DePaul University Tramples Our Catholic Identity!

[chicago]

Originally Posted by bear06

I disagree. The Cardinal could say "Out of fraternal love for the faithful of the diocese, I demand that this conference be stopped. It is contrary to the teachings of Our Lord and will lead many souls to danger"

Doesn't he do that, though, by saying what he has? He makes clear that there is danger there, questions how the approach/agenda of some speaking at the conference can lead people not to a closer encounter with Christ, but away from the faith and into sin, and expresses the desire that it can do true good rather than the real harm which he warns of.

Understandably, you would like for him to be a little more direct and "in your face." But, I posit, that this articulation can go farther than how you would have him phrase it.

There's a reason why the Lincoln diocese is as great as it is. Sometimes, as parents have to do, the law must be laid down. If your kids wants to go to a kegger and you give them "I'd really rather you don't go" but don't actually tell them not to, there's a great chance they'll go. If you tell them they'll lose driving privelages if they're caught going there then they'll really give it a long hard thought.

BTW, Go Bishop McManus!!!

There is a matter, also, of how things will be received. Again, the message can be clearly communicated without attempting what would surely be an ineffective challenge of "laying down the law." As I have said before, it isn't like what is being said won't be heard and understood loud and clear. Cardinal George really didn't pull back any punches here. He just chose not to try and bloody a nose to make a pointless show, in favor of reasonably appealing to the root of things that anyone who reads and pauses to think about what he has said might agree with.

[bear06]

[quote]

Originally Posted by chicago

Doesn't he do that, though, by saying what he has? He makes clear that there is danger there, questions how the approach/agenda of some speaking at the conference can lead people not to a closer encounter with Christ, but away from the faith and into sin, and expresses the desire that it can do true good rather than the real harm which he warns of.

No, he doesn't. He's letting the dangerous event continue when it's well within his purview to demand that it be stopped.

There is a matter, also, of how things will be received. Again, the message can be clearly communicated without attempting what would surely be an ineffective challenge of "laying down the law." As I have said before, it isn't like what is being said won't be heard and understood loud and clear. Cardinal George really didn't pull back any punches here. He just chose not to try and bloody a nose to make a pointless show, in favor of reasonably appealing to the root of things that anyone who reads and pauses to think about what he has said might agree with.

Sorry. See kegger analogy. I don't know how ordering the cancelling of an event would be ineffective. Either one - it won't be cancelled and he's left no doubt that people should not attend because it's harmful to the Faith or two - it will be cancelled. It seems odd that everyone is just assuming that the event won't be cancelled. You have no idea how much the "Catholic" name means to a university. It's very bad PR for them if that privelage was revoked.

[bear06]

Just in case some didn't know...There are actually canons on Catholic schools.

Can. 803 §1. A Catholic school is understood as one which a competent ecclesiastical authority or a public ecclesiastical juridic person directs or which ecclesiastical authority recognizes as such through a written document.

§2. The instruction and education in a Catholic school must be grounded in the principles of Catholic doctrine; teachers are to be outstanding in correct doctrine and integrity of life.

§3. Even if it is in fact Catholic, no school is to bear the name Catholic school without the consent of competent ecclesiastical authority.

Can. 804 §1. The Catholic religious instruction and education which are imparted in any schools whatsoever or are provided through the various instruments of social communication are subject to the authority of the Church. It is for the conference of bishops to issue general norms about this field of action and for the diocesan bishop to regulate and watch over it.

§2. The local ordinary is to be concerned that those who are designated teachers of religious instruction in schools, even in non-Catholic ones, are outstanding in correct doctrine, the witness of a Christian life, and teaching skill.

Can. 805 For his own diocese, the local ordinary has the right to appoint or approve teachers of religion and even to remove them or demand that they be removed if a reason of religion or morals requires it.
Can. 806 §1. The diocesan bishop has the right to watch over and visit the Catholic schools in his territory, even those which members of religious institutes have founded or direct. He also issues prescripts which pertain to the general regulation of Catholic schools; these prescripts are valid also for schools which these religious direct, without prejudice, however, to their autonomy regarding the internal direction of their schools.

§2. Directors of Catholic schools are to take care under the watchfulness of the local ordinary that the instruction which is given in them is at least as academically distinguished as that in the other schools of the area.

CHAPTER II.

CATHOLIC UNIVERSITIES AND OTHER INSTITUTES OF HIGHER STUDIES

Can. 807 The Church has the right to erect and direct universities, which contribute to a more profound human culture, the fuller development of the human person, and the fulfillment of the teaching function of the Church.

Can. 808 Even if it is in fact Catholic, no university is to bear the title or name of Catholic university without the consent of competent ecclesiastical authority.

Can. 809 If it is possible and expedient, conferences of bishops are to take care that there are universities or at least faculties suitably spread through their territory, in which the various disciplines are studied and taught, with their academic autonomy preserved and in light of Catholic doctrine.

Can. 810 §1. The authority competent according to the statutes has the duty to make provision so that teachers are appointed in Catholic universities who besides their scientific and pedagogical qualifications are outstanding in integrity of doctrine and probity of life and that they are removed from their function when they lack these requirements; the manner of proceeding defined in the statutes is to be observed.

§2. The conferences of bishops and diocesan bishops concerned have the duty and right of being watchful so that the principles of Catholic doctrine are observed faithfully in these same universities.

[chicago]

[quote=bear06;2892973]

No, he doesn't. He's letting the dangerous event continue when it's well within his purview to demand that it be stopped.

What you don't seem to get is that he can make all the demands he wants to... but it's going to happen, anyway.

The only thing he is left with, therefore, is to appeal to the general populous (who ultimately are greater in number and influence than he alone) as to these concens, making us all aware of the scandal and outrage which is it, while instructing on what would be a positive alternative. Which is precisely what he does.

Is it better, then, to stir the pot and thump yoru chest while things just get worse as a result or to try to take practical, positive steps to better things while retaining something of an upbuilding relationship to future progress?

Sorry. See kegger analogy.

It is a matter of building a relationship with people to get them to do the "right" thing, because they carefully consider it in conscience, rather than trying to make demands employing "authority" over them which they will then angrily rebel against, offending you, anyway, and growing further away from the rightful relationship that you are ultimately trying to draw them into.

I don't know how ordering the cancelling of an event would be ineffective. Either one - it won't be cancelled and he's left no doubt that people should not attend because it's harmful to the Faith

Which is what he has presently done by his public questioning; reinforcing the potential good and offering clear direction as to what that is, while warning of the dangers and condemning them.

or two - it will be cancelled. It seems odd that everyone is just assuming that the event won't be cancelled.

Such events are rarely, if ever, cancelled.. even after a bishop appeals to them to do so. History suggests that attempting such a strong armed approach, therefore, will only backfire. It is reasonable to conclude that other approaches are better in the long run.

You have no idea how much the "Catholic" name means to a university. It's very bad PR for them if that privelage was revoked.

And the name "Catholic" is not going to be easily revoked in formality from such an institution for this one infraction. Even the bishop you cite doesn't threaten that, ultimately, but only hints at the underlying realities (just as does Cardinal George.) Nor is it desireable. The real goal of a bishop is to draw them into a greater depth or the faith rather than to cut them off. Such a thing occurring is, therefore, rare, and not likely without much more serious and extensive problems, including absolute impasses in dialogue concerning overall institutional direction. Even if it were publically threatened and decreed, the backlash (especially at such a major university in a major city) would create greater problems for all involved than the original problem. And, certainly, the institution would find some way to maintain the identity which they desire and remain in business, even without the formal "Catholic" designation, if that did happen. Ultimately, the bishop can say all he wants about what they can and can not call themselves, but he can't stop them from doing anything that they desire to do.

Clearly, you desire unambiguous lines to be drawn. But the real question is whether this will serve the best purposes in the long run or just create fights which further separate us and cause many more to go astray.

[otjm]

Originally Posted by bear06

They are not, however, allowed to call themselves a Catholic University if they are, in fact, not. The Cardinal should revoke their privelage to use the Catholic name along with a few others. They may continue on with it but then the Cardinal should make it known that they are not longer in good standing.

Since I don't believe it has ever been done, I am not sure how it could be done. If Catholic is part of the legal name, he has no jurisdiction over it in law; that is a civil law matter. If there is some Canon that governs this, then he might have somewhere to stand, but I am not familiar enough with Canon law to know where that comes in.

I do know that Charles Currin got his license to teach theology in a Catholic school pulled; however, that is jursidiction over the person, I believe, and possibly occured before the last change in the law.

In short, unless there is a specific law that is not being invoked, we are wasting out time talking about what the good Cardinal should do.

Further, you and I may agree that this is deplorable; but I suspect that if there is a Canon law section that could control, it would probably take more than this to invoke it. Look at how long it took for the Mandatum rule to come out, and look at how it has been applied: many bishops will not release any information about whether or not a specific professor has the Mandatum or not.

[otjm]

Originally Posted by bear06

Just in case some didn't know...There are actually canons on Catholic schools.

Thank you for digging out the Canons.
Now, perhaps, the issue is whether or not any of these Canons apply;again, the point is that most colleges and universities which were founded by the Ctholic Church are now non-profit corporations run bu a Baord of Directors who are not all, or possibly any members of a religious institute. If DePaul or Loyola decide to do something egregious, I am still not convinced that the bishop has authority over them. Further, it is all well and good to note that the Bishop has the duty to oversee the religious instructors; however, there is also the issue of civil law concerning tenure.

On the other hand, Currin did get his ticket jerked.

[chicago]

Originally Posted by otjm

Since I don't believe it has ever been done, I am not sure how it could be done.

There are actually a couple of smaller "Catholic" colleges in the East where the bishop has managed to take the step.

Of course, in those cases, the situation was basically one where the ecclesiastical authorities and the university board were at such odds as to not even be able to effectively communicate. The overall situation in these schools had seemingly denigrated to such an extent that it was reasonable to simply confirm what everyone already knew, in reality.

If Catholic is part of the legal name, he has no jurisdiction over it in law; that is a civil law matter.

Agreed. And, again, what they would do, simply, is retool how they word things. They would say something like, "We are an institution founded in the Catholic tradition and with roots of Vincentian Spirituality which continue to influence our outlook to this day." At that point, there is nothing which the bishop can do as the statement is true.

Further, practically speaking, most people really are not sending their kids to such a school because it is "Catholic", anyway, but because of the quality of education and job training opportunities it offers. I imagine that a significant amount of the student body is not even Catholic.

I do know that Charles Currin got his license to teach theology in a Catholic school pulled; however, that is jursidiction over the person, I believe, and possibly occured before the last change in the law.

Yes. Wasn't it at the Catholic University where he was? So a pontifical school which gave the ecclesiatical authorities more authority and rights than is typical. And he just changed schools, afterward, teaching the same stuff in a secular school.

[chicago]

Originally Posted by otjm

Further, it is all well and good to note that the Bishop has the duty to oversee the religious instructors; however, there is also the issue of civil law concerning tenure.

And issues like this don't concern the theology department, anyway, so his authority over instructors would be even less.

[Norseman82]

Originally Posted by otjm

If Catholic is part of the legal name, he has no jurisdiction over it in law; that is a civil law matter.

Well, perhaps someone could sue it for false advertising????

[chicago]

Originally Posted by chicago

This isn't DePaul, it's Loyola's President, actually, but it still could make for an interesting talk on this topic, if anyone wants to attend:

http://info.luc.edu/newsevents/publi...ence=0&view=ww

Is anyone going to this talk?

Here is your opportunity to have it out with and hear the insights of a major Jesuit University's President.

[chicago]

Originally Posted by Norseman82

Well, perhaps someone could sue it for false advertising????

At which point the civil authorities would probably throw it back at the Church, saying it is an internal squabble over which they have no authority.

But, like I have noted, the institutions would simply change how they word things to make it true.

[OutinChgoburbs]

Originally Posted by Norseman82

Well, perhaps someone could sue it for false advertising????

As one of the 10 people who do understand binary, maybe.

I would LOVE to have Cardinal George come rip the stuffings out of the whole bunch of 'em, and when he's done, come down and help Bishop Satrain do the same at two other schools where this whole thing is spreading. I would like to see the name "Catholic" stopped being used for institutions that most certainly are not.

The chances of that happening are slim to none, unfortunately. While I personally feel he could have worded his statement a little more forcefully, that's the first time in a large city that carries archdiocese status I have seen a cardinal speak up like that.

I would ask that we continue to pray, and let the Cardinal know he did well- for a start, a good start.

And please remember in your prayers two little schools in Illinois, one of which wil be having a Teach-In this week that claims to address the "invisibility" of LGBTQ in the curriculum of that university.

[chicago]

Originally Posted by OutinChgoburbs;2893315[SIZE=3

And please remember in your prayers two little schools in Illinois, one of which wil be having a Teach-In this week that claims to address the "invisibility" of LGBTQ in the curriculum of that university.[/size]

Name names, already.

[bear06]

What you don't seem to get is that he can make all the demands he wants to... but it's going to happen, anyway.

You have no proof of this. It's not like bad events have never been canceled. If he did it and the university went on with the event anyway then the Catholic name should be stripped from them to prevent any further scandal.

The only thing he is left with, therefore, is to appeal to the general populous (who ultimately are greater in number and influence than he alone) as to these concens, making us all aware of the scandal and outrage which is it, while instructing on what would be a positive alternative. Which is precisely what he does.

Obviously this is not his only recourse as shown by Bishop McManus.

Is it better, then, to stir the pot and thump yoru chest while things just get worse as a result or to try to take practical, positive steps to better things while retaining something of an upbuilding relationship to future progress?

Why, oh why wouldn't it be more prudent to tell people why it's wrong and make sure to the best of his ability it doesn't happen. BTW, Alumni don't get too happy when their Catholic Alma Matre is threatened to be stripped of it's Catholic name.

It is a matter of building a relationship with people to get them to do the "right" thing, because they carefully consider it in conscience, rather than trying to make demands employing "authority" over them which they will then angrily rebel against, offending you, anyway, and growing further away from the rightful relationship that you are ultimately trying to draw them into.

For heaven's sakes, it's not the 10 Suggestions. It's the 10 Commandments. It's not Canon Suggestions. It's Canon Law. Are either of these not loving? Do you have children? When they need to be corrected do you simply reason with them or do you take action and then explain it to them? The hierarchy of this university are allowing souls to be lead astray. You don't say "It would be nice if you actually taught them Catholic teachings but, hey, if you don't, oh well."

Which is what he has presently done by his public questioning; reinforcing the potential good and offering clear direction as to what that is, while warning of the dangers and condemning them.

When you kid is doing something harmful to themselves you don't tell them that they might want to reconsider. You tell them to stop and give them the reason for the command.

Such events are rarely, if ever, cancelled.. even after a bishop appeals to them to do so. History suggests that attempting such a strong armed approach, therefore, will only backfire. It is reasonable to conclude that other approaches are better in the long run.

That's not true. We've had many such events cancelled in our diocese.

And the name "Catholic" is not going to be easily revoked in formality from such an institution for this one infraction.

If the bishop says he's going to do it and they go through with it anyway, you can bet they can revoke the "Catholic" name.

Even the bishop you cite doesn't threaten that, ultimately, but only hints at the underlying realities (just as does Cardinal George.)

Uh, even the local media coverage has said he's threatening their Catholic status. I'm not sure how you see it differently.

The real goal of a bishop is to draw them into a greater depth or the faith rather than to cut them off.

Sorry but Canon Law says differently and, again, you are saying that relations must be cut simply because he acts on Church teaching.

Such a thing occurring is, therefore, rare, and not likely without much more serious and extensive problems, including absolute impasses in dialogue concerning overall institutional direction. Even if it were publically threatened and decreed, the backlash (especially at such a major university in a major city) would create greater problems for all involved than the original problem.

I, of course, disagree. Showing the severity of parting from Catholic teaching is necessary..

And, certainly, the institution would find some way to maintain the identity which they desire and remain in business, even without the formal "Catholic" designation, if that did happen. Ultimately, the bishop can say all he wants about what they can and can not call themselves, but he can't stop them from doing anything that they desire to do.

This is quite possible but at least there is no scandal.

Clearly, you desire unambiguous lines to be drawn. But the real question is whether this will serve the best purposes in the long run or just create fights which further separate us and cause many more to go astray.[/quote]

[bear06]

[quote]

Originally Posted by otjm

Since I don't believe it has ever been done, I am not sure how it could be done. If Catholic is part of the legal name, he has no jurisdiction over it in law; that is a civil law matter. If there is some Canon that governs this, then he might have somewhere to stand, but I am not familiar enough with Canon law to know where that comes in.

Actually, if you look at the canons, the bishop or cardinal in this case can remove the staff if need be.

Further, you and I may agree that this is deplorable; but I suspect that if there is a Canon law section that could control, it would probably take more than this to invoke it. Look at how long it took for the Mandatum rule to come out, and look at how it has been applied: many bishops will not release any information about whether or not a specific professor has the Mandatum or not.

Not really. He could remove the staff of he could remove the Catholic name. They could appeal to Rome but unless Rome contradictst the bishop, the bishop's rule counts.