SOUTH BEND, Ind. — “Notre Dame is a place that is not clear about its mission and identity. There is a debate here as to whether it will be a Catholic university at its heart or just in a peripheral way.”
So says Notre Dame history professor Father Wilson Miscamble.
While Notre Dame has made headlines in recent years over salacious — and scandalous — controversies involving The Vagina Monologues on campus, honoring President Barack Obama, and, most recently, a now-former trustee who was generous in her support to abortion-advocacy organizations, daily Mass continues in single-sex dorms on campus. Meanwhile, many faithful professors lie low but provide solid anchors to the school’s mission in the midst of the cloud of confusion created by errant administrative choices.
At the heart of the battle for the soul of Our Lady’s university is The Fund to Protect Human Life, which this summer inaugurated its first Vita Institute, an intensive training program under the mantle of its Project Guadalupe. This initiative seeks to form pro-life leaders in various walks of life, including medicine, education, politics and family apostolates. But the future of the institute is in question, as worries increase that the administration will penalize its leader, philosophy professor David Solomon, for the distinctive witness he and others who support the fund provide on campus.
While the administration’s recent record signals a willingness to surrender to the culture of death, the fund is offering protection for life. For alumni like William Dotterweich, who provided seed funding in September 2008, the fund is an investment in the future and a campaign to right wrongs on campus and in society — as we approach the 39th anniversary of Roe v. Wade.
“The fund committee is independent and self-replacing,” Dotterweich explained, “so that the pursuit of the fund goals can be assured, regardless of a particular direction the university administration might take. This assures our donors that their money will be spent on defending the sanctity of life. Many alumni and friends of Notre Dame who have become disaffected with the administration … have found, in the fund, a vehicle whereby they can continue to financially support their beloved university.”
Established in September 2008, the fund relies on the university’s Center for Ethics and Culture, which Solomon also directs, for administrative support. Solomon has been given indications that his tenure at the center, though, will only continue through this academic year. That possibility leaves the center’s direction — and therefore the fund’s administrative home — in question.
Alumni who support the fund wish that Father Miscamble, who serves on the independent board of the fund, were president of the university. He could be: He’s a Holy Cross priest who, in 1976, began his career at Notre Dame as a history graduate student, and has been a permanent member of the faculty since 1988, serving as department chair and rector of the seminary adjacent to campus.
Father Miscamble spoke with Register correspondent Kathryn Jean Lopez about the state of Notre Dame. They spoke about what can be done to secure the pro-life direction of the center and the fund, which seeks to form leaders of the New Evangelization, helping to protect, defend and reconstitute Notre Dame as a golden-domed treasure of the Church.
Has Notre Dame moved beyond the scandal of Barack Obama being honored there?
It certainly has not. Notre Dame’s honoring of a president who is deeply committed to the terrible abortion regime which prevails in the United States today damaged its reputation and credibility as a Catholic university. It strained the university’s relationship with the institutional Church. You would recall that the president’s visit brought forth criticism of Notre Dame from over 80 bishops, from literally thousands of Notre Dame alumni, and from hundreds of thousands of committed Catholic folk who love Notre Dame and expected more from her. Notre Dame is still struggling to overcome the harm done. While it has undertaken some “damage limitation” measures, it certainly has not regained its previous treasured place in American Catholic life. Notre Dame’s reputation as a Catholic University is still in need of repair.
Is Notre Dame in anyway “unambiguously pro-life,” as the school’s president said it was at the time?
At the time of the Obama visit, there was little of substance for Father John Jenkins to point to in order to back up his claim that Notre Dame was “unambiguously pro-life.” In fact, Notre Dame, like many of the so-called leading Catholic universities, largely distanced herself from pro-life endeavors. Instead of being an institutional bastion of support and sustenance for the pro-life movement, it was more likely to seem embarrassed to be associated with the most important moral cause of our time. The pro-life efforts on campus were carried by the students in the Right to Life club and by a number of courageous faculty. Ironically, the Obama visit pushed the Notre Dame administration into a “damage limitation” mode and forced it to take some measures to give some real meaning to the claim that the university was “unambiguously pro-life.” We should be grateful for these measures, but should not overstate them. The main pro-life efforts on campus continue to be those pushed by the students and by those faculty associated with the Center for Ethics and Culture, some terrific folk in our law school and the Faculty for Life group.
If Notre Dame is truly going to be “unambiguously pro-life,” it needs to pursue a much stronger effort to support and sustain the pro-life cause. It should proudly be an institution dedicated to training a new generation of pro-life leaders. It must give strong institutional support to the efforts of Project Guadalupe. It should assure that her students leave more likely to be pro-life than when they enter, which is not the case presently. The institution should do something more to support pregnant students in need, such as is being done through the Room at the Inn organization associated with Belmont Abbey College. Surely, the university leadership should overcome its timidity and speak up forcefully for life in the public domain.
Why would anyone allow the Roxanna Martino mess to have happened? And it is adequately described as a “mess,” isn’t it?
Some of your readers may be unfamiliar with what you rightly describe as the “Roxanne Martino mess,” but the basic details are these: The fellows of Notre Dame recently elected to the board of trustees Roxanne Martino, a Chicago businesswoman and ND alumna who has given over $25,000 to the pro-abortion PAC Emily’s List. Ms. Martino also donated to a group largely dedicated to advancing abortion rights, the Illinois State Personal PAC. Clearly, there was a significant failure made in the vetting of Mrs. Martino. But instead of a quick and honest admission of the mistake and a request for her to stand down, Father Jenkins and the board chair, Mr. Richard Notebaert, sought to defend Mrs. Martino, claiming that she was simply unaware of the purposes of Emily’s List. That pathetic explanation could not withstand scrutiny, and, eventually, Mrs. Martino decided to stand down.
In some ways, this matter is more important than the Obama fiasco for what it means for the future of Notre Dame, for both Mr. Notebaert and Father Jenkins appeared willing to allow a significant donor to “pro-choice” organizations to hold a seat on the board which sets the policies and broad direction for the university. This “mess” has raised, for me, substantial questions about the suitability of Mr. Notebaert to lead the Notre Dame board. He emerged as the main defender of Mrs. Martino and seemed to supplant Father Jenkins in determining university policy on the matter. He appeared not to understand the damage that an appointment like this would do to Notre Dame’s standing as a Catholic university. He offered a quite misleading statement on the matter and has offered no apology for either his apparent dissembling or his failure to vet this appointment with appropriate diligence. He has yet to give an assurance that contributing in any way to explicitly “pro-choice” organizations is incompatible with service on the Notre Dame board of trustees. One hopes that a future meeting of the Notre Dame board of trustees will vote to provide this assurance.
There have been some terrific developments since President Obama was on campus. There is the impressive Fund to Protect Human Life, and you lead a chapter of University Faculty for Life. Notre Dame’s participation in the March for Life has increased. And from the administration, too: There is now an Office of Life Initiatives and an alumni office for the same, among other things. Are these just for show, or real steps in the right direction?
You are right to say that there have been some important developments on campus following the Obama visit. The ND administration’s measures have been steps in the right direction. A firm commitment has been made not to engage in embryonic stem-cell research. The Office of Life Initiatives and the Alumni Association’s life initiatives coordinator are doing valuable work. Father Jenkins joined a considerably larger faculty group in the March for Life in both 2010 and 2011.
Yet, while I commend these measures, it is clear that the major pro-life initiatives on campus still rest with groups that don’t have serious administration support, such as the Center for Ethics and Culture and the Notre Dame Fund to Protect Human Life, both of which are led by professor David Solomon. We will know the administration is really serious about supporting the pro-life effort at Notre Dame when they offer such initiatives full support. This is not the case at the moment. Quite the opposite. In fact, there is an effort afoot to force David Solomon from his directorship of the Center for Ethics and Culture — just as he is getting Project Guadalupe firmly established. This makes no sense for an institution supposedly committed to supporting the pro-life cause.
The future of Project Guadalupe is in jeopardy, isn’t it? How could that be, and how can there be a solution? Peace talks between the fund and the administration?
I am so glad you came to Notre Dame to see just part of our overall Project Guadalupe. You came to the very successful Notre Dame Vita Institute, which is an intensive two-week summer academic program dedicated to educating participants about fundamental human-life issues. The 25 initial participants were terrific, as you saw, and we trust that what they gained at the Vita Institute will aid them in their respective and important work. The Vita Institute is a key stage of the overall project, but it is linked to pro-life curriculum development and (we hope) an interdisciplinary master’s program.
These efforts aim to ensure that Notre Dame plays a crucial role in forming the next generation of pro-life leaders. This endeavor is off and running, and yet the administration seems determined to choke it in infancy by forcing out the person who has designed it and brought it into being — namely David Solomon.
You ask, “How can there be a solution?” The answer is rather simple. There is no need for “peace talks.” Instead, the administration should give this effort its enthusiastic support, including allowing the employment of appropriate staff. That is what an “unambiguously pro-life institution” should and must do. How the administration acts on this matter over the coming year will reveal much about the kind of institution Notre Dame is and plans to be.
Has David Solomon been the victim of retaliation? Can that be fixed?
David Solomon had the courage to speak in opposition to Notre Dame’s honoring of President Obama. This stance certainly seems to have led to recriminations against him. Already, one effort was made to oust him from his directorship of the Center for Ethics and Culture (CEC), but this was foiled because of fear of bad publicity for Notre Dame. But the administration seems determined to move him on without any concern for the damage that would do to the important work of the CEC. In doing so, the administration is removing the person whose great pro-life work was recently recognized by the national University Faculty for Life organization with its annual Smith Award. The administration seems to want to neuter the person who has been the leader of our pro-life efforts at Notre Dame. It is little short of a disgrace.
We need a firm statement from the administration that David Solomon will continue in his duties until all stages of Project Guadalupe are up and running. Notre Dame should be a place that appreciates and celebrates all that he has done and is doing.
Who are the ND 88, and what is their status? Did something go very wrong there?
The ND 88 are the pro-life demonstrators arrested at the time of the Obama fiasco and charged with criminal trespass. The group included priests and nuns, notables like Norma McCorvey (the “Roe” of Roe v. Wade), but mostly just ordinary folk. While in the past Notre Dame had not pressed to prosecute pro-gay and anti-military trespassers arrested in similar circumstances on campus, in this instance, the university refused to request that the prosecutions be dropped. It was a strange and mean action, and hardly that of an institution wanting to re-establish its pro-life credentials.
Fortunately, the ND 88 had excellent legal representation, and they indicated their intention to sue the university for discriminatory arrest. In this circumstance, Notre Dame prudently agreed to ask the prosecutor to dismiss the trespass charges, which he promptly did. This is something that should have been done at the outset, and a painful episode [would have been] avoided. That it wasn’t reflects very poorly on Notre Dame and on the judgment of those who guided the university’s decisions on this matter.
What’s wrong with Notre Dame?
Let me approach this question by saying that Notre Dame is a place that is not clear about its mission and identity. There is a debate here as to whether it will be a Catholic university at its heart or just in a peripheral way. That Notre Dame is not sure what foundational document will guide its present and future is the source of many of our problems.
For example, Mr. Notebaert seems to think that the Land O’Lakes Statement, with its strictures for complete institutional autonomy from the Church, should serve this role. This is a disastrous course, and one that pushes us further down the road to the marginalization of religion and, ultimately, to secularization. This is the course that asks us to ape and mirror the secular schools that lie ahead of us in the U.S. News and World Report rankings.
The alternate course is the one offered by John Paul II’s Ex Corde Ecclesiae and which is already incorporated into Notre Dame’s Mission Statement. Thus, our mission statement reads: “A Catholic university draws its basic inspiration from Jesus Christ as the source of wisdom and from the conviction that in him all things can be brought to their completion. As a Catholic university, Notre Dame wishes to contribute to this educational mission.”
The debate between these two versions is occurring right now. How this contest gets worked out in practice will determine the future of Notre Dame. Will we merely settle for a Catholic “gloss” on or around Notre Dame? This is what my colleague from the philosophy department, Fred Freddoso, referred to when he suggested Notre Dame might be “a public school in a Catholic neighborhood.” This would mean that the central academic project would not be guided by Catholic principles or by the call of Christ. That this sad prospect is even a possibility indicates the parlous circumstance in which Notre Dame finds itself. Regrettably, much of this is due to the deterioration in the Catholic composition of the faculty over the past decades.
Let me simply suggest that the fraying of its Catholic identity and the inability of the university to meet its declared objective of having a predominant number of committed Catholics on its faculty are the sources of many of our major problems.
Is “prestige over truth,” as Bishop John D’Arcy put it, a deep-rooted problem?
Bishop John D’Arcy, the great bishop emeritus of our diocese, who so loves Notre Dame, said it well when he noted that Notre Dame chose “prestige over truth” in inviting President Obama. It was embarrassing for an institution dedicated to the pursuit of truth to settle for temporary attention over eternal honor.
But the issue goes beyond the one case, as your question correctly implies. It ties into the desire of some to have Notre Dame conform fully to the reigning secular education model and to impress the supposed elite institutions of American higher education with our accomplishments.
Hence, there is an obsession with ratings, whatever their real meaning, and with image, whatever the substance. There is a wish to be recognized by bodies like the American Association of Universities and so forth, which supposedly will bring us “prestige.” It is a dangerously misguided path.
What’s right with Notre Dame?
Ah, this is a much more pleasant question to answer. There are many positive developments occurring at Notre Dame. Some good teaching occurs, and good scholarship is undertaken. There are some terrific faculty members — Catholic and non-Catholic alike, I must add — who are deeply committed to Notre Dame’s true mission, but we need more of them. We are home to some wonderful initiatives, like the Alliance for Catholic Education, which can truly benefit the Church and society.
We are fortunate to have fine students attend here, and most of them benefit from their time with us. We have loyal alumni and friends who want Notre Dame to be its best self. Notre Dame also still has the continuing involvement and commitment of its founding religious community, the Congregation of Holy Cross. This is crucial, whatever the order’s limitations in guiding the school in recent years. In a more general sense, the university has the notable resources of the rich, if somewhat neglected, Catholic intellectual tradition to draw upon.
In the end, there is surely enough ‘right’ that Notre Dame can recover from the fraying of its Catholic identity that I noted above. Sadly, not every major Catholic university can have that said of them, which, let me add, gives me no pleasure whatsoever. I want all major Catholic universities to work to restore their Catholic identities.
What do you love most about Notre Dame?
I will answer this in a personal way. I first arrived here to begin graduate studies in 1976. I studied for the priesthood here and was ordained here in Sacred Heart Basilica. I have been teaching here as a priest in Holy Cross for a quarter of a century. Occasionally, other possibilities have been put to me, but I can’t imagine teaching anywhere else. I love the place — not just what it is, but what it can be.
My blood, dare I say it, is in the bricks. I am very grateful that at Notre Dame I have had the opportunity to serve as a priest-teacher and scholar and to engage my students and to search with them for what really matters in life and beyond. I love saying Mass on campus, especially in the chapels of the residence halls. I love presiding at weddings of my former students and friends, both on campus and away from it. It’s a great place to be a priest. Of course, I love the beauty of the campus, although, increasingly, less so during the wintertime. I could go on — the basilica, the Lady on the Dome, the grotto, the crucifix in the Moreau Seminary Chapel. But enough — will anyone still be reading this?
You speak frankly about the identity of Notre Dame. Are you personally afraid of retaliation?
I’m not afraid of retaliation in any serious way. I get an occasional cold shoulder, but it is barely worth mentioning. Nonetheless, I regret to say that retaliation cannot be ruled out for faculty and staff at Notre Dame who raise their voices against the administration. One would be naive to do so, given the dismissal of Bill Kirk last year after his 20-plus years of devoted and exemplary service to Notre Dame. Additionally, this dismissal was carried out in a callous way (the “Here is a cardboard box. Please clean out your desk” technique). It had a chilling impact on the willingness of folks who labor without the benefit of tenure to make public their deeply held pro-life convictions and principles.
You’re a Holy Cross priest living at Notre Dame. Given your protests of some of what Father Jenkins has done as president, is it hard to live in community there?
I haven’t found it hard to live in community, but I was told my presence in the university community would make life difficult for others. But I am very fortunate to live in the Moreau Seminary community, where the priests, brothers and seminarians treat me as a true confrere, and I do my best to reciprocate.
What should alumni who love Notre Dame as a Catholic institution of higher learning and want it to truly be “unambiguously pro-life” be doing, saying and supporting?
This is a very important question. ND alums must stay involved with Notre Dame. I know some good folk get so disappointed with the school that they are tempted to break ties with it. This is a foolish course — and a recipe for defeat for all that is best about Notre Dame. Notre Dame alums must recognize the crucial issues involved and keep working and pressuring the university to adopt firmly the Ex Corde Ecclesiae model. One of the truly beneficial things to come out of the Obama visit, however, was that it revealed that dedicated alumni/alumnae would neither be cowed by the administration nor would they swallow the nonsensical “spin” about “dialogue” put out by Father Jenkins. Alums must continue to make their views know to the administration.
I especially encourage alums to keep informed about developments at Notre Dame by subscribing to the Sycamore Trust bulletins. Bill Dempsey and his colleagues at Sycamore have done a great job of promoting the Catholic character and mission of Notre Dame by providing a sustained and deeply thoughtful monitoring of events there.
Furthermore, alumni/alumnae should contribute financially to the university in areas that support its Catholic identity and its pro-life mission.
Is football too much of a priority at Notre Dame?
I am an Australian. I like sport, and I have grown to love Notre Dame football; although, I confess, I still have a deeper love for Rugby League. I was present at Notre Dame for the 1977 and 1988 National Championships, and I want to see us add to our list [of championships]. I have no time at all for those who would like to see us “follow the Ivy League” and “downgrade” football. This is nonsense and reflects a total lack of understanding of the important place of football in Notre Dame’s tradition. But we must be careful to do football right. We must have proper academic and personal standards for our players and ask our coaches to act with integrity. We have to resist some of the corporate temptations that so beset college sports, especially football.
Is Notre Dame important to the Catholic Church in America? Why?
Notre Dame can be important for the Catholic Church in America, but it assuredly won’t be if it simply conforms to the reigning secular-education model. There are already plenty of schools where intellect has managed to detach itself from morality. Who will care about Notre Dame if it is merely a Duke or Northwestern “wannabee”?
Notre Dame has to be a place that unabashedly pursues the truth in these challenging times. It has to be a place that offers not only intellectual, but also moral and spiritual, formation. It must distinguish itself by offering an education that aids its students (and faculty) to be not only smart but good. It should be a place where young men and women of our day can come and ask: “Teacher, what must I do to have eternal life?” and not be laughed at and dismissed. Notre Dame must strive to be “different,” because it is a place where faith and reason (to quote Blessed John Paul) “are like two wings on which the human spirit rise to the contemplation of the truth.”
If Notre Dame lives out this vision, it will surely play a part in the revitalization of the Church in the U.S. that is taking place right now. The university could truly serve the Church far beyond what it is doing.
Kathryn Jean Lopez is editor-at-large of National Review Online.
Tom McFeely: Bishop D’Arcy Challenges Notre Dame
Comments
Post a Comment
For further enlightenment on the structure and activities of The Notre Dame Fund to Protect Human Life, go to http://www.ndfundforlife.com .
One cannot be a Catholic University in a “peripheral” way because communion is not a matter of degree. One cannot be in communion and autonomous, simultaneously. Why not contact Father Hesburgh’s office and ask him to give his blessing on a new Land O’Lakes Statement that corrects this fundamental error, for the sake of Christ, His Church, Father Hesburgh, all who believe and all who will come to believe?
let us all pray for the healing of Notre Dame, Our Lady’s College in the United States, and pray that it will reunite itself with the Catholic Church in a more perfect union.
Outstanding piece. As a lately-not-so-proud ND alum, I would dearly love to see Father Miscamble lead Our Lady’s University. From my lips to God’s ears!
Fr. Miscamble’s statement about the importance of solid pro-life Catholics’ support of Notre Dame is one of the most critical statements in this article. There are many families in our parish who have chosen to send their children to Ave Maria or Stubenville instead of ND. As the mother of an upcoming 2012 ND graduate, I believe if more parents who have raised their children devoutly in the Catholic faith, choose with their children to attend Notre Dame, and support those children in their desire to remain staunchly Catholic, we can and will regain for Notre Dame the shining light of a leading Catholic educationl institution. Tackling the problem from the inside is ever so much more effective than from the outside. Students and their parents can make a huge difference
Friends:
Fr. Miscamble’s comments were refreshing and reassuring. For the bands of brothers and sisters throughout our country who uphold the fundamental principles of the natural law which made Western Civilization great, we humbly remind them to continue to pursue the cause of the unborn and the sacramental dignity of marriage. Macchabee was reminded that with “prayer and valor” his outnumbered forces would prevail. 2 Macchabees 15. And indeed his cause prevailed.
Aleksandr I. Solzhenitzyn in “Live Not by Lies” the Solzhenitsyn Reader pp. 556-560 answered the question"But what can we do about it We haven’t the Strength.”
His answer “Never support lies!”
You, we have the strength. Fight on, do not hesitate and engage those who would destroy the “truths” of our nation’s founding principles.
Respectfully
Ron Buttarazzi Sr.
What a wonderful article by one of Notre Dame’s very special people!!!
Pray that those in leadership roles at Our Lady’s University see the right way as we move forward.
Indeed, Notre Dame not only can play a vital role in the renaissance of Catholicism in America but should do so, for she has an obligation to lead.
Father Hesburgh said that Notre Dame is where the Church does its thinking, but this claim is no longer valid if it ever was; however, with a slight adjustment in attitude we could be the leading institution in America if not the world for a revival of the classics, Western thought and Catholicism.
Charlie Kenny
As a Catholic College professor, I can only say that I am praying that Notre Dame chooses to follow Blessed John Paul II’s beautiful document ExCorde Ecclesiae. To do otherwise would simply assure the college’s decline. For more information on ExCorde Ecclesiae, please see the book “New Hope for Catholic Higher Education; ExCorde Ecclesiae, A Lay Perspective.” I wrote it in an attempt to give support to faculty members at Catholic colleges who would like to implement ExCorde Ecclesiae into the life of their campuses! God Bless you! Dr. Suzanne Carpenter
Father Hesburgh famously said that Notre Dame is where the Church does its thinking. If this claim was once valid, it surely no longer is, but it can be again and should be, for this is Our Lady’s School’s destiny.
Steps need to be taken before Notre Dame can takes its natural place as the leading intellectual light of American Catholicism.
May our leaders be inspired to see the right way toward realizing the destiny of the University.
Charlie Kenny, Class of ‘63
As a parent with a couple of high school kids close to college age, I’ll never let them even consider going to that fake so-called catholic institution.
I graduated from Notre Dame in 1952 and have returned often to enjoy football weekends as well as to attend numerous Class Reunions. As I approach my 60th Class Reunion in 2012 I will especially look forward to visiting with Father “Bill” Miscamble and renewing the friendship my wife and I established during personal visits to his office in years past. It goes without saying that I am praying for his elevation to President of Our Lady’s University. Father Bill’s remarks regarding Mr.Notebaert should take root with the Board’s membership if one ever expects this secular-driven soul to be removed from his current position. I fear for the Catholic identity Notre Dame has lost since I graduated but I shall remain optimistic so long as Father Miscamble and Project Sycamore remain present to shine the light of truth on the Secular/Progressives that currently guide her fortunes. Pax, Charlie Schubert
As a middle-aged baby boomer who saw all nine of my siblings lose the Faith despite 12+ years of so-called “Catholic” schooling in the 1960’s and 1970’s, I have no patience for what has gone on these last 40+ years. The apostasy has to stop, and the first thing that should happen is to fire Fr. Jenkins, and all his compatriots across the entire unfaithful “higher” education world who have deliberately poisoned the minds of the children who have attended “Catholic” university in the aftermath of the infamous “Land O Lakes” agreement. That Fr. Jenkins should have been appointed to another term AFTER the outcry over Obama’s “honorary” degree-granting, and the arrest of the ND 88—this only means that the Board of ND is complicit and ought to have been summarily dismissed as well. Failing the legal authority to do so, the Bishop of Ft. Wayne, with the sanction of the Vatican, ought to have publicly excommunicated the whole bunch of them. We are talking about the irrevocable loss of souls who are being poisoned by agents of the devil—yes, including Fr. Jenkins. At the very least, Jenkins is a fool; at worst, he is a covert “agent” of the evil forces that have tried these last 4 decades to re-define “American Catholicism” into a version of Protestantism. Yes, I am angry. Where is the Church’s governance on these matters? Why does it take 4 decades++ to tip-toe around what is going on, as though a sort of meek charitable passive oversight would be enough for the renegades to “see the light” on their own and eventually “come around”? TRUE charity would have sacked Bishops and University Presidents decades ago. In the meantime, millions of Catholics have been deliberately poisoned by a kind of anti-catechesis, to the peril of their immortal souls. For those millions—my nine siblings among them—it is ALREADY too late. Where is the “compassion” for THEM? Time to get rid of the Jenkins-es of the world once and for all—and to tend to the flock of sheep who have been led to slaughter.
The fact that Fr. Jenkins, the Fellows, the members of the Congregation of the Holy Cross who elect the Fellows, and the Board of Trustees, are having a “debate” about the role of the Faith at Notre Dame sigifies that, for those people, the Faith has already “lost”. The Lord was clear when He said “Would that they were hot or cold, but because they are lukewarm, I will vomit them out of my mouth”, and again, “You are either for Me, or against Me”. Pope John Paul II was clear in “Ex Corde Ecclesiae”. By rejecting these clear commands in favor of accepting the validity of a “debate”, those debating have rejected the authority from whence the commands derive. For individuals, making an Act of Faith may be preceded by an agonizing search; but for priests and those in positions of authority in Catholic institutions, their choice was made when they accepted their authority. I suggest that, to remain in a position of authority, yet “debate” the source of the authority makes as much, or as little, sense as a public official who took an oath to support the Constitution “debating” whether to follow, or reject, it, or a person who ran for office as a member of a political party “debating” whether they were a member of that party. These people had a choice; they made the choice when the ran for, or accepted, their office. At its best, accepting positions of authority and its benefits, while debating the validity and authenticity of that authority, is hypocritical.
I am in Bishop Thomas Olmsted’s diocese-the Diocese of Phoenix. Bishop Olmsted spoke very loudly in his opposition to President Obama speaking at Notre Dame. When Governor Brewer of Arizona cut funding for transplant patients and also cut taxes for corporations, not a peep from this bishop. Other states have also cut services for the needy, for the least of these all the while they enrich the pockets of corporations and the rich. When Bishop Olmsted and the other bishops of the USCCB demand that the poor, the elderly, the mentally ill, and the disabled are protected, I will believe that they are unambiguously pro-life. The Catholic faith should not be Republican or Democratic, but should protest all injustice-all threats to life. All life, not just the unborn, is precious.
It would be fantastic if he becomes the next president of ND.
This priest doesn’t belong anywhere near the presidency of our dear University. But he’s entitled to his opinions.
Reality check: If ND had not invited-—or far worse, had UNinvited—-President Obama to speak, then it would have been seen as a worldwide laughingstock and a single-issue cultist backwater for generations.
And the sad issue of the resignation of a very capable female board member recalls the terrified Vatican when it committed intellectual suicide by purging all of the “modernist” thinkers from Catholic ranks at the turn of the 20th century (actions since lamented publicly by none other than Pope JPII.) History sure does repeat itself.
Discussion of issues is what any university is about, Catholic or otherwise, so that informed & educated & exposed students can ultimately make their own life decisions. Don’t be so afraid to open the doors wide!
harvey ‘79
What a splendid interview with Fr. Miscamble! Would that he would be Notre Dame’s next president. It is reassuring to know that Notre Dame is still a Catholic university though the challenges are many and constant (and often from within). His message that “...alums must stay involved…” is a call to action. Our family did indeed remove a bequest from our estate to the University in the wake of the Obama fiasco and only contribute now by earmarking our donations to the ND Student Right to Life Society. I urge all alumni and friends of Notre Dame to know where their money is going. In time we will prayefully reconsider our bequest (but it won’t be an unrestricted donation). It is only by emulating the Faith example of our Mother Mary in the words of the University’s motto from the prayer Hail, Holy Queen: “Vita, Dulcedo, Spes” (i.e. “Our Life, Our Sweetness and Our Hope.”) that the University of Notre Dame will truly be Our Lady’s University. She is our guide to her Son.
Until the current president is replaced, hopefully with someone who honors the magisterium, there will be no change. It can no longer be called a truly Catholic institution.
All who love Notre Dame and treasure the contributions it has made to the Church and to Catholics over the decades owe a large debt of thanks to Father Miscamble for writing, and to the NCR for printing, this courageous and honest interview. Our intensive examination at Sycamore Trust over the past six years of the radical deterioration of the Catholic identity of Notre Dame confirms all that Fr. Miscamble says and more. You can read all about it at http://www.sycamoretrust.org.
While Fr. Miscamble rightly takes note of the important elements of Catholic identity that remain at the University and that would provide the basis for a restoration of the school’s formerly robust Catholic character under determined leadership, the truly alarming fact is that those in governance refuse to acknowledge that the University is in crisis. The fact is—and surely they know it—that under the school’s own criteria Notre Dame is no longer a truly Catholic university. Notre Dame’s Mission Statement declares that its Catholic identity “depends upon” having a majority of committed Catholics on the faculty. Notre Dame no longer comes close, and as Fr. Miscamble says, much of what he describes is due to the “deterioration in the Catholic composition of the faculty over the past decades.”
Instead of some bracing measure of candor accompanied by a declared resolve to take remedial action, we see a torrent of fulsome declarations of Notre Dame’s Catholicity from the school’s formidable public relations machine and its representatives. The unfortunate fact is that you can fool some of the people all of the time and all the people some of the time. One wonders, for example, what parents past, present, and prospective would think of the recent study that disclosed that a class entering Notre Dame 31% pro-choice left it 42% pro-choice—almost exactly the same as the rest of the population. Notwithstanding this distressing finding, there is still no unit of study in the Church’s teaching on life issues required of students during their time at Notre Dame.
Still, with people like Fr. Miscamble and Dr. Solomon left on the faculty—and there are many others—surely hope remains.
Bill Dempsey
President
Sycamore Trust
And then there is the occasion when Abp Chaput addressed the pro-life group at Notre Dame but was ignored by the administration. One wonders about Fr. Jenkins: who does he think he is?
Excellent!
I am asked about ND & my comments point out its loss of Catholic
identity. This surprises most,but at least it points out & educates
those who appear shocked to know what has happened to ND over the
years.
God bless the faithful folks there who are trying to stem the tide against the culture of death.
My suggestion would be to get rid of Father Jenkins, purge the faculty of heretics, formally and publicly renounce the Land O’ Lakes statement, and publicly announce a plan and timetable to fully and faithfully implement Ex Corde Ecclesiae.
Until that time they should hang their heads in shame for having the audacity to wear the name of Our Lady.
For parents out there who have college age children (like me), there are plenty other genuinely Catholic universities out there. The Cardinal Newman Society does a great job of separating the lambs from the goats.
Fr. Bill Miscamble presents an articulate and compelling treatise on the sad situation at Our Lady’s University. Let us pray that he is able to convince his CSC brethren to recognize that, with proper leadership, Notre Dame can retrieve its once solid Catholic credentials.
What a tremendous interview. I was raised in Mishawaka, my father attended Notre Dame circa 1920. I love Notre Dame sports, but more than anything I would want Notre Dame to be a beacon as a Catholic University to the world. I’d give up every national football title for that distinction,to be a truly Catholic University.
John Kowalski
Let us Pray that the local Bishop, The Most Reverend Kevin C. Rhoades, as a good shepherd and leader of his flock, will work together with the administration of Notre Dame in order to ensure that Notre Dame remains authentically Catholic for the sake of Christ, His Church, Notre Dame, all who believe, and all who will come to believe in The Truth of Love, Our Lord and Savior, Jesus Christ.
I HAVE SENT THIS ARTICLE TO THE THREE GRADUATES OF ND FROM OUR FAMILY AND HAVE STRONGLY ENCOURAGED THEM TO THROW ALL THEIR PRAYERS AND SUPPORT BEHIND THE EFFORTS TO “SAVE NOTRE DAME’S SOUL”. IF YOU KNOW OF ANY FINANCIAL SUPPORTERS OR ALUMNI, FORWARD THIS ARTICLE AND PRAY GOD BLESS OUR EFFORTS TO SAVE NOTRE DAME’S SOUL…..ND COULD SET THE EXAMPLE FOR ALL THE CATHOLIC COLLEGES NATIONWIDE WHO HAVE SOLD THEIR OWN SOULS….....
Thank you for this interesting and, unfortunately too accurate, report on the current battle to renew Notre Dame’s Catholic identity. The secularists are still on offense, though they have taken some limited defensive measures of late in an attempt to appease those who are outraged by their policy direction. Undercutting David Solomon, who has done so much to build support within the university for life issues, is outrageous. Alumni and others who are concerned can show their support by contributions directed to the Ethics and Culture Center and the Fund to Protect Human Life.
The University of Notre Dame does not need Lopez or any one else to “save” its “soul.” The Lord Jesus has already done that. Having just been on campus for some continuing education in the business college, I can attest that the Catholic ethos on campus is vibrant. While a respectable argument can be made that a contemporary Catholic institution should keep a wary distance from all federal-level politicians, the fact that ND has a tradition of inviting sitting presidents can be understood in light of its history of battling 19th and early 20th century anti-Catholicism. The only “scandal” surrounding President Obama’s visit is that some Catholics, bishops included, are so eager to believe that President Obama is the “most pro-abortion president ever”—a serious charge without satisfactory proof—that they cannot understand ND’s history or the fact that they come off as Republican party tools and even end up looking racist by continuing to harp about President Obama’s to my Alma Mater.
Notre Dame and all our Catholic institutions of higher learning will continue down the sink-hole to indifferentism, liberalism, and modernism until someone stands up and finally acknowleges that the root of the problem is the Second Vatican Council and its heterodox teacings. These schools are only following the Church’s “lead”, since 1965{when the Council closed}, in diluting or outright abandoning the truths that have guided the faithful for two milenia. Universal salvation, evolving dogma, changing the Mass to more closely resemble the protestant supper service than a propitiary sacrifice, altar girls, Communion in the hand from “extraordinary Eucharistic ministers, the bishops complete cowardice in failing to discipline catholic politicians who cause public scandal, rampant perversity in the seminaries, “I’m okay your okay” theology instead of Baltimore Catechism, etc., etc.Does anyone truly believe that any of the pre-concilar popes would even recognize what passes for a Mass today, let alone condone what is taught in our schools and seminaries? The honest answer is obviously not. Why do we lionize John Paul II when much of this devastation occered on his watch. Why do we think Benedict XVI is a “conservative” when he was one of the pereti {experts} advising the Vatican II fathers. Until we see a wholesale return—starting with the Chair of Peter—to traditional Catholicism, do not expect our catholic schools to start acting as such.
FR. Miscamble is awesome. His candor, his straightforwardness, his love of truth and of Notre Dame are very impressive. I find Notre Dame to be a sad place, very sad. Miscamble lists the fantastic devotional opportunities at ND and I know they are used well by many there. But in a way they mask the pervasive secular attitude at ND: the marginalization of such fine faculty as Solomon and the treatment of the 88, I am afraid, is precisely what ND is all about and has been since the sixties when Hesburgh sold out to the Rockefellers. The place actually smacks of arrogance. I am pleased that Miscamble has received a special grace to tolerate the atmosphere and stick it out. I will pray like crazy that he is the next president.
I was surprised to see “David’s” remarks on Pres. Obama’s pro-abortion views. As the President has a 100% Naral approval rating and Obama’s senate voting record is public ie. he voted that children born alive during abortion should be left to die, the “most pro-abortion president ever” is an easy claim to make when looking at the history and voting record of our presidents. I also am wearied by the ongoing racial charges whenever one disagrees with the president’s views. I would be surprised if any alum did not see right through that statement…
If this wewre 1260, I doubt that Father Hesburgh would be one standing on the same side as Thomas Aquinas.
Notre Dame is a university. The wishes of Ms. Lopez and Father Miscamble notwithstanding, it it not a church or an outpost of the Fort Wayne archdiocese or a branch of the Vatican. Nor is it a merely a pitchman for Catholic doctrine.
As far back as I can remember, it has been a place that encouraged inquiry and nourished diverse points of view. While it is true that indoctrination has historically been a feature of Catholic education in grade schools, Notre Dame has always been a place that fostered the opening of its students’ minds and not the closing of them. It is a place that encourages the retention and development of strong values and generosity of spirit. But it has never acted as if hearing and examining opposing viewpoints or different perspectives threatens those values or that spirit. Instead, it has always acted on the belief that questioning and open inquiry strengthen, instead of weaken, the bedrock values and fundamental moral perspective of its students.
Notre Dame has rarely been afraid to examine concepts, including Catholic doctrine. Contrary to what Ms. Lopez would have us believe, Notre Dame is perfectly clear about its mission and its identity. It is a university that develops the minds of its students by encouraging them to think deeply and well. It is a place that values and stimulates inquiry. And it does those things with a Catholic perspective. It is just that Ms. Lopez and Father Miscamble want Notre Dame to change that mission and that identity. They apparently wish it were not a university that examines ideas but a center for the inculcation and advocacy of Catholic doctrine.
There are plenty of other places for that.
It is important not to draw the wrong conclusions from personnel decisions. For example, many orthodox Catholics connected with ND assume that if David Solomon is replaced as the head of the Center for Ethics and Culture, that decision would obviously reflect the administration’s distaste for his role in opposing the Obama debacle. But there are sound reasons for making such a change, including but not limited to a recognition that administrative tasks such as running a center are not necessarily best handled by expensive tenured faculty (who, because of those tasks, are not available to do the work of teaching and research that tenured faculty are supposed to be doing).
Notre Dame: Our Lady of Perpetual Suffering.
It’s time to kick the non-Catholics out. Starting at the top.
@Claremarie: When for political reasons, university administration wishes to remove a thorn in the side from
a position of authority, they can—and often do—pretend they are doing it for reasons of efficiency.
From a recent Alliance for Catholic Education graduate’s perspective, I can say Notre Dame is Catholic, alive, and vibrant. And it’s sad to see so many older alums out of touch with the pulse of the University. Why did 90% of ND’s 2009 graduates support Obama’s presence? Are they not Catholic? Are they misinformed? Has ND indoctrinated them with secular ideas? No. They’re fine- off changing the world for the better.
And to the woman who won’t “send” her kids to Notre Dame because it’s not Catholic enough: Notre Dame won’t indoctrinate your children in the Catholic faith. It will challenge them to a higher degree of learning and understanding of the Faith. The University doesn’t say “If you are opposed to gay marriage, you are a good Catholic.” You cannot bask in a cocoon of warm, feel-good Catholicism. You have to go out, volunteer, and have your faith challenged by the real world. Notre Dame sends its students out to the far reaches of the world where they encounter poverty, immigration issues, and despair. Untested faith is no faith at all. Go ahead and “send” your child elsewhere. He (or she) will truly miss out.
Of course as Clairemarie says there could be valid reasons for removing David Solomon or anyone else in any other position. An abstraction does not serve. Dr. Solomon founded the Center and it owes its vibrancy and success to his charismatic leadership. It is not only his objection to the honoring of Obama that has surely rankled the Administration. Far from it. He has been a long time courageously outspoken critic pf the secularization of the University, and the Center has been the sponsor of and inspiration for the sort of vibrant orthodox Catholic intellectual life that is so alien to the dominant ethos at Notre Dame.
Here is the type of kid Notre Dame is producing:
http://www.southbendtribune.com/sports/sbt-20110803sbtmichb-08-06-20110803,0,2630345.story
As one who has studied the University intensively for the past six years and has come to know many of the wonderful students there, I can certainly understand Mr. O’Brien’s feelings. However, the fact is that, unless they exercise care in the selection of professors or are very lucky, the students of recent years have no idea what a genuinely Catholic university and education are. Since by its own test of Catholic identity—a majority of committed Catholics on the faculty—Notre Dame fails badly, there really ought be no argument about its disqualification as a truly Catholic university. Of course many, I hope most, of the students benefit from their time there and the faith of many is strengthened. That’s because significant Catholic elements remain, but mainly outside the classroom. As long-time professor Alfred Freddoso put it, “Notre Dame is something like a public school in a Catholic neighborhood.” But even as to the Catholic neighborhood and influence, consider r the fact, for example, that the most recent survey showed that students enter ND 31% pro-choice and leave it 42% pro-choice and that there is an almost identical increase in approval of pre-marital sex. Social service is all well and good, but it does not mark a school as Catholic. Students at secular schools are just as active in social service as those at Notre Dame. Dedication to the pro-life cause, on the other hand, is a Catholic marker. While a good many students are dedicated to the cause—witness the courageous stand of a small band of students and faculty against the honoring of Obama, whose administration has just now unleashed another assault on freedom of conscience by requiring schools like Notre Dame to provide birth control and abortifacient insurance coverage—the student and faculty support of that action in flagrant violation of the policy of the United States bishops does indeed show a radical weakening of Catholic identity. When has any other school been condemned by 83 cardinals, archbishops and bishops?
Mr. Dempsey,
I understand what you are saying. However, the opposition to Mr. Obama speaking, in my humble opinion was largely political. Do you want to screen every person invited to speak at the University? Would you have reneged Gerry Adams’ invitation in 2004 to speak about the Northern Ireland Peace Process because of his ties to the I.R.A.?
Would you have revoked President Bush’s invitation because he supported an unjust war in Iraq, according to the Pope?
Would you have revoked Martin Sheen’s invitation to speak to the Alliance for Catholic Education volunteers in 2008 because he voted for Barack Obama? This, despite the fact he is committed to a culture of life and has ties to the Catholic Worker movement?
Would you have revoked Mr. Paul Farmer, the founder of Partners in Health, because he admitted in his autobiography to having premarital sex, a mortal sin in the eyes of the Church?
The answer is no, you likely would not. So is abortion our litmus test for speakers? What is our litmus test? If it’s abortion, just admit it and get this issue out of the way so we can say: YOU MUST BE PRO-LIFE TO SPEAK AT OUR UNIVERSITY.
As to the percentages of students who enter Notre Dame as pro-choice vs. leaving Notre Dame as pro-choice, I find that argument incredibly weak. You point to a causation between ND and students’ personal beliefs. I could easily say that it is society that made this percentage increase, not Notre Dame. In fact, I could even say that this percentage of pro-choice students would have been higher had it not been for Notre Dame. By your logic, both of my statements are 100% supportable.
“If this were 1260, I doubt that Father Hesburgh would be one standing on the same side as Thomas Aquinas.’
You’re right John, if it were 1260, Saint Thomas Aquinas would be standing on the side of Father Hesburgh.
I think that Father Hesburgh and the other signatores of the Land of the Lakes has less in common with St. Thomas than you think. In any case, he has brought in many, many people for whom theology is less the queen of the sciences and more an outdated myth.
It is unfortunate when orthodox, well-formed Catholics refuse to allow their children to consider Notre Dame. Notre Dame needs more, and not fewer, orthodox and well-formed students, for they are one of the strongest forces for maintaining Notre Dame’s Catholic identity. And parents who are concerned that their children will somehow lose their faith at Notre Dame evidently have little confidence in either their children or the faith they have received at home. Students who “lose their faith” at Notre Dame probably had very little faith formation to begin with, and would no doubt have drifted away even after four years at one of the “bubble” schools to which anxious Catholic parents are encouraged to send their children, once they encountered the skepticism and secularism of the workplace world.
It is also unfortunate when orthodox, well-formed Catholics assume that the Catholic identity of the University depends upon the presence of a particular (non-Catholic) faculty member at the helm of an academic center. It does not.
@Pat O’Brien: You say:Notre Dame won’t indoctrinate your children in the Catholic faith. It will challenge them to a higher degree of learning and understanding of the Faith.
And this “higher degree"of understanding of the faith entails an acceptance of unrestricted abortion and gay “marriage”? That is what you are implying.
@claremarie: Better then to send your kid to a state school where teachers do not stand beneath a crucifix and tell students half-truths.
This story demonstrates another problem that has bothered me for years. Why should my wife and I, and other orthodox Catholics, donate hard earned money to The Fund to Protect Human Life, Catholic Answers, The Thomas More Society and others that promote Catholic teaching, when our Catholic priests, bishops and schools should already be doing it as part of their mission at no additional cost? The thousands of dollars we have given to some of the above listed institutions could have been donated to Catholic Charities, The Saint Vincent dePaul Society or the local food bank to help the poor, homeless or unemployed. We give to these charities, too, but we could have donated much more if our Catholic leaders and schools were doing their job.
Patrick: You evidently misunderstand the objection. At all events you certainly mischaracterize it. The objection was not to Obama’s speaking at ND. We at Sycamore Trust (and the ND student protestors) were quite clear on that point. We would be happy to have any President speak at ND at any time on any subject he might choose. The objection was to conferring honors (by way of an honorary degree) upon a person who, in the words of the bishops’ unanimously adopted policy, “acted in defiance of [the Church’s] fundamental moral principles.” That was the basis for the lacerating criticism of ND by a host of cardinals, archbishops, and bishops. it is the reddest of herrings to frame the question in terms of some sort of litmus test as to who may speak at the University.
As to the falling away of ND students from the Church’s teaching on abortion, pre-marital sex and the like, you are right that there is no way to be sure of a causal connection. It is certainly suggestive that broad studies by the respected Higher Education Research Institute (which conducted the ND study) show quite the contrary trends at strongly religious evangelical institutions. But the issue at hand is the Catholic identity of Notre Dame, and when these data are known and the university does not restore Moral Theology as a required course nor even include a unit on life issues in any required course, I suggest it does not act as would a truly Catholic institution.
And I return always to the decisive consideration, about which neither you nor other defenders of ND have had anything to say. All must acknowledge that the university is no longer a Catholic institution of learning because the school itself tells us so. That is, Catholic faculty representation has fallen so dramatically and so low as not to come close to meeting the Mission Statement requirement of a majority of committed Catholics.
I should add my congratulations and best wishes for your participation in the ACE program, one of the most admirable at the school.
Claremarie: Where did you ever get the idea that any commentator has “assum[ed] that the Catholic identity of the University depends upon the presence of a particular (non-Catholic faculty member of an academic center”?
No one has remotely made such a suggestion. Certainly Dr. Solomon and his associates at the Center have made major contributions to the Catholic intellectual tradition at Notre Dame, and accordingly the prospect of his loss and a most uncertain future for the Center is cause for deep concern. But it is the dark implication of the ouster of this courageous critic of the secularizing of the University and most prominent leader of the pro-life forces over many years that is truly alarming in terms of the seriousness and depth of the Administration’s commitment to the pro-life cause and the school’s Catholic identity.
Now, you do not say what the Catholic identity of the University does depend upon. As I have said earlier, the University does tell us, and what it tells us shows that Notre Dame is no longer a truly Catholic university That is, Catholic faculty representation has fallen so dramatically and so low as not to come close to meeting the Mission Statement requirement of a majority of committed Catholics. I invite your comment
I might note that, while I am uncertain just what you mean to imply by noting that Dr. Solomon is not Catholic, this is an important consideration because it shows that non-Catholic faculty members firmly anchored in their faith and learned in and sympathetic to the Church’s intellectual tradition and sharing its perspective make major contributions to the school’s mission. That is why we at Sycamore Trust fully embrace the school’s Mission Statement’s (unmet) requirement of a majority of Catholics on the faculty—no less, but no more either.
I do fully agree that it is a shame that so many Catholic parents will no longer consider Notre Dame for their children, but my experience over six years of intensive study of the university persuades me that, contrary to your assumption, these are not parents “who have little confidence in either their children or the faith they have received at home.” Quite the contrary. These are generally the most devoted parents and their children are just the sort of vibrantly Catholic young people that ND badly needs. These parents treasure the faith so much that they want for their children a fully Catholic education, and they are quite right in believing that there is no assurance at all that they will get that education at ND. Indeed, the odds are against it. As Prof Alfred Freddoso said at a panel I moderated at the university a year ago, in his view a student at ND now has no better chance of emerging with his or her faith strengthened and his mind enriched than students at a secular university with a good Newman Center. His expressed fear is that in the future the ND student will be worse off.
My advice, nonetheless, is always to send children to ND if the parents are confident that they will exercise discretion in selection of professors and courses and friends, for the remaining corps of Catholic faculty are splendid and a student can still secure the best Catholic education available anywhere. It is the average Catholic student—a good boy or girl who practices his or her faith but for whom it is not a driving force foremost in heart and mind—who is no longer likely to secure a truly Catholic education and who is at risk.
Notre Dame has been riding solely on reputation for probably a couple of decades now. The theology and Bible graduates that I meet clearly have received an insufficient education—which is sad for them. At least they didn’t pay for it.
I don’t see why Bishop John D’Arcy is “the great bishop”. He did virtually nothing concrete to correct this travesty of an institution.
Dave N.- A word on behalf of Bishop D’Arcy, whom I do regard with Fr. Miscamble as a great bishop. A bishop’s authority with respect to a university not under diocesan control is severely circumscribed. Bishop D’Arcy did a good deal more than almost all other bishops with straying Catholic institutions in their territory. His compelling and repeated denunciations of the University because of The Vagina Monologues and the Queer Film Festival were widely publicized, as was of course his indictment of the University over the honoring of President Obama. His unexpected appearance and exhortation at the rally and Mass on the ND quad in protest of the honoring of Obama was a special inspiration in an extraordinarily inspiring student-sponsored event. And there is much more than was not publicized. His only real weapon would have been to order the removal of Notre Dame from the directory of Catholic colleges and universities, but this is a nuclear option that could scarcely be used with reason against Notre Dame when places like Georgetown and Boston College and host of other schools much less Catholic than Notre Dame are left alone. I repeat, with respect, Bishop D’Arcy is in fact a great bishop. And I am happy to say that he has a worthy successor in Bishop Rhoades.
I am wondering if the failure to hire more Catholic faculty might not be because relatively few scholars of repute are practicing Catholics. That might because in the secular academy there is a deep prejudice against Catholicism, which limits the opportunity of Catholics to advance in any field. Two men are up for a “chair” at a secular school, one who shares the secularism of most academics; the other, a Catholic or an evangelical Christian. Since like prefers like, more often then not the secular-minded applicant gets the job. So Catholics are left in the position that blacks and Jews and women once were: to get a job they must be much better qualified than the other applicants. So now Notre Dame goes looking, and it looks for “recommendated"schools. It finds—as I said at the start—a fairly small pool of Catholics with good recommendations.
John,
There are plenty of serious Catholics in the academic world, and Notre Dame has been successful at attracting a growing number of them, especially since Fr. Jenkins became President. But some departments and colleges have had (much) better success than others, for the simple reason that they have made finding and attracting top Catholic scholars a priority. Other departments have had limited or no success because, for a variety of reasons, they are not willing to make those efforts. Unfortunately, there is still a substantial segment of the faculty that is actively hostile to the university’s Catholic mission. This group is gradually fading away as their members age and retire, but they are influential in the Faculty Senate and in a number of departments. Ironically, as these same faculty members insist that the University do a better job at recruiting women and minorities, they remain convinced that similar recruiting efforts aimed at Catholics would somehow compromise the University’s academic excellence.
The truth is that several of the University’s most prominent recent senior hires were lured away from more prestigious institutions and departments BECAUSE of the University’s Catholic mission and not in spite of it. There is a lot of good news on the faculty hiring front, but because of recalcitrance among some entrenched interests, it’s been very uneven.
John: Catholics are in fact underrepresented in the country’s major doctoral programs, but since ND is the premier Catholic university in the country it would have no difficulty in securing enough highly qualified scholars to meet its Mission Statement requirement if the school went to it with a will and if the Administration were willing to tussle with a recalcitrant faculty. It would take a long time, for the shortfall is large. I doubt anyone would put the proportion of committed Catholics as high as 40%, and in any case it is far short of the specified majority—a majority that the school declares is essential to its Catholic identity. But it could be done.
Clairemarie correctly describes the problem here: a large number of recalcitrants on the faculty. But the magnitude of the problem is perhaps not evident from her description. Consider the policy adopted by the Senate Faculty after a survey of the faculty: “The university should not compromise its academic aspirations in its efforts to maintain its Catholic identity.” A 2001 faculty survey showed the same preference by a faculty majority. The law school has for a long time made a determined and successful effort to secure Catholic scholars and the business school under the now departed Carolyn Woo has not been far behind. I would be very surprised to learn of any Arts and Letters department that has done anything comparable.
In any case, the future is not promising, not because there are not enough Catholic scholars, but because the Administration has set a hiring goal that is a death sentence to Catholic identity. The goal is to hire 50% Catholics a year. With the school’s demographics, our projections show a gradual shrinking of the Catholic presence to less than 40%, from which obviously it would never recover. And even without that consideration, a faculty of 50% check-the-box Catholics wouldn’t come close to a faculty in which committed Catholics predominate. Everyone at ND knows that a large portion of the current check-the-box Catholics are merely nominally Catholic and others are dissidents.
One can hope that hiring will be much better than this, as it has in fact been in the past several years. But so has it been during periods of the past; and there is no reason whatever to think that this faculty will not over time repair to all that is asked of them.
The short if it is that Fr. Jenkins and the rest of those in governance had made clear that they’ll be satisfied with a faculty with a nominal 50% representation. As the Mission Statement says, that means a university that will be even a tad weaker in Catholic identity than it is today.
Bill Dempsey, President, Sycamore Trust (http://www.sycamoreytrust.org)
This is a great article and the subsequent discussion has been very interesting. It seems to me that at some point Dr. Solomon should consider bringing his enormous intellect, enthusiasm, and wonderful programs to a university where he would be welcome with open arms. Somewhere that would allow him to focus on expanding his programs instead of watching his back..might I suggest the University of Dallas? As a UD alum, I can say we’d love to have him!
@Bill: Well, that is good news. The irony is that Asians, Catholics are “in the minority,” but unlike minorities favored by liberals, they don’t benefit from affirmative action. So no one at a secularcollege looks at the faculty and decides that it is “unfair” that one-fourth of the faculty is not “Roman.” or one-third “evangelical.” and hires some second-rates who fit the description. Incidentally, there is a terrific math teacher at Williams who is Christian and also South Asian. Wish I could recall his name now. Don’t know what his theology is , exactly, but I would hire him on the spot.
“I would be very surprised to learn of any Arts and Letters department that has done anything comparable.”
The Department of Economics is one.
Domer: That is good to hear. And of course the Theology Department is another—a department that was substantially re-formed under the inspired leadership of John Cavadini during his 11-year tenure. On the other hand, I doubt there are more than five Catholics under the age of 50 in the large Philosophy Department, which the late storied scholar and professor Ralph McInerny described in unflattering—to put it conservatively—terms in his engaging autobiography. He told of the professor who thought it his moral duty to disabuse his students of their belief in God. Indeed, until four years ago or so the required introductory course, including its unit on the existence of God, was taught by a professor who proudly proclaimed his atheism.
One can and should say that there are many wonderful things that go on at Notre Dame, that it is probably the most Catholic of the major Catholic universities save for Catholic University, that among the 80-plus percent Catholic student body there are many whose faith is robust and who contribute importantly to the school’s Catholic “feel”; that there are splendid Catholic programs such as ACE and institutes such the Center for Ethics and Culture and the institute for Church life, and more.
What one cannot say is that Notre Dame is a truly Catholic university. The University itself tells us so by virtue of its own test of Catholic identity—a majority of committed Catholics on the facuty. (A test that mirrors that of Pope John Paul III’s Ex Corde Ecclesiae as well as that of the United States bishops in their implementation document—a majority who “testify to the faith.”)
It is a fraud on the public—on prospective donors, parents, students—for the school to proclaim that it is Catholic when on its own terms it is not. It is time for it to lapse into the “Catholic” or “Holy Cross” “tradition” formula , at least until it frankly confronts the truth and adopts a hiring policy designed to restore its Catholic identity instead of one that will over time make restoration impossible.
Although I pray for stronger Catholic leadership at ND I believe that if a child has a strong Catholic background and wants to continue to grow in that faith in college they can still tap into that at ND and in the process learn to stand up for their faith. My daughter, a 2009 graduate, found what she was looking for from a Catholic perspective… the retreats, the pro-life groups, mass in the dorm, praying at the Grotto, etc. She also learned to live with real world issues and conflicts but still had the support of her Catholic friends. Weeks leading up to graduation was no picnic…the invited speaker for the graduation was Pres. Obama. Students were divided and it was as though there was a black cloud over the entire campus. Some of her friends decided not to attend the graduation ceremony which was very sad. She was learning that life wasn’t a fairy tale and that you have to be strong in your faith to deal with it. She decided not to let this person ruin HER graudation day and went to her ceremony showing great courage not to stand and applaud when the speaker spoke while others hailed their god! Good things come from bad and I believe she is a stronger Catholic Christian today because of her education at ND. ND NEEDS students like her to keep the faith alive there. If we keep people of strong Catholic faith from attending, then ND is really in trouble. If parents who have done their job and brought their children up as Catholics and believe this is the school that their children should go to, then send them. ND can make strong leaders out them. Besides Our Blessed Lady watching over the school there are many good people there like Fr. Miscamble and they can teach your children some wonderful values. And one more thing… I can’t over emphasize the power of prayer for our children, the people that surround them and for ND!
William,
The Philosophy Department is indeed large, not because of the large number of majors (the numbers are most likely decreasing each year), but because Notre Dame students are required to take courses in that department. I know of one solid recent senior hire (still under 50!), but there won’t be many more hires of any kind until some of the senior folks retire, which most seem loathe to do. That is another reason that it will take some time before the Catholic hiring numbers improve—some departments simply don’t have any open slots to fill.
In matters of educational politics I tend to be a tad Leninist i.e. destruction is necessary for growth. Perhaps too much energy and talent is being devoted to saving a fatally corrupted institution. Absent a true spiritual and educational mission Notre Dame is collection of heraldic religious symbols and a football team. All that is truly Catholic there could distributed elsewhere where it could operate unimpeded. The fact is that there are already a swarm of newer but genuinely Catholic schools with real educational missions but they all live in the shadow of such “Catholic” institutions as Boston College, Notre Dame, Georgetown and the rest. How many devoted Catholic parents are deluded each year into sending their sons and daughters to Notre Dame because of it’s superior “prestige” instead of Saint Thomas Aquinas, St. Thomas More, Ave Maria and newer places opening up every year?
The debacle of the Obama invitation surprised a lot of people, and reduced the appeal of the school to parents who want to pass on their faith to the children. Those remain in the minority, I fear, unless the pressure on the school to “shape up” continues. It will not, however, unless the bishops who were silent on the matter are displaced by men of faith. It may take our own Julian to break the hold that these semi-arians have on the American Churc h.
These newer Catholic schools have a different mission. None of them has the resources to become a top 20 or even top 100 university. They serve a niche market—committed Catholics (many who are the products of homeschooling) who are satisfied with a handful of majors in the humanities, professors who lack the credentials to teach at a major university, extremely restrictive living conditions, and bare-bones campus amenities. Most of these schools are smaller than a medium-sized public high school. They have neither the capacity nor the desire to attract more than a handful of the thousands of Catholic high school graduates who seek a college degree.
Alumni Mom—An excellent contribution. As I have said before, a young person firmly anchored in his or her faith who exercises care in course/professor selection and student associations can benefit enormously from four years at ND. Our concern at Sycamore is, rather, with the great majority of students who don’t fit this description. Because of the radical erosion of Catholic faculty representation, for them the place is a crap shoot. As Dr. Walter Nicgorski, one of the University’s longest-serving and most respected professors said at one of our Sycamore Trust panel discussions, because of that shrinking of the Catholic faculty presence:
“So it is increasingly the case today that a young person going through the critical and questioning formative years of an education at Notre Dame might not encounter a practicing Catholic informed and engaged by the Catholic intellectual tradition, that curricular decisions and other decisions, including counseling decisions, will not be notably impacted by a Catholic perspective. One might say that beneath the large symbols of the University as a Catholic institution, there is reason for concern that the day-to-day struggles for learning and intellectual and professional development are not notably impacted by the Catholic tradition.”
I agree wholeheartedly that “Notre Dame NEEDS students [like your daughter] to keep faith alive there,” but I certainly cannot fault parents who would rather not take the risk. I hear from and about them all the time. They are many and their number is growing. it is lamentable, but what has been sown for decades is producing its poisonous product.
There has been much said about the decline in the proportion of committed Catholics in the makeup of the Notre Dame faculty.
I have long felt that “stated Catholicism” is of little value in building the type of faculty we would like to see. After all, only a third of “declared Catholics” attend Mass weekly. This fraction is probably less among largely liberal swaths of academics.
A far more effective screen in evaluating prospective professors who will conduct themselves in comport with Catholic values would be to get an assurance from them that they are unequivocally committed to the sanctity of human life, and that they are willing to back up this commitment with a clear statement of their opposition to abortion.
If this standard were adopted, the faculty problems would clear up in short order. I would rather see my children influenced by a pro-life Lutheran than a pro-choice Catholic.
Domer—Yes, that recent hire is terrific and much to be applauded. And yes, under best of circumstances—with leadership willing to set and insist on meeting a hiring goal designed to produce once again a majority of committed Catholics on the faculty—it would take many years to achieve that goal, not only in the Philosophy Department but throughout the University (except, as I have said, for the Law School and the Business School, which do not need reform. One hopes that the departure of Carolyn Woo from the Business School will not bring a change from her fine leadership.) The problem, as I have said, is that the school does not have that leadership, but rather an Administration that aims only at maintaining a nominal Catholic head count over 50%. That will of course produce some fine appointments, but not nearly enough. As it has in the past.
To be or not to be… Are we or aren’t we? A truly Catholic –universal—university has to be truly Catholic in its faith and universal in its teachings. When it comes to dogma, there is no other way to it. That’s it. You either are or you aren’t. Period.
Back in the fifties, when I spent the very best four years of my life at that very special place in Northern Indiana, we were able to discuss everything, the pros and cons, and were able to learn what our Church had to say on the subject. We came out much better Catholics than when we entered.
Today, the situation seems to be a very sad one, and that’s very very bad. I rejoice at the vertical and brave position taken by Fr. Miscamble and Professor Solomon, as well as many others, I’m sure.
I pray to God and Our Lady –Notre Dame—so that we can soon again proudly call Notre Dame Our Lady’s university.
Shape up Notre Dame, God is giving us a taste what Sheol will be like (hot weather)
ND’56,
Back in the fifties, could you not enter nearly ANY Catholic institution—parish, elementary school, college, university, seminary—and come out a better Catholic? To a great extent, Notre Dame during that period simply reflected the larger Catholic culture, in which the notion that those who reject Catholic teaching should be running a Catholic school, parish, or diocese was unthinkable. Sadly, many of those who were formed in the 1950’s were responsible for the wholesale destruction of orthodox Catholicism during the post-Vatican II period. These were the folks who decided that our CCD classes should spend time making burlap and felt “Peace” banners instead of learning the catechism, that seminaries should admit openly gay men, that nuns should shed their habits and agitate for ordination, that collarless priests should be agents for social change, and that a Catholic university should be independent of the Church. Folks like Fr. Hesburgh, whose vision for Notre Dame didn’t seem to include orthodoxy in Catholic doctrine. If the situation today is sad, those seeds were planted long ago and the roots go very deep. It should not be surprising that it will take some time to eradicate all of the weeds.
ND Activist,
Of course you are right that a mere self-declaration that one is Catholic is no assurance whatever that one is a practicing Catholic firmly committed to the fundamental teachings of the Church, including but not limited to abortion, much less that one has been trained in the Catholic intellectual tradition. The difficulty at Notre Dame is that the sort of probing inquiry that is possible during the hiring process at, say, Thomas Aquinas or Steubenville is simply out of the question for the most part at Notre Dame. (The Law School, once again, is probably an honorable exception.) Resistance in the faculty would be too strong. (I agree also respecting the valuable contribution of faithful and practicing non-Catholics committed to a common tradition.) The only feasible approach, accordingly, is to provide for a margin in setting the hiring goal to account for the probable proportion of nominal and dissident Catholics (together with as much in the way of probing as committed Catholic faculty can get away with). Whether 65% or 70% or 75% is adequate is a matter of experimentation and the makeup of a particular faculty at a particular time. Those in governance and on the faculty will know perfectly well when genuinely Catholic faculty truly “predominate” as the school’s Mission Statement requires.
Bill- Faithfulness among humans beings as it is, sixty or more percent of the faculty should be Catholic, to allow for the many luke-warm and dissident Catholics that will get accepted because of their scholarship. Evangelical Christians not hostile to the Church should be welcome in an age when the pope is saying nice things about Luther. My guess is that in an historical roundtable in which the issues of our age were being discussed, that John Eck and Martin Luther would be standing back to back, so to speak, in the battle and be celebrating each night with several rounds of beer.
Mr. William Dempsey, after reading through some of the comments on the very informative interview of Fr. Miscamble, I would suggest that you be considered for the presidency of Notre Dame. It was inspiring to watch how you led a few challenging and perhaps antagonistic commenters to the truth by your calm, clear logic, all the while with a kind tone. Also, I agree with you about Bishop D’Arcy. He is a humble and holy priest, who worked very hard to shepherd his flock, including Fr. Jenkins. In weighing the options available to him, I think the last thing he would want to do is close a door.
Most of this is true, but none of it addresses the source of the problem. According to Charles Rice in “What Happened to Notre Dame?”, the cause of all these problems is the 1967 Land O’ Lakes Statement, “The Nature of the Contemporary University”, in which 26 presidents of Catholic universities and colleges declared their independence from the Magisterium and local Bishops. I assume familiarity with that Statement and Prof. Rice’s conclusions.
What is less well known is the assessment of the Jesuit theologian, philosopher and exorcist Vincent Miceli. In 1981, Fr. Miceli wrote “The Antichrist”. According to Fr. Miceli, the participants in Land O’ Lakes “became antichrists, dividing the Church, dividing Christ by introducing rebellion and revolution within Catholic institutions of learning and within religious orders and congregations.” “The Antichrist”, p. 165. Of course, in the post Vatican II era notions of evil had become inconvenient and unfashionable; and in 1981 the American Catholic Bishops were only concerned about waging war against the Reagan Administration.
Simply put, the hiring of more Catholic faculty hardly will redress the problem.
My goodness, Mary, what a very nice thing to say. I fear undeserved, but gratefully received nonetheless. And I am pretty sure that, even were I a priest, I would not be thought by the Board of Trustees to be among the top candidates for the job. They have one among their ranks, Fr. Miscamble, who would be an ornament to the school and to the Church if president. But he is not. Let us pray.
I suggest you go to our Sycamore Trust website, http://www.sycamoretrust.org and i,f you like what you see that you join our mailing list and also, if you have a mind, add you name to our petition. It simply urges Fr. Jenkins to restore a preponderance of Catholics to the faculty and never again permit the Vagina Monologues to be performed by students on campus. Thanks again, Bill
John - I think you are exactly right, both as to a needed “cushion” of 60% or more (I think somewhat more) and as to the desirability of a representation of Christians of other denominations (I would not restrict it to evangelicals though they might well predominate) committed to their own faiths and to basic teachings they share with the Church. There are a number like that now at Notre Dame and have been for some time. A notable recent addition to the faculty is Mark Noll, one of the most respected historians of Christianity in the country. And of course David Solomon is an outstanding example. It is not that the faculty should be all Catholic, but rather than a majority should be and all others should understand and respect the Catholic mission of the school and if possible fully participate in it.
@Ed: Interrestingly, I have seen no mention of Father Hesbergh’s role in all this. Assuming you are right, he should burnt on the 5o-yard line in the football stadium. I am only half kidding.
At the end of the Day, being Catholic is not a matter of degree. If one is to consider what has contributed to the disorientation in Christ’s Church, it is important to also note the nature of the Mandatum (#3) , which appears to be merely an example of doublespeak because the Mandatum is not actually a mandatum to begin with.
http://www.usccb.org/bishops/mandatumguidelines.shtml
As someone who loves Notre Dame and has great respect for Father Miscamble, Mr.Solomon, Mr.Dempsey, Charles Rice, Father Jenkins and Mr. Notebaert, I believe that Notre Dame has the potential to be an incredible beacon of light in the days ahead, as long as she remains grounded in the Truth. Notre Dame, Our Mother, Pray for us.
It seems to me that some of the people on this blog who are in favor of It is so disheartening that ND is slipping in the direction of so many Catholics. Does one have to have a major campus production of the Vagina Monologues in order to discuss the pros and cons or have a Queer film festival in order to discuss its point of view? Don’t tell us that it is just done in the interest of intellectual development. Ask the presenters and you will find a different answer. Students at that age are impressionalbe and see this as approval of the content. ND’s secular tendencies have not done their research, David, for example, takes umbrage that Obama would be accused of being the most pro-abortion president. Obama does not have a 100% NARAL approval rating for nothing. What you see is regularly is domestic policy and if that is not bad enough all one need do is look further at his foreign policies such as recinding the Mexico City policy and forcing of pro-abortion policies on world governments through Hilary Clinton and the UN. Clair says the bishops did not speak out against Gov. Brewer in AZ but the funds she cut were increases in funding not the actual funding. One can respectfully disagree on these policies while life is non-negotiable.
Thank you, one & all, for your love of ND & Catholic ED! Mother Mary pray for us now & as we progress ahead. May the heat at ND help to"restore all things in Christ”
John—Your question about Fr. Hesburgh’s role is certainly a good one. I suppose one reason no one has mentioned it is that Fr. Miscamble focuses on the problem as it exists and does not reach back to assign responsibility. That is a formidable task that, when undertaken, produces a good deal of controversy and even rancor. Fr. Hesburgh, after all, is an iconic figure who has had perhaps more impact on a university than anyone else in modern higher education in this country. It can certainly be said that he was a principal sponsor of the LandO’Lakes Statement and of the movement toward severing governance of universities and colleges from the Church and religious Orders and of the drive toward increasing the prestige of Notre Dame in secular academe, a drive that resulted in radically diminishing the Catholic presence on the faculty. At this price, Notre Dame’s academic ranking rose significantly. Whether had he remained in office he would have checked the forces of secularization before they reached today’s stage at which the University no longer meets its own test of Catholic identity is, of course, an open question.
Fr. Hesburgh’s autobiography is an excellent source for the LoLakes meeting and sheds light on his motivation.
Charlie Kenny
In 1974, Pope Paul VI bemoaned the “smoke of Satan seeping into the Church of God through the cracks in the walls” of the faithful. This, of course, was the bequest of Vatican II. I suppose the literal text of Vatican II documents would not be so bad had they not been interpreted by enemies of the Roman Church in ways intended to injure the Church. But, that had to happen, because that is the nature of such things. Indeed, this is a story as old as man. Eating the apple itself did not cause the horrors committed be men over the centuries; the Fall and its consequences were caused because the fruit was forbidden and eating caused a breach with God. Once breached, all the sins and wrongs that followed were inevitable. So it is with Land O’ Lakes. According to Prof. Rice in “What Happened to Notre Dame?”, “Notre Dame’s honoring of President Obama was a predictable result of the change of course that Catholic universities made at Land O’ Lakes.” I suggest honoring Obama was the inexorable result. Rice explains “[t]he problems with Land O’ Lakes ‘autonomy’ arise from its lack of context and its potential to be used as a license for actions contrary to the nature of a Catholic university.” “What Happened to Notre Dame”, at 49. And so, over the next 40 years, sometimes in imperceptible ways, the nature of Notre Dame was altered in exchange for academic excellence. And now, there is mass unhappiness. There should, however, be no shock or surprise.
@elcer, I respectfully disagree. I live in AZ. Governor Brewer did not say no to increases in funding for transplants, she cut funding for translants and cut taxes to corporations. And Bishop Olmsted said NADA (nothing). You bring up an interesting point though, are you saying that if it was an increase in funding, then a life is not important? I thought being prolife was from conception to natural death. Your comment makes it sound like life is important as long as it doesn’t cost us any money. That’s not my definition of being for all life.
Bill_ I just finished reading Stanley Hauerwas’s memoir. he is a very opinionated guy like many of us Texans, and from his mother—he admmits—never learned to shut up. Anyway, he left Notre Dame because he hated Richard McBrien who became head of the theology department and began to bring in liberal Catholics. McBrien, I think, is like Cardinal Mahoney of LA: he is just an Irish Catholic politician with a collar. He thinks of the Church in entirely political terms. Hauerwas likes to say that he doesn’t believe in “positions.” Well, McBrien is nothing but taking positions, and sucking up to the press. Like Greeley, but different in my view because I find Greeley interesting. McBrien, no. His big book is not to my liking, although since I did not read it until exposed tyo McBrien, that maybe be just because of my view of him. Now if he happens to be your best friend, sorry.
Claire—I don’t the particulars of the funding of transplants, but as an old geezer myself I am not big on truly extraordinary means of keeping people alive. The teaching of the Church is that one should be prudent in the use of a scarce resource for an almost unlimited demand.
John—Your view of Fr. McBrien is widely shared, as you know, and since, I understand, he was brought in as chair of the Theology Department to “re=Catholicize” it from non-Catholic domination by Hauerwas and a couple of other theology powerhouses, I suppose it’s no wonder that Hauerwas has no special fondness for Fr. McBrien. I As you say, the brand of Catholicism Fr. McBrien represents is one of his own making. Fortunately, John Cavadini and his supporters have substantially remade the department, though to be sure Fr. McBrien is still there and still issuing pronouncements at the drop of something from the Pope or bishops that he doesn’t like. But I think he is now largely forgotten though not gone. There remain real problems. Two prominent members of the department have dissented publicly, for example, from the Church’s teaching on abortion. Ah, well, it is a lot better, anyway.
that’s what happing when society promote sex before marrige and take the word of God and replacete with profanity and self center .
Regarding the Mandatum that is not actually a mandatum, it appears the USCCB website is under construction. (Hopefully, to fix the error.)
http://www.udayton.edu/rector/documents/Guidelines-Mandatum.pdf
See under the nature of the Mandatum, #1, c
Fr.Jenkins honoring of the most abortion loving president ever,is reason enough for him to be transferred! WHY IN GODS NAME IS HE STILL ALLOWED TO RUN THE SCHOOL OF OUR LADY LIKE A DICTATOR? WOULD SOMEONE PLEASE FIRE HIM NOW! AN EMPTY CHAIR WOULD BE BETTER THAN A CHAIR WITH HIM IN IT!AN EMPTY CHAIR CAN DO NO DAMAGE!
Fr.Jenkins is the product of the system created 40 years ini the aftermath of Land of the Lakes.
Nancy,
Could you clarify your point about the mandatum?
Charlie
I used to be an avid fan and outspoken supporter of what I thought was a Pro-life, Theologically Orthodox, Catholic Institution that valued the principles embodied in The Constitution - NO MORE. Hosting the ‘Vagina Monologues’, and ‘honoring the most pernicious, abortion-pushing president in this nation’s history has radically opened my eyes to the real ND. So, I’ve taken down my ND Team flags, won’t purchase their paraphernalia, nor sing their praises. It’s clear now that I really don’t miss ND, I just miss ‘what I thought’ ND might have been.
I read the above. I am saddened about this situation. My grandson is supposed to attend ND in his freshman year. I will pray hard that ND finds its soul in Christ Jesus once again not only in words but in action. I am afraid for my grandson to lose his faith while there.
instead65
Let us never forget that before Obamacare was officially signed into ‘law’, Nancy Pelosi called on the former president of the school to apply influence over Catholic Bishops to support the Democrat Party’s socialist healthcare AND he agreed to assist her in this effort! Add that outrage to the others, i.e. ‘honoring’ Obama, hosting the Vagina Monologues and you see that ND has been carelessly ‘doing it’s own thing’ for some time to the detriment of the Catholic teachings it has been entrusted with. SHAME ON NOTRE DAME!
Hi Dr.Kenny, under #1, Nature of The Mandatum, c(3) serves as a type of disclaimer for a.
http://www.usccb.org/bishops/mandatumguidelines.shtml
@Nancy D. Yes, it takes only a few weasal-words to take the force out of a command. Showing that the modernists are well represented even in Rome.
I join the many correspondents above in gratitude for Fr. Miscamble, David Solomon, Bill Dempsey and others who have stood fast in defense of this university’s Catholic mission and identity. One must wonder at the condition of the Holy Cross order as well. Notre Dame’s secular drift, removed from the purposes of Moreau and Sorin, would seem to mirror decay within Holy Cross itself. As a Notre Dame alum, I grieve at what has occurred and, worse, the likelihood of Notre Dame’s continued movement away from the Church and from Catholic purposes. All of Catholic America—regardless of relationship to Notre Dame—should be similarly alarmed at the prospect of such a loss of Catholic conscience and leadership.
It’s the faculty, stupid. You can not live what you do not know. You can not know what you do not learn. You can not learn what you are not taught. You can not teach what you do not live. Bravo to Fr. Miscamble, Dr. Solomon and all faculty on campus for living and teaching an authentic, faithful and truthful Catholicism. The heart of a college is the classroom. The soul of a college is the professor-student dynamic - interaction/engagement.
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.