St. Thomas University severs ties with St. Paul Archdiocese

[Catholic29]

Catholic St. Thomas University Votes to Sever Historic Ties with St. Paul Archdiocese

Local Catholics stunned by move that appears designed to limit influence of new, faithful Archbishop

by Hilary White

ST. PAUL, Minnesota, November 21, 2007 (LifeSiteNews.com) – Minnesota’s St. Thomas University has voted to remove the bylaw that maintained the sitting archbishop of St. Paul-Minneapolis as the Vicar General and Priest President of the University. The board of directors voted unanimously to change the university’s bylaw and install soon-to-retire Archbishop Harry Flynn as chairman for a five year term. The move is feared to be an effort by the university to override the authority of and possible reforms by Archbishop John Nienstedt, Flynn’s more orthodox Catholic coadjutor bishop who will fully succeed him as head of the archdiocese next year.

The surprise move has alarmed some Catholics who attend St. Thomas, the only Catholic university in the US founded directly by a bishop, who fear that the break with its historic ties to the archdiocese presages the “complete secularization” of the university, widely known as one of the US’ more doctrinally liberal Catholic schools.

A memo from the board of directors said, “Implementing a process the Board Affairs Committee began last February, the board also elected Archbishop Flynn to a five-year term as chairman of the board after making appropriate changes to the university’s bylaws which heretofore had stipulated that the ordinary (head) of the Archdiocese of St. Paul and Minneapolis serve ex officio as chairman.”

Full story: lifesite.net/ldn/2007/nov/07112103.html

 

[Catholic29]

To the relief of orthodox Catholics in the Twin Cities, it would appear the new springtime in Christianity is finally beginning (next year at least) to take hold of the upper reigns of power in the St. Paul chancery and Archdiocese, all due to one man. That being Archbishop John C. Nienstedt.

St. Thomas U has seen the writing on the wall, will St. Catherine’s U or St. Joan of Arc parish recognize it as well?

For St. Paul-Minneapolis, this will be the “spirit of Vatican II’s”(the false spirit) final season of Advent in the driver’s seat, so I hope its faithful will enjoy it while they can.

 

[Ridgerunner]

I guess when the charter was written, they must have thought liberalism would be in the ascendancy forever.

 

[WanderAimlessly]

I think the University should immediately lose it Catholic identity and any clergy associated with the university should be order to break ties with the university. That should include the current president.

As for St. Joans, maybe a suppression may be in order.

 

[Adonis33]

Can the university do this? Doesn’t any Catholic institution have to get permission from the Bishop of an areas before they can operate there? Are they not under the jurisdiction of the Bishop? Wouldn’t this be like a parish decising to cut ties to the diocese?

I’m just asking.

 

[WanderAimlessly]

Can the university do this? Doesn’t any Catholic institution have to get permission from the Bishop of an areas before they can operate there? Are they not under the jurisdiction of the Bishop? Wouldn’t this be like a parish decising to cut ties to the diocese?

I’m just asking.

They can operate, but they cannot have a “Catholic Identity” without the Bishops permission.

I am wondering if new Arch-Bishop can prevent the former Arch-Bishop from taking that position.

 

[peary]

Can the Vatican do anything about this??

 

[peary]

wow. If I were the bishop, I would forbade all my diocesan priests from being associated with those universities, which is probably the reason I not only am not a priest but neither a bishop!

 

[Digitonomy]

I think the University should immediately lose it Catholic identity and any clergy associated with the university should be order to break ties with the university. That should include the current president.

Why? There is no requirement that the bishop be a part of a Catholic university’s governance.

 

[peary]

Why? There is no requirement that the bishop be a part of a Catholic university’s governance.

No, but St. Thomas University was founded specifically by the bishop of that diocese, and there was a bylaw stating that, since its inception, the bishop would be on the university’s governing board. So, now, they voted the bylaw changed.

 

[Catholic29]

No, but St. Thomas University was founded specifically by the bishop of that diocese, and there was a bylaw stating that, since its inception, the bishop would be on the university’s governing board. So, now, they voted the bylaw changed.

Indeed, as the Board of Directors at STU don’t seem to approve of Archbishop Nienstedt’s brand of Magisterial based Catholicism, nor his apparent willingness to define, defend and even heaven forbid enforce such teachings.

So long St. Thomas U, into the doldrums of secular high academia you go. But it would be nice if you’d change your name into something a little less Catholic.

 

[Digitonomy]

No, but St. Thomas University was founded specifically by the bishop of that diocese, and there was a bylaw stating that, since its inception, the bishop would be on the university’s governing board. So, now, they voted the bylaw changed.

It sounds like you disagree with the board’s decision. However, it doesn’t sound like sufficient justification for the new bishop to take the actions WanderAimlessly suggested. In fact, the requirements he suggested appear to be at odds with the principles John Paul expressed in Ex Corde Ecclesiae.

 

[peary]

Why? There is no requirement that the bishop be a part of a Catholic university’s governance.

No, but there is a requirement in the STU’s bylaws stating that the bishop be a member of the university’s governing board.

 

[timotheos]

Paraphrased from the Newman Guide-

‘Ex corde Ecclesiae gives the bishop both the legal authority and responsibility to declare a college “Catholic”, or in the case of a persistently wayward college, to remove this label.’

Bylaws or no bylaws, it is still in the (arch)bishop’s right and responsibility. I for one certainly hope the BOD will have a change of heart. The 60s are over. The vigor of academia need not be measured by its dissidence, especially in this situation where the opposite is true.

-Tim

 

[Catholic29]

Paraphrased from the Newman Guide-

‘Ex corde Ecclesiae gives the bishop both the legal authority and responsibility to declare a college “Catholic”, or in the case of a persistently wayward college, to remove this label.’

Bylaws or no bylaws, it is still in the (arch)bishop’s right and responsibility. I for one certainly hope the BOD will have a change of heart. The 60s are over. The vigor of academia need not be measured by its dissidence, especially in this situation where the opposite is true.

-Tim

Well I hope and pray the Holy Spirit moves them to accept the Church our savior Jesus Christ established two millenia ago, with all of the teachings and responsibilities of being an instrument of God and his Church, which Ex corde Ecclesia more or less outlines.

But I bet such a mission would be a hard pill to swallow, particularly under the immense pressures and expectations to conform to the modern world and all of the political correctness that goes with it.

As it is, a secular ethos and mentality has been deeply entrenched at STU for a good number of years now, and to be honest I don’t harbor much if any optimism that this institution could ever be salvaged for the good of the Church.

 

[Digitonomy]

No, but there is a requirement in the STU’s bylaws stating that the bishop be a member of the university’s governing board.

Not anymore. And again, a change in a university’s governing structure hardly justifies the sanctions WanderAimlessly is advocating. I’m not that familiar with higher education in Minnesota, but I suspect there are other Catholic universities in the diocese, and I wouldn’t be at all surprised if the bishop were not automatically a board member at some of them. Should they now be sanctioned as well? Would it be any different if a conservative Catholic school in the Diocese of Los Angeles took this action to limit interference by the somewhat liberal Cardinal Mahoney?

The school’s action seems like a slap in the face of the new bishop, and perhaps it was intended that way. Nonetheless, that is its right, and the new bishop should proceed in a dignified manner, rather than employing some of the hot-headed responses suggested above.

 

[peary]

Not anymore. And again, a change in a university’s governing structure hardly justifies the sanctions WanderAimlessly is advocating. I’m not that familiar with higher education in Minnesota, but I suspect there are other Catholic universities in the diocese, and I wouldn’t be at all surprised if the bishop were not automatically a board member at some of them. Should they now be sanctioned as well? Would it be any different if a conservative Catholic school in the Diocese of Los Angeles took this action to limit interference by the somewhat liberal Cardinal Mahoney?

The school’s action seems like a slap in the face of the new bishop, and perhaps it was intended that way. Nonetheless, that is its right, and the new bishop should proceed in a dignified manner, rather than employing some of the hot-headed responses suggested above.

**But it was the *diocese itself *(not a religious order or independent source from the outside) which sanctioned the existence of the univeristy in the first place. And being an institution of higher learning *as a diocesan school *automatically assumes the bishop a hand in its everyday functions. How can the school justifiably cut its own bishop out of its board of directors?

Yes, it indeed is a slap in the face of the new bishop, and it was definitely intended that way. People are not stupid. Nonetheless, that is NOT its right as there is diocesan (name removed by moderator)ut on STU and has been since its inception.**

 

[Digitonomy]

Wouldn’t this be like a parish decising to cut ties to the diocese?

No. A parish without formal institutional ties to its diocese isn’t really a Catholic parish at all. On the other hand, a Catholic university can be run by a religious order, or a private group, etc, without the involvement of diocesan officials. In the case of St. Thomas, while the new bishop won’t be on the board, there may be other ties to the diocese. And the presence of the old bishop on the board also fulfills this role, although it’s not required.

Catholic institutions of higher learning are generally governed by John Paul’s 1990 encyclical Ex Corde Ecclesiae. As you might expect from an encyclical, it’s a bit long-winded, but it encourages schools to maintain their Catholic identities in keeping with their traditions (a Franciscan school will obviously have a different approach than a Jesuit one). More particularly, those who teach theology are required to have a mandatum from the bishop.

The bishop could indeed require diocesan priests (but probably not religious order priests) to disassociate themselves from the school, although it would seem a little reactionary, since the ordained are permitted to associate themselves at times even with secular institutions. And he could rescind any recognition of the school’s Catholic “identity,” although legally the school could still call itself Catholic if it chose.

 

[Digitonomy]

And being an institution of higher learning *as a diocesan school *automatically assumes the bishop a hand in its everyday functions.

Not at all. It all depends on how it is set up. The bishop may not want to be bothered with the everyday political squabbles of a university, and thus have given the board and the administration wide latitude to settle issues on their own. Giving a school this kind of autonomy entails some risk that views and paths may diverge - I recently read an article about a number of Baptist schools which have broken away from or achieved some measure of independence of their state conventions.

peary:

How can the school justifiably cut its own bishop out of its board of directors?

I have not read any statement by the school justifying their decision. None is required, but as far as public relations are concerned it would be a smart move to get its view into the public discussion.

peary:

Nonetheless, that is NOT its right as there is diocesan (name removed by moderator)ut on STU and has been since its inception.

I assume the legal wonks have satisfied themselves that the school does have the right to take its current action. It seems a bit naive on your part to state otherwise, unless you have inside information, or unless you don’t dispute the school’s legal right, but merely the propriety of the decision.

I’m certain there will be diocesan (name removed by moderator)ut, either formally or informally - as I noted above, it’s not clear what other relationships the diocese may have with the university besides the bishop sitting on the board, and the diocese will continue to have a retired bishop sitting on the board. How much the school will respond to that (name removed by moderator)ut remains to be seen.

 

[buc_fan33]

I’m curious how many people on here have ever set foot on the campus of the University of St. Thomas (not St. Thomas University, by the way). I graduated from this fine institution two years ago with degrees in philosophy and Catholic studies. I also graduated from St. John Vianney, the college seminary affiliated with the University. The original article in a somewhat disdainful fassion labeled UST as being among the more liberal Catholic universities in the U.S. This is simply not true. In fact, the Catholic Studies and philosophy professors are among the most orthodox of Catholic professors in the U.S., I would argue. I also will grant that the theology department has its share of professors who are more left of center, however, there are solid Catholic theology professors as well, such as Dr. John Boyle. Furthermore, for as much as people criticize Archbishop Flynn without really knowing the man, I can attest that he has assigned only orthodox, holy men to serve the University as either professors, spiritual directors, or seminary formators.

I have no idea why the BOD decided to take this action. Perhaps, it was out of affection for Archbishop Flynn. (Admittedly, I’m trying to give them the benefit of the doubt here.) But to call UST a liberal institution without knowing all of the facts is reckless to say the least.