IRVING, Texas — The University of Dallas has always prided itself on its faithfulness to the magisterium, but only quick action by the administration and local bishops fended off a sudden rebellion of undergrads, alumni and parents seeking to defend UD’s orthodoxy against perceived threats.
Triggering the insurrection was an open letter from a high-profile father of five UD grads objecting in advance to the imminent approval of a new undergrad program for parish lay ministers at UD’s School of Ministry, which some have called “doctrinally challenged.”
The letter went viral among campus bloggers, sparked dozens of incendiary emails to UD’s president, Thomas Keefe, and a petition with several hundred signatures (UD has more than 2,800 students). The university’s board of trustees nonetheless approved the new program on March 3.
“Heresy is not being taught at the University of Dallas. Blasphemy is not being taught at the University of Dallas,” Keefe told the Register. “Any faculty that do not comport with the teachings of the Church will not be teaching at this university.”
The parent who raised the alarm is Patrick Fagan, director of the Marriage and Religion Research Institute, a conservative think tank in Washington, D.C. His letter began: “Depending on how the board of the University of Dallas votes tonight, I (proud father of five UD alumni children) may well be telling folks: ‘Don’t send your kids to UD. It used to be great but now is a danger to their faith.’”
This is no empty threat, notes UD history professor Susan Hanssen. The university’s alumni are extraordinarily loyal and influential among the Catholic home-schoolers and private Catholic academies loyal to the magisterium that feed UD. They form a “vibrant, participatory, morally and theologically informed core community” with faculty and students.
Hanssen, who is an expert on the secularization of America’s universities, says the University of Dallas was founded in the 1950s with the intention of resisting that trend and remaining faithfully Catholic. Over the years there have been several uproars at UD when previous administrations or the School of Ministry have appeared to diverge from that goal.
Hanssen herself has criticized the school for inviting Sister Barbara Reid to deliver last year’s prestigious Landregan lecture. Sister Barbara, a Dominican New Testament scholar, lumped the Church’s refusal to ordain women in with its alleged general oppression of women. Fagan too cited the Reid speech and opinions of School of Ministry faculty members that appear to question Church teaching on the priesthood and homosexuality.
‘The Board Seems Blind’
One of those who was activated by Fagan’s letter was senior Daniel Arevalo.
“I raised my voice because I’m concerned that the people who go to the School of Ministry for this program will return to their parishes to teach people how to lose their faith,” Arevalo said.
The School of Ministry was not, until now, seen as much of a threat, Arevalo explained, because it was a graduate school whose students did not follow the university’s theology-, philosophy- and history-heavy core curriculum. Now that its students would participate fully in undergrad life, however, it was seen as a Trojan horse.
As one irate UD grad, Barbara Stirling, who earned a Master of Arts degree in philosophical studies in 1993, said, “Many of us UD grads chose it for ourselves because of its liberal arts curriculum, political conservatism and theological orthodoxy, all accomplished in an atmosphere of civility and charity. Yet, the board seems blind to the things that we value.”
Arevalo also noted that the introduction of new undergraduate programs has usually taken many years. The new program in pastoral studies, however, has been approved in just two.
The push is coming from Bishop Kevin Farrell of Dallas and Bishop Kevin Vann of Fort Worth, who told Keefe they needed much better trained lay ministers because of a shortage of priests. Bishop Farrell, in a
video response to the controversy mounted on YouTube noted that his diocese had just 104 priests to serve 1.2 million Catholics. Some parishes, he said, don’t have any priests of their own, while their lay ministers, “have great will but do not have the required preparation.”
On the same video, Bishop Farrell also bluntly took responsibility for the faithfulness of the School of Ministry.
“Let me remind the Catholic people of the diocese that this is my responsibility,” he said. “I am the one who has to stand before God. I do not take it lightly.”
Keefe responded to the furor by arranging a forum where he showed the Bishop Farrell video, read a letter of support from Bishop Vann, explained the process followed in developing and approving the program and, finally, fielded questions from the students present.
At the forum, Keefe described many of the emails he received as “very hurtful.” If people had made those remarks to his face, “I would have punched them out.” He urged the students to show “a little trust” in Bishop Farrell. “He is the magisterium, whether you like it or not.”
Abrupt Reversal
Keefe later told the Register he was disappointed with how ill-informed the critics were and especially how ill-judged were their criticisms of School of Ministry faculty. They failed to take into account that the two bishops had approved the new program, as had the faculty senate and a committee comprising professors from both the School of Ministry and the theology faculty. All of the latter theologians, he noted, take an oath of obedience to the magisterium. As for the School of Ministry’s faculty, the university and Bishop Farrell would review the teachers privately “and respectfully.”
For Keefe, it was a display of the same feisty accessibility he had already displayed in his first year in office, taking to the road to meet alumni and going to campus hangouts for informal one-on-one discussions with students.
The response from Keefe and the bishops had some effect. Fagan, reached in Washington, D.C., told the Register, “I have no more to say. Bishop Farrell has accepted responsibility.”
But he considers that “the jury is still out” on whether the bishop will sufficiently vet the School of Ministry to satisfy the UD community.
One who is decidedly not satisfied is Barbara Stirling. She called Bishop Farrell’s video “an attempt to shut down discourse.” Like some of those who signed the petition, she is watching her alma mater carefully and protectively.
But others are mollified by the assurances of Keefe and the two bishops. Randy Beeler, father of two UD grads and husband of a current student at the School of Ministry, at first used his The Catholic Comedy blog to broadcast and support Fagan’s letter. After communicating with President Keefe, he has reversed his position., urging his readers to “give our shepherds and those who are authoring and steering this program the chance to do what they are genuinely seeking to do.”
Reversing the Trojan horse metaphor, Beeler suggested that the new undergrad program would “hold SOM academically and magisterially accountable (in a way the School of Ministry heretofore has not been).”
Register correspondent Steve Weatherbe writes from Victoria, British Columbia.
Comments
Post a Comment
Aren’t we all called to priests in a way? Better to have well educated lay ministers who know theology helping to build the church than none at all. We cannot ignore the the ever deminishing number of priests!
Are our catholic universities going to prepare it’s students to go out into the"world” and deal with “it"as it is or as we would like “it” to be. And keefe wanting to “punch” somebody raises the discussion to a whole new “level”. As to the secularization expert, what does Secular Priest mean? I think that the Church is one of the oldest living institutions in the world because of it’s ability to change, and change happens in Church councils. one of the changes is having the Mass in the vernacular. at one time Latin was the vernacular, but latin as a living language died, English is our language. Celebration of the Mass is a living event; Christ, to my knowledge, did not speak Latin. As a daily Mass-goer and a graduate of Fordham University, anyone who wants to “punch it out”, have at it!
So, what are the details? The article says pretty much nothing of what the issues are. What exactly are the blasphemies and heresies supposedly taught. The writer needs to be a lot more clear about this. After re-reading the article, I still know pretty much nothing.
Kasip, “we” (baptized Christians) are all part of the universal priesthood. This is very different from the ordained priesthood.
Those who want to learn more about the Pastoral Ministry program should go to the major’s website and review it themselves: udallas.edu/pastoralministry . The curriculum is all there with the documents that will be read in each class and the format of the internships. Bishop Farrell’s video and Bishop Vann’s letter are posted. A page discusses how this is an application of Ex Corde Ecclesiae and how UD and School of Ministry fulfills the four marks specified in Ex Corde. Further, all graduates will meet the standards for certification set forth by the USCCB and the National Certification Standards for Lay Ministry.
As a UD Grad, I can say that there has always been a tension between leadership and students at the University. When I was a student, Campus Ministry was decidedly liberal and the UD Chapel was a pit of despair, both liturgically and architecturally. As a student, I (and my peers) saw the student body as generally concerned with orthodoxy, while the leadership was generally concerned with how to make UD more profitable. There are merits in each but I think the Bishop’s desire for educated lay ministers is legitimate and commendable. I do, however, understand the concerns of UD grads, as lay ministers on campus were the quintessential progressive type. The average concerned UD student probably sees the whole idea of lay ministers as a direct affront to orthodoxy and a contributing if not deciding factor to the present liturgical disarray in the Church. In addition, there has been a discord between local and universal magisterium in the past 40 years or so, which also lends towards a distrust of bishops among orthodox students. In order to resolve this situation and future ones, the leadership of the University of Dallas needs to recognize the essential culture of the student body and form a program that doesn’t ring an alarm. There’s no need to have a lay minister program when you can have a lay faith formation program or something to that effect. The lay parish leadership needs to have a good orthodox grounding in the faith such as UD is quite capable of providing.
@Kasip
“Better to have well educated lay ministers who know theology helping to build the church than none at all.”
This is the point. The program purposes ideas contrary to the Magisterium (and even up to date scholarship) and thus it does not produce a well formed laity.
It is however I suspect a money maker.
This article had nothing more than a vague description of what may or may not really be transpiring theologically in the School of Ministry. It would have been nice to have some actual content to substantiate the claims beyond having one poor speaker and “faculty members that appear to question Church teaching on the priesthood and homosexuality.”
I agree that there does need to be trust of the bishop and prudence in getting and discerning all the facts on this matter.
However, for me at least personally, it is a red flag that Sr. Barbara Reid was allowed to speak at any function held by a university that professes faithfullness to the magisterium. I had her for a class and it was one of the most painful experiences of my life. Never had I felt so rejected and oppressed in an academic setting as I did in her class. It was a Gospel of Luke class which would have been more accurate calling it “A Feminist Re-telling of the Gospel of Luke”.
I hope and pray the bishops and UD make the right decisions moving forward as this is a tremendously important need, especially in the Catholic South. We are seeing a shift thanks to schools like Steubenville, Christendom, UD, and others, and with such a boom in the faith in the south, we need UD to remain solid, and continue turning out solid alumni in service of God’s Church.
Al Kresta has something on this. Multiple professors of the School of Div professed a belief in Woman’s Ordination, Homosexual Marriage, and other such things. You will have to google it. It is depressing to see another Catholic institution head down the path so many others have, towards a multi-culti playground of heterodoxy. I reference Notre Dame, Georgetown, and others. I will pray for them. Sadly, there are still many unfaithful or weak bishops who will not boldly proclaim the faith. I don’t know much about either of these Bishops, but we should all be concerned with protecting the faith from all heterodoxy.
I’m not certain what I read! Are the details of the new program so bad that they can’t be printed? I have a tendency to stick to the simple ideals that Jesus taught, love God, love you neighbor, and break the bread and share the cup in his remembrance. When I have mastered that I will get excited about the magisterium.
Dr Keefe is inconsistent. He says that any faculty not in compliance with Catholic Teaching will not remain at UD, but then says that the faculty is being reviewed. In another forum, he indicated that the specific faculty teaching this specific program would be reviewed. But if there are no heretical views in the SOM why the extensive review? If everyone is on board with the teachings of the Church, he should be comfortable with anyone in the SOM teaching a given class (assuming they know the specific material).
It seems like he’s aware of a problem, but can’t or won’t address it directly, so instead he’s trying to put a firewall around the undergrad program while letting the “doctrinally challenged” instructors run wild teaching Deaconate candidates and unsuspecting Parish Adult Education classes. I’m in Dallas, I’ve been to those adult ed classes. He has his work cut out for him.
What this somewhat vague article doesn’t accurately portray is the fact that the student body at the Univ. of Dallas are being the watch dogs of orthodoxy. It is a tremendous testament to this exceptional group of young adults who are working hard at their studies, but use precious time and energy to challenge the administration to rise to the high expectations they have for their school.
Do I have to teach my boys college too?
Vote with your feet.
If so much is needed to explain something to formerly supportive folks, not enough transparency exists or there’s good reason for the concern.
See Dr. Fagan’s comments at The Catholic Thing
http://www.thecatholicthing.org/in_the_news/commentary/trouble-at-the-university-of-dallas.html
As someone familiar with UD and who has made a commitment to attend, the reaction of the students is very heartening. That the President and administration would circle the wagons is less encouraging but not surprising. This is not over. UD should be watched. The disaster that most Jesuit and other failing Catholic-in-name-only colleges became was caused by people who did not watch and let the 1960’s retreads take over. This must not happen here. If they don’t like the scrutiny - tough, that is part of the business.
I am not from the Diocese of Dallas or Fort Worth, so am curious what is being done in the efforts to increase vocations to the priesthood. The issue doesn’t line in needing more “lay ministers” but in needing more priests. I could not even image the difficulties of being a Bishop and having to make these decisions. I do know we NEED to pray for our Bishops for strength and wisdom and for an increase in vocations. This starts in fostering vocations in the home and parish, and with fervent prayer esp. Adoration.
As for UD…well, they are really simply being faithful to the Bishops. And since this doesn’t seem to be a matter of heresy or blasphemy (from the little information given here) the fact UD is being faithful to the Shepherds of the Church is orthodoxy. Although the issues of bringing in speakers that outwardly speak against the teachings of the Church is a big problem.
Much to being to Our Lord through the intercession of Our Lady!!
Coming from the Rochester Diocese where we have many…too many, lay “ministers” I can only say that this trend is TOXIC for vocations and the orthodoxy of the faith. Frankly, I am not impressed that two bishops are in favor of this, our bishop in Rochester has pushed it for years. especially when they seem to think it is okay to have lay “ministers” instead of priests in control of parishes. IT DOESN"T WORK. It fails miserably. I live in a diocese that is ground zero to this lay “ministry” trend. It leads to a heterodoxy, reduced Catholic faith and shrinking and eventually closed parishes. As the last 40 years have shown us,Bishops are not infallible, they can and do make mistakes.
Vigilance; trust, but verify.
If we don’t teach people to challenge authority and ask hard questions, then people will never be able to deal with people who have hard questions. Teaching the faith is not making zombies of people by proscribing to a hard orthodoxy with language that benefits a certain group of people. Teaching the faith must be about listening to the hearts of people and seeing where God’s life rests first in them and help that inspire conversion. Our insistence on “orthodoxy” at all costs actually hurts the growth of our education and makes us as a Church seem horribly defensive from the big, bad world that’s out to get us. It’s true, the world doesn’t like bad religion which seeks to manipulate people and not give real reason for it, but the world can like good religion which seeks to spring life to people through word, deed, and sacrament. If we’re closing a School of Ministry because it doesn’t seem orthodox enough, and we’re using money as a means to control language, we’re in really big trouble for our own authenticity as a faith.
Never blindly follow bishops. In fact, be suspicious of them until they are proven faithful. Remember that during the Protestant revolt nearly all the bishops ditched orthodoxy and leapt to the side of Henry VIII, Luther, Calvin, et al. By their fruits you shall know them. Follow the Bishop of Rome.
What is with the attitude of their supposed orthodox president ? Sounds just as arrogant as Jenkins at ND. Don’t dare to question them, they are the experts, Rome doesn’t matter ! This arrogance, modernism & homosexuality is what is killing the Church. Those supposed nuns that flaunt heresies should be excommunicated & ignored, not invited to spread their venom.
While I would love to say, “Okay, bishops, we believe you and all is well.”, but the Church is in the situation it is in because bishops did not do what they were supposed to do, and told people all is well, when that was not so.
Keep all eyes on UD; it has been attacked before, once when we lived there, when the core curriculum was under attack. The devil is sneaky and round about.
This is true. President Keefe and School of Ministry Dean Schmisek have done nothing more than dismiss the whole issue. Troubling.
Regarding Kasip: There would be minimal theological training for this major. Seriously. Just 2 advanced classes. Hardly experts.
Tom: exactly right. Pastoral Ministry in itself is poison to vocations and that is probably what Daniel Arevalo means when he says that “I raised my voice because I’m concerned that the people who go to the School of Ministry for this program will return to their parishes to teach people how to lose their faith”.
Also, from what I know, this is actually the third time that they tried to get this degree done.
J- The lecture with Sr. Reid was arranged prior to Pres. Keefe taking office. Following that lecture, Keefe instituted a new rule that all speakers to be approved by his office.
Richard- The full details of the Pastoral Ministry major are on their website: http://www.udallas.edu/pastoralministry
Ben- I think you are misunderstanding it. Keefe is not going to just can anyone who has an accusation. That would be ludicrous. Any concerns are being taken seriously and investigated by him and by the bishop. Bishop Farrell is from the Legionaries of Christ and Bishop Vann is even more conservative than him. They take any legitimate concerns quite seriously. No one will be allowed to teach who promotes heterodox doctrine. The Bishop has placed his soul on the line for this.
o- Not necessarily, rumors are worse than fact (think of the Fr. Corapi scandal). Fagan’s article was full of a bunch of poorly researched stuff, much taken out of context, leading to a firestorm that spun rumors galore. Many people condemned and demanded to carve away flesh based on a *speculation* that it was cancerous. Game of telephone. Rather than follow Canon Law and USCCB Guidelines on addressing the issues, they screamed for crucifixion. Very unchristian.
J- Holy Trinity Seminary (on UD’s campus) has a record number of seminarians.
Tom- The major focuses on Religious Ed. and Youth/Young Adult Ministry, which in no way diminishes the sacramental character of the priest. Volunteers are not sufficient for maintaining these programs, nor are they properly formed. Even in the graduate SOM programs, there is nothing that takes away from the sacramental work of the priest. All of the lay ministers activities are supposed to support the priest, so he can do his work better.
jjmucr- Well said! Amen, brother!
DJP- He was royally angry because of the unchristian like manner with which the Bishop and he were attacked. Words were said that are not family friendly. Students actually formed a rosary in reparation of the sacrilege associated with attacking a sacred person. Some demanded to know the status of individual persons, which legally the University cannot discuss personnel issues. And no one is promoting homosexuality! I wish people would stop saying that! Yes, they deal with it pastorally, as do those in formation for the perm. diaconate and priesthood, but on the terms set forth by the Vatican and the USCCB. Theologians have a right and duty, as expressed by the Vatican, to explore the edges of theology that has not yet been defined. St. Paul and St. Peter in biblical times disagreed. Origen is another example, guilty of pushing the philosophical and theological language boundaries. Unfortunately later scholars would develop the language and his opinions were ruled heterodox. I’m sure he would accept that. Sometimes people will have disagreeing theological opinions, but crying heresy and denigrating someone’s credibility because you disagree is wrong. That’s what Keefe was getting at.
James Locke: Arevalo simply likes controversy. He has posted on several articles and half of what he says is just simply wrong. Keefe said we are investigating and taking it seriously, everything will be forwarded to the Bishop. Arevelo then supported a red herring ‘cover up’ idea and said, “the President made it clear that he is convinced that he will not be forwarding any information to the Bishop for his review.” He demands that take action without investigation, publicly humiliate professors without substantive proof, and if they do anything but that than it is the admin trying to whitewash the situation. It’s sad that an article like this gave him credence.
Everyone should read Randy Beeler’s blog. He’s an alumnus and his wife is in the SOM. He initially condemned and has since posted an article in support of the Bishop and President: http://triptbishop.blogspot.com/2011/03/university-of-dallas-churchthank-you.html
@ J.
Bishop Farrell made vocations his top priority when he came to Dallas and saw immediate results. Holy Trinity Seminary is almost full. The Diocese ordained 6 men to the transitional deaconate just last week. However, the pipeline is long and the numbers of priests in the diocese will fall further before enough young men are ordained to keep up with retirements.
I hear the situation in Fort Worth is much the same.
I have no qualms with Bishops Farrell or Vann. But I don’t know how much they can vet this program. And I don’t think they should have to micromanage it, to the point to dictating which instructors teach each class. While it is the Bishop’s responsibility, UD should be able to keep it’s house in order.
Let me expand a bit on the situation here in Rochester. The Bishop shut down and sold the seminary 2 years after he took over in 1981. Since the Seminary’s demise, St Bernard’s was re-established as a school of “Theology and Ministry.” It produces our Deacons and Lay “Ministers.” Keep in mind here in DOR a Lay “minister” is everything from a audio tech (an Audio ministry) to a Pastoral Administrator, someone who leads a parish in place of a priest. Most of the ones I have had experience with have a confused grounding in the faith that is un-orthodox to down right heretical. Many of the lay pastoral administrators are lay woman or nuns who are woman ordination sympathizers.
We have lost many parishes and many schools. This diocese is on a death spiral as we are expected to have only 60 priests left to cover some 120 parishes by 2014. We only have 5 seminarians in formation, and the first doesn’t get ordained 2013.
In all of this Bishop Clark assures us that he and the diocese has confidence that what he has been trying to implement the last 30 years will work…even though it sure doesn’t look like to success to me. Maybe I’m missing something.
David Michael
If the laity is properly catechized then we wouldn’t need lay “ministers” which smacks of clericalism and also seems to imply that the teachings of the faith is “too hard” for the average lay person to understand. My experience is that this is only true if the teachings of the faith are being manipulated or spun to fit a agenda. Holy Mother Church really makes things very easy and spells things out very clearly. No theology degree needed either. The most that should be needed is a refresher class on the catechism of the Church.
I’m more concerned about the shrinking role for the priest that has been observed here in Rochester. The majority of the Parishes are not even led by priests, but by lay “Pastoral Administrators.” The priests are often only listed as “Sacramental Minister” or “Parish Priest.” This is not a healthy development as the priest loses his role as Father to the parish, but becomes more of a technician and a “Staff Member.”
I think it is a valid concern that the SOM program is verified to be orthodox. I think the credo “Trust, but verify,” is a good guide considering the history of the Church in the last 40 years. As you point out, theologians “Pushing the Edges” are not necessarily Orthodox. If the intent is to have a program that helps faith formation and Youth Ministry it would stand to reason you want maximum orthodoxy to be a priority.
David Michael: I do not “like” controversy. I articulate my precise concerns in my own article that I wrote for the University paper. If you seriously think I did no research before speaking, then you are sadly incorrect.
Public humiliation is not my goal. Where are you getting these ideas?
I am re-reading the Dr. Fagan article right now, and I do not see poor research. I do not know who you are, claiming to know about internal decisions by the administration, but there is no need to start making personal attacks like that.
I appreciate the comments of David Michael. They shed light that I hadn’t heard before. UD is normally a good school but this, as in the case of the Virgin Mary As a Stripper Art Exhibit a few years ago leads one to wonder if they really take orthodoxy seriously, or if their orthodoxy is based on what they can get away with at the time.
In this case, their defense seems to be “We’re not doing anything wrong, and we won’t do it again.” In the Stripper Art fiasco, they just hunkered down until the furor went away.
We’ll have to see what they do now.
Here is a link to the controversial “punch out” video.
http://www.wfaa.com/news/local/University-of-Dallas-presidents-punch—117838503.html
If my child went to UD, do you think I’d feel comfortable having him express concerns to this hothead? NO WAY. If Keefe were the head of any other corporation he’d be sued or fired. To add insult to injury, he acts in the interview as if he’s done absolutely nothing wrong. And the emails that caused him to lose his temper? Not one thing about them was revealed, other than they were “very hurtful.” That’s code for “they don’t agree with me.”
Kudos to the brave students like Daniel Arevalo (who know better than most of the adults involved)that men like this can’t be trusted with basic politeness, much less preserving the orthodoxy of UD.
Sister Dorothy Jonaitis was to be the primary advocate of a proposal to a synod of Bishops that requested that women be ordained. This contradicts Church teaching. Period.
Dr. Jerome Walsh proposed an interpretation of Scripture that merely prohibits a “complete” act of sodomy, but does not prohibit other forms of sexual expression between men. This contradicts Church teaching. Period.
Dr. Brian Schmisek hosted Sister Barbara Reid who asks that gender not be considered when determining ministerial roles. Gender must be considered when determining certain ministerial roles, i.e. the priesthood. Therefore, this contradicts Church teaching. Period.
Dr. James McGill uses Fr. Richard McBrien as a sole text in one of his classes. Now either McGill uses McBrien to make an example of him as a heretic (but somehow does this without using any other required texts to counter McBrien with) or he agrees with McBrien. My sources confirm that McGill does not teach McBrien b/c he disagrees with him. Therefore his approbation of McBrien is an issue, not as grave as that of some of his colleagues, but a cause for concern nonetheless. Period.
Now everything I have just stated is either a lie and a fabrication, or it has some level of truth, maybe up to being completely true. David Michael, if you want to accuse Dr. Fagan of doing poor research or, as Schmisek does, call him a “liar”, then you need to start producing some of your own research and prove his claims, stated above, to be false. If you don’t feel like doing that, that is ok. I would, however, ask that you resign your post as Brian Schmisek’s online spokesperson. His dismissive and groundless arguments are getting to be tiresome.
One chronological inaccuracy in the article—the decision to approve the program came first—the petition with signatures came later.
Hear, Hear, Mr. Jenkins.
When the SoM responds and tells me exactly what they DO teach and that these claims ARE false, then I’ll believe them. Until then, I will be very encouraging to our Bishop to do a thorough investigation of the individuals teaching in this coming program, but will remain cautious and wary of said program and point students toward the Theology department (because as we all know, it’s Theology that’s the root of all ministry…doing a B.A. there is probably more worthwhile than a B.A. from the SoM.
Just a follow-up on the Marti Jewell comment from the Fagan article. I do not think that a careful reading of Dr. Jewell’s article should lead one to the conclusion that he recommends altering the discipline of priestly celibacy. I believe, in fact, that the article indicates that that wouldn’t have a significant affect on vocations. It makes no recommendations towards that end. Given the survey conducted, as explained in the article, I do believe that the question regarding the discipline is legitimate. And, given that it is a discipline, and not a matter of ‘faith and morals’, questioning its status is, at base, legitimate. The prudence behind the policy is easily explained, I think - such questioning should, in fact, be welcomed and be responded to, by the well-formed, with joy. I am a UD Theology grad.
It seems that the obvious solution would be to move the new pastoral ministry program to the Theology Department, no?
Ahhhh, no! That is precisely the worst possible outcome. The Theology Department and the School of Ministry are two distinct academic entities at the University of Dallas, let me explain briefly.
The Theology Department was founded by Hungarian Cistercian monks, fleeing Communist oppression, who took a very serious approach to theology as a discipline, many of them becoming leading theologians on topics such as Christology and Biblical theology. Few of the Cistercian fathers remain in the department today (due to old age), but the department has remained a center for serious and faithful theological instruction. In short, it is a theology program run by theologians.
The School of Ministry is the “re-founded” version of the IRPS, which essentially moved to Ave Maria University as the Institute for Pastoral Theology (emphasis on their use of the term “theology”). See Tim Drake’s excellent article for the history of the IRPS and why the Board of Trustees were so eager to replace it with something more to their liking.
The School of Ministry has been described by proponents as “applied Theology.” Dean Schmisek has repeatedly emphasized that ministry is a distinct discipline from theology. However, it is very obvious that if one wants to apply theology to specific pastoral issues, one has to know theology in the first place. Therefore, one must question Schmisek’s motives to keep his Pastoral Ministry major separate from the UD undergraduate Theology program. The major’s (new) requirement to have some core courses taught by Theology faculty is nothing more than a concession by Schmisek to have some theological oversight over his faculty, about whom much has been written.
In sum, while the School of Ministry purports to keep strictly to ministerial studies, it indeed has its own theological views, views that are very different from the UD Department of Theology, which has traditionally been a cornerstone of UD’s Catholic identity (per Blessed J.H. Newman’s observation about what constitutes a real Catholic university). The idea that “well the two are just so similar why don’t we just combine them” would spell complete disaster for UD as a Catholic institution. An amalgamation of the generally heterodox School of Ministry with UD’s Theology department into one academic entity would be UD’s equivalent of Notre Dame’s Land O’ Lakes Conference, which effectively set ND on the path to secular stardom but also condemned it to the nihilistic abyss it finds itself in today.
If the Theology department falls to the heterodox, “big-tent Catholicism” mentality of the School of Ministry, UD would be fundamentally changed. That would be a storm she could not weather, like so many she has tackled in the past. UD would become another Notre Dame. May THAT disaster be averted.
Call me a proud Theology/humble non-English major - I should have used ‘effect’ instead of ‘affect’. Oh, well. . .
@LeRoy - Thanks for the explanation. I wasn’t suggesting a merger of the SOM and the Theology department. Rather, if the Board has determined that they want to offer an undergradute degree in Pastoral Ministry, why not have that be a course of study within the Theology Department, where the Theology department would set the curriculum and course work that meets the standards of orthodoxy that you refer to?
As a UD alum, graduating in 1988, I must say that this whole controversy seems familiar to me. One of the failings of the UD community is that it lacks a sense of proportion and can have a kind of intellectual and spiritual arrogance. Students and alums must realize that they are not in charge of this university, but rather that the Holy Spirit is in charge. Of course, the university is a human institution and, as such, is prone to corruption. However, it is also part of orthodoxy to trust the shepherds that God has appointed to lead us. As for Sister Barbara Reid’s giving a speech at the University—I must ask—are we unable to question? I do not believe in either a “gender-blind priesthood” or a married clergy, but it doesn’t threaten me or my faith or my orthodoxy to hear someone propose these things. In fact, as a student, I would have wanted to hear this perspective. I would have wanted to hear it in order to know how to counter it. Heresy must be labeled as such, but can we a priori prevent its being spoken? This seems futile and anti-intellectual to me. No hate mail, please! :-)
“Heresy must be labeled as such, but can we a priori prevent its being spoken?”
At a private Catholic university, is that even a question? Now if the speaker claimed to be Protestant, Lutheran, Baptist, Presbyterian, or any other heresy, then perhaps UD could get away with a heretical lecture (but showcasing heretics like circus animals at a staunchly Catholic undergraduate program doesn’t seem to me to be very prudent, and thus not very ecumenical). But Sister Barbara Reid? A Catholic nun? A woman who doesn’t have a clue that she is, in fact, speaking heresy?
As a Catholic student, I too would have wanted to learn about this perspective….in a theology textbook under the Chapter “Women Priests and other Modern Heresies.”
But this is a moot point. President Keefe, true to form, was outraged by the outrage and asked that the School of Ministry vet all speakers through him first before more outrageous things are spoken. Strangely, this indicident, and Keefe’s swift response, did not translate into a genuine sense of concern on the part of the University leadership, hence Dr. Fagan’s article and the events of March 2011.
Post a Comment
By submitting this form, you give The National Catholic Register permission to publish this comment. Comments will be published at our discretion, and may be edited for clarity and length. For best formatting, please limit your response to one paragraph and don't hit "enter" to force line breaks.