ED 284 485

AUTHORTITLE

INSTITUTION

PUB DATENOTEAVAILABLE FROM

PUB TYPEJOURNAL CIT

EDRS PRICEDESCRIPTORS

DOCUMENT RESUME

HE 020 562

Gallin, Alice, Ed.Universities: Catholic and American, Responsible andFree.Association of Catholic Colleges and Universities,Washington, D.C.8766p.Association of Catholic Colleges and Universities,One Dupont Circle, Suite 650, Washington, DC 20036($5.00 each, 1-9 copies; $4.50 each, 10 or morecopies).Collected Works - Serials (022) -- Viewpoints (120)Current Issues in Catholic Higher Education; v8 nlSum 1987

MF01/PC03 Plus Postage.*Academic Freedom; Beliefs; *Catholic Schools;*Church Related Colleges; Church Role; *College Role;*Dissent; Educational History; Higher Education;*Institutional Autonomy; Institutional Mission;Values

ABSTRACTThe role of the theologian in Catholic colleges and

universities is among several topics addressed in 11 articles. Someauthors describe how they carry out the Catholic mission in highereducation, while others focus on the historical background for theattempt by the Congregation for Catholic Education to describe andmandate a universal and "ideal" Catholic university. Issues ofacademic freedom and institutional autonomy are addressed. Inaddition to an introduction by the executive director of theAssociation of Catholic Colleges and Universities, Alice Gallin,titles and authors are as follows: "The Catholic Church and HerUniversities: A View from History" (John Tracy Ellis); "Some Aspectsof Catholic Higher Education since Vatican II" (Ann Ida Gannon); "HowBishops and Theologians Relate" (James W. Malone); "A CatholicUniversity: Some Clarifications" (Rembert G. Weakland); "AcademicFreedom and the Catholic College/University" (A. Gallin); "The Usagesef Freedom" (Timothy S. Healy); "The Mission of the College of SaintBenedict: Its Catholic Character" (Colman O'Connell); "SaintMichael's College: Its Catholic Character and Academic Fr-ledom" (PaulJ. Reiss); "Dissent in Catholic Universities" (William J. Rewak);"Beyond 'Dissent' and 'Academic Freedom'" (David B. Burrell); and"The Response Catholics Owe to Non-Infallible Teachings" (James L.Heft). (SW)

************************************************************************ Reproductions supplied by EDRS are the best that can be made ** from the original document. ************************************************************************

COL4s,4

7

Nv"

..ItZ41;i4cgf

U.S. DEPARTMENTOF EDUCATIONOfhce of Educational Research' and ImprovementEDU

TIONAL RESOURCESINFORMATIONCENTER (ERIC)

his Occumenthas been reprOduCed as

received from the person or organizationonginatinv0 Minor

changes have been made to Improvereproduction quality.

Points of view or opinionsstaled in thisdocirment do not necessarilyrepresent officialOERI positionor policy.

"PERMISSION TO REPRODUCE THISMATERIAL HAS BEEN GRANTED BY

TO THE EDUCATIONAL RESOURCESINFORMATION CENTER (ERIC)."

Associai.ion of CatholicColleges and Universities

BOARD OF DIRECTORSChair:

Francis J. KerinsCarroll College. MT

Vice Chair:Kathleen Feeley, SSNDCollege of Notre Dame of Maryland

Immediate Past Chair:Patrick Ellis. FSCLaSalle University. PA

Terms to 1988Dorothy Brown

Rosemont College. PATheodore Drahmann. FSC

Christian Brothers College, TNJean Patrice Harrington. SC

College of Mt. St. Josephon-theOhio. OHDonald S. Nesti. CSSP

Duquesne University. PAJoseph A. O'Hare, SJ

Fordham University, NY

Terms to 1989Julia Lane

Loyola University of Chicago. ILBartley MacPhaidin. CSC

Stonehill College. MAJeanne O'Laughlin. OP

Barry University. FLTimothy O'Meara

University of Notre Dame. INWilliam Sullivan, SJ

Seattle University, WA

Terms to 1990David Delahanty, FSC

Lewis University, ILBrigid Driscoll, RSHM

Marymount College. NYAuthor Hughes

University of San DiegoJanice Ryan. RSM

Trinity College, VTPaul Tipton, SJ

Spring Hill College, AL

Ex OfficioCatherine McNamee, CSJ

President, NCEA

ACCU Executive StaffAlice Gatlin, OSU

Executive DirectorDavid M. Johnson

Associate Executive Director

3

TABLE OF CONTENTS

IntroductionAlice Gatlin, 0.5 U 2

The Catholic Church and Her Universities:A View From History

Monsignor John Tracy Ellis 3

Some Aspects of Catholic Higher EducationSince Vatican II

Ann Ida Gannon, B.V.M 10

How Bishops and Theologians RelateMost Reverend lames W. Malone 25

A Catholic University: Some ClarificationsMost Reverend Rembert G. Weakland, 0.5 B 30

Academic Freedom and the CatholicCollege/University

Alice Gatlin, 0.5 U 31

The Usages of FreedomTimothy S. Healy, 5.1. 35

The Mission of the College of Saint Benedict:Its Catholic Character

Colman O'Connell, O. S. B 39

Saint Michael's College: Its Catholic Characterand Academic Freedom

Paul I. Reiss 42

Dissent in Cathohc UniversitiesWilliam I. Rewak, 5.1. 46

Beyond "Dissent" and "Academic Freedom"David B. Burrell, C.S.C. 51

The Response Catholics Owe To Non-InfallibleTeachings

lames L. Heft. S.M. 54

Introduction

Catholic colleges and universities have, by definition,two distinct elements in their identity. The noun-elementis that of an academic institution, known alternatively ascollege or university; the adjectival element is Catholic.Exploration of the way in which the elements interact haslimitless possibilities, and is currently a topic of great in-terest on our campuses and in the media. In this issue ofour journal, we present several relevant paperssomeare talks given to audiences on campuses; others wereprepared for delivery to national groups. It is clear thatsome were provoked by the draft of the Schema on Cath-olic higher education sent to us for consultation by theCongregation for Catholic Education in 1985. When wereflected on that draft and responded to it, we gave evi-dence of our conviction that we are both true universitiesand truly Catholic. Many persons in their responsesdescribed the ways in which they see themselves carryingout the Catholic mission in higher education. Others fo-cused on the historical background for the congregation'sattempt to describe and mandate a universal and "ideal"Catholic universityone which did not seem to resonatevery well with the American experience.

Simultaneously, we are celebrating the 200th anniver-sary of the United States Constitution and the 200th anni-versary of the establishment of the hierarchy in theUnited States. Both of these events call attention to thefreedom which has enabled us to build and develop ourown Catholic colleges within the pluralistic system ofAmerican higher education. Founded for the most partby religious communities of women and men, in coopera-tion with local bishops, our colleges and universities havebecome places where lay and religious collaborate onevery level of governance and participation: trustees,administrators, faculty, staff, students. They are placeswhere we can truly unite in support of a common mission.

In the report recently issued by Dr. Ernest Boyer and theCarnegie Commission for the Advancement of Teachingentitled College: The Undergraduate Experience inAmerica there appears to conviction that education isgreatly assisted by the presence of "community." To medi-ate our culture to a new generation of learners we need aliving community, a place formed by the tradition andengaged in lively dialogue about its meaning. Withoutconsciously averting to this fact, many of those whofounded our colleges did so out of the strength of such a

2

community. The presence of such a "critical mass" of per-sons committed to Christian values and to the Catholictradition of learning as a means to (and not an obstacle to)the love of God may well be the most significant require-ment for our colleges today.

Such a desire to create a very special environment forthe promotion of genuine Catholic intellectual develop-ment does not at all suggest the imposition of Catholicdoctrinal tenets on the persons who constitute the facultyand administration, nor on the students. Respect for free-dom of conscience will prevent such misinterpretation ofthe true meaning of "Catholic" and will foster sincere ecu-menical and inter-faith debates on the campus. But thequest for harmony must not lead to a lessened commit-ment to one's own tradition; indeed the strength of ecu-menism comes from the willingness of individuals to speakfrom differing points of view toward a common discoveryof truth.

The role of the theologian in our Catholic institutions ofhigher learning is addressed in several of the articles. Thisis a necessary point of discussion because it is the presenceof faculties of theologians within our universities (ratherthan in separate institutes or attached to State universities)that distinguishes American Catholic higher educationfrom that of our Catholic universities in other parts of theworld. Yet it is the fact that they are hired, evaluated, pro-moted, and trained by the same criteria as other facultymembers that has led to recent admonitions from RomanChurch authorities. It is to be hoped that the ongoing dis-cussions arnong our American Catholic universities and injoint meetirs of bishops, theologians, and presidents willbe able to arrive at satisfactory ways of dealing with ten-sions that are bound to arise when academic freedomand/or institutional autonomy are threatened. It makes lit-tle difference whether the threat is from the State, theVatican, corporations and donors, or pressure groupsfrom Right or Left. Our colleges and universities are avaluable asset for the Catholic community, but they willonly remain so if they are both "free" and "Catholic" in an"American" context. Our authors help to forward thenececqnry dialogue on these matters and we are grateful tothem for their contributions. Our next issue will containmore articles on this topic.

5

Alice Ga llin, O.S.U.Executive Director

The Catholic Church and Her Universities:A View From History

Monsignor John Tracy Ellis

You will be doing the greatest possible benefit to theCatholic cause all over the world, if you succeed inmaking the University a middle station at which clergyand laity can meet, so as to learn to understand and toyield to each otherand from which, as from a com-mon ground, they may ad in union upon an age,which is running headlong into infidelity.'

In the 113 years since Newman wrote those words toGeorge Fottrell, an alumnus of the Catholic University ofIreland, the Catholic Church as witnessed considerableprogress in, so to speak, closing the gap between theclergy and ,laity in the academic communities that oper-ate under the Church's auspices, a progress that has beenclearly manifest in the 235 Catholic coileges and univer-sities of the United States. It remains, however, a primerequisite in 1986 if these institutions are to prosper and tofulfill their dual responsibility to maintain the highestacademic standards and at the same time preserve theirdistinctly Catholic character and tradition. Failure to sus-tain the former renders them suspect in the eyes of theirAmerican secular counterparts, a suspicion they can illafford; failure to sustain the latter calls in question theirfidelity to the truths that nurtured their origins and thathave given warrant for their espousal as valid representa-tives of the Church's conmiitment to the world of learn-ing. Parenthetically, it is to be hoped that the synod to beheld in Rome a year from now on'the role of the laity willlend strength to this clerical-lay partnership in a way thatwill enhance the laity's meaningful participation. For if thesynod should fail to provide for the laity to be heard, thatis, for the clergy to listen and take seriously the respon-sible lay voice, it may, indeed, do more harm than good infuther alienating laymen and laywomen, and thus deprivethe world's Catholic community of their special talentsand skills.

Monsignor John Tracy Ellis is Professorial Lecturer inChurch History at The Catholic University of America.The present paper was first delivered as an address atImmaculate Conception Seminary in South Orange, NewJersey (November 3, 1986), and later at Holy TrinityParish, Washington, D.C. (January 21, 1987).'Newman to Fottrell, The Oratory, December 10, 1873, in CharlesStephen Dessain and Thomas Goma S.J. (Eds.), The Letters andDiaries of John Henry Newman (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1974),XXVI, 394.

3

That the reconciliation of these lofty goals in the con-text of the Catholic universityand here I mean to in-clude Catholic colleges and seminaries as well as institu-tions that bear the name of universitieshas been, is,and will continue to be at times extraordinarily difficult,giving rise to occasional anguished confrontations, must,I believe, be taken for granted. True, it is a somberthought, but one that finds documentation in theChurch's history in an unmistakable way. Never hasthere been an extended period during those nearly 2,000years that has failed to furnish examples of what ismeant, that is, a clash of minds between persons of vary-ing views, each in his and her own way acting in whatthey believe to be the Church's best interests, even whenthey were diametrically opposed on a given question.

The New Testament affords any number of examplesthat illustrate the fact, such as that in the synagogue ofCaparnaum when Jesus taught the doctrine that his fol-lowers must eat his flesh and drink his blood. In describ-ing that scene Saint John remarked, "After hearing it,many of his followers said, 'This is intolerable language.How could anyone accept it?'...After this, many of hisdisciples left him and stopped going with him."' To citean even more striking instance, when Peter and Paul metat Antioch and had their dispute over the observance ofJewish practices of the old law, Paul declared, "I opposedhim to his face, since he was manifestly in the wrong."3Without intending to lend to this exchange at Antioch anunwarranted contemporary application, the account sug-gests that the conservative stance of Peter was overruledby the more open and progressive attitude of Paul.

Thus has it been from the apostolic age to our ownday, and thus will it continue in one form or another tothe end of time. The situation partakes of the mysteryforeshadowed by Simeon when he told the Mother of theBabe in his arms, "You see this child: he is destined for thefall and for the rise of many in Israel, destined to be a signthat is rejected Nor did the adult Christ foretellotherwise. "Do you suppose that I am here to bring peaceon earth?" he asked. "No, I tell you, but rather division.For from now on a household of five will be divided three

2John, 5:59-66.3Galatians, 2:11-12.4Luke, 2:34-35.

against two and two against three ...."5 For those whoare believers these words of the aged prophet and of theMaster himself have an enduring value that helps to ex-plain the periodic conflicts that arise in Catholic univer-sity communities over the interpretation of the Church'steaching on doctrinal and moral issues. .

If these words pose a genuine mystery they yet assist inthe sense that they make more understandable that a finalsolution will not always be found in such controversialareas. Each case must be judged on its own merits withthe opposing sides given open and fair hearing and inves-tigation to enable the conflicting parties, if possible, toarrive at a settlement that will both respect the Church'steaching and at the same time give recognition to theindividual's rights of expression. No one in his or her sanemind will maintain that this procedure will be other thandifficult, indeed, on occasion difficult to the point ofanguish; nor will a realist anticipate that the final resultwill fully satisfy all the contending parties. A procedureof this kind, however, is about the best that can be ex-pected when one allows for the inevitable limitations thatattend every endeavor, due to humankind's all too falliblejudgment.

The Catholic Church's association with universities is acenturies-old phenomenon, marked by repeated sharpconflicts that often entailed prolonged and impassionedcontroversies between faculties and the local bishop, aswell as occasioning disputes that involved the pope whenthe contending parties appealed to his jursidiction. This isnot the place to attempt a summary of those conflicts thatbeset not only the Catholic universities of the MiddleAges but those of the modern era as well. Let the Univer-sity of Paris in the lifetime of Saint Thomas Aquinasillustrate the point. When, for example, in the 1250's thenewly founded mendicant friars appeared on the scenethey met immediate and fierce opposition from such dio-cesan priest-professors such as William of Saint-Amour,Gerard d'Abbeville et al., who were determined to keepthe friars out of teaching posts in the university. It wasonly through an appeal to the pope that the friars over-came the opposition of the diocesan clergy and theBishop of Paris.

Nor were the academic feuds at Paris in those yearsconfined to rivalry between the diocesan clergy and thereligious orders. A decade later trouble arose because ofideological differences pertaining to the espousal byAquinas and his followers of certain teachings of Aver-roes who, in turn, had leaned heavily on Aristotle. Tothe traditionalists this was a betrayal of Saint Augustine'sscholasticism which had been their principal source ofinspiration. Here Thomas Aquinas paid the penalty ofhaving introduced a new approach and occasioned a dis-pute that ultimately led to a condemnation of thirteenAverroist theses. Thereupon the university was throwninto such turmoil that in 1272 there ensued a suspensionof all lectures and other academic activities for a period

5Luke, 32:51-52.

of several months.' Similar happenings could be cited forother Catholic universities of the medieval and modernperiods, but this brief sketch of events at Paris in the mid-thirteenth century will, I hope, be sufficient to indicatethe nature and lengthy history of the problem.

It is a truism that each succeeding age has its predomi-nant ideology or ideologies, and that men and women areinfluenced for or against the contemporary currents ofthought that swirl around them. For example, Catholicsin an academic context inevitably think quite differentlyif their society accepts the supernatural as a prime ele-ment in their livesas was the case in the time of ThomasAquinasor if they find themselves members of a societythat expressly excludes religion from the public domain,leaving that aspect of life entirely to the private domainwith each individual free to settle matters according to hisor her conscience. Thus when Catholics in the early daysof the American Republic took the first feeble steps to in-augurate a system of education on their own, their ap-proach was conspicuously at variance with that to whichAquinas would have been accustomed in that so-calledage of faith.

This fundamental fact can be exemplified by noting theemphasis in an early prospectus published by what wasdestined to become Georgetown University, the firstCatholic college of the United States. Here is the way inwhich the founders of that school in 1798 envisioned itsleading motivation and purpose:

Persuaded that irreligion and immorality in a youth,portend the most fatal evils to subsequent periods oflife, and threaten even to disturb the peace, and cor-rupt the manners of society at large; the directors ofthis Institution openly profess that they have nothingso much at heart as to implant virtue and destroy intheir pupils the seeds of viceHappy in the attain-ment of this sublime object, they would consider theirsuccess in this alone, as an ample reward for theirincessant endeavours.7

One need not remark that today Father Timothy Healy,his Jesuit confreres, and their lay associates would hard-ly express Georgetown's goals in those terms. Yet,mutatis mutandis, that was the prevailing ideology thatbrought into being Mount Saint Mary's College inEmmitsburg (1808), Notre Dame (1842), and other Cath-olic institutions of higher learning throughout the nine-teenth and early twentieth centuries.

In this regard, however, the Catholic institutions werenot especially unique, for up to and beyond the CivilWar most of their non-Catholic counterparts operatedunder much the same auspices. Student conduct wasclosely supervised in all American colleges where theprinciple in lora parentis was enforced. Thus among the

6For a detailed account see James A. Weisheipl, 0.P., Friar ThomasAquinas. His Life, Thought, and Work. (Garden City: Doubleday &Company, Inc., 1974), pp. 263-292.7Archives of Georgetown University, #62-9, College of Georgetown(Potomack) in the State of Maryland, United States of America, p. 1.

regulations governing student life at Notre Dame therewas a rule in 1868 that read:

No book, periodical or newspaper shall be introducedinto the College, without being previously examinedand approved by the Director of Studies. Objection-able books found in the possession of Students, will bewithheld from them until their departure from theUniversity.'

In an atmosphere of paternalism and an authoritarianspirit of this kind it was not surprising that the issue ofacademic freedom as we know it today scarcely existedeither in Catholic circles or in most academic communi-ties outside the Church. Among the latter it first appearedin the guise of religious freedom for professors who in thegeneration after the Civil War espoused Charles Darwin'shighly controversial theories of evolution.

Evolution was a subject that remained all but a terraincognita among Catholics until the nineteenth centurywas drawing to a close. It then came to the surf2,ce whena proposal was made by Bishop John J. Keane, fin: Rec-tor of The Catholic University of America, backed byArchbishop John Ireland of Saint Paul, to engage theEnglish biologist and evolutionist, Saint George Mivart,a convert to Catholicism, for the new university sched-uled to open in Washington in November, 1889. Opposi-tion to Mivart was raised by Archbishop Michael A.Corrigan of New York, who had the support of Arch-bishop Patrick J. Ryan of Philadelphia, and as a conse-quence Mivart's appointment was set aside. A few yearslater when Father John A. Zahm, C.S.C., of Notre Damepublished his book, Evolution and Dogma in 1896, he in-curred censure for his Darwinian sympathies by the Con-gregation of the Index, whereupon Zahm quietly ac-cepted Rome's decision, and as one biographer stated,"Thereafter he published nothing more on science or onthe relations of science and religion."' And John Zahmwas only one in a series of losses to Catholic scholarshipthat was to characterize the years immediately ahead, aperiod bedeviled by the so-called heresy of Americanismand the graver crisis known as Modernism. While Zahmtook his departure from academic pursuits in a humbleand submissive way, it was not without a somewhat sig-nificant observation in a private letter to his brother,Albert, also a scientist, in which he said:

With possibly one or two exceptions among theyounger priests, not one at N.D. has the faintest con-ception of the wants of a university, and the demandsof the age in which we live.'

Unfortunately, that state of mind persisted in Catholicacademic ranks long thereafter, and among the clergy,

8Twenty-Fourth Annual Catalogue of the Officers and Students of theUniversity of Notre Dame, Indiana, for the Academic Year 1867-68(Notre Dame: Ave Maria Power Press Print, 1868), p. 17.9Thomas F. O'Connor, "john A. Zahm, C.S.C., Scientist andAmericanist," The Amerkas 7 (April, 1951), 445.19Zahm to Zahm, n.p., December 12, 1897, in Ralph E. Weber, NotreDame's John Zahm: American Catholic Apologist and Educator (NotreDame: University of Notre Dame Press, 1961), p. 105.

who then dominated these institutions, it was by nomeans confined to the Holy Cross community at NotreDame.

It is not that Catholics of that time had no source fromwhich to learn the true character of a university, for nighto a half century before these happenings involvingMivart and Zahm a description of what constituted a uni-versity worthy of the name had been published whenNewman's article entitled, "What Is A University?" ap-pearned in 1854. His answer to the question posed in histitle is as valid today as it was nearly 140 years ago. Heanswered the question in these words:

It is a place...in which the intellect may safely rangeand speculate, sure to find its equal in some antagonistactivity, and its judge in the tribunal of truth. It is aplace where inquiry is pushed forward, the discoveriesverified and perfected, and rashness rendered innoc-uous, and error exposed, by the collision of mind withmind, and knowledge with knowledge...

In my judgment, it would be difficult for the most sophis-ticated educational theorist of the 1980's to improve onthat definition.

In all that pertains to the tangled skein of relations be-tween ecclesiastical authority and the Church's academiccommunities, the historical record clearly reveals periodsof relative quiet which are, in turn, succeeded by therenewal of high tension and sharp conflict. The latterhave normally been induced by the rise of new concepts,such as those represented by Americanism and Modern-ism at the turn of the present century, by theologicaldevelopments that begot Pius XII's warning encyclical,Humani generis in August, 1950, and by Vatican CouncilII from the interpretation of which emerged contraryschools of thought, the effects of which are still with us.In other words, this relationship displays an ebb and flowstrongly influenced by new currents of thought cham-pioned or opposed by strong personalities on both sides,most of whom have been motivated by what theythought were the best interests of the Church.

If the result has been strained tempers, occasionalangry encounters, and at times almost exhaustive combatthat must be expected and patiently borne. It is a situa-tion that has been exemplified in the ecumenical councilsof the Church where the statement of the distinguishedhistorian of the councils, the late Monsignor HubertJedin, can be equally applied to the Catholic universities.The assistance of the Holy Spirit, said Jedin, guaranteesthe decisions of a council to be free from error, but, headded, it

does not dispense with the most strenuous efforts toarrive at the truth; on the contrary, it presupposes anddemands such efforts. Truth is reached in any com-munity by means of an exchange of opinions, by argu-ments for and against, that is, by means of an intellec-tual struggle....The toll paid by human nature in thecouncils is the price which the visible Church has topay for being in the midst of the human race.'

11Hubert Jedin, Ecumenical Councils of the Catholic Church. An His-torical Outline (New York: Herder and Herder, 1960), pp. 234-235.

In certain instances the conflict will have touched onlya very few and will have ere long died away, as was thecase with Americanism. At other times the strong anddecisive action of ecclesiastical authority will havebroken the opposition and brought about its demise, aswas true of Modernism. Still other cases have resulted intemporary losses to scholarship when progressive andcreative minds such as those of Yves Congar, JeanDaniélou, and John Courtney Murrayto name onlythree of several dozen who suffered punishment in thewake of Humani generiswere fully vindicated someyears later by Vatican Council II in which they, andothers of their mind, played influential and honorableroles. It is, then, a mixed picture that admits of no fixedformula or pattern of development, no more than it sug-gests the possibility of a ready-made solution. On thecontrary, history's testimony supports the thesis thatthere is no precise line of action that will always apply orsucceed. In one form or another the problem will be withus until the end of time, and that because of the built-intension that has ever, and will ever, obtain between theteaching of the Church and that of the world.

Allowing for these facts, and keeping in mind themagisterium's right and duty to safeguard the depositumfidei, the situation calls for the highest degree of pru-dence, balance, and caution. Yet it does not follow thatthe Church is best served by an immediate stop to all dis-cussion with each statement from ecclesiastical authority.To adopt that attitude would be equivalent to stifling allresearch and thus render Catholic universities devoid oftheir life blood. In that connection I would call attentionto the article of Gerald Fogarty in America of October 11,1986, where an account of the case of Henry Poe ls, whotaught Old Testament at The Catholic University ofAmerica from 1904 to 1910, is highly instructive. In thatinstance a grave injustice was done to a devoted priest-professor, an instance which at the same time illustratesthe enormously complicated character of these theologicaldisputes.

Admittedly, no recourse to past events can resolvecontemporary problems; but they can offer signals, so tospeak, of what to avoid lest one repeat the mistakes ofthose who have gone before us. And here, it seems to me,we can all learn from certain respected and tested voicesfrom the past concerning the spirit in which these delicatequestions involving the policy of Catholic universitiesshould be conducted. Permit me to quote two such wit-nesses whose names, I believe, bear witness to their fun-damental loyalty to the Church's authority, even if onoccasion they may have been in advance of their timeand thus incurred censure by opponents of their views. Inthe course of his famous Dublin lectures of 1852 whichthe learned world knows as The Idea of A University,Newman stated:

I say, then, that it is a matter of primary importance inthe cultivation of those sciences, in which truth is dis-coverable by the human intellect, that the investigatorshould be free, independent, unshackled in his move-ments; that he should be allowed and enabled, with-

6

out impediment, to fix his mind intently, nay, exclu-sively, on his special object, without the risk of beingdistracted every other minute in the process and prog-ress of his inquiry, by charges of temerariousness, orby warnings against extravagance or scandal.'

A half century later John Lancaster Spalding, Bishop ofPeoria, spoke in a similar vein in the Church of the Gesiiat Rome on the topic, "Education and the Future of Relig-ion," when he declared:

To forbid men to think along whatever line, is to placeoneself in opposition to the deepest and most invin-cible tendency of the civilized world. Were it possibleto compel obedience from Catholics in matters of thiskind, the result would be a hardening and sinking ofour whole religious life. We should more and moredrift away from the vital movements of the age, andfind ourselves at last immured in a spiritual ghetto,where no man can breathe pure air, or be joyful orstrong or free."

These were strong words, to be sure, yet uttered by twochurchmen who, though perhaps in advance of their con-temporaries, were men whose subsequent careers provedbeyond doubt their fundamental loyalty to the Church.

Does that infer that there is then no limit to dissentwithin the Church? It does not. To be valid, dissent mustbear with it a strong measure of modesty, humility, andbasic loyalty, as well as an implicit recognition that thedissenter in the end may be proven to have been wrong. Ihave never found the point better expressed than byHenri de Lubac in his volume of a generation ago, TheSplendour of the Church. Thinking in terms of what hecalled 'the man of the Church,' he put it this way:

Certainly, as long as the order is not final he will notabandon the responsibilities with which he has beeninvested by his office or circumstances. He will, if itshould be necessary, do all that he can to enlightenauthority; that is something which is not merely aright but also a duty, the discharge of which will some-times oblige him to heroism. But the last word doesnot rest with him. The Church, who is his home, is a'house of obedience.'14

It was in that sense that Pierre Teilhard de Chardin ad-dressed the General of the Jesuits when charges had beenlodged against his orthodoxy. "It is on this importantpoint of formal loyalty and obedience," he wrote:

that I am particularly anxiousit is in fact my realreason for writing this letterto assure you that, inspite of any apparent evidence to the contrary, I amresolved to remain a 'child of obedience.'"

I confess that testimony of a similar kind from ThomasMerton to Abbot James Fox of Gethsemani, of Newman

njohn Henry Newman, The Idea of A University (New York:Longmans, Green and Company, 1923).13John Lancaster Spalding. Religion, Agnosticism and Education(Chicago: A. G. McClure Company, 1902), p. 175.14Henri de Lubac, S.J., The Splendour of the Church (New York: Sheedand Ward, 1956), pp. 194-195.15Tei1hard de Chardin to Johannes Janssens, S.J., Cape Town, October12, 1951, in Letters from a Traveller (New York: Harper & Row, 1962),p. 43.

to his ordinary, William B. Ullathorne, 0.S.B., Bishop ofBirmingham, of John Courtney Murray to his superiorsin the 1950's, and more recently of Leonardo Boff,0.F.M., tip:: Brazilian theologian, have impressed on methe importance of this principle. It is an impression thathas taken on a deeper and abiding meaning when I reflecton the sad cases of Felicité de Larnennais, of JohannIgnaz Dollinger, of Alfred Loisy et cll. These were allmen of singular intellectual gifts, scholars whose Iifestories have enlivened and enriched the Church's history.In that regard, most of those mentioned here measuredupif a few did notto the Master's caution whenspeaking of the final judgment that awaits each one of us.He told his disciples:

When a man has had a great deal given him, a greatdeal will be demanded of him; when a man has a greatdeal 01;ven him on trust, even more will be expected ofhim.'

In all that pertains to the relationship of ecclesiasticalauthority vs. academic freedom, and this is especiallytrue in the American context, there inevitably arises thequestion of admittance or denial of due process. If it isgiven great emphasis in American institutions of higherlearning, they by no means invented the concept. Thecentral idea behind due process has an ancient lineage,aspects of which appear in the New Testament. Duringthe course of the trial of Jesus, Nicodemus interposed andaskPd his fellow Pharisees, "But surely the Law does notalio., us to pass judgment on a man without giving him ahearing and discovering what he is about?"' And yearslater when Saint Paul was held prisoner at Caesarea,Festus, the governor, explaining the background of Paul'scase to the visiting King Agrippa, remarked concerningPaul's opponents:

I told them that Romans are not in the habit of surren-dering any man unffi the accused confronts his ac-cusers and is given an opportunity to defend himselfagainst the charge.18

Infringement of that principle has at times cost theChurch dearly and injured her reputation for fair dealing.The nearly twenty centuries of Christian history havewitnessed no diminishment in this regard; indeed, it hasgained in strength and ftarce as the concept of humanrights has moved to center stage in the aftermath ofWorld War II, during which these rights were so outra-geously violated. In the light of this fact, to say nothingof her own teaching on the dignity of the human personin Vatican Council II, the Church has reason to be espe-cially vigilant on this score. That was uppermost in themind of John Courtney Murray when he maintained theyear after the council:

What comes to the fore today is the need that the cor-rective or punitive function of authority should beperformed under regard for what is called in the

16Luke, 12:48.

17John, 7:51-52.

18Acts, 25:16-17.

common-law tradition, 'due process'. The demand fordue process of law is an exigence of Christian dignityand freedom. It is to be satisfied as exactly in theChurch as in civil society (one might indeed say, moreexactly).'9

Whether in explicit terms or by implication the conceptof due process has found a place in the mounting liter-ature on the Catholic universities in our time. It is inher-ent in the defense of academic freedom propounded bythe Land-of-Lakes statement of July, 1967, as it has beenin the more recent documents issued by the InternationalFederation of Catholic Universities. One might wish thatit would have found expression in statements emanatingfrom the Congregation for Catholic Education, such asthe proposed Schema for the world's Catholic universitiesthat the Congregation circulated in April, 1985. Thatdocument, as is well known, has met with strong criti-cism from 100 or more presidents of the Church's collegesand universities in this country, while at the same timewinning support from other Catholics in the academiccommunity.

Given present circumstances, it is difficult to see howrecurring clashes between these two schools of thoughtcan be avoided if the idea of due process and kindredmatters do not win some consideration in the thinking ofRoman curial officials. True, it will not be easy to workout a compromise, but to employ a cliché, where there isa will there is a way. Any genuine compromise normallymeans that each side has yielded something of its ideal toits opposite. Considering what is at stake, certainly noright-minded Catholic will maintain that the effort is notcnninently worthwhile. Perhaps a quiet acceptance of astatus questionis that is less than ideal in the view of bothsides may be the ultimate outcome. If so, they wouldhave a precedent in the situation that obtained for nigh totwo centuries during which Rome was not happy withthe American constitutional principle of separation ofchurch and state. Yet they forbore from insisting thatAmerican Catholics should work for a change in thatregard, until finally in December, 1965, the Declarationon Religious Freedom of Vatican Council II put an end tothe awkward and often embarrassing situation for, it is tobe hoped, all time to come.

Let me now turn to an aspect of Catholic higher educa-tion that, in my opinion, should remain a paramountconcern of every one of the 235 Catholic colleges and uni-versities of this country with their more than h-lf millionstudents, as well as of the 319 seminaries with theirenrollment of about 10,000 candidates for the priesthood.I refer to the perennial need to emphasize a determinedeffort to achieve excellence as a prime goal of every insti-tution of higher learning worthy of the name. More thanthirty years ago I raised this issue and encountered con-siderable opposition, although the response was in themain distinctly positive. I raise it here again, for allowingthat in this regard there has been marked improvement

19John Courtney Murray, "Freedom, Authority, Community,"America, 115 (December 3. 1966), 740.

7 1 0

since the 1950's, I still believe that we American Catholicsare far from where we ought to be on the scale of superiorachievement in the humanities and liberal arts, areaswherein it may rightly be expected that we should make aconspicuous showing in view of the tradition which isour alleged heritage and to which we so often give rhe-torical expression without the accompaniment of solidscholarly production to prove we take seriously what weaffirm.

Obviously, the attainment of academic excellence isoften dependent on material resources as well as on giftedminds professionally trained in their respective disci-plines. Up to a generation or two ago we could plead ourlack of financial strength, but that is long since gone. As Ihave frequently phrased it, the United States is teemingwith Catholic millionaires, a fact borne out a decade agoin the findings of Andrew Greeley on average family in-come of non-Spanish speaking white Catholics, whowere second only to the Jews and ahead of the Episco-palians and Presbyterians.4 Today it is a truism to statethat Catholics have become a prominent element in themainstream of the national society. The fact has, Ipresume, something to do with the presence of five Cath-olic universities among the 100 with the highest endow-ments in the country, the five led by Notre Dame (No. 22)with over $300,000,000, with Loyola of Chicago, George-town, Saint Louis, and Santa Clara following in thatorder.21

The situation, however, is related to a far more basicmatter than the presence or absence of financialresources, important as that aspect surely is. Parenthe-tically, my own alma mater, The Catholic University ofAmerica, has suffered grievously in that regard with anendowment of about $25 million, far excelled by anumber of select secondary schools in New England andelsewhere. Were I to be asked what has been the principaldeterrent to Catholic institutions achieving distinction ona scale commensurate with their number and with themore than 52,000,000 Catholics who constitute roughlytwenty-two percent of the population of the Republic, Iwould unhesitatingly say it has been due to a pervasivelack of love of learning for learning's sake. To be sure, itis a national characteristic regardless of people's religiousaffiliation. Were that not so the late Richard Hofstadtercould not have published his large volume entitled Anti-Intellectualism in American Life.' In that regard, alas,Catholics have been 110% American! Catholics have, in-deed, made their mark in politics, the professions, and inthe world of business and finance; but when one turns tothe things of the mind the picture is much less impressive.

It is no recent phenomenon since it has characterizedAmerican Catholic life almost from the beginning. Thusin the year of the nation's first centennial, 1876, the lead-

=Andrew M. Greeley, Ethnicity, Denomination, and Inequality (Bever-ly Hills: Sage Publications, Inc., 1976), pp. 27, 71.21-The Chronicle of Higher Education, XXXIII (September 17, 1986), 34.The endowment figures published here were as of June 30, 1985.=Richard Hofstacher, Anti-Intellectualism in American Life (New York:Alfred A. Knopf, 1963).

8

ing Catholic church historian of that day, John GilmaryShea, who by current terminology would be described astriumphalistic and defensive, went so far as to declare,"In literature, science and the arts, we have made littlemark and are behind even the modest position of thecountry e large." In the same centennial year JohnLancaster Spalding maintained that external develop-ments had "crowded out things of the mind" amongCatholics, and with a forward glance toward the comingcentury he remarked:

We must prepare ourselves to enter more fully into thepublic life of the country; to throw the light ofCatholic thought upon each new phase of opinion orbelief as it rises....All this and much else we have todo, if our God-given mission is to be fu1filled.24

No single Catholic did more to promote that high ideal;yet at his death forty years later he would have been thefirst to admit the meager results of his lifetime campaign inbehalf of intellectual excellence among his coreligionists.

It is not that Catholic Americans have not been period-ically reminded of this leading deficiency in their religiouscommunity, and here no one has been more insistent andmore eloquent than Professor David J. O'Brien of theCollege of the Holy Cross, whose stirring essay in Com-monweal of June 6, 1986, is one of the most persuasive infurthering that cause. What evidence, you may wellask, have you for your lament in this regard? I wouldanswer, first let due recognition be given to the notinconsiderable number of Catholic men and womenwhose scholarly endeavors have brought honor to themand to their universities of the 1980's that far exceeds thatof their predecessors of a generation ago. I believe, how-ever, that these same men and women might well agreethat when the 272 winners of Guggenheim fellowships in1986 numbered only two from Catholic institutions,namely, The Catholic University of America and SetonHall University;26 that among the 123 Mellon Fellows inthe humanities granted this year by the Woodrow WilsonNational Fellowship Foundation only three went to Cath-olic institutions;' and that only thirteen out of 262 fel-lowships granted by the National Endowment for theHumanities2sto name only three of the principal bene-factors of those majoring in the humanities and the liberalartsCatholics can hardly maintain that we have comeanywhere near to attaining the kind of rank so notablyachieved by our coreligionists in politics, the professions,and the business community. I readily concede that thesedata do not offer complete and final proof of Catholicdeficiency in this respect, but they do, it seems to me,supply sufficient evidence to prompt a serious probing as

=John Gilmary Shea, 'The Catholic Church in American History,"American Catholic Quarterly Review, I (January, 1876), 163-164.24John Lancaster Spalding, 'The Catholic Church in the United States,1776-1876, "Catholic World, XXIII (July, 1876), 451.

z5David J. O'Brien, -The Summons to Responsibility," Commonweal,CXIII (June 6, 1986), 332-337.

26The Chronicle of Higher Education, XXXII (April 23, 1986), 8, 10.271bid., XXXII (April 2, 1986), 12.

28Ibid., XXXII (March 19, 1986), 8-9.

11

to why 235 Catholic institutions of higher learning havemade so relatively slight an impact in the nation's aca-demic community.

Closely related to the achievement of academic excel-lence and distinction is the imperative of scholarly integ-rity. No exercise or activity in the academic world thatmakes unreal pretensions on the part of institutions or in-dividuals can add any abiding honor to reputation orgood name. The recent rash of colleges calling themselvesuniversities, without the qualification for such, sails dan-gerously close to that defect. Fortunately, with the excep-tion of several Catholic institutions involved in seriousathletic scandals, the Church's universities in this countryhave in good measure been free of the mounting instancesof fraud that have tainted the good name of some Amer-ican universities. It was a point forcefully made byJaroslav Pelikan in his splendid essay of 1983. He therespoke of the confidence that scholars must have in oneanother, and of the confidence that others are entitled torepose in them and in the integrity of their work. "There-fore it is almost impossible," he said, "to exaggerate thedamage that can result from a breach of trust...it can

tarnish the entire cause of objective investigation andundermine the credibility of research .."29

For the foreseeable future the task of the Catholic uni-versities of the United States and of the world will be anexacting and trying experience. Granted the obstaclesthat lie ahead, they are not insuperable and can be over-come by a dedication to the ideals that brought theseuniversities into existence in the first instance. Thoseideals were spelled out by Pope Paul VI in November,1972, when he received the delegates of the InternationalFederation of Catholic Universities and spoke in wordsthat have lost none of their value in the intervening years.On that occasion the pontiff declare&

The specific testimony expected of a Catholic univer-sity...is to show concretely that intelligence is neverdiminished, but is on the contrary stimulated andstrengthened by that inner source of deep under-standing which is the Word of cod, and by the hier-archy of values derived from it...In its unique way,the Catholic university contributes to manifesting thesuperiority of the spirit, which can never, under painof being lost, agree to put itself at the service of any-thing other than the search for truth.3°

29Jaroslav Pelikan, Scholarship and Its Survival. Questions on the Ideaof Graduate Education (Princeton: The Carnegie Foundation for theAdvancement of Teaching, 1953), pp. 60-61.30Pope Paul VI. 'New Tasks for Catholic Universities," The PopeSpeaks, 17 (1973), 356.

9 12

Some Aspects of Catholic Higher EducationSince Vatican II

Ann Ida Gannon, B.V.M.

Last June, on receiving the invitation to address theCatholic Commission on Intellectual and Cultural AffairsI was immediately attracted by two of the questions pro-posed for consideration: "How has the situation in Arner-ican Catholic Higher Education changed since MonsignorEllis sparked the debate on Catholic intellectual life in themid-fifties?" and "How has the situafion changed sincethe academic freedom and Catholic identity issues firstemerged in the 1960's?"

Since I had been active in Catholic higher education asprofessor or administrator during the periods involvedand had followed both topics with personal and profes-sional interest, I decided to address those two questions.My file is full of correspondence and articles, my book-shelves witness to the abundance of material which hasbeen published on those subjects, and my experience withmany of the current generation of faculty and studentsindicates that often much of the history which throwslight on discussions of the 1980's is either not known ornot valued. It is strange for those who lived through theheady period of the Second Vatican Council to realizethat such documents as Lumen Gentium and the Declara-tion on Religious Freedom are little more than footnotesto many Catholics today.

This paper, then, is a retracing of a journey through aperiod of extraordinary changes in the church and cul-ture. For the most part, I have let the details speak forthemselves with the hope that something of the spiritwhich brought us to this point in history may be recap-tured by those who read them. The pioneer will knowhow much has been omitted; perhaps those who comeupon the details for the first time will seek out some ofthe lengthier treatments referred to in the notes. My ownexperience in traveling this road once again has been toreawaken in me an awareness of the leadership exertedby Catholic administrators and scholars who, inspired bythe spirit of Vatican II, blazed the trail. I am also awarethat the journey has only begun.

Ann Ida Gannon is Professor of Philosophy and Archiv-ist at Mundelein College. Her paper was presented at theAnnual Meeting of the Catholic Commission on Intellec-tual and Cultural Affairs, held at Fordham University,October 25, 1986.

10

In 1953, the Proceedings of the fiftieth annual meetingof the National Catholic Educational Association includ-ed interesting reflections on past achievements of the col-leges and universities as well as some forecasts of thefuture. The closing resolutions reflect a sense of prowessand security:

Graduate schools have realized and achieved distinc-tion. Universities have strengthened their faculties andcurricula. Colleges have expanded in number, capa-city and excellence...Accreditation has become amatter of course. Membership in professional andlearned societies, sustained research, scholarly publi-cations mark the quality of Catholic educationmothered by this Association. Representation on na-tional and international boards and committees indi-cate the Americanism of its members.'

Among the challenges listed were: "the fight against god-lessness and secularism...the challenge to find a leadingplace for the laity in our growing educational pattern, thechallenge for national and regional planning to make thebest use of our resources and to avoid unnecessary andselfish duplication ..."2

The Bulletin also included a report on a study spon-sored by the Association of American Colleges on thenature of the Christian college, a topic which continuedto be of major concern throughout the following decades.Existing attitudes toward change among these collegeswere expressed in one quotation from a report of a meet-ing at Berea: "The crust of custom is so thick on the cur-ricular pie and the slavery to ti Le accustomed pattern oflife is so unquestioned that it seems impossible to think infresh terms and to prepare for leadership as a Christian inthe modern world."' That curst was to be broken, in factcrumbled, before the end of a decade.

Two years later, in 1955, John Tracy Ellis challengedCatholic educators in his address to this organization.The text, published in Thought, provoked discussion

INCEA Bulletin, Vol. L (August, 1953), p. 29. There is a "quaint" aspectto this identification of Americanism. For many contemporary facultyand students the problem of the Americanism of Catholics is andenthistorya history they know little about. James Hennesey, S.J.(American Catholics, Oxford U. Press, 1981) provides an excellentstudy of the question.2Ibid., p. 31.3Ibid., p. 243.

1 3

across the country. Ellis documented the failure of Cath-olics to 7:chieve prestige in American intellectual life, toestablish a strong Catholic intellectual tradition or toeven appreciate the vocation of the intellectual. Catholi':institutions betrayed each other, he said, in the establish-ment of competing graduate schools, senseless duplica-tion of effort, perpetuation of mediocrity and a ghettomentality." His talk ended, however, on a hopeful note:

There has, indeed, been consideri4ble improvementamong American Catholics in the rvahn of intellectualaffairs in the last half century, but the need for moreenergetic strides is urgent if the receptive attitude ofmore contemporary thought is to be capitalized uponas it should be. It is therefore a unique opportunitythat lies before the Catholic scholars of the UnitedStates.'

Even while this challenge was being read in Thought,Ellis' friend John Courtney Murray, S.J., was being ad-vised by his Jesuit superiors to end public statements onchurch-state relations because of the opposition which hiswritings had incurred from Cardinal Ottaviani and theHoly Office (furthered by the attacks of Joseph C. Fen-ton, editor of the American Ecclesiastical Review). Com-menting on the intellectual climate of the time, Pelottewrote in his work on MItrray:

By the end of 1954 the move to silence Murray andanyone else showing any kind of creativity was wellunderway. Such an attitude only helped to reinforcethe ghetto mentality so abhorrent to Catholic liberalshere in the U.S....It was not that Pius XII disregardedcompletely the necessity to open up the Church tomodern day developments, as was the case with PiusX...rather he was fearful that things would get out ofhand if he supported new trends.6

The attitude of Murray's superior can be judged by an ex-cerpt from his Provincial's letter: "I suppose you maywrite poetry. Between harmless poetry and the Church-State problems what fields are taboo I don't know. We'lltry to keep out of controversy for the present."' A fewyears later he wrote again: "I really think you mustwait...and not expose yourself by trying to hasten it. Inthe end what is correct in your stand will be justified.Meanwhile be content to stay on the sidelines unless thehierarchy force you to play; deepen your own positionand be ready with your solution approved when the op-portune time comes...That is not coming in the presentRoman atmosphere."'

The election of Pope John XXIII in 1959, followed by

4Pp. 374-5, Thought, Vol. 30, pp. 351-88. Reprinted in Catholicism InAmerica, ed. P. Gleason (New York: Harper and Row, 1970),pp. 115-132.

5Ibid., p. 388.

6Donald E. Pelotte, S.S.S., John Courtney Murray, Theologian In Con-flict (New York: Pau list Press, 1975), P. 51.

p. 53.

5Ibid., p. 59. Pelotte writes later: "In retrospect, McCormick's insistencein his 1958 letter to Murray that he wait quietly until the "opportunetime" would arrive and the "present Roman atmosphere" had changedseems almost prophetic. The opportune time had come and Murray wasready with a more clarified and refined position to renew the debate in aclimate more acceptable to what he was saying." (p. 174.)

his announcement of a second Vatican Councilan ideawhich came to him like "the sudden flowering of an unex-pected spring"seemed to promise an "opportune" time.Murray had continued some of his writing and in thespring of 1960 Sheed and Ward published his book WeHold These Truths which defended the natural affinitybetween religious liberty a understood in the UnitedStates and traditional Catholic doctrine. Timed to appearbefore the presidential election, the book is credited withfurthering the success of John F. Kennedy. Murray's pic-ture was on the cover of Time in a December issue andNewsweek wrote: "Murray demonstrated in theory whatJohn F. Kennedy demonstrated in practice: that Amer-icans and Roman Catholicism need no longer fear eachother." Fenton's review critically observed that Murray'sthesis was contrary to Papal teaching.'

For our purposes, one insight into the impact of theCouncil may be gained by reflecting that Fenton hopedthat the Council would "present a clear and exact state-ment of God's supernatural revealed message" and thuscheck the onslaught of Modernism and Liberal Catholi-cism represented by such theologians as Murray. He wasone of the ten American periti at the first session of theCouncil (as personal adviser to Cardinal Ottaviani)whereas Murray was "disinvited".1° In the spring of 1963,Murray was one of four "progressive" theologians whowere barred from student-sponsored lectures at TheCatholic University of America. However, about thesame time he was invited by the Cardinal Secretary ofState (urged on by Cardinal Spellman) to be a peritus.His decisive influence in the drafting of the Declarationon Religious Freedom is a matter of history. Fenton re-signed as editor of the Ecclesiastical Review the followingJanuarythe long feud was at an end."

It would be difficult to include all of the ways in whichthe Council influenced Catholic higher education. TheDeclarations on Religious Freedom and on Christian Edu-cation, the Decrees on Ecumenism and on the Apostolateof the Laity, had a strong impact. The Pastoral Constitu-tion on the Church in the Modern World, which pro-vided a challenging blueprint for the future, is most fre-quently quoted in studies of the changes in che collegesand universities. However, for this occasion, I havechosen to concentrate on Lumen Gentiura, the DogmaticConstitution on the Church, because in this document is

9Ibid., pp. 76-77. See also footnote 124, p. 73; pp. 172-3,nbid., pp. 108-9. Footnote 28 cleals at length with this topic.11Ib1d., p. 173. In his introduction to the Declaration on ReligiousFreedom, Murray wrote: "It was of course, the most controversial docu-ment of the whole Council, largely because it raised, with sharp em-phasis, the issue that lay continually below the surface of all conciliardebatesthe issue of the development of doctrine. The notion ofdevelopment, not the notion of religious freedom, was the real sticking-point for many of those who opposed the Declaration even at the end.The course of the development between the Syllabus of Errors (1864)and the Dignitatis Humane Personae (1965) still remains to be explainedby theologians. But the council formally sanctioned the validity of thedevelopment itself; and this was a doctrinal event of highest importancefor theological thought in many other areas." The Documents OfVatican II, Walter M. Abbott, S.J., General Editor (New York: Herderand Herder, 1966), p. 673.

11 14

found the profound change in describing the nature of thechurch which affected the whole thrust of the Council.'

Up to this time in modern history the Church hadstressed her nature as Rockstrong, stable, unchanging,enduring attacks, a pyramid with control based on juri-dical powerand the average Catholic, with little inter-est in ecclesiology, was comfortable with certitude basedupon this concept. The change expressed in Lumen Gen-tium did not immediately strike home; many of the faith-ful saw only the visible changes and not the new :heologyof the Church (or, more accurately, tlie return to anearlier ecclesiology). For others, however, E.e open,often heated debate at the council, the strong dependenceon scripture in the document and the determined effortsto arrive at consensus in the course of its developmentclearly showed the work of the Holy Spirit.'

The Constitution moved from a first version whichemphasized the Church's hierarchical organization to afinal text which began with the Church as mystery, sign,community, manifesting her inner life through many im-ages. The final version began not with the church's insti-tutional organization and hierarchical structure but withthe primary reality of her relation to Christ and the unityof mankind through Christ. The Church was identified assacrament or sign of intimate union with God and of theunity of all mankind; she is the instrument for the achieve-ment of such unity; she is a People made one withthe unity of the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit. Fur-ther, she is not yet the perfected kingdom but the "initialbudding forth of the Kingdom", a church which "slowlygrows", strains toward the consummation of the king-dom with all her strength. She "shows forth in the worldthe mystery of the Lord in a faithful though shadowedway". With an enriched understanding of the traditionaldoctrine of the Mystical Body, Lumen Gentium stressedthe role of Christ as Headit is He who brings all peopletogether so that they constitute his Body in a mysticalway.14

12This is stated very well by Albert C. Out ler in his "Response" toLumen Gentium: "There are at least two decisive reasons why theDogmatic Constitution on the Church may rightly be regarded as themasterpiece of Vatican II. In the first placeand strange as it mayseemthis is the first full-orbed Conciliar exposition of the doctrine ofthe Church in Christian history...Thus the Constitution on the Churchis important both in its own right and also as the Fundamentum of theother fifteen documents of the Second Vatican Councilall of these restback cn the Constitution on the Church as their foundation and each ofthem in one degree or another, provides significant development for oneor another of its major motifs. This emphasis on the church and herrenewal for mission in the world is what gave Vatican II its most distinc-tive character as a Council." Abbott, op.cit., p. 102.

J. Bryan Hehir (-The Unfinished Agenda", America, 11/30/85)writes: "For the issue of freedom within the church the key resources lioin Vatican II's Dogmatic Constitution on the Church. The presentationof the Church as the People of God, a charismatic community directedtoward service of the larger human community set a different tenor forthe freedom/authority relationship..." (p. 392.)13The ent of this Constitution was discussed at length at thepost-conciliar conference at Notre Dame. Sessions IV, V, VI, and VIIconsidered various aspects: its history (Moeller), its relation to theFathers (deLubac), the Church as mystery and sacrament (Philips), asPeople of God (Congar), its hierarchical structure (Colombo) andothers...14Abbott, Lumen Gentium #8, pp. 20-2; #5, p. 18.

On this base is built the second chapter, the People ofGod which further highlights the communal aspect of theChurch. The heritage of the Church is the dignity andfreedom of the sons of God in whose hearts the HolySpirit dwells; its law, the new commandment of love asChrist loved us; its goal, the kingdom of God which willbe brought to perfection at the end of time. All the faith-ful share in a common priesthood:

Though they differ from one another in essence andnot only in degree, the common priesthood of thefaithful and the ministerial or hierarchical priesthoodare noneth:--less interrelated. Each of them in its ownspecial way is a participation in the one priesthood ofChrist. The ministerial priest by the sacred power heenjoys, molds and rules the priestly people. For theirpart, the faithful join the offering of the Eucharist byvirtue of their royal priesthood. They likewise exercisethat priesthood by receiving the sacraments, by prayerand thanksgiving, by the witness of a holy life and byself-denial and active charity.15

The faithful also share in Christ's prophetic office: "Thebody of the faithful as a whole, anointed by the Holy Onecannot err in matters of belief. ...when from the bishopsdown to the last members of the laity it shows universalagreement in matters of faith and morals"."

Clarifying the concept of the People of God in his com-mentary on this Constitution, Congar states that "a peo-ple is more than a collection of individuals without anyorganic link with one another...it is a stable and struc-tured group unqed for the purpos%2 of attaining Eie samegood."17 The notion of mission is a strong consequence ofbeing the People of God, consecrated to know him andbe his witness. It is this sense of community and mission,stressed in the first two chapters of this Constitution, thatGaudium et Spes developed more concretely: the Churchis called to not only preach the word and celebrate thesacraments but also to serve human needs in society andculture; social, political, economic, scientific areas arealso proper areas for her influence. Furthermore, thisservice is not merely a preparation for the teaching of theGospel but is itself directed to a transformation of theworld."

13Abbott, Lumen Gentium #10, p. 27.lbAbbott, Lumen Gentium #12, p. 29.17Yves M.J. Congar, 'The People of God," in Vatican II, An InterfaithAppraisal (Ntore Dame: University of Notre Dame Press, 1966), p. 199.18Richard P. McBrien stated this idea in more detail in art address to theACCU (2/3/81): "A third major theological development at t1,2 SecondVatican Council is the principle that the mision of the Church includesservice (diakonia) to human needs in the social, political af.d economicorders, as well as the preaching of the Word and the celebration of thesacraments. This principle is especially set forth in Gaudium et spes andis reiterated in more abbreviated form in other documents of the Coun-cil. The principle supplants the pre-Vatican II notion of "pre-evangelization," wherein such service is, or may be, a necessarypreparation for the preaching of the 6ospel (evangelization), but is notitself essential to the Church's mission in the same way as the preachingitself or the celebration of the sacraments. This may have been the mostimportant ecclesiological change noted by the Council; namely, themove away from the idea that the mission of the Church is composedentirely of word and sacrament to the idea that the pursuit of justice andthe transform; ion of the world are a constitutive dimension of thepreaching of the gospel." (-The Idea of a Catholic Universly", printedin National Catholic Reporter, March 27, 1981).

1 5

This approach to the Church's image of herself influ-enced many aspects of Catholic life; higher educationwas one of them. The call to dialogue with others of goodwill, the challenge to cooperate in developing and under-standing modem culture, the move from a juridical viewof the church to that of People of God with an emphasison the importance of the role of the laity in the mission ofthe churchthese and many other ideas flowing from theCouncil documents had a strong impact on Catholic col-leges and universities. Being Catholic took on newdimensions and could not be easily measured by certain"p;_icticce. The relation of the Catholic colleges and uni-versities to the Church was placed, not in a juridical con-text but in one of a community bound together by a rela-tionship of trust, collegial exchange and dialogue.'9.

It would be an oversimplification of the forces influ-encing development in the following years to ascribethem only :.o the Council. Many other influences wereshaping culture and Catholic higher education during thisperiod; among these were the impact of Federal funding,the Horace Mann and the Tilton v. Richardson cases, thecivil rights movement, the woman's movement, theemergence of the laity and the dwindling in the numberof clerics and religious.' However, most important forthis review is the influence exerted by the spirit and docu-men's of Vatican II, and some responses to it.

Those msponses appeared in many quarters. In 1963,Professor Marston Morse of the Princeton Institute ofAdvanced Studies joined with Maritain, Day:son,Carleton Hayes, Murray and others to prepare a study ofthe role of Citholic higher education for submission tosome archbishops.' The report stated that the "reactionin Catholic academic circles to Monsignor Ellis' blunt ac-cusation was overwhelmingly in agreement". The overallpurpose of the document was "to provide an institutionalbasis for the Catholic participants in the great dialoguewith other men of good will to which Pope John has sum-moned the Catholic world, a dialogue only beginningwhich will need institutional structures to give it shapeand form." Aftcr listing five purposes of a Catholic col-

°Yves M.J. Conger, op.ct., pp. 199-200. Congar states: "Vatican II haseliminated juriclicism in more than one way. In particular the Councilgave a sacramental, ontological foundation to the powers of the hier-archy (the episcopate) and to the apostolic mission itself (priesthoodapostolate of the laity). One of its most decisive steps in this directionwas the chapter on the People of God..."20In an interesting article on the history of the principle of academicfreedom, Philip Gleason wrote: "It is true of course, that Vatican II andthe spirit of aggiomamento have had a powerful impact on all AmericanCatholics who are intellectually alert, and one may hope that includesacademic men and women as a group. Nonetheless, I think that theCouncil is the catalyst rather than the cause of the intellectual ferment socharacteristic of the Catholic academic scene today. That might bedebated. What is certain is that intellectual changes independentlyunderway in Catholic higher education prepared.fertile soil in which thenew ideas and spirit of post-Johannine Catholicism could flourish."(Notre Dame Alumnus, May, 1967, p. 19).21The quotations are taken from a mimeographed text sent to me byProfessor Morse. I have not seen references to this in print but I thinkthat it is important in that a group of scholars took this private initiativeand stressed the importance of institutional commitment.

lege and the pressing need to improve scholarship in thechurch, it concludes:

The scattered efforts of Catholic scholars have rela-tively little impact on the dominant tone .Df the mainsecular universities. The character of the college islargely set by institutional characteristics...IndividualCatholic eff ,rts are more or less absorbed by the pre-vailing spirit of a secular institution. If the need forCatholic influence on secular education is to be met,the means taken must achieve the concentration of ef-fort and benefits of collaboration. They must wear thearmor of an institution.

In 1964, the College and University department of theNCEA, recognizing the challenge of the Council, estab-lished an advisory committee under the chairmanship ofPaul Reinert, S.J., to supervise a study of the nation'sCatholic colleges and universities with the help of a grantfrom the Ford Foundation's Fund for the Advancement ofEducation. The conclusions of the study (published in1968) identified needs which were to be of continuingconcern in the coming decades: adequate financing, therole of religious orders, the nature of the Board of Trus-tees, lay/religious and institution/hierarchy relation-ships, more formalized planning.'

Many of the administrators who were interviewed inthe course of the study stated that the emphasis ofVatican II on the unity of the people of God and the basicresponsibility of all to work in a common effort hadgenerated interest in dialogue and renewal: "The SecondVatican Council has impelled Catholic educators toundertake an intensive re-examination of its implicationsfor both the future form and function of Catholic institu-tions of higher learning." They expressed the opinion thatproblems of academic freedom, of strained relations be-tween faculty and students or faculty and administrationwere often caused by inaccurate or uncommunicatedconcepts of the nature of a Catholic institution and therights and duties of various groups within theinstitution .24

A major issue recommended for continuing study wasthe necessity of developing a precise and operative defini-tion of each institution in the light of documents fromVatican

The press found the ferment on Catholic campuses

2zCharles E. Ford, and Edgar L. Ford, The Renewal of Catholic HigherEducation (National Catholic Educational Association, Washington,D.C., 1968) p. vii-viii.

23Ibid., pp. 1-27. One comment might be especially appropriate for thispaper: "An area of considerable mystery to those unfamiliar with theCatholic Church and of even more mystery to Catholics themselves,according to interviewees, is that of the relationship between a Catholicbishop and the Catholic colleges and universities in his diocese, partic-ularly those controlled by exempt orders... There is no question thatconsiderable attention needs to be given by Catholic higher education tothe establishment of better communication and understanding betweenthe hierarchy and the institutions." (p. 14).24Ibid., p. 21.

25Ibid., p. 20-27. "The first reason for the need of definition withinCatholic Higher Education comes, therefore, from the Catholic Churchitself through the documents of the Vatican Council..." (p. 24).

13 16

worthy of headlines. One article from Look (April, 1966)is a good example. Entitled "The Time Bomb in CatholicEducation" it stated:

In the end, the crisis at St. John's, like other clasheswith authority which are becoming commonplace inthe American Catholic Church, is best understood asone of the less happy consequences of Vatican II andits aggiornamento, or updating. The Council hascalled for change in almost every area of Catholic life.It has offered thrilling new ideas of freedom and layparticipation and new understandings of the conceptsof authority and obedience. But the Council wroughtits revolutionary changes on the level of idea andtheory. The forms and structures of the Church re-main essentially the same.

The working out of new forms and relationships is theChurch's major task today and from the evidencecoming in the task will be accomplished only withgreat effort and, it seems, pain.26

In 1966, also, the report of a study initiated by theDanforth Foundation in 1962 was published. It examinedthe status of all church-related institutions.' Amongother facts it pointed out that from the faculty point ofview "the central problem of Christian higher educationis: How can a college do justice to its avowed purpose asa Christian institution, a purpose which carries with it acommitment to a set of beliefs, and at the same timemaintain the freedom of inquiry which most academicpeople think is nececsary for good education? This is adilemma that every college, whether religiously orientedor not, ultimately faces." It continues: "The chief obstacleto accomplishing this reconciliation is the tendency ofmany people to treat commitment or freedom as abso-lute, thus making them mutually exclusive in an educa-

26Richard Horchler, 'The Time Bomb in Catholic Education", Look,Vol. 30, #7, April 5, 1966, p. 24.

The article quotes Rosemary Lauer's view that churches and univer-sities don't mix, that the trouble lies with the "organization". He sug-gests that the incompatibility lies not between freedom and the Church,but between freedom and a church identified essentially with its hier-archy... Later in the article he comments: 'The final paradox of thissituation is that in the judgment of Catholic educators who have movedfarthest in response to [the changes] it, the real crisis for Catholic educa-tion lies far beyond clericalism, lay control, freedom or even academicexcellence. What haunts them is the thought that even if Catholicschools are able to solve their problems in these areas, they will have on-ly brought themselves face-to-face with another which is: Why shouldCatholic colleges exist at all?" (p. ZS).

On October 11, 1966, the Federation of Regional Accrediting Com-missions of Higher Education (later to become a part of the Council onPostsecondary Accreditation) unanimously adopted a statement oninstitutional integrity which included the statement: 'The maintenanceand exercise of such institutional integrity postulates And requiresappropriate autonomy and freedom... put negatively, this is a freedomfrom unwarranted harassment which hinders or prevents a college oruniversity from getting on with its essential work... Intellectualfreedom does not rule out commitment; rather it makes it possible andpersonal. Freedom does not require neutrality on the part of the indi-vidual nor the educational institution... All concerned with the good ofcolleges and universities will seek for ways to support their institutionalintegrity and the exercise of their appropriate autonomy andfreedom..." (Bulletin of the American Council on Education, Vol. XV,#38, pp. 6-7).27Manning M. Patillo, Jr. and Donald M. Mackenzie, Church Spon-sored Higher Education In The United States, Report of the DanforthFoundation, American Council on Education (Washington, D.C.,1966).

tional setting. Wise administrators and mature teachersknow how to avoid this pitfall."'

Speaking to the National Catholic Educational Associ-ation in April, 1966, Manning Patillo delivered the samerricsage:

Catholic institutions need to develop better guidelinesfor the maintenance of freedom In my judgment,this is the most urgent problem facing Catholic highereducation today...I see no way in which Catholicinstitntions will be able to avoid the challenge of theo-logical questioning in the next few years.29

The problem was addressed in various ways in the fol-lowing months. At Notre Dame the executive committeeof the local chapter of AAUP planned a symposium onacademic freedom; the resulting papers were issued in avolume Academic Freedom and the Catholic Universityin 1967 and the Notre Dame Alumnus magazine pub-lished versions of some of the articles with an introduc-tion which stated: "Academic freedom in all its forms hascome under extensive fire in recent years...Today, mostalumni accept the fact that the universitymore thanever beforeshould be a community of free scholarly in-quiry. But more than that, alumni must know the prob-lems inherent in the issue of academic freedom andunderstand their ramifications

28Ibid., pp. 204-5. The history of the acceptance of academic freedom inCatholic institutions is relatively short: "Before the 1960's there was awidespread feeling among college and university educators in generaland among Catholic leaders in these fields that the Catholic institutionof higher education was incompatible with the full or absolute academicfreedom existing in American institutions of higher education. Somenon-Catholic educators accepted the Shavian dictum that a Catholicuniversity is a contradiction in terms. Sidney Hook affirmed thatacademic freedom does not exist in Catholic institutions... From theCatholic side before 1960 there was also general agreement that fullacademic freedom could not exis: in Catholic institutions... Theincompatibility between Catholic colleges and full academic freedomwas accepted as a matter of course... In the 1960's great changes oc-curred. Catholic scholarly organizations began to endorse the 1940Statement..." (Charles Curran, "Academic Freedom: The CatholicUniversity and Catholic Theology," Academe, April, 1980, pp. 127-8).

For a survey of attitudes toward autonomy in Catholic institutionssee, J.T. Ellis, "A Tradition of Autonomy?", in The Catholic University,A Modern Appraisal, Neil G. McCluskey, Ed. (Notre Dame: Universityof Notre Dame Press, 1970), pp. 206-270.29Patillo, -The Danforth Report and Catholic Higher Education,"mimeographed copy of the address delivered at the 63rd Annual Con-vention of the NCEA, April 13, 1966.

He also noted: -The Second Vatican Council has encouraged a newspirit of freedom and constructive criticism. This is reflected in Audentand faculty attitudes. The place of the lay faculty member is a particu-larly vexing problem that is coming more and more to the fore in manyinstitutions.., the composition of the Board of T.-ustees in Catholic insti-tutions is another question receiving new attention... The commonpractice in institutions conducted by religious communities of havingboards composed of religious superiors and senior members of the staffsof the institutions is being widely questioned..."3°The Notre Dame Alumnus, May/June, 1967, p. 15. The introductoryarticle asked:

Can there be academic freedom in a church-related college oruniversity? Our answer is "yes." The further realization ofthis possibility depends on a careful understanding of relig-ious commitment as demandingnot the continual reformu-lation of a predetermined "truth' butfree and open inquiryin all areas of scholarship..."

See also, Academic Freedom And The Catholic University, EdwardManier, John W. Houcq, Ms. (Notre Dame: Fides Press, 1967).

14

Murray began the last article published before hisdeath, ("Freedom, Authority, Community", America,12/3/66) with the words: "Some people today speak of a'crisis of authority' in the Church; others speak of a 'crisisof community' ...Vatican II did not create the crisis; itsroots are deep in the past. But the Council brought thecrisis into the open." Considering freedom within theChurch, he continued:

Even the essential Christian experience of obedience tothe authority of the Churchis it not somehow io bean experience of Christian freedom in the evangelicalsense? This is the question not directly touched by theCouncil which now commands serious theologicalconsideration in the light of the doctrine of the Counciland of its spiritinderd in the light of the Councilitself as a splendid "event freedom" iv the a:goinglife of the Church.'

He spoke in a similar vein at the post-conciliar conferenceheld at Notre Dame:

I believe that the problem of freedom within thechurch is onc of the theological implications of theDeclaration on Religious Liberty...Having declaredreligious freedom in the civil and religiow order, we'vegot simply to face up to the problem of freedom withinthe church. I see no reason why, mutatis mutandis theprinciples of the Declaration itself, notably the dignityof man and that there be as much freedom as possibleand only as much restriction as necessary, should notalso be valid within the church as well as within civiland social society.'

Writing in the issue commemorating the twentiethanniversary of the Declaration on Religious Freedom, J.Bryan Hehir analyzed the reasons why Murray had nottried to extend the Declaration itself to the inner life of thechurch:

He maintained this position for reasons of both prin-ciple and tactics. Tactically, Murray was convincedthat the crucial objective for the council was to clearthe air in a definitive manner about Catholic convic-tions on the right of religious freedom for everyone...To enter the question of freedom within the churchwould have meant expanding the agenda and, per-haps, losing the possibility of clarifying in principle thebasic question that the world had put to the CatholicChurch. In addition, Murray argued as a matter ofprinciple that the questions of freedom in civil societyand freedom in the Church were quite distinct issues.There was undoubtedly a relationship between them,but the mode of argumentation had to be analogical.One could not simply apply the same concepts to thetwo issues without further clarification.

Commenting further on Murray's article, "a tightlydesigned dissection of Catholic teaching on freedom fromPope Leo XIII through Vatican II", Hehir continued:

It took from Leo XIII to Vatican II to recast the Cath-olic argument on religious liberty, and Murray saw a

31America, December 3, 1966, p. 734.32John Courtney Murray, S.J., "The Declaration on ReligiousFreedom," in Vatican II, An Interfaith Appraisal (Notre Dame: Univer-sity of Notre Dame Press, 1966), p. 581.

similar dynamic at work on the question of ecclesialfreedom. Vatican II developed the content of the Cath-olic perspective on freedom and authority by shiftingthe context of the theological argument. For the issueof freedom within the church, the key resources lie inVatican II's Dogmatic Constitution on the Church.The presentation of the Church as the peoplr of God,a charismatic community directed toward service ofthe larger community, set a different tenor for the free-dom/authority relationship. To use Murray's sum-mary of the shift from Leo XIII to Vatican II: "In con-trast, Vatican II comes to the notion of the church associety through the notion of church as community.Authority therefore, stands, as it were, within thecommunity, as a ministry to be performed in the serv-ice of the community...the functions of Christian free-dom emerge into new clarity, in themselves and in theirrelationship to the corresponding functions of authority.The new clarity radiates from the notion of the churchas community, now made newly luminous."33

If these and other discussions and publications onacademic freedom provide evidence of the interest whichthe topic aroused in the United States, the extended dia-logue between the International Federation of CatholicUniversities and the Sacred Congregation for CatholicEducation is an excellent example of the spirit with whichthe discussion was can-ied out world-wide. Rereading thevarious documents which were issued by Cardinal Gar-rone, the Prefect of the Congregation, the statementswhich emerged from various meetings and the history ofthe dialogue as it is described in various ways byMcCluskey, Henle and Hesburgh, one captures some-thing of the new spirit in the Churcha spirit whichreflects the openness and the patient search for consensusso visible at the Counciland a new awareness of thediversity which characterizes the church universal.

In 1949, Pius XII had established the Federation ofCatholic Universities with a juridical relation to the Con-gregation of Seminaries and Universities. World-wide,seventy-one universities were members (since the role ofcolleges in the United States was not recognized, theywere not eligible for membership). An early attempt wasmade to require all Catholic universities to be canonically

3 J. Bryan Hehir, 'The Unfinished Agenda", America, November 30,1985, pp. 387, 392. Also in that issue is an article by Charles M.Whelan, 'The Enduring Problems of Religious Liberty", which analyzesMurray's development of ideas in We Hold These Truths. Consideringthe development of Murray's thought he writes: "Murray recognized aperennial polarity between freedom and authority in the church but hebelieved that the tension could be made healthy and creative... At theheart of Murray's views on religious freedom lay his extraordinarygrasp of the meaning of the freedom of the act of faith.., respect forthis freedom animated his dealings with others." (p. 372).341 have used many sources for details in the development of thisdialogue: my own files which include documents from the Congrega-tion, NCEA materials, various articles from the period. Neil G.McCluskey's The Catholic University, A Modern Appraisal, publishedin 1970, covers the period from 1965 to the first congress of electeddelegates and includes the texts (with participants) of the 1967 LandO'Lakes statement, the Kinshasa document of 1968 and the Rome state-ment of the 1969 Congre. The articles written by two others who alsoparticipated in the discussion were most helpful: "Catholic Universitiesand the Vatican" (America, 4/9/77) by R.J. Henle, S.J. and 'TheVatican and American Catholic Higher Education," (America 11/1/86)by Theodore M. Hesburgh, C.S.C.

15 18

erected in the manner common to most countries.Hesburgh describes the situation:

We had a constitution that put us entirely under thecontrol of what was then called the Congregation ofSeminaries and Universities (in that order!). We wereconstantly being told that only Catholic universitieswith a pontifical charter were true Catholic univer-sities. Everything was seen from a strictly juridicalpoint of view. De facto was a victim of de jure.35

Hesburgh was elected President of the Federation in1963; for .various reasons, the Congregation invalidatedthe election and announced a plan to establish a specialcommission to rule the Federation for the next threeyears. Appealing directly to Pope Paul VI, Hesburgh wasable to have the election of officers confirmed and alsoobtained approval of a new constitution which estab-lished the Federation as a voluntary self-governing asso-ciation independent of the Congregation. Meeting inTokyo in 1965, the Federation adopted as its theme forthe next triennial meeting the exploration of the natureand role of the Catholic university.'

The first preparatory discussion in the United Statesoccurred in July of 1967 at Land O'Lakes, Wisconsin.Here a group which included administrators, bishops,some Roman authorities and some laymen (no women)produced a formal summary of their discussion, the firstLand O'Lakes Statement. The College Newsletter of theNational Catholic Educational Association published itunder the heading: "Statement on Autonomy and Aca-demic Freedom," identifying it as a preliminary discus-sion paper limited to the treatment of universities (notcolleges) in preparation for the 1968 IFCU meeting.

The statement on autonomy was clear and forthright:

The Catholic university today must be a university inthe full modern sense of the word with a strong com-mitment to and concern for academic excellence. Toperform its teaching and research functions effectivelythe Catholic university must have a true autonomyand academic freedom in the face of authority of what-ever kind, lay or clerical, external to the academiccommunity itself. To say this is simply to assert thatinstitutional autonomy and academic freedom areessential conditions of life and growth and indeed ofsurvival for Catholic universities as for all universities.'

The statement also listed the distinctive characteristicsof a Catholic university: it "must be an institution, acommunity of learners or a community of scholars inwhich Catholicism is perceptibly present and effectivelyoperative." The operative presence is to be achieved by agroup of scholars in all branches of theological disciplines"essential to the integrity of the university." Interdisci-plinary dialogue is encouraged and the university is seenas the "critical reflective intelligence" of ihe churchcar-rying on a continual examination of all aspects of thechurch and objectively evaluating them.

35Hesburgh, op.cit., p. 247.36Ibid. p. 248.37NCEA College Newsletter, Vol. XXX, #1 (9/67) p. 3. (Also reproducedin McCluskey, op.cit., pp. 336-41. McCluskey and John Walsh, CSCcoordinated the plans for the meeting.

16

Simple and straightforward the document might havebeen, but at the Kinshasa meeting in 1968 when it wasdiscussed together with documents prepared by threeother regions, it was faced with strong opposition fromthose who considered the statement on autonomy andfreedom to be "outlandish" and "dangerous". Somegranted that perhaps in the American milieu such atti-tudes might be necessary but questioned if such institu-tions could be truly "Catholic"; "the apologetics of Trentoften seemed to clash with the ecumenism of Vatican II.'

The group was so divided that a committee was estab-lished to discuss the problems. They discovered that theunderstanding of many terms, especially autonomy, dif-fered widely from country to country. They submitted adraft to the assembly which was amended again to omitthe statements on autonomy and freedom and on the op-tional ways of manifesting institutional commitment.'

Many left the meeting discouraged; one happy out-come, however, was the effort undertaken by CardinalGarrone, Prefect of the Congregation, who, on January10, 1969, sent a questionnaire to all Catholic universitiesconcerning their aggiornamento in the light of the Sec-

ond Vatican Council". The questions included some thathad surfaced at the IFCU Kinshasa conference: What isthe place of non-Catholic professors and students in aCatholic university? What should be the role of the laityin the direction of the Catholic university? What can orshould be the relation of the Catholic university to thelocal bishop, the episcopal conference or to the Holy Seerelative to its establishment, approval or governance?'

With the questionnaire was sent an invitation for theuniversities to elect delegates for a meeting in Rome (thefirst of its kind) with representatives from the Congega-tion. In April, 1969, thirty-nine delegates from 22 coun-tries assembled in Rome. McCluskey wrote:

As at Kinshasa, here began a mutual education whichbared the same astonishing differences in educationalphilosophy. It likewise became increasingly clear whyserious misunderstandings between Vatican bureauc-racy and certain American Catholic universities in thearea of academic freedom were simply inevitable.'

Three commissions worked on the final paper. Thereport of Commission I opened with an introduction that

38McCluskey, p. 9. 'True autonomy and academic freedom in the faceof authority of whatever kind, lay or clerical, external to the academiccommunity itself" was a huge morsel to swallow for a number of theassembled brethren whose philosophy of education was shaped in amore traditional context. Speaker followed speaker to warn (frequentlyin Latin) against the "false" autonomy or "absolute" autonomy and todefend the need of the Catholic university to depend on the magisteriumof the Church."39McCluskey, pp. 10-12. A doctoral dissertation at Catholic Universityin 1936 (Sister M. Angelica Guinan, Freedom And Authority In Educa-tion) provides an interesting insight into the roots of misunderstandingof autonomy. Tracing the principle of Liberalism as embodied in theDeclaration of the Rights of Man which championed liberation fromchurch and all other forces which hampered man's freedom, she showsits influence on early higher education in the United States.4eMcCluskey, p. 14. See also, Document De Travail, Position Pater,(Typis Polyglottis, Vaticanis, 1969). The preliminary observations con-cerning the nature of the document provide a brief history of the processto date. (pp. 6-7).41McCluskey, p. 15.

1 9

indicated the world-wide need for re-examination: "Theuniversity world of today is characterized by a generaland profound dissatisfaction with its professed functionsand goals: the pursuit of truth." Among the reasons iden-tified was: "Everywhere, but especially in developingcountries there is a feeling that a new age has begun. Theage of unquestioning subservience, of colonial depen-dence has passed. The times demand the assertion of indi-viduality, the development of the personality, the exer-cise of an inalienable right to equality of opportunity andstatus...".42

Commission III dealt with three points which had beenof major concern in earlier discussions: the essential char-acteristics of a Catholic university, the different kinds ofCatholic universities, autonomy and ecclesiastical rela-tionships.

Since the objective of the Catholic university, precise-ly as Catholic is to assure in an institutional manner aChristian presence in the university world confrontingthe great problems of contemporary society, thefollowing are the essential characteristics:

1. A Christian inspiration not only of individuals butof the community as well.

2. A continuing reflection in the light of Christianfaith upon the growing treasure of humanknowledge.

3. Fidelity to the Christian message as it comes to usthrough the Church.

4. An institutional commitment to the service ofChristian thought and education.

In the light of earlier discussions, a most important state-ment followed:

All universities that realize these conditions areCatholic universities whether canonically erected ornot. The purposes of the Catho ::1-.. university can bepursued by different means and modalities accordingto diverse situations of time and place, and taking seri-ously into account the different natures of the disci-plines taught in the university.*

In recognizing that there are different kinds of univer-sities the text stated that: "It would be futile to attempt aunivocal approach to the contemporary challenges andproblems of our institutions of higher learning...twobasic categories can immediately be discerned: thoseinstitutions which have a juridical bond to Churchauthority in one form or another and those which donot."'

The section c, ',utonomy and Ecclesiastical Relation-ships" included ; t of the statement from the LandOlakes documen -id carefully described the philosoph-ical and theological p, nciples which bear upon the mean-ing of autonomy it exF:essed:

The Catholic university today must be a university inthe full, modern sense of the word, with a strong com-mitment to and concern for academic excellence. To

42Position Paper, p. 17.43Ibid., p. 12.44Ibid, pp. 12-3.

perform its teaching and research functions effectivelythe Catholic university must have a true autonomyand academic freedom. Nor is this to iirmly that theuniversity is beyond the law: the univetsity has itsown laws which flow from its proper nature andfinality:*

The delegates accepted the final document without dis-sent and left the Congress with a sense of achievement.The following October, the plenary session of the Con-gregation considered the Rome document, added theirobservations and submitted them to the Pope for ap-proval. Cardinal Garrone circulated this 1969 Rome State-ment to all colleges and universities, inviting comments:

The present document which ensued as a result of thiswork by the delegates constitutes the first part of a dia-le-gue bz.tween the Congregation and Catholic Univer-shies. Tht Coro7egation intends to submit this docu-ment to the next Plenary Assembly of its members (43Cardinals and Bishops) for intensive study; in the lightof the recent ecclesiastical documents: The DogmaticConstitution Lumen Gentium, the Decree ChristusDominus; the Pastoral Constitution Gaudium et Spes;the Declaration Gravissimum educationis; the Allocu-tion of H.H. Paul VI to the International Congress onthe theology of Vatican II, October 1, 1966; the docu-ment elaborated by the Synod of Bishops on theMagisterium, 1967. The conclusions of the Assemblywill subsequently be communicated to the Universitieswitl: a view to continuing the dialogue under the mostfavorable conditions of frankness and reciprocal con-fidence.'

Something of the time-consuming nature of the dia-logue which followed is evidenced in the letter from Car-dinal Garrone (May 10, 1972) which submitted a newtext for discussion. The letter listed the many steps thathad been taken in collaboration with the presidents in thepreparation of this 1972 "Grottaferrata" document. Inreferring to the 1969 text from the first Congress hewrites:

The document that resulted from this meeting wasplaced under study by the Cardinals and Bishops,members of the Plenary Assembly of the Sacred Con-gregation for Catholic Education, who praised variousaspects of the work done by the delegates and who en-

45This long section covers pp. 13-16 in the English translation anddiscusses A) The autonomy of the university with two subheadings: I.Philosophical and theological principles relating to the Autonomy of theUniversity, and II. Pradical Considerations; B) Pastoral Concernswhich refer to the special kind of community which Catholic institutionsform within a diocese.

46Position Paper, p. 6. McCluskey (op.cit) discussed this Assembly atgreat length (pp. 15-23). He described the end of the meeting: "there wasa certain nervousness among congregation officials about the publicitythe document might gain but objection disappeared after it was agreedthat its nonofficial nature would be stressed. There was a sense ofachievement among the delegates as they prepared to return to theirown countries, but any elation they might have had was tempered bythe almost certain surmise that sections of their work which treated ofrelationships to church authority would be unacceptable to most of theforty-three cardinals and eight bishops who were to meet in October forthe plenary session of the congregation. The important advance,however, was that Vatican officials had begun to listen... Moreover,the new leadership of the Congregation for Catholic Education haddemonstrated a genuine desire for dialogue..." (p. 22).

17 20

couraged a continuation of the joint work between theCongregation and the Catholic universities with aview to improving the text of the document in a subse-quent meeting.47

Then the Cardinal lists the cooperative activities that hadtaken place in considering the text: his meeting with theexecutive Council of IFCU in January, 1971 which recom-mended a symposium to set out the points to be discussedat the general meeting; the symposium in May, 1971 con-firming the need to have another meeting of delegates asa continuation of the 1969 Congress; the planning ofregional meetings in the fall of 1971 to discuss the 1969document.

Each of three regional meetings sent a document (iden-tified by the place of the meeting: Land O'Lakes,Caracas, Grottaferrata) to the Congregation, which con-sidered all three but directed its chief comments to theGrottaferrata document. In February, 1972, the Counciland the Committee of IFCU met again at Grottaferrata todiscuss these comments of the Congregation and to revisethe document to reflect some of those views and returnthe statement to the Congregation:

This text the Congregation has again subjected to acareful study making use of the opinions of various ex-perts and proposing certain observations, especiallyabout the serious and delicate problem of the relation-ship of freedom of teaching and research on the onehand and of the responsible role of the magisterium ofthe Church on the other.'

This text was circulated with the announcement of asecond Congress of elected delegates for November, 1972to discuss the revised Grottaferrata document. The Car-dinal describes the spirit of the work:

The fine definition of a Catholic University set out inthe text constitutes not only a fundamental and per-manent reference for a resolution of the particularproblems which are present in the context of the docu-ment; it expresses above all the goal to be pursued, thecommon and final object of the labor and the will ofall, that is, the progress of the truth of the faith and thereign of Christ ...The position and the mission ofmembers of the universities and those of ecclesiasticalauthorities are different but serve the same end. There-fore, naturally the accent will not be placed on thesame point by both sides: a university can be legiti-matel} jealous of its freedom, needed in research forinstance, and authority, on its side can be legitimatelyconcerned not to be impeded in the exercises of its seri-ous responsibilities in matters of faith. Each mustunderstand and accept the point of view of the otherand not be amazed or irritated at certain matters. Acompromise is not what is treated of here, but a col-laboration that is trusting and generous from whichwill come a complementary relationship.49

47Sacra Congregatio Pro Institutione Catholica, Prot. N. 1511/68,Rome, 5/10/72, p. 1. McCluskey comments: 'The responses given inthe Results of the plenary session are friendly and sincere, tactful andintelligent, pastoral and paternal. Happily gone is the old tone of con-demnation, reproof, and threat. Unhappily, on the critical issues ofautonomy and academic freedom, the responses are in direct oppositionto the position paper unanimously adopted by the delegates to the RomeCongress." (p. 23).48Ibid., p. 2.491d.

18

Five pages of observations from the Congregation weresubmitted with the February Grottaferrata text. Ingeneral the Congregation praised the effort: "The out-come, namely a reformed and enriched text, indicates adesire, on the part of all concerned, to promote theCatholic University in the historical and cultural situa-tic,n of today, difficult and complex under so manyaspects." It refers to one of the chief problems:

The Project also attempts to take more fully into con-sideration the problem of the relationship between theCatholic University and the Ecclesiastical Magis-terium. It should not be surprising, however, if in amatter so delicate and difficult, the Sacred Congrega-tion, on its part, thinks that some deeper considerationis still needed.5°

The "consideration" dealing with this section ('The Rela-tionship with the Hierarchy of the Catholic Church") in-volved a revised text of two and a half pages.'

These and other comments were discussed by the Sec-ond Congress which met in Rome in November, 1972.Henle describes the spirit of the meeting:

The second congress was remarkable for its candorand frankness, for the sincerity and determination ofits discussants and for its complete openness and free-dom. There were even some violent moments in thearguments. Much of this frankness was made possibleby the cordial communications of Cardinal Garrone,prefect of the Sacred Congregation for CatholicEducation, and the delegates and the expert chairman-ship of Herve Carrier, S.J., then the president of thefederation. No one could possibly say that he or shewas denied full freedom of expression or that any rele-vant topic was summarily suppressed.52

A major outcome of this meeting was the establishing ofa joint committee of representatives of the National Con-ference of Catholic Bishops and of presidents of Catholicuniversities to continue the spirit of collaboration in theUnited States.

At the conclusion of the Congress, the delegates askedthat the text be publicized without any censorship orrevision. The document, The Catholic University in theModern World, was mailed to all Catholic institutionsfrom Cardinal Garrone's office before it was reviewed bythe Congregation; a special issue of the NCEA CollegeNewsletter (March, 1973) published the complete text(with a brief historical background).

On April 25, 1973 the Cardinal wrote once more to theheads of the Catholic institutions notifying them that thePlenary Assembly of 37 Cardinals and Bishops had metand approved the document and that on April 6, 1973 theHoly Father had approved their actions.

The Congregation made three major observations: 1)The Fathers praised the delegates for the improvement inthe document but noted two lacunae: the necessity foreach institution to set out formally its character and com-

wObseruations of the Sacred Congretation for Catholic Education onthe Project of the Document prepared by the Council and the Commit-tee of the Interntional Federation of Catholic Universities during themeeting held at Grottaferrata-Rome (February 3-5, 1972) (#3).51Id.

52Henle, op.cit, p. 317.

21

mitment as "Catholic" and "the necessity for everyCatholic university to create within itself appropriate andefficacious instruments so as to be able to put into effectproper self-regulation in the sectors of faith, morality anddiscipline". 2) The document should be considered as "awhole" espedally in the areas dealing with autonomy ofteaching and research. Institutions with no statutorybonds to ecclesiastical authority are not removed from"those relationships with the ecclesiastical authoritywhich must characterize all Catholic institutions." 3) TheFathers offered their "cordial gratitude to the Catholicuniversities for the enlightened dedication with whichthey give so much to the Church and to society as awhole . . ."53

Hesburgh later wrote that the document was reason-ably effective: "because while it did not fully satisfyeither the university world or the Congregation, we cameto a reasonable agreement regarding what a Catholic uni-versity is, both de jure and de facto, and managed to spellout a relationship between universities and Catholic hier-archy that assured academic freedom and institutionalautonomy on our part and due consideration for thepreservation of Catholic orthodoxy on their part."'

This 1972 Document settled some important pointswhich had been under discussion throughout earliermeetings: the diverse types of Catholic institutions wererecognized (#14); the long disputed question of juridicalrelation to the Vatican was settled in favor of recognizingexisting varieties:

While every Catholic university's fidelity to the Chris-tian message as it comes to us through the Church in-volves a recognition of the teaching authority of theChurch in doctrinal matters, nevertheless differentinstitutions have different relations to ecclesiasticalauthority, since these have been determined and con-ditioned by many different historical and nationalsituations. (They] ...are no less Catholic, whether bya formal, explicit commitment on the part of theirfounders, trustees or faculty, or by their implicit tradi-tion of fidelity to Catholicism and their correspondingsocial and cultural influence. (#15)

For the first time, the role of undergaduate collegesand other special types of institutions was recognized(#18). Most important, from the viewpoint of the ques-tions posed at the beginning of this paper, was the recog-nition of the proper role of autonomy and freedom in theuniversity, the type of autonomy recommended in theTokyo Conference in 1965; the text listed the areas in-volved: Juridical, Academic, Administrative, and Finan-cial, and closed with the statement: 'The exercise ofautonomy entails special obligations, and presupposes ahigh degree of responsibility on the part of all universitypersonnel..." (#20-21).55

53Sacra Congregatio Pro Institutione Catholica, Prot. N. 1511/68,Rome, 4/25/73, pp. 1-2.54Hesburgh, op.cit., p. 248.55The Catholic University In The Modern World, Congress of Delegatesof the Catholic Universities of the World, Rome, November 20-29, 1972.English, xeroxed, translation from the Congregation. Also printed in Col-lege Newsletter, Vol. 35, N. 3, 3/73. References are to the numbered sec-tions of the document.

The section on "Relations with the Catholic Hierarchy"highlights the service to the Church provided by Catholicinstitutions, a hope for encouragement and support fromthe hierarchy and the need to maintain a "delicatebalance" between the autonomy of the university and theresponsibilities of the hierarchy. It takes note of theChurch's rights vis-a-vis the university and looks espe-cially at the dialogue between the theologian, the hierar-chy and the magisterium:

They must be free to question, to develop theirhypotheses, to search for more adequate interpreta-tions and formulations, to publish and defend theirviews on a scholarly level, and to study theologicalsources, including pronouncements of the teachingChurch, with the full freedom of scholarly research.(#56)

Recognizing that it has not always been easy to recon-cile the rights of Catholic scholars to academic freedomand the responsibilities of the hierarchy in matters of doc-trine, the document makes specific recommendations inregard to interventions by hierarchical authority:

There is a deiicate balance to be maintained betweenthe autonomy of a Catholic university and the respon-sibilities of the Hierarchy.. ...This new dimension,namely the doctrinal authority with the right and dutyto safeguard orthodoxy, creates a complicated anddelicate situation by reason of the convergence of twosoiztes of knowledge: revelation, a divine gift to becarefully protected, and science, the fruit of humanreflection and research ...(52)

This dialogue between theologians and the Hier-archy demands truth and sincerity from both parties,in a mutual love of Christ and a common desire tohand on His saving message. (54)

History shows us that it has not always been easy toreconcile the rights of Catholic scholars to academicfreedom with the rights and responsibilities of theHierarchy in matters of doctrine. Without in any waypretending to offer a complete solution to this compli-cated problem, we make the following statements inthe conviction that it is of vital importance to the uni-versities and to the whole Church that the respectivelimits of these equally undeniable rights be clearlydelineated. (57)%

In his thoughtful reflection on the document, Henle ex-pressed hope that "the 1972 Roman document should beregarded as a finalization of basic positions at least forthe foreseeable future" and that continued exploration oftheory would be carried on through collaboration of thehierarchy and educators in each country (rather thanwith the Vatican). He sketched a strategy for future coop-eration which included a suggestion that 'The SacredCongregation should frankly accept the principle thattruly Catholic universities need not be juridically cr obe-

56This whole section is an important part of the ongoing dialogue. Itstates that hierarchical authority should intervene only when "the truthof the Christian message is at stake" and that the statutes of the univer-sity and accepted academic procedures should be respected (#58). Theform of intervention should vary according to the type of Catholic insti-tution involved and self-regulation by peers is recommended as a firststep with no juridical intervention by the hierarchy unless statutory relationships permit it. (#59) It closes with a hope for fruitful dialogue andcollaboration between university personnel and the bishops.

19 22

diently dependent on ecclesiastical authority", and thatthe Sacred Congregation should not publish any docu-ment, any "normae" that appear to be official directivesto the universities. He also expressed the opinion that thecongregation "should maintain a close and cordialrelationship with the universities through informed con-tact with educational leaders and joint committees" andmakes further suggestions for mutual cooperation.'

The final version of the document had not yet been cir-culated when Commonweal published an article by JohnLacy Ellis: ''/Inerican Catholicism in an 'uncertain, anx-ious time" (Ap,i1 27, 1973). After discussing the confu-sion and uncertainty that "now bedevils the Catholiccommunity" he suggested a partial explanation:

While the genuinely informed Catholic teacher neverexplicitly taught that the Church had an answer toevery question, often the atmosphere that prevailed inCatholic schools from kindergarten to university wasconducive to that assumption on the part of most stu-dents...Lacking an emphasis on the mystery that isinvolved in much that pertains to one's religiousbeliefs, students and mature Catholics alike wereprone to rest content with the teacher's or the cate-chism's ready answers as quick and comfortable solu-tions to their religious problems. When ...there brokeon Catholic consciousness the unsettling fact that theChurch did not have answers to all questions, thatthere are questions to which no human source can sup-ply an answer, confidence in the Church's reliabilitybegan to crumble ...55

Returning to the theme of his 1955 essay he noted thatalthough there has been some progress, many of theproblems he had identified still persisted. In addition, henow had further concerns: the decline in the number ofcolleges, of seminaries, and of students enrolled in themposed a threat to the continued existence of many institu-tions. Of even greater concern were the need for greaterunderstanding of the relation between institutionalautonomy and the role of the magisterium, and the de-mand for renewal of fidelity to Catholic commitments onthe part of many universities:

I am not concerned, however, with the "agonizingreappraisal" that these constant and rapidly changingcircumstances are forcing on schools of every level,Catholic and non-Catholic alike. It is rather with therelationship of the former to the Church under whoseauspices they first came into existence and with whichtheir history has identified them, a problem of at leastequal seriousness to that of the uncertainty of univer-sity enrollment and finance...Allowing for the haunt-ing problems connected with finance and decliningstudent enrollments, however, the sequence of eventshas seen a shift in these institutions' emphasis in the1970's to a more precise focus on their character aseducational enterprises that have traditionally beenaffiliated with the Catholic Church...Thus since theclose of Vatican II a series of happenings in AmericanCatholic university circles has pointed more and moretoward the necessity for working out an understand-ing or accommodation of some kind between those

67Henle, op.dt., p. 319.58Commonweal, p. 179.

20

who represent the Church's magisterium, chiefly thebishops, arid those who speak in behalf of universityautonomy, mainly faculties and administrators. Here,parenthetically, is where the document drawn up inRome in November, 1972 may prove helpful...59

Ellis was troubled by the "schizophrenia" in Catholicuniversity communities "by reason of the claims made bytheir dual allegiance to religious faith and to academicautonomy" and ascribes it in part to "a reluctance to facefrankly and openly the institution's religious commitment."

The...universities must, it seems to me, move withdispatch toward a clarification of their position asinstitutions that will reflect, respect, and if need be,defend that minimum of essential truths withoutwhich they can scarcely in honestly call themselvesCatholic universities...In conclusion, may I suggestfor those Catholics who still care, and their number islegion, that they recapture the vision of their religiousbelief by reading again Newman's "The SecondSpring" where a renewal of hope and courage awaitsthem in the timelessness and universality of thatunique churchman's perception of the faith in sorrowand in joy, in prosperity and in adversity.60

The concern for "identity" continued to be a topic for dis-cussion in the various articles and discussions which tookplace in these years.°

The dialogue on freedom and autonomy also con-tinued. In June of 1975, Cardinal Garrone once more ap-proached the colleges and universities to request them tocomment on a new document which was to be addressedto canonically erected institutions. In response to thetroubled query about the impact of the proposed state-ment on colleges and universities in general he assuredthose institutions, in January, 1976, that this new docu-.ment did not apply to "the generality of Catholic univer-sities as such nor those seminaries which have not beencanonically erected into Faculties". The Association ofCatholic Colleges and Universities prepared a nationalresponse addressed to the Congregation and published itin April, 1976.

This position paper, "The Relations of American Cath-olic Colleges and Universities with the Church", ad-dressed itself to the specific nature of American Catholicinstitutions. The tone of the document was set in theForeword:

It is not intended to be a final description but only acurrent assessment of a dynamic relationship. It istherefore the latest effort to enrich the on-going discus-sion of the role filled by Catholic institutions in thecommunity of faith which is the Church. Althoughthis document is not final, it is neither timid nor tenta-

69Ibid., p. 181-2.

p. 184.61The 11 erature abounds in examples of the search for definition andidentity. A few examples can be cited: NCEA College Newsletter,Vol. 35, 6/73: Herve Carrier, S.J., "Does the Church Really NeedCatholic Universities7"; Origins, Vol. 4, #33, 2/6/75, Archbishop Ber-nardin, "What Can the Church Expect from Catholic Universities7";Momentum, 75th Anniversary issue of NCEA, October 1979, John F.Murphy, "Catholic Higher Education in the U.S., the Janus View". Issuesof the Newsletter of the NCEA during this period carried many articleson this topic.

23

tive. It strongly affirms the commitment AmericanCatholic educators have to their Church and to theirindependent colleges and universities.

The paper summarized the variety and number ofCatholic institutions, gave a clear description of the legalstructures and accreditation procedures which affectthem and described Catholic identity in terms of serviceto society and the Church, theological studies, leadershipin ecumenism and similar activities. It listed major con-cerns (survival, public support, constitutional law issues,Catholicity). The section on "Relationship with theChurch" addressed the role of the bishops (and acknutql-edged the support of American bishops), the types ofrelationshipswith adverse comments on the notion of ajuridical relationship in the American contextand theloyal and supportive attitudes of the institutions:

We hope that it is evident that it is precisely ourloyalty to the Church and our dedication to its doc-trine that leads us to prefer a relationship of service toa juridical relationship with the official Church as therecommended way to relate Church to university andcollege in the United States at this point in ourhistory . . . Inappropriate con trol and supervisionprocedures could weaken if not destroy the very insti-tutions which are seeking to strengthen their uniqueservice to the Church and American society.

The position paper closed with an appeal to the Congre-gation to recognize "our knowledge of how to administerCatholic institutions in the context of the American sys-tem of higher education and in close collaboration withthe American Bishops."'

In the meantime, canon law was undergoing revisionfor the first time since 1917. In 1977-8 the first draft ofthe revision (the portion affecting Catholic higher educa-tion) was circulated to Catholic colleges and universitiesfor comment. Once more, the Association of CatholicColleges and Universities established a process forresearch and dialogue. A special sub-committee of canonand civil lawyers met with the Executive Committee toassist them in analyzing the relevant canons, a new sec-tion of the Code entitled: "Concerning Catholic universi-ties and other institutions of higher studies." The sum-mary of their discussion was sent to Cardinal Garrone, toall United States Catholic colleges and universities and tothe General Secretary of the United States Catholic Con-ferenceiNational Conference of Catholic Bishops. TheBishops and Presidents Committee reviewed and en-dorsed ACCU's position. The office of the USCC/NCCBsent a copy to Rome with other comments of theAmerican bishops on the proposed Code.'

When IFCU met for its regular meeting in August of

620ccasional Papers on Catholic Higher Education, "Relation ofAmerican Catholic Colleges and Universities with the Church", PositionPaper of the College and University Department, NCEA, Vol. II,1, April, 1976.63-5tate of the Question . . . Revision of Canon Law," Memorandum,Alice Collin, O.S.U. Executive Director, ACCU, 2/27/81. Thismemorandum provides a resume of activities from 1977 to 1981, in-cludes in Appendix A, a report of the consultation with canonists in1978 and, in Appendix B, the Report submitted to IFCL1 in 1980, with acopy of the 1980 revision of the relevant canons.

1980, therefore, ACCU arranged for a meeting to discusstwo major topics: the relevance of Sapientia Christiana(issued by Pope John Paul in May of 1979) to universitiesin general and the proposals for the revision of carton law.

The apostolic constitution, Sapientia Christiana,which established norms for ecclesiastical universitiesand faculties, ranged over such areas as academic free-dom, ecumenical programs, and details for the treatmentof the rights and duties of faculty and students. It re-quired that the statutes of each institution be submitted tothe Congregation for approval, that those teaching disci-plines concerning faith and morals must receive a"canonical mission" from the chancellor of the tmiver-sky, and that to achieve the highest tenured rank a candi-date must have a nihil obstat from the Holy See (#27).64

Some of its provisions raised concern among membersof the IFCU. Cardinal Baum, Cardinal Garrone's suc-cessor, was represented by the Subsecretary, MonsignorMarcisano at the session presided over by the Chair ofthe ACCU Board of Directors, Monsisnor FrederickMcManus, who presented the report of his Board. Later,in October, 1980, Marcisano sent a letter restating thefact that Sapientia Christiana did not apply to "CatholicUniversities" and that:

Our Congregation is well aware of the special situationregarding the Catholic university in the United Statesof America. We are certain that none of our interven-tions would ever prejudice its activity since it is thewish of this Congregation to help and sustain thosewhose work is not easy but most important in educa-tion at the level of the College or University.65

However, on the issue of canon law, the Congregationstated that this was not their concern but was that of theCommission on Canon Law.

The ACCU report to IFCU on the canons relevant toCatholic colleges and universities, noting that thesecanons are distinct from those on ecclesiastical faculties,questioned the need for the new canons since ACCU "hasalready taken the position that the ministry of highereducation in the Church can best be achieved as a part ofthe Church's mission without the development of juridi-cal or canonical bonds." It objected especially to two pro-posed canons in the 1977 version:

#59: No university may bear the name "Catholicuniversity," unless it has been erected by the ApostolicSee or by the conference of bishops or has beengranted this name by the Apostolic See or by theConference of Bishops.#64: Those who, in any kind of institute of higher edu-cation, give courses in theology or courses related totheology require a canonical mission.66

After explicitly developing reasons for objecting to thesetwo, the report continues: "The Board of our Associationsees this external inter7ention in the appointment ofteachers as perilous to the academic integrity and the civil

64The text of Sapienta Christiana is printed in Origins, Vol. 9, #3,6/7/79, pp. 33, 35-45.

65Quoted in ACCU Memorandum, pp. 1-2.66Memorandum, Appendix B. pp. 1-2.

2421

and academic recognition of our institutions...In pointof fact the Catholic purposes of our institutions havebeen substantially strengthened in recent years...pre-cisely because we have avoided the development of for-mal juridical bonds with church authorities."'

Discussion continued in the United States. In the fall of1980, a new schema of Canon Law was circulated; theBishops and Presidents Committee, with the help ofcanon lawyers and the Executive Committee of ACCUagreed upon a position paper which recommended cer-tain amendments and deletions to the proposed code.This report was sent to Cardinal Baum and in January of1981, the Executive Director of ACCU, Alice Ga llin,O.S.U. and the Chair of the Board, Monsignor McManusmet with Cardinal Baum in Rome to discuss the seriousimpact of the proposed canons on American Catholichigher education. The Bishops and Presidents Committeeand the ACCU Board reviewed the matter in February.'

In November, 1980, the American bishops issued theirpastoral, Catholic Higher Education and the PastoralMission of the Church, which opened with an expressionof gratitude and esteem for those in this ministry andrecognized the enormous importance of Catholic institu-tions. The bishops acknowledged that the pastoraldimension is only one aspect of Catholic colleges and uni-versities and referred with approval to the 1972 statementof the Congress of Delegates as well as the 1976 ACCUresponse to the proposed text for Sapientia Christiana,noting that the response: "describes how Catholic col-leges and universities function in the American context.This pastoral message need not restate all that in detailbut it does reaffirm the intellectual importance of Cath-olic colleges and universities in the modern world".e9

The Bishops dealt in great detail with the identity andmission of the institutions, the importance of the liberalarts and theology in the curriculum, and the relation oftheologians and bishops:

Bishops and the theological community share a mutualbut not identical responsibility to the Church...Con-scious of our different roles in the Church, and also ofour mutual responsibilities, we seek a fruitful coopera-tion with theologians...We encourage the universitiesto develop ways which will bring bishops and theolo-gians together with other members of the Church andthe academy to examine theological issues with wis-dom and learning, with faith and with mutual charityand esteem. We shall all need to recall and to work forthat "delicate balance...between the autonomy of aCatholic university and the responsibilities of the hier-archy." There need be no conflict between the two.'°

The pastoral closed with an appeal for support of Cath-olic higher education and commended "all who areundertaking the renewal of Catholic higher education aspart of the renewal to which the Holy Spirit through theVatican Council has called the whole Church."67Ibid .

68Memorandum, p. 2.

° Ca tholic Higher Education and the Pastoral Mission of the Church(Washington, D.C.: United States Catholic Conference, 1981), p. 3.

pp. 7-8. The quotation from the 1972 Document was appreciatedby those who had worked so hard to draft it!

Progress toward dialogue, mutual relationships andunderstanding seemed assured after the publication of thebishops' pastoral. The Bishops and Presidents Commit-tee, established after the Second Congress, continued toserve as a helpful liaison for furthering the kind of mutualsupport suggested in the pastoral. But the proposedcanons continued to raise issues which had seemed to besettled by the long dialogue which had culminated in the1972 document: juridical relations to the Church, properautonomy, academic freedom.

However, some of the influence of that dialogue in theUnited States was evident in the new Code of CanonLaw, a Text and Commentary commissioned by theCanon Law Society of America which was published in1985. Chapter II of Section III on the "Teaching Office ofthe Church" (cc807-814) included a long introductionthe text of a memorandum drawn up by McManus inAugust, 1983 and circulated by ACCU to all Catholiccollege presidents. The article restates the distinctivenature of American Catholic institutions and their collab-orative relations with church authorities. It continues:

The question of the applicability of the canons to theCatholic colleges and universities in the United Stateshas other important facets:

First, it is evident chat the canons are designed forsystems of higher education in situations considerablydifferent from those in North America...The Cath-olic institutions in the United States in order to satisfythe nature and purpose of higher education, follow thedistinctive American pattern...This pattern differs sogreatly in style of academic governance and in culturaland social dimensions from the European system ofhigher education that it is seriously questionablewhether the canons are indeed applicable in the UnitedStates.

A second and related element is the purpose ofCanons 810 (#2) and 812 which seek to assure the in-tegrity of Catholic teaching. The historical back-ground of such legislation, and specifically the back-ground of "canonical mission"...is found in nine-teenth century efforts to protect the Church's teachingoffice and the freedom of teachers of theology fromthe hostile interference of civil states and secular polit-ical control. To the extent that this is the purpose ofthe law, it has no application at all in the UnitedStates...

Still another, and third, consideration has alreadybeen suggested by the absence of formal juridicaltiesin most instancesbetween the American post-secondary institutions and church authorities. Therevised Code of Canon Law has refined the definitionof institutions which are considered as having juridicalpersonality at canon law, namely, as subjects ofcanonical rights and obligations (see c.113 #2)...Noneof the Catholic colleges and universities would be con-sidered a public juridical person .In other matters,also, even apart from the canons on Catholic highereducation, the institutions are not touched directly bycanon law...The aforementioned considerations aresound and have led some to the conclusion that thecanons are inapplicable to most American institutionsof higher education?'

7IThe Code of Canon Law, A Text and Comnwntary, Commissionedby the Canon Law Society of America, J.A. Coriden, T.J. Green, D.E.Heintschel, Ed. (New York: Paulist Press, 1985), pp. 571-577.

22 25

McManus is careful to point out that such a position doesnot "diminish either the need to examine the canons care-fully or the significance of the ministry of higher educa-tion within the Church ... this does not contravene in anyway the right to academic freedom which the canons ex-pressly uphold in accord with the explicit teaching ofVatican II (cc809, 218)72

Some of the commentaries on the canons in this sectionreflect the continuing concern of American institutions:

(On #808) It is difficult to imagine very many Catholiccolleges or universities in the United States requestingthe permission suggested in this canon. Most suchinstitutions are already confident in their Catholicidentity. And the canons do not have retroactive ef-fect; an institution which used "Catholic" in its titlebefore November 27, 1983 is not subject to the newprovision!'(On #810) In treating of the appointment and removalof teachers in Catholic colleges and universities inparagraph one the revised code canonizes the statutesof the institution. It respects the legitimate autonomyof each academic setting. _Earlier drafts of the secondparagraph provided that bishops could remove teach-ers for reasons of faith or morals. The deletion of thatprovision is most worthy of note. It was removed asboth unnecessary and inappropriate, an improperexternal intervention in the internal affairs of an insti-tution of higher education.'

(on #812-requirement of a mandate) This terse newcanon caused more apprehension and provoked moreopposition during the drafting stages of the revisedCode than probably any other provision of the law.The requirement of an ecclesiastical mandate to teachtheology is found nowhere in the 1917 Code nor in theteaching of the Second Vatican Council. It originatedin Gennany in 1848 when the hierarchy was strugglingto retain some control over the teaching of religion inthe newly secularized schools. When the canon wasproposed in the 1977 draft of the revised code it raiseda storm of opposition in North America. The ACCU,the Catholic Theological Society of America and the"Bishops and Presidents Committee" all made strongrepresentations for its deletion...This concern wascarried by prelates from Canada and the United Statesto the Code Commission, and in person to Pope JohnPaul II by delegates of the Association of Catholic Col-leges and Universities (audience of March 2, 1982).Concern remains at such a level in North America thatthe United States and Canadian bishops are beingurged to request an indult dispensing the territoriesfrom the obligation of #812. (Note: the long discussionof this canon deserves fuller treatment; basically, itargues to the ambisuity of the meaning and applica-tion of the canon).7b

December 7, 1985 marked the twentieth anniversary ofthe Declaration on Religious Freedomyears ofdialogue, debate, growth, change. Catholic institutionsof higher education had been forced to reexamine theirnature, their changing roles, their failures and successes.

72Ibid., p. 572.

731bid., P. 573.74Ibid., p. 574.751131c1., pp. 575-6.

Ellis' challenge of 1955 had been a prelude to a far greaterdevelopment than even he, great historian that he is,could have foreseen. In the dialogue with educationalleaders from other countries, they had come to recognizethat there were other patterns, other ideals that influ-enced the patterns of Catholic education. Within theUnited States there were also strong differences about therelation of the universities to the Church, about academicfreedom and autonomy. Twenty years is a very shortperiod in which to change habits of thought rooted incenturies, and the literature of the period reflects thenostalgia for the past and the impatience with the pace ofchange which characterize any period of rapid change.

On April 15, 1985, a proposed Schema for a PontificalDocument on Catholic Universities was distributed bythe Congregation for Catholic Education as a "pureworking instrument, to be assessed with impartialityfrom every point of view." It stated: "With the apostolicconstitution Sapientia Christiana on April 15, 1979,norms for ecclesiastical universities and faculties wereissued ... The time is now opportune for the provision ofa new pontifical document for issuing analogous normsfor Catholic universities and faculties."'

Reaction to the Schema ranged from astonishment thatthe work of the past 20 years seemed to have beenignored, alarm on the part of those who became aware ofthe dialogue for the first time, to support from theFellowship of Catholic Scholars. Once more, the ACCUtook leadership in organizing the dialogue. A question-naire was distributed to college and university presidentsand a synthesis of the responses prepared by SisterGallin, the Executive Director, was sent to the Congrega-tion, and appeared in Origins (Vol.15,#43) for April 10,1986. Since another paper at this session is dealing indetail with this discussion (which is still in progress), Iwill only note that the ACCU summary is an outstandingexample of the growing stature of Catholic higher educa-tion in the United States.

Theologian Richard McBrien, in an address to ACCU,summarized the task of Catholic higher education in theChurch of Vatican II:

As we continue to move theologically, if notcanonically, away from an exceedingr.y clericalized,hierarchically-oriented concept of ar.: Church, Cath-olic higher education will increasingly recognize thatmatters of orthodoxy and ecclesiastical discipline haveto be resolved in the context of wider, more complexprocesses of reflection, argument and consensus-building. This is not at all to suggest that the Churchof the 1980's and beyond will be a Church withoutpapal and episcopal supervision, but only that thePetrine and episcopal ministries will be perceivedincreasingly and more profoundly as ministries to andfor th:: community rather than ministries over thecommunity. Furthermore, that communitythanks inno small part to the work of our several institutionsis, and will be, an increasingly well-educated com-munity of reasonably sophisticated and criticaladults... A Catholic college or university which

761145, p. 708. Origins, Vol. 15, 1143, 4/10/86.

23 2 6

yields too quickly to ecclesiastical pressures sins notonly against good ecclesiology but against the integrityand maturity of faith of its own people.'

Rereading the inspiring words of Lumen Gentium andthe Declaration on Religious Freedom we understandwith new clarity that the ideal is hard to realize and slowto reach fulfillment. A building can be quickly razed by ablast or a demolition crew and be rebuilt accordingly tothe plans of a single architect by placing brick on iden-tical brick. A People, however, is very different; unitedby a common love, even by a hope for the same end, itsmembers may differ in culture, outlook, ability tochange, pace of change. They will be radical, liberal, pro-gressive, moderate, conservative, ultra-conservative andeach will want to be heard. Often they will use the samewords but with different meanings; they long for dia-logue but are upset when differing views emerge and areloyally defended; they espouse community but some-times are really seeking uniformity. A People will neverbe tidy, neat, submissive but if it is truly a People the dif-ferences will not divide but will enrich the whole.

These and many other insights have come to the sur-face in the Church emerging from Vatican II. If we are tobe effective in truly forming a People of God, in unitingthe whole world in peace and love, we must continue thedialogue with patience and trust. The dialogue onCatholic higher education is only a small part of thewhole. It has taken much time and energy and has fos-tered good will and understanding among many diversegroups. It has forced Catholic educators to come to adeeper understanding of the unique nature of Catholic in-

'Richard P. Mc Brien, op cit.

24

stitutions in the United States and to appreciate thehistorical foundations of differing views in othercountriesit has blasted the ghetto mentality. In seekingto obtain understanding from the Congregation onCatholic Education, American Catholic educators havereached a better self-understanding, insights into bothachievements and failures. The challenges of the SecondVatican Council forced us to forego easy answers and thesecurity of simple solutions. They have forced us to facehonestly the complexities and ambiguities, the pain, ofour times.

As we continue the dialogue on autonomy, freedomand the role of our institutions we might be sustained bythe final written words of John Courtney Murray:

The skeleton remains; the classical conception of thevertical relationship of authority and freedom. But itneeds to assume a more Christian and therefore morehuman form by standing forth in the living flesh andblood that is the Christian community. More ab-stractly, the vertical relationship of command-obedience needs to be completed by the horizontalrelationships of dialogue between authority and thefree Christian community. The two relationships donot cancel but reciprocally support, each other.

This more adequate understanding of the ecc1esialrelationship does not indeed dissolve the inevitabletension between freedom and authority. But by settingthis perennial polarity within the living context ofcomunity, it can serve to make the tension healthy andcreative, releasing the energies radiant from both polesfor their one common task which is to build the be-loved community.'

ThAmerica, 12/3/66, p. 741.

2 7

How Bishops and Theologians Relate

Most Reverend James W. Malone

I am grateful for the opportunity of being part of yourcelebration and eager to share in a continuing convena-tion which I believe is essential for the church todaythedialogue of bishops and theologians. To contribute tothis dialogue. I propose to examine the period fromVatican II through the synod of 1985 by focusing on thetheme of freedom and authority in the church with spe-cific reference to its meaning for bishops and theologians.

Accordingly, I will address three questions: 1) freedomand authority in the Catholic Church, the conciliarlegacy; 2) freedom, authority and theology, the post-conciliar experience; and 3) bishops, theologians and thechurch, the future agenda.

The Conciliar LegacyIn 1985 the whole church had an opportunity to recall

and reflect upon the event of Vatican II. The preparationfor the 1985 synod in Rome stimulated a significant bodyof analysis and commentary on the council and its teach-ing. The conciliar experience is defined in terms of somekey themes. Externallythe church ad extrathe centralideas involved an opening to the world, a broader dia-logue with the Christian churches and a new dialoguewith the great world religions. Internallythe church adintrakey ideas were the concept of the people of God,the collegiality of the episcopacy and the role of the laityin the church.

Running through both the process of engagement withthe world and the project of renewal within the churchwas the theme of freedom and authority in the church.The phrase "freedom and authority" became symbolic ofthe conciliar experience and of the post-conciliar effortsto implement the teaching of Vatican II. The symbolicsignificance of the freedom-authority question wasrooted in the substance of the teaching of Vatican II. Inthe last article of his life, Father John Courtney Murray,SJ, described the council as "a splendid event offreedom."' Both the Declaration on Religious Liberty and

Most Reverend James W. Malone is the Bishop of Youngs-town, Ohio, and President of the National Conference ofCatholic Bishops. The present text was delivered at aJune, 1986 symposium marking the 25th anniversary ofthe graduate theology program at Marquette Universityand was originally published in Origins, Volume 16:Number 9 (July 31, 1986).'John Courtney Murray, "Freedom, Authority and Community,"America, December 1966.

the Pastoral Constitution on the Church in the ModernWorld reflect the centrality of the theme of freedom inthe council. Correlatively, the Dogmatic Constitution onthe Church manifests both a reaffirmation of the central-ity of authority in Catholic ecclesiology and an effort toroot authority in its biblical basis of a form of service tothe wider ecclesial community.

During the council, the freedom-authority relationshipwas analyzed, discussed and debated throughout thechurch. Authors of different persuasions would empha-size one side of the equation or the other, but the scope ofthe debate was a wide-ranging ecclesial reflection on twocentral ideas of Christian faith. In his 1964 Mc Geary lec-ture, "Reflections on Conscience and Authority," thethen-Bishop John Wright of Pittsburgh went to somelengths to stress the positive function of authority in thechurch. Taking as his guide Father Yves Congar's dictumthat for bishops "power is responsibility and authorityservice," Bishop Wright wrote:

'This means that authority is not only established toregulate, to order, to control and, on occasion, to for-bid...it also means what is usually much more impor-tant and urgent, namely, that authority is given to in-spire and to encourage the initiatives of others, as doesGod by his grace."2

To complement such reflections on authority, otherauthors pressed an expanded role for freedom within thechurch. In his inaugural lecture in the United States in1963, Father Hans Kung attracted large audiences acrossthe country with his analysis of "the church andfreedom." In themes which reflected both the splendidevent of freedom occurring in Rome and the cultural tra-dition on freedom in America, Kung said:

"Freedom in the church always has to be won over andover again....The realization of freedom in thechurch s a task of decisive importance: How is thechurch with her message of freedom to be regarded ascredible by men if she does not show herself as adwelling place of freedom'?"3

The quotes from Bishop Wright and Father Kung catchsome of the spirit of conciliar debate on fraedom andauthority, a debate which spilled out from the counciland into lecture halls, classrooms and journals through-

2Bishop John J. Wright, "Reflections on Conscience and Authority: theMc Geary Lecture," The Critic, 1964.

3Hans Kung, "Freedom and the Church" in Freedom Today (Sheed andWard, 1964).

25 2 8

out the Catholic world. The pertinent documents of thecouncil provided the ideas and issues for the post-conciliar engagement with freedom and authority. Everylevel of the church from the papacy to the parish has beenpart of the freedom-authority debate and drama.

Twenty years later, I find in two articles a guide for theconciliar and post-conciliar attempt to state a contempo-rary Catholic understanding of the value and role offreedom and authority in Catholic life. The first is JohnCourtney Murray's 1966 article in America, "Freedom,Authority and Community"; the second is Avery Dulles'1985 article in Commonweal, "Authority: the DividedLegacy." The significance of these articles is not that theydefinitively answer the question of how freedom andauthority are to be balanced, but they do analyze what isat stake for the church and Christian life in finding theright relationship of freedom and authority.

Dulles illustrates precisely how the council reaffirmedand strengthened key elements of authority in Catholicpolity. The episcopal and papal offices have, if anything,been affirmed with new vigor by the Dogmatic Constitu-tion on the Church. While the conciliar teaching on col-legIality has broadened the scope of episcopal participa-tion in decision making, Dulles shows how both Paul VIand John Paul II have acted in highly personal ways,exercising papal prerogative in teaching and governance.The value of Dulles' analysis is that it shows both howVatican II opened new perspectives on decentralizingauthority and yet left in place patterns of leadershipwhich guarantee strong centers of authority withinCatholic polity.

Murray recognizes the essential role of authority inCatholic teaching and life, but argues that the freedom-authority equation exhibits an imbalance, which is therroduct of the post-Reformation period. He finds in thetheology of Vatican H the potential to emphasize per-sonal and institutional freedom without eroding theCatholic understanding of authority. His article, towhich I shall return later in this lecture. constitates ablueprint for recasting the freedom-authority themes.Such an effort, he argues, must be seen in ecclesiological,not political, terms. As Murray describes the task:

"This more adequate understanding of the ecclesialrelationship does not indeed dissolve the inevitabletension between freedom and authority. But by situat-ing this perennial polarity within the living context ofcommunity, it can serve to make the tension healthyand creative, releasing energies mdiant from bothpoles for their one common task, which is to build thebeloved community."

Both Murray and Dulles view the working out of thisperennial polarity of freedom and authority as a taskinvolving the whole church and touching every relation-ship within the church. No relationship is more complexin this context than correlating the rights and responsibil-ities of bishops and theologians as they seek to build thebeloved community.

4Murray, "Freedom, Authority and Community."

26

The Post-Conciliar Experience

To assess the bishop-theologian relationship in thelight of freedom and authority, it is necessary to say aword about the role of theologians in the conciliar era.The council was the work first of the Holy Spirit, secondof the bishops who participated in it and third of thetheologians who prepared the way for the teaching ofVatican II and who helped shape the specific content ofthat teaching. The role played by theologians was strik-ingly symbolized by the Mass Pope Paul VI concele-brated with the leading theologians at the close of Vati-can II. Around the altar were Yves Congar, OP, Henri deLubac, John Courtney Murray, SJ, and many othersmost of whom had been silenced for part of their theolog-ical careers and had lived to see their work vindicated bythe council. In human terms, it is difficult to think ofVatican II's achievement without the patient, meticulousscholarshin of these theologians throughout the first halfof this century.

The central role of theologians continued into the post-conciliar period. Biblical scholars helped bishops and lai-ty, preists and religious understand how the historical-critical method would illuminate the mysteries of theScriptures, not erode their majesty. Moral theologiansgrappled with a range of questions from marriage tonuclear war, all foreshadowed in the Pastoral Cor stitu-tion on the Church in the Modem World. No area of thechurch's life, from liturgy to ecumenism to social minis-try, was untouched by the theological renewal which hadboth contributed to Vatican II and was enhanced by it.

Precisely because of the vitality of theology in theseyears and because of the speed of the theological renewalsome strains inevitably developed between the academicrequirements of freedom and the pastoral necessities oforder in the church. The post-conciliar period has beenmarked by an extraordinary degree of collaboration be-tween bishops and theologians. It has also known itsshare of conflict. From contraception to Christology,from ecclesiology to ethics, the episcopal magisteriumand the theological community have experienced theclash of mind on mind in the search for what the Lordcalls us to be in the wake of Vatican II. Inevitably, in anage when religion, and particularly Catholicism, hasbecome a prime interest in the media, the conflict hasreceived more attention than the collaboration.

As a bishop, I have benefited from the collaboration,and I have known some of the pain of conflict. Trying tolearn from both, allow me to sketch my view of the con-tent of the theological enterprise and the context needed iftheological work is a proceed fruitfully.

By the content of the theological task, I refer to thosecharacteristics which I hear theologians saying shapetheir work and which I find most significant as a bishopin need of solid, creative theological assistance. My shortlist of what should characterize Catholic theology todayis that it should be ecclesial, experiential and scientific.

Theology is an ecclesial discipline. It serves a commun-ity of faith. The dynamism of faith moves inexorablyfrom issent to the word of God to a continuing quest for

29

deeper understanding of what my assent means and howit relates to the wider world of human knowledge andhuman affairs. Theologians serve the ecclesial com-munity by providing it with systematic reflection aboutquestions of the meaning and relevance of faith whichevery believer must answer for himself or herself. We allask ourselves or others what it means to believe and whatdifference "the Christian fact" makes in the world; buttheologians not only ask these questions, they are parti-cularly prepared to help the whole community of faithanswer them.

Theologians, to use a commercial analogy, are not self-employed; they live in the ecclesial community and theirwork is a public function for the community. A churchdevoid of theologians or a church which fails to respectthe theological enterprise forfeits its sense of identity andits potential for witness in the wider society.

To say that theology is ecclesial does not mean that it isproperly done only in seminaries or church-related insti-tutions. Theology today cart be ecclesial and still be pur-sued in a multiplicity of settings. But wherever the workis done there should be, in Catholic theology, an ecclesialfoundation for it and an ecclesial significance to it. Thewider community of the church needs theologians if faithis to be intelligible and relevant. The theologian needs thecommunity as a point of reference for his or her work, asa source of questions and commentary, and as a constit-uency which manifests the meaning of the word of Godby the quality of its witness in the world.

The relationship of the theologian and the communityhighlights the experiential character of theology. The-ology is rooted in the word of God, but the word tookshape in history and it must be continually related to thespecific character of the history of each age and culture.The experiential character of theology was classicallystated in the phrase from Vatican H which says, 'Thechurch has always had the duty of scrutinizing the signsof the times and of interpreting them in the light of theGospel" (Pastoral Constitution on the Church in theModern World, 4).

"Scrutinizing the signs of the times" means being sensi-tive to the experience of the Christian community as itseeks to live the Gospel. From the conciliar documents,through the theology of liberation to the consultation ofthe U.S. episcopacy on peace and the economy, the effortof post-conciliar Catholicism has been to begin withexperience as a first step toward understanding the call ofGod in history. The effort means probing the personalquest for meaning and the public questions of justice,peace and freedom. The experiential emphasis in theol-ogy is one illustration of how the theologian serves thewider community. The theologian listens to the experienceof the church, reflects upon it in light of the Catholic tradi-tion and offers the community the fruit of this reflectionto guide its future actions.

The ecclesial and experiential dimensions of theologyare related; theology serves the church in order that thechurch may serve the world. An ecclesial theology whichlacks an experiential edge risks isolating the power of the

27

Gospel in the sanctuary. The council, I believe, provideda spirit and substance for theology which is both ecclesialand experiential in character. The post-conciliar engage-ment of the church in the worlda process which hashad reverberations around the globeis grounded in theecclesial-experiential theology of Vatican II.

As a bishop in an episcopal conference which hasdevoted substantial time and energy to the place of thechurch in the world, I can testify to the irreplaceable roleof the theological enterprise. The pastoral letters on peaceand the economy drew extensively on the work of theolo-gians. The public dialogue which surrounded the draftingprocess and the task of interpreting the letters to a multi-plicity of audiences would have been impossible withoutthe resources and personal engagement of the theologicalcommunity.

The scientific character of theology becomes importantprecisely because of the need the church has to make itsbeliefs intelligible to an increasingly educated communityin this country and to the wider public. I use science hereas St. Thomas described theology "as a science." I choosethe term to highlight the need for Catholic theology notonly to provide meaning for those in the community offaith, but also to provide an interpretation of faith in theintellectual and cultural world of our day.

A scientific theology will be at home in the university.It is clearly not the case that faith can be reduced to onemore academic discipline, but it is the case that a Catholicvision of faith deeply respects the role of reason. A scif.- -tific theology will refleci: the pattern which Father WalterBurghardt has described as Origen's theological style: 1)recognizing the rights of reason; 2) acquiring a sweepingrange of knowledge; 3) relating the new with the old, thesecular and sacred; and 4) incorporating both rationalknowledge and the wisdom of faith in intelligent love.

In sum, I believe theology must be ecclesially at homein the church, experientially at home in the world andscientifically at home in the academy. To develop the-ology with this content, theologians require a specificcontext for their work. It is that context I now wish todescribe.

The context for fruitful theolocal reflection, I sug-gest, is summarized in the title of Father Murray's article:"Freedom, Authority and Community." Theologyshould have a relationship to all three terms.

Freedom is a necessary condition for scholarly work.This is art accepted principle in other disciplines, and it istrue for theology as well. The freedom needed is thespace to follow the logic of a scholar's research, to statethe case for one's findings, to have unhindered access tothe comments of others and to benefit from their criti-cisms. Freedom is not a luxury in an academic setting; itis !!.o.: presumption upon which the style of academic lifeis founded. Obviously there are special conditionsgoverning the pursuit of theology as an ecclesial disci-pline; the demands of public order in the church are realand legitimate. But there is no reason in principle whythe accepted standards of academic freedom should notbe observed in the study of Catholic theology.

30

Because it is an ecclesial discipline, theology should bejoined to the concept of authority in the church. Interest-ingly, Father Murray argued that "the first function ofauthority is to foster the freedom of theological inquiry."'But authority also has other functions in the church;Murray described them as unitive, directive and punitive.The first two, the unitive and directive roles, are designedto coordinate the various charisms in the church and toorder them toward effective public witness. The punitivefunction serves the Christian community by protecting it"against the egoismswhether of thought or of actionthat would destory its unity or damage its work."'Theology should be a guide for the exercise of authorityin the church, even as theologians recognize that they tooare bound by the unitive and directive role of those inauthority, andin the extreme casesubject to punitiveaction. A theologically informed exercise of authority,however, is one of the best safeguards against capricioususe of the punitive role.

Theology, precisely as an ecclesial discipline, shouldinform both the use of freedom and the use of authorityin the church. In this way it will serve the community inwhich both freedom and authority are necessary meansto the fulfillment of its vocation. A theologically groundedexercise of freedom and authority can be produced onlythrough a collaborative effort of bishops and theolo-gians. The prospect for such collaboration is my finaltopic.

The Future AgendaI have already noted that the post-conciliar period has

witnessed both extensive collaboration of bishops andtheologians, and some conflict. Since the church is a liv-ing body, key relationships within the church have fromits beginnings manifested both harmony and tension.Looking at the immediate future of the bishop-theologianrelationship, it is only fair to observe that there is someapprehension presently being expressed in several quar-ters about a series of issues facing the universal churchand the church in the United States. After a period whenthe conciliar winds of freedom moved through all ourinstitutions, there are some signs that a certain strength-ening of episcopal control is being called for in the draftdocument from the Holy See on Catholic universities.The document, as you know, has been subjected to somerigorous criticism in the United States. Precisely becauseit is a draft, it is my hope that the kind of honest, forth-right exchange which has occurred will move us toward adocument which will be to the benefit of the episcopalmagisterium, the theological community and, most ofall, the church which we both are called to serve.

This remark brings me to the heart of my theme: asbishops and theologians we are fated and called to liveand work together for the wider community of the church.Our ministries are of the church, and they exist for the

5Murray, "A Will to Community" in Stephen Bayne, ed., TheologicalFreedom and Social Responsibility.6Murray, "Freedom, Authority and Community."

28

church, which is both a community of believers and asocial institution called to contribute responsibiy to thewelfare of the world. Precisely because the church as Cath-olic cannot exist without bishops or without theologians,the quality of our relationship influences the life of thechurch as a whole. We both bear public responsibilities.

How should we conceive the nature of our relation-ship? What criteria and procedures should structure ourworking style? The questions are easier to ask than toanswer; both the International Theological Commissionin 1976 and a joint committee of the Catholic TheologicalSociety of America and the Canon Law Society ofAmerica in 1984 have provided useful reflections on theselarge questions. I urge those interested to consult theseresources, and I will confine myself to two brief commentson: 1) the content of our mutual responsibilities; and 2)the context in which we fulfill them.

The content of our vocational responsibilities can behighlighted by two quotations. The International Theo-logical Commission study describes the role of bishops inthe following manner:

"It is the magisterium's task authoritatively to de-fend the Catholic integrity and unity of faith andmorals. From this follow specific functions; andalthough at first glance they seem particularly to be ofa rather negative character, they are, rather, a positiveministry for the life of the chuich. These are: 'the taskof authoritatively intepreting the word of God, writ-ten and handed down,' the censuring of opinionswhich endanger the faith and morals proper to thechurch, the proposing of truths which are of particularcontemporary relevance."'

The emphasis of the text falls upon words like "defend-ing," "authoritatively interpreting" and "censuring";implicit in the description is the responsibility of themagisterium to conserve the truth of the Gospel and toprotect the public order of the community.

I will now let a theologian speak for theologians,describing the content of the theological enterprise fromthe inside, as it were. My choice is again Father JohnCourtney Murray, who once described the theologian'stask in these words:

'We do indeed stand for the tradition. But the tradi-tion is not simply a thing of the past. It is a traditiongrowth, and the true theologian stands on the growingedge of the tradition ....The theologian stands forgrowth in understanding, knowledge and wisdom.This growth mu: t be of such dimension and of suchintensity as to pervade the entire church. It is the spe-cial task of the theologian to further this growth. Hemust so present the faith that that which was formerlybelieved, but obscurely understood, is now believedand understood more clearly, so that posterity mayunderstand and venerate what antiquity had vener-ated but not understood."'

With elegance and clarity, Murray puts the accent ofhis remarks on "development," "growth," "understand-

7International Theological Commission. "Theses on the Relationship Be-tween the Ecclesiastical Magisterium and Theology," (II, Thesis 5, 2).U.S. Catholic Conference, 1976.5Murray, "Theologian: Witness to Growth," interview with FrancisFiorenza in The Advocate.

31

ing"; the emphasis here is less on conservation than oncreativity, less on the truth already in possession andmore on sharing and enlarging the range of understand-ing we possess. My purpose is not to counterpoint thesetexts in an imagery of absolute opposition. Nothingwould be further from the substance of Murmy's view orthe spirit of my commentary. Preservativii and com-munication, protection and development are comple-mentary obligations of the teaching role of the church.All who share in that role must accept responsibility forboth dimensions of the ministry.

But we share the common responsibility differently:Theologians without an appetite for creativity and devel-opment will not serve us well in an age where knowledgegrows by quantum leaps; bishops without a courageoussense of responsibility to protect the deposit of faith willleave a gift we all need vulnerable to erosion or attack.The content of our responsibilities is complementary; thedynamic orientation of our responsibilities is different.Bishops and theologians need a sensitivity to each other'sministry in order that together we can share the treasureof the Catholic tradition and shape it for the future.

The context in which we function is both challengingand stressful. In the setting of the United States threecharacteristics of our culture influence how bishops andtheologians relate. The first is a social forcethe perva-sive influence of the mass media. The episcopacy-theologian n'Aionship has been a part of the church's lifefor centuries. But Aquinas, Bellarrnine or Newman neverhad to contend with Time, Newsweek or Dan Rather.The old procedural guideline about publishing only intechnical theological journals lest one disturb the faithfulhas been swept away in the post-conciliar period, whenthe churchespecially conflict in the churchis "hotmedia." There is no time to lament the loss of a classicalsense of leisure. Bishops and theologians must manageour collaboration and our conflicts on center stage; weshould face this fact. Most of what we say in private willbecome public.

A second characteristic is an intellectual traditiontheAmerican commitment to academic freedom. In 1.1is Chan-cellor Dunning lectures of 1956, Freedom in Contempo-rary Society, Professor Samuel Eliot Morison definedacademic freedom as "the newest arrival in the freedomranks" and "second only to political freedom as a protec-tion for society as a whole." Morison noted with care andrespect that the contemporary notion of academic free-dom was unknown in the medieval university and that ina college or university committed to "propagating a par-ticular religion" there would always be some stress on theouter edge of the principle of academic freedom. Somestress perhaps, 'out Catholic colleges and universities, as Isee them today, are committed to being both authertical-ly Catholic and authentically academic. We will feelMorison's prediction of stress, but we should not give up

29

either pole of the tension. Living the dynamic of "Cath-olic and free" is simply one specification of maintainingthe traditional Catholic commitment to honor thedemands of both faith and reason.

A third characteristic touching both bishops andtheologians is a cultural onea democracy lives by open,public debate where all parties are both free to speak andaccountable for the implications of their positions.Bishops and theologians are ultimately accountable to thetruth of the tradition we serve and to the community ofthe church of which we are members. Catholicism is nota democracy; but that truism does not touch the questionof how Catholicism lives in a democratic culture. Weshould neither be simply absorbed within it nor isolatedfrom it. We are called to be leaven, salt and light, but allthree require entering into something to transform it.Bishops and theologians must preserve the faith andshare the faith in a culture which values the courage ofconvictions openly stated, openly criticized and openlydefended. In the end, the central truths of Catholic faithand morals are n( t to be decided by vote. But that doesnot mean we can or should ignore the demands of dueprocess in our ecclesial institutions. Nor does it precludea teaching style which fosters within the church and withthe wider society what Father Murray called "civilizedconversation." The cultivation of such civil discourse be-tween bishops and theologians should be a model forextending the same dialogue into church and society.

At the risk of overexposure of one source in this lec-ture, allow me to close it with the last words publishedunder John Courtney Murray's name. They describe thespirit of intellectual courage and Christian hope whichshould characterize both bishops and theologians today:

"Today there are abroad all sorts of tendencies, cur-rents of thought, climates of opinion. And manyuncertainties attend the necessary business of arenewal of the personal structures of conscience andthe further business of a reform of the objective ex-pressions of the Christian faith. We all live in an unbe-lieving world. And a 'credibility gap' has opened be-tween the doctrines and structures of the church andthe sheer experience of the world as it is. The truths ofthe church and the forms of her life are supposed tointerpret the experience of human life and to give itsome saving structure. But is this happening? Manysay no, and not without reason. This answer seems tohave lain behind John XXIII's distinction between the'substance of Christian faith and the 'forms' of its ex-pression. The distinction could be given a too sim-plistic meaning, as if only words were at stake. But itpoints in the right direction, toward a task we musttake firmly in hand. We shall do the task badly, ofcourse. There will be lots of 'mistakes,' but they arereadily dealt with, since they involve no will to error.This latter thing is the danger. How to avoid it? I thinkthe corrective is a wilt, to communityof thought andlove. The Christian community is not in error, what-ever mistakes it may make."9

9Murray, ''A Will to Community."

32

A Catholic University: Some Clarifications

Most Reverend Rembert G. Weak land, O.S.B.

It saddens me to see the campaign here in the arch-diocese to ruin the reputation of Marquette Universitybecause of one of its professors. Marquette is one of theCatholic institutions that we all can be rightly proud ofbecause of its contribution through many years to thecity, to the church in this region, and to the nation.

All of us, including a Catholic university, must have aconcern for accuracy and clarity of Catholic doctrine. Inthis context, I repeat what I wrote once before: Theteaching of Dr. Daniel Maguire of Marvette's theologi-cal faculty on the question of abortion is not consonantwith the official teaching of the Catholic church, a teach-ing clearly repeated by the Congregation for the Doctrineof the Faith and again reiterated by the bishops of theU.S.A. in their statement in November at their annualmeeting.

The doctrine committee of the U.S. bishops, afterciting the opinion that suggests that abortion can some-times be a legitimate moral choice, wrote: 'We want toaffirm that such an opinion, however sincerely moti-vated, contradicts the clear and constant teaching of thechurch that deliberately chosen abortion is objectivelyimmoral. It is not a legitimate moral choice." The bishopsadopted that resolution as their Liwn. It is in agreementwith the Declaration on Abortion of the Congregationfor the Doctrine of Faith, Nov. 18, 1974.

It Pnms clear that Dr. Maguire does dissent from suchteaching.

I would also have to state that his teaching on homo-sexuality,as found in the article, "The Morality of Homo-sexual Marriage" (A Challenge to Love, edited by RobertNugent, New York, 1983, pp. 118-134), cannot be recon-ciled with the teaching of the church as outlined in the"Declaration on Certain Questions Concerning SexualEthics" of that same Congregation for the Doctrine of theFaith, Dec. 29, 1975.

An important distinction needs to be made here. Mycriticism of a Marquette theologian is not meant as acriticism of the university providing for his work. MajorAmerican Catholic universities, including Marquette,long ago adopted the standard American guarantees ofacademic freedom. This was done not as a compromise

Most Reverend Rembert Weak land, O.S.B. is the Arch-bishop of Milwaukee. This text originally appeared inThe Catholic Herald, the Archdiocesan newspaper, onMarch 21, 1985.

30

of ideals to secular reality, but as a way to make thoseinstitutions more effective in service to the church. Theywould be more effective because they could attract totheir work a more competent faculty and staff, andthereby enhance the cultural impact of their Catholicwitness.

Academic freedom must not be interpreted to meanthat truth and falsehood are the same, nor does it meanthat one dees not have a grave obligation to search forand teach the truth. Academic freedom in our Catholicuniversities has made them stronger and is a heritage thatmust not be jeopardized.

The risks of this are also clear. As Marquette stated ina 1969 foundation document, for example: "...preciselybecause of the free condition in which the university'sessential activities take place, a university calling itselfCatholic freely entertains the possibility of havingdevelop within itself points of view which may seem con-tradictory to one or another teaching of the church." Butthe risks were taken for the greater good that could ac-crue to the church in America. Seeing, as I do, the im-mense contributions of Marquette and the assembly ofAmerican Ca t!lolic universities, and seeing around theworld no collection of Catholic universities to comparewith the American, I believe it was a risk well taken and Iam pleased to have that fine university in this archdiocese.

If that gives some parents concern, namely, that a sonor daughter of theirs might be taught by one not teachingin every detail Catholic doctrine (and this can happen justas easily in non-theological areas), they must rememberthat also trying to preserve a young person from hearingor reading material contrary to Catholic belief is not thebest form of education.

We all must learn in a free society to discern right fromwrong, truth from falsehood. Gaining such maturity isdemanded of all of us and should result from the wholeeducation received in a Catholic university, especially oneas concerned for its religious obligations as is Marquette.

Of course, there are risks, but there are just as manyrisks in denying to teachers the freedom that has been apart of our academic heritage for centuries. I, too, h-pethat teachers always clearly distinguish what is officialchurch teaching from their own views. But to apply to aCatholic university any tactics that would resemble thoseof a totalitarian state and that would deprive it of its aca-demic freedom would be indeed an even more dangerousprocess in the long run.

33

Academic Freedom and the Catholic College/University

Alice Gal lin, O.S.U.

During the past few years, American Catholic highereducation has received a disproportionate amount ofmedia attention. There are several reasons for this: theproposed Schema on Catholic universities; the revisedcode of Canon Law; the case of Father Glades Curran;Dan Maguire's interaction with several institutions and, onthe sidelines, such non-university issues as ArchbishopHunthausen, Michael Bucldey, S.J.'s appointment toUSCC/NCCB, various questions about the process ofgranting an imprimatur. All of these issues reflect a funda-mental difference in people's understanding of the °lurch,and none of them are settled by easy recourse to laws andpenalties.

We are, by definition, both Catholic and university.Our task is to explore the meaning of each term and tohave conversations about the points of tension betweenthe two. A recent speaker summed it up by saying the°lurch to which we belong is infallible while the univer-sity necessarily is fallible.' That is somewhat over-simplified but it does contain a grain of truth. Although wehave entitled this talk "Academic Freedom", it might simp-ly be better to speak of the freedom needed for our task ofbeing a university and the freedom needed for us to beCatholicand where the freedoms may intersect.

Universities, from their beginning, have had to definetheir freedom against both State and Clurch. Such institu-tional freedom was seen as necessary if the individualscholar-teacher and the individual student were to be freeto carry out their vocation to learn and to teach. Such aconcept of freedom clearly antedates the AAUP "redbook" and yet is at the root of it. In an address last year,Father Timothy Healy of Georgetown University dwelt onthe fact that teaching, of itself, required freedom. For bothteacher and learner, the process leads to self-actualizationand that is a process that can only be carried on in free-dom. He quoted Rahner in this context: "...freedom isnot the ability to do this or to do that, but the power todecide about and actualize ourselves."' Father Healy went

Alice Gal lin, 0.S.U., is Executwe Director of Associa-tion of Catholic Colleges and Universities. Her text waspresented in an address at Siena College, March 5, 1987.1Denis O'Brien, address to ACCU, February 1, 1987.

2Timothy Healy, S.J., "The Centrality of Teaching" an address given tothe Association of Catholic Colleges and Universities, February 4, 1986,pp. 4-5. Available from ACCU.

so far as to suggest that because "teaching summons andsupports authentic freedom for ourselves and our studentsit can fairly be called sacramental."

In the Roosevelt era, we spoke of the "four freedoms"two were freedoms "from" (want, fear) and two were free-doms "of" (speech, worship)...but the further questionwas "freedom for what?" As Americans, we take forgranted a freedom which we know is not enjoyed in manyother places around the world. Whether speaking of na-tional or international affairs, we often assume that free-dom is worth fighting for. Our battle hymns and our civilrights sones insist that in the end, freedom will be our greatgift. It has not always been so clear what we intended touse our freedom for.

I think that the same may be true of our universities,both secular and denominationaland the many kinds inbetween. We defend academic freedom as the necessaryprereryisite to scholarly achievement and we often soundas if it is something that exists apart from any politicalrealities. But all freedom exists within a community andwe need only read Ellen Schrecker's No Ivory Tower' todiscover how little academic freedom was protected in the1950's when McCarthyism was the political and socialcontext and even the AAU and AAUP failed to defendthose who dissented from mainstream American philos-ophy. As American Catholics, we have suffered our shareof bigotry in the universities of an earlier period, treatmentthat was not seen by those in power there as a denial oftheir academic freedom. So, this is a very fragile gift ofwhich we speak.

Unfortunately, religious :xtstitutions have also not beenexempt from the temptaiicn to impose their views onothers and, in thc process, have violated the freedomswhich they uphed theoretically. At times a false choicehas ken suggested: truth or freedom. I think that we mustrefuse to accept this choice. Freedom is precisely for thesake of truth. Bernard Haring wrote that the renewal ofthe °lurch after Vatican II was marked by a freedom ofdialogue which included the capacity to learn and tounlearn while guaranteeing a genuine continuity ci life inChrist Jesus.' That is the authentic meaning of tradition,and learning and unlearning is unquestionably what goeson in education at all levels. There is an obligation to hand

3Ellen W. Schrecker, No Ivory Tower (Oxford Press: New York, 1986).4Bernard Haring, Free and Faithful (Seabury Press, 1978), Vol I, p. 331.

3134

on what we have learnedin history, physics, literature,theology, political science, etc.but to do so critically.

The tools of scholarly analysis have such criticism astheir precise purpose; were I to continue teaching thatGeorge Washington cut down the cherry tree when therewas evidence to suggest he did not, I would be deemed anirresponsible and incompetent teacher. So, the freedom ofthe teacher is predicated not only on the knowledge he orshe has acquired through study and experience but also onthe ability to use the tools of critical analysis, carefulreflection, logical thought, and clarity of expression. Thesacred "freedom" being defended by academia must ac-knowledge the responsibility of the scholar-teacher. Thestudent's right to be empowered to learn and to berespected in his/her search for truth likewise must be pro-tected. Pedagogy always takes into account the nature ofthe receiver since all that is received is received accordingto the mode of the receiver.

When we assume the necessity for this kind of funda-mental freedom for both teacher and student we can thenask: what kinds of actions interfere with it? No responsiblecitizen would claim that people should be free to do what-ever they want torecall the old example from the courts:"no one can claim to be free to shout "Firel" in a crowdedtheatre." Freedom is not unlimited nor can it be defined ex-clusively in terms of law. It is a gift to each human personbecause the essence of the Creator is the perfect freedomby which He did what He did, and this kind of freedomprecedes all human law. Yet, common sense tells us that ithas parameters set by the very nature of society as com-munal. My freedom is limited by yours and vice versa. Butthe concept of freedom with regard to the human mindgoes beyond that. Its only limit is the limit of truth. We arenot free to hold to something when we know that it is nottrue. Such interior freedom manifests itself in the way thatwe respect one another's search for truth and in the humil-ity of all great scholars who always remain ready to admitto error.

The legal concept of academic freedom is a bit differentbut it is not unrelated. Universities early in their historyfound it necessary to defend their Masters against attackfrom state and/or Church officials. Politics often played alarge part in appointments and charges of heresy couldcost a professor his position. The German universities,which became models of our own, in the 19th century in-sisted that the State change its earlier perception of theuniversity as a training ground for civil and church offi-cials and refrain from interfering with the prerogatives ofthe faculty with regard to both teaching and research. TheAAUP came on to the American scene in 1915 to protectacademia against political attacks against socialist or anti-war professors, but was often overcome by its own patri-otism. At the same time, the new organization carefullylinked the protection of academic freedom with the will-ingness of the professors to monitor their own behavior.The classic statement of its position is the 1940 Statementof Principles: "The common good depends upon the freesearch for truth and ii.s iree exposition. Academic freedomis essential to these purposes and applies to both teaching

32

and research. Freedom in research is fundamental to theadvancement of truth. Academic freedom in its teachingaspect is fundamental for the protection of the rights of theteacher in teaching and of the student to freedom in learn-ing. It carries with it duties correlative with rights."'

The limitations on this freedom, suggested in the AAUPstatement, are not surprising: the teacher "should be care-ful not to introduce into his teaching controversial matterwhich has no relation to his subject"; while his right tospeak as a citizen is to be safeguarded, yet "his special posi-tion in the community imposes special obligations." Insuch instances he "should at all times be accurate, shouldexercise appropriate restraint, should show respect for theopinions of others, and should make every effort to indi-cate that he is not an institutional spokesman."

These are limitations on our freedom that strike us asquite reasonable. But there was a further limitation men-tioned in the 1940 statement that is relevant to our discus-sion here today: "Limitations of academic freedom becauseof religious or other aims of the institution should be clear-ly stated in writing at the time of the appointment." It isimportant to note that in 1969 the AAUP issued interpre-tive comments on the 1940 statement and, with regard tothe last point, stated "Most church-related institutions nolonger need or desire the departure from the principle ofacademic freedom implied in the 1940 statement, and wedo not now endorse such a departure."6

Much had happened in American Catholic higher edu-cation between 1940 and 1969, Lnd I suspect that this inter-pretive comment did not meet -with any overt resistancefrom our colleges and universities. We had moved into"mainstream" higher education; we had survived the witchhunts of the McCarthy era; we had new perspectives fromVatican II on individual freedom and responsibility. Wehad been told by Gaudium et Spes that we were to be thepresence of the Church in the world of the academics andnot to fear the exploration of sciences and letters for ulti-mately, faith and reason are not contradictory. The inter-pretive comment of AAUP was heard in that context, andour colleges and universities may have concluded thatthere was no difference at all between our institutions andother universities. When you add to that the need todemonstrate our eligibility for federal and state funding inthe 1960's and 70's, which required that we not be "nar-rowly sectarian", it is easy to understand why today weare suddenly reexamining our Catholicity. As you know,the Congregation for Catholic Educationat the requestof the Poperecently drew up a draft document on therole of the Catholic university and sent it around the worldfor comment. This in itself was probably a first: previousdocuments have generally been developed with only theinput of experts, but this time it was sent to all of our col-lege and university presidents. A respon, based on thecomments from our presidents, was submitted to the Con-wegation in February 1986. In this Schema, another free-

5AAUP, Policy Documents and Reports, 1984 ed., AAUP, Washington,D.C., p. 3.6Ibid, p. 5.

35

dom is being asserted: the freedom of the Church to haveuniversities, and to have Catholic theologians teaching inthem who teach in the name of the Church. In the light ofthe nationalization of Catholic universities in Africa andthe continued harrassrnent of Catholic universities inmany countries around the world, such a defensiveposture is understandable. But, in the United States oursituation is quite different. Fortunately, our professors arenot appointed by the State nor is cuniculurn dictated bypolitical forces. From the beginning, our history has beendifferent; our institutions were not founded by the officialChurch hierarchy but in most cases by religious commun-ities of women or men. Consequently, those who governour universities are clearly in sympathy with the missionand purpose of the institution, and what they struggle withis not the question of whether to be Catholic colleges, buthow to be. We are gifted with the needed freedom tochoose our identity and to figure out how to enhance it.There is a wide range of mission among our 235 Catholiccolleges and universities in the United States, but they allexpress their mission in terms of three words: research,teaching and service and they all insist on their distinctive-ness among institutions of higher learning in the UnitedStates. Otherwise, why support Catholic colleges? The dis-tinctiveness has something to do with an added dimension,"faith."

Two questions follow from this: does the acceptance offaith as a dimension to education inhibit academic free-dom? And, apart from catalogue statements, what is thereality of this dimension in our operational values?

Faith and Freedom

In the beginning of this paper I spent some time on thenature of freedom. Catholic tradition has always been onthe side of seeing reason and faith as complementary. TheGod whom Jesus proclaimed was at one and the same timeperfectly free and utterly reasonable, even if we could notalways understand his ways. The need for us to use ourintellects in the search for truth has been underscored bymost of our philosophers and theologians. The tradition ofjoining the love of learning to the desire for God is one ofour best insights. Yet, there have been times when we havemisunderstood our own tradition and have given faith arole that it did not have. We imposed the truths known byfaith on the data to be examine.d and came up with erron-eous judgmentsas in the case of Galileo. History was dis-torted in order to serve an apologetic purpose after theReformation, and anthropological discoveries were sub-merged under missionary zeal. Yet, we see these now asmistakes and, as with all experience, we should try to learnfrom them.

The dimension of faith means something quite different.It means that in our institutions there is an assumption thatreligious experience is as valid as other types of human ex-perience. It means that we are open to truth wherever wefind it, and that we believe that truth is attainable by thehuman mind. We approach the task of teaching and learn-ing with a basic belief in the value of each human personand with a sensitivity to the importance of the educational

task we undertake. We want our institutions to be placesof freedom because we knowand believethat ulti-mately only what is done in freedom is valuable. This free-dom that we claim brings with it an enormous trust andsignificant responsibility. It can be explored within the sec-ond question above: what is the reality of the faith dimen-sion on our campuses?

If we am to be committed to promoting the develop-ment of each person who comes to teach or learn here, weneed to think through together the mission which unitesus. Given the wealth of the diverse backgrounds of mostfaculties, one of the most important functions of a univer-sity is to provide a forum where their ideas can be articu-lated and debated. HomogeneZy is not to be sought sinceit results in a certain stagnation, but clarity, humility, andcivilityall essentials of good dialogueare the qualitieswe need. Catholic higher education continues to insist onthe goal of educating the whole person and to assist stu-dents in the ultimate synthesis of what they learn in theirclasses with what they imbibe from the atmosphere on thecampus. Faculty members must be more than competentscholars and first rate lecturers in a particular discipline;they must be teachers who assist their students in the questfor truth and goodness. As educators, they collaboratewith administrators and student personnel officials to pro-vide the atmosphere that will further the growth in free-dom of all on the campus.

A iundamental way in which our colleges and univer-sities are Catholic is that they provide the opportunity fortheology or religious studies to interact with other disci-plines. This will not happen accidentally nor because theDean structures the curriculum in such a way that the rela-tionship is promoted. It can only happen if all faculty havean openness to discussion of the significant questions ofmeaning wherever they arise. The psychology teacher whoavoids religious motivation as a factor in human behavioror the economics teacher who never raises questions ofethical critiques of the doctrines being presented is not real-ly committed to the mission of the college. On the otherhand, the teacher of religion who does not respond withrespect and interest to questions based on new scientificdata is stifling the inquiring mind of the student and is noless deficient in carrying out the mission of the college.Professors who become entrapped in a special discipline sothat dialogue with colleagues is seen as a waste of time areno asset to a university. Our vision of Catholic highereducation requires public debate about things that reallymatter.'

This conviction about the value of public debate is, ofcourse, one of the reasons the American Church getsitself into so much trouble with Rome. Particularly wheretheologians are concerned, the dissent which might betolerated is a private dissent. But, as Bishop JamesMalone pointed out in a talk last June at Marquette Uni-versity, because we live in a democractic culture most ofwhat we say in private will become public. "Aquinas,

7William M. Shea, "Beyond Tolerance", an address to ACCU, February4, 1987.

33 36

Bellarmine or Newman never had to contend with Time,Newsweek or Dan Rather."' Rather than bemoaning this20th Century reality, we must learn how best to expressour dissent so that it will be a positive contribution to thedevelopment of the faith of the Church community.Bishop Malone spoke of the role of theology in "provid-ing an interpretation of faith in the intellectual and cul-tural world of our day," and suggested that it is an eccle-sial discipline in that it serves the community of faith byscrutinizing the signs of the times as evidence in the ex-perience of men and women as they seek to live theGospel. "The theologian listens to the experience of theChurch, reflects on it in the light of the Catholic traditionand offers the community the fruit of this reflection toguide its future actions." To carry out this task it is clearthat the theologian must be in constant dialogue withthose in the other fields of research and teaching. Cath-olic universities furnish this opportunity.

Finally, our freedom is used to promote the growth ofourselves and our students in wisdom, age, and grace.Faith is nurtured by the search for truth when mentorsand role models are present. Vital programs of campusministry can assist students in the process of integrationof scientific facts and values based on faith. Residencehall personnel will help students develop prudence andtemperance as they cope with personal conflicts and willurge them to service of others in the campus communityand those outside the ivy-covered gates. Peace and justiceeducation crosses all these boundaries and is one arezwhere many of our campuses have been able to com-municate Church teaching by combining curriculum, ex-perience, and Gospel reflection.

Our task then is one not only of handing on the Cath-olic tradition but of examining it critically and transform-ing it through our own dialogue as members of an aca-demic community. We have an obligation to fight for thefreedom that will allow us to do that. We have also anobligation to understand the ecclesial responsibility thatgoes along with such freedom. We are not, and do notwant to be, places where one idea is as good as another,where there are no criteria for judgment of truth and er-ror, where debate is pointless because every individual ishis or hcr own criterion. We have a rich tradition fromwhich we draw criteria; we have a community of faithfrom whose experience to learn. Our heritage is not oneof indifference to the meaning of human existence.'

All that I have said of our Catholic mission can be ac-complished without violating the principles of separationof State and Church and without the imposition of someecclesiastical juridical structures which would link usdirectly to episcopal control. As we responded to thedraft Schema: The goal of the Congregation is one we

8Bishop James Malone, "How Bishops and Theologians Relate", an ad-dress given at Marquette University, June 26-30 Symposium, in Origins,July 31, 1986. Vol. 16, No. 9.

9William M. Shea, Op Cit.

can agree withnamely, the strengthening and promo-tion of Catholic universitiesbut the means proposed bythe document and the means proposed by our own col-leges and universities are different. It is now our task todemonstrate that our institutions are not less Catholicbecause they are independent of ecclesiastical control.We are not choosing between our Catholiay a:id Statefunding. Utilizing the academic freedom that we enjoy,we must work as intelligently and forcefully as we can toachieve the goal we set forth; and, whatever the particu-lar statement of Sienna College as to its mission, I suspectwe can all subscribe to that of John Hen.ry Newman inThe Idea of a University:

It is a great point then to enlame the range of studieswhich a university professes, even for the sake ofstudents; and, though they cannot pursue every sub-ject which is open to them, they will be the gainers byliving among those and under those who represent thewhole circle. This I conceive to be the advantage of aseat of universal learning, considered as a place of edu-cation. An assemblage of !earned men, zealous fortheir own sciences, and rivals of each other, arebrought, by familiar intercourse and for the sake ofintellectual peace, to adjust together the claims andrelations of their respective subjects of investigation.They learn to respect, to consult, to aid each other.Thus is created a pure and clear atmosphere of thought,which the student also breathes, though in his owncase he only pursues a few sciences out of the multi-tude. He profits by an intellectual tradition, which isindependent of particular teachers, which guides himin his choice of subjects, and duly interprets for himthose which he chooses. He apprehends the great out-lines of knowledge, the principles on which it rests, thescale of its parts, its lights and its shades, its greatpoints and its little, as he otherwise cannot apprehendthem. Hence it is that his education is called "liberal."A habit of mind is formed which lasts through life, ofwhich the attributes are freedom, equitableness, calm-ness, moderation, and wisdom; or what in a formerdiscourse I have ventured to call a philusophical habit.This then I would assign as the special fruit of the edu-cation furnished at a univerdty...10

This is the answer to our first question: what do we wantto be free for7 The academic freedom we claim is for thesake of the task described by Newman and, as such, it iswell worth defending. Finally, as Catholic colleges anduniversities in the United States we can be heartened bythe statement of the American bishops: "...Academicfreedom and institutional independence in pursuit of themission of the institution are essential components ofeducation quality and integrity; commitment to theGospel and the teachings and heritage of the CatholicChurch provide the inspiration and enrichment thatmake a college fully Catholic."'

10John Henry Cardinal Newman, The Idea of a University, (New York:Doubleday, 1959), pp. 128-129.liCatholic Higher Education and the Pastoral Mission of the Church,Washington, D.C.: United States Catholic Conference, November 13,1980.

34 3 7

The Usages of Freedom

Timothy S.

In November 1786, at Whitemarsh in Maryland, six ofthe twenty-four Catholic priests at work in the UnitedStates met to discuss the governance of the Church intheir new republic as well as the establishment ofGeorgetown. In the memorandum they prepared for the.distant Holy See, John Carroll wrote:

In 1776, the American independence was declared,and a revolution effected, not only in political affairsbut also in those relating to Religion. For while thethirteen provinces of North America rejected the yokeof England, they proclaimed at the same time, free-dom of conscience, and the right of worshiping theAlmighty, according to the spirit of the religion towhich each one should belong....After the war...the good effects of freedom of conscience began todevelop themselves.

Carroll and his companions shared with a small body ofabout eighteen thousand Catholics their grasp that thenovus ordo saeclorum the new Republic so proudly pro-claimed was to have a profound and good effect on theChurch in America.

As Georgetown approaches its two hundredth anni-versary it would do well to remember Carroll's wordsand the implications they were to have for the future ofhis "little academy." In celebrating its double century,Georgetown also celebrates two hundred years of "thegood effects of freedom of conscience" the Americanpublic gave and protected. That freedom has meant somany things to so many people that any full descriptionof it is impossible. For Georgetown it has meant prin-cipally the freedom to be Catholic.

The American understanding of democratic freedomwas inspired by the philosophers of the Enlightenmentand found its fullest expression in The Declaration ofIndependence, the Constitution and the Bill of Rights.When these documents were shaped, the CatholicChurch's theology of freedom was sharply limited. As faras religion in a republic was concerned, the Churchtaught then and taught up until the Second VaticanCouncil that as soon as Catholics were 51 percent of thepopulation, it was their duty to suppress the public ac-tivity of all other religions. While kindness and individ-ual respect were urged, the blunt thesis was that "errorhas no rights"; everyone other than Catholics was

Father Healy is the President of Georgetown University.His text appeared in Georgetown's Annual Report 1986.

35

Healy, S.J.

wrong. By the 1950s, when I was theological student,our faculty presented this thesis classica with reservationand indeed apologies, but presented it nonetheless.

Behind the Church's intransigent misreading of Amer-ica's freedoms lay the fear of Deism, which stressed therationality of reality and denied not only the mystery ofcreation but both the transcendence and infinity of God.This fear led the Church to distrust the natural rightstheory on which the Declaration and the Constitutionrested.

Thanks to the work of Father John Courtney Murray,among others, the Second Vatican Council quite simplyrepealed the thesis classica, faced squarely the implica-tions of the great American documents and the growth ofdemocracy that resulted from them and remade theChurch's thinking on freedom. In doing so it also com-pleted the work of the American documents, and broughtthem back into contact with the deepest reaches oftheological reflection in the West. The right to religious aswell as political freedom has its foundation not in theChurch, not in the state, but in the dignity of the humanperson. Human dignity is indeed known by reason asDeism claims, but Christians also know it through therevealed word of God. The first part of the Council docu-ment sounds extraordinarily American when it claimsthat human dignity demands that any man or woman beable to pursue religious matters, unimpeded by the state.A corollary of this is, of course, that the Church itselfcannot be coerced by the state.

The Council, however, goes further and talks aboutfreedom as rooted in Christian faith. Religious freedomimplies that "God calls men to serve him in spirit and intruth. Hence men are bound in conscience but they standunder no compulsion." The love of God is not coercive,but calls for a free and loving human response and thusmakes the exercise of human freedom necessary forreligion. In Catholic terms our human life, if it is toreflect the dignity with which God endowed us at theCreation, must be a free witness to Christ. The classicalAmerican and Deist position negatively defined religiousfreedom as freedom from state or societal coercion. TheVatican document adds to that its positive side, statingthat our human dignity, while assuring freedom fromcoercion, also demands that we freely respond to God'scall and freely witness to his Truth.

As fascinating as the great world of religious freedomis, and as profoundly influential 3s the American docu-

38

ments have been in shaping the dreams of men in everycorner of the world, our immediate concern within theuniversity is a subset of political freedom. In God's wideworld each human person is called, by reason of his dig-nity, to pursue the truth in the fulfillment of his vocation.In the narrower context of the university, teachers andstudents are called to pursue this same truth, throughdisciplined and serious ways, in teaching and in learning.The call of freedom, indeed the call of human dignity, isthe same for all human beings. In the context of theclassroom, freedom from coercion is seen as a positivegood, and one with enormous social implications. Byguaranteeing and defending the freedom of its teachersand its learners, the university accepts its vocation as aninstitution within society formally charged to keep, passon and make new the truth.

Among the many declarations of the Second VaticanCouncil, none is more important for universities thanthe pastoral constitution on The Church in the ModemWorld. The Council addresses itself first to the phenom-ena of human culture, and then passes almost directlyinto the world of teaching and learning. Beginning withthe premise that there are indeed two orders of knowl-edgefaith and reasonand that they are distinct, theCouncil affirms in ringing terms "the legitimate auton-omy of human culture and especially of the sciences."Most fascinating to a modern Catholic in this dense andrich series of documents is the sublime confidence withwhich the Council assumes there can ultimately be noserious conflict between the world of human learning andthe world of faith. The Church does not give up her rightto influence the course of human culture and indeed in-sists on that right clearly and unequivocally. Nowhere,however, does the Church claim so to dominate thatculture as to make it merely a handmaiden of theologicalor ideological persuasion.

When the Council turns formally to the Church's uni-versities, this confidence is even stronger. The words inwhich it is stated are deeply moving:

The Church is preoccupied too with schools of higherlearning, especially colleges and universities and theirfaculties...she seeks in a systematic way to have indi-vidual branches of knowledge studied according totheir own proper principles and methods, and withdue freedom of scientific investigation. She intendsthereby...to have it seen more profoundly how faithand reason give harmonious witness to the unity of alltruth.

If we put these two great insights together, the autonomyof human culture and its explicit expression in uni-versities that depend on the Church, we find the exactdimensions and directions in which Catholic higher edu-cation in the United States has grown. Fully respectingthe secular reality of the university as culture's principalinstrument, the Church acknowledges that her task is toshape and influence the development of that culture. TheCouncil admits the difficulty of synthesizing the variousbranches of the arts and sciences, precisely because of theproliferation of human knowledge. With sadness theCouncil acknowledges that the ideal of the universal man

36

becomes rarer and rarer in the twentieth century. It isworth noting that one of the first indications of theChurch's possible influence upon the university is to urgeit "to preserve a view of the whole human person, a viewin which the values of intellect, will, conscience andfraternity are preeminent."

The ideal is of course that the Church and society worktogether "to animate the cultural expressions and groupactivities characteristic of our times with a human andChristian spirit," always acknowledging that "the usagesof society are to be the usages of freedom in their fullrange." The Council nonetheless lays upon those respon-sible for catholic universities and colleges the heavy dutyto "form men who will be lovers of true freedommenand women, in other words, who will come to decisionson their own judgment and in the light of truth, governtheir activities with a sense of responsibility and striveafter what is true and right, willing always to join withothers in cooperative effort."

No summary as brief as this can transmit all the rich-ness and openness of these great documents. Taken to-gether they form a kind of theology of catholic highereducation. In that theology the Church accepts theautonomy and secular reality of this century's major in-struments of culture, among which the university musttake a principal place. In full acceptance of the univer-sity's rhythms, norms and procedures, the Church thenseeks to make her own moral and doctrinal presence feltby persuasion and understanding and is confident thatproperly understood her influence will be indeedenormous.

A given, however, of the entire process is that theChurch must not substitute herself for the institutions ofmodern culture, any more than she must regard themfrom outside as enemies, or as by nature and instinct hos-tile. Her understanding that they are not enables her toproceed with confidence in opening herself and her faith-ful to the "usages of freedom." The haunting words that"wherever the truth be spoken, there speaks the spirit ofGod" underlie all of these great documents. They extendto the university world all the rich revelation of which MeChurch is keeper.

At the moment in the United States there is some ten-sion between the teaching authority of the Church, calledits magisterium and exercised by its bishops, and theautonomy of American catholic universities. That ten-sion is unfortunate, because it is unnecessary, indeed,founded on confusion. The catholic university poses nochallenge to the magisterium of the Church, or indeed tothe authority of its bishops.

It might be good were we to clear away some mis-understandings and get our premises straight. First of all,I cannot talk here of seminaries or of The Catholic Uni-versity of America, established as it is by the Holy Seeand offering degrees that only the Holy See can give.America's other catholic universities are different instructure and in their people. Among their faculties andstudents are many who are not Catholic. This needs say-ing, obvious though it is, because of the constant Roman

39

habit of referring to "lay members" as though they wereall Roman Catholic. In the American context this refer-ence is misleading and distorts reality. Finally, underAmerican law and in reality a catholic university is not aform of the Church's life, but a secular entity (like a city)in which the Church lives, functions and exercises her in-fluence on the lives of its members and even upon theprocesses of teaching and learning.

On the other hand, a catholic university is differentfrom American secular universities, even though many ofthe latter were once religious foundations. In the catholicuniversity, by tradition and option, faith is part of theatmosphere. The Church enjoys within the catholic uni-versity the fullness of her sacramental life and the pres-ence of the ministers of that life. All catholic universitiesteach Catholic theology as a serious intellectual dis-cipline. One third element may be added. In catholic uni-versities, as both symbol of welcome to Catholic thoughtand indeed one of the principal instruments of its teach-ing, there is present a body of religious men or women,usually from the order responsible for the foundation ofthe university.

The second element, the teaching of Catholic theology,is at the moment an area of friction. The university'sautonomous and free teaching of theology may seem todeny the Church's teaching authority. On the otherhand, in the exercise of that teaching authority theChurch can seem to deny the necessary autonomy ofstructure and freedom of instruction within the university.

Departures from the Church's teaching can arise in twoways. The first is a kind of "false pretense" where a fac-ulty member teaches as authentic Catholic doctrine ideasand conclusions that the Church clearly rejects. We knowthat many Church positions, like all human things, aretime bound. In the fourteenth century no catholic univer-sity could have taught a course on banking, since bank-ing involved usury, and the Church was oppcmed to it. Inthe eighteenth and for much of the nineteenth century theChurch disapproved of democracy and strongly con-demned the deviation known as "liberalism." Any pres-entation of Catholic thought as though it were absoluteand independent of time would be false. Even under thatcorrection, however, a professor's job is to deal with hissubject as objectively as he can. That objectivity concernsthe university, if only because it must insist on some veri-fiable relationship between its catalog titles and the con-tent of its courses.

A complicating element in any difference between aprofessor and the Church is one of scandal. The faithfulmay be seduced or misled on the invalid premise thatbecause something is taught or done in a catholic univer-sity, it always and in all details follows authentic Catholicteaching. This problem is really based on a misunder-standing of the word "catholic" in a university's title. Auniversity claims to be catholic generally and not dis-tributively; its catholic status does not and indeed cannotguarantee the orthodoxy or probity of its individualmembers, either faculty or students. One need only con-sider the uneasy history of the Church's relations with

universities (even in countries and times where th e. uni-versity was catholic because the entire society was) torealize that orthodoxy and above all probity of life can-not be guaranteed on any piece of ground simply becauseit is devoted to intellection, no matter how theological.The blue-nosed and humorous sixteenth century com-ment, "Scholaris quando loquiter r.,-m puella non prae-sumitur dicere pater noster" [When a student speaks to ayoung woman, we should not take for granted that theyare reciting the "Our Father."), is not a bad summary ofcenturies of distrust.

The kind of controversy that defines our problemtoday occurs when a professor, claiming to teach Catho-lic theology, teaches it in a way that either a local bishop,or the conference of bishops, or even the Holy See, findsdoctrinally inappropriate. Here the Church has availableto it many possibilities. The bishop can first directly orindirectly counsel the individual concerned. The issuehere is not a professor's academic freedom, but thevalidity of his claim to be teaching the authentic )sositionsof the Church. The bishop can, moreover, vi,Ith greatease call upon others within and without the university tojoin him in the scholarly refutation of the ideas of whichhe disapproves. The Church has also at its disposal itsown public forum where the bishop can speak a disap-proval or indeed disavowal that would clearly reach theminds and consciences of the faithful and others. Finally,if all of these methods do not achieve the result thebishop desires, he has at his disposal a formidable arrayof temporary or permanent ecclesiastical penalties.

Conflict arises between the Church and the universitywhen the two jurisdictions, episcopal and academic, areconfused. The university has neither the duty nor theright to determine authoritatively the teaching of theChurch, but must instead use its skill and freedom toinfluence respectfully the growth of the Church's under-standing. In like manner the Church cannot claim to con-trol the structure and penalties of the university, questionits civil contracts, or call upon it to impose civil punish-ment or exclusion on any of its faculty members.

There should be no surprise at the existence of this par-ticular tension, because both Church and university areperennially caught in the wrestle between authority andfreedom that marks any complex society. We are filiarwith that tension in civil society where, for a hard andoverriding purpose like a war, citizens can give up someof their freedoms, at least temporarily. The Church is ahuman institution and suffers the same tugs. It too hastimes of exploration and times of consolidation. Like theuniversity itself, with its debate about the relative impor-tance of teaching and resear-h, the Church has momentswhen it opens itself to an influx of new ideas andmoments when it withdraws to absorb, to structure andto formulate them. Both the Church and the universitycould well follow Hamlet's hint to "observe the modestyof nature," a decent respect for each other's internalautonomy.

There are solid reasons for that modest approach.Much is at stake for catholic universities in their relation

37 4 0

to the Church. Their catholic status is part of their iden-tity, and increasingly an acknowledged and cherishedpart. It preserves for them the best of their own past andtradition. It provides for them a rich millenarian centerfor their learning and teaching. And finally, Catholictheology is one of the few remaining possibilities open tomodem man, particularly modem university man, in hisreach towards the almost unimaginable "unity of knowl-edge," the pervasive dream of the university since themonastic schools first begot Paris.

The stakes are equally high for the Church, particu-larly in democratic America. Universities that definethemselves as catholic are, in the clear terms of theSecond Vatican Council, the Church's fullest and mostimmediate reach into the high culture of this nation.They are, in addition, her best source of leadership in thecomplex world her message must reach and strive bydivine irnperafive to influence. Finally these same univer-sities provide for the pilgrim Church the lay leadership ofher own intemal dialog, her own growing self-under-standing, her own changes of structure, her own ceaselesscreation of the Church of tomorrow.

The "good effects of freedom of conscience" are asgreat a challenge to the genius of the Church today aswas the web of power and communication in the RomanEmpire she so wisely used. It is too much to hope that thetensions of which I speak will ever go away. The tugwithin the Church between authority and freedom is asold as she is herself, and there is no reason to suspect thatthe tension between her teaching and the civil autonomyof the catholic university will be any less real. On theother hand, the catholic universities of America are ajewel of rich price in the Church's crown, and every in-stinct of her being should be to protect them. Hot rhetoricwith cries of "tyranny" and "thought police" from theuniversity, and of "heresy" and "scandal" from theChurch are not much help to either.

38

Within the huge variety of American universities ofwhich Georgetown makes a part, our freedom, for all itsdistant theological base, comes to us through the cleardictates of American law, and through the history of theuniversity as an institution in the western world. Nothingthat Georgetown says it does can be meant or should beread as denying the reality of that freedom. Our two hun-dred years of belief do not challenge freedom but make itmore truly itself. Out of our own tradition we draw agraced understanding that knows that the necessary con-dition which opens us and the university we serve to themystery of God's love is freedom.

In the give and take of an undergraduate classroom, inlong probings of Georgetown's health with faculty mem-bers, in watching students and faculty together moveacross this good uound, I am always aware of howdeeply that graced understanding separates us from otherAmerican universities. It is also the wellspring of ourstubborn two centuries' claim to the title "Catholic." Weearn that title by knowing well the difference it makes forus not just as believers and hopers, but more precisely asmen and women whose love chooses to teach. KarlRahner talks of that love, aT.,d spells out richly the sacra-mental nature of our work as teachers of the young:

Wherever the human being as a totality experienceshimself in freedom and choice, wherever in hope hetakes on an obligation which really demands morethan he can give and which cannot be justified from aworldly point of view, wherever he hopes against allhope, wherever he dares to love in a way that is toocostly, wherever he believes grt the light althougheverything is dark and iv meaning although evt:ry-thing seems to be losing its meaning, he...experiencesthe radicalized transcendentality of man into theincomprehensible mystery of God.

4 1

The Mission of the College of Saint Benedict: Its Catholic Character

Colman O'Connell, O.S.B.

I accept the Preside.it's Medal, symbol of the office ofthe President and of the authority and responsibilitywhich the Board of Trustees has conferred upon me. I feelprivileged to serve the College of Saint Benedict as its11th President.

The mission of any college is the guiding principleagainst which each decision must be measured; therefore,during this past summer, I have reflected on the Missionof the College of Saint Benedict. Simply stated, the Mis-sion of the College is to educate women in the liberal artswithin a framework of the Catholic, Benedictine tradi-tion. I have considered each of the four dimensions of theMission and, although I am going to address each dimen-sion briefly, I shall concentrate on the meaning of theCatholic character of education at Saint Benedict's.

The first dimension of the Mission, the liberal artsaspect of the College, is the College's principal purpose.Yet it is also true that Saint Benedict's offers a strong em-phasis on the fine arts and takes pride in the quality of itsprofessional education. The reality of education at SaintBenedict's is more diverse than simply liberal arts.

The College was founded to serve women; it is thevezond dimension of the Mission. We have served womenfiom the region for over seven decades and our alumnaenumber over 10,000. Currently, over 60 percent of SaintBenedict's faculty are women. Now our commitment towomen's education is enriched by our commitment to theeducation of both women and men as a result of threedecades of cooperation with Saint John's University, ourbrother-Benedictine institution. The academic environ-ment is more diverse and, the young men and women tellus, more interesting than it was when it was purelysingle sex.

A third dimension of the Mission is the Benedictinetradition which shapes the College environment. Onehundred years ago next March, the Benedictine sisterswere granted a charter by the State to establish schools,one of which was the College's predecessor institution,Saint Benedict's Academy. Throughout the years, thevalues which have continued to distinguish Benedictineeducation have included: the love of learning and thedesire for God, the appreciation of community, the art of

Sister Colman O'Connell is the President of the Collegeof Saint Benedict. The text is her inaugural address, de-livered on September 13, 1986 and originally published inthe College's President's Report, 1985-86.

listening, hospitality, and the celebration of life in liturgi-cal worship. The Benedictine presence continues amongthe faculty and administration and the stability of Bene-dictine tradition creates an appreciation of these valuesamong the faculty and staff who are lay women andmen. These women and men bring the values of theirown lives to enrich the environment; this adds to thecomplexity of the College which can continue to bedescribed accurately as Benedictine, supported by bothlay and religious.

Each of these three essential dimensions of the Missionof the College of Saint Benedictliberal arts, women,Benedictinehave a reality which is both true to thefounder's vision and is more varied and complex than theMission Statement might seem to suggest. This diversityand complexity provides a challenging environment de-signed to promote the growth of today's student.

For this occasion, it was tempting to explore any num-ber of issues which are embedded in the consideration ofthe Mission which has guided the College since its found-ing. Topics might have included the balancing of profes-sional and liberal arts goals; the examination of genderissues surrounding co-education; the preserving of a con-tinuity of vision and Benedictine values amidst growthand change; or, a topic of perennial interest to faculty,the discussing of whether Plato, Newman, Whitehead, orwe ourselves can best describe a vision of the liberal artswhich is meaningful to today's students. I prefer todayto examine the fourth dimension of the MissiontheCatholic character of the College.

All of higher education derives from ancient Catholictradition which began in Medieval Europe. Each histori-cal period and each country has defined for itself whatCatholic higher education means. Ten centuries have notproved long enough for Catholic educators to settle upona mutually acceptable meaning.

In the United States, for example, church-related insti-tutions, like Catholic colleges, understand their relation-ship to their churches in a variety of ways. Colleges placethemselves along the whole spectrum of church-related-ness. To illustrate, on one end of the spectrum, some col-leges barely distinguish themselves from the churchesthat sponsor them; they are arms or agents of theirchurches. Their principal task is to pursue religiously in-spired studies. On the other end of the spectrum, in con-trast, are those colleges whose roots were religious, butwhich no longer associate themselves in any meaningful

39 4 2

way with the churches which founded them. In thecenter, where the College of Saint Benedict and manyother Catholic institutions stand, colleges in partnershipwith their church witness to their faith. Saint Benedict's,then, is neither an agent of the Church nor is it merelyrelated to the Church through historical derivation. In-stead, it proclaims with pride its heritage within the greattraditions of Catholicism.

With full awareness of fne difficulties surrounding anydiscussion of church relatedness, I still wish to share mypersonal reflections on the meaning of the Catholic char-acter of education at Saint Benedict'sthe fourth dimen-sion of our Mission.

I visualize the Catholic dimension of the College asbeing comprised of three concentric spheres, similar to abox within a box within another box. For our purposes,the outer sphere is freedom of inquiry. This is the qualityabout which newcomers to the College are most con-cerned. It represents the most visible reality about theCatholic dimension of education.

The middle sphere is our community itself, the contextin which our students and faculty live and learn, andwhich defines the characteristics of Saint Benedict's mostfrequently cited by alumnae as having been crucial totheir intellectual, spiritual and personal growth.

The inner sphere is the least obvious but the most sig-nificant. The inner sphere is Gospel epistemology, a wayof knowing derived from the Gospel. While less easilyobserved, this characteristic has been at the heart of edu-cation at Saint Benedict's, I believe, from the time of theCollege's founding.

Imagine with me, first, if you will, the surface of theouter sphere which begins to reveal the character ofCatholic education at Saint Benedict's, freed= of in-quiry. I realize that having lived within this tradition, Itake intellectual freedom of inquiry for granted.

Newcomers to the College, however, sometimes askwhether they will be really free to explore knowledgewherever their research leads. They question whetherfaculty here know and respect the ancient traditions ofscholarship which assume that truth will be best servedby honest and thorough investigation. They seem com-forted to discover that faculty and students at Saint Bene-dict's work in this tradition, which I know to be Catholic,and that they are not constrained but rather are freed andempowered to explore reality with confidence and to seekan even more profound understanding of truth.

Imagine, now, the middle sphere of the Catholic char-acter of education at the College of Saint Benedictthatof community. At Saint Benedict's, community is be-lieved to be not only the desirable but the necessary con-text for achieving the goal of education: the integratedperson. The College is primarily an academic com-munity, one which challenges students to develop amature understanding of themselves, their world andtheir places in the world. In this academic community,faculty, knowing the goal of integration, design interdis-ciplinary experiences to help students put together thebodies of knowledge which they have studied separately.

40

Even as faculty struggle to design such courses, many dounderstand that, in the end, synthesis will never be apurely curricular achievement. Instead, it will be a deeplypersonal achievement crafted by students with the help offaculty. It is an achievement which, I believe, is morepossible when faculty and students from various dis-ciplines come together willing to form community.

Not only is the College an academic community, but itis also a faith community, one originally modeled uponBenediciine monastic life. Life in this community is de-signed to support more than the intellectual growth ofstudents; it is intended to challenge students to developtheir full human potential and a mature understanding ofChristianity with a lifetime commitment to its values.The College is a place where faculty and students live andlearn tQgether, where students discover their ownstrenTins and limitations, and where they may growaway from self-centeredness toward other-directedness.In my experience, it is a place where students and facultyboth discover and help create a community of relation-ships. The community then becomes a source of self-identity and wholeness, of affirmation and forgiveness. Itis a place where students acquire and polish the skills theywill use to create communities in their homes and workplaces and neighborhoods; as a faith community, theCollege of Saint Benedict is a place where studentsdevelop the understanding that the planet earth is aglobal community.

Campus life is designed to help students understand theprofound and far-reaching implications of their ownexercise of freedom and responsibility. We believe thatethical behaviorthe responsible exercise of freedomflows from a way of knowing God, a way of knowingwhich is fostered by daily community life at Saint Bene-dict's. The middle sphere, thenacademic and faithcommunities combineddefines for many what is mostCatholic about education at Saint Benedict's.

The inner sphere, which is at the heart of the educationwe claim to be Catholic, is Gospel epistemology, a wayof knowing derived from the Gospel. We hold firm to thebelief that our vision of lifeof what it means to behuman and of what it means for humans to pursue truththis vision which is revealed to us by the Gospel, doesindeed shape the educational process in a way whichleads to the liberation and transformation of our stu-dents' lives.

While all colleges examine the world and the humancondition, colleges like Saint Benedict's claim to do sowith a difference. We claim to examine the human condi-tion with the same thoroughness as others do and, inaddition, we claim to make every effort to include, inthat examination, the perspective of the Good Newsabout human life found in the Gospels.

As I have sought to define the essential elements of theinner sphereGospel epistemologythe works of theo-logian-educator William Sullivan and philosopher ParkerPalmer have provided insight. Sullivan reminds us, forexample, that the message of the Gospel is not just a mes-.sage about God or Jesus; rather, it is the good news for

4 3

and about humans. It is a message about God in relation-ship to each of us. Every Gospel statement, then, is astatement about the nature and destiny of us all.

While other religious traditions have different ways ofdescribing the mysteries which surround human lifeitssource and destinythe Gospel narrative, our tradition,tells us that we are all created by God, that we live in aworld made new by the presence of God among us inChrist, that we share now in the resurrected life of Jesus,in the Spirit of God, while we await the time when Hisglory will be revealed inus. Growth in faith is the workof a lifetime and so is our struggle with understanding theimplications of faith for education.

When I taught Shakespeare's comedies, all of whichended in joyous festivals and wedding dances, thoseplays did not seem to me hopelessly romantic but ratherprofoundly true to the human experience in the whole oflife. The happy endings of comedies are not untrue to lifeif we can cling to the hope, promised in the Gospel mes-sage, that somehow there is life beyond death.

At Saint Benedict's, through the years, we havedemonstrated these beliefs about ourselves and about ourrelationship to God and the world in our liturgical lifeand our moral teaching. Most importantly, we have at-tempted to live these beliefs in the way we approach thecentral activity of the Collegethe acts of learning andteaching.

Our conception of truth, of -how we know it and teachit and learn it, the primary concern of the College, hasbeen formed by the implications which can be drawnfrom Jesus' claim to be, Himself, the Truth. "I am theway, the truth, and the life." Many of us may not haveconsciously connected our conviction about the per-vasively interrelational and interdependent character ofreality with that claim of Jesus. We all understand, how-ever, the simple wisdom behind Jesus' claim that truthwould be found in Him, a Divine-human person whomwe can know and love. Truth, He suggested, is personal.

Perhaps because we are a women's college, as well as aliberal arts, Catholic college, we have developed a way ofknowing that is relational, intimate, personal and inte-grated. Parker Palmer, in his presentation of Gospel epis-temology, articulates what we at Saint Benedict's, duringour noblest moments, have intuitively held to be trueabout the way we know ourselves and the world about us.

Celie describes that world in Alice Walker's The ColorPurple and says what we sense to be true about the one-ness of all things, a oneness we have not wished todestroy even in our conception of reality.

One day when I was sittingquiet and feeling like amotherless child,

which I was, it come to me: thatif I cut a tree, my armwould bleed.

And I laughed and I cried andI run all around the house . . .

Appreciating that there are several valid ways ofknowing, we respect the way of knowing which is domi-nant in American higher education, that of objectiveinvestigation, analysis, and experimentation. Neverthe-less, we have wished to avoid dependence on any singleway of knowing, preferring a multi-dimensional modewhich, I believe, includes a mode derived from theGospel. At Saint Benedict's, we feel called, through thisway of knowing, to involvement, mutuality and ac-countability. We feel diminished by any mode of know-ing which puts distance between us and reality or encour-ages us to manipulate that reality. Western culture haslong been best at analysis, at separating and distinguish-ing, at cataloging specific differences. Of late, however, Iam more impressed with the power of the Eastern mindto perceive all things in their essential unity.

I find that here at Saint Benedict's, we believe that theGospel mode of knowing the world in its essential unitywill prompt students to be participants in life and notmere observers, that it will help them experience theironeness with trees and stars and with the citizens ofSoweto, South Africa. We believe that the Gospel modeof knowing will help students embrace the gift of theearth while they investigate it.

We pursue truth and we teach students to have notonly an inquiring mind but also an open mind. We havelearned from the holy men and women of every greatspiritual tradition that we are not in search of truth somuch as truth is in search of us. Truth is not evading usso much as we are evading the demands which truthmight make upon each of us.

Francis Thompson's "Hound of Heaven" describes ourfleeing from the Hound of Heaven, fleeing from truth,from Wisdom, from God:

I fled Him, down the nights anddown the days;

I fled Him, down the arches ofthe Years;

I fled Him down the labyrin-thine ways of my own mind,and in the mist of tears,

I hid from Him and underrunning laughter. . .

[I fled) from those strong feetthat followed, followed after.

For me, the truth about the Catholic character of theCollege of Saint Benedict is represented in the nestedspheresfreedom of inquiry, community and Gospelepistemology. In accepting the President's Medal, Ipledge myself to uphold the Mission of the College ofSaint Benedizt.

41 4 4

Saint Michael's College: Its Catholic Character and Academic Freedom

Paul J. Reiss

Concern about issues of academic freedom in the con-text of a Catholic college has prompted a request that Idiscuss with you this important subject as it relates toSaint Michael's College. For several decades, academicfreedom has not been a major issue at Catholic collegesand universities in the United States. Faculty and studentshave enjoyed the same freedom to search for the truth asis experienced by their counterparts at other Americancolleges and universities. It does not appear to have beena major issue at Saint Michael's, at least for many years.

Concern has arisen, however, by reason of the atten-tion given during this past year to the withdrawal of anecclesiastical commission from Father Charles Cunan atThe Catholic University of America and to a proposedSchema (or outline) for a pontifical document on Catho-lic universities. The Catholic University in Washington,unlike other Catholic colleges and universities, is char-tered by the Church and has three ecclesiastical faculties:philosophy, theology and canon law, the members ofwhich must have special commissions to teach in thename of the Church. It was this commission that waswithdrawn from Father Curran.

The Schema for a Pontifical DocumentWhile the Curran ca-e by reason of the special circum-

stances of an ecclesiastical faculty at a pontifical universityhas limited relevance for Saint Michael's, the proposedSchema is potentially much more significant.1 A draft ofthis Schema was circulated for response around theworld. Responses from Catholic colleges and universitiesin the United States and from the Board of Directors ofthe Association of Catholic Colleges and Universitieshave been submitted to Cardinal Baum, Prefect of theSacred Congregation for Catholic Education.2 It is fair tosay that the responses have generally been very criticalfrom both theoretical and practical viewpoints. Ap-parently similar responses were received from other areasof the world. The draft will undoubtedly be substantially

Dr. Reiss is the President of Saint Michael's College. His. paper was presented before the College's Delta EpsilonSigma chapter at its December 3, 1986 Convocation.

"Proposed Schema for a Pontifical Document on Catholic Universi-ties." Congregation on Catholic Education, 1985.2"Catholic College and University Presidents Respond to Proposed Vati-can Schema," Origins, Vol. 25, No. 43 (April 10, 1986).

revised. Many have suggested that such a pastoral shouldnot be issued at all. Pope John Paul II has recently indi-cated, however, that he wants to issue a pastoral onCatholic higher education.3

The Schema itself recognizes a 13::,sic problem in at-tempting to develop a document for the entire world: "Insuch diversity of situation a precise law for applicationuniformly to all Catholic universities appears impos-sible."' Undaunted by its own observation, the Schemathen proceeds to lay down some very precise norms forall Catholic universities. The norms with the greatestrelevance for academk. freedom include the following:

Article 9.1: "The episcopal conferences and the dio-cesan bishops concerned have the duty and the right ofseeing to it that in these un'versities, the principles ofCatholic doctrine are faithfully obrerved."

Article 26.1: "All teachers who are to be chosen,nominated and promoted in accordance with thestatutes are to be distinguished by academic and peda-gogic ability as well as by doctrinal integrity and up-rightness of life so that they may cooperate effectivelyto achieve goals of the university."

Article 26.2: "Teachers who lack these requirementsare to be dismissed, observing the procedures estab-lished in the statutes or equivalent document."

Article 27.1: "Catholic teachers or researchers shallcarry out their tasks faithfully observing the principlesof Catholic doctrine."

Article 31: "Those who teach theological subjects inany institute of higher studies must have a mandatefrom the competent ecclesiastical authority."

Article 9.3: "If the Catholic character of the univer-sity continues to be compromised in a serious way, thecompetent ecclesiastical authority may declare the uni-versity to be no longer Catholic."

The Catholic College in America

The understanding of the nature of a Catholic collegewhich forms the basis for these proposed norms is clearlyat variance with that known and accepted in the UnitedStates, especially by college faculty and administratorsand, I believe, also by members of the hierarchy. In at-tempting to address some very real issues of legitimateconcern to the Church, the Schema fails to recognize theunique character and situation of the American Catholic

3Ta lk to the plenary meeting of the Congregation for Catholic Educa-tion, November 13, 1986.4Schema, Proemium, Article 48.

42 4 5

college. It is my conviction that this failure is in turnbased upon ambivalent conceptions of the nature of therelationship of the Church to colleges and universities. Ifind two statements on this relationship in the Schemanot only fundamental to the whole issue but alsocontradictory:

"The Catholic university is an expression and apresence of the church in the world of culture andhigher education."

"It [the Catholic university] exists within the Churchand is part of it."5

Here, I believe, is the basic problem: Saint Michael'sCollege, along with other American Catholic collegesand universities, is "an expression and a presence of thechurch in the world of culture and higher education."Indeed, I would contend, an effective expression andpresence, one that can and should become even moreconscious of and effective in this role. However, it doesviolence to the history and character of Saint Michael'sCollege to conceive of its existing within the church andbeing a part of it.

There are some misunderstandings about the nature ofAmerican Catholic colleges which apparently exist on theother side of the Atlantic. Most C3tholic colleges in thiscountry were founded by groups of religious men orwomen; in the case of Saint Michael's, it was theEdmundites. The foundings were usually, although notalways, welcomed by the local bishop, but it is importantto point out that the colleges came into existence throughcharters granted by the State, not through charters ormandates by the bishop or an episcopal conference. Thisis not the case in every nation but is so in the UnitedStates. Furthermore, the institutions can continue toaward degrees recognized throughout the society byreason of the accreditations which the colleges receivefrom regional and specialized accrediting associations.Saint Michael's is chartered by the State of Vermont andreceives its accreditation from the New England Associa-tion of Schools and Colleges.

Saint Michael's College, again like almost all privatecolleges and universities in the United States, is owned byan independent self-perpetuating Board of Trustees.Today almost all of these boards have a predominance oflay members. Both religious and lay members, however,are dedicated to maintaining the mission of the College asan independent Catholic college. As an independent col-lege, the College is not controlled by nor directly sup-ported by the State as are the public colleges and univer-sities. It is also not controlled by nor supported by theinstitutional Church. It is a free, autonomous, indepen-dent and Catholic institution supported primarily by thetuition of the students who choose to attend. Many ofthese students are eligible to receive Federal and stategrants and loans to attend because the college is inde-pendent. The College is also supported by alumni andfriends, including especially the voluntary contributionsof the Society of Saint Edmund.

5Schema, Proerniurn, Article 17.

43

Throughout the history of American Catholic colleges,there has been a struggle for acceptance as quality Ameri-can colleges. It has been successful at Saint Michael's andelsewhere. The restrictive and protective parochial insti-tution is an image of the past. Not only the major Ameri-can Catholic universities such as Notre Dame, Fordhamor Georgetown but a number of small colleges such asSaint Michael's have become accepted and respected inAmerican higher education as "nstitutions which fullymeet the essential requirements of quality academic insti-tutions. These institutions, while retaining their Catholicidentity and character, are institutions at which facultywith excellent qualifications, including degrees from themost renowned universities, desire to teach and carry outtheir scholarly work and where fine students are able topursue their studies in every field with freedom and chal-lenge. Upon graduation, they are accepted as well quali-fied for advanced study at other institutions and forpositions in business and the professions.

Academic Freedom

A critical condition for this acceptance of Catholic col-leges and universities today is the adherence to principlesof academic freedom. In the case of Saint Michael's, theseprinciples are incorporated into the faculty regulations asfollows: "a) Faculty members, as teachers and srholars,have the freedom to seek truth in research as they see itand as their professional training directs them to it;b) they have the freedom to publish the results of theirresearch; c) they have the freedom to plan courses anddiscuss their subjects according to the dictates of theirtraining and knowledge; d) they have the freedom tospeak or write on public issues as citizens without institu-tional censorship or discipline."

"Recognizing the responsibilities imposed by the prin-ciple of academic freedom, faculty members agree torespect the following:

"a) In lecturing or teaching, they should not maintaina position contrary to the basic mission and goals of thisinstitution. While free to euss objectively any politicalor religious doctrine in whicn they have competence, andto state their position, they should respect the freedom ofthe students to take a contrary position and not penalizethem for it.

"b) When speaking or writing as citizens, they shouldremember that the public may judge their profession andtheir institution by their utterances; hence, they shouldmake every reasonable effort to be accurate, exercise ap-propriate restraint, show respect for the opinions ofothers, and indicate that they are not speaking for theinstitution."

This academic freedom implemented at Saint Michael'sand elsewhere is not a concession to the requirements ofsecular society. Rather, it is absolutely essential if theCollege is to serve the Church and be a presence of theChurch in the world of culture and ideas. With academicfreedom, the Catholic college and its faculty have credi-bility in the intellectual world.

This freedom and autonomy of the Catholic college is

4 6

also essential for the development of Catholic teachings.It permits these teachings to be brought into the main-stream of intellectual developments not only in theologybut in the several academic disciplines. It enables Catho-lic thought to grow and dcvelop through dialogue withother fields and other scholars.

The concept of a Catholic college as being "within theChurch," as a college being governed primarily by theneed to transmit the truth already kno-vn without chal-lenge or criticism from these with diffe:-ent views, andwith instruction being a process of indoctrination, is aconcept which will certainly not serve well the students ofSaint Michael's and indeed will not serve the Church.

Freedom For CatholicismWe should be mindful that intellectual and religious

freedom must also be extended to the Catholic Churchitself. The Church has not only a sacred obligation butindeed a right to have its doctrinal and moral thoughtpresented to the faithful in a clear and sympathetic man-ner. Bishop Marshall of Vermont has rightly called foracademic freedom for Catholicism. Students attending aCatholic college, especially, should have the opportunityto develop an understanding of the Catholic faith aspromulgated by the Church. Saint Michael's and otherCatholic collegs should make available to their students acurricular and extra-curricular program which fosters adevelopment of a mature understanding of the faith.

We must also take recognition of the fact that manystudents advanced in other areas of knowledge come tothe College with a very meager understanding of theirChristian faith. We should provide an opportunity forthese students to develop an understanding of their faithwhich may then be subjected to critical evaluation andanalysis. We should not, for example, emphasize issues indispute among leading theologians before the student hashad an opportunity to grasp at least a rudimentaryunderstanding of the principles of the faith that are atissue. It is simply poor pedagogy.

The teaching authority and responsibility of theChurch, the Magisterium, and the responsibility and roleof a college or university are indeed different. As a result,there will from time to time develop a tension betweenthe two. We can preclude this tension from turning intoconflict if both the Church and the College recognize thelegitimate interests and rights of the other. Of course, theChurch seeks a clear and pre-eminent presentation of itsofficial teachings at a Catholic college. Of course, theCollege seeks to maintain a context of academic freedom.There need be no inherent conflict between the two.

A Catholic college with academic freedom is going torun the risk from time to time that its principles of aca-demic freedom will be poorly understood by its variouspublics. Archbishop Rembert Weak land of Milwaukeerecently offered a helpful clarification. After pointing outthat the teachings of a specific theologian on the facultyat Marquette University were clearly at variance from theofficial teaching of the Church, the Archbishop stated:"My criticism of a Marquette theologian is not meant as a

44

criticism of the university providing for his work. MajorAmerican Catholic universities long ago adopted aca-demic freedom. This was done not as a compromise ofideals to secular reality but as a way to make those insti-tutions more effective in service to the Church....Weall must learn in a free society to discern right fromwrong, truth from falsehood. Gaining such maturity isdemanded of all of us and should result from the wholeeducation received in a Catholic university."6

The concept of the American Catholic college beingwithin the Church and part of it does not accord with thereality as we know it, nor the ideal. It is for this reasonthat Father Hesburgh, the President of the University ofNotre Dame, in response te the proposed Schema stated:"The terrible dilemma is that the best Catholic pniver-sities are being asked to choose between being real uni-versities and being really Catholic when, in fact, they arealready both."'

Really Catholic?

How in the context of academic freedom may a Catho-lic college be "really Catholic"?

The answer, I believe, lies in the concept of the Catho-lic college as "an expression and a presence of the churchin the world of culture and higher education." I wouldsubmit the following as characteristics of a college whichfully respects academic freedom and is really Catholic:

1. There is a free and diligent search for the truth onthe part of faculty and students concerning every aspectof God's creation motivated by a faith in its goodness andin a humankind redeemed by Christ.

2. There is a commitment to the development in free-dom of the human intellect as a process which enables usto become more human and which, therefore, brings uscloser to God.

3. There is an opportunity for a continual dialogue be-tween the Catholic faith and reason with each developingin the light of the other.

4. The study of human religious experience is ac-corded an appropriate position within the liberal arts andsciences. Theology and other disciplines are studied inrelation to each other.

5. There is an opportunity prcvided for each studentto grow in the knowledge of his or her faith.

6. Attention is given by faculty and students to issuesof justice and peace in the context of Christian so.rialprinciples.

7. There is a global perspective in curricular andextracurricular activities based upon the conviction thatall peoples are united in God's family and upon the uni-versality of Catholicism.

8. Serious attention and concern is given to thespiritual and moral development of students as well as totheir intellectual development. This is reflected in thecharacter of student life on campus.

6"Herald of Hope" Catholic Herald, March 21, 19857"The Vatican and American Catholic Higher Education" America,November 1, 1986, pp. 247-250.

4 7

9. There is a campus community of faith manifestedthrough the liturgy and also through a personal concernof the members of the community for each other.

10. The college identifies itself as Catholic and attractsto it faculty, staff and students who seek to participate inthe intellectual, social and spiritual life of a Catholiccollege.

It is through these characteristics that Saint Michael's isand shall remain a Catholic college, an expression of thepresence of the Church in higher education. It is throughthese charactecistks that Saint Michael's is different fromsecular colleges and universities.

In general, Saint Michael's and other Catholic collegesin the United States have been successful in being bothCatholic and respected colleges and universities. Catholiccolleges in the United States, roughly half the total in theworld, are the most vigorous and effective of Catholiccolleges on earth.

The Future Agenda

The Vatican does have reason to be concerned aboutCatholic colleges. We need to be frequently reminded ofour mission. We need to be reminded that vigorous ef-forts are required in order to maintain and further de-

45

velop the Catholic character of our college. We need tohave that concern highlighted for us here at SaintMichael's. It is important for us, for example, to redoubleour efforts to bring to the faculty and staff of SaintMichael's persons who seek to support the mission of thiscollege as an independent Catholic college of high aca-demic quality.

We must point out the serious error in attempting topreseive the Catholic character of Saint Michael's by at-tempting to bring it within the juridical power of theChurch. But at the same time, we must work hard tomaintain and further develop the true Catholic characterof Saint Michael's. It will remain Catholic only so long aswe are determined that it be so.

In conclusion, let me bring to your attention the wordsof the 1980 letter of the American bishops on CatholicHigher Education and the Pastoral Mission of the Church:

"Academic freedom and institutional independence inpursuit of the mission of the institution are essential com-ponents of educational quality and integrity: commit-ment to the Gospel and the teachings and heritage of theCatholic Church provide the inspiration and enrichmentthat make a college fully Catholic."'

These, I am convinced, are the principles which shouldguide Saint Michael's College.

sCatholic Higher Education and the Pastoral Mission of the Church.Part Two, "Identity and Mission," Washington, D.C.: United StatesCatholic Conference, 1980.

48

Dissent In Catholic Universities

William J. Rewak, S.J.

Discussions have been rife these last months on Catho-lic university campuses about what some consider theVatican's rzcent heavy-handed use of its authority. FatherCharles Curran of The Catholic University of Americahas been ordered not to teach Catholic theology; Arch-bishop Hunthausen of Seattle has been relieved of histeaching authoritythough he's been allowed to retainadministrative and financial authority. Father MichaelBuckley, S.J., of the Jesuit School of Theology atBerkeley, had been questioned last spring concerning hispurportedly irresponsible action in signing a statement in1977 concerning the ordination of women; after a formalinvestigation, however, he was allowed to accept hisposition as a resident theologian in Washington, D.C.,for the American bishops.

And there has been that current difficulty in theChurch's new Code of Canon Law: a statement requiringthose who teach theology in Catholic universities to re-ceive beforehand a mandate, or permission, from thelocal bishop. In addition, a draft of a new pastoral letterPope John Paul II wants to publish regarding Catholichigher education was recently issued, a draft all theCatholic university presidents were asked to commentupon. They've objected to it very strongly and there havebeen indications that some changes will be madethough recent events might indicate to a perceptive Vati-can watcher that the Pope is not easily persuaded tochange his mind or, as he sees it, to back down onstrongly held principles.

I will not elaborate on the specific cases just mentionedexcept to draw my conclusion in the context of theCurran controversy. Rather, I want to say somethingabout Catholic university education while allowing thosespecific cases to function as background.

It is normal that the question would arise in our minds:what is the future of Catholic education if the isolated in-stances I have cited become a well-woven pattern?Bishop Matthew Clark, of Rochester, New YorkFatherCurran's bishopreleased a statement on March 12,1986, before the Vatican issued its order, and he said this:"If Father Curran's status as a Roman Catholic theologianis brought into question, I fear a serious setback toCatholic education and pastoral life in this country. That

Father Rewak is the President of Santa Clara University.His text is a revised version of an address delivered atSanta Clara's Faculty Convocation, September 19, 1986.

46

could happen in two ways. Theologians may stop explor-ing the challenging questions of the day in a creative,healthy way because they fear actions which may pre-maturely end their teaching careers. Moreover, abletheologians may abandon Cath.olic institutions altogetherin order to avoid embarrassing confrontations withChurch authorities. Circumstances of this sort wouldseriously undermine the standing of Catholic scholarshipin this nation, isolate our theological community andweaken our Catholic institutions of higher education."'

Such a concern gives rise to three important questions:Is there a place for freedom of intellectual inquiry in aCatholic university? Is there a place for responsible, andpublic, dissent? And how valuable is the pluralism of anAmerican Catholic university? For pluralism does notseem at the present time to fit into the pattern the Vaticanis weaving.

Was George Bernard Shaw right after allthat"Catholic university" is a contradiction in terms? Or, tobe more contemporary, is Denis O'Brien, President ofthe University of Rochester, correct when he says, "Thetraditions of church and university are radically differentideological traditions, and nothing but disaster resultsfrom assimilation...these traditions are in conflict, andso an attempt to blend university and church into onehappy, syncretic whole will end in the con-uptionof both"?'

Let us look at the first question: Is there a place forfreedom of intellectual inquiry in a Catholic university?

Two considerations impel us to answer an obvious"yes" to that question. The first involves the very natureof the mind itself. Looked at epistemologically, inquiryis as much a part of the brain as are the blood vessels andnerve endings; it is the process by which the intellectsearches for meaning. "Human intellect," says BernardLonergan, "belongs to the realm of spirit ...(and) Itsknowing is process." And that process, he says, "is theprolonged business of raising questions, working outtentative answers, and then finding that these answersraise further questions."3

1Quoted in Richard McCormick, "L'Affaire Curran," America, April 5,1986, p. 267.

2"One, Holy, Catholic and Somewhat Infallible," America, April 4,1987, p. 276.3"Insight: Preface to a Discussion," in Collection: Papers by BernardLonergan, SJ., ed. by F.E. Crowe, S.J., Herder and Herder, 1967,p. 156.

4 9

The dynamism of the intellect, in other words, forcesus to keep probing; it is of the nature of the intellect towant always to know further. This is, for all of us, anexperiential fact. It is what we do in a university, and aslong as we are a university, we will continue to do thatwhether our minds are Catholic minds or Lutheran mindsor Jewish minds.

But the second reason why we should say "yes, there isa place for intellectual inquiry in a Catholic university"involves both the nature of truth and our apprehensionof it. And here we touch upon what it means to be"Catholic."

Admittedly, Catholic universities adhere to certainvalues. They are outlined in our statements of goals andthey are part of our lived experiences on campus: liturgyand prayer are important values; the struggle for an inte-fgated morality is an important value; the respect for lifeis an important value; and the ordinary teachings of theChurch are important values. But truth is also an impor-tant value. After all, Truth is, ultimately, God. TheChurch is therefore as much committed to the truth as auniversity is; indeed, over the centuries the Church hasrecognized that the particular modality in which theCatholic university carries out its mission of service is inseeking the truth, with all the critical intelligence at itscommand.

But there is no doubt that the consistent stance, if youwill, of the formal "teaching" Churchthe magisteriumis to protect and guard the truth; while the consistentstance of the university is to elucidate, question and ex-plore the truth. What must be asserted with all duerespect is that these two stances are not incompatible. It isdialogue, discourse, and mutual respect which makecompatibility possible.

And I am not saying that the Church's approach totruth is absolute while the university's is relative. Truth,that value we continually strive for, is not relative, butour apprehension of it is always partial; we are never incomplete command, at any one point in history, of thefullness of reality or of God's revelation. And that is onlybecause we live in space and time; we progress throughmistakes to a small understanding of one aspect of truth.We are not disembodied intellects, all-knowing and com-pletely, simultaneously aware of all of reality. We areincarnate: we are stuck in matter and we live in dimen-sions. And so being committed to the trutheven with acapital "T"is not the same as possessing it, whole andentire, consciously and articulately, at any givenmoment. We are always groping, with assurance andwith humility, toward understanding.

For revelation is both a-historicalcoming as it doesfrom the timeless essence that is Godand historical: theWord is spoken and imbedded in history and we musttherefore look to the unfolding of history for the con-tinuing incarnation of that Word.

There must, ultimately, after the last star has fadedand after the last voice has spoken, be only one truth,even though we experience different facets of it. Thenwhy be afraid of seeking it? If we trust that God is good,

that He has reached down in some mysterious way andmade us a part of His life, then we cannot, if we arehumble and honest, be too far wrong in our seeking. Mis-takes, yes. But honest ones. The important thing is thatwe keep moving, haltingly but determinedly, toward Him.

I do not deny that some self-conscious integration isnecessary in a Catholic univers:ty. Prudent balancing iscalled for when we are institutionally committed tosomething we accept with faith and at the same time obli-gated in a professional way to question that which webelieve. But that is the only way theological under-standing in the Church grows; it is the only way we learnmore about what we believe. Anyone familiar with thevagaries of past pronouncements by various Churchcouncils knows that we believe and accept things as truetoday that we did not accept 500 or 1000 years ago. Thatfact does not undermine the teaching authority of theChurch; it is only to say that we do understand our-selves, our social nature, our relationship with God in abetter, more enlightened way. We become ever moreprecise in the articulation of our r aderstanding.

And on a personal level, integration is called for. If weare religious persons, we have to respect what our reli-gion teaches, accept it with humility, but be ready toquestion it so that we may understand it better. Integra-tion is not always an easy matter: our lives are filled withcompartments; the schizophrenic is the one who jumpsfrom compartment to compartment without seeing anyrelation among them. And so the tension between faithand inquiry will always remain a part of our inheritanceas human beings. But it is both possible and necessary tostrive to integrate themthrough discourse, throughclear and humble scholarship, even through prayer.

As a Catholic, therefore, as a Jesuit priest, I believevery strongly in certain issues, but that does not preventme from studying those issues with enlightened andrespectful scrutiny. As a Catholic university, we are com-mitted to certain traditions and values, but that commit-ment does not prevent us from applying to them the giftof our intellect; rather, it is precisely through the opera-tion of its critical intelligence that a Catholic universityserves the Church.

Father Richard McCormick, in his America article onthe Curran controversy, wrote: "...discussion and dis-agreement are the very lifeblood of the academic andtheological enterprise. We all learn and grow in the proc-ess, and it is a public process. Without such theologicalexchange and the implied freedom to make an honestmistake, the magisterium itself would be paralyzed bythe sycophancy of theologians."4

The second question is more difficult and takes its cuefrom Father McCormick: Is there a place in a Catholicuniversity for responsible, and public, dissent from ordi-nary Catholic teaching? For if we allow freedom of in-quiry, dissent will be an inevitable by-product.

Archbishop James Hickey of Washington, D.C., saidlast August, in referring to the norms established by the

40p. cit., p. 264.

47 50

United States bishops in 1968 for public dissent, that theyare "simply unworkable. Indeed, the Holy See has goneon to clarify that for us and to say there is no right topublic dissent."' His statement came as a surprise to theU.S. Catholic Conference; but it does indicate that, re-garding dissent, we are witnessing both a growing uneasi-ness within Vatican walls and a hardening resolve on thepart of some members of the hierarchy.

What does a Catholic university do in the face of sucha resolve?

An easy answer, though a valid one, would be tounderline the primacy of academic freedom in a univer-sity setting. It is, however, not the complete answer,because dissent by itself is not the central issue. As amatter of fact, despite the general tenor of ArchbishopHickey's statement, even quite traditional theologiansoften view dissent in the Church now "much more realis-tically and positivelyas the ordinary way to growthand development," as McCormick has written.

In other words, in order to protect the intellectualvitality of the Church's understanding of itself, respon-sible dissent is not only allowed, it is required. Thecontroversial issue, as both Archbishop Hickey andFather McCormick have suggested, is public dissent.

First of all, we must acknowledge the nervousness thatcertain groups in Rome feel about dissentand espe-cially about dissenting Americans. The nervousness ishistorical, with roots in the Modernist controversy of thelast century; and Pope Leo XIII had problems with"Americanism" at the start of the present century. Romedoes perceive us at times as a dissenting part of theChurch. They feel, perhaps, that they are dealing with13-year-old adolescents, and we should be honest enoughto admit that we have not infrequently acted that way.Americans can be feisty; but I think our theologians dounderstand that dissent, handled responsibly, with studyand humility, is "a way of getting at things, a part of thehuman process of growth in understanding."(McCormick) The fact remains that we will conZinue tohave to deal with the differences between our approachesto theological investigation: Rome tends to be prescrip-tive; America tends to be dialogic.

Secondly, in today's world, we cannot avoid that dis-sent will be publicespecially in sensitive matters. Withmodern communications, with the immediate avail-ability of information, with the interest of the media inthe Church, it is inevitable that any controversy sur-rounding those issues which do touch the lifeblood of theCatholic Churchor even appear sensational to themediawill become public.

Public dissent, however, is not always and necessarilydesirable. It can foreshorten reflection and often makescareful scholarly work difficult: it is almost impossiblefor the media to handle complicated and thorny issues.But the fact is that dissent will be public. My point is thatwe cannot step back from dissent simply because of its in-evitable publicity; however, dissent must always be

5National Catholic Reporter, September 5, 1986.

48

handled in a respectful and responsible manner. And itmust avoid confrontational tactics: such tactics onlyharden positions and make accommodation and work-able solutions impossible. A scholar's mind is open andhumblebut honest.

Karl Rahner asked this: "What are contemporarymoral theologians to make of Roman declarations onsexual morality that they regard as too unnuanced? Arethey to remain silent, or is it their task to dissent, to givea more nuanced interpretation?" And his answer is, "Ibelieve that the theologian, after mature reflection, hasthe right, and many times the duty, to speak out against ateaching of the magisterium and support his dissent."'

Father Rahner always insisted, however, that such dis-sent be handled with love for the Church.

What if such dissent is not responsible, is not handledwith love for the Church? What if such dissent is not ad-vanced within the context of a dialogue but only serves toharden positions and cause intellectual collision?

I suspect there are siEuations existing on a Catholic uni-versity campus here and there where a president wouldbe very happy to see a tenured theology teacher resign. Abishop now and then must throw up his hands andwonder in stark amazement about some of the ideasbeing discussed and preached under the guise of respon-sible theological scholarship. But those cases are minimalwhen compared with the deep commitment, honestscholarship, and careful thought that characterize ourtheology departments. An aberration here and there is anunfortunate but reasonable price to pay for an intellec-tual freedom that the Church must have if it is to grow inits understanding of itself. The alternative is unreason-able, for to stifle such an aberration, with some form ofcensorship, is to put in jepardy that far greater good oftheological development.

Peer criticism has always been much more effective,historically, than censorship. But peer criticism is onlypossible if the study of theology is accepted by the magis-terium as a public function of the Church. To sGme ex-tent, it has always been publicwars have been foughtover opposing theological claimsbut it has becomemore so in recent years. However, if we take Vatican IIseriously, such public theological activity, always recog-nizing the requirement of competence, is enjoined on thewhole Church: "all the faithful, clerical and lay, possess alawful freedom of inquiry and of thought, and the free-dom to express their minds humbly and courageouslyabout those matters in which they enjoy competence."'

It is clear, I hope, that I am not opting for theologicalanarchy. Mistakes and irresponsibility are regrettable,and authorities in a Catholic university have an obliga-tion to minimize, as far as lies in their power, the scandalthat can be caused by such mistakes and irresponsibility.And there is a serious obligation on the part of theChurch authorities, as far as lies in their power, to helpmaintain a theologically astute and steady course towardtruth. But it is still true that the end does not justify the6Stimmen Der Zeit, 1980, quoted in McCormick, op. cit.7Gaudiu,,, Spes, no. 62.

51

means: the goals of purity of doctrine and of clarity ofunderstanding are valid, but they cannot be sought usingmeans that vitiate the process of understanding.

So, yes, we run the risk of false scholarship and irre-sponsible behavior. But it's a risk we have enthusiasticallyagreed to and one we monitor with both the professionalacademic safeguards of peer review and a clear under-standing of the traditions of our institutionsin a plural-istic, academic context where we cannot and ought not toexclude from our consideration any facet of the diamondof God's creation.

That brings us to the third question: How valuable isthe pluralism of the American Catholic university?

It is a valid question: the Vatican appears now some-what uneasy with pluralism. In its initial stages certainly,the pastoral letter on Catholic universities to be issued inthe near future by Pope John Paul II emphasizes the dan-gers of pluralism. The letter's message seems to be thateveryone should say and think the same thing in order toensure that doctrine is kept safe. But universities, it mustbe said, ought not to be safe; they should be alive andbustling. The American university, especially, is used topluralism. We are a nation of many religions, of manypeoples, of many languages. Respect for the human con-science and for religious liberty is a cornerstone of ournation; indeed, in Vatican II, thanks to the Jesuit JohnCourtney Murray, that notion became a part of theChurch's consciousness of itself.

Humanity, made up of billions of differently-shapedpieces of flesh, finally, in the whole, composes the face ofGod. We should honor that difference, dialogue with thatdifference among ourselves, understand our differencesto see where our love fits together.

It seems to me, therefore, that a university, if it is to becatholic, with a small "c," must emphasize pluralismthat's really a tautology. It must reach out to everyoneand leave no part of creation untouched. It must embracecreation. Be critical, yes, but be loving, too.

But if a university is to be Catholic, with a capital "C,"it must also emphasize pluralism. As Joseph Komonchakrecently observed, "The adjective 'Catholic' was first em-ployed by church fathers precisely in opposition to sec-tarian and regional claims; it referred to the broad,worldwide communion of churches engaged in their crea-tive and transformative encounter with the ancientculture."'

We cannot honor and do justice to the astonishingdiversity of God's gift of creation if we do not open our-selves to it.

In summary: we are being true to our mission as aCatholic university 1) only if we are engaged honestlyand unrestrictedly in intellectual inquiry; 2) only if weare allowed to dissentand the dissent is couched in sin-cere terms of a dialoguein order that our understand-ing of our role in the Church's mission can grow, and sothat the Church's understanding of itself can grow; and3) only if we embrace pluralism. Those three values are

8"Issues Behind the Curran Case," Commonweal, January 1987, p. 43.

unreservedly necessary for the vitality and effectivenessof a Catholic university. Without those values, we arenot a Catholic university.

For both the Church and the university have the samegoal: to set people free so they may live the heedom ofthe children of God.

And Catholic universities passionately espouse all thetraditional values of the Church: its struggle for wisdom,its adherence to the g message, its ecumenism, itsdeep reverence for the liturgy, its predilection for thepoor (nowhere but in America, by the way, do Catholicuniversities do so much in the form of community serviceand scholarship aid for minorities and underprivileged).Indeed, in today's world, there is probably no more cru-cial concern shared by both the Church and Catholicuniversities than the search for justice.

With such common concerns, should we not be able todialogue without recrimination or fear of censorship?The Catholic university, to remain true to its calling,needs constant dialogue with its traditions; the Church,to be able to give to the world, needs constant dialoguewith the world.

And so the question is inevitable: What if we, at thisuniversity, were presented with the same situation as waspresented to The Catholic University of America? First ofall, of course, there are differences: that University hasdivisions chartered by the Vatican; American bishopscomprise a certain percentage of the Board of Trustees;and the Cathelic theologians there are expectedcer-tainly by the Vaticanto represent Catholic teaching ina much more formal way than they are in other Ameri-can Catholic universities. That needs to be said, becauseif a theologian were ordered to stop teaching, we wouldgiven the American legal and educational systemhavea much harder time than Catholic University in comply-ing with such a directive; we would not be able to complywith it. But it is also true that The Catholic University ofAmerica, since it, too, is subject to accreditation and em-powered by the state to give civil degrees, will certainlyhave a difficult time if it decides to heed the Vaticandirective.

And here I must make a distinction between the uni-versity's response to such a directive and the individualprofessor's response. A university, when it grants tenure,makes a contractual agreement with a professor thatbinds the university to maintain the employment of thatprofessorbarring those circumstances usually made ex-plicit in the contract. The professor, however, is not sobound. Ordinarily, he or she can leave at the end of theyear with impunity, by choosing not to sign the annualcontract.

The university, therefore, cannot eliminate tenure orremove a professor from the classroom simply becausean outside agency forbids a professor to teach. A profes-sor, however, may very well decidebecause of a spe-cial bond of obedience which he respects; because of thegreater good or perhaps to avoid further scandal; or forpersonal reasonsto cease teaching, and even to give uptenure. But this is a personal decision made apart from

49 52

the institutional commitment to him. He can decide togive up his right to tenure, but the university cannotorder him out on the basis of an external directive.

However, quite apart from the legal and educationalconstraints, my point is that such compliance on the partof this university would not be desirabk, and could notbe assented to, precisely because we are a Catholic uni-versity, and precisely because of our love for the Church.

One last thing: I don't think we can be a true Catholicuniversity without taking risks. Moses took a risk whenhe went to the Pharoah one day and said, "I have a mes-sage for you." Jesus took a big risk when He said, "I haveone thing to say to you, love one another." Teresa ofAvila took a risk when she started travelling around to

50

monastaries and convents and compelling them to a moreevangelical way of life, and Ignatius Loyola took a bigrisk when he started a new religious order, and newschools, with no money.

Because of risks, history is changed. It moves suddenlycloser, with clearer purpose, towards final meaning, finalunderstanding.

So we should not be afraid of taking risks with our in-tellects, with our ideas and our criticism. Not all ideas aregood, we should be honest in our criticism, but mostideas are worth investigation. We are here to extendhuman knowledge; and as far as I am concerned, that isalso to learn divine wisdom. In the final analysis, theyought not to be separated.

53

Beyond 'Dissent" and "Academic Freedom"

David B. Burrell, C.S.C.

Just ten years ago a group of college and universityfaculty and administrators gathered at Notre Dame witha similar group of bishops to explore ways in whichCatholic higher education could better contribute to themission of the church. Co-sponsored by the United StatesCatholic Conference, this colloquium intended to heralda new era of collaboration after a post-conciliar decade ofconcern for the legitimate autonomy of Catholic collegesand universities. The animating force behind the meetinghad been the Salamanca (1973) and Delhi (1975) gather-ings of the International Federation of Catholic Univer-sities, where it became clear to American delegates howfortunate we were in the fund of faith and competenceengendered in our Catholic colleges and universities.How to tap that rich heritage to further the church's mis-sion? How to engage educational administrator andbishops in sharing a vision for a common mission?'

Like so many gatherings of that sort, it proved inspir-ing and fruitful to those who participated. We were to beblessed with a bishop in Fort Wayne-South Bend whosepastoral imagination welcomed higher educationlarge-ly because William McManus understood education sowell, and the entire conference profited from the direc-tion and support of Archbishop Jean Jadot as ApostolicDelegate. The Association of Catholic Colleges and Uni-versities, in association with the National Conference ofCatholic Bishops, had already piloted an ad hoc com-mittee of bishops and presidents to oversee areas ofpotential conflict, and this conference explored the poten-tial for interaction. Cne might surmise that the confi-dence with which administrators of Catholic colleges anduniversities recently responded to the proposed schemafor a pontifical document on Catholic universities', andin doing so generally count on the support of their respec-tive bishops, stems from gatherings of this sort and themutual confidence they can engender.

In planning that mc.iting, we deliberately focussed on

Father Burrell is Professor of Theology and Philosophy atthe University of Notre Dame. His text was prepared forthe University/Church Colloquium held at Notre Dame,January 19-21, 1987.

1Papers and discussion summaries were published in Evangelization inthe American Context, ed., David B. Burrell and Franzita Kane [NotreDame, 19761.

20rigins 15:43, 10 April 1986)

academic administrators, rather than theologians, as theones best situated to explore wider areas of collaboration.We also feared lest unresolved questions regarding therelations between a theologian's teaching role and thebishop's teaching role could obstruct our conversationswhen the times called for constructive exchange. Whyshort-circuit opportunities to determine where diocesanand educational institution's structures could comple-ment each other to foster the church's mission by concen-trating on the one area where they could most easily con-flict? As "L'affaire Curran" is shaping up ten years later,our decisions have proven all too prescient. Yet in thespirit of that collaboration heralded by that bi-centennialconference, I would like to explore two buzz-words whichhave marked recent exchanges, words whose resonancenearly insures that academe and hierarchy will talk pasteach other.

Those two words are dissent and academic freedom,and each is woefully inadequate to the task it is beingused for, as well as bound to provoke hostility as well asmisunderstanding. (I say this after conversations withsome thoughtful bishops, as well as a brief exchange withmy friend and colleague, Charles Curran.) In the spirit ofmediation, then, I wish to explore those terms in theircurrent setting, to show why they are not only mislead-ing but can easily provoke hostility in different groups,and then propose alternative images as a way of promot-ing constructive conversation.

Let us first dispense with dissent. It is a telling mark ofa certain generation of Catholic theologians that theypresume "the church" to be a palpable and enduring enti-ty in whose service they are engaged. Whether it be theold-style Roman theologian, who went scurrying forarguments in support of each papal pronouncement, orthe new style practitioner who scrutinizes those samepronouncements in a more critical spirit, the mode inboth cases is the same: react to authoritative pronounce-ments. The very vocabulary of dissent concedes thisprimacy already. But Vatican II intended to usher in aparticipatory church polity, with various roles and par-ticular offices working in partnership. While bishopshold a pre-eminence in orders and in jurisdiction, theycannot function effectively in their apostolic task withoutthe help of manifold gifts of the community. Theoloansare certainly to be counted among those offices and gifts,so it works directly contrary to the vision of that greatcouncil should they adopt dissent as their signal posture

51 5 4

or eminent right. Nor is it any more constructive if otherskeep backing them into such a claim.

For theologians comprise a part of the church whichthe rest of the body needs in a specific way. If they are solocatedprofessionally and institutionallyas to missbeing called forth by the body of the church, they mightwell be tempted to cast themselves over against itsauthoritative side, and so claim the right of dissent. Butthat is surely but a small part of what they are called todothough betimes a fitting one. Moreover, it is cer-tainly disingenuous to call attention to one's orthodoxyby insisting that one has never objected to defined teach-ing. Would that amount to an invitation to Romanauthorities to define a larger scope of teaching, so as toinsure the loyalty of Catholic theologians?

Something is clearly amiss here, and I would suggestthat it is the theologians' conceding the initiative to eccle-siastical pronouncements (to which one may dissent) aswell as their location and posture vis-a-vis the church.Rather than see themselves as part of its mission, theirfocus on dissent so accentuates the critical dimension oftheir academic role as to place them over against ecclesialauthority. The only way authority can react to that is totry to bring them under its wing by insisting on a "canon-ical teaching mission" (Canon 812). The climate of col-laboration accentuated in 1976 has eroded as each groupappeals to the respective authorities of its distinct institu-tional worlds: university or church. And once institu-tional alignments are invoked, and people begin toregard each other's pronouncements as intrusions ontheir proper turf, possibilities for conversationevaporate.

That explains why academic freedom, as well, is aninappropriate defense for a Catholic theologian, thoughit is a necessary one for an educational administrator.Were I speaking as a college or university president, Ishould defend vigorously the letter and spirit of academicfreedom for the entire facultyas the ACCU Board ofDirectors has done. Were I speaking to theologians onthe faculty, I would hold them to an even higher stan-dardas I would hold myself as a theologian. For the no-tion of academic freedom has been crafted in a liberalclimate of inquiry in which academic institutions insistedupon their autonomy from society rather than theirresponsibilities to it. In practice, of course, American col-leges and universitiesindependent as well as publichave always seen their mission in relation to the widersociety, but they also had to insist on being free from thecontrols of pressure groups in that society in order tocarry it out.

And one is certainly entitled to draw analogies be-tween that situation and the Catholic college and univer-sity within the polity of world Catholicism, as theiradministrators have done so well. The task and role ofCatholic theologians, however, cannot be renderedaccurately in these terms, because they owe an inner alle-giance to both academic and ecclesial communities.Hence a phraseacademic freedomwhich underscoresinstitutional autonomy can easily misrepresent the reality

of their situation. As "dissent" called forth political im-ages of the "loyal opposition," so "academic freedom"implies that "we know no norms except those of ourpeers." And no theologians who understand their rolewithin the church can countenance a posture like that.What they can and must insist upon, however, is the free-dom of inquiry required to perform their role withintegrity.

Speaking now as a Catholic theologian, allow me tosketch out the grounds for such freedom of inquiry. Theyare rooted in the role intellectuals play in the communityof the faithful, and specified by their shared explorationof the import of the common faith for men and womentoday. Inspired by the boldest thinkers in our tradi-tionby Origen, Ansehz, and Aquinas, as well as bythose who needed to secure the rule of faithAthan-asius, Augustine, and Bellarmine, and finally by thosewho sought to penetrate its mysteries for human lifeGregory, Ignatius, Teresa and John of the Cross, theolo-gians will mine tradition using the tools provided by cur-rent disciplines, in order to clarify and to extend ourunderstanding of the kingdom inaugurated with Abra-ham and confirmed in Jesus. That's a tall order, and eachone employs the talents and training which he or she hasreceived. Church teaching is in part given and in part thematerial with which such scholars work. As teachers,they are charged largely with informing a younger gen-eration, as scholars with exploring domains old and new,and as researchers with extending the frontiers of thosedomains.

No one should begrudge a scholar or researcher theroom to exploreand here the freedom of inquiry inher-ent to a theologian can often coincide with the academicfreedom which all scholars claim and receive. Yet thetheologians also receive a higher call, and recognizethemselves as part of a faith community. So out ofrespect for that community as well as the faith theyshare, they pledge themselves to distinguish clearly andin practice among those three functions: teaching,scholarship, and research. The boundaries are hardlyfixedseminars partake of scholarship, at least, if not ofresearchand some guidelines will have to be negoti-ated. But that is precisely the sort of thing which the jointACCU-NCCB committee of bishops and academicadministrators was designed to do. Again, speaking as atheologian (which many bishops are similarly entitled todo), I cannot believe that the freedom of inquiry due totheologians in the pursuit of their dual academic andecclesial task need foment so much controversy andpolarizationat least once the provocative terms of dis-sent and academic freedom are banished as quite inade-quate to the substance of the issue.

Finally, a word must be said on the intrusive strategyand tactics of the Congregation of the Doctrine of theFaith. Their policies world-wide are all too similar to thecurrent American international posture, dubbed "globalunilateralism." While American bishops have urged ourpolitical leaders to bolster and cooperate with the inter-national agencies we helped to form, our political leaders

55

prefer to "go it alone." One has similar fears regardingRoman congregations these days, as they act either inde-pendently of or at variance with the manifest consensusof regional episcopal conferences. That grand strategycertainly represents a renunciation of the collegiality cele-brated in Vatican H, and an ominous sign of ecclesial reli-ance on bureaucracy rather than local consultation.

One wants to urge our bishops to a more active andresponsible interaction with Rome, as confreres in a com-mon endeavor, just as they have encouraged us to imag-inative strategies of participation and partnership in the

second draft of their pastoral letter on the economy. In-deed, were a followup meeting to be heldthis timeamong academic administrators, bishops, and theolo-gianscrucial issues like the operation of "subsidiarity"in the church would have to be explored. Such legitimateconcerns with power and process, however, ought notconfound a clear discussion of the freedom of inquiryproper to theologians in our community. May that con-versation beginin an effort to recapture and to advancethe spirit of collaboration celebrated a decade ago atNotre Dame.

56

The Response Catholics Owe To Non-Infallible Teachings

James L. Heft, S.M.

In this article I shall discuss the response that Catholicsowe to non-infallible teachings. I will first review brieflythe recent history of this question, consider the attitudesthat Catholics .hould cultivate in themselves when theyreceive non-infallible teachings, explain some of the diffi-culties surrounding public dissent, and finally offer somepersonal reflections on the state of this question in theChurch today.

Legitimate Dissent: A Relatively New Question

The task of distinguishing essentials from inessentialshas been from the start a matter of serious concern toChristians. Sts. Peter and Paul and James and the wholeChurch, with the assistance of the Holy Spirit (Acts15:22), decided at the Council of Jerusalem that circumci-sion was not to be required of Gentiles. Medieval canonlawyers assumed that there was a difference, though attimes difficult to determine with precision, between mat-ters of discipline and matters of doctrine, and medievaltheologians thought it was important to determine thelevel of importance to be attributed to various theologicalstatements.'

The question of whether it is legitimate to dissent fromnon-infallible teachings could arise only once there was adistinction between infallible and non-infallible teach-ings. It was only around 1840 that the terms ordinary andextra-ordinary magisterium were first used in a papaldocument.' At about the same time, and for the firsttime, the term "magisterium," that is, the teachingauthority in the Church, was exclusively identified withthe hierarchy.3 When the First Vatican Council set downthe conditions necessary for an infallible papal definition,it became possible in a carefully circumscribed way to

Father Heft teaches in the Department of ReligiousStudies at the University of Dayton. The present articlewill appear in Raising the Torch of Good News: CatholicAuthority and Dialogue With the World, Bernard P.Prusack, ed., (University Press of America, 1987).

1James Heft, John XXII 11316-13341 and Papal Teaching Authority(Lewiston, NY: Edwin Mellen Press, 1986), 106-19; 188-201.2john P. Boyle, "The Ordinary Magisterium: Toward a History of theConcept," Heythrop Iourruil 30 (1979): 380-98, and 31 (1980): 14-29.3Yves Congar, "A Brief History of the Forms of the Magisterium," inThe Magisterium and Morality. Readings in Moral Theology #3, ed.Charles Curran and Richard McCormick (New York: Paulist Press,1983), 324.

identify infallible teachings. In doing so, it became pos-sible to distinguish in a more precise fashion betweeninfallible and non-infallible teachings. That Council,however, said virtually nothing about the nature of anindividual Catholic's responsibility to accept non-infal-lible teachings.

With the nearly complete collapse of Catholic theolog-ical faculties in Europe at the time of the French Revolu-tion, the papacy, beginning particularly with the pontifi-cate of Gregory XVI, and culminating with the pontificateof Pius XII, published a great number of encyclicals. Theexercise of this form of papal teaching authority becameidentified with the exercise of the ordinary magisterium.Pius XII declared in Humani Generis (1950) that eventhough papal teachings of this sort on a matter of doc-trine were not infallible, theologians were no longer freeto discuss the matter; moreover, he taught that the ordi-nary magisterium of the pope demanded obedience: "Hewho hears you hears me." Finally, Pius XII stated thatone of the tasks of theologians is to justify declarations ofthe magisterium, that is, to explain how those teachingsare to be found in Scripture and Tradition.4

The Second Vatican Council addressed the issue of therespect that Catholics owe to non-infallible teachings inparagraph 25 of Lumen Gentium, which reads:

This religious submission of will and of mind must beshown in a special way to the authentic teachingauthority of the Roman Pontiff, even when he is notspeaking ex cathedra. That is, it must be shown insuch a way that his supreme magisterium is acknowl-edge with reverence, the judgments made by him aresincerely adhered to, according to his manifest mindand will.5

4Congar adds: "Pit r saw the theologian teaching only by delegationfrom the 'magisten, .,nd doing so strictly in his service and under hiscontrol. Is this consonant with what nineteen centuries of the Church'slife tell us about the function of 'disacale' or doctor? No, not exactly"(325). In asking theologians to "justify" the teachings of the magis-terium, Pius XII was stressing the necessity for doctrine to be groundedin Scripture and Tradition.5Magisterium, trans. Francis Sullivan (New York: Paulist Press, 1983)154. Ex cathedra definitions by a pope or doctrine defined by an ecu-menical council constitute an exercise of the extraordinary magisterium.All other exercise of teaching authority by the pope (e.g., encyclical let-ters) and the bishops (e.g., pastoral letters) represents the functioning ofthe ordinary magisterium. It is possible, according to Lumen Gentium,par. 25, that under certain conditions the ordinary universal magis-terium can teach infallibly, though normally it does not. Our concern inthis paper is with non-infallible teachings, be they taught by the pope, acouncil or the bishops.

54 5 7

On the surface, this statement would appear only torepeat the teachings of Pius XII. However, to interpretthe text accurately, its background needs to be under-stood. First, the original schema proposed and rejected atthe first session of the Council had included Pius XII'sprohibition of free debate among theologians. In the finaltext, this prohibition was dropped. Moreover, the bibli-cal text used by Pius XII to describe the ordinary magis-terium ("He who hears you hears me") was also dropped_Three questions (modi) were posed to the doctrinal com-mission concerning the meaning of par. 25, one of whichis of particular relevance for our topic.' Three bishopsasked about the case of an "educated person, confrontedwith a teaching proposed non-infallibly, who cannot, forsolid reasons, give his internal assent." The theologicalcommission responded by directing the bishops to con-sult the approved authors (auctores probati), that is, toconsult the textbooks of theology ordinarily used in sem-inary theology courses. Several theologians have donethese studies! What they have discovered is that theadherence to official, authoritative (rather than "authen-tic") non-infallible teachings should be both internal andreligious: internal, which requires more than externalconformity or a mere respectful silence; and religious,which indicates that the motive for adherence is not pri-marily the cogency of the reasoning but the fact that thePope has been given authority to teach by Christ.

But this internal religious adherence is to be distin-guished from the assent of divine faith which is due onlyto infallible teachings. Internal religious adherence is notmetaphysically (or absolutely) certain but morally cer-tain. This distinction is made because, as Francis Sullivanexplains, "the non-definitive teaching on the magisteriumis not infallible, it can be erroneous; if it is not irreform-able, it can stand in need of correction."' A careful inter-pretation of paragraph 25 of Lumen Gentium shows,therefore, that in certain carefully circumscribed situationsit is legitimate to dissent from non-infallible teachings.'

Shortly after the Council, the German bishops issuedin September of 1967, almost a year before the publica-tion of Humanae Vitae, a statement on the ordinarymagisterium in which they wrote that "in order to main-tain the true and ultimate substance of the faith it (theChurch) must, even at the risk of error in points of detail,

8Joseph Komonchak, "Ordinary Papal Magisterium and Religious Dis-sent" in The Magisterium and Morality, 68-69.7See, for example, Komonchak just cited, 70-78, and Richard Gula,"The Right to Private and Public Dissent from Specific Pronouncementsof the Ordinary Magisterium," Eglise et théologie 9 (1978): 319-43. The"approved authors" are usually negative on the legitimacy of publicdissent.

8Sullivan, 157. On the distinction between religious adherence and theassent of divine faith, see Ladislas Orsy, "Reflections on the Text of aCanon." America May 17, 1986: 396-99.9Several theologians explain that Vatican H, through its actions (e.g.,the "rehabilitation" of theologians such as Congar, Rahner andDeLubac, who were suspect by the Vatican before the Council, and itsteachings on religious freedom, ecumenism and collegiality) under-scored the constructive power of some dissent (see Sullivan, 157-58),and Avery Dulles, "Doctrinal Authority for a Pilgrim Church," in TheMagisteriurn and Morality, 264-65.

give expression to doctrinal directives which have a cer-tain degree of binding force and yet, since they are not defide definitions, involve a certain element of the provi-sional even to the point of being capable of includingerror." Nevertheless, they continued, the Church mustteach if it is to apply the faith to new situations that arise."In such a case the position of the individual Christian inregard to the Church is analogous to that of a man whoknows that he is bound to accept the decision of a special-ist even while recognizing that it is not infallible."'

Humanae Vitae, issued in the summer of 1968, forcedthe discussion from considerations of private dissent byindividual Catholics to those of public dissent by Cath-olic theologians. In November of that same year, theUnited States bishops, in their pastoral letter, "HumanLife in Our Day," stated that "the expression of theolog-ical dissent from the magisterium is in order only if thereasons are serious and well-founded, if the manner ofthe dissent does not question or impugn the teachingauthority of the Church and is such as to not give scan-dal." They realized, however, that in saying this they hadgiven support to something new in the Church, and giventhe complexity of the matter, called for a dialogue be-tween themselves and theologians to clarify the matterfurther: "Since our age is characterized by popular inter-est in theological debate and given the realities of modernmass media, the ways in which theological dissent maybe effectively expressed, in a manner consistent with pas-toral solicitude, should become the object of fruitful dia-logue between bishops and theologians." Since that time,the American bishops have not issued any statement thathas advanced this discussion or clarified the criteria thatwould ensure that public theological dissent on non-infal-lible matters will be consistent with pastoral solicitude.

In the spring of 1986, after seven years of private cor-respondence initiated by the Sacred Congregation for theDoctrine of Faith (SCDF), Fr. Charles Curran, a profes-sor of moral theology at The Catholic University ofAmerica, in Washington, D.C., explained at a press con-ference held in Washington immediately after returningfrom a meeting with Cardinal Ratzinger in Rome, that hehad arrived at an impasse with ti-1,,! Cardinal concerningthe legitimacy of public theological dissent on non-infal-lible matters. Fr. Richard McCormick, a Jesuit moraltheologian at Georgetown Univerity, has concluded thatRatzinger in essence is requiring that a professor mustagree "with the ordinary magisterium of every authorita-tively proposed moral formulation" or cease to be calleda Catholic theologian. 11

Between Vatican II and the present, most authois whohave treated the question of dissent, private and public,have concluded that it is legitimate. At the same time,many of them have stressed tha: much still needs to beworked out. In 1974, Christopher Butler, for example,noted that in this area "we lack the guidance of good the-

10Cited by Karl Rahner, 'The Dispute Concerning the Teaching Officein the Church," in The Magisterium arra Morality, 115.

11Richard McCormick, "L'Affaire Cun-an," America April 5, 1986: 264.

55 58

ology today."' Five years later John Boyle explained thatthe particular authority pastoral teachings should have inthe Church has "not been adequately clarified."' In anaddress given on April 15, 1986, at St. Michael's Collegein Toronto, Ontario, Cardinal Ratzinger himself saidconcerning the work of theologians that "there is noquestion that it is important to find legal formulas bywhich we can safeguard the objective freedom of scien-tific thought within its limits and guaranteeing the neces-sary room for maneuver for scientific discussion.""

The Response Catholics Owe to Non-Infallible Teachings

Two things should :De clear at this point: individualCatholics may dissent from non-infallible teachings andthere is a lack of agreement on how this can be doneresponsibly, particularly when it is a case of public dis-sent. In this section I will discuss how an individual Cath-olic should approach authoritative non-infallible teach-ing.' In particular, I want to discuss the attitudes that aCatholic should have in order to ensure the proper open-ness to non-infallible teachings.

We have already noted that the theological commis-sion of Vatican II referred the bishops who asked aboutdissent from non-infallible teachings to the "approvedauthors." These authors, or manualists, all stress that atthe outset the presumption should always be in favor ofthe teaching of the ordinary magisterium, and that one'sadherence should not be suspended rashly or casually, orbecause of pride, "excessive love of one's own opinions"or "over-confidence in one's own genius."' They assumethat it is very unlikely that the ordinary magisterium

12Christopher Butler, "Authority and the Christian Conscience," TheMagisterium and Moralit,y, 186.13John Boyle, 'The Natural Law and the Magisterium," The Magis-terium and Morality, 452.14joseph Cardinal Ratzinger, "The Church and the Theologian," Origins15 (8 May 1986): 769. The Cardinal immediately added, however, that"the freedom of the individual instructor is not the only good under thelaw nor is it the highest good to be safeguarded here. As to the questionof the ordering of the various goods in the community of the New Testa-ment, there is an inflexible divine judgment from which the church maynever stray: Whoever is a cause of scandal to one of these little ones whobelieves, it would be better for him to be cast out into the sea with amillstone tied around his neck' (Mk. 9:42)."15Concerning dissent from infallible teachings, it is important to recallthat traditionally a person must know that what they hold is contrary towhat the Church teaches and then persist in denyiv.g the Church's teach-ing if they are to become a heretic and thereby cease to be a Catholic. In1973, the Sacred Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith publishedMysterium Ecclesiae in which it explained that infallible teachings,though irreformable as Vatican I taught, are open to reformulation, notin order to change their meaning, but in order to bring out more clearlythe infallibly defined truth they aim to articulate. This, in principle, isalways possible, due to, as the SCDF document states, (1) the limitedstate of human knowledge at the time of definition, (2) changeable con-ceptions and thought patterns that belong to a certain period of time, (3)the specific concerns that motivated that definition, and (4) the limitedexpressive power of the language used (see my article, "Papal Infallibil-ity and the Marian Dogmas," Marian Studies 33 [1982): 58-59). It is alsonecessary to take into consideration that pastorally speaking the meaningand import of some dogmas are more difficult to grasp than others (im-portant in this context is Vatican IIs teaching on the "hierarchy oftruths").18Komonchak, 72.

56

would be in error. The Germans bishops offer a similarcaution:

Anyone who believes that he is justified in holding, asa matter of his own private opinion, that he hasalready even now arrived at some better insight whichthe Church will come to in the future must ask himselfin all sober self-criticism before God and his con-science whether he has the necessary breadth anddepth of specialized theological knowledge to permithimself in his private theory and practice to departfrom the current teaching of the official Church. Sucha case is conceivable in principle, but subjectivepresumptuousness and an unwarranted attitude ofknowing better will be called to account before thejudgment seat of God.'

The then Monsignor Philips, one of the two secretariesof Vatican II's Theological Commission, explained in his1967 work, L'Eglise et Son Mystere, that Catholicsshould be deeply ready (auront 1.4 coeur) to respect(vénérer) the authority with which the ordinary magis-terium is exercised.' Bishop Butler explains that in "allcases, the mood of the devout believer will be not resent-ment at what appears to be a constraint upon his think-ing, but a welcoming gratitude that goes along with akeen alertness of a critical mind and of a good will con-cerned to play its part both in the purification and thedevelopment of the Church's understanding of its inheri-tance."'

Several authors stress the importance of an attitudethey call "docility." In his 1962 study, L'Eglise est unecommunion, the Dominican theologian Jerome Hamer,now the Prefect of the Congregation for Religious, ex-plains some of the key ideas of St. Thomas on docility. Itis located in the intelligence, and has to do with theacquisition of knowledge and helps a person to appro-priate teaching personally. There are also degrees ofdocility that are "proportionate to the distance that liesbetween the qualifications or doctrinal authority of theteacher and the knowledge of the pupil." Hamer statesthat docility should not be confused with the obedienceof faith, since it is a virtue of the intelligence whose objectis knowledge, rather than a virtue of the will which sub-mits to the will of the teacher.2°

Francis Sullivan contrasts the attitudes of obstinacyand docility, and explains that obstinacy is to be re-nounced and docility adopted:

Renouncing obstinacy would mean rejecting a ten-dency to close my mind to the official teaching, to

12Rahner, 115.

18Cited by B.C. Butler, "Infallible: Authenticum: Assensus:Obsequium," Doctrine in Life 31 (1981): 85.19Butler, 186. That eagerness and welcoming attitude may be con-trasted with the description givett by John Henry Newman of the way inwhich mast people treat the truths of religion: "Men are too well in-clined to sit at home, instead of stirring themselves to inquire whether arevelation has been given; they expect its evidence to come to themwithout their trouble; they act, not as supplicants, but as judges" (TheGrammar of Assent (Garden City, NY: Image Books, 1955j, 330).20From the English translation of Hamer's The Church Is a Communion(London: Geoffrey Chapman, 1964), 25-26.

59

refuse even to give it a fair hearing, to adopt the atti-tude: "rve already made my mind up; don't botherme."

Positively, what would an attitude of docility in-volve? Docility is a willingness to be taught, a willing-ness to perfer another's judgment to one's own when itis reasonable to do so. Docility calls for an open atti-tude toward official teaching, giving it a fair hearing,doing one's best to appreciate the reasons in its favour,so as to convince oneself of its truth, and thus facilitateone's intellectual assent to it.21

Sullivan adds that since the ordinary magisteriumseeks adherence that is an act of the judgment, it must ap-peal not just to the will but also to the mind. It must pre-sent its teachings with reasons that are clear and convinc-ing, particularly in those matters which have to do withthe natural law, since such matters are said to be discov-erable by human reasoning, over which the hierarchy ofthe Church has no monopoly.22 Nevertheless, this is notto say that the magisterium "has no more claim on ourassent than the strength of its arguments would warrant."Were this the case, an individual would give to the pope,explains John Gallagher, "no more authority than onewould give to one's bartender or hairdresser or anyonewith whom one might discuss an ethical question."23

In an entire chapter devoted to a discussion of the ma-gisterium and dissent on moral matters, Gallagher raisesa series of questions that a devout Catholic should try toanswer before dissenting from the ordinary magisterium.Since Gallagher's checklist is the most extensive I havecome across, I wish to quote a major portion of it:

Am I biased? Am I rationalizing a decision I havemade on selfish grounds7 Am I being honest, humbleand courageous in facing my own limitations? Doesmy life exhibit patience, kindness, and the other giftsand fruits of the Holy Spirit? Or is my thinking toomuch influenced by anger, or disdain, or hurt feelings,or arrogance?

Before deciding that dissent is legitimate one shouldlook at one's own capacity for making moral judg-ments. Am I well qualified to judge in these matters? IfI attempt to make up for my lack of qualifications byseeking expert advice, am I well qualified to choosegood advisors? Do .1 choose advisors because they arelikely to say what I want them to say? One should takecotmsel not only to get the views of specialists but alsoto gain objectivity. The advice of objective counselorsis an important means for overcoming one's own biasand tendency to subjectivism.

On any important moral judgment one should pray,not as a pious afterthought but as an essential step.Moral decisions have consequences and implicationsbeyond our ability to grasp. We must open ourselvesto the Holy Spirit to guide us by a wisdom greaterthan our own. Prayer is especially important if one isconsidering dissent from a papal moral teaching.2A

21Sullivan, 164.

22Sullivan, 162. Cardinal Heenan is supposed to have described docilityin very simple terms as "being prepared to admit that it is just possiblethat the pope is right and I am wrong" (Butler, 85).9ohn Gallagher, The Basis for Christian Ethics (New York: PaulistPress, 1985), 228.

24Gallagher, 228-29.

Besides examining one's attitude, there are also intellec-tual requirements for determining the degree of authoritythat ought to be given to non-infallible teaching. "Wemust know whether we are faced with a warning, advice,the settling of a controversy, a caution, or a doctrinalpronouncement in the strict sense of the word."28 Again,Gallagher describes a number of differing degrees ofauthority for non-infallible papal teachings:

Other things being equal, a teaching repeated manytimes by several Popes over a long period of time hasmore authority than a teaching stated only once ortwice. A papal statement on some point which hasarisen recently usually will not carry as much weightas a papal teaching held consistently over a longperiod of time during which the subject has receivedfrequent consideration. A papal statement on a pointwhich has recently arisen may well be cautionaryrather than definitive. It indicates that at this stage ofthe development of thought on the point, the newideas cannot be accepted in the form in which theyhave been presented. At some later stage in the devel-opment of thought on a point, further formulationsmay be found which allow die acceptance of what isgood in the new ideas without the acceptance of erroror the denial of truths arrived at in the past. If the issuehas arisen recently, the papal teaching is more likely tobe cautionary and admitting of development than ifthe issue has been discussed for several generations.

Other things being equal, a papal teaching whichhas not been repeated for several decades, in spite ofsome Catholics disregarding it, does not have as muchauthority as a teaching which is repeated by Popeswho try to convince dissenters to accept it.26

Finally, it is important to recall that the "right to dis-sent" can never be absolute.' What this means is that ittakes place within a larger context of an acceptance ofJesus Christ as Lord, of the Church as the place whereChrist is present and celebrated in Word and Sacrament.28In other words, dissent is possible not against infallibleteachings, but only against non-infallible matters, someof which, however, do nonetheless have great impor-tance in the Christian life. One need only think of mattershaving to do with nuclear deterrence or liberation theol-ogy to see the serious consequences and vital importance

25Hamer, 26.

26Gallagher, 223. Perhaps included by Gallagher in the qualification"other things being equal" is the realization that it is possible that ateaching could be eepeated by many popes who do so primarily becausethey thought that they were obligated to repeat it simply because otherpopes had taught it before them. This would place formal authority(who says something) over material authority (what is said). In such asituation, the teaching in question would not acquire more authoritymerely through repetition by popes. Some things can be repeated, in anunexamined way, for centuries.27MrCormick admits that he has always been uncomfortable with thephrase "right to dissent," because "we are concerned, as believers, withthe behavioral implications of our being in Christ, with moral truth."Since the phrase "right to dissent" tends to juridicize what ought to be amore corporately and communally grounded search for moral truth,McCormick prefers to speak of "a duty and right to exercise a truly per-sonal reflection within the teaching-learning process of the Church, aduty and a right that belongs to all who possess proportionate com-petence." ("Reflections on the Literature," in The Magisterium andMorality, 464).23Dulles, 262.

5760

of non-infallible teachings. Nevertheless, all of theauthors cited in this section of our study accept the pos-sibility of dissent from non-infallible teachings as legiti-mate when the individual Catholic hps been docile, thatis, has done his or her best to accept the teaching.

The Question of Public Dissent

The question of public dissent by Catholic theologianshas become most recently a critical issue for the theolog-ical community; it is, as we noted at the end of the firstsection of this study, the least worked out. For thatreason, I will only outline a few of the issues that havebecome a part of this question.

If moral theologians become convinced that a non-infallible teaching is in fact one-sided, incomplete, oreven in error, what should they do? Should they remainsilent in order not to create confusion and cause scandal?Should they restrict their expression of reservation or dis-sent to personal and private letters written to the SCDF,offering better arguments or other ways of formulatingthe teaching or stating reasons why they find the teachingunacceptable? Or should they speak out, respectfully butclearly, against the teaching, confident that the greatestscandal is not the temporary confusion of the laity, butthe perpetuation of false teaching rather than the correc-tion of what is being taught?

We have already noted how Pius XII taught that oncean issue had been treated by the ordinary magisterium,theologians were no longer free to discuss the matter. Wenoted also that this prohibition was dropped by VaticanII. Even though Vatican II did not state in any of its docu-ments that a theologian could dissent publicly from suchteaching, it did state in paragraph 62 of Gaudium et spesthat all the faithful, clerical and lay, who study theology,must be assured of their "lawful freedom of inquiry andof thought, and of the freedom to express their mindshumbly and courageously about those matters in whichthey enjoy competence."

Moreover, despite any explicit endorsement of respon-sible forms of public dissent on non-infallible matters,some theologians, as we have noted, argue that implicitlythe Council approved such dissent by the very fact that inseveral of its decrees it departed from previous papalteaching on a number of important questions, such asreligious liberty. If a theologian is to remain silent, howthen, asks Rahner, "can that progress in knowledgenecessary for the life of the Church and for the credibilityof its preaching be achieved?"'

29See, for example, Sullivan, 209-10, and Dulles, who writes (264-65)that "by its practice of revision, the Council implicitly taught the legiti-macy and even the value of dissent. In effect the Council said that the or-dinary magisterium of the Roman Pontiff had fallen into error and hadunjustly harmed the careers of loyal and able scholars. Some of thethinkers who had resisted official teachings in the pre-conciliar periodwere among the principal precursors and architects of Vatican II."30Karl Rahner, "Theology and the Teaching Office1," Doctrine and Life31 (1981): 633. Rahner asks further "if the biblical decrees of Pius X hadbeen granted the sincere allegiance of all theologians in obedient silence,it would not be possible for the present Pope to speak so freely ofYahwists."

58

Modern media complicates genuine efforts to discoverresponsible ways to criticize non-infallible teachings pub-licly. An article published in a relatively arcane theo-logical journal will be reported, and often in a distortedfashion, on the front page of the morning newspaper." Iftheologians sought to set public opinion against the magis-teriurn through manipulating the media, dialogue betweentheologians and the magisterium becomes impossible.

What is needed now are criteria hammered out bytheologians and the magisteriurn that will ensure, asmuch as is possible, a proper respect for the truth, theteaching authority of the hierarchy, and the pastoralneeds of the faithful. In the meantime, measures need tobe taken by bishops and theologians that will make itmore possible that criteria be developed for responsibledissent from non-infallible teachings. Avery Dulles hasoffered some suggestions as to how, in the absence ofwell-worked out criteria, the harmful effects of dissentmight be alleviated:

1) The pastoral magisterium should keep in closetouch with theologians who themselves should cul-tivate greater sensitivity to pastoral considerations.

2) Ordinarily pastors should not speak in a bindingway unless there is a consensus, which is rarelyobtainable without free discussion.

3) Even when there is no consensus, popes andbishops and others in authority may clearly andcandidly state their convictions on matters ofpastoral importance.

4) When an individual Catholic after genuine effort toadhere to a particular non-infallible teaching isunable to do so, he or she should not be made tofeel disloyal or unfaithful.'

5) Provided that they speak with evident loyalty andrespect for authority, dissenters should not besilenced.'

Reflections on the State of the Question

I have looked at the recent history and development ofthe idea of dissent from non-infallible teachings, andreviewed some of the literature on personal or privatedissent on the one hand, and public dissent on the other.In conclusion, I wish now to make several observationson the current state of this question.

Theology in and for the Church. One of the most im-portant truths of the Christian tradition is that theologywill not flourish unless it is rooted in worship. Moreover,

315ee Sullivan who writes: "The question (of how to express criticismresponsibly) was fairly easy to decide when theologians could sharetheir views with their professional colleagues through the medium ofscholarly journals, with little likelihood that their ideas would reach thewider public. However, the 'information explosion' of modem times,and the tendency of popular journals to publicize any opinion that iscritical of positions taken by those in authority, drastically increases theprobability that what is carefully and moderately put forward in ascholarly article may subsequently be broadcast to the general public in acrude or tendentious way" (211).

32Dulles adds that in view of the deference owed to non-infallible teach-ings, "the dissenter will be reluctant to conclude that the official teachingis clearly erroneous; he will carefully reassess his own position in thelight of that teaching, and he will behave in a manner that fosters respectand support for the pastoral magisterium, even though he continues tostrive for a revision of the current official teaching" (266).33Dulles, 266-67.

61

the faith of the Church provides the norm for the reflec-tion of the theologians. This point was stressed by Car-dinal Ratzinger in his April 15th presentation in Toronto,where he explained that the theologian as a believer is atheologian only in and through the Church: "If this is nottrue, if the theologian does not live and breathe Christthrough the Church, his body, then I suggest we are notdealing with a theologian at all, but a mere sociologist, orhistorian or philosopher.' When theologians whole-heartedly enter into the living of the Christian life, whenthey seek to be converted to the Gospel, then their theo-logical work will enrich the whole Christian community.To cite Ratzinger's recent address again, "a Church with-out theology is impoverished and blind. A theology with-out the Church, however, soon dissolves into arbitrarytheory."'

To stress the ecclesial nature of theology, the need forcontinuing conversion to Jesus Christ, is not to imply,however, that all dissent from non-infallible teachings bytheologians is rooted in a lack of faith or a departurefrom the true faith of the Church." It is precisely this sortof conclusion that sometimes is implied when somebishops and theologians talk today about dissent in theChurch. It may well be true of much of that dissent, but itshould not be assumed that all dissent will disappearbecause of a more genuine conversion on the part of thetheologians. At the same time, most authors consultedrightly stress that for individuals to dissent responsibly,they must be genuinely committed to Christ, cultivate agenuine attitude of docility to the teaching authority ofthe Church, and remain open at all times to new evidenceand insights that would make their adherence possible.

Tensions Between Theologians and the Magisterium.The Christian community has always experienced vary-ing degrees of difference, tension over disagreements, and

34Ratzinger, 765.

35Ratzinger, 763.

36Bemard Lonergan notes, however, that some disagreement amongChristian theologians can be traced to a lack of conversion: "...Chris-tian theologians disagree not only on the areas relevant to theologicalresearch but also on the interpretation of texts on the occurrence ofevents, on the significance of movements. Such differences can havequite different grounds. Some may be eliminated by further progress inresearch, interpretation, history, and they can be left to the healing of-fice of time. Some may result from developmental pluralism: there existdispvate cultures and diverse differentiations of consciousness; andsuch differences are to be bridged by working out the suitable transpo-sition from one culture to another or from one differentiation of con-sciousness to another. Others, finally, arise because intellectual or moralor religious conversion has not occurred..." (Method in Theology(New York: Herder and Herder, 1972), 150. Lonergan's notion of'conversion' in the theologians is not irrelevant to the issue of dissent.Besides the intellectual, moral and religious components of conversion,there should be added, in view of our topic, a "Catholic" element: acommitment to this historical community as home. Such a conversion isfundamental to the whole theological enterprise, for without it, one issimply not in touch with the realities to be explored. As Anthony Kelly,the Australian Redemptorist put it to me recently in a letter, "It is not amatter of practicing a certain virtue or having the right attitude. It en-visages a rather thoroughgoing transformation of mind and heart in thetheologian. A dissent coming out of this would tend to be the dissent ofa prophet. The dissent of the unconverted, however, might be nothingmore than the attention-seeking behavior, or, as we Australians wouldsay, the ravings of a ratbag."

even harmful polarizations. One need only recall the con-flicts characteristic of the Corinthian church and the con-frontation between St. Peter and St. Paul on the matterof circumcision. There is today tension between manytheJlogians and the magisterium.' One reason that thetension exists is that each group typically admitsdemands of the other goup "mostly only in a quietlyenunciated subordinate clausebut otherwise upholds infull voice its own maxims, as though they were the onlyones which mattered in practice.""

It is important that ways be found to address the legit-imate preoccupations of each group. Archbishop JohnFrancis Whealon of Hartford suggested if greater trust isto be had between the groups, "bishops must understandthat theologians should be able to probe sensitive areas ofdoctrine while remaining loyal to the Church. And theo-logians, while making their theological probes, mustunderstand that the magisterium carries ultimate respon-sibility for defining and specifying the content of Catholicdoctrine.' Special consideration should be given to the"Theses on the Relationship Between EcclesiasticalMagisterium and Theology" published by the Inter-national Theological Commission in 1975. Particularlyvaluable are theses 2, 3 and 4 which outline what themagisterium and theologians have in common in per-forming their respective tasks.'

Even though the magisterium and theologians havemany common sources for their ministries, those minis-tries are not the same. Richard. McCormick articulateswell the complementary character of their distinctiveroles:

Bishops should be conservative, in the best sense ofthat word. They should not endorse every fad, oreven every theological theory. They should"conserve," but to do so in a way that fosters faith,they must be vulnerably open and deeply involved ina process of creative and critical absorption. In some,perhaps increasingly many, instances, they must takerisks, the risks of being tentative or even quite uncer-tain, and, above all, reliant on others in a complexworld. Such a process of clarification and settlingtakes fime, patience, and courage. Its greatest enemy isideology, the comfort of being clear, and, above all,the posture of pure defense of received formulations.

Concerning the particular role of the theologians,McCormick writes:

Amid the variation of their modest function in theChurch, they must never lose the courage to be led."Courage" seems appropriate, because being led in our

37It is important not to overstate these tensions. See Raymond Brown,"The Magisterium vs. the Theologians," in The Magisterium andMorality, 277-96.38Rahner, 623.

39John Francis Whealon, "The Magisterium," in The Magisterium andMorality, 192.

4°See Sullivan, 174-218, for the text and his commentary. Among theelements in common are: both bishops and theologians are committed toecclesial ministry for the sake of the salvation of others, both are boundby the Word of God, by the sense of the faith of the Church, by thedocuments of the Tradition, and to the personal and missionary carethey must have towards the world.

59 62

times means sharing the burdens of the leaderandthat can be passingly painful. They should speak theirmind knowing that there are other and certainly moresignificant minds. In other words, they must not losethe nerve to make and admit an honest mistake. Theyshould trust their intuitions and their hearts, butalways within a sharp remembrance that the an-nouncement of faith and its implications in our timesmust come from the melding of many hearts andminds. The Church needs a thinking arm, so to speak;but that arm is dead if it is detached.'

Finally, there is besides the tensions that exist betweentheologians and bishops those that are to be found be-tween theologians. In recent years in the United Statesseveral groups of theologians have formed separate pro-fessional groups along, for want of better terms, liberaland conservative lines. Whatever may be the value ofeach grouping, it has not, in my opinion, increased thelikelihood that there will be healthy mutual criticism be-tween theologians of different persuasions. The 1985 an-nual proceedings of the Catholic Theological Society ofAmerica includes papers by three theologians who calltheir colleagues to a greater and more frequent exercise ofthe ministry of mutual criticism. Joseph Komonchak con-cludes his plenary address on "The Ecclesial and CulturalRules of Theology" by stating that "from us (theologians)the Church should be able to expect greater care than hassometimes been shown for the methodological founda-tions on which we are building and especially a greaterwillingness to engage in the mutual conversation andcriticism that have never been more necessary to ourcommunal theological enterprise." Walter Principestates that "theologians have a serious obligation for pas-toral reasons to take care how they present their hypoth-eses and tentative conclusions. Should we not discussthem among ourselves and subject them to mutual criti-cism before going to the media or pulpit with declara-tions that can startle or upset people not able to assimi-late them? And have we done enough to educate those inministry and all our people so that they can understandwhat is going on in new matters in theology?"' Finally,John Boyle reports: "If there is any single complaintwhich I hear about theologians from bishops, it is thattheologians are not critical of one another. There is somevalidity to this complaint. Is it possible that theologianstoo have lost sight of their obligation to be mutually criti-cal as part of their corporate responsibility as a scholawithin the Church?""

°McCormick, 496-97.°Joseph Komonchak, CTSA Proceedings 40 (1985): 32.43Komonchak, CTSA, 125. In the Miner article cited in note 38, theo-logians are invited to make the following confession to the bishops:"First of all we are not some kind of Mafia, in which each can speak inthe name of theology and theologians, nor do we feel obliged as a mat-ter of principle to lash out in the name of truth and theological freedomwhenever an individual theologian comes into conflict with Rome. Wehave indeed the right and the duty to speak out against another theolo-gian and for Rome, when we are convinced of the correctness of aRoman pronouncement. Clannishness among theologians is perverse. Isit necessary today to say that a theologian does not in any way betrayhimself by supporting a Roman decision?" (630).44"The Academy and Church Teaching Authority: Current Issues,"CTSA Proceedings 40 (1985): 180.

The Distinction Betwzen Infallible and Non-InfallibleTeachings. Anyone who has taught ecclesiology toundergraduate students knows that a common questionafter a lecture on the dogma of papal infallibility is,"How many dogmas have actually be so defined?" Stu-dents often become exasperated when no definitive list isforthcoming. Others are relieved when they conclude,mistakenly, that only the Marian dogmas have actuallybeen defined. Some are concerned to know only what hasbeen defined, to know what the bare minimum is forinclusion in the Catholic community.°

Such classroom experiences point out that there ismore to living the Christian life than accepting only infal-lible teachings. To paraphrase Scripture, the wise Chris-tian does not live by infallibly defined propositionsalone. There are many important Christian truths thathave never been infallibly defined, such as the great com-mandment of Jesus to love God with our whole heartsand our neighbors as ourselves. Consider also the manyimportant insights of the great spiritual writers, such asTeresa of Avila and John of the Cross and the absolutelycentral place the liturgy and the sacramental life shouldhave in the Christian life, and prayer, both personal andcommunal. We need to recall that there are many moreinfallible truths than there are infAlibly defined truths. Inother words, all defined truths are infallible, but not allinfallible truths are defined.

Archbishop John Quinn of San Francisco reminds usthat we should avoid thinking that we are obligated toaccept only what is formally defined and then proceed toleave everything else as though they were open ques-tions. Such an attitude, he believes, "paves the way forthe rejection of defined teaching, since often what isdefined was previously taught by the ordinary magis-terium for some time.'

In an interview yet to be released but partially reportedin the May 8th issue of Origins, Cardinal Ratzinger statesthat Fr. Charles Curran's position that theologians candissent from non-infallible teachings "does not seemappropriate." The Cardinal calls it a "juridical approach"which "tends inevitably to reetice the life of the Church,and its teachings, to only a few definitions." The Car-dinal continues, "In the early Christian communities,however, it was clear that to be a Christian meant pri-marily to share in a way of life and that the most impor-tant doctrinal definitions did not have any other aim butto orient this way of life." Ratzinger proposes that weshould distinguish what is essential and non-essential tothe Christian faith "without recourse to the distinctionbetween infallible and non-infallible pronouncements."'Ratzinger's point is well taken: any theologian whowould employ the distinction in order to minimize the

450ne way to distinguish between the immature and the mature con-science is that the immature conscience wants to know only what mustbe done while the mature conscience asks what is the best thing to bedone.46John R. Quinn, "The Magisterium and the Field of Theology," in TheMagisterium and Morality, 274.47Ratzinger, 764. Excerpts from the same interview may also be found inthe National Catholic Register, May 8, 1986: 5.

60 6 3

importance of non-infallible teachings or reduce themeaning of the Christian life to adherence to a few defini-tions has drastically truncated the full living of the Chris-tian life.

While it is possible to "juridicize" the distinction, itwould be wrong to minimize its value because of the wayin which it may be abused. In fact, properly understood,all infallible teaching, that is, all dogma, must be salvificin import, otherwise there would be no reason to clarify,defend and stress that facet of saving truth expressed,however, inadequately, through its formulation. Rightlyunderstood, the distinction does not lead to the "juri-dical approach." I do believe, therefore, that some sort ofdistinction is necessary for theological work and for thedevelopment of doctrine.

Criteria for Public Dissent. Our review of the literatureon the question of dissent shows that there is a place inthe Catholic tradition for both personal dissent andpublic dissent, but that there is little agreement as to howpublic dissent, particularly by theologians, can beresponsible and constructive. In a recent article written insupport of Curran, Richard McCormick states that theissue between Curran and Ratzinger is "public dissent."'Ratzinger has stated to Curran that if a Catholic theolo-gian expresses publicly his disagreement, there is an"inherent contradiction" because "one who is to teach inthe name of the Church in fact denies her teaching," andthus "runs the risk of causing scandal." Scandal may, ofcourse, also arise from an abuse of authority by membersof the hierarchy.

I have already explained that there is an urgent needfor establishing critei ia for public dissent in order toreduce to a minimum the confusion and scandal thatarises. I do not believe there is any way to avoid all scan-dal. Theologians stress that it would be impossible tohave any development in doctrine without public dissentand frequently cite the example of John Courtney Mur-my's work which was vindicated at the Second VaticanI.-ouncil. Indeed, he provides an excellent example. Ithink, however, that it would be wise for any theologianw'-lo dissents publicly not to assume too readily that he orshe 4s automatically contributing to the development ofdock Lie or that his or her theological position will in factbe made common teaching at the next Church council.The sz. mr: words of admonition preposed by the Germanbishops for careful consideration by any layperson aboutto dissent privately from a non-infallible teaching need afortiori to be taken to heart by theologians about to dothe same publicly. Theologians should ask themselves inall 'sober self-criticism" whether they have already cometo a better insight that the rest of the Church will come toonly in time.

I agree with the German bishops, and others I havecited in this study, that such dissent, that is, public dis-sent by a theologian, is in principle possible, and evenobligatory, although, as I have noted, we have only

48McCormick, "L'Affaire", 261.

i

61

begun to elaborate ways in which this can be done con-structively.' I expect that some of the criteria needed willhelp us to distinguish between various levels of authorityto be attributed to different non-infallible teachings, andwill have to take into consideration pastoral dimensionsthat may differ from country to country.

Education of the Laity. There are those who wouldprefer bishops either to speak with their full authority orto remain silent. The German bishops, we have alreadynoted, state well the need the Church has to address theissues of the day, issues which because of their newnessand complexity will usually not be able to be dealt withdefinitively. In these official but still provisional teach-ings, there is the possibility of error. Nevertheless, suchteaching must be provided, for "otherwise it would bequite impossible for the Church to preach or interpret itsfaith as a decisive force in real life or to apply it to eachnew situation in human life as it arises."'

The American bishops have demonstrated in a clearway the provisional nature of their teachings on war andeconomics by stressing the differences between what theypresent as binding universal moral norms, to which theyrightly expect adherence, and specific applications ofthese norms, on which they fully anticipate and welcomedifference of opinion and even disagreements from per-sons of good will. For members of the hierarchy tostress the various levels of authority that pertain to whatthey teach is, however, not the rule. More typical is thetendency in practice to obscure the difference between in-fallible and non-infallible teachings, particularly by treat-ing all official papal and episcopal statements as thoughthey were infallibly taught, such as the prohibition of theordaining of women or the condemnation of artificial

49A first effort at elaborating the elements of responsible public dissentwas made, as we have noted earlier, by the American bishops inNovember of 1968 in a pastoral letter they released which affirmed theteachings of Humanae Vitae. They also recognized the legitimacy of dis-sent. The relevant paragraphs follow: 'There exist in the Church alawful freedom of inquiry and of thought and also norms of k. 0:went.This is particularly true in the area of legitimate theological spe.:ationand research. When conclusions reached by such professional :heo-logical work prompt a scholar to dissent from non-infallible revedteaching, the norms of licit dissent come into play. They requireforth his dissent with propriety and with regard for the gravity of J-2matter and the deference due the authority which has pronounced on it.

'The reverence due all sacred matters, particularly questions whichtouch on salvation, will not necessarily require the responsible scholarto relinquish his opinion but certainly to propose it with prudence bornof intellectual grace and a Christian confidence that the truth is greatand will prevail.

"When there is question of theological dissent from non-infallibk zioc-trine, we must recall that there is always a presumption in favor or themagisterium. Even non-infallible authentic doctrine, though it may ad-mit of development or call for clarification or revision, remains binukv;and carries with it a moral certitude, especially when it is address.dthe universal Church, without ambiguity, in resronse to urgent ques-tions bound up with faith and crucial to morals. The expression of theo-logical dissent from the magisterium is in order only if the reasons areserious and well-founded, if the manner of the dissent dozs not questionor impugn the teaching authority of the Church and is zs not togive scandal." Cited by Hany McSorley, 'The Right of Cat'nolks to Dis-sent from Humanae Vitae," The Ecumenist, Nov/Dec 1969: 8-9.50Rahner, "The Dispute," in The Magisterium and Morality, 115.51See The Challenge of Peace, par. 9.

64

contraception. Such an approach, in the judgment ofFrancis Sullivan, has lead many people, once theydiscover that such teachings are in fact not infalliblytaught, to conclude that they need to pay no attention tothem at all."

We have already mentioned that the mass media hasmade it virtually impossible for theologians to keep anyof their written opinions and probings from immediate,and often one-sided and incomplete, "coverage." The factthat the latest papal encyclical, episcopal statement ortheologians' ideas has on the ordinary Catholic less directreligious impact than an article in the religion section ofTime or Newsweek, or some discussion on the PhilDonohue Show, suggests that theologians and bishopsreally have no choice but to work more effectively ateducating the laity.'

According to Richard McCormick, four things shouldbe kept in mind about the process of education duringthese complex times. First, reality itself is often complexand confusing and it takes time for the Christian com-munity to formulate an adequate response. Second,people need to learn that different times often requiredifferent formulations of the same truths, and that somequestions that were once perceived as closed in fact arenot. Third, the unity so necessary for the Christian com-munity does not require absolute uniformity on theapplication of moral norms to detailed questions. Andfourth, the laity needs to take theologians seriously, butnot all that seriously: "If theologians are mistakenlythought to be the ultimate teachers in the Church, theyrisk losing, besides their freedom to probe and question,their humility."'

Not only theologians, but members of the hierarchy aswell have reason to be humble. While both of thesegroups engage themselves in different but comple-mentary ways in the education of the laity, there is agrowing awareness among both groups that the laity in

32Sullivan, 172.

53See Raymond Brown's comments, 282,54McCormick; 504-05. A salutary but sobering Gospel truth revealsthat it was the learned and the religious leaders who most often had dif-ficulty accepting the person and message of Jesus. As one moral theo-lc.jan puts it, "Certain truths are best recognized not by those who are!earned but by those who are good" (Gallagher, 197) C.S. Lewis spenthis whole life in academia and described well one of the greatest dangersof t se ;ntellectual life, pride: 'The intellectual life is not the only road toGoc, the safest, but we find it to be a road, and it may be the ap-pointed road for us. Of course it will be so only so long as we keep theimptuse pure and disinterested. That is the g-eat difficulty. As theauthor of the Theologia Germanica says, we may come to love know-ingour knowingmore than the thing known: to delight not in theexercise of our talents but in the fact that they are ours, or even in thereputation they bring us. Every success in the scholar's life increases thisdanger. If it becomes irresistible, he must give up his scholarly work.The time for plucking out the right eye has arrived" (from an essay en-titled "Learning in War Time," in a collection of his essays, Fern-seedand Elephants [Collins/Fountain Books, 1977], 34.

62

fact play an active role in educating theologians and thehierarchy. All official teaching and theological reflectionin fact must be founded in the sensus fidelium, or the"sense of the faith," possessed by the entire people ofGod. At the International Synod of Bishops that met in1980 to discuss the family, Cardinal George Basil Humestressed the need to consult the laity on matters that haveto do with the family. He explained that the propheticmission of husbands and wives is based on their experi-ence as married people "and on an understanding of thesacrament of marriage of which they can speak with theirown authority." Both their experience ar.:1 r under-standing constitute, the Cardinal suggested, "an authen-tic fons theologiae from which we, the pastors, andindeed the whole Church can draw." It is because, theCardinal continued, married couples are the ministers ofthe sacrament and "alone have experienced the effects ofthe sacrament" that they have special authority in mat-ters related to marriage. But it must be remembered thatwhat is sought is the sense of those who are faithful, thatis, those who are converted to the Lord. That is why, theCardinal added, "parents themselves must commit them-selves to the action of the Holy Spirit who also teachesthem anew through their children." Because of this "a for-tiori it would seem that pastors should listen to theparents themselves."'

From this perspective of the centrality of the sensusfidelium, which in a real way along with Scripturc is anorm for magisterial teaching, all of us who strive to befaithful, that is, the laity, theologians and the bishops,need to learn to be docile, to be taught by the Lord and tobe led by the Spirit. All of us need to undergo continuingconversion and sustain effective conversations so that,among other things, we may speak with confidenceabout those matters within our competence, even thoughat times we may find it necessary to disagree in a respon-sible way with certain teachings not infallibly taught.

55G.B. Hume, "Development of Marriage Teaching," Origins 10 Octo-ber 16, 1980): 276; see my article, "Papal Infallibility," 63-65.5°David Tracy's notion of "conversation" in The Analogical Imagina-tion (New York: Crossroads, 1981) offers a rather good model of "docil-ity" (see esoecially 446-55).

65

Association of Catholic Colleges and Universities(A Department of NCEA)Suite 650 One Dupont Circle Washington, D.C. 20036

ERIC ClearinghouseACE

Non-Profit Org.U.S. POSTAGE

PAIDWashington. D.C.Permit No. 9366

Current Issues in Catholic Higher Education is a publication of the Association of Catholic Colleges and Universities. It contains original articles arid reprwas ot articles atinterest to colleagues in Catholic higher education. Editor: Sr. Alice Catlin, OSU. NIartapng Editor: David M. Johnson. Editorial offices: ACCU. Suite 650, One DupontCircle. Washington. DC 20036. Additional copies S5.03 each (1-9 copies): ten or more copies 54.50 each: prepaid.