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.It might be worth repeating that most institutions which were founded as Catholic colleges and universities long ago - in the 1960s - separated off from Church control and formed lay Boards of Directors, etc.
In short, they are no longer controlled by the Catholic Church. A bishop has little or no say as to what goes on there. That goes for Cardinals, too.
That is not to say that there is nothing that can be done; but as to what exactly it is hard to say.
If anyone wants to write to Cardinal George, they might want to do some extensive research beforehand to find out what, if anything, the good Cardinal is able to do in Canon law; otherwise it is simply a spleen venting issue. In short, without suggesting a viable remedy, the letter may not be worth the paper it is written on.
Folks, this has been going on for lo these 40 years. Letters, by the ream, have been written, and it continues to go on. The old phrase “doing the same thing over and over again and expecting a different result” comes to mind; in other words, it is an exhibition of insanity…
If you want to change something at the University, then you need to do it where they live. And where they live is in the pocket book. Getting the alumni - particularly the alumni who have deep pockets and give significant sums - to cut off the life blood (money) is a good way to get someone’s attention.
Writing to the Cardinal is not.
He should have forbidden them to do the questionable part of the conference then. It’s nice to say it’s bad but it’s good to keep people from being harmed by it. Argh!Well, Cardinal George made this the subject of his column in the archdiocesan newspaper:
catholicnewworld.com/cnwonline/2007/1014/cardinal.aspx
I don’t see how he could have “forbidden” it, practically. But in calling them out publically through his article, he definitely DID take a big step in calling them to task. These things need to be done with a certai diplomacy, like this, but the message is surely heard loud and clear by the problem parties. Kudos to the cardinal for going so far!He should have forbidden them to do the questionable part of the conference then. It’s nice to say it’s bad but it’s good to keep people from being harmed by it. Argh!
So, yes, count me in the camp that says he didn’t go far enough. Glad he pointed out the bad. Now he needs to do something about it.
Yes, I was extremely surprised he went as far as he did. I was expecting no comment at all, so for Cardinal George to actually come out and say “It’s wrong” is a major accomplishment. I hope other bishops in the province take note and do the same thing when this stype of conference spreads, because it is rearing its head at two small universities in the southwestern sububrbs.I don’t see how he could have “forbidden” it, practically. But in calling them out publically through his article, he definitely DID take a big step in calling them to task. These things need to be done with a certai diplomacy, like this, but the message is surely heard loud and clear by the problem parties. Kudos to the cardinal for going so far!
Believe it or not, he is the ranking clergy in this diocese and, as such, he can forbid Catholics to participate in any way in this conference partially or in totality. What gives him this authority? Let’s look at his statement:I don’t see how he could have “forbidden” it, practically.
Our bishops are supposed to guard the faithful from error. I’m glad he spoke out about it but I want him to act on it. The conference is still going on and the faithful are still going to be lead astray by at least some of the lectures.as pastor of this Archdiocese
Statement from Most Rev. Robert J. McManus, S.T.D.
Regarding Teen Pregnancy Conference at the College of the Holy Cross
Code:A controversy has arisen at the College of the Holy Cross that has resulted from the College’s renting space for a conference sponsored by the Massachusetts Alliance on Teen Pregnancy. The conference involves workshops presented by members of Planned Parenthood and NARAL Pro-Choice Massachusetts. Both organizations promote positions on artificial contraception and abortion that are contrary to the moral teachings of the Catholic Church.
Code:I have received numerous complaints from people who are shocked and outraged that a Catholic institution like Holy Cross would have anything to do with such groups. They have appealed to me to ask Father Michael McFarland, president of the College of the Holy Cross, to revoke the College’s agreement to rent space to the Massachusetts Teen Alliance. I have done so.
Code:**As Bishop of Worcester, it is my pastoral and canonical responsibility to determine what institutions can properly call themselves “Catholic.” This is a duty that I do not take lightly since to be a Catholic institution means that such an institution conducts its mission and ministry in accord with Catholic Church teaching, especially in cases of faith and morals**.
Code:The moral teaching of the Catholic Church on respect for life at all stages of its development is manifestly clear. Life is a fundamental good that must be protected and respected from the moment of fertilization to natural death. This teaching is so basic and important that it provides the foundation upon which much of the Church’s moral and social doctrine rests. It is beyond modification and compromise.
Code:Both Planned Parenthood and NARAL Pro-Choice are notorious for their policies and practices that directly reject the Church’s teaching on artificial contraception and abortion. The College of the Holy Cross should recognize that any association with these groups can create the situation of offering scandal understood in its proper theological sense, i.e., an attitude or behavior which leads another to do evil. Certainly it is understandable how people of good will could interpret the college’s allowing presentations to be made by such groups as truly scandalous.
Code:I strongly contend that the confusion and upset to the Catholic faithful and others that flow from the perception that the administration of the College of the Holy Cross supports positions contrary to the fundamental moral teaching of the Church must be avoided. To deny Planned Parenthood and NARAL Pro-Choice a forum in which to present their morally unacceptable positions is not an infringement of the exercise of academic freedom but a defensible attempt to make unambiguously clear the Catholic identity and mission of the College of the Holy Cross.
Code:It is my fervent wish that the administration of the College of the Holy Cross will unequivocally disassociate itself from the upcoming conference sponsored by the Massachusetts Alliance on Teen Pregnancy** so that the college can continue to be recognized as a Catholic institution committed to promoting the moral teaching of the Roman Catholic church.**Issued October 10, 2007, WORCESTER, MA
True, but unfortunately the “worst case scenario” would be that there could be a backlash in which attendance might actually increase. I suppose some would just write that off as “rebellious little brats who were warned but are going to end up paying in hell”, but others might be more calculating to make sure the effort does not backfire.Believe it or not, he is the ranking clergy in this diocese and, as such, he can forbid Catholics to participate in any way in this conference partially or in totality. What gives him this authority? Let’s look at his statement:
Our bishops are supposed to guard the faithful from error. I’m glad he spoke out about it but I want him to act on it. The conference is still going on and the faithful are still going to be lead astray by at least some of the lectures.
That may yet come out of this. There might be things going on “behind the scene” that could address this.And yes, Catholics are not supposed to use the word Catholic in their organizations without permission. Will you get some who will do it anyway? Yes. That doesn’t mean that the bishop or cardinal is not responsible for doing his best to insure that everything with the Catholic name holds up to Catholic teaching. They can revoke the privelage to use the Catholic name in order to reduce the scandal caused by organizations using the CAtholic name who adhere to things against the Faith.
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”Often, a lot more can come practically out of the power of persuation and appearances, than mere demands.
Could the cardinal have said, “As bishop of this diocese, I expressly forbid Catholics to attend this conference?” Sure. But how many would have listened? It stops nothing, really, and just sets up an antagonism.
What happens in a situation like this offered now, is that the cardinal offers a clear and powerful voice which calls the conference into question and subtly undermines it. Anyone who has such an endeavor in mind for the future might even think twice about what the consequences will be. “Will the cardinal call us out, also?”
And it brings to attention for those who might not have been aware of such things happenning a thoughtful rebuttal of the situation. Now, when alumni and others are approached for donations, they might ask some questions before forking over.
Have no doubt, leaders of institutions and conferences such as this like to just be left alone. They don’t want bishops “interfering” with thier “business” in any way. So when a statement like this is made, it carries consequences. Ones which they understand loud and clear. Much more than you might think.
Really, I don’t see how Cardinal George’s appeal was any lesser. He just phrased it more diplomatically. Certainly, he offerred the same clarity about the faith, expressed similar disappointment, and calls out the universities sponsoring the conference by name while recommending that they adhere to Catholic thought in order to do something effectively faithful and of worth to be true to their mission.It is my fervent wish that the administration of the College of the Holy Cross will unequivocally disassociate itself from the upcoming conference sponsored by the Massachusetts Alliance on Teen Pregnancy so that the college can continue to be recognized as a Catholic institution committed to promoting the moral teaching of the Roman Catholic church.
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.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”
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.
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.BTW, Go Bishop McManus!!!
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.
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.
No, he doesn’t. He’s letting the dangerous event continue when it’s well within his purview to demand that it be stopped.
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.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.
Thank you for digging out the Canons.Just in case some didn’t know…There are actually canons on Catholic schools.
There are actually a couple of smaller “Catholic” colleges in the East where the bishop has managed to take the step.Since I don’t believe it has ever been done, I am not sure how it could be done.
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.If Catholic is part of the legal name, he has no jurisdiction over it in law; that is a civil law matter.
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.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.
And issues like this don’t concern the theology department, anyway, so his authority over instructors would be even less.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.
Well, perhaps someone could sue it for false advertising???If Catholic is part of the legal name, he has no jurisdiction over it in law; that is a civil law matter.
Is anyone going to this talk?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:
info.luc.edu/newsevents/public/calendar_detail.cfm?eventid=16137&siteid=62&month=10&year=2007&day=29&range=ww&audience=0&view=ww