Catholic Identity?
Much ink continues to be spilled about the issue of “Catholic identity” at historically Catholic colleges and universities. I learned today, for example, that the Cardinal Newman Society is continuing its crusade against Fr. Richard McBrien of Notre Dame, making yet another plagiarism allegation only a short time after the university dismissed their last charge as unfounded. Not quite sure what this has to do with Catholic identity, but it does manage to keep the “other CNS” in the headlines, no?
But while we’re on this topic, I managed to miss a news story from a few weeks ago where law students from Georgetown University turned their backs on Alberto Gonzales when he came to speak at the GULC. Given Gonzales role as a legal apologist for torture, indefinite detention without trial, and illegal surveillance, I am looking forward to a press release from CNS shortly demanding that he be barred from speaking at Catholic colleges and universities…:-)
Hooray for the Georgetown Law students!
As for the Cardinal Newman Society taking up that cause, don’t hold your breath! CNS is VERY selective in its causes.
Good on the law students. Given his support for torture, et. al. AG Gonzales should be barred from speaking at Catholic universities. While I am certainly pro-life, I find it inconsistent that one’s stance as regards abortion is the only issue that ever seems to disqualify a person from speaking/receiving honors from Catholic universities, even when the engagement or award has nothing to do with abortion. It seems that if we are going to insistent that Catholics and non-Catholics need to be in harmony with Church teaching on life issues, (which is a bad idea to begin with) then we should invoke the seamless garment.
I sometimes wonder about these “turn your back protests.” Wouldn’t it be more effective to insist that speakers who come to the University be required to engage in a dialogue with the “opposition.”
Methinks it would speak volumes for let’s say the President of ND or a student to challenge Mr. Gonzales directly than to pretend that he didn’t exist.
As for the Cardinal Newman Soicety, I wish Patrick Reilly would give this witchhunt of McBrien a rest. As someone above stated, I’m not sure what any of this has to do with Catholic identity. Reilly’s been a contrarian since he was an undergrad at Fordham. He looked silly then and still does.
Mike Hayes
I agree with my friend Mike regarding the value of having someone present the Catholic response to the administration’s reprehensible position on torture.
That said, I do take issue with Peter’s rather snarky take on CNS. I don’t see the problem. Either McBrien plagiarized or he didn’t. Why shoot the messenger? And as for CNS’ agitation otherwise, again, why shoot the messenger? Either Catholic schools are taking responsibility for fostering Catholic identity or they aren’t. If they aren’t, CNS can complain all they want and their stuff won’t stick. But if there is truth in what they say, why such pettiness from the left?
To my mind, CNS is providing a valuable service by bringing to light actions that have gone on in the dark too long. What is the problem with that? If there is no “there” there, then nothing will come of it. But if there is a problem, shouldn’t it be confronted?
Honest question. Can you offer a substantive criticism of CNS’ work? I ask because I would hate to think that the obvious resentment was motivated solely by sour grapes.
Peter Nixon, snarky? Hard to believe. Resentment? Also tough to swallow (in other words, not obvious), coming from Peter. I can’t speak for him, but one substantive criticism of the Cardinal Newman Society is that the range of issues that garners their attention is too narrow. I’d be interested to know how many other Catholic scholars they’re investigating for plagiarism. They also frequently resort to inflammatory language. For example, one of their “Action Alerts” (used for fundraising purposes) is called, “Help expose dissidents and heretics on Catholic theology faculties!” The call-out copy in the top-right corner of the mailer is: “Make no mistake about it–There are heretics and dissidents at Catholic colleges teaching anti-Catholic theology to our children and grandchildren and leading them away from the one true Faith.” Here’s more from the mailer: “A great many of these ‘teachers’ are malicious, and their rebellion is deliberate and intentional. They use their positions at Catholic universities and colleges to undermine Catholic tradition and advance their own secular agenda.” Greg, I see the appeal of your binary formulation (either Catholic schools are taking responsibility for fostering Catholic identity or they aren’t), but a problem with CNS, both in tone and content, is that it too often presumes that the Catholic colleges to which it sends its reports haven’t done serious thinking about the Catholic identity question. It’s not as simple as flipping a switch on or off.
Regarding the McBrien plagarism…two questions..
1) What does this have to do with Catholic identity (other than the obvious, snarky answer that would state that it’s sinful)?
2) My friend Greg above asks for criticism of the Cardinal Newman Society. A laudable request, however, it’s the CNS that is making accusations of McBrien. I wonder why they don’t consider him Catholic? To me, it says volumes when an organization witchhunts someone simply because they don’t agree with his theology. Perhaps it would be better for CNS to point to what they perceive to be flawed in his theology instead of accusing McBrien of plagarism. That’s like accusing me of petty larceny instead of facing our theological differences head-on. (which Greg and often do over email and tends to lead to either a genuine respect for one another or a shouting match–either way it’s a good time!)
Pax,
MH
Hi Grant,
Okay, boys, let’s all take a deep therapeutic cleansing breath. I meant no harm (there are certainly worse things to be than “snarky, ” and even godly men like Peter are capable of much worse), and I have no particular interest in carrying CNS’ water. Although, if I may say, you give the appearance of being a bit more willing to carry water for the likes of Ensler and Fr. McBrien than I would feel comfortable too.
Nevertheless, I think that there are legitimate questions that are worth discussing that go beyind CNS’ tone, which, I happily concede, can lack charity.
I think, for instance, that it is reasonable for a Catholic campus to ask whether it is appropriate to promote the vision and ideology represented by the Vagina Monologues, and I think that the administrations of ND and, more effectively still, Providence College, presented an excellent analysis of the matter and found that, indeed, there was something to CNS’ charges in substance if not in style. Argue with it if you must, but CNS’ work appears to be bearing good and reasonable fruit.
Furthermore, I think its reasonable to ask if Fr. McBrien is really deserving of the perch he’s been given both by the left and the MSM. I hear a lot of grousing about the “Alternative Hierarchy” down in Birmingham–and I again admit there is something to those criticisms. But if we are going be honest here, I think it is worth asking if a man who’s work is the source of so much division is worthy of the position he continues to hold in popular culture, and yes, academia as THE voice of academic Catholicism.
Finally, like it or not, the fact is, Fr McBrien fired the first shot in this latest exchange by writing a vitriolic and meanspirited column against pro-life advocates in Boston. The pro-life movement is not above criticism, but it is not deserving of hateful derision cast upon them by a member of the clergy. Not only did Fr. McBrien mischaracterize the nature of the meeting he was describing, but he got his facts wrong, and whether it is considered plagiarism or not, he got the same facts wrong that the Boston Globe (or was it the Herald) got wrong, and he used similar words to get it wrong. So, what we have is a priest, going after pro-lifers, mischaracterizing them in his national column, and not being particu
Forgive me, but I think it is a little hypocritical for you good folks to get yourselves all hot and bothered about CNS’ hysterical prose when Fr. McBrien has been practicing the art of the poisoned pen against the right for years, and yes, the fact that he is a priest does raise the stakes. To whom much is given…
Your Turn.
that missing line in my post should read, “and not being particularly creative about it to boot.”
Apologies.
First, no one’s hot and bothered, Greg. Or at least I’m not. This thread began as a comment on the Cardinal Newman Society’s memos on McBrien’s alleged plagiarism. The Society purports to be a higher-ed Catholic identity watchdog group. Let’s just grant that you and I don’t agree about the dangers of McBrien. Don’t think there’s much point in rehearsing that. The Vagina Monologues didn’t come up. Although I think that there is certainly a way in which it can be presented that does not de facto entail an erosion of Catholic identity. (First lesson of directing a play: you can cut the material.) What Peter asked, and you haven’t really addressed it, is what McBrien’s alleged plagiarism has to do with the mission of the Cardinal Newman Society. Is that the best way to use part of the $400,000 they take in annually? That’s what’s on the table.
Hi Grant,
First, I am profoundly gratified to hear that your blood pressure is well within normal limits.
Second, I never said Fr. McBrien was “dangerous. ” That would be silly. He’s too much of a dinosaur to be dangerous. But he IS every bit as injudicious in his writing as anything ever penned by CNS. My question is why would an obviously intelligent and faithful person such as yourself risk seeming so hypocritically sensitive to a lack of charity on the right while being so numb to the same when it comes from the left? (Your most recent post is another example of this.) Unless you are concerned about charity all around, you’re a fraud.
Third, perhaps I was mistaken, but it seemed to me that Peter framed the issue a little larger than the simple question of plagiarism. He did so when he essentially challenged CNS to say something about the Gonzales invitation (and btw, I think that would be a great idea). Perhaps I misunderstood, but it appeared to me that he was challenging both the value and integrity of CNS. Now, I genuinely think those are interesting questions, and so I asked for further clarification. Since Mike seemed to agree that that question was “laudable.” I didn’t think that was a distraction from the larger topic.
My mistake.
Anyway, regarding your point. It is difficult for me to say how CNS defends its actions in light of its mission because I don’t know enough about CNS’ mission. I don’t get their newsletter and really have better things to do than to track their every move. That said, I’m relieved that you seem to have plenty of free time.
However, if I had to present my own argument for how their actions I would say this.
1. Fr. McBrien, standing on the pedestal afforded him both by his position as a Catholic priest and, more germane to this discussion, an academic at a prominent Catholic college, made vicious and provably false statements about another group of Catholics. That puts it squarely into the realm of questioning the appropriate deportment for the employee of a Catholic university (i.e., Catholic identity).
2. Not only were his comments false, but they were essentially copied from the report of events in a prominent Boston paper, which raises a reasonable question about plagiarism. And the use of alleged plagiarism by an employee of a Catholic institution to spread falsehoods about another group of Catholics.
3. The original charges from of plagiarism were dismissed as unsubstantiated and more than that, CNS was accused of bringing these charges because they are a, “a militant right-wing Catholic interest group lobbying for the most stringent standards of orthodoxy.” I suspect that CNS’ latest move is an attempt to defend their own integrity against such charges by demonstrating that they are not the first to notice that Fr. McBrien has perhaps been a little careless in his attributions in the past.
Now, having said all that, I think the whole thing is probably a huge waste of time, which is why I wasn’t addressing the question in the first place and was, instead pursuing what seemed to me a way more intersesting line of inquiry.
So, if you’d like to get back to that conversation, I’m your man. If not, I’ve said all I have to say about the plagiarism question.
Thanks for an interesting conversation. I look forward to many others in the future.
Peace.
And the comboxes are moving fast and furious….:-)
I’ll freely admit I don’t think much of CNS. They seem to bear the same relationship toward the movement to preserve Catholic identity at historically Catholic colleges and universities as International ANSWER does to the anti-war movement. I don’t like their tactics, their grandstanding, or their apparent presumption that they exercise some kind of “concurrent magisterium.”
CNS aren’t the only people who care about Catholic identity in higher education. In his book “A People Adrift,” Peter Steinfels made a number of moderate, substantive proposals, including an explicit endorsement of “hiring for mission.”
I think the plagiarism charges are a smokescreen. It’s fairly transparent that CNS is going after McBrien because they disagree with his theology. His theology is certainly not beyond criticism, but let’s keep the debate at that level rather than resorting to these kinds of tactics.
Wow–I walk away and the smackdown starts in full force. I’ll have to TIVO this show from now on!
I like J. Peter Nixon’s comments, considering the smokescreen effect. And my point continues to be that McBrien’s alleged plagarism has little to do with his theology. While Greg points out that McBrien attacked pro-lifers viciously, that certainly doesn’t mean that CNS has carte blanche to reciprocate in a similar fashion. In fact, some would call that dowright stupid.
But CNS’ IQ nonwithstanding, I think our Catholic identity argument is focused a bit more now. I agree with Greg’s comments on Notre Dame’s handling of the Vagina Monologues..and actually found the President’s solution to be just. The school still performs the play but neither advertises not solicits funds for it. So the examination of the issues still continue.
Perhaps the discussion of “What makes a college Catholic?” is well worth discussion. As a graduate of Fordham (twice I might add–go Rams!) I would point out that in the late 80s, early 90s when I was an undergrad the Jesuits were everywhere–you couldn’t swing a dead cat without hitting one. These days my interns at BustedHalo.com tell me that they have had few Jesuit or even Diocesan priests as professors (For the record I had 8 and some of them twice–7 Jesuits and a diocesan). Certainly it’s an issue because of the priest shortage. But that being said, the issue of Catholic identity comes to the fore now because it will be the laity who will need to express that over the next 40 years or so. So how does a university get academcians to comply with expressing that Catholic identity while still not ceasing to be a university that is critical–even of it’s own tradition and at the same time, not be accused of heresy by the more pious amongst us who sometimes (and I emphasize sometimes) indeed may have a fair point with regards to the lack of identity on Campus.
BTW–Greg writes that CNS has been accused of being “a militant right-wing Catholic interest group lobbying for the most stringent standards of orthodoxy.”
Is that not a fair characterization? Seems to me that this describes them well and may not even be an insult to the group; more like a badge of honor in their own eyes perhaps.
It seems to me that most people could give a rats patootie about either side of these fringes (McBrien’s liberals or CNS’ conservatives). Most folk want church to matter–period. They want vibrant liturgy with moments of awe and community. More opportunities for direction and contemplation outside of Sunday mass. Relevant preaching that does not diatribe against modern society but rather teaches how to navigate ambiguous moments. And an opportunity to give to others as an expression and model of Jesus’ love for all of us.
Maybe both McBrien and CNS should stick consider that they have engaged the fringe groups and nobody else!
“Oh how good! How wonderful! When brothers and sisters dwell in unity. ” ;-)
I happen to agree with most of what’s been written since my response to Grant. I think CNS can be over-the-top. But I would say that they are asking important questions that deserve to be asked, and although others asked those same questions before and more politely, those more polite questions were largely ignored by Catholic academia and by the Institutional church and so, in essence, the left’s longstanding patronizing of the concerns of conservatives led directly to the creation of more over-the-top expressions of those concerns. My point in questioning Peter’s original post was to say that I don’t think its fair to criticize CNS without considering the largely hostile context within they do their work and to consider whether less strident methods had actually work (Hint. They didn’t).
Two last thoughts. I really don’t think that Fr. McBrien’s theology is the issue. It hasn’t been for ages. It’s his political and cultural agitation that goads, and his hiding behind an all-too-convenient clericalism which he drags out when he wants to criticize the right (I’m a priest! Shut and listen to me!) but hide when he wants to be “one of the boys” and criticize the clericalist hierarchy for telling dissenters (like him) to shut up. But I do agree that the plagiarism thing is a dog that ultimately won’t hunt.
I would also disagree that CNS just has the fringe. Again, before they started making noise, here’s how the debate went between the Catholic institutional left and its critics on the right.
Conservative: I think it is inexcusable that a play celebrating a radical secular feminist, materialist, and debauched view of womanhood would be performed and endorsed by Catholic institutions.
Liberal Establishment: Listen, you ignorant hillbilly fascist. We are an academic institution that believes in the free expression of ideas (except yours, of course). We think young people should be free to think for themselves without having to be shamed by all that oppressive dogma. Kindly go back to your Creationism meetings, Klan rallies, and rosary-making circles and leave the real thinking to us.
And the conservatives would then go skulk in a corner. Now, when CNS rattles a few cages, presidents of Catholic colleges start actually looking at these issues and–will wonders never cease–finding merit in the claims. So, I don’t think its fair to say that they just have the fringe or that they aren’t relevant.
I think it is legitimate to continue to ask questions about their methodology and even to find aspects of it distasteful. But it would be a mistake to think that they are not serving the mainstream debate on these issues. Frankly, they are major catalysts of the debate.