the university community are to be invited to assist the work of pastoral ministry, and to collaborate in its activities.”

Ex corde Ecclesiae, §§38-39

“Pastoral ministry is that activity of the University which offers the members of the university community an opportunity to integrate religious and moral principles with their academic study and non-academic activities, thus integrating faith with life.  It is part of the mission of the Church within the University, and is also a constitutive element of a Catholic University itself, both in its structure and in its life.  A university community concerned with promoting the Institution’s Catholic character will be conscious of this pastoral dimension and sensitive to the ways in which it can have an influence on all university activities.

“As a natural expression of the Catholic identity of the University, the university community should give a practical demonstration of its faith in its daily activity, with important moments of reflection and of prayer.  Catholic members of this community will be offered opportunities to assimilate Catholic teaching and practice into their lives and will be encouraged to participate in the celebration of the sacraments, especially the Eucharist as the most perfect act of community worship.  When the academic community includes members of other Churches, ecclesial communities or religions, their initiatives for reflection and prayer in accordance with their own beliefs are to be respected.”

Ex corde Ecclesiae, §§40-42

“Those involved in pastoral ministry will encourage teachers and students to become more aware of their responsibility towards those who are suffering physically or spiritually.  Following the example of Christ, they will be particularly attentive to the poorest and to those who suffer economic, social, cultural or religious injustice.  This responsibility begins within the academic community, but it also finds application beyond it.

“Pastoral ministry is an indispensable means by which Catholic students can, in fulfilment of their baptism, be prepared for active participation in the life of the Church; it can assist in developing and nurturing the value of marriage and family life, fostering vocations to the priesthood and religious life, stimulating the Christian commitment of the laity and imbuing every activity with the spirit of the Gospel.  Close cooperation between pastoral ministry in a Catholic University and the other activities within the local Church, under the guidance or with the approval of the diocesan Bishop, will contribute to their mutual growth.

“Various associations or movements of spiritual and apostolic life, especially those developed specifically for students, can be of great assistance in developing the pastoral aspects of university life.”

Application of Ex corde Ecclesiae for United States Particular Norms, Art. 4, §5

“With due regard for the principles of religious liberty and freedom of conscience, students should have the opportunity to be educated in the Church’s moral and religious principles and social teachings and to participate in the life of faith.  Catholic students… have a right to be provided with opportunities to practice the faith through participation in Mass, the sacraments, religious devotions and other authentic forms of Catholic spirituality.”

Application of Ex corde Ecclesiae for United States Particular Norms, Art. 6, §§1-5

“The diocesan bishop has overall responsibility for the pastoral care of the university’s students, faculty, administration and staff.

“The university, in cooperation with the diocesan bishop, shall make provision for effective campus ministry programs, including the celebration of the sacraments, especially the Eucharist and penance, other liturgical celebrations, and opportunities for prayer and spiritual reflection.

“When selecting pastoral ministers—priests, deacons, religious and lay persons—to carry on the work of campus ministry, the university authorities should work closely with the diocesan bishop and interested religious institutes.  Without prejudice to the provision of canon 969, §2, priests and deacons must enjoy pastoral faculties from the local ordinary in order to exercise their ministry on campus.

“With due regard for religious liberty and freedom of conscience, the university, in cooperation with the diocesan bishop, should collaborate in ecumenical and interfaith efforts to care for the pastoral needs of students, faculty and other university personnel who are not Catholic.

“In these pastoral efforts, the university and the diocesan bishop should take account of the prescriptions and recommendations issued by the Holy See and the guidance and pastoral statements of the National Conference of Catholic Bishops.”

Application of Ex corde Ecclesiae for United States, §5

“Allocation of personnel and money to assure the special contributions of campus ministry is indispensable.  In view of the presence on campus of persons of other religious traditions, it is a concern of the whole Church that ecumenical and inter-religious relationships should be fostered with sensitivity.”

Application of Ex corde Ecclesiae for United States, §7

“In order to maintain and safeguard their freely-chosen Catholic identity, it is important for Catholic universities… to implement in practical terms their commitment to the essential elements of Catholic identity, including the following: …Commitment to care pastorally for the students, faculty, administration and staff….”

Questions for Self-Assessment

How does the institution promote the pastoral care of all members of the college or university community, with special attention to the spiritual development of Catholics?142

How does the institution strive to unite intellectual learning with the religious dimension of life?143

How does the institution ensure sufficient resources and the appointment of sufficient priests, deacons, religious, and lay people to provide pastoral care for the college or university community?144

How does the institution give practical demonstrations of the Catholic faith in daily activity, including important moments of reflection and prayer?145

How does the institution ensure respect for non-Catholic members of the college or university community and their initiatives for reflection and prayer in accordance with their own beliefs?146

How does the institution collaborate in ecumenical and interfaith efforts to care for the pastoral needs of non-Catholic students?147

How do the institution’s pastoral ministers:

  1. invite all members of the college or university community to assist the work of pastoral ministry and collaborate in its activities, including the sacraments (especially the Mass and Penance), religious devotions, and other authentic forms of Catholic spirituality?148
  2. encourage faculty members and students to become more aware of their responsibility toward those who are suffering physically or spiritually, with particular attention to the poor and victims of economic, social, cultural, or religious injustice?149
  3. help develop and nurture in students the value of marriage and family life?150
  4. foster vocations to the priesthood and religious life?151

Student Life

Ex corde Ecclesiae General Norms, Art. 4, §4

“Those university teachers and administrators who belong to other Churches, ecclesial communities, or religions, as well as those who profess no religious belief, and also all students, are to recognize and respect the distinctive Catholic identity of the University.”

Ex corde Ecclesiae, §42

“Various associations or movements of spiritual and apostolic life, especially those developed specifically for students, can be of great assistance in developing the pastoral aspects of university life.”

Application of Ex corde Ecclesiae for United States, §7

“In order to maintain and safeguard their freely-chosen Catholic identity, it is important for Catholic universities… to implement in practical terms their commitment to the essential elements of Catholic identity, including the following: …Commitment to Catholic ideals, principles and attitudes in carrying out research, teaching and all other university activities, including activities of officially-recognized student and faculty organizations and associations… Commitment to provide personal services (health care, counseling and guidance) to students, as well as administration and faculty, in conformity with the Church’s ethical and religious teaching and directives …Commitment to create a campus culture and environment that is expressive and supportive of a Catholic way of life.”


Questions for Self-Assessment

How does the institution ensure that students recognize and respect the Catholic identity of the institution?152

How does the institution ensure a campus culture and environment that is expressive and supportive of a Catholic way of life?153

How does the institution promote student participation in associations of spiritual and apostolic life, especially those developed especially for students?154

How does the institution ensure that officially recognized student organizations and associations conform to Catholic ideals, principles, and attitudes?155

How does the institution provide personal services like health care, counseling, and guidance for students, in conformity with the Catholic Church’s ethical and religious teaching and directives?156

 

 

 

Protecting Catholic Colleges from External Threats to Their Religious Liberty

/in , /by
Click here for PDF

Federal and state laws are increasingly being used to coerce religious institutions into actions and commitments that violate deeply held religious convictions and moral principles.38  Some of these laws require employee and student health insurance that covers contraception, and mandate employee benefits for same sex couples.

Catholic colleges and universities and other Catholic organizations are not immune from emerging threats to their religious liberty and Catholic identity, but can take steps to minimize the danger.

This paper will briefly outline some of the major forms of these threats related to:

  • acceptance of federal student aid and grants, thus triggering federal Title IX’s sex discrimination prohibitions and federal research grant conditions;
  • Title VII’s prohibitions on employment discrimination;
  • the recently enacted Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act healthcare overhaul; and
  • various state-level laws and regulations.

After explaining the ways the application of these laws and regulations can threaten a Catholic college or university’s Catholic identity, the paper will propose steps each institution may take to mitigate the danger.

It must be noted, however, that any available exemptions for religious institutions will not apply if a college that was founded as a religious institution has become largely secular.  It is therefore vital that Catholic colleges and universities maintain their Catholic identity in all of their programs in order to best protect their religious character and mission.

Catholic colleges and universities have an advantage over other religious institutions in that the Catholic Church’s Canon Law and the Apostolic Constitution Ex corde Ecclesiae lay out the requirements for a college to be considered Catholic.  While Church law is beyond the purview of this paper, it should be noted that a college that does not faithfully adhere to and apply the Catholic Church’s own law might find it difficult if not impossible to convince a secular court that it is a Catholic institution deserving protection.

THREATS TO THE RELIGIOUS IDENTITY OF CATHOLIC HIGHER EDUCATION

Accepting Federal Funding

Federal funding generally takes the form of research grants or student financial aid.  The laws and regulations governing these funds prohibit discrimination based on sex, which may require insurance plans to cover prescription contraception.  But there is an exemption for religious organizations.

Research Grant Conditions

Religious discrimination is conspicuously absent from a list of prohibitions on discrimination that circumscribes the actions of grantees of direct grant programs from the Department of Education.  Religious institutions’ ability to receive such grants is conditioned on their compliance with the following:  Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, Title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972, Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, and the Age Discrimination Act.  Thus, grantees cannot discriminate on the basis of:  race, color, national origin, sex, handicap, or age.39  A direct grant is broadly conceived, and eligibility for each individual grant is governed by its particular authorizing statute and implementing regulations.53

Faith-based organizations are eligible to receive the direct grants, and the Code clearly establishes that the Department of Education awarding these grants will not discriminate against faith-based organizations.  These organizations are not forced to abandon their religious character, expression, or autonomy in order to receive these funds.54 To the extent that a religious educational institution seeks to provide a program or service for which a direct grant is available, the Department extends this opportunity to receive aid without compromising the school’s distinctively religious mission.  But religious educational institutions must carefully examine the procurement criteria for any particular research grant in order to determine whether accepting the federal funds will adversely affect their particular religious mission.

Federal Title IX’s Prohibition on Sex Discrimination in Education

Although Title IX prohibits sex discrimination60 in schools that receive federal financial assistance, it has an exemption for religious organizations.62  If an educational institution is both “controlled by a religious organization” and if prohibiting sex discrimination would “not be consistent with the religious tenets of such organization,” then the school may be able to discriminate.66  But it is clearly limited to differentiating on the basis of sex.67Title IX only applies to schools that receive federal financial assistance. Most Catholic colleges and universities receive federal financial assistance in the form of Federal Student Aid,68 which enables students82 to afford expensive post-secondary education.  Students apply for this aid by completing the Free Application for Federal Student Aid (FAFSA).  Formerly, student loans were offered under both the Federal Family Education Loan (FFEL) Program and the William D. Ford Federal Direct Loan (Direct Loan) Program.  FFEL loans involved the federal government guaranteeing the loans of private lenders, but with Direct Loans, students borrow directly from the U.S. Department of Education.  In 2010, among other changes,89 the Health Care and Education Reconciliation Act (“Reconciliation Act”)90 eliminated the FFEL Program, and now these loans91 will all be funded by the Direct Loan Program.

The Code of Federal Regulations, which governs the interpretation of Title IX, defines federal financial assistance in the context of student loans broadly.97  The Supreme Court has likewise concluded that the definition of federal financial assistance includes both direct and indirect student loans.103

An institution’s receipt of federal funds actually subjects the entire institution to government regulation under Title IX.105  If federal financial assistance is actually received, subjecting the school to Title IX, there are virtually no methods of institutional structuring which will allow it to maneuver around these regulations.106

Two additional notes for educational institutions attempting to determine if they are receiving federal financial assistance:  (1) it appears that tax exempt status does not constitute receiving federal funds;109 and (2) use of small amounts of federal funds has been held to not be enough to classify the school as a recipient of federal financial assistance under Title IX.110

But if an institution does receive federal funds, Title IX has an exemption for religious organizations.112  The procedure for obtaining this exemption requires the highest ranking official of the educational institution seeking the exemption to submit a written statement to the Director of the Department of Education “identifying the provisions of this part [Title IX] which conflict with a specific tenet of the religious organization.”125

In order to qualify for this exemption, an educational institution must be “controlled by a religious organization.”  An educational institution that could be classified as a religious institution itself would also meet this requirement.126

On one end of the spectrum, a religious educational institution which is in fact a seminary will generally be considered controlled by a religious organization (or actually may be a religious organization) for the purposes of Title IX exemption.  Such a school would then need to establish that, according to its religious tenets, sex discrimination was necessary.  Many religious faiths believe in either differing vocational roles for men and women generally or at least, reserve ministerial ordination for men only.  These faiths can establish their beliefs based on their interpretation of their sacred texts and foundational documents.150  These clearly qualify for the exemption.151  To the extent that an educational institution which trains religious leaders can establish that its faith does differentiate in particular ways based on sex, it should be able to allow its students to receive federal financial assistance without coming under the sway of government regulations prohibiting the type of role differentiation it practices.

Catholic schools that do not train priests and other ministers should also be concerned about Title IX’s prohibition on sex discrimination.  For instance, schools that provide medical insurance for students may violate Title IX if they fail to provide coverage for prescription contraception coverage.  Failure to do so has been ruled sex discrimination.153  Schools could also face complaints about single-sex residence halls and related activities restricted to hall residents of the same gender.

So qualifying for the religious exemption to Title IX is important for all Catholic colleges and universities.  Although this exemption is narrow,155 Catholic schools stand the best chance of qualifying because they are institutionally connected to a particular religious denomination.156

Courts apply religious exemptions by weighing the facts carefully, not merely taking a school’s assertion that it is religious at face value.157  Importantly, a religious past does not speak for a religious present.  Straying from an historic religious character cuts decisively against being regarded as religious or controlled by a religious organization.

Prohibition on Discrimination in Employment Pursuant to Federal Title VII

Catholic colleges and universities, regardless of whether they receive federal funds, may be subject to federal laws prohibiting discrimination in the workplace.  Despite the law’s broad exemption for religious organizations, the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (“EEOC”) is increasingly inclined toward regulating Catholic employers without due consideration for religious liberty, especially with regard to health insurance mandates that conflict with Catholic morality.  For instance, Belmont Abbey College in North Carolina is currently being investigated by the EEOC because its health insurance does not cover prescription contraception for its female employees.

Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 prohibits employers of 15 or more employees from discriminating in hiring and firing employees on the grounds of race, color, religion, sex, or national origin.158  Unlike Title IX, the application of Title VII does not depend on whether or not an employer receives federal funds.  But Title VII includes a broader exemption for religious organizations.159

Title VII does not statutorily define what constitutes a religious educational institution or religious organization, but the exemption is broad: all of a religious organization’s activities are exempt, not just those activities that are specifically religious.  General principles of interpretation of the exemption caution that it is fact specific.160  Because of the sparse nature of the statute, courts have varied not only in their decisions about whether certain organizations are religious but also in the factors they apply.

In a case particularly relevant to the religious nature of educational institutions, the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals concluded that Samford, a Baptist university, was a religious educational institution which can consider religion when making employment decisions.  The court described the following as relevant to its conclusion:  (1) Samford was originally founded as a theological institution by the Alabama Baptist State Convention; (2) The vast majority of its trustees had been Baptist; (3) The Baptist convention contributed over four million dollars to Samford; (4) All Samford’s faculty who taught religion were required to subscribe to a particular Baptist statement of faith; and, (5) Samford’s charter described its purpose in explicitly religious terms.161

If a Catholic college or university qualifies for the religious exemption, it may require its employees to all be Catholic and live a life consistent with Catholic teaching.  If the school does not qualify for a religious exemption, it can still consider religion for certain positions that require someone of a particular faith, often referred to as a bona fide occupational qualification.  For instance, being Jesuit was considered a bona fide occupational qualification for a full-time faculty position at Loyola University of Chicago.162

The Pregnancy Discrimination Act

Title VII was amended in 1978 to prohibit discrimination against pregnant women  – often referred to as the Pregnancy Discrimination Act.163  This was interpreted by the EEOC in 2000 as requiring employers to provide prescription contraception coverage in health insurance plans that include prescriptions.164 This mandate neglects the First Amendment rights of Catholic employers who must be faithful to Catholic teaching on the immorality of artificial contraception.

In 2009, the EEOC District Office in Charlotte, N.C., charged Belmont Abbey College in North Carolina with discrimination for not covering birth control pills in its employee health plan, which would compromise the college’s Catholic mission.  The college has filed an appeal with the EEOC national office in Washington, D.C., but has not received a reply.

The EEOC appears to be headed toward additional conflicts with religious employers.  Newly appointed EEOC commissioner Chai Feldblum, a former professor at Georgetown University Law Center and advocate for same-sex marriage, has argued that “sexual rights” should trump First Amendment religious rights when the two conflict.

The EEOC action against Belmont Abbey College indicates the extent to which Title VII can be used to impose personnel policies that may conflict with Catholic identity.  Contraception mandates could lead to abortion mandates in employee health insurance.  Antidiscrimination measures regarding sexual orientation could force benefits for same-sex couples and recognition of same-sex unions.  Catholic colleges and universities must be careful to require their employees to subscribe to the Catholic teaching on contraception if they do not want to be forced to provide similar coverage to their employees.

Employment Non-Discrimination Act

Another potential threat to Catholic colleges and universities is the continued effort in Congress to amend Title VII by passing some form of the Employment Non-Discrimination Act (ENDA).  By designating “sexual orientation” a protected class under Title VII, ENDA could pose problems for Catholic institutions when hiring or firing employees by limiting employers’ ability to consider homosexual activity or activism that is opposed to Catholic doctrine.  It may also limit employers’ ability to enforce dress codes, and could require employers to provide benefits to same-sex couples.  Some observers also note that ENDA may be a first step toward federal redefinition of marriage to include same-sex unions, which could further pose conflicts with personnel policies at Catholic colleges and universities.  As with sex discrimination, the best defense against this is to qualify for the religious organization exemption and require all employees to subscribe to Catholic teaching.

Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act

The recently passed Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (PPACA) may pose a serious threat to conscience rights of Catholic colleges and universities.  But the manner in which PPACA will be implemented is confusing and indeterminate.  PPACA generally mandates that employers provide one of several options of health insurance to their employees.  But PPACA also grants sweeping powers to the Secretary of the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) and other administration agencies, making it distinctly possible that they may mandate coverage of contraception, in vitro fertilization, and even abortion in an employer’s coverage options.  Institutions opting to simply not provide health coverage for their employees will face stiff tax consequences.  This paper below discusses religious schools’ options for avoiding the requirements of the PPACA as well as potential grounds for protecting religious freedom through litigation.

General State-Level Threats

Some states such as Wisconsin have begun mandating contraception coverage in employee health insurance plans.  Not all of them have exceptions for religious organizations and when they do, it is sometimes unclear how to qualify as a religious organization.  A thorough analysis of the various and differing state laws is beyond the limited scope of this paper.  The Becket Fund for Religious Liberty has an excellent analysis of this issue with proposals for protecting Catholic institutions from this threat titled, Implications of Mandatory Insurance Coverage of Contraceptives for Catholic Colleges and Universities.  It is available at www.CatholicHigherEd.org.  A summary of state contraception mandates titled Contraceptive Mandates and Immoral Cooperation can also be found at the same site.

Some states also have constitutional provisions called “Blaine Amendments” that prohibit any state funds from being used by pervasively religious organizations.  At least four Supreme Court Justices have opined that Blaine Amendments – originally enacted as a result of anti-Catholic bigotry – are unconstitutional and the use of “pervasively sectarian” is outdated.165  Moreover, the Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals in Denver ruled that making distinctions between schools for purpose of state scholarship funding based on whether they are “pervasively sectarian” or merely “sectarian” actually violates the First Amendment Establishment Clause due to excessive entanglement of government with religion.166   This case may be the beginning of a successful effort to eliminate Blaine Amendments.  Nevertheless, Catholic schools should be aware that emphasizing their religious mission and theology may result in disqualification for some state funding programs until provisions that discriminate against pervasively sectarian organizations can be successfully challenged in court.

Potential Threats on the Horizon

The future may bring additional government threats to the religious liberty of Catholic colleges and universities.  While their scope and impact are yet uncertain, recent developments suggest the added importance of protecting against potential threats as well as current realities.

On October 29, 2010, the U.S. Department of Education issued new regulations on student aid that encourage tighter state controls over higher education.  The Higher Education Act requires state authorization of colleges and universities that participate in federal student aid programs, which until this year was often assumed absent an adverse ruling by a state agency.   The Education Department now expects state approval of institutions “by name” and a state process “to review and appropriately act on” complaints about any approved institution.

Associations concerned with religious higher education – including The Cardinal Newman Society, the Association of Jesuit Colleges and Universities, and the Council of Christian Colleges and Universities – have raised concerns about expanded state oversight which could be politicized and could erect barriers to religious colleges seeking state charters and access to federal student aid.  The Education Department acknowledged that it had received complaints from college leaders that “a State’s role may extend into defining, for example, curriculum, teaching methods, subject matter content, faculty qualifications, and learning outcomes.”  Others feared that states might “impose homogeneity upon institutions that would compromise their unique missions.”  In response, federal officials agreed that the new regulations do “not limit a State’s oversight of institutions.”

In a July 30, 2010, letter to the Education Department, William Armstrong, former U.S. Senator from Colorado and now President of Colorado Christian University, warned that the new rules would “almost guarantee that states will have to cope with noisy arguments over teaching methods, degree requirements and culture wars over textbooks, evolution versus Intelligent Design, phonics versus whole language, campus ROTC, climate change, family policy, abortion, race, gender, sexual orientation, etc.”

It should be noted that the law does not prevent the federal government from also imposing restrictions on Catholic colleges and universities that participate in federal student aid programs.  Regulations that could be tied to federal aid might affect employee benefits, hiring policies, accreditation practices, and other unforeseen areas that potentially conflict with religious identity.  Thus far the federal government has been notably restrained in interfering with higher education.

STEPS TO PROTECT CATHOLIC COLLEGES AND UNIVERSITIES

Demonstrating a College is Religious

In short, many religious educational institutions, particularly colleges and universities which were founded on purposes tied to goals of educating in conformity to religious teaching –especially when the ties are denominationally specific or to an individual church – should be exempted from federal prohibitions on sex and religious discrimination.  But an educational institution that veers from a religious founding will probably not be able to demonstrate it is a religious organization.167  It will therefore not be able to require that its staff, faculty, and student body agree with, and abide by, its religious mission and theology.

Some Catholic schools have purposely minimized their religious ties for fear of being considered “pervasively sectarian,” and being disqualified for state funding by Blaine Amendments as indicated above.  Emphasizing their religious mission and theology is helpful for avoiding federal regulation, but it may adversely affect the school’s ability to participate in state scholarship programs – at least until those discriminatory provisions can be eliminated.

The cases indicate courts will consider 10 factors when determining whether a school is a religious organization.168  A college or university is much more likely to be able to qualify for an exemption to anti-discrimination laws if it satisfies all of them.  They are:

1. Whether the entity operates for a profit

This factor is not an issue for most secondary schools, but there are some for-profit colleges and universities.  “Nothing in the statute or case law says a for-profit corporation can not [sic] be a ‘religious corporation,’ but every reported claim for that status by a for-profit corporation has been denied.”  Dent, supra note 25, at 563.  Non-profit status definitely weighs in favor of being considered a religious organization.

2. Whether it produces a secular product

Many religious schools offer secular degrees in addition to religious.  This does not preclude them from being considered religious institutions.  For instance, Samford University offers a plethora of secular degrees,169 but was still considered a religious institution because, among other things, its chief purpose was “the promotion of the Christian Religion throughout the world by maintaining and operating … institutions dedicated to the development of Christian character in high scholastic standing.”170

3. Whether the entity’s articles of incorporation or other pertinent documents state a religious purpose

All indications are that the governing documents of an organization are important to it being considered religious.  No cases were found where an organization was deemed religious even though no religious purpose was stated in its founding documents.171  On the other hand, Samford’s charter reflected its chief purpose of promoting the Christian Religion throughout the world, and that was a significant factor in the court’s determination that the university was religious.172

4. Whether it is owned, affiliated with or financially supported by a formally religious entity such as a church or synagogue

Though not determinative, this factor certainly figures strongly into the calculation when assessing whether a school is religious.  The Court found it significant that Samford University received seven percent of its annual budget from the Southern Baptist Convention.173

5. Whether a formally religious entity participates in the management, for instance by having representatives on the board of trustees

This factor is very helpful for determining a school is religious if it is not directly affiliated with a church or other religious body.  For instance, in LeBoon, a Jewish Community Center was considered a religious organization even though it was not directly affiliated with any synagogue, because several rabbis were advisory, non-voting members of its board.174

6. Whether the entity holds itself out to the public as secular or sectarian

This is one of the most important factors.  A school in Hawaii that required its teachers to be Protestant was not religious, due in part to the fact that the school’s introductory pamphlet and course catalogue did not list any religious purpose of the school.175  Conversely, another court found it significant that “Samford’s student handbook describes Samford’s purpose this way: ‘to foster Christianity through the development of Christian character, scholastic attainment, and a sense of personal responsibility, ….’”176

7. Whether the entity regularly includes prayer or other forms of worship in its activities

Students at Samford University are required to attend chapel – which figured favorably in the court’s determination that it is a religious organization.177  But this factor did not help a school in Hawaii due in large part to the fact that most of the religious activities were optional for students.178

8. Whether it includes religious instruction in its curriculum, to the extent it is an educational institution

Sectarian schools must be careful to ensure that religious courses do something more than just teach about religion – which is allowed even in public schools.  For instance, this factor weighed against the Hawaii school that was found not to be religious because its curriculum “consist[s] of minimal, largely comparative religious studies….”179  Whereas, Samford University actually has a divinity school that trains clergy.

9. Whether its membership is made up by coreligionists

In the school context, this factor obviously has to do with the composition of the student body and faculty.  It is not necessary that students and teachers be limited to individuals of a particular religion.  Although Samford students are required to attend chapel, the court made no mention of a requirement that they be Southern Baptist, and determined the school was religious anyway.  And only instructors who taught religion courses were required to subscribe to a particular statement of faith.180  The court did favorably mention another case where the fact that 88% of the student body and 95% of the faculty were Baptist was significant in determining the school was religious.181

10. Consistent compliance with religious beliefs

Courts have held that a school or entity is no longer religious, even though it once was, because of lack of effort to comply with its original religious teachings.  For instance a court found that a home for troubled youth originally established with a religious purpose and governed by church-member trustees was presently secular because it no longer included religion in its programming and attendance at religious services was optional.182  Likewise, a school in Hawaii originally established as a Protestant institution was not religious because “the record reveals the purpose and emphasis of the School[] have shifted over the years from providing religious instruction to equipping students with ethical principles that will enable them to make their own moral judgments.”183

This factor may be particularly significant for universities and colleges that are affiliated with a particular denomination that specifically proscribes religious tenants that must be followed.  For instance, Catholic schools should adhere to the Canon Law requirements for their institutions, including the Church’s Apostolic Constitution Ex corde Ecclesiae, which applies directly to Catholic universities.184

Protection from PPACA

This section discusses religious schools’ options for avoiding the requirements of the Patient Protection and Affordable care Act (“PPACA”) as well as potential grounds for protecting religious freedom through litigation.  Schools should consult legal counsel to determine what their specific options will be under the PPACA regime.  Some potential options are as follows:

Lobby for amendments addressing conscience protection issues

Members of Congress are aware of the deficiencies in the PPACA, and several are proposing amendments to fix the shortcomings.  Representative Joseph Pitts (R-PA) introduced H.R. 5111, which would close the loopholes threatening to make abortion coverage mandatory.  Various proposed amendments would protect against requisite coverage of objectionable services in general.  Institutions concerned about the formidable new threats to their conscience rights must lobby for broad protection at both the federal and state levels.

Sue HHS under the Religious Freedom Restoration Act

In a specific case where all of an institution’s options for fulfilling PPACA’s employee-coverage mandate substantially burden its religious beliefs by forcing it to cover objectionable practices, the institution may be able to file a lawsuit alleging that PPACA’s mandate as applied to them violates the federal Religious Freedom Restoration Act (“RFRA”).   The act prohibits the government from “substantially burden[ing] religious exercise without compelling justification.”  Health coverage is an important employee recruiting and retention tool for employers.  Having to choose between not providing health coverage and compromising religious values is likely the type of burden RFRA was meant to protect against.  The success of any such claim will depend on the specific facts of an institution’s circumstances.  The institution should be able to assert that it actually has a sincere religious belief against providing coverage for certain objectionable practices, and that forcing it to do so will substantially burden its belief because it would select non-objectionable health coverage if it could.

Conclusion

Religious colleges and universities are prohibited from discriminating on sex and religion by Title IX and Title VII.185  There are exemptions for religious organizations in both of these statutes, but schools can only take advantage of these exemptions if they satisfy multi-factored tests that require them to consistently follow their religious convictions.  To the extent that a religious college departs from its historic religious ties, it may be in danger of losing its ability to claim that it is a religious employer exempted from civil rights legislation disallowing even religious discrimination.  To minimize regulation, such institutions should firmly maintain their religious identities and should exercise caution when accepting federal funds or allowing their students to accept federal financial assistance.

Religious schools are also subject to new requirements for providing health insurance to employees.  It is unclear how this new law will affect schools and other religious organizations that object to certain types of healthcare, such as abortion and in vitro fertilization.  But school officials should begin consulting with counsel as soon as possible to determine if there will be any conflict between this law and the school’s religious teachings.

Finally, direct funding from the federal government may contain some prohibitions on a school’s ability to hire faculty and recruit students that agree with its religious teachings.  The procurement criteria for each direct grant should be examined closely to be sure the school is not foregoing its ability to maintain its religious character.

 

 

 

Catholic Social Teaching at the Catholic University

/in , /by

An insistence on spreading the Church’s social doctrine among all Catholics, especially by educational programs for the laity, runs throughout the modern papal Magisterium, beginning with Leo XIII’s exhortations to the laity of the late 19th century.  At that time, it was indeed somewhat unusual for a pope to appeal directly to the people and to ask them to acquire the intellectual and moral training required to confront successfully the ever-growing challenges of the modern world. Yet by the time we reach Pius XI and Pius XII, it is taken for granted that the main audience for papal teachings on economics and politics must be Christ’s lay faithful, who are striving to impress the divine law upon and apply the natural law to the changing situations of their temporal life.

Thus, while even the forward-looking Leo XIII addressed his celebrated 1891 encyclical Rerum Novarum on labor and capital (or the rights and duties of workers and employers) to the bishops of the world, Pius XI, commemorating the 40th anniversary of the same with his 1931 encyclical Quadragesimo Anno on the reconstruction of the social order, added to his addressees “likewise all the faithful of the Catholic world.”  This is only to be expected, for while the clergy have as their primary task the internal governance and strengthening of the Church, believers living in the world have the corresponding task of purifying and sanctifying secular realities with a view to leading souls to salvation in Christ.

If there is a definite Catholic doctrine on social, political, and economic life – and of course there is just such a thing: a rich and detailed corpus of teaching rooted in Scripture and Tradition, refined by centuries of experience – then it only stands to reason that educating the Catholic faithful in this body of doctrine is of paramount importance, a basic and necessary component of their ongoing catechetical and theological training.

Along these lines, Blessed John XXIII’s great encyclical Pacem in Terris of 1961 stated (and these words are representative of many other papal documents that might be cited):

We must reaffirm most strongly that this Catholic social doctrine is an integral part of the Christian conception of life.  It is therefore Our urgent desire that this doctrine be studied more and more.  First of all it should be taught as part of the daily curriculum in Catholic schools of every kind…Our beloved sons, the laity, can do much to help this diffusion of Catholic social doctrine by studying it themselves and putting it into practice, and by zealously striving to make others understand it…It is vitally important, therefore, that Our sons learn to understand this doctrine.  They must be educated to it.

The natural conclusion is that Catholic colleges and universities (or chaplaincies connected with non-Catholic ones) must make room in their curricula for mandatory instruction and optional specialized work in this crucial area of the Magisterium.

Many schools that once offered sound instruction in the area of social ethics abandoned it together with much else that was jettisoned in the wake of the Second Vatican Council.  This is particularly ironic, since the Council contained the strongest endorsement to date of the apostolate of the laity and emphasized the pervasive role Catholic social teaching must play in the modern world, if our world is to be saved from every-growing futility and violence.  Worse still, the academic milieu and campus lifestyle at many Catholic colleges and universities contradict the Church’s social teaching on nearly every head.  Courses in social ethics may inculcate distorted and refuted models such as Marxist-liberation theology or feminist theology.  It is not hard to imagine that students might end up worse off than they began, like the clean-swept room in which seven demons settle down (cf. Lk. 11-24-26).

Today Catholic educators have the opportunity to make needed changes with the support of interested students.  Young people today are encountering elements of Catholic social teaching, albeit often by chance and in an over-simplified form, and they find it exciting, because it offers a genuine alternative to the stale, predictable “solutions” of analysts and politicians.  This small but robust vanguard of what we will soon be calling the “Benedict XVI generation” surely affords educators a providential opportunity to follow up with programs offering solid, orthodox instruction and campus support systems for those who are called to dedicate themselves to applying the Church’s social doctrine to the enormous problems facing us in the Church, in the nation, and in the world.

We are already seeing this occur at some of the small, staunchly Catholic institutions of higher education.  Although on a worldly scale of values their influence would seem a whisper behind the roar of contradiction, graduates of these colleges will to one degree or another have engaged authentic Catholic social teaching, at very least by gaining an acquaintance with some of its major sources and themes.  Their minds will have been opened to the massive political and economic problems of modernity, problems to which the Catholic Church alone, in her divinely-guided wisdom, offers sane, reasonable answers that comport with human dignity and man’s ultimate end.

Students who attend a more traditional Catholic liberal arts college will learn firsthand, usually by discussing influential Great Books, the decayed roots and fatal consequences of self-destructive ideologies.  If the program is well designed, it will not fail to include something of the Church’s own Magisterium, whether it be a selection of social encyclicals of the modern popes from Leo XIII down to Benedict XVI, the excellent summary offered in the relevant portions of the Catechism of the Catholic Church (nn. 1961-2557), or the synthesis given in the Compendium of the Social Doctrine of the Church.

I am reminded of Fr. James Schall’s wonderful book from 20 years ago,  Another Sort of Learning, the subtitle of which begins with this phrase: “How finally to acquire an education while still in college or anywhere else.”  It is possible, even if not ideal, for a student to educate oneself in Catholic social doctrine. One can find good resources on the internet, sometimes one can find a good discussion group in one’s area; best of all, one might reach out to like-minded Catholics and start such a group.  The reading list is obvious: the aforementioned documents of the Magisterium, above all the papal encyclicals.  To commit some free time to working through this material is far better than remaining in the dark.But it would be even better, of course, if Catholic colleges and universities would seize upon the opportunity to provide coursework in authentic Catholic social teaching for students who are hungry to learn.  In this way Catholic schools can rediscover their birthright and offer it generously to their students.

 

*This Perspectives in Catholic Higher Education is available online at CatholicHigherEd.org. The views expressed by the author are not necessarily those of The Center for the Advancement of Catholic Higher Education.

How to Keep Your University Catholic

/in , /by
Click here for PDF

Dedication: To Father Michael Scanlan, T.O.R. President Emeritus, Franciscan University of Steubenville:
Who has shown that it can be done.

Table of Contents

Foreword
“Stewards of a Heritage, Bearers of Hope”
by Rev. Msgr. Stuart Swetland, S.T.D.
Preface to the Third Printing
Preface to the First Printing
Author’s Note
Chapter 1: A Case Study
Chapter 2: The Bishop
Chapter 3: The Trustees
Chapter 4: The Administration and Faculty
Chapter 5: The Students
Chapter 8: The Curriculum
Chapter 9: Academic Freedom
Chapter 10: “Indoctrination”
Chapter 11: Federal Aid
Chapter 12: Afterword
Authors

Foreword

Stewards of a Heritage, Bearers of Hope
Rev. Msgr. Stuart Swetland, S.T.D.
Vice President for Catholic Identity and Mission
Mount St. Mary’s University

Every person who is privileged to have the vocation as an administrator and/or educator at a Catholic college or university is both a steward of a heritage received from past generations and a bearer of hope to the current and future generations.176  Catholic universities are charged to “hand on what has been received.”177  We receive from above the supernatural gift of faith which we are called to preserve, explore, explain, live and faithfully hand on.  In bearing witness to the traditio of faith, Catholic universities are also privileged to be a source of light and hope for the world—a privileged place for an authentic encounter with God.  As His Holiness Benedict XVI said to Catholic educators at The Catholic University of America in Washington, D.C., on April 17, 2008:

Education is integral to the mission of the Church to proclaim the Good News.  First and foremost every Catholic educational institution is a place to encounter the living God who in Jesus Christ reveals his transforming love and truth.

An encounter with Christ and His teaching leads to a genuine desire to deepen one’s knowledge and understanding of the One who reveals the merciful love of the Father.

When this pamphlet was first produced in 1992, and even when re-issued in 1997, much was “up for grabs” in the world of Catholic higher education.  There had been, for a variety of societal and ecclesial reasons, a widespread loss of confidence in the Catholic nature, identity and mission of Catholic higher education.  Much of the general upheaval in our society about fundamental truths or even the possibility of there being truth was reflected in the life of the university.  Many of our Catholic colleges and universities were caught up in the spirit of this age and gradually (or sometimes, sadly, rapidly) “drifted” towards a more secular vision of the university’s mission and identity.

Much has changed since the last quarter of the 20th century.  In many places, especially among the young, there is a new confidence in the Church’s teaching office.  With the publication of the Catechism of the Catholic Church, the full implementation of the 1983 Code of Canon Law, the general reception of the teaching office of John Paul II and Benedict XVI (including such seminal documents as Fides et Ratio, Veritatis Splendor, Ex corde Ecclesiae, Deus Caritas Est and Spe Salvi) and the clarification of the role of the local ordinary vis-a-vis institutes of Catholic higher education, there has been a renewed focus and vigor brought to our campuses.  Thus, despite the scandals in the Church and the general loss of a religious sense in some sections of our society, there is no better time than now to focus on the nature and purpose of Catholic higher education.

The magnificent leadership of John Paul II and Benedict XVI has helped bring a renaissance to many Catholic colleges and universities.  Coupled with a growing demand for spiritual substance and depth emanating from the current generation of college-age students180 and the appropriate emphasis on mission required by many accreditation agencies, there is a growing sense that Catholic universities are extremely well situated to serve the holistic needs—spiritual, intellectual, moral, physical—of a demanding and discerning population of college-age students and their parents.

The times call for clarity.  Institutions and their leaders must know who they are and why they are.  At Mount St. Mary’s University, we are unapologetically committed to being a proud and robust Catholic university preparing young men and women for the challenges facing them in the contemporary world.  This is reflected in our governing documents where our Trustees committed the University to fidelity to its Catholic mission:

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

The basic tenets of this Catholic mission at Mount St. Mary’s include:

  1.  The University is committed to the person and Gospel of Jesus Christ as the foundation of our values and attitudes which are reflected in our campus culture, policies and procedures.
  2.  The University fully understands, respects and follows the teachings of the Catholic Church.
  3.  The University is in full compliance with both the letter and spirit of Ex corde Ecclesiae.
  4.  The University recognizes the authority of the Holy See and the authority vested in the Archbishop of Baltimore regarding the Catholic nature and direction of Mount St. Mary’s University.183

This statement, like any governing document or mission statement, is only effective if it is rigorously put into action in the day-to-day running of the university.  This takes a commitment, a “mission centeredness,” as Father Kennedy observes, from the entirety of the university community.  Beginning with the Trustees and Administration but continuing through the faculty, staff and students, the institutional and personal commitment to the mission must be absolute.  More than likely, not everyone will share the fullness of the Catholic faith on campus; but everyone working on behalf of the university ought to be dedicated to its mission.

This means, among other things, that there is a critical need for well-formed Catholics who know and live their faith and who are willing to serve at every level at Catholic universities.  There is a need for accomplished men and women who will be willing to place their managerial and leadership skills at the service of Catholic higher education as trustees.  There is an acute need for well-formed Catholic academics who are committed to integrating their faith, their lives, their research and their teaching into a unity of life.  Especially needed are those who are willing to engage both their academic discipline and the Catholic intellectual heritage at the highest level to help in the great task of integrating faith and life.  There is a need for administrators who can place their faith and leadership experience at the service of the community of learners that is the university.  Staff members, with various skills and vocations, aid in the building of an authentic community centered in Christ.  Clergy and religious, especially the Chaplain and his staff, must provide the “daily bread” of Word and Sacrament necessary for personal and spiritual growth and renewal.  Other interested members of the greater community and Church can aid the university in its mission.

As college administrators, we cannot overlook the vital role that the President and his or her cabinet play in keeping a university robustly Catholic.  Presidents have the most central role.  They must never waiver from “blowing the certain trumpet” for Catholicism and keeping the campus focused on Christ.  Their cabinets, especially the recently developed idea of mission officers and/or Vice Presidents for Catholic Identity, aid them in the task of “setting the tone.”  Obviously, the role of mission officers or Vice Presidents for Catholic Identity and Mission will need further development.  There is a vital need for ongoing formation and development of faculty, staff, trustees and administration.  There is also a need for liaison with the local church and the local shepherd, the bishop.

Indeed, the bishop’s role is vital.  College presidents rightly expect that the relationship with their ordinary will be a fruitful one.  But the relationship must be a two-way street.  Catholic universities are called to be faithful to the Church and to serve Her mission.  But the Church, especially in the person of the Bishop, must serve the University as well.  Universities attempt to teach and model “servant leadership.”  We ask of our bishops to do likewise by providing a clear vision of how we can help serve one another.  Unlike what was stated at Land O’Lakes in 1967, we know that the Catholic university is only one of the places where the Church does its thinking; but we also know that it should be a privileged place of research, discovery and instruction.  As Pope John Paul II wrote in Ex corde Ecclesiae:

Every Catholic University, as a university, is an academic community which, in a rigorous and critical fashion, assists in the protection and advancement of human dignity and of a cultural heritage through research, teaching and various services offered to the local, national and international communities. It possesses that institutional autonomy necessary to perform its functions effectively and guarantees its members academic freedom, so long as the rights of the individual person and of the community are preserved within the confines of the truth and the common good.186

The university serves the common good by its rigorous pursuit of the truth.

An important point must be made here. Academic freedom is not an absolute right—it is a means to assure that the University can pursue the truth and serve the common good. No university, Catholic or not, will allow an absolute license to say or do everything or anything on campus. No one would tolerate overt racism, a “holocaust
denier” or an advocate for the violent overthrow of the government (or campus administration for that matter!). Academic freedom ought not to be confused with freedom of speech. The latter is a political right guaranteed in our constitutional system for citizens. The former is one necessary condition for the free and rigorous pursuit of truth in accordance with the appropriate academic standards of each discipline. The Church protects and promotes a “right” or “just” autonomy of earthly affairs. But a rightful autonomy is not an absolute autonomy. As the Second Vatican Council taught:

There seems to be some apprehension today that a close association between human activity and religion will endanger the autonomy of man, of organizations and of science. If by the autonomy of earthly affairs is meant the gradual discovery, exploitation, and ordering of the laws and values of matter and society, then the demand for autonomy is perfectly in order: it is at once the claim of modern man and the desire of the creator. By the very nature of creation, material being is endowed with its own stability, truth and excellence, its own order and laws. These man must respect as he recognizes the methods proper to every science and technique. Consequently, methodical research in all branches of knowledge, provided it is carried out in a truly scientific manner and does not override moral laws, can never conflict with the faith, because the things of the world and the things of the faith derive from the same God.  The humble and persevering investigator of the secrets of nature is being led, as it were, by the hand of God in spite of himself, for it is God, the conserver of all things, who made them what they are. We cannot but deplore certain attitudes (not unknown among Christians) deriving from a shortsighted view of the rightful autonomy of science; they have occasioned conflict and controversy and have misled many into opposing faith and science.

However, if by the term “the autonomy of earthy affairs” is meant that material being does not depend on God and that man can use it as if it had no relation to its creator, then the falsity of such a claim will be obvious to anyone who believes in God. Without a creator there can be no creature. In any case, believers, no matter what their religion, have always recognized the voice and the revelation of God in the language of creatures. Besides, once God is forgotten the creature is lost sight of as well.187

Autonomy and academic freedom must be placed at the service of truth.

This is particularly true in the discipline of theology. Catholic theology properly understood is “faith seeking understanding” (fides quaerens intellectum). For the theologian, the starting point is faith. Catholic faith is to the Catholic theologian what the periodic table is to the chemist. The chemist may be “free” to reject the periodic table as an “external constraint” to his or her free inquiry. But with this the chemist ceases, in any meaningful way, to be a chemist. He or she may be practicing some kind of discipline, but it will look a lot more like alchemy than chemistry. Similarly, the Catholic theologian who rejects the faith of the Church as interpreted and handed on by the Magisterium of the Church ceases in any meaningful way to be a Catholic theologian.

The Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith stated this in its Instruction on the Ecclesial Vocation of the Theologian:

Among the vocations awakened in this way by the Spirit in the church is that of the theologian.  His role is to pursue in a particular way an ever deeper understanding of the Word of God found in the inspired Scriptures and handed on by the living Tradition of the Church.  He does this in communion with the Magisterium which has been charged with the responsibility of preserving the deposit of faith.188

This wonderfully describes the vocation of the theologian.

Even secular sources recognize that academic freedom is not an absolute.  In a provocative editorial in The Chronicle of Higher Education entitled “Academic Freedom is Not a Divine Right,” scholar Stanley Fish states that academic freedom is a freedom limited to the task at hand—what he calls “freedom for academics—that is, for those engaged in a certain task.”  Fish writes:

It is the nature of that task and not any large abstraction like freedom or freedom of speech that determines the range of permissible and prescribed behavior.  You start with the idea of pursuing a line of inquiry to whatever conclusion it brings you, and then you ask for the freedom to engage in that pursuit without interference from external forces that would tie
you to the agenda of another enterprise.  The freedom you ask for is not added on to the project; it is constitutive of it, for you can’t follow where an inquiry takes you if obstacles are constantly put in your way.  When all is said and done, academic freedom is just a fancy name for being allowed to do your job, and it is only because that job has the peculiar feature of not having a pre-stipulated goal that those who do it must be granted a degree of latitude and flexibility not granted to the practitioners of other professions, who must be responsive to the customer or to the bottom line or to the electorate or to the global economy.  (That’s why there’s no such thing as “corporate-manager freedom” or “shoe-salesman freedom” or “dermatologist freedom.”)189

Indeed, academic freedom is ultimately about the freedom to do one’s job.

Ultimately, the idea of a Catholic University is about the mission to form students to become holy, saintly, well-educated, productive members of the Church and society. The essential characteristics necessary for this task are well laid out in Ex corde Ecclesiae:

  1. A Christian inspiration not only of individuals but of the university community as such;
  2. a continuing reflection in the light of the Catholic faith upon the growing treasury of human knowledge, to which it seeks to contribute by its own research;
  3. fidelity to the Christian message as it comes to us through the Church;
  4. an institutional commitment to the service of the people of God and of the human family in their pilgrimage to the transcendent goal which gives meaning to life. 190

These characteristics have not changed and will not change.  All are necessary if a college or university is to fulfill its mission as a Catholic institution of higher learning.

Father Kennedy’s essay contains many important points, some of which are absolutely essential for Catholic identity.  It also contains criticism of institutions and persons that, at the safe distance of time and space, may seem outdated.  We do not presume to be able to judge these persons and institutions.  Neither would we want to try.  We assume that the men and women of these earlier times were doing the best they could at the time with the lights they had.  Some documents, decisions and approaches obviously did not work to enhance the authentic Catholic witness of our colleges and universities.  Hopefully, we have learned much from these false starts and failed experiments.  Knowing most of the institutions described and most of the major players involved, we believe that, on the whole, these were good-willed and well-intentioned attempts to advance the Catholic intellectual apostolate.  With 20/20 hindsight it is easier now to recognize the failures and mistakes that others have made.

But dwelling on these past problems will not necessarily make the future brighter.  This will come only when we who are now entrusted with the stewardship of our Catholic universities hear the clarion call to fulfill our vocations in Christ.  We must hear and heed the call to what Pope Benedict XVI calls “intellectual charity”:

This aspect of charity calls the educator to recognize that the profound responsibility to lead the young to truth is noth ng less than an act of love. Indeed, the dignity of education lies in fostering the true perfection and happiness of those to be educated. In practice “intellectual charity” upholds the essential unity of knowledge against the fragmentation which ensues when reason is detached from the pursuit of truth. It guides the young towards the deep satisfaction of exercising freedom in relation to truth, and it strives to articulate the relationship between faith and all aspects of family and civic life. Once their passion for the fullness and unity of truth has been awakened, young people will surely relish the discovery that the question of what they can know opens up the vast adventure of what they ought to do. Here they will experience “in what” and “in whom” it is possible to hope, and be inspired to contribute to society in a way that engenders hope in others.191

It is this commitment to charity grounded in the Gospel of Jesus Christ that requires of us that we be faithful stewards of our great heritage and bearers of hope to those entrusted to our care.

Preface to the Third Printing

The Apostolic Constitution on Catholic Universities is the official document of the Catholic Church dealing with Catholic universities.  It is known from its opening words in Latin as Ex corde Ecclesiae.  Issued in 1990, it still has not been fully accepted by most of the Catholic universities of the United States. A complex and protracted document history eventually resulted in The Application of Ex corde Ecclesiae for the United States, which became particular law in 2001 through the action of the American bishops.

Years earlier, the American bishops had appointed a committee to recommend national directives for the application of Ex corde Ecclesiae to the United States.  This committee met with a committee appointed by the Association of Catholic Colleges and Universities, but substantial agreement was difficult to obtain. A pro-tem agreement was signed in June 1996, but many competent observers considered this to have been simply a papering over of substantial disagreement. Further re-workings were required to obtain final Vatican approval. The intransigence of American Catholic universities continues to have a great effect on the Canadian situation. It was not until 2006 that ordinances approved by the Canadian bishops for the implementation of Ex corde Ecclesiae took force.

Charles Rice, now an emeritus professor of the University of Notre Dame Law School, believes that several Catholic universities are past the point of no return, and has listed the three most contentious requirements of the Apostolic Constitution: (1) those teaching theology must have a mandate from the bishop of the diocese in which the university is located; (2) the university should adhere to the teaching of the Church’s Magisterium; and (3) the majority of the faculty must be Catholic.192

Concerning the first point, Kenneth Whitehead has traced the history of contemporary negotiations between Catholic universities and the Holy See back to their beginning in 1968 and the founding of the International Federation of Catholic Universities (IFCU); in its 1972-74 document the IFCU said that bishops have both the right and the duty to intervene in university matters, even to the point of declaring teachings to be incompatible with Catholic doctrine.  And Whitehead points out that the 1983 Code of Canon Law requires teachers in the theological disciplines to have a teaching mandate from the competent ecclesiastical authority (canon 812).193 In 2001, the American bishops authorized publication of Guidelines Concerning the Mandatum in Catholic Universities, intended “to explain and serve as a resource for the conferral of the mandatum” according to the binding ordinances of The Application.

Concerning the second point, Gerald Bradley, another Notre Dame Law School faculty member, states that “our university theological establishment is neck deep in dissent from authoritative church teaching,” and Ralph McInerny, also of Notre Dame, claims that, for American universities, “The enemy is no longer a Vatican bureaucracy but the faith itself.” A quote from the late Archbishop Fulton Sheen is still instructive: “I tell my relatives to send their college-age children to secular institutions where they will have to fight for their faith, rather than to Catholic institutions, where it will be stolen from them.”194

The late Monsignor Terry Tekippe of Notre Dame Seminary in New Orleans studied the declaration of the Catholic Theological Society of America on this matter, and said that its “statement appears aggressively to separate the Catholic college or university from any connection or responsibility to the larger Church.”195

Concerning the third point, McInerny laments: “A laicized priest, a former religious, a fallen-away Catholic, or a Protestant may be at the front of the classroom. Recently a student told me that, in his biology course, the assigned content was tossed out in favor of prolonged bull sessions on women’s ordination. The student, having noted that several recent magisterial documents dealt with the matter, suggested that these be read and studied. The suggestion was laughed away. The instructor was Lutheran. This is far from being an isolated incidence.”196

Tekippe believed that “the question of the future of the Catholic university in the United States, then, becomes the question whether a critical mass of faculty and administrators, committed to the Catholic model of the university, is present, or can be hired in the foreseeable future.”  “In my sober estimate,” he wrote, “that is likely in a minority of universities…but not in a majority.”197 One example of the decline of Catholic faculty in Catholic universities is the University of Notre Dame. The Sycamore Project reports in 2008 only about 52 percent of the faculty are Catholics, down from 85 percent in the 1970s.198 Project President William Dempsey concludes, “Worse, with a reduction to account for dissident and nominal Catholics, there is no longer a faculty sufficiently Catholic to sustain the school’s historic claim to Catholic identity.”199

An organization dedicated exclusively to the re-Catholization of de-Catholicized universities in the United States, The Cardinal Newman Society, began in 1993.  It contacts administrators, faculty, students and alumni of American Catholic universities in an effort to improve the faith commitment of these universities in the short run and to save the universities for the Church in the long run.  I am pleased that this organization through its research division, The Center for the Study of Catholic Higher Education, is republishing this book.

How to Keep Your University Catholic has been written in the hope that at least some of the many Catholic colleges and universities of the United States and Canada may be saved for the Faith.

Preface to the First Printing

Two words in the title of this book should be explained at the outset. For the sake of simplicity, and with only a few obvious exceptions, “university” stands for
college or university. “Catholic” implies “loyal to the teachings of Christ as proposed by the Catholic Church’s Magisterium.” Today, many load this word with various unorthodox meanings, but I have no desire to preserve inauthentic Catholicism in our institutions.

It is my contention that Catholic universities in the United States are not healthy. This book is based on the premise that the condition of these universities can be improved. Perhaps other denominations will find it useful also. The basic problem in nearly all our Catholic universities is not financial, but whether or not to be truly Catholic. Many persons believe that, if the financial problem were solved, all would be well. This delusion is widespread, despite the fact that some of our universities are flourishing financially and close to bankruptcy religiously. The late writer Christopher Derrick states:

Within American higher education today, it is becoming increasingly unreal to apply the objective “Catholic” to institutions which once claimed it proudly and with good reason….In a number of cases, the college has frankly renounced its claim to have a distinctively Catholic character, usually in return for government money. This was at least honest. But that claim often continues to be made even where it has lost all plausibility.200

Ralph McInerny writes:

Unless we say our prayers and God is merciful there will be no colleges or universities worthy of the name Catholic before many years have passed. Except for the new ones, like Thomas Aquinas, Thomas More, Christendom.201

Alice von Hildebrand says:

The sight that confronts us is a pitiful one….Wherever we look, we see only ruins: many Catholic universities have been closed; others have betrayed their Catholicism and are vying with secular universities in their secularism….Catholic schools, colleges, and universities have been sold to the “spirit of the time”; they have caught the “ism” disease, succumbing to subjectivism, relativism, historicism, or idealism. For all practical purposes, in several of these schools, God is dead.202

And we have an equally dismal picture from a special committee struck by the American Philosophical Association to examine the teaching of philosophy in Catholic universities. Claiming that Catholic universities “are vague and confused about their objective and their nature,” the committee says:

In many “Catholic” colleges, a good number of professors are either not basically committed to passing on a Catholic tradition in any definable sense of the term or, if they are, they find their own work…not relevant to any properly Catholic objective….Some “Catholic” colleges…judged “the Catholic philosophical tradition to be either of small or of no relevance whatever to their teaching.” The chairman of philosophy in one large “Catholic” university replied that none of almost a dozen full-time philosophers found the Catholic philosophic tradition relevant to their teaching.203

My own study will not be exhaustive; it is not the result of surveys based on questionnaires sent to all Catholic universities. Such a study would have its value, but more needed is a modest program for immediate implementation. The program presented here, and its practicability, have to recommend them actual participation in, and reading about, the life and difficulties of Catholic universities over many years. I have been dean of philosophy in an American Catholic university and president of two Catholic colleges in Canada. Most of the problems of being Catholic are common to the universities in both these countries.

How to Keep Your University Catholic

Author’s Note

This publication is a straightforward guide to help those committed to promoting a true Catholic identity at Catholic colleges and universities. This prescription covers the role of bishops, trustees, administrators, faculty members and students, as well as the impact of the curriculum, academic freedom, “indoctrination” and federal aid.

A Case Study

One common reason for Catholic institutions diluting their Catholicity has been a real or imagined threat of going bankrupt, a fear intensified by the realization that the number of priests and religious on the faculty is steadily decreasing. This fear is the reason for all but one of the Catholic universities of New York State accepting state money on condition that they restrict their Catholicity.

Foreseeing that situation, Fordham University in New York commissioned two lawyers to determine what changes would have to be made if Fordham were to cease being Catholic and so become eligible for state funds as a private university.

Their report, published in 1970,204 is thorough, well-written, and includes an excellent summary of the state-church relations with regard to education. The report notes that New York State forbids aid to universities “in which any denominational tenet or doctrine is taught.” In another state the report’s recommendations may have been in degree rather than in kind. According to the report, courts and judges would consider a university non-sectarian only after considering many aspects of the institution, such as:

  1. Its description of itself.
  2. The manner of selecting the governing board.
  3. The manner of selecting administrators, faculty, and students.
  4. The university’s ties with a religious community, or its financial arrangement with a church or body affiliated with a church.
  5. Associations in which the university holds membership.
  6. Religious symbols.
  7. Whether Catholic religious observances are required, facilitated, or suggested.
  8. Whether religious activities of non-Catholic groups are encouraged or allowed.
  9. The place of religion in the curriculum.
  10. Extracurricular religious activities.

The suggested changes for Fordham to achieve a nonsectarian status were sweeping. Some of them were:

  1. It should not call itself Catholic and should, in its self-description, sound as secular as possible.
  2. The Jesuit monopoly of legal power should be terminated.
  3. The president should not have to be a Jesuit; faculty should not have to be Catholic or even sympathetic toward Catholic principles or committed to the Christian way of life.
  4. The university should distance itself from parts of it that are too obviously Catholic: its preparatory school, the John XXIII Center for Eastern Christian Studies, the main chapel, the Jesuit residence, and the graduate theology section.
  5. Some non-Catholics, or at least “Catholics who have had a nonsectarian education experience,” should be hired to teach theology.
  6. The university should discontinue membership in organizations whose members must be distinctly Catholic.
  7. Most of the crucifixes should be removed.
  8. The Cardinal Bea Institute (which studies the relevance of religion to contemporary life) should become less distinctively Catholic.
  9. There should be “a greater infusion of…secular and non-denominational activities on the summer-time campus.”
  10. Non-Catholic religious groups should be allowed use of one or more of the university’s chapels.
  11. No Catholic “tenet or doctrine” should be taught.

We would hardly believe that Fordham could have contemplated taking any such steps until we discover, however, that some of the more unpalatable ones had already been taken and more were on the way. In its advertising, for example, Fordham was hiding its Catholicity. An official in the Admissions Office said: “We make a secular university pitch, never a religious one. We don’t sell Fordham as a place where you can save your soul. The kids to whom we are talking want to know whether they can get a good education at Fordham—and a good job afterward.” Already somewhat tolerant of non-Catholic teaching in the theology and philosophy departments, Fordham was slowly to become more indifferent: “Fordham, has done enough—and will no doubt in time do even more—to show persuasively that…faculty members who are theologians and philosophers…are not doctrinally shackled.” A newly proposed statement of academic freedom dropped this sentence: “The teacher in entitled to freedom…but he should be careful not to introduce into his teaching controversial matter which…is contrary to the religious…aims of the institution.” If religious aims remained at the end of its transformation, Fordham professors would not have to respect them.

The authors found that the theology department had already dropped any concern about being “a place where you can save your soul.” Indeed, according to the authors, “the Department of Theology declares purposes in terms that might readily be adopted by any of the scientific or humanistic departments of the University.” And the students’ code, they note approvingly, was already “completely secular in tone.”

It is clear that Fordham had lost much of its Catholic nature before it commissioned a study of how it could cease to be Catholic to the extent necessary for receiving government funding. Did a desire for government aid come after the Catholicity had waned?

That secularization and government aid are two different issues is more easily seen in Canadian Catholic colleges. In Canada the state may help religious institutions provided it does not favor one denomination. The execution of this principle belongs to the ten provinces individually, each of which is in charge of its own educational policies. In some of these provinces at the present time, Catholic elementary and secondary schools are fully funded for both capital and operational expenses; in some, Catholic and other denominational colleges, as part of the provincial universities, are fully funded operationally, but are responsible for their own capital expenditures such as construction. Better funded by the government than their counterparts in the United States, these Catholic colleges are not all doing well with regard to their Catholicity, however.

Fordham University, one surmises, hoped to balance being Catholic against being non-sectarian in order to gain sufficient state aid and continue to exist. But how is it possible to be Catholic and non-Catholic? If New York State cannot give aid to a university which teaches Catholic doctrine, and a university which does not teach Catholic doctrine cannot be a Catholic university, how can aid be received without the university foregoing its Catholic identity? Even the authors of the Fordham study advert to this danger: “…public aid is not worth having if it can be gained only by ignoring the goal a college or university is striving to attain.”

At any rate, Fordham applied for nonsectarian status and state aid, and on February 19, 1970, the State of New York decreed “that Fordham was no longer a sectarian institution.” Now, if it is not sectarian, how can it be Catholic? And, if it is not Catholic, how can it be Jesuit?

The amount of money received from New York State is comparatively little. A colege in Rochester formerly conducted by my own religious community, which made itself non-sectarian, receives only four percent of its budget from New York State.

One might expect some of these universities to have realized their mistake, but a certain internal logic works against reversing such a step. First, people do not like to admit that they have been wrong. Second, the institutions become dependent on the money, however small the amount. Third, one step involves others, so that extrication becomes almost impossible. After all, once there is a secular definition of academic freedom, the institution is very soon practically a secular university.

Fordham provides a convenient example: In the 1980s it was charged by the State of New York with religious discrimination, being sued by Dr. Phyllis Zagano for not reappointing her to the faulty of the Department of Communication because she was “too Catholic”; the head of the department who opposed her reappointment wrote for a pornographic magazine; and Fordham’s Jesuit president defended the department head’s doing so.205 Decisions, after all, have consequences.

The Bishop

Who is the “your” in How to Keep Your University Catholic? A professor? A group of professors? The president? An alumni organization? A religious community? It may be any and all of these, but ultimately the bishop and the trustees (or directors, or regents, as they may be called) must be won over. It is to them, therefore, that this book is primarily addressed.

In some diocesan universities the bishop is chairman of the trustees, in others simply a member of the trustees, and in others not a trustee. But is should make no difference. And it should make little difference whether a university is conducted by a diocese, a group of Catholic laity, a religious congregation, or a board of trustees set up by a religious congregation; for, according to the 1983 Code of Canon Law, a bishop has the duty and right to see that the principles of Catholic doctrine are faithfully observed in all institutions of higher studies in his diocese which call themselves Catholic (canons 810, 814). He can declare a university to be Catholic or no longer Catholic (canon 808) and can withdraw from anyone teaching theological subjects the mandate to do so (canon 812). No doubt these powers should be exercised only after other means of dealing with difficulties are exhausted; these canons are first of all intended to ensure that a Catholic university will consult with the local bishop. Of course, if a bishop has a diocesan university, he could influence it more readily than otherwise.

The chief barrier to bishops exercising, or trying to exercise, effective influence over universities in their dioceses is one of attitude. Up to 1960 Catholic universities transmitted the faith, and bishops could follow a policy of benign neglect. But, although the faith has not been transmitted well since 1960, the bishops have continued their policy of neglect to the point that some are encouraging universities to become independent of bishops and the Pope. Both an archbishop and an auxiliary bishop signed the Land O’Lakes (Wisconsin) document of 1967, advocating that Catholic universities be free of church authority.206 And, in the bishops’ only pastoral letter on Catholic higher education,207 there was no mention of episcopal rights vis-à-vis theologians, but simply a wish that there be “a fruitful cooperation with theologians” and that a “delicate balance” be maintained. An archbishop gave an imprimatur to the American commentary on the new Code of Canon Law208which states that the Code does not apply to North American universities.209 And a president of the National Conference of Catholic Bishops has stated that “there is no reason in principle that the accepted standards of academic freedom should not be accepted in the study of Catholic theology,” thus accepting a definition of academic freedom which is opposed to canon law.210 Then, too, the bishops’ own university, The Catholic University of America, was a hotbed of dissent in the 1980s, its then-president pushing for a secular definition of academic freedom in the university’s own publication.211 And action against its dissent came, finally, from the Vatican rather than from the American bishops.

If the identity of Catholic universities is to be preserved, bishops will have to exercise their authority, a task best done through the trustees. For since any institution calling itself Catholic must follow Canon Law, those who legally control it, the trustees, are likewise bound by Canon Law. Nevertheless there remain those like Father Hesburgh, C.S.C., a former president of Notre Dame, who once said that the university’s trustees would not obey the local bishop because they are bound by the articles of the board of trustees.212 This is to deny the right of the Church to tell a Catholic university what the Board’s articles should say. As long as Notre Dame calls itself Catholic, its trustees are bound by Canon Law and therefore required to see that the principles of Catholic doctrine are faithfully observed at Notre Dame. If the present articles of the Board do not provide for such observance, they should be revised to accord with the sacred canons and to facilitate the bishop’s supervision of the university.

Ex corde Ecclesiae, issued by Pope John Paul II,213 has made this matter clear: “Every Catholic university…has a relationship to the Church that is essential to its institutional identity. As such, it participates most directly in the life of the local Church in which it is situated. At the same time…each institution participates in and contributes to the life and the mission of the universal church…One consequence of its essential relationship to the Church is that the institutional fidelity of the university to Christian message includes a recognition of and adherence to the teaching authority of the Church in matters of faith and morals” (27).

Ex corde says that bishops “should be seen not as external agents but as participants in the life of the Catholic university”(28), and that “a Catholic university is linked with the Church either by a formal, constitutive, and statutory bond or by reason of an institutional commitment made by those responsible for it” (Norm 2, 2). It also states that “a university…is to incorporate these general Norms…into its governing documents and conform its existing statutes both to the general Norms and to their applications and submit them for approval to the competent ecclesiastical authority” (Norm 1, 3). A university is also required “to make known its Catholic identity” and, “particularly through its structure and its regulations, is to provide means which will guarantee the expression and the preservation of this identity…” (Norm 2, 3). If a problem arises concerning a university’s Catholic character, “the local bishop is to take the initiatives necessary to resolve the matter…, if necessary with the help of the Holy See” (Norm 5, 2).

We can see from these provisions of Ex corde that bishops are empowered to recognize as Catholic only those universities which require of the Board of Trustees, the administrators, and the faculty, a formal institutional commitment to the truth of the Catholic faith and to the authority of the Church’s Magisterium, and whose curriculum and organization of student life reflect this commitment.

In the present crisis in Catholic universities, many bishops will have to act. Prudence dictates strong action in critical situations. Why, then, cannot each bishop ask universities within his jurisdiction to have the articles of the board of trustees explicitly accept the teaching of the Church and the canonical authority of the bishop? Such a request could uncover unresolved problems in the relations between a bishop’s universities and the Church.

Unfortunately, ambivalence over dissent has kept many bishops from acting against their universities.  We must ask,“If the trumpet give forth an uncertain sound, who will prepare for battle?”  The disorder in our universities is a continuing cause of disorder in the Church, but it is also, at a deeper level, a result of it.  For this reason, a diocese which has not decided to reform dissent in general cannot hope to reform dissent in its universities.

The Trustees

According to civil law, the board of trustees has ultimate authority over a Catholic university. We have examined the board’s duty to have the statutes of the university recognize Church law. Now let us look at the composition of the board. In the euphoric atmosphere of the last twenty-five or more years, many religious communities felt guilty about owning universities. There was a vague feeling that it was more appropriate to surrender control of them, with the result that many religious orders, acting rather imprudently, gave their control away. They did not consider setting up a purely advisory board, whose advice would always be followed except in decisions detrimental to the religious nature of the institution; or a board with full power but whose members were chosen by, and held office at the pleasure of, the religious community or episcopal corporation. Nor did they limit membership on the board to Catholics. In many cases, then, Catholics were chosen initially, but later appointments included non-Catholics or nominal Catholics. Often, too, members of the religious community or episcopal corporation on the board were in the minority.

Most boards, in religious matters as in academic ones, follow the wishes of the president and faculty. In other words, except in financial matters, boards do not formulate policy. Consequently many boards do not concern themselves with the preservation and improvement of the university’s religious goals. Once this situation develops, the Catholicity of such institutions is in jeopardy. And, indeed, once the trustees accept, explicitly or implicitly, that first step towards de-Catholization, the slope downward is slippery indeed.

In a Catholic institution, the board’s chief responsibility is to safeguard its religious nature. Ex corde says that “the responsibility for maintaining and strengthening the Catholic identity of the university…is entrusted principally to…the chancellor and/or a board of trustees or equivalent body…” (Norm 4, 1). And, unless the board is composed mainly of committed Catholics, it is simply unrealistic to think that it can carry out its task. How can a board preserve an institution as Catholic if the board itself is not thoroughly Catholic? The Association of Catholic Colleges and Universities has been lyrical in its praise of appointing non-Catholics as members of boards.214 My own experience has been that the scholastic adage operatio sequitur esse (“a thing acts in accordance with its nature”) is as valid here as anywhere and admits of no exceptions.

Assuming, however, that we have a board that wishes to maintain a Catholic university loyal to the Magisterium, we must next explore the wording of its statutes and by-laws. Legal assistance should of course be sought, but the lawyers themselves will need guidance in their task.  The final arbiter as to what is, or is not, the teaching of the Magisterium should be the local bishop. An alternative would be to make the arbiter a small committee composed of, say, the bishop, the chairman of the board of trustees, and the archbishop of the ecclesiastical province concerned (or a neighboring archbishop if the university is in an archepiscopal see). No doubt the law will require some concrete arbitration procedure and a concrete arbitrator or arbitration panel, and such can be arranged.

This matter of statutes and by-laws is extremely important: everything should be set down in writing and approved by the board. At the time of their founding most Catholic institutions had so clear a purpose and nature that the principles and details of operation were seldom committed to writing or explicitly approved. The situation is different today. The university’s policies on all matters must be put in writing and be approved by the highest governing body. In this way the policies can shape the institution, and be less threatened when disputes arise.

I repeat: the Catholicity of a university rests with the board of trustees. If the board does its work well, receiving direction from canon law and working in harmony with the bishop, the institution will retain its authentic religious nature. Perhaps the most significant passage in Ex corde is this: “The identity of a Catholic university is essentially linked to the quality of its teachers and to respect for Catholic doctrine. It is the responsibility of the competent authority to watch over these two fundamental needs in accordance with what is indicated in Canon Law” (Norm 4, 1).

The Administration and Faculty

Since we are dealing in this book with only one point—the Catholicity of our universities—we must take for granted that, in appointing administrators and faculty, the board will assure itself that candidates have sufficient training, competence and experience to fill job requirements other than those required by the religious nature of the institution. The point here is that the religious character of the university determines the most important requirements for administrators and faculty. The religious dimension of the university has as its goal the religious formation of the students, a goal which will be achieved primarily through the influence of administrators and faculty for, although the functions of the university chaplaincy are important, they can only supplement the influence of administrators and faculty; they cannot equal it. For example, on a secular campus, as much as a chaplain might try to counteract this influence, his success will be limited. At worst, unsuitable administrators or faculty members may thoroughly undo the work of the chaplaincy; at best they will lessen it.

Administrators are no less important in Catholic universities than elsewhere: they set the tone for faculty and students, and they have great influence in appointments of faculty. Great care is required therefore in the appointment of the president and other administrators. They should be committed Catholics, with a thorough knowledge of Catholic theology and Church history, convinced of the importance of Catholic universities and what is required to keep them Catholic. The president, in particular, will be the instrument through whom the trustees will implement many of their decisions. The Ex corde says that “the responsibility for maintaining and strengthening the Catholic identity of the university…calls for the recruitment of…administrators who are both willing and able to promote that identity” (Norm 4, 1).

I never cease to be surprised at the lack of concern in some administrators about appointing committed Catholics. They may admit that a certain number of the faculty should be such Catholics, but no more. Rarely is such a qualification a sine qua non of appointment. Yet the Code of Canon Law reads: “It is the duty of the competent statutory authority to ensure that there be appointed teachers who are not only qualified in scientific and pedagogical expertise but also outstanding in their integrity of doctrine and uprightness of life (canon 810). It is thought fanatical to suggest that all faculty members should be good Catholics. What was taken for granted some decades ago is now denied without an argument. And, should administrators deign to argue the matter, they always raise the same eleven points:

  1. It would not be possible for us to discontinue the contracts of a large number of people, many of whom have tenure.

To this I reply that there is a difference between hiring and firing. We are not recommending an undoing of the past but a fresh start for the future. There are obvious obligations to present faculty, who will understandably be afraid of being let go. If job security is not assured at the outset, nothing will be accomplished.

2. There are many Catholics whom I would not want on the faculty.

Strange to say, this argument is frequently encountered. Of course, no one is suggesting that faculty be hired solely on the basis of their being Catholic. The principle is that, in addition to being competent teachers, in addition to being congenial and hardworking, faculty members should be good Catholics.

3. No one can say whether a person is a good Catholic.

This statement can be interpreted in two ways. It may imply that the Catholic faith is so amorphous that practically anyone calling himself a Catholic must qualify as a good one. What an institution needs, then, is an objective criterion, and an effective one is at hand: does the person wish to be loyal to the Church’s Magisterium? If so, the understanding of the faith is clear enough, since it can be found in the 1994 Catechism of the Catholic Church. If not, the very notion of a test of Catholicity has been abandoned, and the institution can only end up being of disservice to the Church. The second meaning of the statement is that a person’s faith and religious practice cannot be determined. But this is simply erroneous; determining it is as easy or as difficult as learning what the person’s teaching competence is. A diligent inquiry may be required in either case, but it is equally possible in both.

4. Seeking information of this type is illegal.

Legal matters can be settled by consulting a competent lawyer. And consultation shows that such information may be asked for. Federal and state (or, in Canada, provincial) laws allow religious educational institutions to use religious faith and practice as a criterion in appointments as long as the criterion is publicly stated. It is therefore as alarming as it is revelatory to see Catholic colleges advertising without reference to their religious commitment, or even stating that they hire without discrimination as to creed.

5. At our particular institution we have accepted state aid and have given up the right to prefer Catholics.

To this I say that it would be better to refuse state aid and save the nature of your institution.

6. There are some wonderful people on our faculty who are not Catholics. They are good teachers, congenial, and dedicated to the purpose of the institution.

Of course, we all know such persons and are thankful for them; but we should not argue by exceptions. We want the ideal professors. If one is not available in a given case, we have to approximate to the ideal. Most of the time this will still result in appointing someone who is a good Catholic, though it may be that a devout Protestant Christian would be hired.

7. We shouldn’t live in a ghetto.

This slogan is often used. There are two replies. The first is that no ghetto could survive in the modern world, even if it wanted to. Students view television and films, read newspapers and magazines, and meet every kind of person. This leads to the second and the real reply to this slogan; that is, that in one sense we do want a “ghetto” as an oasis where Catholics can be Catholics, where the faith can be expressed, discussed, and developed. Only with this kind of help will they be able to remain committed Christians in a secular world.

8. The Church wants its institutions to be ecumenical.

Correct. But true ecumenism is an attitude of understanding joined to charity, not of indifferentism. In Catholics it requires a thorough knowledge of their faith. To turn out graduates who do not know their own religious tradition is to be anti-ecumenical at the most fundamental level. The ecumenical orientation of our colleges would be better expressed by dialogue with other religious institutions, not by confusion at home. Furthermore, faculty hired today will often be on staff for thirty or forty years. An institution could easily become more “ecumenical” than Catholic.

9. Hiring good Catholics is important in the theology department, but it is not necessary for other departments.

If only our colleges would hire, for their theology departments, Catholics loyal to the Magisterium! We would then see more clearly that all the departments of the university should contribute to the Catholicity of the students’ education. If these latter departments were to present their subject in a framework of faith, they would deepen the students’ ability to integrate their knowledge and their religious belief. Why should a Catholic college not use all its resources? And what type of person can best help in this work of integrating knowledge and the Catholic faith? An agnostic? Certainly not; this is work for a committed Catholic. Ex corde  states: “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…” (16).

10. To follow this principle in hiring would be insular and intolerant.

A Catholic university has a definite aim. Achieving it requires appropriate means. The Catholic university cannot achieve its aim without hiring good Catholics, any more than a French-speaking university can attain its goal without hiring French-speaking professors. A Catholic university need not apologize for preferring Catholics any more than does a French-speaking university for preferring faculty who speak French. One could not imagine an American Jewish community allowing a professor to teach anti-Semitism, nor could one imagine the American public faulting the university for not hiring the professor. Similarly Catholic universities should not hire professors whose religious orientation is at variance with Catholicism.

11. Many of our students are not Catholic.

The primary purpose of a Catholic university is to produce Catholic leaders. To form them requires using all the university’s resources. And the primary resource of the university is the faculty. The faculty therefore should be thoroughly Catholic. If non-Catholic students come to a Catholic university, they should do so because it is Catholic. If this is not their motivation they should not be admitted. The presence of non-Catholic students is therefore no reason for making the university less Catholic by hiring non-Catholics.215

If possible, then, all the administrators and faculty in a Catholic university should be practicing Catholics. Why settle for less? Perhaps, in a given case, it may not be possible to find the right person, but one can wait for the right person by making temporary arrangements with the best approximation to the ideal. After all, a Catholic university has the right to be Catholic and therefore the right to use the means necessary to guarantee, and enhance, its Catholicity.

Taking religious commitment as the basic criterion for appointment, the same holds for promotion and for the granting of tenure. A university lax in hiring will be forced to continue in the same lax mode. On the other hand, it could be made clear to professors applying for tenure or promotion that a basic criterion by which they will be judged is their incorporation of religion into their work. It is unfair to bring in new criteria after they are hired. They should know, therefore, from the start, that a deficiency in this matter papered over at the time of their hiring can be grounds for denying promotion or tenure. Ex corde Ecclesiae says that “all teachers…, at the time of their appointment, are to be informed about the Catholic identity of the institution and its implications, and about their responsibility to promote, or at least respect, that identity” (Norm 4, 2), and that “all Catholic teachers are to be faithful to, and all other teachers are to respect, Catholic doctrine and morals in their research and teaching” (Norm 4, 3). Also, “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” (Norm 4, 3).

Something similar holds even for tenured professors. Even after receiving tenure they too will know that the religious dimension of their teaching is of prime concern. It is unfair to dismiss them for what was present and known at the time they were given tenure, but not for changes after they are tenured. A Catholic university should not allow teaching opposed to the Magisterium of the Church at any time, whether before or after tenure. The university should be serious and adamant in this matter. Of course,
especially in the case of a tenured professor, the matter must be important and there must be a refusal to correct it, a refusal given in words or deeds. The university’s statutes should state this plainly, and list the steps to be taken in a case of dismissal.

Everyone knows how upsetting and unpleasant a dismissal is. All the more need for care to be taken at the time of appointment, promotion, and the granting of tenure! The words of The Imitation of Christ come to mind: “Resist beginnings; all too late the cure when habit has gained strength by long delay.”

A committee of the American Catholic Philosophical Association, the committee mentioned earlier, warns us of the dangers of appointing faculty who are unsuitable from a religious point of view:

It is foolish not to take into consideration the moral character of a candidate for faculty membership. When a scholar becomes a member of a university faculty, he becomes part of a collegium, a collegium that he will in due course come to influence, whose tone he will help to establish.216

Yet we find universities which do not mention specifically Catholic or even Christian qualities as being normative for faculty. Take, for instance, this statement from St. Norbert College:

Within the academic program the college considers it the responsibility of all members of the faculty to embrace such personal values as integrity, honesty, and concern for others as well as such societal values as a commitment to thoughtful citizenship, social justice, and peace….Some faculty, while neither sharing the Catholic tradition nor the Christian faith, remain at St. Norbert’s because they lead lives of inquiry that support a commitment to the realm of moral value.217

One wonders what “moral value” is envisioned here. Is it: Love of God? Or the Catholic teaching related to the family? Or is it the condemnation of contraception, abortion, homosexual activity and remarriage after divorce? Under so vague a clause Karl Marx and Sigmund Freud would have qualified for appointment. One suspects that this institution’s commitment to Catholicism has already been so diluted by the presence of non-Catholic faculty that the institution is no longer able to state what a Catholic university stands for.

At the heart of Catholic education are good, learned, Catholics, who love God and their faith, and share this love and this faith with the younger members of the university community. Pope John Paul II is certainly convinced of this:

The purpose of a Catholic university lies in the pursuit of research and instruction but such a university must likewise allow the students to carry on their studies in an atmosphere consistent with the faith, to find the means to deepen this faith, to learn the rudiments of the spiritual life and Christian activity….Such a demand concerns first of all the professors on the staff, who must not be afraid of bearing witness to the faith which motivates them, to their ethical reflection in the light of the Church’s teaching.218

I remember few incidents in my undergraduate days that impressed me as much as one of my chemistry teachers marveling in front of the class at the divine wisdom after he had taught us the laws of thermodynamics. I have forgotten the laws of thermodynamics, but not his love of God.

The Students

The primary purpose of a Catholic university is to produce well-trained Catholics who will occupy influential places in society as clerics, lawyers, doctors, nurses, judges, businessmen, educators, and so on, as well as influence others through their roles as spouses, parents, and parishioners. According to Ex corde, students “should realize the responsibility of their professional life, the enthusiasm of being the trained ‘leaders’ of tomorrow, or being witnesses to Christ in whatever place they may exercise their profession” (23).

Most of our universities have enrolled non-Catholics, many in large numbers. Non-Catholics may be enrolled if their purpose is to obtain the special benefits Catholic universities offer, and if suitable Catholics are not thereby prevented from attending. Ex corde states that “the education of students is to combine academic and professional development with formation in moral and religious principles,” and that “courses in Catholic doctrine are to be made available to all students” (Norm 4, 5). In many Catholic universities, however, there are no requirements for the moral or religious education of all students, even of all Catholic students.

Many non-Catholics register in Catholic universities for other reasons: The universities are closer, they are less expensive, a friend is going, the entrance standards are lower, the entrance standards are higher and so on. One might hope that the Catholic environment will have a beneficial effect on such persons, and no doubt it sometimes does. But, to the extent that they really do not want what is distinctive in a Catholic university, they are dead weight at best; at worst they are influences counter to the university’s primary work. It is unfortunate that so many of our universities accept these extra students to balance the books. The temptation to solve a financial problem in this way is strong, and, once given in to, tends to become habitual. Our universities would do better to become smaller, and establish a lower quota, so that they might admit only Catholics and a few special non-Catholics.

Ex corde Ecclesiae declares that, “in a Catholic university,…Catholic ideals, attitudes, and principles penetrate and inform university activities” (14). But how can this be done unless Catholic dogma and morality are omnipresent? And how can they be omnipresent unless the students either are Catholic or are sincerely interested in learning about Catholicism? Ex corde also states that “everyone in the [university] community…contributes…toward maintaining and strengthening the distinctive Catholic character of the institution” (21). To admit students who are not really interested in Catholicism is to make a mockery of such statements.

A fair number of non-Catholics will change the climate of a Catholic university. Crucifixes and other religious symbols will disappear, prayers before class will be eliminated, specifically Catholic topics and teachings will be avoided. A good test of whether non-Catholic students are being admitted for the right reasons and in the right numbers is the continuing Catholicity of the university. And a good indication of admissions policies is the promotional literature of the university. Is the institution called Catholic? Is its Catholicity highlighted? Is the religious purpose of all instruction mentioned?

The Curriculum

We are not concerned here with all aspects of the curriculum but only those involved in the Catholicity of an institution. To simplify our presentation we will also leave graduate programs out of consideration.

A university is not truly Catholic unless it both teaches theology and requires theology classes of all its undergraduate students, no matter what their program. Many Catholic young people emerging from high school are badly informed about their faith; and all need a more mature treatment of their religion during the undergraduate years since, when the dichotomy between what they believe and what they see in the secular world around them strikes home, students often question their beliefs in an adult fashion.

There is much to learn because, while the Catholic faith is simple enough for a child to believe, it is also complex enough to allow a lifetime of study. Undergraduate students therefore need a thorough presentation of the articles of their faith, of the history of Catholicism, of the Old and New Testaments, of the sacraments and the liturgy, of moral theology and spirituality. This is not religious studies, but the study of our faith based on an acceptance of fundamental revealed doctrines. Religious studies examine from the outside the content, history, and present status of various religious traditions. In Catholic theology, the content of faith is accepted as true; in religious studies it is viewed as an historical phenomenon. Catholic universities should teach Catholicism as theology and other religions as religious studies.

The minimum amount of theology required of all students should not be set at less than twelve semester hours. A good selection of courses would be: Dogma; Scripture; Moral Theology and Spirituality; the Sacraments and Liturgy. Of course, there is room for variety here, and perhaps some choice might be allowed, particularly in the later years. But the minimum number of semester-hours should never be reduced.

Should theology courses be required for non-Catholics? It would be unwise to require such courses for Catholics only, for several reasons. First of all, Catholics might see this as “laying a burden” on them from which others are exempt. Second, non-Catholics need theology as much as Catholics do. Third, we have already established the principle that non-Catholics should not be accepted unless they apply because the university is a religious university.

Non-Catholics should therefore be required to take the same number of semester-hours in theology as Catholics. Some universities will also require that they study Catholic theology as well as Scripture and Apologetics, not to require them to accept it as true but to instruct them in this important area of thought and history. If the curriculum is thoroughly influenced by the Catholic faith, as it should be, students should know about this faith in some depth. Other universities will leave the study of the Catholic faith as an option for non-Catholics, and will devise special courses for the ones who do not exercise this option. No doubt most of the non-Catholics will be Protestants; most will probably be poorly informed even about their own religious tradition. Courses in Scripture, in the history and forms of Protestantism, or in issues of morality, would be suitable. No doubt more choice should be allowed in these matters than for Catholics if the number and variety of non-Catholics is great.

However, even courses in the core curriculum designed specifically for non-Catholics should be taught by Catholics. There are three reasons for this. First, it will happen, for one reason or another, that some Catholics will take these courses, if perhaps only for extra theology credits. Second, the variety of students in them does not justify the choice of any one denomination rather than any other. There will probably be atheists, agnostics, Jews, Moslems, Baptists, Lutherans, Episcopalians and so on. There is then no need for any particular non-Catholic professor rather than a Catholic one. Third, professors once hired tend to be on the staff for thirty or forty years. It is no small matter to hire a non-Catholic these days. It would be preferable to hire someone on a temporary or part-time basis if need be. Such a temporary arrangement should, of course, in justice, be made clear, and the person should be properly paid so that a good job will be done.

Philosophy is as important as theology in a Catholic university because it provides an underpinning of faith. It is true that philosophy can be required in universities because it trains students to think clearly and because it studies the history of highly influential ideas. Certainly these reasons are good ones for insisting on philosophy in a humanities program or a liberal arts program but, when we are speaking of a philosophy requirement for all undergraduate students in the university, whether they are in business, nursing, pre-medicine, education, or any program whatever, the only argument is its necessity for developing an educated believer. Philosophy deals in great part with the same matters as theology—the origin of the universe, its purpose of human life, and how that purpose is attained. It can therefore contribute immeasurably to the believer’s appreciation of divine revelation.

Theology never replaces philosophy. It is true that a Catholic, by his faith, knows the truth about these matters, by revelation, but a mature person will always ask for rational, philosophical answers as well, and will not be satisfied until they are given.

The objection is bound to rise that there are many philosophies, frequently contradicting one another in important areas. To simply require courses in philosophy, then, will not achieve the intended purpose. This objection leads however, not to the conclusion that philosophy should not be required, but that the right philosophy should be required.

What is the right philosophy? Obviously it must be a Christian philosophy. A minimum requirement of a Christian philosophy is that it not be in conflict with Christian faith. A non-Christian philosophy cannot be true on the points on which it disagrees with the faith. The choice then narrows down to a decision for one Christian philosophy or for an eclectic selection from several Christian philosophies. Do we have a way of deciding? We cannot simply assume that all Christian philosophies are correct and simply because they do not contradict the Catholic faith.

This is a problem Christians have dealt with since the second century, though most attempts ended ultimately in failure. But there is one philosophy the Church explicitly approves and asks scholars to cultivate—that of St. Thomas Aquinas. To require philosophy of students in Catholic universities while denying them the study of Thomism is to commit an injustice. We must remember that we are speaking here of the courses required of all students and therefore relatively few. It would be a wasted opportunity if all the required courses did not present the philosophy of Aquinas. The time is so short, the object so important, that such a course of action is called for. Of course Thomism
cannot be well taught without other major philosophical systems being studied.  What Thomism would provide would be the core of the program.219

How much philosophy should be required? The minimum should be the same as for theology, twelve semester-hours. Again, there is so much to cover: the existence of God, the nature of God, freedom of the will, the immortality of the human soul, the purpose of human life, and the means by which this purpose is obtained. A good choice of courses might be: The Philosophy of the Human Person; Ethics; Metaphysics; and Epistemology. And these courses might well be taken in that order. Ethics should follow the philosophy of the human person. Ideally it should also follow metaphysics but, being less abstract, it is better taken before metaphysics. Epistemology, theoretically, could well precede ethics and metaphysics but, since it is a second-order science, dealing with knowledge and not directly with reality, it requires knowledge of reality. Consequently it is better taken last. But it certainly should be studied, because our world is rampant with relativism, subjectivism, and skepticism, which must be dealt with head-on at some stage in a student’s career.

With the amount of knowledge students must acquire constantly increasing, and especially with growing demands on major requirements, there will always be agitation among some faculty to decrease the requirements in theology and philosophy, but theology and philosophy must hold pride of place in a Catholic university.

We find a strong statement concerning the importance of philosophy in an address by Alice von Hildebrand, wife of the late Dietrich von Hildebrand and herself a noted philosophy professor:

…[I]t should now be clear that philosophy must play a crucial role in Catholic education….I grant that it is better to study no philosophy than bad philosophy, and that, today, people who have no philosophy at all are usually better off than those whose training is based on the thought of a Russell, a Heidegger, a Sartre (to name but a few). But the fact remains that true philosophy is indispensable for a true Catholic education and, in particular, has crucial importance for theology. My husband used to say that the catastrophic theological systems which are proliferating today are to be traced back to the wrong philosophy on which they are based. Philosophy is so crucial in man’s intellectual life that everyone necessarily has a philosophy of life—and, if this philosophy is not sound, it has a devastating effect on man’s intellectual life. Therefore, it is absolutely essential that a Catholic university embrace and form its students in true philosophy, i.e., in an objectivistic philosophy exclusively based on rational arguments and at the same time in perfect harmony with faith.220

This matter of the amount of theology and philosophy required of all students is one that should be committed to writing by the board of trustees, and any change should require its approval.

We now leave the consideration of theology and philosophy and turn to the other subjects, all of which should be taught from a Catholic point of view. Ex corde teaches that “a Catholic university, as Catholic, informs and carries out its…teaching…with Catholic ideals, principles, and attitudes” (Norm 2, 2). Would that Catholic universities were as serious about this as the evangelical colleges are about coordinating with their curriculum. The president of the evangelical Christian College Coalition (now the Council for Christian Colleges and Universities), wrote:

The stand of our schools is: if you’re earnest about your faith, you can’t compartmentalize it. It weaves through everything you do.221

Obviously some subjects are less connected with the faith than others. But none of them should be taught in such a way as to contradict the faith. And many courses, such as history, psychology, sociology, and literature, touch on religion at every turn. But this is a question of who teaches these subjects rather than of their place in the curriculum, and we have dealt with this already.

A word might be added here concerning residence arrangements. A university which allows students to visit bedrooms of persons of the opposite sex fails in its duty to assist its students to live chastely. Such a disorder parallels in extracurricular matters the curricular disorders with which we are here primarily concerned.

Academic Freedom

The most important issue in Catholic universities at the present time is academic freedom. There are two possible definitions of it. A secular definition would be “the freedom of academic faculty to search for truth in accordance with the canons of their particular scholarly disciplines and to expound the results of this search for truth without undue restrictions being placed on them by university or outside authorities, or, more especially, without jeopardizing their academic positions and their tenure in these positions.”222 A definition suitable for a Catholic university would be the same except for this restrictive addition: “It is understood that faculty are not allowed to teach or write in such a manner as to oppose the religious purposes of their university.” Such a definition is vehemently opposed by the Association of Catholic Colleges and Universities (ACCU)223 of the United States and by several presidents of institutions in the Association, but is required by the Code of Canon Law. Though the ACCU fears more than anything else an effective episcopal presence in our universities, it also opposes any boards of trustees that would safeguard Catholic doctrine.

The freedom of one person or group cannot be absolute but must be exercised in such a way as to respect the freedom of other persons or groups. For example, my freedom to smoke in a public place may legitimately be restricted by the rights of non-smokers who would suffer harm or discomfort from smoke. Now, there is more than one freedom involved in academic freedom. Besides the freedom of the professor there is that of the institution and that of the students. An institution should be free to pursue its goal—in this case to provide Catholic education—and students should be free to receive a Catholic education in a Catholic university. When a professor attacks the religious purpose of his university, he offends against both its freedom and that of its students. What is needed, then, is a means of balancing these freedoms.

A professor who publicly and unrepentantly promotes doctrines opposed to Catholic beliefs is, in the name of his freedom opposing the university’s freedom. Yet, since he is a member of a Catholic university and was aware of its beliefs when he was hired, it is clear whose freedom must give way. This becomes even more cogent given that the freedom of the university exists for the sake of the students’ freedom to obtain a Catholic education. The freedom of both the faculty and the university is ordered to the students’ freedom.

We must remember also that the professor was hired by the institution to help it in its aims, not to oppose these aims. It is consequently an implicit condition of his appointment that he not do so. It would be better, of course, to make such a condition explicit, as well as the procedure to be taken against offenses in this matter.

Most Catholic universities in the United States were founded by bishops, directly or through religious orders, to provide a Catholic education. Benefactors supported these universities because of their religious purpose. The universities, then, have a publicly known purpose that is recognized by canon and secular law. There is no need for these universities to be defensive about their position. Why is it, then, that they are defensive, or even willing to forego their rights?

The National Catholic Educational Association (NCEA) in 1976 provided three answers to these questions. The first is a fear that enemies of the Church:

will contend derisively that truth cannot be upheld and defended without resort to penalties and outside sanctions, confirming for some the suspicion that Catholic institutions cannot be true universities.

The second and third are:

Catholic colleges and universities in the United States cannot deprive faculty members of their civil right as defined by American law, nor limit their academic rights which are supported by accrediting and otherprofessional associations, without severe penalty to the institution, not least of which would be the loss of prestige and influence in American society and particularly in the American intellectual community.224

Apparently the NCEA agrees that Catholic universities are not true universities if they have a religious definition of academic freedom. The fact is, however, that Catholic universities that have adopted a secular definition of academic freedom have not remained substantially Catholic. And the reasons are not hard to find: they cannot defend their nature; they cannot keep their enemies outside; they must fight for their existence with their gates wide open to attack. It is not too much to say that a Catholic university with a secular definition of academic freedom cannot remain Catholic.

My own opinion is that the administrators in these institutions fear that secular colleagues will think less well of them or their institutions if they do not act as secular administrators or universities do. In effect, they share the secular assumption that the Catholic faith is a hindrance to the search for truth. The reason given for accepting a secular definition of academic freedom is that it enables professors to search for truth wherever it may be found, and this includes a search among doctrines opposed to Catholic teaching. But, if Catholic teaching is true, the search for truth among doctrines opposed to it is bound to be fruitless and, usually, harmful. A Catholic university is therefore justified in forbidding the teaching of doctrines opposed to the Catholic faith; indeed, it is required to forbid it. The Catholic faith is to Catholic theology what empirical data are to the natural sciences. Certainly no university would allow its natural scientists to reject or falsify the raw data of science.

The Ex corde says that an “essential characteristic” of a Catholic university is “fidelity to the Christian message as it comes to us through the Church” (13), and that the “institutional fidelity of the university to the Christian message includes a recognition of and adherence to the teaching authority of the Church in matters of faith and morals. Catholic members of the university community are also called to a personal fidelity to the Church with all that this implies. Non-Catholic members are required to respect the Catholic character of the university…” (27). And this applies especially to theologians: “Since theology seeks an understanding of revealed truth whose authentic interpretation is entrusted to the bishops of the Church, it is intrinsic to the principles and methods of their research and teaching in their academic disciplines that theologians respect the authority of the bishops and assent to Catholic doctrine…” (29).

No doubt some of the Catholics who want to have a secular definition of academic freedom in a Catholic university do accept the teaching of the Church’s Magisterium. Yet the logic of their position is faulty. They do not wish to deny their own faith, but the do not mind if their university denies its faith, as it must when its faculty teach what is contrary to the Church’s Magisterium.

The history of the very recent demand for a secular definition of academic freedom in Catholic universities is instructive. It began with the Land O’Lakes document of August 1, 1967, signed by representatives from a number of Catholic universities, including Georgetown, Boston College, Catholic University of America, St. Louis, Fordham, Laval, and Notre Dame. The document claimed “the Catholic university must have a true autonomy and academic freedom in the face of authority of whatever kind, lay or clerical, external to the academic community itself.”225 This was a demand for freedom from episcopal and papal authority. On the other hand, at his meeting with Catholic university leaders in New Orleans in September, 1987, Pope John Paul II stressed that the influence of bishops and the pope is not external to Catholic institutions, but intrinsic to them. The position of the Land O’Lakes signers was adopted by the NCEA in 1976.226 Speaking for 223 Catholic universities of the United States, the NCEA stated that “a juridical relationship between the Church and Catholic institutions in the exercise of their proper autonomy” is not “desirable or even possible….” It patronizingly granted that “bishops and other church leaders can provide significant insights into the particular needs of service to the local Church,” but added: “We believe the word ‘cooperation’ or the phrase ‘mutual respect and support’ best characterizes the kind of relationship that should exist between institutions and Church.”

Furthermore, no American has a civil right to teach what is contrary to Catholic teaching in a Catholic university. Nor do accrediting and other professional associations limit the rights of Catholic universities to be Catholic. So what the Association really fears is “the loss of prestige and influence…in the American intellectual community.”227

Opposed to the Land O’Lakes statement and the NCEA paper is the Code of Canon Law. The Code teaches that bishops have the duty and right to see that principles of Catholic doctrine are faithfully observed in their universities (canon 812); the right to bestow or withdraw the designation “Catholic” (canon 808); and the authority to see that teachers lacking integrity of doctrine are removed from office (canon 810).

Episcopal powers in a Catholic university would be completely stymied by a secular definition of academic freedom, and the university could not long continue as Catholic. That is why the Code implicitly demands a religious definition of academic freedom in Catholic universities.

Much of what has been said so far is justified by the Charles Curran case. Father Curran sued The Catholic University of America because it had refused to let him continue to teach theology.228 The judge recognized that Catholic University “shares with the Roman Catholic Church a common bond of faith and mission to preserve and protect the church’s doctrine,” and that the University aims, at the same time, at “the goal of unfettered and robust academic inquiry.” He saw that this was bound to raise problems but that is was for the University to decide how to resolve them: “On some issues—and this case certainly presents one of them—the conflict between the University’s commitment to academic freedom and its unwavering fealty to the Holy See is direct and unavoidable. On such issues, the University may choose for itself on which side of that conflict it wants to come down…”

What decided the issue was the civil law of contracts: “It is the law of contracts which must govern the decision.” In other words, since the University’s statutes stated that theology professors must have canonical mission, the University can dismiss a professor who loses his: “The court prefers…to rest its decision on the canonical mission requirement incorporated into the contract by the…statutes….” The judge declared that the professors of the University were aware of the relationship between the University and the Church: “no one…could have contracted with the Catholic University of America without understanding the university’s special relationship with the Roman Catholic Church, with all of the implications and obligations flowing from that relationship.”

We thus see that, as far as civil law goes, what a university’s statutes state concerning academic freedom will be upheld in a civil court. The Curran case will be a landmark case. Those administrators in Catholic universities who have been defending a secular definition of academic freedom in Catholic institutions by threatening legal difficulties will now have to rethink their position.

“Indoctrination”

There are those, even among Catholics, who claim that Catholic universities that follow canon law do not teach but rather indoctrinate. This claim is made chiefly with regard to the teaching of theology, but the argument here applies to every subject in the curriculum. Father Hesburgh worries about indoctrination wherever a bishop can require a Catholic university to forbid a professor to teach theology judged to be contrary to Catholic faith.  A generation ago, he wrote:

Obviously, if [the] church…can dictate who can teach…, the university is not free and, in fact is not a true university where the truth is sought and taught. It is rather, a place of…religious indoctrination.229

Father Hesburgh would be right if we did not know that the Catholic faith is true. But a university which does not accept it as true is not Catholic. Why, then, should a Catholic university allow teachers to claim that it is false? We might worry about a bishop making a mistake in judgment, but this worry cannot invalidate the bishop’s right or the university’s duty in general. Of course, provisions have to be made for a proper procedure which will reduce the number of mistakes, but this is a different matter from Father Hesburgh’s denying the general principle altogether.

Is it indoctrination when a Catholic university appoints a committed Catholic to teach theology, or any other subject? “Indoctrination” usually has the pejorative meaning of “induction of convictions by improper means.” Now, any subject taught improperly can become indoctrination. Teaching history is indoctrination if evidence is suppressed; teaching mathematics is indoctrination if students are led to memorize rather than understand; and teaching psychology and sociology is indoctrination if the principles underlying them are passed on by repetition, rather than made explicit and examined. But, just as any subject can become indoctrination, so any subject can avoid this pitfall. Theology can be taught objectively, making clear why it accepts divine revelation and only then interpreting and building on it. Once this principle is publicly stated, to act in accord with it is no longer indoctrination. The professor of theology need not disbelieve what he is teaching or disguise his faith, any more than a mathematics professor need deny the laws of logic. Why should a Catholic university
be allowed to teach mathematics or physics or history as true, and not be allowed to teach Catholicism as true? Not to present Catholic theology as true would be contrary to a Catholic university’s nature.

We find Catholic universities bending over backwards to avoid “indoctrination” in Catholicism. Some teach not morality but “values clarification.” A midwestern Catholic college, for example, wants to avoid a “prescriptive model” of teaching the faith, which would have the teachers “dictating” this faith to their pupils. Instead there is a pursuit of truth: “the pursuit of wisdom and truth, the very reason for the existence of St. Norbert, is manifested…in the curriculum.” This pursuit of truth, we are told, demands that some non-Catholic, even some non-Christian, faculty be appointed:

Some faculty, while sharing neither the Catholic tradition nor the Christian faith, remain at St. Norbert because they led lives of inquiry that support a commitment to the realm of moral values. This pluralism is demanded by the conscientious pursuit of truth in personal freedom by a diverse group of people.230

There are no theology courses, only religious studies courses, none of which are required. Furthermore, the “Values Program” does not mention anything Catholic or even Christian in its objectives.

…The program proposed as its objective several things: [to] help students become explicitly aware of their own value systems and give them the opportunity to compare these to the value systems of others; [to] help students identify their own objectives and their value systems…

From the experience gained thus far, it is evident that the students who have participated in the program have indeed become more conscious of
their own values and more aware of the value component in every decision.

And what has replaced required classes in Scripture, Catholic dogma, and Catholic moral theology? A “religiosity” is fostered by “people processes,” “process-oriented counselor functions,” and “the advisement system.”

We find another example of the avoidance of indoctrination at Loyola University of Chicago. Loyola, to judge by the papers in its symposium on ethics,231 avoids indoctrination in Catholic morality by teaching non-Catholic morality. One speaker says that students should be made “more aware of the moral questions that there are, waiting to be addressed,” but warns against “final answers to moral questions,” as if there were no clear Catholic positions on such topics as abortion, contraception, homosexuality, or marriage after divorce. Indeed, although the editor says that “the panelists presented views that showed that we are not always certain what the norms are,” it would be truer to say that their views claim that we are never certain what the norms are.

Many pages of talks given at this symposium are given over to a presentation and discussion of the “values clarification” teachings of Kohlberg, who, as one of the questioners pointed out, has little to offer Catholic ethicists.232 And, though advertising for the book claims that it contains “a discussion of all aspects of ethics in higher education” (emphasis added), many important aspects are omitted:

  1. What is the relationship between the ethics advocated at the symposium and Catholic teaching? Is Catholic ethics being discussed when the keynote speaker defines ethics as “our relationship to other persons in this world and to ourselves as persons in this world,” with no mention of our relationship to God?
  2. There is no discussion of whether ethics is to be required of some or all students. Actually one hopes that the type of ethics presented here is not required at all. On the other hand, why should a proper ethics not be required, and of all students?
  3. What are the prerequisites for the study of ethics? Can it be studied properly without a knowledge of God and His attributes, without a knowledge of the immortality of the human soul? And where should this prior knowledge come from? From required courses in theology or philosophy, or in both?
  4. Who are to teach these ethics courses? We have shown earlier that they must be taught by committed Catholics, but there is no discussion here of this aspect of the topic.

There is certainly no danger of indoctrination in Catholic thought envisioned by the speakers at this symposium; one would think they were discussing ethics in a secular university. It seems that Catholicism is so carefully handled in this Catholic university that it is less in evidence than other religious traditions:

…in some areas we don’t do as much as other, non-Catholic institutions do, and we are more shy about expressing our religious ethos than our co-religionists, even those here at Loyola, are.

That a Catholic university should publish the papers of such a symposium is an indication of how far down the road to non-Catholicism some “Catholic” universities are.

Federal Aid

The Association of Catholic Colleges and Universities (ACCU), in opposing the Vatican schema, has said that a Catholic university that is too Catholic will be denied federal funds. The claim, worded a little differently, is that Catholic universities not accepting a secular definition of academic freedom, or teaching the Catholic religion as true (“proselytizing”), or following Canon Law, will lose their accreditation and their federal aid. Sister Alice Gallin, O.S.U., then the ACCU’s executive director, said:

Catholic institutions…must meet the standards for accreditation by regional accrediting agencies recognized by civil authorities…Such accreditation, as well as the federal and state funding that accompanies it, requires that institutions respect academic freedom and that the curriculum not be used for proselytizing on behalf of any religion.233 It is virtually certain that such aid would be withdrawn if it could ever be shown that Catholic colleges and universities were “controlled” by the Catholic Church.234 It is clear that the favorable decisions regarding public aid to Catholic colleges or universities are founded on a perception by the court that the church does not control them.235

And Father Theodore Hesburgh, then president of the University of Notre Dame, agreed: “We would stand to lose a lot if we conformed to the dictates of the church.”236
But his view has been denied by Kenneth Whitehead, a former Deputy Assistant Secretary for Postsecondary Education at the U.S. Department of Education.237

Sister Gallin and Father Hesburgh were simply wrong in their contention that accreditation requires a secular definition of academic freedom, and avoidance of the teaching of the Catholic faith, and an avoidance of the effective presence of bishops.

As regards academic freedom, “a religiously affiliated institution requiring a certain standard of doctrinal ‘orthodoxy’ on the part of its faculty…would not jeopardize its accreditation, provided it plainly announces beforehand its requirements in this regard. In practice, the same thing would be true of requirements regarding the moral behavior expected of faculty members of students at the institution.”238 The Northwest Association, for example, an accrediting agency, “specifically affirms that ‘intellectual freedom does not rule out commitment…Institutions may hold to a particular…religious philosophy.’”239

The same applies, of course, to a university’s teaching a specific body of religious doctrines as true: “…if the stated purpose of a religiously affiliated college or university is to provide a higher education within the specific context of the teachings of a given religion or denomination, carrying out this stated purpose would in no way constitute a bar to accreditation….”240

The same is true of a particular church having a great deal of influence over a university:

…neither the accrediting agencies nor the Supreme Court…seem to object to sponsoring church representation on college governing boards. Yet such representation is normally all that a church might require to ensure that a school it sponsors remains authentic from the point of view, for example, of the theology taught there.241

Whitehead also points out that, even if existing accrediting agencies refused to accredit Catholic universities loyal to their Catholicism, these universities could form their own accrediting agency which would be acceptable to the Federal Government provided it met the criteria required of such agencies.242

Some Catholic university authorities have stated that, unless their institutions conform to the secular definition of the Association of American University Professors (AAUP), their institutions will lose their federal grants. But Whitehead has shown that the AAUP does not have a secular definition of academic freedom and, further, that institutions censured by it “go right on being accredited and go right on receiving federal aid.”243

How ironic that it is not the Federal Government but Catholic universities themselves which envisage a withdrawal of federal aid because these universities are religious.

The conclusion is inescapable: “institutional autonomy” and “academic freedom” are defined to permit wider variations in practice. They clearly allow for institutional freedom of religion. Narrowly defined as the freedom of professors to teach what they want or as the freedom of an institution to be free of any constraints from its sponsoring church or other body they are clearly not requirements for accreditation (and hence for federal aid).244

The real danger to Catholic universities, Whitehead points out, is that they might lose their privileges as religious institutions if they become only half-Catholic by divesting themselves of the legitimate control of the church. A university hospital, for example, might be forced to either allow abortions or close up.245

Whitehead asks an embarrassing question of the Catholic universities which claim that federal aid would be lost if the universities accepted Canon law:

What is the real motive and origin of the claim that Catholic colleges and universities must have “institutional autonomy” and “academic freedom”? This inquiry has demonstrated that these things are not strict requirements of the federal or state governments, of the accrediting agencies, or even of the AAUP.246

The answer seems to be that these universities were deceitful: they wanted a secular definition of academic freedom, they wanted freedom from church “control,” and so they proceeded to bully the bishops into accepting half-Catholic universities:

As far as Catholic colleges and universities are concerned, the evidence examined in this enquiry suggests that these colleges first decided they wanted to have “institutional autonomy” and “academic freedom”—and only then decided to adduce supposed government requirements for giving out aid as a principal reason they needed to have these two things.247

If it were actually the case that federal funds would be available only if a Catholic university ceased to be truly Catholic, the fitting reaction of Catholic universities would be to change the system or to forego federal funds. The universities of which we have been speaking, then, which allege that federal funds would be unavailable except to watered-down Catholic institutions, have been wrong not only on a matter of fact but on a matter of principle. It would be crippling to American Catholicism if her
universities were to cease being truly Catholic; and they certainly will cease being so if they accept a secular definition of academic freedom, if they cease to proclaim Catholic truth “with unmistakable clarity,”248 and if they reject that part of canon law which applies to Catholic universities.

Whitehead is convinced that, even if federal funding were denied openly religious universities, it would be possible for Catholics to have the policy changed.

It is fair to say that no public policy opposed with cogent and persuasive reasons by a united Catholic community both knowledgeable and determined about its rights and responsibilities could long survive in the United States. Once again, one has to wonder where American blacks, far fewer in number than Catholics, would be today if they had simply continued to acquiesce in the various kinds of disabilities that a number of courts and state governments had tried to impose of them.249

Certainly the first instinct of any Catholic university should be to oppose unjust laws rather than give in to them. It is, however, an unfortunate characteristic of so many Catholics today to give in to secular pressures rather than to fight them.

Of course, it is quite possible that problems will arise concerning government funding or concerning other sources of financial assistance. But the answer to such problems will be to solve them in such a way that the Catholic university keeps its Catholicism intact.

Afterword

Many persons, on reading this little book, will think it too idealistic, perhaps fanatical, in making its case. They will respond immediately that life is too full of compromises to expect perfection. Now, life is full of compromises, and we are well advised not to expect perfection, but it would be a serious mistake not to know what perfection is, and not to strive for it. To become so accustomed to second-best that one takes it for granted is to make an ideal of the status quo. And to do this is to court disaster.

What has been recommended is, in most cases, a return to the practice of a few decades ago, when many principles questioned today were taken for granted. Some will think this is a step backward, but others will see it as a return, after a failed experiment, to what was good, just as the present liberalism in the Church will finally burn itself out and leave the old orthodoxy intact.

A final point: Perhaps most important for keeping a university Catholic is courage. Of course, knowledge of the importance of a university’s fidelity to the Magisterium, and of the means to bring this about and preserve it, is imperative, but, without firm commitment despite all the difficulties that arise, efforts are useless and the best intentions cave in under pressure.

There should be no compromise on essentials. I know that those who insist on this will be crucified, but the line has to be held. No university administrator or member of a board of trustees can afford to be thin-skinned in our day. The former Rule of my religious community said that no one should accept the post of Superior unless he could steel himself to discipline others when it was needed. And I say that no one should accept the post of Catholic university trustee or administrator unless he can steel himself against all the attempts to dilute his institution’s religious character. To settle for less might give the university the whole world, but only at the loss of its very self.

 

 

 

Enhancing a Catholic Intellectual Culture

/in , /by
Click here for PDF

Executive Summary

Rejecting secular and Protestant norms and ideals, Catholic universities today must assert a distinctive Catholic intellectual culture featuring the unity of faith and reason, the acceptance of magisterial teaching and an active critique of culture. Such a Catholic intellectual culture will foster Catholic intellectuals and dispose students to the truth, and has the potential to preserve and restore elements of reason and humanity that are being lost in Western civilization.

Specific institutional strategies for promoting a Catholic intellectual culture are suggested.  These include promoting the disciplines of theology and philosophy and integrating them across the curriculum; developing a holistic approach to Catholic identity; integrating faculty into the Catholic and overall academic environment of the university; recruiting Catholic scholars who live out their faith; guarding against outside research and professional pressure; and promoting Catholic identity through a senior official for Catholic mission.

Enhancing a Catholic Intellectual Culture

This paper encourages Catholic universities in the development of a genuine Catholic intellectual culture by identifying the main features of such a culture and suggesting specific institutional strategies to promote them. First, however, it is necessary to address a certain set of cultural obstacles which impede the realization of a Catholic intellectual culture.

I. Understanding the Catholic Difference

Almost two decades after the publication of Ex corde Ecclesiae (hereafter ECE), very few Catholic universities can be said to have fully implemented the norms and goals envisioned there. This is not, for the most part, for lack of trying. Indeed, despite some initial opposition to ECE, the large majority of Catholic university faculty and administrators has recognized the need, and has sincerely sought, to recover a genuine Catholic identity in the intellectual life of their institutions. Much effort and creativity has been invested in this task, with some success overall and notable success in some places.

Yet the reform has not, in most places, been as successful as it might have been, nor made as much progress as it could reasonably have been expected to have made. Recently (2006) Melanie Morey and Father John Piderit, S.J., reported, based on representative interviews with 124 administrators of Catholic universities, that despite the fact that “[a]lmost all Catholic institutions are currently seeking ways to be more ‘Catholic’ . . . most administrators in the end admitted that their colleges and universities [sic] had rather weak Catholic cultures.” The leadership of Catholic universities, it appears, despite widespread attempts to express an institutional culture that is vibrantly Catholic, has generally been impeded from fully realizing this goal by persistent obstacles or roadblocks.

From the perspective of an administrator, these obstacles are visible in the organizational or interpersonal dynamics that often resist change, collegiality or coherence in an institution. Such forces are particularly strong in any university and present real challenges to reform. If this were not the case, after all, it would not be worth considering, as we do at length below, what Catholic institutions can do to reform and improve their Catholic identity. Yet the failure of reform, particularly as it pertains to Catholic intellectual culture, is also made possible, and the institutional forces of opposition are strengthened, by the particular susceptibility of Catholic universities in America to corrosive cultural forces that operate upon them from outside by means of institutional ecology or cultural context.

Morey and Piderit observe, “The dominant culture, despite obeisance paid to cultural diversity, wants religious institutions to provide the same services as secular ones, and they expect to judge them according to the same standards.” These standards then become internalized: “Senior administrators at Catholic universities. . . .gave witness to the strong pressures they experience to conform to the practices of their nonsectarian counterparts. The legitimacy of these institutions as colleges and universities is claimed on the basis of how similar they are to all other colleges and universities.” This pressure to conform to a secular model of being a university constitutes, I suggest, a broad roadblock that tacitly undercuts institutional programs or efforts for reform in American Catholic universities. This expectation is particularly effective in impeding the reform of the university’s intellectual culture, because the blockage here is at root intellectual and cultural, not institutional. In order to have any hope of establishing a vibrant Catholic intellectual culture, then, administrators at Catholic universities must first critically re-evaluate the prevailing secular understanding and standard of what constitutes a university, and thus of what constitutes the distinction between a Catholic university and a secular one.
Because it is the dominant cultural form, it is natural and common to think of the university as typified by the absence of a dominant intellectual commitment, a “marketplace of ideas” in which free inquiry leads to a variety of fundamental conclusions about the universe. On this view there are, on the one hand, generic, mere or normal universities, which work to preserve the absence of a dominant intellectual commitment, and on the other hand religious, including Catholic, universities, which embody a prior commitment to particular truths about the universe. The designation “Catholic,” then, is a qualification of the idea of a “university” generically.

However, whether acknowledged or not, every university, just as every culture, embodies particular intellectual commitments and perspectives in its common life. A secular university pursues a particular way of being a university, just as a Catholic university pursues a particular way of being a university. A secular university is just as committed, in its own way, to a particular view of the universe as is any religious institution.

The idea that the intellectual culture of a secular university is open-minded and tolerant while that of a religious university is, by comparison, narrow and intolerant is almost axiomatic for the leaders of secular institutions, who studiously marginalize religion. It is also reflected in the leaders of Catholic universities, however, when they strive to assure observers that their institution is just as tolerant and open as a secular school. Yet the premise is demonstrably false, not (only or necessarily) on theoretical grounds but on empirical ones. As the experience of numerous religiously-minded faculty members and students attest, the range of acceptable opinions in a secular university is quite narrow, while that in a religious institution is quite wide, to the point that the notion that a secular institution is open while a religious one is closed has no basis except, ironically, in the intellectual prejudice of secularists.

Many have noted this irony of the modern academy, but perhaps none better than the French anthropologist Pierre Bourdieu. Bourdieu observes that while the formal structures of a modern secular university, centered in the ideal and operative mechanisms of academic freedom, provide powerful protection against imposing views on scholars, the informal structures of a secular university operate just as (and perhaps more) powerfully to dispose scholars to affirm a relatively narrow range of acceptable opinions, hypotheses, judgments, lifestyle choices and political views. The prescriptive power of political correctness in professional settings, well-known to American academics, provides a good example of this dynamic; and any religiously-committed scholar who has tried to integrate her faith and scholarship in a secular institution can testify to the powerful, if informal, institutional controls that are placed on violations of such tacit secular orthodoxy.

How does a secular university impose such conformity? Not by explicit rules or faculty selection, but by its intellectual culture. As Bourdieu points out, the ideas which can be discussed and taught in a secular university’s academic culture are circumscribed by understandings, ideas and values which everybody knows, which are “taken for granted,” and are all the more powerful because they are uncontroversial and unstated. Such axiomatic assumptions are compelling for persons in a culture, not because they are rigidly enforced or defended, but because they need no enforcement or defense whatever. They are not merely unquestioned, but unquestionable. They are the things that go without saying. Such undiscussed assumptions, which Bourdieu collectively terms “doxa” set the limits for both formal orthodoxy and heterodoxy regarding what can be discussed, researched or taught in the secular university.

For those concerned about a university’s intellectual culture, whether secular or religious, this is a crucial point, to which I will return below. At the root of any university’s intellectual culture lies a tacit consensus about fundamental matters that limits and directs its intellectual life far more powerfully than any overt administrative or formal faculty actions or programs. The implications of this for the reform of university intellectual culture are clear and stark: Just as the open formal structures of the secular university, as necessary as these are, cannot prevent the development of a narrow and restrictive doxa, so the imposition of formal mechanisms to promote Catholic identity and culture in a Catholic university, as necessary as these may be, cannot by itself or necessarily bring about a doxa that supports truly Catholic teaching and research.

In practice, just as the secular university sincerely proclaims an ideal of open inquiry while unconsciously fostering a restricted intellectual culture, so many Catholic universities, while sincerely professing to seek a distinctive Catholic intellectual culture, have unconsciously adopted the informal norms, the doxa, of secularity. They have done this, not because they wish to be secular, but because they wish to be a university, and have uncritically accepted the false assumptions noted above, i.e., that the secular university is more open-minded than a religious one, and that this is the pure or normal form of the university. In order to be a genuine university, respected and successful among its peer institutions (and among a secularized Catholic laity from which come its prospective students and parents), many Catholic universities have tried to combine a Catholic faith commitment with the implicitly secular academic structures of a “normal” American university.

The result was, and continues in many cases to be, a tense and uneasy mix of incompatible norms. The tension between the norms is reflected in institutional and interpersonal tension that accompanies such a strategy to instill a genuine Catholic culture. The efforts to resolve or manage this tension have resulted in various often-noted partial and ineffective results for these institutions, such as the balkanization of Catholic intellectual life, with some departments determinedly secular and others just as persistently Catholic; relegating Catholic identity to campus ministry and occasional liturgies which have minimal effect on the intellectual culture or formation of the university; and confining student formation in the Catholic intellectual tradition to one or two required courses in theology or philosophy, which may or may not actually address the Catholic faith.

Compared to other religious universities, Catholic universities in the United States experience added definitional tension because, where the institutional norms of higher education in the 20th century have not been secular, they have been largely Protestant. As Kathleen Mahoney chronicles clearly, in the late 19th century “liberal Protestant leaders of the university movement linked the newly created modern university with the cause of a Protestant America.” On the other hand, “Catholics’ status as members of a religious minority complicated the ways in which they could respond to the reforms that remade much of higher education.” Subsequently, the effect of the Second Vatican Council, for better or for worse, was to lessen or remove many of the features of Catholic life and thought that distinguished Catholics from Protestants. Catholic universities today therefore face the double forces of conformity not only to a dominant secular civic culture but also to a dominant Protestant religious culture, which have together shaped the intellectual culture of the modern academy.

The worst result of living in tension with secular and Protestant universities is the tendency for Catholic universities to minimize the true distinctiveness and difference that Catholic faith and commitment makes to the business of being a university. The basic problem with many current attempts to restore a university’s Catholic intellectual identity is that the attempt itself expresses only a secularized, eviscerated notion of what it is to be Catholic. Morey and Piderit observe that Catholic universities “are willing to put a dash of religion in their collegiate stew, but, wary of having it overpower, they put just enough to make it interesting, not enough to make it truly distinctive.”

Such attempts at accommodation do not preserve Catholic identity, but, on the contrary, result in the eventual loss of anything distinctly Catholic. Pope Benedict XVI, in his address to Catholic educators on the occasion of his recent (2008) visit to the United States, suggested that such nominal Catholic institutions may not be worth continuing. As R. E. Houser succinctly summarizes his argument: “American Catholic colleges and universities are needed, but only if they exhibit a strong and vigorous sense of Catholic identity.” It is important, therefore, that Catholic administrators consider carefully what constitutes the distinct features of a Catholic intellectual culture.

II. Features of a Catholic Intellectual Culture

The previous section raised a crucial point about intellectual culture with respect to Catholic reform: a genuine Catholic intellectual culture cannot be something “added on” to fundamentally secular norms of university life. Such norms carry with them a doxa that is inimical to Catholic life. Rather, implementing or seeking a genuine Catholic intellectual culture changes everything about the nature of a university. The goal of such reform, then, must be to introduce, not just new norms and structures, but a new doxa in the university. This section attempts to define some of the common features of a Catholic intellectual culture so conceived. While each of these features, I suggest, are sine qua non for the intellectual culture of a genuine Catholic university, some institutions may emphasize some of them more than others.

Unity of Faith and Reason

The central affirmation of a genuine Catholic intellectual culture is that faith and reason, doctrine and discovery, piety and learning are mutually enlightening and reinforcing modes of life and knowledge. In a direct rejection of secularism, a Catholic university begins with the assumption that the convictions of faith and the conclusions of rational observation and reflection are never incompatible. This fundamental assumption underlies (and integrates) the activity of a Catholic university. Like most fundamental assumptions, it has the strongest influence on scholarly activity when the teachings of faith and the findings of reason seem most irreconcilable. By way of analogy, the fundamental assumption of order and regularity in nature that underlies physical science operates most powerfully when such order is not apparent, thus stimulating research to seek to discover the underlying order involved or transcendent order implied.

For Catholics, faith and reason are not only compatible, they are not severable. Faith enlightens reason, as Augustine affirmed; and reason completes faith, as Aquinas affirmed. To paraphrase Kant, reason without faith is empty, and faith without reason is blind. For this reason theology, which attempts to express faith in a reasonable way, and Christian philosophy, which explores reason in a faithful way, are essential disciplines of a Catholic university.

The affirmation of the unity of faith and reason in this way is distinctively Catholic. For Protestant thought, since salvation is by faith alone (sola fide), human reason can add nothing essential to faith, which is fundamentally nonrational. Modern Protestant thought, therefore, has tended to assert that faith is subjective, a matter of feelings (Schleiermacher), a “leap across the abyss” (Kierkegaard) or an affirmation of the will (Barth). Liberal Protestants, therefore, welcomed the secularization of the university so long as the nonrational activity of faith was not excluded. Evangelical Protestants, by contrast, have strived to uphold the reasonableness of faith, arguing that, while faith is nonrational, it is not irrational. On this basis some evangelical universities have managed in impressive ways to inhibit secularization and foster a generic “Christian world view”. Evangelicals have been less successful, however, in exploring the faithfulness of reason, since they lack consensus on many points regarding the intellectual content of the faith. In sum, Protestants are hampered in achieving the goal of a university by a deficient view of faith and reason (and, correlatively, Scripture and Tradition) as being separate modes of knowledge that can operate critically upon each other. The full integration of faith and reason that a university requires is today only possible among Catholic universities.

This should not be overstated, however. A Catholic university does not exist “over against” non-Catholic Christian colleges and universities in the same sense that they may stand over against schools of other denominations. Protestants protest Catholicism, by definition, but Catholics do not protest Protestantism. Indeed, Vatican II teaches that the church, in its most basic sense of communio fidelium, includes those “separated brothers” of Protestant faith. Thus, a university that comes “from the heart of the church” will seek to explore and express, not only those truths that are particular to Catholics, but also, and perhaps especially, those that are common to faithful Catholics and Protestants alike.

Fostering Catholic Intellectuals

In practical terms, the first and foremost task for the development of a Catholic intellectual culture in a university is fostering an environment that supports the formation and sustenance of Catholic intellectuals. Ex corde Ecclesiae calls for a majority of the faculty to be Catholic, a point upon which much effort and energy have been expended in the past two decades. The achievement of a statistical majority of Catholics, however, will be ineffective in producing a genuine Catholic culture of the intellect, if the “Catholic” faculty are merely nominal Catholics, who think essentially like secular persons, rather than persons informed with a Catholic world view, who actively seek to discover truth within the context of revealed truth.
The tensions which can easily undermine the university’s mission—between faith and reason, autonomy and authority, dogma and academic freedom—cannot be resolved by the institution until they have first been resolved in the minds and wills of the faithful scholars who comprise the faculty. It is in the hearts of the faculty that the integration of knowledge, the unity of faith and reason, is first and fundamentally achieved. As John Henry Newman puts it:

Some persons will say that I am thinking of confining, distorting, and stunting the growth of the intellect by ecclesiastical supervision. I have no such thought. Nor have I any thought of a compromise, as if religion must give up something, and science something. I wish the intellect to range with the utmost freedom, and religion to enjoy an equal freedom; but what I am stipulating for is, that they should be found in one and the same place, and exemplified in the same persons. I want to destroy that diversity of centres, which puts everything into confusion by creating a contrariety of influences. I wish the same spots and the same individuals to be at once oracles of philosophy and shrines of devotion.

Clearly, on this ideal, to be such a scholar/worshipper, or what I have called throughout this essay a faithful Catholic scholar, does not mean (necessarily) that a scholar favors religious topics or questions in her research, or selects a research agenda that supports the teachings of Christianity in some instrumental way. Rather, it means that, in whatever questions are pursued, the scholar’s orientation is toward seeking wholeness and understanding of her path of inquiry within the larger understanding, and mystery, of God’s creation, incarnation and engagement with the world as revealed by the Church. Stanley Jaki, writing on “The Catholic Intellectual”, applies Newman’s ideal more directly to the modern research setting. It is not the case, he says,

. . . that only those Catholic intellectuals qualify for being considered Catholic who work on specifically “Catholic” topics. [But when research raises ultimate questions] … [a] Catholic intellectual must be ready to face up to such questions and in a genuinely Catholic sense. And if he has not acquired the ability to cope with such questions, he at least must have a vivid conviction that Catholic answers can be given to such questions, and indeed have been given time and again. And, most importantly, the Catholic intellectual must not turn the truth of those answers into a function of the measure of their acceptance in secular academia, which is well nigh zero in most cases.

Such scholar/worshippers cannot be sprinkled among the faculty in an isolated way, where they may be tolerated or marginalized by the prevailing culture of the university. Rather, for a genuine Catholic intellectual culture to exist, such scholar/worshippers must comprise the prevailing culture of the university. They must form a genuine community of scholars devoted to the common service of faith and truth, who encourage, challenge, exhort and dispute one another in collective pursuit of their common commitment to the truth about God and the world. As noted above, all scholars pursue their vocation within an intellectual and institutional context, which shapes their scholarship in ways that are no less powerful for being often unrecognized. In a truly Catholic university, faithful Catholic scholars must become for each other what sociologists call a “plausibility structure”, in which the Catholic world view of each scholar is confirmed, sharpened, refined and extended by ongoing interaction with others who operate from a shared faith commitment, a doxa that presumes Catholic faith.

Submission to the Magisterium

The advantage a Catholic university has in being able to integrate faith and reason is lost entirely if the intellectual culture of the university is not predicated upon a full and free submission to the truths proposed by the Catholic Magisterium. The acceptance of magisterial teaching cannot be only a collective policy of the institution; it must be instantiated in the thinking, research and teaching of each scholar in the university. After all, an institution cannot believe; only persons can freely offer the voluntary assent which magisterial teaching calls for. Such assent must be part of the doxa of the university, that is, those elements of common life that are unquestionable and given.

Jaki explains clearly why this is essential for Catholic scholarship:

“Catholicism means above all the surrender to the greatest fact of history, Jesus Christ, or the flesh and blood, and therefore very provincial (Catholic) reality of the incarnation of the Son of God. But an integral part of that reality was His intention to teach with universal authority and, in all evidence, to have that authority of his concretely (that is very provincially) perpetuated. Therefore the Catholic intellectual’s submission to Christ must be preceded by a submission to those who today are the concrete factual voice of Christ’s authority, which renders their teaching strictly authoritative. Only then can the Catholic intellectual begin the task of unfolding the conceptual implications of the fact of the Incarnation for an understanding of Catholicism in its full range. . . . A Catholic intellectual must have for his foremost standard of reasoning an unconditional, total commitment to the voice of Rome as the only factor that puts him in proper contact with the greatest fact which is Christ.

The particularity of such a faith commitment has always been scandalous to secular reason, and it is understandably difficult for scholars, accustomed to relying on their own reason and expertise, to humbly come to the Church to be taught. Yet in order to find what it can know, the Catholic university must be able to know what it does not know. In order to teach the world, its scholars must humbly come to the Church to be taught. Without this, the university—notwithstanding fine chapel services, social service efforts, or other elements of Catholic life—remains at best essentially Protestant in its intellectual life, suffering the same deficiencies of that form of Christianity for achieving the goals of a university noted above.

Due to the special mission of the Catholic university within the Church, however, its relation to the magisterium is not simply one of being given the faith, on analogy with being catechized. On this point, both those who support and those who oppose the submission of the university to magisterial oversight have tended at times to misread Ex corde Ecclesiae’s “from the heart of the church” as “from the heart of the Magisterium.” The university does not merely take delivery of the deposit of faith, but also participates in certain ways in appropriating, expressing, framing and developing the truths of faith. This function is explicit in canon law, which states that the the Church establishes universities, in part, “to complement the Church’s own teaching office.” There is, in a real sense, a give and take. The work of Catholic theologians and philosophers often finds its way, sub rosa, into the formal declarations of the Magisterium; but the same dynamic is true for scholars in all fields of inquiry. Popes and bishops often consult scholars in Catholic universities, speak at their forums, and request them to undertake particular initiatives to help develop and apply Catholic truth. Church councils and commissions seek out the best scholarship of the Church’s universities in order to better address the truths of faith to the issues of the day.

This mutual exchange is a vital part of the reception of the faith theologically understood, or its articulation in a cultural sense. In this situation Catholic scholars do not serve the Church well by being merely passive to its teaching. They are called (more or less, depending on their field of inquiry) not merely to receive the faith with the receptivity proper to the Church’s teaching authority, but also to join with the Magisterium in a common assent to the truth of Christ and the Gospel.

Disposing to the Truth

The secular mind objects on principle to the idea of a university pursuing its mission in light of religious truth. On this view, to privilege religious truth is to distort the very freedom of inquiry for which the university exists, and to impose adherence to religious tenets on the mind of its faculty undermines academic freedom altogether. A university, it is said, cannot be a church. Its object cannot be to indoctrinate, but to encourage the exploration of truth in many realms, unencumbered by dogma and tradition.

This objection misunderstands the purpose of a university, but begins by misunderstanding the purpose of the Church. It is true that the purpose of a Catholic university cannot be to indoctrinate, but not because the university is not part of the Church, but because it is, and the purpose of the Church is not to indoctrinate—at least, not in the manner intended by the objection. The Catholic Church insists that all men and women be free from every constraint in the area of religion, so that religious truth can be freely and genuinely chosen by the believer consistent with the dignity of conscience. As Pope John Paul II stressed, “The church proposes. She imposes nothing.”

If it is the work of the Church to propose the truth, then I suggest that it is the work of the university within the Church to dispose to the truth. A successful Catholic intellectual culture will create an environment in which the truth proposed by Catholic faith “rings true”. It builds a cultural disposition to the truth by seeking the comprehension and integration of knowledge, not merely its pursuit and acquisition. It thus aims at truth, not merely truths; that is, an intellectual structure by means of which all knowledge, wherever derived, can be understood. As the name implies, a university is premised on the conviction that knowledge forms a universe, and thus some knowledge is universal.

The university fosters a personal disposition to the truth in its faculty and students by the formation of what has been called the liberal mind. This is not a mind that necessarily knows and understands the truth, but it is one that is disposed to be open to the truth wherever it is encountered. In classical language, the university seeks the formation of minds that are ordered to the truth. The fruit of such formation is the ability to recognize and dismiss shallow reasoning, the intellectual fads of the day, the peril of easy answers, the sophistry of self-deception, and a thousand other intellectual and moral impediments to knowledge; and to consider what presents itself as truth sincerely, deliberately, judiciously and without prejudice, cant or cavil. The possessor of such a mind, being still alive and growing, will not have apprehended all of the knowledge that, in the destiny of her life, it will be her task to discover. She may not comprehend all of the Catholic faith (does anyone ever?). But she will be disposed to hear, understand, and integrate into her life that which validly presents itself as true, in whatever context it may come.

The goal of such formation is not, as I have said, the acquisition of all truths, even all of the truths of faith. As St. James reminds us, it is quite possible to know and believe the specific truths of the faith, yet not have a mind or life that is ordered to truth itself. The goal of a Catholic intellectual formation is not to know many things, but to be able to know how to know. This goal militates against the practice—nearly universal among Catholic universities, copying their secular counterparts—of exposing undergraduates to a smattering of many different areas of knowledge, as if such an education produced a comprehensive understanding of the world. From the standpoint of a Catholic education, it would be better if students studied less broadly and more deeply. In coming closer to mastering one discipline, or at most a few, they would be more likely to acquire the skills and liberal outlook by means of which they could more readily apprehend other areas of knowledge.

Exposing the False

Any culture, but especially a minority subculture, thrives not only by preserving its core identity and by cultural reproduction but also by vigorous boundary maintenance. As noted above, too often religious universities have tried to minimize or elide their differences from nonreligious ones. The predictable result of this failure of nerve is a weakened and inconsistent intellectual culture in the religious university. On the contrary, a vigorous religious intellectual culture needs to clearly articulate—inoffensively yet unapologetically—what distinguishes it from secular models, the depth and profundity of that distinction, and the advantages the difference conveys.

Catholic universities need to engage in a double critique; a wide-ranging critique of secular academic culture, and a more narrowly focused debate with Protestant (and other) religious alternatives. An exploration of the elements of these critiques is beyond the scope of this essay, although some have already been noted, and the main points can be briefly stated. Secular thought is increasingly showing itself to be empty and incomplete for addressing the human condition; and cannot correct itself, since among the consequences of positivism, i.e., the rejection of metaphysics and mind, is the loss of the ability to expose the hidden presuppositions of positivism. The Protestant mind can go a long way toward an integrated universe of knowledge, but is impaired, from a Catholic point of view, by a defective notion of the relation of faith and reason and by an abstract, partial notion of the Church.

Catholic universities need to articulate, with humility and respect, such a boundary critique, or “apology” in the classical sense of that word, for the good of their own self-definition, irrespective of the real prospects of convincing or changing those who hold alternate views.

Such a stance does not preclude, and is in fact enhanced by, an active critique of Catholic life and culture at the same time. The difference between these areas of criticism, we must confidently hope, will be that secularism and Protestantism will be shown to be deficient due to their principles, while Catholic culture fails when it opposes or neglects its principles. In this way Catholic culture can show its integrity and fearlessness in the face of criticism, and its willingness to be held to account for its convictions and to change when necessary.

By the same token, with appropriate prudence, and while faithfully affirming the truths taught by the Church, a genuine Catholic intellectual culture must be willing, even eager, to dialogue with those hostile to the faith. To do this itself expresses faithfulness to the Magisterium. As the fathers of Vatican II said:

the desire for such dialogue, undertaken solely out of love for the truth and with all due prudence, excludes no one, neither those who cultivate the values of the human spirit while not yet acknowledging their Source, nor those who are hostile to the Church and persecute her in various ways.

By engaging in boundary debates and critiques, Catholic universities simultaneously build up their own identity and tear down the false misconceptions of non-Catholics. Confident that truth is whole, and that all truth is God’s, the intellectual culture of the Catholic faith is unafraid to face challenges to its convictions from any quarter.

Whatever else comes of such engagement, it demonstrates that, despite secular prejudice otherwise, Catholic thought is truly the most democratic, open-minded system on offer today. While appealing to the highest authority and warrant for its claims, it submits itself for free ratification to the conscience of each person. In affirming tradition both Christian and classical, it does not discount or ignore any reasoned contribution to knowledge on the merely adventitious grounds that the author happens to be dead. In valorizing revelation, the Catholic mind prefers concrete historical experience—the witness of shepherds and fishermen—to the abstract theories of elites.

Restoring Civilization

As noted above, only a Catholic intellectual culture can fully unify faith and reason in the kind of coherent understanding of reality in which the work of a university can be grounded. In separating faith and reason, Protestantism and secularity respectively devolve into a faith which does not fully understand itself or a reason which is blind to the things that matter most: mind, meaning and the nature of human life. Empirically, both secularity and Protestantism have tended, in their intellectual cultures, to fragmentation in a kind of truce among ultimate commitments, out of which has not come any unified notion of reality. Today only the Catholic tradition possesses fully the intellectual and faith-related resources to form a true university of discourse.

The implications of this for the mission of a Catholic university, in recovering and sustaining a genuine Catholic intellectual culture, are profound. Surely in expressing and exploring this unique unity of knowledge that it possesses, the university will be both serving the Church and recovering its own raison d’etre, the meaning of its own life. Just as the application or transmission of faith takes place through knowledge, so the integration of knowledge takes place through faith. But it will also be doing much more than this. In taking on the task of forming a genuine Catholic intellectual culture, the university will be advancing, as no one else can, the true interests of Western civilization.

The historian Christopher Dawson is probably the best known proponent of the view that a persistent Christian culture has been expressed alongside the increasingly secular political culture of the West. Whether or not this is the case, it is an expression of the larger and more general view that, as religion is at the heart of culture, so culture is the carrier of religion. If this is true, then the Catholic university must recover a genuine Christian culture not only for the sake of Catholicism but also for the sake of Western civilization itself. This was Dawson’s view. It is also the view of Pope Benedict XVI, who sees the intellectual task of the Church to be nothing less than the restoration of reason to the culture of the West.

Although Protestants will (naturally) protest and secularized academic culture will not appreciate the point, today it is only in Catholic institutions that the intellectual heritage of the West has any chance of developing, and therefore surviving. As Catholic monks famously kept the light of civilization burning in earlier ages of barbarism, so today Catholic scholars have the opportunity and challenge to preserve the intellectual heritage of the West, the coherence of knowledge and indeed reason itself, in an age which has lost the ability to recognize the truth.

III. Specific Suggestions

The following are some specific practical and programmatic suggestions for supporting a Catholic intellectual culture. They are derived from the ideas outlined above, pertinent magisterial teaching and suggestions and thoughts from other Catholic scholars. This list is not intended to be comprehensive.

1) Favor theology and philosophy.

These two disciplines should receive special emphasis in a genuine Catholic intellectual culture, as those that deal most directly with the integration of faith and reason. A Catholic university without strong offerings and leadership in these two fields will be less likely to succeed in instituting a vibrant Catholic intellectual culture.
As already noted, philosophy that presupposes revealed truth has a special function in a Catholic intellectual culture, which suggest an essential role for a department of philosophy that engages the rich tradition of Christian philosophy proper. More than this, however, it implies a special role for philosophical thinking about the relation of each department of knowledge in the university to the larger truths that fulfill and integrate each specialty into a coherent view of the life and the world. Such intentional application of philosophical norms to today’s specialized branches of knowledge may or may not be done by those in the philosophy department. As Fides et Ratio (paragraph 30) states, “The truths of philosophy, it should be said, are not restricted only to the sometimes ephemeral teachings of professional philosophers.” This point leads to the next suggestion:

2) Don’t confine theology and philosophy to departments of theology and philosophy.

Academic departments or schools of theology and philosophy cannot provide the comprehensive integration of knowledge which a Catholic university seeks. As academic disciplines, neither theology nor philosophy is integrated in themselves; there are many different and competing theologies and philosophies, even among faithful Christian scholars. Moreover, theologians and philosophers are limited in making applications to other academic specialties, both because theologians and philosophers are generally as limited in their understanding of other specialties as those in other specialties are in their understanding of theology and philosophy, and because, no matter how knowledgeable, theologians and philosophers function according to the autonomy, norms and interests of their own disciplines rather than those of some other discipline.

Indeed, the best contribution of philosophy departments may not be to “solve” the problems of the humanities or social sciences, but to stimulate a culture of philosophical reflection by practitioners of the other fields. What is needed is not philosophers crossing disciplinary lines (though this has its own value), but philosophical thinking on the part of political scientists, psychologists, linguists, historians and all the other specialized scholars of the university.

The critical analyses and unifying connections that are the special province of theology and philosophy need to be disseminated broadly among all the disciplines of the university in order for a genuine, coherent intellectual culture to be expressed.Each member of the faculty should carry some theology and philosophy, and some devotion, into her/his classes and research. Indeed, they already do so by default, whether they know it or not.

This model of integration, rather than leaving it up to theology/philosophy departments, is clearly envisioned by Ex corde Ecclesiae. For example, regarding dialogue between faith and science, ECE (46) notes: “This task requires persons particularly well versed in the individual disciplines and who are at the same time adequately prepared theologically . . . .” Likewise, canon law calls for “lectures which principally treat of those theological questions connected with the studies of each faculty.” All the academic specialists—scientists, engineers, mathematicians, economists, etc.—of the university should also be theologians and philosophers, to the extent needed to perceive and articulate the horizon of ultimate truths to which their particular research and teaching leads. Achieving this may involve special interdisciplinary efforts and conversations involving philosophy and theology.

3) Involve the whole institution in Catholic identity.

The notion that a university’s Catholic mission can be carried by a campus ministry or a few departments, or a well-crafted mission statement that is generally ignored, is probably the greatest single source of failure to fully reform Catholic universities today. In order to foster a genuine Catholic intellectual culture, Catholic principles, aims and ideals—a Catholic doxa, in Bourdieu’s sense—must permeate every aspect of educational and institutional life. The impress of Catholic life and thought should be evident, not just in the mission statement, but in the administrative procedures, student and faculty handbooks, honor code, institutional review board, personnel policies and so on; not just in the campus ministry, but in every lecture, classroom, dining hall and dormitory; not just in the Board of Trustees, but in every administrator, board, committee, academic council, school, department and student organization.

4) Fill the faculty with scholar/worshippers.

The commitment of the faculty to a life of faith is sine qua non for a genuine Catholic intellectual culture. Not that every faculty member has to be Catholic—in fact a minority of other faiths can enhance the development of a Catholic intellectual culture—but every member should be a person of active faith, and concerned about the faith formation as well as the intellectual development of each student. The large majority of faculty should be Catholic; the bare majority envisioned in ECE should be considered a minimum standard. And, consistent with the previous suggestion, the majority principle should be applied at the level of the department (or smallest academic unit), lest there develop some “secular” departments and some “Catholic” ones, thus impeding the full integration of knowledge and providing mixed experiences for students.

5) Promote departmental integration, faculty sharing and cross-registration.

Strong walls between academic departments reflect and further the secular fragmentation of knowledge. Today widely disparate fields often cover the same intellectual ground, with slightly different emphases, with little awareness of the duplication. Replacing departmental competition with cooperation in a common task helps scholars to work together to seek unifying themes in their specialties. Being able more easily to cross departmental boundaries helps both faculty and students to integrate and find unity in the various areas of knowledge. The resulting interdisciplinary discussion and reflection serves both the development of a liberal mind and the discovery of common truths by which knowledge can lead to genuine understanding.

6) Define faculty identity and success with reference to the university rather than to the academic field.

Modern scholars envision the possibility of changing institutions, but rarely of changing fields, in the course of their careers. As a result, institutional goals and distinctives become secondary to those of the academic professions, their journals and professional associations, which are almost uniformly secular. Sadly, the standards for faculty productivity and career advancement in Catholic universities routinely collude with this dynamic, explicitly encouraging faculty achievement and reputation in secular academic fields, to the detriment of their own mission. The most
committed faithful Catholic scholar will be hobbled in the pursuit of a genuine Catholic intellectual culture as long as s/he defines career success in terms of recognition in an (secular) academic field.

A Catholic university which promotes such a definition of success among its faculty, therefore, contradicts its own mission. In the long run, identifying with the goals of the institution will often provide scholars an intellectual advantage in their academic fields, where the questions and synthesis possible in a Catholic intellectual culture are not generally addressed. It will also encourage more productive scholars to remain with the Catholic institution rather than trading up to a more commodious appointment in a secular university.

7) Be very selective about extramural research and grant funding generally.

External research grants are awarded in order to promote research in particular areas and topics; for a Catholic institution it can easily turn into a case of the tail wagging the dog. Of course, research that serves agendas hostile to Catholic teaching (abortion or alternative forms of marriage come to mind) should not be considered. But even benign, defensible research can distract the university from its central mission and become an attractive nuisance with regard to fostering a Catholic intellectual culture. In some fields, of course, there are agencies that promote Catholic oriented research; but in most there are not. In the hard sciences, for example, it is doubtful that any agency can even articulate what questions arise from a Catholic view of the universe as opposed to a secular one. It would not be a bad idea, though perhaps not feasible or prudent, to simply reject all extramural funding, or perhaps funding from certain agencies, on principle.

8) Resist the encroachment of technical, occupational and professional level skills on the liberal arts.

This suggestion should be considered more or less, as some Catholic universities have a greater mission to the professions than others; what I am concerned with here is the tendency for instrumental education and pragmatic concerns to displace the ideal and practice of intrinsically valid learning. In a Catholic intellectual culture, knowledge must always be an end, and not merely a means. The most important knowledge may be “useless” in terms of career success. A faithful Catholic university, therefore, must subsume the acquisition of skill to the inculcation of truth. Regardless of whether they learn how to make a living, it is paramount that students are formed in how to live.

9) Institute a senior administrative position devoted to strengthening and assuring the Catholic ature of the institution.

The important goals of a university today are expressed in vice-presidential appointments. A Vice President—or other senior administrator—for Catholic Mission who has genuine administrative authority powerfully communicates the resolve of institutional leaders to develop and sustain a genuine Catholic intellectual culture. This office can oversee and provide resources for the integration of Catholic thought in all the activities of the institution, as outlined in the suggestions and themes discussed above.

IV. Toward a Truly Human Culture

A culture is an expression of human aspirations, ideas and relationships. The best policies and programs imaginable will still be ineffective to recover a vigorous Catholic intellectual culture if those who administer and enact them do not aspire, in their deepest selves, to the great vision of good that such a reform entails. In the busy round of demands and pressures of university administration and management, it is easy to lose sight of the larger purpose of our actions. The urgent particular needs in front of us can crowd out our awareness of ultimate purpose of our work. But the unfinished task of Catholic university reform requires more than technocrats, or those merely skilled in the processes of education. It calls for those who can also imagine or envision a fully formed Catholic intellectual culture, be personally committed to it as a great good, and nurture it into reality with devotion and passion. I invite you, therefore, for just a moment, to imagine.
Imagine with me a world in which hundreds of universities maintain a vibrant intellectual culture that stands athwart the shallow, sterile secularism of our day; in which the classic culture of the West is probed, inculcated and extended, not as a historical curiosity, but as a living conversation; in which wonder and wisdom, the integration and the synthesis of knowledge, complete the accumulation of facts; in which the full range of human life, being and value is explicated in every particular discipline of knowledge.

Imagine degrees in which the acquisition of technical skill is made to serve the attainment of a good life, focusing on how to live, not just how to make a living; in which a college education does not corrode, but strengthens and deepens the apprehension of revealed truth; and where intellectual development is matched with moral formation.

Imagine an active community of such schools, which earn the respect (perhaps grudgingly) of their secular counterparts by the insight of their scholarship and the integrity of their students; and which engage in endless discussion, debate, rebuttal and exploration of all the facets of knowledge, life and belief that offer themselves for research and examination.

Today this vision is being fulfilled in some places and in some respects. Imagine the power for good it can be when it is brought to pass in all places in all respects. It is nothing less than the power to renew the world.

References

Bourdieu, Pierre. Outline of a Theory of Practice. London: Cambridge University Press, 1977.

_________. Homo Academicus. San Francisco, CA: Stanford University Press, 1988.

Burtchaell, James. The Dying of the Light. Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1998.

Libreria Editrice Vaticana. Code of Canon Law. 1983. Accessed August 26, 2008 at
http://www.vatican.va/archive/ENG1104/_INDEX.HTM

Houser, R. E.. “A Rekindling of the Light: The Past, Present and Future of a Catholic Core
Curriculum,” Manassas, VA: The Center for the Study of Catholic Higher Education, 2008.

Jaki, Stanley. “The Catholic Intellectual,” in The Gist of Catholicism. Pinckney, MI: Real View
Books, 2001.

Jencks, Christopher and David Riesman. The Academic Revolution. New York: Doubleday,
1968.

Mahoney, Kathleen. Catholic Higher Education in Protestant America. Baltimore, MD: Johns
Hopkins University Press, 2003.

Marsden, George. The Soul of the American University. New York: Oxford, 1996.

Mixon, Stephanie, Larry Lyon and Michael Beaty. “Secularization and National Universities:
The Effect of Religious Identity on Academic Reputation.” Journal of Higher Education 75, no. 4 (2004): 400-19.

Morey, Melanie and John Piderit, S.J. Catholic Higher Education: A Culture in Crisis. New
York: Oxford University Press, 2006.

Newman, John Henry. Sermons Preached on Various Occasions. London: Longman, 1870;
Westminster, MD: Christian Classics, 1968.

Pope John Paul II. Fides et Ratio [Faith and Reason]. Encyclical letter. 1998.

____________Redemptoris Missio [Mission of the Redeemer]. Encyclical Letter, 1990.

Pope Paul VI. Gaudium et Spes [The Church in the Modern World]. Pastoral
Constitution, 1965.

Pelikan, Jaroslav et al. Religion and the University. Toronto, Canada: University of Toronto
Press, 1964.

The Effects of Pornography on Individuals, Marriage, Family and Community

/in , /by
Click here for PDF

Editor’s Note

This paper is co-published by the Marriage and Religion Research Institute (MARRI) at the Family Research Council in cooperation with the Love and Responsibility Project of The Center for the Study of Catholic Higher Education. 

Catholic colleges and universities have important reasons to discourage and restrict student access to pornography, which “perverts the conjugal act” and is a “grave offense” according to the Catechism of the Catholic Church.  Given the massive, deleterious individual, marital, family and social effects of pornography, college leaders should consider ways of increasing the effectiveness and impact of institutional approaches to students’ sexual behavior.

This paper reports ample evidence that pornography distorts a young person’s concept of the nature of conjugal relations and alters both sexual attitudes and behavior.  Pornography engenders greater sexual permissiveness, which in turn leads to a greater risk of out-of-wedlock births and STDs.  Men who view pornography regularly have a higher tolerance for abnormal sexuality—including rape, sexual aggression and sexual promiscuity.  If continued beyond college, the viewing of pornography is a major threat to marriage, to family, to children and to individual happiness.  In undermining marriage it is one of the factors in undermining social stability.

Pornography, as a visual (mis)representation of sexuality, distorts an individual’s concept of sexual relations by objectifying them, which, in turn, alters both sexual attitudes and behavior.  It is a major threat to marriage, to family, to children, and to individual happiness.

Social scientists, clinical psychologists, and biologists have begun to clarify some of the social and psychological effects of pornography, and neurologists are beginning to delineate the biological mechanisms through which pornography produces its powerful effects on people.

Pornography’s power to undermine individual and social functioning is powerful and deep.

  • Effect on the Mind: Pornography significantly distorts attitudes and perceptions about the nature of sexual intercourse.  Men who habitually look at pornography have a higher tolerance for abnormal sexual behaviors, sexual aggression, promiscuity, and even rape.  In addition, men begin to view women and even children as “sex objects,” commodities or instruments for their pleasure, not as persons with their own inherent dignity.
  • Effect on the Body: Pornography is very addictive.  The addictive aspect of pornography has a biological substrate, with dopamine hormone release acting as one of the mechanisms for forming the transmission pathway to pleasure centers of the brain.  Also, the increased sexual permissiveness engendered by pornography increases the risk of contracting a sexually transmitted disease or of being an unwitting parent in an out-of-wedlock pregnancy.
  • Effect on the Heart: Pornography affects people’s emotional lives. Married men who are involved in pornography feel less satisfied with their marital sexual relations and less emotionally attached to their wives. Women married to men with a pornography addiction report feelings of betrayal, mistrust, and anger. Pornographic use may lead to infidelity and even divorce. Adolescents who view pornography feel shame, diminished self-confidence, and sexual uncertainty.

Introduction

The conjugal act—the act of sexual intercourse—brings humanity into existence and sets in motion the next generations of society.  Sexual intercourse, like atomic energy, is a powerful agent for good if channeled well, but for ill if not.  Healthy societies maintain their stability by channeling the sexual energies of young adults into marriage, an institution that legitimizes sexual intercourse, protects the children that are the fruit of intercourse, and channels the giving and receiving of sexual pleasure in a way that builds up rather than tears down society.  Sexual taboos are one set of the normal mechanisms of social control of the sexual appetite.  They are analogous to the control rods of a nuclear reactor plant: they block the sexual from straying off course and into destructive pathways.

One of the biggest tasks of adolescent members of all society is to come to grips with their burgeoning sexuality.  Some have always tested the limits of sexual expression even when strong social controls were in place.  In well-ordered societies, such testing triggers immediate social sanctions from parents, mentors, and community.

In today’s media-saturated society, these sanctions operate in fewer and fewer quarters.  A substantial factor in this shift has been the growth of digital media and the Internet.  This “digital revolution” has led to great strides in productivity, communication, and other desirable ends, but pornographers also have harnessed its power for their profit.  The cost has been a further weakening of the nation’s citizens and families, a development that should be of grave concern to all.  The social sciences demonstrate the appropriateness of this concern.

Two recent reports, one by the American Psychological Association on hyper-sexualized girls, and the other by the National Campaign to Prevent Teen Pregnancy on the pornographic content of phone texting among teenagers, make clear that the digital revolution is being used by younger and younger children to dismantle the barriers that channel sexuality into family life.193

Pornography hurts adults, children, couples, families, and society.  Among adolescents, pornography hinders the development of a healthy sexuality, and among adults, it distorts sexual attitudes and social realities.  In families, pornography use leads to marital dissatisfaction, infidelity, separation, and divorce.  Society at large is not immune to the effect of pornography.  Child sex-offenders, for example, are often involved not only in the viewing, but also in the distribution, of pornography.

Pornography is powerful enough even to overwhelm individuals, couples, and families despite earlier affectionate relationships—whether between the mother and father or between the parents and the child.  But loving family relationships can help mute many of the factors that encourage the use of pornography long before its addictive power takes root in a user’s life.

The effect of regular viewing of pornography on marriage and family is dealt with first, for there its greatest damage to the innocent can be seen.  Then the source of this damage is reviewed: the effects on the individual user, his psyche, and his behavior.  Adolescent usage, patterns, and effects are then delineated, for during this period the habit of viewing pornography is often developed in stages.  Finally the effects of sexually-oriented-businesses on their local environs are reviewed.

The Consequences of Viewing Pornography

Family Consequences

Pornography has significant effects during all stages of family life.  For a child exposed to pornography within a family setting, pornography causes stress and increases the risk for developing negative attitudes about the nature and purpose of human sexuality.  For adolescents who view pornography, their attitudes toward their own and others’ sexuality change, and their sexual expectations and behavior are shaped accordingly.  For adults, pornography has harmful and even destructive effects on marriage.

Impact on Children

The impact of a parent’s use of pornography on young children is varied and disturbing.  Pornography eliminates the warmth of affectionate family life, which is the natural social nutrient for a growing child.  Other losses and traumas related to the use of pornography when a child is young include:

  • encountering pornographic material a parent has acquired;
  • encountering a parent masturbating;
  • overhearing a parent engaged in “phone sex”;
  • witnessing and experiencing stress in the home caused by online sexual activities;
  • increased risk of the children becoming consumers of pornography themselves;
  • witnessing and being involved in parental conflict;
  • exposure to the commodification of human beings, especially women, as “sex objects”;
  • increased risk of parental job loss and financial strain;
  • increased risk of parental separation and divorce;
  • decreased parental time and attention—both from the pornography-addicted parent and from the parent preoccupied with the addicted spouse.195

Also, parents may disclose their struggle with the addiction to pornography to their children, intentionally or unintentionally, thereby distorting their children’s sexual development.196

Impact on Adolescents

Pornography viewing among teenagers disorients them during that developmental phase when they have to learn how to handle their sexuality and when they are most vulnerable to uncertainty about their sexual beliefs and moral values.199  A study of 2,343 adolescents found that sexually explicit Internet material significantly increased their uncertainties about sexuality.220  The study also showed that increased exposure to sexually explicit Internet material increased favorable attitudes toward sexual exploration with others outside of marriage and decreased marital commitment to the other spouse.250  Another study by Todd G. Morrison, professor of psychology at the University of Saskatchewan, and colleagues found that adolescents exposed to high levels of pornography had lower levels of sexual self-esteem.251

A significant relationship also exists between frequent pornography use and feelings of loneliness, including major depression.252 253

Finally, viewing pornography can engender feelings of shame: In a study of high school students, the majority of those who had viewed pornography felt some degree of shame for viewing it.  However, 36 percent of males and 26 percent of females said they were never ashamed of viewing pornography,254 giving some idea of the level of desensitization already reached in society.

High adolescent consumption of pornography also affects behavior.  Male pornography use is linked to significantly increased sexual intercourse with non-romantic friends,255 and is likely a correlate of the so-called “hook-up” culture.

Exposure to pornographic sexual content can be a significant factor in teenage pregnancy.  A three year longitudinal study of teenagers found that frequent exposure to televised sexual content was related to a substantially greater likelihood of teenage pregnancy within the succeeding three years.  This same study also found that the likelihood of teenage pregnancy was two times greater when the quantity of that sexual content exposure, within the viewing episodes, was high rather than low.256

Impact on Marriage

Marital Dissatisfaction

Pornography use undermines marital relations and distresses wives.257  Husbands report loving their spouses less after long periods of looking at (and desiring) women depicted in pornography.258

In many cases, the wives of pornography users also develop deep psychological wounds, commonly reporting feelings of betrayal, loss, mistrust, devastation, and anger in responses to the discovery or disclosure of a partner’s pornographic online sexual activity.259

Wives can begin to feel unattractive or sexually inadequate and may become severely depressed when they realize their husbands view pornography.260  The distress level in wives may be so high as to require clinical treatment for trauma, not mere discomfort.261

Viewers of pornography assign increased importance to sexual relations without emotional involvement,262 and consequently, wives experience decreased intimacy from their husbands.263

The emotional distance fostered by pornography and “cybersex” (interactive computer contact with another regarding pornographic sexual issues) can often be just as damaging to the relationship as real-life infidelity,264 and both men and women tend to put online sexual activity in the same category as having an affair.265  The estrangement between spouses wrought by pornography can have tangible consequences as well: when the viewing of pornography rises to the level of addiction, 40 percent of “sex addicts” lose their spouses, 58 percent suffer considerable financial losses, and about a third lose their jobs.266

In a study on the effects of “cybersex”—a form of sexually explicit interaction between two people on the Internet—researchers found that more than half of those engaged in “cybersex” had lost interest in sexual intercourse, while one-third of their partners had lost interest as well, while in one-fifth of the couples both husband and wife or both partners had a significantly decreased interest in sexual intercourse.  Stated differently, this study showed that only one-third of couples maintained an interest in sexual relations with one another when one partner was engaged in “cybersex.” 267

Prolonged exposure to pornography also fosters dissatisfaction with, and even distate for, a spouse’s affection.268  Cynical attitudes regarding love begin to emerge, and “superior sexual pleasures are thought attainable without affection toward partners.”269  These consequences hold for both men and women who have had prolonged exposure to pornography, with the decline in sexual happiness being primarily due to the growing dissatisfaction with the spouse’s normal sexual behavior.270

Finally, pornography users increasingly see the institution of marriage as sexually confining,271 have diminished belief in the importance of marital faithfulness,272 and have increasing doubts about the value of marriage as an essential social institution and further doubts about its future viability.273  All this naturally diminishes the importance for them of having good family relations in their own families.274

Increased Infidelity

Dolf Zillman of the University of Alabama, in one study of adolescents, shows that the steady use of pornography frequently leads to abandonment of fidelity to their girlfriends.275  Steven Stack of Wayne State University and colleagues later showed that pornography use increased the marital infidelity rate by more than 300 percent.276  Another study found a strong correlation between viewing Internet pornography and sexually permissive behavior.277  Stack’s study found that Internet pornography use is 3.7 times greater among those who procure sexual relations with a prostitute than among those who do not.278

“Cybersex” pornography also leads to much higher levels of infidelity among women.  Women who engaged in “cybersex” had about 40 percent more offline sexual partners than women who did not engage in cybersex.279

Separation and Divorce

Given the research already cited, it is not surprising that addiction to pornography is a contributor to separation and divorce.  In the best study to date (a very rudimentary opportunity study of reports by divorce lawyers on the most salient factors present in the divorce cases they handled), 68 percent of divorce cases involved one party meeting a new paramour over the Internet, 56 percent involved “one party having an obsessive interest in pornographic websites,” 47 percent involved “spending excessive time on the computer,” and 33 percent involved spending excessive time in chat rooms (a commonly sexualized forum).280  Cybersex, which often takes place in these chat rooms, was a major factor in separation and divorce:  In over 22 percent of the couples observed the spouse was no longer living with the “cybersex” addict, and in many of the other cases spouses were seriously considering leaving the marriage or relationship.281

Differences Between Men and Women

Pornography affects both men and women.  However there are significant differences between men and women on the likelihood of using pornography, the types of pornography used, and their feelings about pornography.

Different Rates of Use and Different Types of Use

Men and women use pornography differently.  Men are more than six times as likely to view pornography as females,282 and more likely to spend more time viewing it.

In a study of self-identified female ”cybersex” addicts, women reported that they preferred engaging in “cybersex” within the context of a relationship (via email or chat room) rather than accessing pornographic images.  This preference may contribute to the significant difference one study found in the proportion of women who have real-life sexual encounters with their online companions compared to men.  It found that 80 percent of women who engaged in these online sexual activities also had real-life sexual encounters with their online partners, compared to the much lower proportion of 33 percent for men.283  Also, as stated above, such women are much more likely to have had very high numbers of such sexual encounters and partners.284  However in another study, this time of men who flirted in Internet chat rooms, 78 percent reported they had at least one face-to-face sexual experience with someone they had met through a chat room in the past year.285  Thus, it seems that a very high proportion of both men and women who engage in “cybersex” may go on to have physical sexual encounters with their online partners.

A study of sex-addicted men also found that 43 percent used online sexual activity to engage in sexual activities they would never otherwise perform.286  Similarly, self reports also reveal that the tendency to explore new behaviors in “offline” relationships increases with increased online sexual activity.287

Different Reactions to Different Infidelities

The way men and women view infidelity is very different.  One study, using undergraduates from a large university in Northern Ireland, investigated how men and women perceive online and offline sexual and emotional infidelity.  When forced to decide, men were more upset by sexual infidelity and women by emotional infidelity.  Only 23 percent of women claimed they would be more bothered by sexual infidelity, compared to the 77 percent of women who would be more bothered by emotional infidelity.  Males felt the opposite way.  Eighty-four percent of the men reported they would be more bothered by sexual infidelity, whereas only 16 percent say they would be more bothered by emotional infidelity.288

In a study which examined different types of degrading pornography, featuring themes such as “objectification” and “dominance,” both men and women rated the same three major themes as the most degrading of all, but with different intensities: women rated them as even more degrading than men did.289

Individual Consequences

Pornography changes the habits of the mind, the inner private self.  Its use can easily become habitual, which in turn leads to desensitization, boredom, distorted views of reality, and an objectification of women.  A greater amount of sexual stimuli becomes necessary to arouse habitual users, leading them to pursue more deviant forms of pornography to fulfill their sexual desires.

Desensitization, Habituation, and Boredom

Prolonged use of pornography produces habituation,290 boredom, and sexual dissatisfaction among female and male viewers,291 and is associated with more lenient views of extramarital sexual relations and recreational attitudes toward sex.292  A 2000 study of college freshmen found that the habitual use of pornography led to greater tolerance of sexually explicit material, thus requiring more novel and bizarre material to achieve the same level of arousal or interest.293  For example, habituation may lead to watching “depictions of group sex, sadomasochistic practices, and sexual contact with animals,”294 engaging in anal intercourse,295 and trivializing “nonviolent forms of the sexual abuse of children.”296

The pornography industry adapted to this desire for more bizarre and uncommon images.  An analysis of the content of Playboy, Penthouse, and Hustler from the years 1953 to 1984 revealed 6,004 child images and an additional 14,854 images depicting crime or violence.  Furthermore, nearly two-thirds of the child images were sexual and violent, with most of the images displaying girls between the ages of three and eleven years of age.  Each of these magazines portrayed the scenes involving children as though the child had been unharmed by the sexual scene or even benefited from it.297

Heavy exposure to pornography leads men to judge their mates as sexually less attractive,298 resulting in less satisfaction with their affection, physical appearance, and sexual behavior.299  The need for more intense sexual stimulation brought on by pornography can lead to boredom in normal relationships and a greater likelihood of seeking sexual pleasure outside of marriage.  Repeated exposure to pornography leads the viewer to consider “recreational sexual engagements” as increasingly important,300 and changes the viewer to being very accepting of sexual permissiveness.301

Distorted Perception of Reality

Pornography presents sexual access as relentless, “a sporting event that amounts to innocent fun” with inconsequential effects on emotions, perceptions, and health.302  This is not the case, however.  Pornography leads to distorted perceptions of social reality: an exaggerated perception of the level of sexual activity in the general population,303 an inflated estimate “of the incidence of premarital and extramarital sexual activity, as well as increased assessment of male and female promiscuity,” “an overestimation of almost all sexual activities performed by sexually active adults,”304 and an overestimation of the general prevalence of perversions such as group sex, bestiality, and sadomasochistic activity.305  Thus the beliefs being formed in the mind of the viewer of pornography are far removed from reality.  A case could be made that repeated viewing of pornography induces a mental illness in matters sexual.

These distortions result in an acceptance of three beliefs: (1) sexual relationships are recreational in nature, (2) men are generally sexually driven, and (3) women are sex objects or commodities.306  These are called “permission-giving beliefs” because they result in assumptions that one’s behavior is normal, acceptable, and commonplace, and thus not hurtful to anyone else.307  These beliefs are deepened and reinforced by masturbation while viewing pornography,308 a frequent practice among those who use pornography to deal with stress.309

When male and female viewers do not believe that exposure to pornography has any effect upon their personal views or lives,310 they more readily internalize abnormal sexual attitudes and increase the likelihood that they will engage in perverse sexual behaviors.311

All of these distortions amount to a serious misunderstanding about sexuality and relationships and are a dangerous distortion of the nature of social life.312  Those who perceive pornographic sexual scenes as depicting reality tend to be more accepting of sexual permissiveness than others.313  Prolonged exposure to pornography fosters the belief that sexual inactivity constitutes a health risk.314

Objectification and Degradation of Women

Pornography fosters the idea that the degradation of women is acceptable.  Since males use pornography much more frequently than females,315 exposure to sexual and even semi-sexual material from the Internet, magazines, and television is associated with stronger notions that women are sex objects or sexual commodities.316  Men thus exposed are more likely to describe women in overtly sexual terms, rather than by other personal attributes.317

A study of widely distributed x-rated films by Gloria Cowan and colleagues, professors of psychology at California State University, San Bernardino, determined the range and extent of domination and sexual inequality depicted of women in a random selection of movies in family video rental stores in California.  Physical aggression was present in 73 percent of the films, and rape scenes were present in 51 percent, with the woman as the victim every time.  The films depicted gender-role inequalities as well, typically portraying the men as professionals and the women as school girls, secretaries, or housewives.318  During the sexual scenes, the man usually remained at least partially clothed, whereas the woman was usually naked.319

Pornographic films also degrade women through “rape myth acceptance” scenes, which depict women being raped and ultimately enjoying the experience.  These scenes foster the belief that women really “want” to be raped.  Jeannette Norris of the University of Washington conducted a study in which a group of students read two versions of the same story depicting a woman being raped.  The story, however, had two different endings: one version ended with the woman deeply distressed, the other ended with the woman seeming to enjoy herself.  Even though the two stories were identical in every way except for the woman’s reaction at the end, the students viewed the scenario more positively when the story depicted the woman as enjoying the rape.  They perceived the raped woman as having a greater “desire” to have sex and were thus more accepting of what the man had done.320

Similar results emerge in assessments of college men.  Sarah Murnen of Kenyon College, Ohio found that fraternity members, who displayed many more pornographic pictures of women in their rooms than those from the non-fraternity group, had more positive attitudes toward rape.321

Women tend to view pornography as more degrading of women than men do.  When a sample of students was asked about their feelings toward pornography, 72 percent of the young women but only 23 percent of the young men stated their feelings were negative.  Moreover, when asked if pornography is degrading, almost 90 percent of young women but only 65 percent of young men agreed that pornography is degrading.322

After prolonged exposure to pornography, men especially, but also some women, trivialize rape as a criminal offense.323

Whether they think pornography is degrading or not, women who view pornography regularly unwittingly engage in a form of self degradation: they develop a negative body image about themselves because they do not measure up to the depictions in the pornographic materials.324

Clinical Consequences

Pornography consumption has more than just psychological and familial ramifications.  There are numerous clinical consequences to pornography use, including increased risk for significant physical and mental health problems and a greater likelihood of committing a sex-based crime.

Sexually Transmitted Diseases and Out-of-Wedlock Pregnancies

Since pornography encourages sexually permissive attitudes and behavior, users of pornography have a higher likelihood of contracting a sexually transmitted disease or fathering an out-of-wedlock pregnancy.  Pornography’s frequent depiction of intercourse without condoms (87 percent of the time) is an invitation for the promiscuous to contract a sexually transmitted disease,325 to have a child out of wedlock and to have multiple sex partners.326  Pornography also promotes sexual compulsiveness, which doubles the likelihood of being infected with a sexually transmitted disease.327

Sexual Addiction

Pornography and “cybersex” are highly addictive and can lead to sexually compulsive behaviors (that decrease a person’s capacity to perform other major tasks in life).  Over 90 percent of therapists surveyed in one study believed that a person could become addicted to “cybersex.”328  In an American survey, 57 percent of frequent viewers used online sexual activity to deal with stress.329  A 2006 Swedish study of regular Internet pornography users found that about six percent were compulsive users and that these compulsives also used much more non-Internet pornography as well.330

Addictive pornography use leads to lower self-esteem and a weakened ability to carry out a meaningful social and work life.  A survey of pornography addicts found that they disliked the “out of control” feeling and the time consumption that their pornography use engendered.  All of the sexual compulsives reported they had felt distressed and experienced impairment in an important aspect of their lives as a result of their addiction.  Almost half of the sexual compulsives said their behavior had significant negative results in their social lives, and a quarter reported negative effects on their job.331  In another survey, sexual compulsives and sexual addicts were 23 times more likely than those without a problem to state that discovering online sexual material was the worst thing that had ever happened in their life.332  No wonder then that severe clinical depression was reported twice as frequently among Internet pornography users compared to non-users.333

Aggression and Abuse

Intense use of pornography is strongly related to sexual aggression,334 and among frequent viewers of pornography, there is a marked increase in sexual callousness, including the “rape myth acceptance” noted above.335

A significant portion of pornography is violent in content.  A study of different pornographic media found violence in almost a quarter of magazine scenes, in more than a quarter of video scenes, and in almost half (over 42 percent) of online pornography.  A second study found that almost half the violent Internet scenes included nonconsensual sex.336

The data suggest “a modest connection between exposure to pornography and subsequent behavioral aggression,”337 though when men consume violent pornography (i.e. depicting rape or torture), they are more likely to commit acts of sexual aggression.338  Dangerously, pornography strongly affects psychotic men, who are more likely to act out their impulses.339

Consumption of nonviolent pornography also increases men’s self-acknowledged willingness to force compliance with their particular sexual desires on reluctant partners.340  And though there are conflicting data on the relative effects of violent versus non-violent pornography,341 there is little doubt that the consumption of pornography leads to a significant increase in “rape myth acceptance,”342 which involves a reduction of sympathy with rape victims and a trivialization of rape as a criminal offense,343 a diminished concern about child sexual abuse, short of the rape of children,344 and an increased preparedness to resort to rape.345

One study at a rape crisis center interviewed 100 sexually abused women to determine if pornography played a role in any past incidences of sexual abuse.  While 58 percent could not say, 28 percent stated that their abuser had in fact used pornography.  Of this 28 percent (women who were aware that their abuser used pornography), 40 percent (or 11 percent of the total group) reported that pornography actually played a role in the abusive incident they experienced.  In some cases the abuser had watched pornography before abusing the woman, in one case he used pornography while committing the abuse, and in yet some other cases he forced his victim to participate in the making of a pornographic film.346

Sex Offenders and Pornography

Pornography viewing and sexual offense are inextricably linked.

One study of convicted Internet sexual offenders reported that they spent more than eleven hours per week viewing pornographic images of children on the Internet.347  Another study compared two groups of offenders: those convicted of Internet collection and distribution of child pornography images, and those who commit real life child sex abuse.  The results showed that a majority of those who were convicted of only Internet-based offenses also had committed real life sexual abuse of children.  Moreover the study also found that real life offenders had committed an average of over thirteen different child sex abuse offenses, irrespective of whether they had formally been convicted of any real life incident.348

A study of sex offenders and non-offenders revealed significant differences in adolescent pornography use as well as current use.  Significant proportions of different types of rapists and molesters had used hard-core pornography (depictions of non-consensual acts) during their adolescence: 33 percent of heterosexual child molesters, 39 percent of homosexual child molesters, and 33 percent of rapists.  The current use of hard core pornography was even greater for these groups: 67 percent of heterosexual child molesters, 67 percent of homosexual child molesters, and 83 percent of rapists, contrasted with 29 percent of non-offending pornography viewers.  About a third of the sex offenders reported using pornography as a deliberate stimulus to commit their sexual offenses.349

Another study examined the beliefs of three groups: real life, “contact-only”child sex offenders, Internet-only child sex offenders, and mixed offenders (contact and Internet).  While all groups were more likely to minimize the gravity of their offense, the Internet-only group was more likely than the contact-only group to think that children could make their own decisions on sexual involvement and to believe that some children wanted, even eagerly wanted, sexual activity with an adult.350

Pornography and New Findings in Neurology

The neurological study of pornography is still in its infancy, but neurophysiology provides insight into pornography’s power to form the cognitive and emotional habits of the user.  As is becoming clear from many different areas of neurological study, repetition of an act establishes new neural pathways, thus facilitating the retention of these behaviors.351

Other research is uncovering the link between dopamine, a hormone that produces feelings of pleasure, and the effect that a pornographic image has.  PET scans (a nuclear medicine three-dimensional imaging technique) of both pornography-addicted adults and non-addicted adults viewing pornography show brain reactions for both groups similar to cocaine addicts looking at images of people taking cocaine.352  Findings such as these have led scholars to posit that “emotionally arousing images imprint and alter the brain, triggering an instant, involuntary, but lasting, biochemical memory trail.”353  A small experimental indication of this type of imprinting occurred in one study where participants saw a board of words that were either sexual or neutral.  All participants retained more sexual words than neutral words, but pornography consumers retained even higher amounts of sexual words.354

Treatment programs for sex offenders and pornography addicts, designed to break patterns of deriving pleasure from viewing pornography, use a technique called “safeguarding.”  “Safeguards” are negative thoughts used to interrupt sexual fantasies.  Whenever patients have sexual fantasies, they are taught to think of a safeguard; for example, they may produce a mental image of bugs crawling on them, a public address system broadcasting their thoughts, or an image of a police officer watching their sexual behavior.  Through this method, participants learn to interrupt their fantasies355 and, it is thought, gradually displace the old neurological pathway with a different and safer one.

Adolescent Exposure to Pornography in the Media

The phenomenal growth of mass media during the late 20th century, and particularly the establishment of the Internet, has vastly increased accessibility to pornography and other sexually-related information.  This creates a major obstacle to the healthy development of sexuality, especially among youth.

Adolescents and Pornography

Though most U.S. parents (78 percent) are worried about their adolescents accessing Internet pornography, not all teenagers readily take to this sexualized culture.  Most start out being ill at ease with any display of pornography: they tend to be upset or embarrassed,356 with reactions ranging from fear to shame to anger to fascination.357 In one survey, about a quarter were “very” upset by this exposure,358 but they tend not to report it.359

Adolescents often come across pornography accidentally on the Internet.  One study found that 70 percent of youth aged 15 to 17 accidentally came across pornography online.360  A study of 1,501 youth aged ten to seventeen examined unwanted exposure incidents more thoroughly: in 26 percent of the cases, respondents reported that when they tried to exit an unwanted site, they were actually brought to an additional sex site.361  The same study showed that out of the total number of unwanted exposure incidents, 44 percent of the time the youth did not disclose the episode to anyone else.362

These initial reactions of disgust, however, rapidly dissipate so that older adolescents tend to use sexually explicit Internet material more often than younger adolescents363 and are twice as likely to report intentional pornography use as are younger adolescents.364  Repeated exposure to pornography eventually wipes out any feelings of shame and disgust and gives way, instead, to unadulterated enjoyment.365

A 2005 survey showed that respondents who reported unintentional exposure to pornography were over 2.5 times as likely to then report intentional exposure as those who did not report any unintentional exposure.366  It seems the unintentional exposure has its effect of bringing them back for more, which of course is one of the fears of parents.

Several factors predict an adolescent’s use of pornography.  Teenagers who watch pornography more frequently tend to be high sensation seekers, less satisfied with their lives, have a fast Internet connection, and have friends who are younger.367  Adolescents are at greater risk for intentionally seeking out sexual material when they have high levels of computer use.  The more time spent on the computer, the more likely these adolescents will search for sexually explicit content.368  Not surprisingly, given all that has already been reported, viewers who masturbate while viewing sexually explicit material assess the material more favorably than those who do not masturbate.369

There is a difference between boys’ and girls’ reasons for seeking pornographic sites, differences that parallel the different patterns of adult male and female use of pornography.  Boys tend to seek pornography initially because they are curious or want sexual arousal, while girls tend first to go to non-pornographic but sexually oriented sites for sexual health or relationship-related information.370  Also, the impacts are different for boys and girls: males report more positive memories of sexually explicit material than females,371 and report “more positive attitudes toward uncommitted sexual exploration” as their use of pornography increases.372  In one study, adolescents who watched the highest level of sexual content on television doubled the likelihood they would initiate intercourse.373

The Protective Role of Parental Involvement

Although U.S. adolescents indicate their preferred source of sexual information is their parents, more than half of them report they have learned about intercourse, pregnancy, and birth control from television, and half of teenage women report they first learned about intercourse from magazines.374

A study of 1,300 eight- to thirteen-year-old girls found that, among those who engaged in “cybersex,” 95 percent of the parents were completely unaware of their children’s involvement.375  Compared to adolescents who do not search for pornography online, adolescents who search for pornography online are about three times as likely to have parents who do not monitor their behavior at all (or very little).  Compared to those who do not seek out pornography, those who seek Internet pornography are three times as likely to give a poor rating of their attachment to their parent.376

Clearly there is a lot that parents can do, but it takes a good family life, lots of communication with the adolescent, and a relationship that permits such communication about such an anxiety-provoking topic.

We move now to matters far outside the family.

The Effect of Sexually Oriented Businesses on Their Surroundings

Sexually oriented businesses (SOBs) – pornography stores and strip clubs – deleteriously affect their surrounding communities.  For instance, SOBs along Garden Grove Boulevard in California contributed to 36 percent of all crime in that area.377  A similar study in Centralia, Washington found that, after an SOB opened, the serious crime rate rose significantly in the vicinity of the SOB’s address.378  Findings such as these generally come from studies commissioned by cities to measure the incidence of the eight serious crimes of the Uniform Crime Reports: homicide, rape, assault, robbery, burglary, theft, auto theft, and arson.379

SOBs have been found to cause more crime than non-sexually oriented nightclubs and bars.  A report from Daytona Beach, Florida found that SOB neighborhoods have 270 percent more total crime than non-SOB control neighborhoods and 180 percent more than non-SOB neighborhoods with “taverns.”380  A study in Adams County, Colorado found that 83 percent of crimes in a neighborhood featuring two adult businesses were connected to those adult businesses.381

SOBs can also act as centers for crime.  In Houston, Texas, more than 517 arrests took place within 12 months at SOBs, 50 at one SOB alone.382

A study of SOBs in Phoenix, Arizona found that the number of sex offenses was 506 percent greater in a neighborhood containing a SOB.383  Sexual deviants are attracted to these areas, intending to pay for sexual pleasures.  The forbidden partners they desire include children, the invalid, and the elderly.384

The transmission of STDs is also commonplace at many SOBs.  Pennsylvania’s attorney general closed several Philadelphia SOBs because patrons created a serious public health risk by regularly engaging in unprotected sexual activity inside the video booths, promoting the spread of HIV, hepatitis B, and other STDs.385  The numbers of incidences may be higher than reported to police (and thus used in these studies) because many victims are reluctant to report crimes committed against them while at SOBs.  This reluctance makes many patrons easy prey for criminals.

SOBs affect property values as well.  The closer a property is to an SOB, the more its value depreciates.  A study of owners of commercial property or their owners from Dallas, Texas found that all concluded that SOBs drastically decrease property value.  Property sales were significantly lower at $1.50 to $7 per square foot in areas in close proximity to SOBs, compared to $10 to $12 per square foot a mile away from SOBs.386

The close proximity of SOBs to neighborhoods leads to a greater exposure of children to pornographic material.387  In Denver, Colorado, an investigation into the adverse secondary effects of SOBs on surrounding neighborhoods found large amounts of litter in these neighborhoods that included pornographic images, sex paraphernalia, used condoms, and used syringes.388

The devaluation of people and property by SOBs has not gone unnoticed by the courts, which have consistently afforded substantial deference to government entities seeking to regulate adverse secondary effects associated with SOBs.  The U.S. Supreme Court has held that a jurisdiction need not conduct its own study, but may rely on relevant studies and evidence produced by other jurisdictions.389  The Court has also recognized that common experience and case law can be relevant factors in support of SOB regulation.390

Conclusion: Pornography in the Context of Modernity’s Social and Sexual Problems

Contemporary society is alarmingly sexualized, and the traditional sexual taboos of a well-functioning society have broken down.  Nearly two-thirds of United States high-school students have had sexual intercourse by grade twelve.391  Of these sexually active high-schoolers, 70 percent of females and 55 percent of males report that they wish they had waited instead.392  These numbers have massive implications for the future of the American family, for of women who have had three sexual partners other than their eventual husband, only 39 percent will be in a stable marriage by their mid-thirties.393  In 2007, 20 percent of U.S. girls in grade 12 already have had sexual intercourse with four or more partners.394  The vast majority of their children will grow up without their fathers present.

As the empirical data make clear, pornography further misshapes this already dysfunctional sexuality, and the consumption of pornography can become a destructive addiction as well.  This sexual malformation not only affects the consumer of pornography, but also weakens those close to him or her.  Habitual consumption of pornography can break down the relational substrates of human life and interaction—family, friends and society.

As such, reinforcing these relationships is the surest guard against such destructive sexual tendencies.

The closer adult men were to their fathers growing up, the fewer non-marital sexual behaviors they engage in and the greater their levels of marital happiness and family satisfaction.395  The proportion of adolescents who rate their fathers as very close to them is highest among those from intact married families (40 percent) and lowest among those from single-parent families (three percent).396

Society benefits when it fosters a healthy sexuality.  Human beings are healthiest and happiest when they are monogamous (only one sexual partner in a lifetime), and that happiness is directly related to monogamy’s long-term stability and exclusivity.397

Healthy relationships yield additional positive sexual outcomes.  Some research indicates that married couples have the most frequent, and Conservative Protestant women have the most enjoyable, sexual relations.398  The supreme and tragic irony is that, while the desire for the highest levels of sexual fulfillment are likely the motive for many adolescents’ first peek into pornography, the attainment of that universal longing is most likely to be had through monogamy and regular participation in religious worship.

These insights, until recently, were common social assumptions and institutionalized patterns.  Until the dawn of the sexual revolution and, later, the digital age, they were reflected in a public opprobrium of pornography.  One 1994 study found that 71 percent favored a total ban on sexually violent movies and 77 percent a total ban on sexually violent magazines.  Only eight percent thought that there should be no restrictions on the former, and only three percent thought there should be no restrictions on the latter.  Concerning merely sexually explicit magazines, less than 10 percent thought there should be no restrictions on the material.399

The cultural censure of disordered sexuality that enables stable family life has faded with the proliferation of Internet pornography.  As a result, the effects of hyper-sexualization permeate society.400  Today’s youth are reaching puberty earlier, engaging in sexual intercourse sooner, while “Emerging Adults” are cohabiting more, having children out of wedlock,and getting married significantly later or not at all.

The key to militating against these damaging patterns and to protecting against the effects of pornography is to foster relationships of affection and attachment in family.  The first and most important relationship is between the father and the mother.  The second is engaged parents who love their children.  In today’s technological society, this means limiting, monitoring, and directing their children’s Internet use.  This, in turn, provides an invaluable shield against Internet pornography, and allows room for a healthy sexuality to unfold in a natural and socially supported way.  In our over-sexualized culture, with a longer pre-marriage period, children need the capacity for abstinence if their sexuality is to be channeled into stable marriage, procreation, and healthy family life for their children.  Strong families remain the best defense against the negative effects of pornography, especially when aided by regular religious worship with all the benefits it brings.401

Finally, the fundamental role of government (including the courts) is to protect innocent citizens, most especially children and adolescents, and to protect the sound functioning of the basic institutions of family, church, school, marketplace, and government.  They are all interdependent.  Pornography, clearly, undermines both marriage and the family, and has a host of ill effects.  It is time for government to reassess its laissez-faire attitude towards the proliferation of pornography, especially on the Internet.

Our present and future families need protection from this insidious enemy of love, affection, and of family and social stability.

 

——

The author acknowledges his debt to Drs. Jill Manning, Stephanie Sargeant-Weaver and James B. Weaver III without whose reviews of the literature, Senate Testimonies and pointers towards the underlying studies he could not have prepared this paper.  Their work suffuses the whole project. These reviews include Jill C. Manning, “The Impact of Internet Pornography on Marriage and the Family: A Review of the Research,” Sexual Addiction & Compulsivity 13 (2006): 131-65; Stephanie Sargent-Weaver,  “The Effects of Teens’ Exposure to Sexually Explicit Materials on the Internet: Synthesis of the Research and Implications for Future Research;” and James B. Weaver III, “The Effects of Pornography Addiction on Families and Communities,” presented before the Subcommittee on Science, Technology, and Space of the Senate Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation, Washington, DC (November 18, 2004). Jill Manning’s Senate Testimony, from which more of this paper has been drawn than from any other source, is highly recommended for its comprehensiveness and can be found at http://www.heritage.org/Research/Family/upload/85273_1.pdf (Retrieved Jan 19 2009).

 

 

Crafting Employee Health Plans for Catholic Institutions

/in , /by
Click here for PDF

In the last few years, the Catholic Church and its Catholic institutions have faced attacks through legislation and judicial activism, which are increasingly coming in the form of mandates for health insurance “benefits” that support immoral behavior but not medical necessities. The most recent instances in the news include the federal Equal Opportunity Employment Commission’s (EEOC) ruling against Belmont Abbey College and Wisconsin’s mandate forcing even Catholic employers to provide contraception coverage. Both are extremely troubling though not unexpected in to- day’s increasingly secular environment.

This paper is written from my experience building employee health plans for more than 50 Catholic employers, including several dioceses and religious orders. I do not write from a legal perspective. My concern is finding insurance solutions that avoid the problems of religious discrimination and violations of conscience—“real world” solutions that can be implemented today. Legal advice is also important, but it often only answers one question without examining the non-legal consequences of recommended actions. Health insurance experts like me who work every day with the Church must be concerned with reality and practicality, and not only what is permissible under the law.

The State of Affairs

Let us first consider the moral issues on which Catholic institutions are being at- tacked and which have a current or potential impact on medical insurance. These are many and growing: contraception, abortion, domestic partners, same-sex marriages, “gender reassignments,” sex-change operations, sterilization, stem cell research, in vitro fertilization and several other issues.

The attacks come primarily from two fronts, legislation and judicial activism. The activism is often coordinated and well-funded by Planned Parenthood, the American Civil Liberties Union and others who view the Church and its moral principles as dangerous obstacles that must be eliminated from public policy decisions.

In response to these attacks, the Church’s lawyers typically argue that the constitutional right of religious freedom should protect “religious” institutions from new laws and lawsuits. However, the reality is that it is very expensive to defend an institution in court, and there is significant risk of losing a court battle. The Supreme Courts of California and New York have issued rulings that are very troubling for Catholic institutions, and thus far the U.S. Supreme Court has not enforced First Amendment rights in these situations.

How “Catholic” must a college, hospital or other entity be to qualify for religious exemptions from health insurance mandates? Unfortunately several laws and rulings have denied a religious exclusion because of things like:

  1.  Too many employees are not Catholic.
  2.  Too many people served are not Catholic.
  3.  The institution takes federal funds.

This may be oversimplified, but it makes the point. Catholic charities, hospitals and colleges are going to be in great difficulty with these rulings, even in states that have religious exemptions written into the laws. The courts are defining religious institutions so narrowly, it sometimes seems only a cloistered convent might qualify.

A particularly dangerous line of attack is employee complaints and “discrimination” lawsuits, alleging that by not providing morally offensive “benefits,” employers are discriminatory to women. This is the heart of the Belmont Abbey case. The argument is that by not covering contraception, an employer discriminates against women since they bear a higher burden and cost for birth control. There have been several rulings by the EEOC along these lines, and it is likely that in the current political climate there will be more of this, not less.

Additionally, Catholic institutions can anticipate great difficulties with regard to insuring legally married same-sex couples. While many have argued that the Defense of Marriage Act provides some protection, this law is being challenged on many levels, and Catholic employers should plan for the worst and expect lawsuits in this area.

Designing Catholic Health Plans

The Catholic Church and its institutions will inevitably and increasingly face legal battles, but must act now to make changes that help protect health plans. At the risk of oversimplifying a complex task that requires professional advice, what follows are a few recommendations for Catholic employers.

Plan ahead and stop being reactionary with regard to health insurance. Assume that your institution’s Catholic principles will be challenged eventually; it is not a matter of “if ” but “when” in today’s increasingly secular society. To be safe your institution must have a specifically Catholic health plan in place, not an off-the-shelf product.

Commit today to take a few hours up front dealing correctly with health insurance, first by reading and understanding what your existing policy actually covers. Many Catholic institutions will be surprised by what they find. It helps to have professional assistance, because often the offensive benefits are hidden in vague language and technical insurance terms.

Consider the Belmont Abbey situation. Their health insurer reportedly added contraception coverage without their knowledge, which was readily apparent when officials read the plan documents. However, to be honest, officials and even human resources staff often fail to read such documents in their entirety. The documents are dry and boring and have paragraph after paragraph of highly technical insurance contract language. Unfortunately the consequence of a mistake could be spending hundreds of hours playing defense in a legal system that is not always friendly to Catholic concerns.

When designing or revising your employee health plan, ensure that it is regulated by federal law and not state law, by “self-funding” if at all possible. Almost all state- regulated, fully insured plans are deficient in protecting Catholic institutions. Currently 23 states have mandated contraception coverage. When provisions for abortion, sterilization, in vitro fertilization and same-sex couples are considered, more than half of the states have morally objectionable mandates. The remaining states are constantly moving in the same secular direction. Even in states that do not have these morally objectionable mandates, Catholic institutions are not likely to be safe for the long term in state-regulated insurance plans.

Federal regulation of medical insurance began in 1974 with the Employment Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA), which covers “self-funded” insurance. A section of ERISA specifically provides for “church plans” that generally do not have to pay for morally objectionable “benefits.”

To avoid state regulation, the real-world answer is to “self fund.” That means that instead of paying a fixed premium every month to an insurance company that accepts all the risk of claims, the employer agrees to share the risk. The employer financially “participates” in the cost of the employees’ medical claims. Does this mean that a self- funded plan is riskier than the alternative? Not necessarily. Any insurance plan can have zero risk or a large amount of risk—the latter can include a fully insured plan with a high deductible that the employer reimburses. But many Catholic institutions do not have the resources to gamble on high-risk plans.

In layman’s terms, here is how self-funding works. A plan document is written specifying what the plan pays for. The employee has a plastic card that looks and works just like a fully insured plan. A hired third-party administrator receives and pays claims from the doctors and other health care providers. In a “pure” self funded plan, the administrator would simply bill the employer for the cost of claims plus administrative costs, but few have a plan like that.

More commonly, an employer will purchase an insurance contract to limit the risk per insured on the plan. The employer is now responsible for only the first “X” dollars in claims per person, called the “stop loss” deductible. A large conglomerate might have a $100,000 stop loss deductible; but a smaller organization may have a risk as low as $25,000 a person. Even then, an institution of 100 employees cannot afford $2.5 million in risk, so they buy another type of stop loss insurance called “aggregate stop loss” to limit the maximum claims of the entire group. Aggregate allows the institution to budget, since it now has a firm cap and maximum risk if claims go out of control. If claims are less than the maximum, the employer keeps the funds instead of the insurer.

The bottom line is that self funded does not have to mean unlimited risk. With careful planning many if not most Catholic organizations should be able to find a way to do this.

Getting It Right

Even though I recommend getting out from under state regulation if possible, Catholic employers should not run out and self-fund unless they do it correctly. Many dioceses have had very bad experiences with self-funding, because their advisors were not sufficiently knowledgeable about “church plans,” how to use appropriate language and structure, and other practical details. Self-funding is not bad by itself, but every detail must be considered to avoid serious difficulties.

For instance, consider cash flow: many Catholic institutions are not wealthy, but most stop loss insurance requires them to pay the costs up front and get reimbursed at a later date. For institutions in this position, a third type of insurance, “cash flow protection,” is available to limit employer up-front costs to an annual cap divided by 12 months. It is added protection that many insurance advisors are not always aware of, because their experience with self-funded plans may have been primarily with larger corporations where cash flow is not a primary consideration.

In addition, a “church plan” under federal law must have some very specific language to avoid future challenges. The insurer most likely will not be an expert on Catholic-sensitive language and will offer a boilerplate contract. Do not assume that the Church’s definition of something is the same as the insurer ’s. For instance, the contract must define “family” and other things that may have very different meanings for a Catholic institution and a secular insurer. Every word of the contract must be read and understood, and every exclusion must be examined. You cannot trust that a contract is operating the way your agent, lawyer or other professional claims, unless you read and understand it yourself and consult with a true expert on the very unique needs of Catholic institutions.

The contract needs language controlling when an insurer can add benefits. Several dioceses were recently surprised when they learned the hard way that their insurer had the contractual right to add benefits without their approval. Although the dioceses’ lawyers believed they had a contract that could only be changed on renewal, the insurer had the unilateral right to impose changes—in this case covering contraception in response to a new state law. Thus in the middle of the year the dioceses have a major problem.

Eligibility is also an area where Catholic institutions may run into problems. In the U.S., health insurance is governed by an employer-employee relationship, and insurers expect to see a wage and tax statement showing earnings for each employee. Insurers do not want to cover volunteers who might only be volunteering to gain health insurance because they are ill. But how do we deal with Religious with a vow of poverty? Even if full-time employees, they are not paid; instead their order is often paid for their services. Thus, many Religious and even entire orders have been denied or removed from coverage because they receive no wages. Worse, insurers often do not ask for proof of wages until after the insured has an expensive claim—a terrible time to lose coverage. Again, this is a contractual issue that should be addressed up front.

There are also Catholic Church-specific laws, such as the Downey Amendment, that deal with Medicare for Catholic Religious. It is a very complex law, and most insurers are not even aware of its existence, let alone the application. There has been much confusion that required a ruling by the Center for Medicare Services three years ago, as many dioceses were interpreting the law incorrectly.

There are many more considerations involved in constructing a health plan for Catholic employers. This generally must be done with a custom product, not an off-the-shelf “normal” design. A custom plan often requires the cooperation of the insurer, filing with regulatory agencies and complex legal issues.

Split Off Drugs?

It is sometimes recommended that Catholic institutions should split off drugs—that is, have a fully insured health plan and self fund prescription drug claims—in order to avoid government mandates for contraceptives. It is suggested that such a scheme also produces cost savings, sometimes leading to rebates from the insurance companies that offer such standalone drug programs. My experience has shown this not to be the case, and I would advise against it.

Let us look how drugs are purchased by insurance plans. An insurance company will often subcontract portions of an employer ’s health plan including drugs, trans- plants and networks of doctors and hospitals. All these are normal subcontracted functions under the health plan. With regard to prescription drugs, most health plans use the same four pharmacy benefit managers.

Separating out drugs does not generate any cost savings by itself. There are actually several possible negative economic consequences. Many times drugs are not covered under the stop loss agreements if an employer self funds, but this is especially likely if drugs are covered through a separate plan. If the institution has a fully insured medical plan and then self funds the drugs, it could have unlimited drug cost liability. How would the institution budget? What if it has a terrible year? Will it have adequate reserves?

As for avoiding state mandates, self-funding a drug plan alone may not help. Regulators could simply decide that drugs are part of the major medical plan, regardless of the setup. For instance, when a patient is in the hospital, some drugs are covered under the medical plan; when he leaves the hospital and takes the same drugs, they may be covered by the self-funded pharmacy plan. How does the institution explain that inconsistency? The opportunity for misinterpretation by state regulators is great, and a legal fight to argue otherwise could be costly.

My best advice: do not do it. Leave the pharmacy plan to the insurer and take the huge discounts.

Pool Together?

It is also often recommended that Catholic institutions “pool” together for health insurance benefits, but there are many reasons why a pooled plan could be a disaster waiting to happen.

If the goal is to avoid mandates as a religious employer, the courts have indicated that the pooled entity itself must be “Catholic.” Would that new entity qualify for inclusion in the Official Catholic Directory?

And what about linking an institution’s finances with another entity? My firm has several clients that have struggled through the huge time, effort and cost of fighting sexual abuse lawsuits. One has filed for bankruptcy, and the lawyers aggressively sought to “find” money. Does another institution want to intertwine finances with such a troubled entity at this time? What kind of risk does that add? I know that this is a terrible question, but it is an honest, real-world question. Pools have set up separate corporations to try to limit the risk to individual employers, but the more that the pool or self-funded plan is walled off, the less likely that it will be considered “Catholic” by regulators or the courts. The two goals are somewhat at odds with each other.

Another argument for a pool is the opportunity for a volume discount, which in itself is a good idea. However, a good firm can help employers create groups that are financially separate, with different premium levels, yet receive a volume discount. Think about going to the car dealership and pooling with 10 entities for a fleet dis- count, but writing separate checks. It is the same concept, provides the same net result and risks much less liability, since you do not in fact pool assets together.

You may have heard that XYZ Diocese pools together and it works great. Pools do often work great, right up to the day they do not! Consider a real example:

A large Catholic pool run by a secular broker struggled with passing on necessary rate increases, and the trustees did not fund the plan to the level it needed. The plan nearly ran out of money. The dioceses participating in the plan were surprised by a mid-year assessment. Now how do you budget for that?

Ultimately, when an institution is in a pool, it owns all the risk of the whole pool. It is like owning a condo and having the pool leak. Every unit gets assessed money. It does not matter if a participating institution was excellent and had low claims. Pools generally must have the ability to assess or they run the risk of not having funds to pay unexpected or higher-than-expected costs.

Now here is the real mess: How should the pool assess, or make any similar decision? Should it divide the total amount of the assessment by the number of entities in the pool? The larger entities would favor that, but a smaller entity would want the assessment to be apportioned by the number of insureds for each participant.

So assume that everything is pro-rated according to each entity’s number of insureds—then turn the tables. What happens when the pool needs to pick a network of doctors? Back to my real example: The pool decided on a network that was not great for small rural dioceses but excellent for large dioceses. What could the little guys do? They only had 100 votes, while the big member had 50,000.

At some point the pool will not work for a member institution. Typically it is when the institution is very healthy and the pool is sick. The institution’s rates go up, and its trustees want to leave. It cannot afford the huge premiums, and it can go locally for much less. The institution leaves the pool, thus the remaining participants have fewer people to spread the risk of claims. Rates go up, and more participants leave. This drives the rates way up, and eventually the plan collapses. This is classic “adverse selection” as we call it in the insurance industry.

Now there are rare occasions when adverse selection is tempered. There is a state-specific Catholic pool where one health insurer virtually owns the state, due to restrictive laws; this seems to function well.

But that is the exception. The insurance industry tried for years to form pools through “associations.” They almost all lost money and blew up the pools with huge claims. Remember chamber of commerce pools?

Yet another problem with pools is how to get out. They tend to be thrown together for the sake of what often turns out to be short-term cost savings. Rarely do the pool members ask going in, “What are the rules to leave?” The example I have been using had two small entities leave. One had a surplus and its employees were very healthy; it was not allowed to take their surplus with them when they left. Another entity that left had a deficit of several hundred thousand dollars; it was forced to pay the debt to the pool. This institution had not budgeted for that, believing that the premiums they paid were the maximum required.

Let us say that one entity in a pool is knowingly incurring non-eligible expenses or is poor at controlling eligibility. How do other institutions control a pool participant? One bishop or entity cannot tell another what to do. What is the enforcement action? What if the problem participant is costing other institutions money that they really should not be paying? This is real and happens often. The other institutions cannot do much except maybe leave the pool, but under what terms?

Another example: Many dioceses and even some larger independent Catholic institutions do not have centralized payroll. Their sub-units hire and fire, and the master entity has difficulty controlling and keeping track of who should be on the health plan. In such cases there are often people not on the plan who should be, and others who are on the health plan but should not be.

Consider this also: what if the pool fails or too many groups suddenly pull out? A sick group could have a world of problems. Do groups that leave take pending claims with them? Let us say their insured receive one million dollars of health care on December 31, and the group leaves on January 1. Does the group that left “own” the claim legally, or are the remaining groups “stuck” with it? It is typical for many pools to not fully educate, disclose or address these issues, and so many of their member entities do not fully understand their liabilities.

Conclusion

For many institutions, employee health insurance is the second largest expense after payroll. Yet most will spend less time on their health plan than mundane purchases such as computers or telephone plans. Given the increasing dangers to Catholic institutions because of federal and state regulation of employee benefits, it is critical for Catholic institutions to take a fresh look at their health insurance decisions.

This applies especially to the choice of broker. Most institutions consult only with local general practitioner agents. These may be friends, donors or other honest, hard- working people. The problem is they are not experts in this unique and specialized field, lacking the skill sets, abilities and relationships of Catholic-only agencies. They do not devote all or even a substantial part of their time to Catholic institutions and their particular requirements.

Ultimately, to properly construct a “Catholic” health plan, Catholic institutions need an expert. Think of it this way: if your child becomes ill and needs brain surgery, you would never ask a pediatrician to be the surgeon. In situation after situation, problems could have been avoided if a Catholic institution had hired a Catholic-specific firm to stay on top of changes to the law and to the health plan, avoiding future lawsuits.

The bottom line is that today’s legal and policy environment makes it difficult for Catholic institutions to buy “off the shelf ” health insurance that is morally sound. The good news is that there are ways to craft Catholic health plans. To help navigate the complex issues, there are at least three major firms that work only with the Catholic Church and others with particular expertise in designing plans for Catholic institutions.

Contraceptive Mandates and Immoral Cooperation

/in , /by
Click here for PDF

As the largest provider of nongovernmental, nonprofit health care in the United States, Catholic health care is susceptible to being viewed as just another secular institution engaged in the welfare of the larger society, and at its behest. Those who wish to deny the ministerial nature of Catholic health care have capitalized on this misperception for their own political agendas. Advocates for abolishing sexual mores, for providing abortion on demand and for redefining the human being as a bearer of rights have engaged political structures in their pursuit of reshaping Catholic health care in their own image. They have made some subtle and some blatantly obvious attempts at changing the public perception of the purposes of Catholic health care. These have escalated into legislative initiatives that attempt to force Catholic health care to violate the tenets of the Catholic Church in the delivery of health care.

First, there is a need to correct the misperception that the delivery of health care is a secular endeavor. The Christian woman Fabiola, who established a hospital in Rome around the year 390, was the earliest forerunner of today’s nurse. Her decision to dedicate her wealth and her life to the care of the sick poor was grounded in her Christian faith. St. Benedict founded the Benedictine nursing order, based on the Christian ethic, around the year 500. The very names of the oldest foundations of health care, which continue to exist today—including the Hotel-Dieu in Paris, founded in 660—reflect the religious tradition of health care delivery. A structure for the delivery of nursing care was created by the Christian religious order the Hostpitallers of Saint John of Jerusalem in 1113. This historically is considered to be the first organized structure for the delivery of health care. The first identified nurse in the territory that was to become the United States was Catholic friar Juan de Mena, from Santo Domingo of Mexico. He arrived on the shores of the southern Texas coast in 1554. The friar was known for his humility and his charity toward the sick.

The second oldest public hospital in continuous existence in the United States, Charity Hospital in New Orleans (1736), despite being a public hospital, was under the administration of the Daughters of Charity from 1834 to 1970. The oldest hospital west of the Mississippi was established in St. Louis, Missouri, in 1828 by St. Elizabeth Seton’s Sisters of Charity. Today, through the centuries of initiatives to apply the Gospel imperatives in the service of neighbor, Catholic health care is the largest provider of nongovernmental, nonprofit health care in the United States. With this stunning history of health care in the ministry in the Catholic tradition, it is disingenuous to identify Catholic health care as a secular function of society. Yet, state by state, there have been legislative initiatives to define Catholic health care ministries as secular endeavors, not protected by the free exercise clause of the First Amendment of the United States Constitution.

The Secular Redefinition of Catholic Health Care

The escalation of legislated health care mandates illustrates this trend to secularize Catholic health care. (See the regularly updated “Table of Legal Mandates State by State” at www.ncbcenter.org.) The majority of states mandate that contraceptive coverage, including prescription drugs and devices, be included in employee insurance plans that offer prescription coverage. Of these mandating states, few provide a true religious or conscience exemption. Increasingly states are mandating the administration of emergency contraception in emergency departments to victims of sexual assault, even when there is an indication that the medication would function as an abortifacient. Only in rare cases are states providing conscience exemptions for the health care agency. Pharmacists have been more successful in securing refusal provisions that protect them from having to violate their consciences in the dispensing of emergency contraception. Increasingly, however, they have had to seek court injunctions to protect their rights of conscience.

Of significant concern is the redefinition, in statutes or through the courts, of a religious employer. Arizona, Arkansas, California, Hawaii, New York, North Carolina and Oregon are examples of states which have narrowly defined a religious employer to include only nonprofit agencies (which would include Church ministries) that serve or employ primarily members of their own faith (which would not include the majority of Church ministries). Here rests the example of a revisionist’s view of the role of religion in society and the protections that should be provided to religious entities.

To define a religious employer as primarily hiring or serving its own members is the antithesis of the historical role of a religious ministry. The classic example of this can be seen in the parable of the Good Samaritan (Luke 10: 29-37). In defining who is one’s neighbor, who we are to love as we love ourselves, Jesus tells a young legal scholar the story of the compassionate Samaritan who, unlike a priest and Levite, stopped and ministered to a man who was beaten and robbed along the road to Jericho. The Samaritans were despised by the Jews. Jesus asks, “Which of these three, in your opinion, was neighbor to the robbers’ victim?” The scholar answers, “The one who treated him with mercy,” and Jesus tells him to “go and do likewise.” Church ministries answer this call. They are not created to be self-serving and self-employing, but to care mercifully for those in need, regardless of their religion, ethnicity, gender, social status, vocational or marital status, or ability to pay. History supports this purpose of Church ministry.

Furthermore, Church hiring practices are based on the ministry being provided. In a Catholic school, where beliefs are imparted to the next generation, teachers of certain disciplines may be required to be Catholic. For the majority of ministries, competence in and adherence to the mission of the ministry are the usual criteria for employment. Finally, there are no client eligibility conditions (such as conversion to the Catholic faith) applied to recipients of Church ministry. However, states such as New York and California require that to be considered a religious employer one must have as a purpose the inculcation of religious values. It would be very interesting to see the response of state legislatures if Church ministries attempted to apply the very criteria that these legislatures have stated define a religious ministry: that is, for a Catholic hospital to hire only Catholic workers and to treat only Catholic patients, or those willing to be evangelized in the faith.

Not only have state legislatures redefined Church ministries, but so have the courts. In 2006, the New York State Court of Appeals, by a unanimous vote, upheld two lower court decisions requiring the Church to include contraceptive drugs and devices (including abortifacients) in their employee prescription drug plans. Religious or faith-based ministries may be exempted only if they evangelize, and employ and provide services primarily to their own members. Thus, while employers of Catholic schools and chanceries may be exempted, most other ministries may not be. In the decision, it was evident that what was viewed as the need to remedy a bias against women took precedence over the rights of people of faith. In considering the constitutionality of the narrow legal definition of a “religious employer,” the justices acknowledged the reasoning of the New York legislature: “Those favoring a narrower exemption asserted that the broader one would deprive tens of thousands of women employed by church-affiliated organizations of contraceptive coverage. Their view prevailed.”270 In other words, the pro-contraception/pro-abortion agenda prevailed over religious freedom. This agenda was supported by the New York State Court of Appeals: “Finally, we must weigh against plaintiffs’ interest in adhering to the tenets of their faith the State’s substantial interest in fostering equality between the sexes, and in providing women with better health care.”272

A similar bias was demonstrated by the Supreme Court of California. This court concluded that the California legislature did not violate the “free exercise [of religion] clause” of the California Constitution when mandating that Catholic Charities of Sacramento include contraceptive drugs and devices in its employee prescription coverage plan. The justices found that it is within the legislature’s competence to identify subtle forms of gender discrimination, by which they referenced discrimination based on pregnancy, childbirth or related medical conditions: “Certainly the interest in eradicating gender discrimination is compelling. We long ago concluded that discrimination based on gender violates the equal protection clause of the California Constitution… and… triggers the highest level of scrutiny.”274 Again, the pro-contraception/pro-abortion agenda prevailed over religious freedom.

The First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution states that Congress will make no law respecting a religious establishment. However, it immediately follows with a prohibition against violations of the free exercise of religion. These provisions have been described as the separation of church and state. However, no other concept of constitutional protections has been more misunderstood or misused by those with their own political agendas. The constitutional scholar Stephen Carter addresses this misperception: “For the most significant aspect of the separation of church and state is not, as some seem to think, the shielding of the secular world from too strong a religious influence; the principle task of the separation of church and state is to secure religious freedom.”284

Clearly, there has been a redefinition by the courts of the meaning of the First Amendment since its adoption in 1791. The mandate for demonstrating a prevailing state interest before passing a law that infringes on a religious freedom has been marginalized. When rights conflict (as in this case), the balance has tragically shifted from religious freedom to “reproductive rights.” In the Oregon v. Smith decision in 1990, public employees who smoked peyote as part of a religious ritual were held to not be protected by the free exercise clause of the First Amendment.296 The impact of the decision is that the state has no obligation to demonstrate a prevailing state interest if a legal mandate or prohibition is applied to all persons. This negates the very purpose of the free exercise of religion clause. As Carter states, “If the state bears no special burden to justify its infringement on religious practice, as long as the challenged statute is a neutral one, then the only protection a religious group receives is against legislation directed at that group. But legislation directed at a particular religious group, even in the absence of the free exercise clause, presumably would be prohibited by the equal protection clause.”299

In response to the Oregon v. Smith decision, advocates of religious freedom succeeded in securing passage of the Federal Religious Freedom Act of 1993. This legislation prohibited the government from limiting religious freedom in the absence of a compelling government interest, and even then the limitation had to be the least restrictive. In 1997, however, in the decision Boerne v. Flores, the U.S. Supreme Court overturned the law on the basis that it interfered with states’ rights.303

In his analysis of the changing perception of the First Amendment, Carter cites the legal scholar Harold Berman, who asserts that contemporary thinking on the First Amendment is sharply discontinuous with that of the Founding Fathers. Berman further asserts that the establishment clause of the First Amendment should be understood to allow “government support of theistic and deistic belief systems more nearly comparable to the government support which is permitted to be given to agnostic and atheist belief systems.”312 While Berman’s analysis addressees government support for faith-based endeavors, he identifies a phenomenon which some would consider to be a bias against religions by the very state(s) charged with protecting religious rights. Clearly, recent actions of legislatures and the courts have demonstrated this phenomenon. To fail in vigorously opposing such actions can have long-term and catastrophic implications for people of faith. Carter forecasts, “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.”314 All one has to do is analyze the burgeoning list of mandates against religious freedom to understand the proportions of this very real threat. (See “Table of Legal Mandates” at www.ncbcenter.org.)

It will not end there. Ever-increasing threats exist, such as mandated assisted suicide and the recognition of same-sex unions, to name two examples. The question is, can the Church acquiesce under the misnomer of “the greater good?” Analyses of this conundrum have centered on proportionality of evil to good. There is a risk in refusing to comply with the legislative mandates (refusing to be complicit with evil) of losing one’s right to engage in the social and health care ministries of the Church. There is also the real concern that if the Church responds to the only morally tenable option – given the rulings in New York and California, for example – it would have to discontinue all prescription benefit coverage for employees. However, providing coverage for contraceptives and abortifacients may, in canonical terms, cause representatives of the Church to commit gravely imputable acts by cooperating with evil.

Grave Imputability

The concept of grave imputability relates to external violations of Church law. Canon 1321 §1 provides an insight into the nature of grave imputability: “No one is punished unless the external violation of a law or precept, committed by the person, is gravely imputable by reason of malice or negligence.” Thus, one is accountable for violations of the law through both intentional commissions (malice) and omissions of which they are culpable (negligence).323 The question is, could representatives of the Church be committing gravely imputable acts by allowing their employee benefit plans to pay for contraceptive drugs and devices, including abortifacients? Specifically, could they be considered in violation of canon 1282, which states, “All clerics or lay persons who take part in the administration of ecclesiastical goods by a legitimate title are bound to fulfill their functions in the name of the Church according to the norm of law?”

There is no question that the use of contraceptives, even by married couples, is gravely and intrinsically evil. Pope Paul VI states, “It is a serious error to think that a whole married life of otherwise normal relations can justify sexual intercourse which is deliberately contraceptive and so intrinsically wrong.”333 The Catechism of the Catholic Church states that contraception, even to regulate births, is morally unacceptable: “The regulation of births represents one of the aspects of responsible fatherhood and motherhood. Legitimate intentions on the part of the spouses do not justify recourse to morally unacceptable means (for example, direct sterilization or contraception).”335

What accountability, then, is borne by those who facilitate such use of morally unacceptable means? Pope Paul VI states that to make it easy for another to commit this intrinsic evil also is “an evil thing”: “Not much experience is needed to be fully aware of human weakness and to understand that human beings—and especially the young, who are so exposed to temptation—need incentives to keep the moral law, and it is an evil thing to make it easy for them to break that law.”339 Causing another to break the law is, in and of itself, scandal, which is morally illicit.340 Furthermore, the scandal is grave when it is caused by a representative of the Church, “who by nature or office [is] obliged to teach and educate others.”343

This grave nature of the matter is compounded by the fact that almost all state contraceptive mandates include insurance coverage for “devices” such as intrauterine abortifacient devices. Abortion is one of the most serious violations of the law. “A person who procures a completed abortion incurs a latae sententiae excommunication” (can. 1398). A latae sententiae penalty is one that is incurred ipso facto when the specific external violation of the law is committed (can. 1314). Abortion includes the destruction of the embryo or fetus any time after conception (fertilization).344 The Ethical and Religious Directives for Catholic Health Care Services are consistent with this interpretation of the meaning of abortion. Directive 36 states, in part, “It is not permissible, however, to initiate or to recommend treatments that have as their purpose or direct effect the removal, destruction or interference with the implantation of a fertilized ovum.”345 Therefore, initiating or recommending the use of abortifacient drugs or devices is also prohibited.

Canon 1329 addresses the imputability as it pertains to accomplices without whose assistance the delict (external violation of the law) would not have been committed:

  • 1. If ferendae sententiae [imposed, not latae sententiae] penalties are established for the principal perpetrator, those who conspire together to commit a delict and are not expressly named in a law or precept are subject to the same penalties or to others of the same or lesser gravity.
  • 2. Accomplices who are not named in a law or precept incur a latae sententiae penalty attached to a delict if without their assistance the delict would not have been committed, and the penalty is of such a nature that it can affect them; otherwise, they can be punished by ferendae sententiae penalties.

Given these laws, are representatives of the Church accomplices when, under legal mandate, they allow their employees to receive contraceptive coverage, including coverage for abortifacient devices, through the Church’s employee benefit plans? A relevant factor that exempts one from a penalty for a delict is coercion. However, there are provisions to this exemption. One relevant exemption pertains to “a person who acted coerced by grave fear, even if only relatively grave, or due to necessity or grave inconvenience unless the act is intrinsically evil or tends to the harm of souls” (can. 1323, 4º). The presence of legal coercion is a fact in contraceptive mandate laws, but the act of facilitating contraception and the use of abortifacients is “intrinsically evil” and “tends to harms souls.” The bishops of the United States have issued a statement addressing the harm done to couples, in Married Love and the Gift of Life: “Suppressing fertility by using contraception denies part of the inherent meaning of married sexuality and does harm to the couple’s unity.”352 Thus, this exemption from imputability does not apply.

One also can look at the meaning of “malice” in canon 1321 §1: the Latin text uses the word dolo, meaning “deliberate intent to violate the law.”366 One can also examine factors in cooperation with evil: “The term ‘cooperation’ refers to any specific assistance knowingly and freely given, either as a means or an end, to a morally evil act principally performed by another individual or institution.”402 In formal cooperation in evil, the cooperators in the evil act have the same intent as the principal agents of the act. For the representatives of the Church to engage in explicit formal cooperation in providing contraceptives and abortifacient devices to their employees, they must have the same intent as the medical professionals who provide these prescriptions or services. The intent could also be implicit, in giving assistance for a specific portion of the immoral act or in providing prerequisite assistance to enable the immoral act to occur.

There is much evidence to support the fact that bishops and other representatives of the Church have opposed contraceptive mandates as a violation of the moral teachings of the Church. Thus, there is no malice or deliberate attempt to violate Church law by complying with contraceptive mandates.

Ethicists have examined the other levels of cooperation pursuant to adhering to contraceptive mandates. Peter Cataldo differentiates these levels as follows:

Cooperation is material if the act of the principal agent is not intended. The act of the cooperator in material cooperation is itself good or morally indifferent. Material cooperation can be either immediate or mediate. Immediate material cooperation contributes to the essential circumstances, and mediate material to the nonessential circumstances, of the principal agent’s act. Mediate material cooperation can be either proximate through a direct causal influence, or remote through an indirect causal influence, upon the act of the principal agent. Immediate material cooperation by an institution in an intrinsically evil act such as contraception is never morally permissible. Mediate material cooperation can be morally tolerated if there is a great good to be preserved or a grave evil to be avoided.403

The question is whether enabling payment for the prescription constitutes an essential circumstance, making the immoral act possible.

There are numerous permutations of employee benefit plans used by Church corporations. Employee benefit plans are funded in part by the employer and in part by all of the employees participating in the plan. There is nothing more essential to the completion of an act than the payment for the act, which would not be completed without such payment, thus making the material cooperation immediate. Even if one did not agree with this premise, and held that cooperation with contraceptive mandates constitutes mediate material cooperation, one would have to analyze the good being preserved and the grave evil to be avoided in determining whether the cooperation is licit. As stated earlier, there are goods to be preserved: the continuance of the health care and social ministries of the Church, and the continued employment of thousands of persons provided with prescription coverage. However, to preserve these goods requires cooperation in the intrinsically evil acts of contraception and abortion (through abortifacient devices). While canon 1324 §1,5o provides for a tempering of a penalty is a violation is perpetrated under coercion, and 1324 §3 precludes a latae sententiae penalty under such circumstance, canon 1323, 4o states that one is still subject to a penalty for violating a law, even if coerced, if the act is intrinsically evil or tends to harm souls.

The evil of cooperating in contraception and abortion is not the only evil to be averted. By cooperating with contraceptive laws, Church employers are forcing their employees to contribute to the insurance pools that pay for the immoral prescriptions and services. There is a third evil to be averted, and it is that which was predicted by Paul VI in Humane vitae. He predicted that government would impose its will in the area of contraception:

Who will prevent public authorities from favoring those contraceptive methods which they consider more effective? Should they regard this as necessary, they may even impose their use on everyone. It could well happen, therefore, that when people, either individually or in family or social life, experience the inherent difficulties of the divine law and are determined to avoid them, they may give into the hands of public authorities the power to intervene in the most personal and intimate responsibility of husband and wife.404

By collaborating, even under protest, with contraceptive and abortifacient mandates, the Church is paving the way for further government intrusions. This is a grave evil to be avoided. The Church has made every legal attempt to overturn the contraceptive mandate laws. To date, all efforts to secure judicial recourse have failed. To continue to comply with such mandates can only lead to a further erosion of religious freedom. Furthermore, to acquiesce to a redefinition of our ministries as secular entities not only is historically inaccurate but also has significant implications for the future of religion in the United States. To comply now would appear to be akin to negligence.

The second criterion of grave imputability for a violation of the law, culpable negligence, is also addressed in canon 1321 §1: “No one is punished unless the external violation of a law or precept, committed by the person, is gravely imputable by reason of malice or negligence [culpa].” To comply with contraceptive and abortifacient mandates could constitute ecclesiastical negligence pursuant to canon 1389 §2: “A person who through culpable negligence illegitimately places or omits an act of ecclesiastical power, ministry or function with harm to another is to be punished with a just penalty.” Canon 1321 §2 states that ordinary negligence due to the omission of necessary diligence is not punishable by law: “A penalty established by a law or precept binds the person who has deliberately violated the law or precept; however, a person who violated a law or precept by omitting necessary diligence is not punished unless the law or precept provides otherwise.” However, canon 1321 continues, “when an external violation has occurred, imputability is presumed unless it is otherwise apparent” (can. 1321 §3).

Need for Decisive Action

Concerning culpable negligence, no one could accuse the Church of not performing due diligence on the matter. Extensive legal resources have been expended in the pursuit of religious freedom. Now that legal remedies are being exhausted, the issue is how will the Church act in accord with its due diligence? Now is the time to act: to refuse to comply, so that no further harm can be done to the ministries of the Church, her employees and the future of religious freedom. The history of Catholic health care is being rewritten by legislatures and the courts, who are denying the ministerial nature that is its foundation. The essential meaning of religion is being redefined to deny its very essence. Furthermore, for the Church not to act will fulfill the prophesies of Paul VI, as well as those of Carter: “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.”405

Since the U.S. Supreme Court declared the federal Religious Freedom Restoration Act of 1993 unconstitutional, efforts to remedy this in Congress have stalled. In 2000, Congress passed a limited version of an RFRA, the Religious Land Use and Institutional Persons Act. This legislation restricts government intrusion into the use of religious land, and protects religious freedom of institutionalized persons. The final recourse to redress the contraceptive mandate laws and rulings of New York and California is the U.S. Supreme Court. However, in October 2004 the U.S. Supreme Court refused to hear the challenge to the decision of the Supreme Court of California; and in October 2007 the U.S. Supreme Court refused to hear a challenge to the New York Court of Appeals decision. Now what should be done?

Eventually the Church will have to say, “Enough. We will not be complicit in the violation of moral law.” This will require significant employee relations and public relations campaigns to demonstrate the source of the problem: violation by the government of religious freedom that the drafters of the U.S. Constitution intended to protect. Sufficient notice of the intent to no longer comply, perhaps by no longer offering prescription coverage to employees, will be needed. Then the very secular society that depends on the services of the Church, which is the largest provider of nongovernmental, nonprofit health care, social services, human services and education in the United States, will be responsible for the outcome.