At what level can Catholic colleges respect a Non Catholic?

[aball1035]

There was a major uproar when Notre Dame had Obama as a speaker, and now the Jesuits are hiring former U.S. Senator Russ Feingold to teach at Marquette University. Feingold favors partial birth abortion.

My question is, at what point is it OK to hire or let speak a non-Catholic? Do they have to have the same views on abortion? What about other church teachings?

 

[jmcrae]

Surely they can hire whomever they think is qualified for the job, but at the same time, it makes you wonder why any kid (or his parents) should bother paying the extra tuition to go to a Catholic college, if all they have on offer is the same as, or worse than, what they have at the public college.

 

[kozlosap]

I sent my daughter to a Jesuit university for the high quality of their academics!

 

[manualman]

Great question! It really depends on the issues involved, doesn’t it? What IS abortion, after all? An disputed societal issue or a horrific genocide of 50 million innocents in 30 years? If the former, no need for a fuss over hiring an abortion promoter to teach economics or political science, is there? Legitimate debate and all…

But if abortion is the latter description, should ANY catholic institution give its public supporters ANY position (especially one of honor)? Would they hire Dr. Mengele to teach biology (surely he’d have been qualified)? In 1850 would you hire a slave ship owner to bring your cotton cargo east on his return trip? Should an economics expert be passed over for a university position just because he’s a Ku Klux Klan leader?

You have to choose your battles. You can’t go to the extreme of stating that anybody not morally perfect can’t be hired. But we can and DO set behavioral standards against hiring those guilty of horrific things (see above). If we believe abortion is in that category, then catholics and catholic institutions need to start acting like it.

I actually kind of like Feingold. I lived in Madison when he was first elected senator and believe he is a genuinely down to earth and grounded public servant rather than a self-serving political opportunist. It’s sad that he’s missed the boat on THE moral issue of our day. Many of the civil war Confederate leaders were the same way: fine, upstanding, honorable men, except for that little slavery detail!

 

[Reservoir_Dog]

…
My question is, at what point is it OK to hire or let speak a non-Catholic? Do they have to have the same views on abortion? What about other church teachings?

Who’d want to be challenged to think?

 

[manualman]

Who’d want to be challenged to think?

Please clarify. Are you saying that students can’t be challenged to think unless their teachers include those who support moral abominations? So you’d not be outraged if a university gave a teaching position to a Klukker, a tyrant (Mubarak might be job hunting soon), Osama perhaps? Would that challenge people to think?

 

[Reservoir_Dog]

Please clarify. Are you saying that students can’t be challenged to think unless their teachers include those who support moral abominations? So you’d not be outraged if a university gave a teaching position to a Klukker, a tyrant (Mubarak might be job hunting soon), Osama perhaps? Would that challenge people to think?

Please clarify. Are you really equating Obama and Feingold with the Klan or OBL or is that just standard hyperbole?

 

[jmcrae]

Who’d want to be challenged to think?

If people want to listen to heresy and modernism, and want to call it “thinking”, public school is way cheaper, and has all of these things in abundance.

If Catholic schools are just going to go ahead and have the same things, then my question is, why should families pay all of that extra tuition? Why not just go to the public schools?

 

[jmcrae]

Please clarify. Are you really equating Obama and Feingold with the Klan or OBL or is that just standard hyperbole?

Actually, the Klan and Osama have killed and maimed way fewer people than the abortion mills. You’re right - it’s not really a fair comparison.

 

[Reservoir_Dog]

If people want to listen to heresy and modernism, and want to call it “thinking”, public school is way cheaper, and has all of these things in abundance.

If Catholic schools are just going to go ahead and have the same things, then my question is, why should families pay all of that extra tuition? Why not just go to the public schools?

Now that I rethink the issue, obviously a criminal like Sen. Feingold could contribute nothing to any Catholic-oriented university. What was I thinking?

 

[Reservoir_Dog]

Actually, the Klan and Osama have killed and maimed way fewer people than the abortion mills. You’re right - it’s not really a fair comparison.

You’re right, Feingold = Klan = Osama.

 

[Corki]

There was a major uproar when Notre Dame had Obama as a speaker, and now the Jesuits are hiring former U.S. Senator Russ Feingold to teach at Marquette University. Feingold favors partial birth abortion.

My question is, at what point is it OK to hire or let speak a non-Catholic? Do they have to have the same views on abortion? What about other church teachings?

I don’t think there is a problem hiring non-Catholics at a Catholic university. BUT most non-Catholics have not also advocated a morally reprensible position as an elected representative. Now, it’s possible that he’s repented of his error…

In general, if a university is hiring for a position outside of the Theology or Philosphy departments (maybe law too), the decision should be based on academic merit and “blind” to religion. However, once hired, as it should be in all Catholic institutions, the individual should be expected to “sign on” to what Ex Corde Ecclesiae call the “essential characteristics” of a Catholic University.

1. a Christian inspiration not only of individuals but of the university community as such;

1. a continuing reflection in the light of the Catholic faith upon the growing treasury of human knowledge, to which it seeks to contribute by its own research;

1. fidelity to the Christian message as it comes to us through the Church;

1. an institutional commitment to the service of the people of God and of the human family in their pilgrimage to the transcendent goal which gives meaning to life

This is no different than any organization which would expect its employees to act according to its mission statement. Continuing to support abortion in any form would make an employee incompatible with employment at a Catholic University.

Now with speakers, it’s different. It’s good to hear differing viewpoints and essential for students to hone their critical thinking skills. The big uproar at ND was less on letting Obama speak than on giving him an honorary degree and a platform at a high profile event. Even the “high profile” event would be surmountable if the university did a better job of clarifying that the speaker is presenting a counter view and not endorsed in any way by the Catholic institution.

 

[Corki]

Now that I rethink the issue, obviously a criminal like Sen. Feingold could contribute nothing to any Catholic-oriented university. What was I thinking?

Let’s turn that around. What would someone like former Sen. Feingold have to contribute to the Catholic character of the university?

BTW, Marquette is not just “Catholic-oriented:” they are Catholic. The very first paragraph of their “About Marquette” reads:

Marquette University is a Catholic, Jesuit university dedicated to serving God by serving our students and contributing to the advancement of knowledge. Our mission, therefore, is the search for truth, the discovery and sharing of knowledge, the fostering of personal and professional excellence, the promotion of a life of faith, and the development of leadership expressed in service to others. All this we pursue for the greater glory of God and the common benefit of the human community.

How would former Sen. Feingold contribute to that?

 

[Reservoir_Dog]

Let’s turn that around. What would someone like former Sen. Feingold have to contribute to the Catholic character of the university?
…

I’ve changed my mind, because of convincing evidence (see above) that Sen. Feingold is the moral, if not actual, equivalent of the Klan and OBL. Definitely not suitable for ND or any other Catholic university.

But if I were running a university in a faith dedicated to, among other things, pro-life issues, while at the same time having an obligation to teach students to go into the real world think and deal with opposition issues effectively at more than a strawman, superficial, preach to the choir level, I’d want someone like Feingold.

My experience in pro-life advocacy from the legal side of things is that the pro-lifers are often hampered by a kind naivety, a belief that if we keep shouting “murder” long enough, then the vast middle of the road public for whom this isn’t a paramount issue will just suddenly come to their senses.

 

[Corki]

.

But if I were running a university in a faith dedicated to, among other things, pro-life issues, while at the same time having an obligation to teach students to go into the real world think and deal with opposition issues effectively at more than a strawman, superficial, preach to the choir level, I’d want someone like Feingold.

The question is, if you want someone like Feingold, what would you want him to do?

Are you suggesting they hire him as a practice dummy to help the students practice their debate skills? (mostly kidding) Aren’t there plenty of people outside the university positing the opposition’s position that a good faculty member could use for that purpose? Does it add anything to bring the opposition into the fold, so to speak, and risk their using the University’s name and Catholicism in general to forward their contrary agenda.

I am all for developing good thinking and analytical skills for university students. I just think that a lot of garbage is tolerated under the guise of pursuing this goal when other means are much better.

 

[Reservoir_Dog]

The question is, if you want someone like Feingold, what would you want him to do?

Are you suggesting they hire him as a practice dummy to help the students practice their debate skills? (mostly kidding) Aren’t there plenty of people outside the university positing the opposition’s position that a good faculty member could use for that purpose? Does it add anything to bring the opposition into the fold, so to speak, and risk their using the University’s name and Catholicism in general to forward their contrary agenda.

I am all for developing good thinking and analytical skills for university students. I just think that a lot of garbage is tolerated under the guise of pursuing this goal when other means are much better.

Graduates coming out of college are going to find out that citing the CCC as sufficient proof of anything are going to get met with a yawn by most of the world. Analytical skills are made and refined by being challenged by opponents who are either smarter, harder workers, or more dedicated than the student*. Smug satisfaction from beating up strawmen is not something the pro-life movement can afford.

---

e.g., Sen. Feingold, except, of course, for the fact that he has been shown as the equivalent of OBL and the Klan, and is obviously unsuitable.

 

[manualman]

Graduates coming out of college are going to find out that citing the CCC as sufficient proof of anything are going to get met with a yawn by most of the world. Analytical skills are made and refined by being challenged by opponents who are either smarter, harder workers, or more dedicated than the student*. Smug satisfaction from beating up strawmen is not something the pro-life movement can afford.

---

e.g., Sen. Feingold, except, of course, for the fact that he has been shown as the equivalent of OBL and the Klan, and is obviously unsuitable.

Sorry Dog, but the “false dilemma” is just as pathetic a debate tactic as the “straw man.”
Pro-lifers need not merely choose between learning CCC quotes to spout robotically or submitting themselves to indoctrination by a teacher committed to objectively evil goals. You obviously are smart enough to know better. People are quite capable of learning the arguments of an opposing side without adding someone from that side to the payroll.

And for the record, you are partially right. Feingold is not soley and personally responsible for the atrocity of abortion the way Bin Laden is for Al-Qaeda’s. Feingold’s more like one of the angry young French muslims that send money to Al-Qaeda out of mistaken belief that it is a good thing. But neither is somebody I want on my payroll.

 

[St_Francis]

Graduates coming out of college are going to find out that citing the CCC as sufficient proof of anything are going to get met with a yawn by most of the world. Analytical skills are made and refined by being challenged by opponents who are either smarter, harder workers, or more dedicated than the student*. Smug satisfaction from beating up strawmen is not something the pro-life movement can afford.

---

e.g., Sen. Feingold, except, of course, for the fact that he has been shown as the equivalent of OBL and the Klan, and is obviously unsuitable.

It is not analytical skills which are honed by debate but debating skills. Any teacher worth his salt can evaluate a student’s work for intellectual rigour; the prof does not need to disagree with the student in order to see that the student has presented a poor analysis.

The problems with inderlying world view differences can be very serious. There are students who went to college believers and came out unbelievers. Since religiois people ought to believe that God truly exists and all that follows from that, that God is not just a more sophisticated Santa Claus, a college which calls itself Catholic should not teach, in any area, anything which might undermine a student’s faith, except in a manner conducive to the beliefs which the college says it upholds.

Any teacher hired should be bound to obey this. The problem with some so-called Catholic schools is that they do not.