Ex Corde Ecclesiae
Archbishop Donald Wuerl offers some timely reflections on the issue of Catholic universities and ecclesial communion in the latest issue of the Catholic Standard:
Institutions that are recognized as Catholic and that exercise their ministry and activities as a part of the Church and in the name of the Church are not independent from the Church. As members of the Catholic community, they must live and act within the structure of this community. That means working in solidarity with the bishops who as the successors of the Apostles are given the responsibility for preserving the unity of the Church, and providing leadership as well as teaching and sanctifying.
Since the Second Vatican Council (1962-65), there has been great development in the understanding of the relationship that the bishops have with Catholic institutions of higher learning. In 1990 Pope John Paul II issued an Apostolic Constitution, Ex Corde Ecclesiae (From the Heart of the Church). This document seeks to explain the connection between Catholic colleges and universities and the Church herself and marks significant progress in our understanding of these relationships. What is increasingly being reaffirmed is that a Catholic university is an integral part of the Church and, as a part of the Church community, looks to the bishops, particularly the local bishop, for the authentication of the school’s claim to be an expression of the faith and mission of the Church.
Sometimes the bishops will make a practical judgment that a particular course of action best serves the unity and teaching of the Church. This happened in 2004 when the Bishops of the United States agreed that “the Catholic community and Catholic institutions should not honor those who act in defiance of our fundamental moral principles” (Catholics in Political Life). While everyone may not agree with how an individual bishop applies this principle for institutions within his own diocese, it, nonetheless, is the bishop’s call. Communion in and with the Church obliges its members, even in practical decisions, to support the legitimate exercise of a bishop’s responsibility. Solidarity, which is a practical expression of spiritual communion, requires such support. Otherwise, the unity of the Church becomes a theoretical consideration and the role of the bishop, who has the responsibility of unifying, is diminished.
What makes the valid request of the bishops in the 2004 document all the more significant today is the context. There is a current in our society today that suggests that the bishops are just one among many voices offering legitimate direction and guidance to Catholics and the wider community in the name of the Church.
The very nature of a Catholic institution, which is part of a larger community of faith, makes it incumbent upon that institution to work out of a lived and concrete communion with its diocesan bishop whose task is to oversee all ministry in the local Church.
When an institution of higher learning or any Catholic institution – for example, health care, social service or Catholic Charities – chooses to disregard a legitimate instruction, it weakens the Church’s practical communion and fails to recognize the authentic role of the leaders of the Church.
Public honors are different from the internal affairs of a university, such as the formulation of its budget, the advancement of faculty or the regulation of normal student activities. Honors are a public declaration in the name of the institution. They therefore automatically invoke the institution’s self identity and very mission. Such action necessarily touches on the school’s relationship to the whole Church community and its leadership.
HT: The Catholic Key
In the Middle Ages universities, especially their faculties of theology, were at the heart of the Church. Indeed up until the 17th century the theological judgments of the Sorbonne and of Louvain were held in awe in the Catholic world. But in those days the magisterium of theologians was more understood and respected by the Church than is the case since the rise of modern ultramontanism. The Council of Trent is unimaginable without the great theological debates going on in its wings, though the Vatican kept them under lock and seal for three centuries.
The current regime inaugurated by Ex Corde Ecclesiae and Ad Tuendam Fidem is the polar opposite of all this. It amounts to an ultramontanist confiscation of theology, that is, the reduction of theology to a puppet-like dependence on Roman fiat. The implementation of this policy is put in the hands of bishops at a time when in many countries bishops are under-educated theologically and so are at the mercy of any sufficiently noisy pressure group that makes them feel insecure about orthodoxy, such as the Cardinal Newman society, whose right wing connections are well known.
Need it be said that all this is also very far from the spirit of Vatican II?
Archbishop Wuerl has played the role of moderate in much of the wrangling with Catholic politicians and with the UND fracas (see his interview with Melinda Henneberger noted in a post below). And this column in the archdiocesan newspaper is well worth reading as much for its views of Catholic universities and ecclesial communion as for what it doesn’t say: for example, what is the status of bishops’ 2004 statement, Catholics in Political Life, much cited in the current dispute. If every bishop is free to act as he sees fit in his own territory, the statement has no national status or standing, only the standing any bishop wants to give it.
Wuerl’s closing call for renewed attention to collaboration between bishops and universities is well taken, but at least in many places unlikely to be implemented by either bishop or university because neither wants to delve into the deep theological, ecclesiological, sociological, and political issues that are at the heart of the problem.
Being silenced and being unified are not the same things.
I think Fr. O”Leary is correct that one needs to cast a critical eye at ex Corde Ecclesia as being some sort of final word.
That’s important because the history of cooperation and collaboration (or “solidarity”") has not always been smooth.
Soon we’ll see the visitation of a large conglomerate of religious women here – another example of “solidarity from top down?
The call for collaboration to me seems to imply (and I mean the capitals) RECIPROCITY and the respected Bishop’s column seems to think the onus falls only on the university.
Of course, he’s following JPII, which gets us back to the Fr. O”Leary comment.
At any rate, on this glorious weekend of more polarization, not only re Obama, bur also did Pelosi know and other good divisions, folks will approach this out of their own view of authority and ecclesioogy, which of course will be a continuation of deep divide.
If I may present an alternative view …
During this Easter season, the first reading every week tells compelling stories of our faith. We hear Peter, Paul and the other apostles, with hearts ablaze, proclaiming their faith. In these wondrous sermons and acts we discern God’s plan for humanity: God sent his only Son, who died and rose to save us, and sent the Holy Spirit to his apostles; and the apostles proclaimed this Good News, in season and out, to the powerful and the powerless, to all the lands of the earth. Some believed what they heard, and they were baptized. Wherever the apostles went, starting in Jerusalem, they planted faith communities. On the Lord’s Day, the faithful would gather to hear scripture proclaimed, sing psalms and sacred hymns, and remember their Lord and Savior in the breaking of the bread. What we know of Jesus, we owe to them.
They weren’t chosen for their erudition or academic attainments or theological sophistication. Some were fishermen, one was a tentmaker. Who knows why they were chosen? But they were chosen. They weren’t chosen to found a university. They were chosen to preach the Good News.
Our bishops, those miserable sinners, those sheltered, venal, narrow-minded, self-satisfied, self-serving, back-scratching, temperamental, prejudiced, scandal-plagued, mediocre, heinie-kissing members of a club for old men, are the successors to that first generation of apostles.
This is God’s plan for our salvation: that we listen to those men, follow them, serve them, stand by them and – wait for it – obey them. We’re sheep. They are our shepherds. How counterintuitive is that? Who could predict that this would be God’s will? Yet there it is.
If it were just these men on the basis of their own intelligence or virtuous conduct or bureaucratic skill, nobody would follow them. I wouldn’t. But it isn’t just them. The Holy Spirit doesn’t forsake us, and one of the ways she shows her fidelity is by guiding our shepherds.
Catholic universities are a wonderful gift to us. I’m fortunate and thankful that I attended one. But professors and scholars are not shepherds. They’re really smart sheep. If they presume to replace the shepherds, it’s not the church anymore. It’s Animal Farm.
Our shepherds, in their wisdom and, we may hope, under the Holy Spirit’s guidance, are reasserting the proper relationship between themselves and Catholic universities – that is to say, between shepherd and flock. The cooperation, the mutual love and affection, is that between a shephered and his sheep.
We don’t have to like it. But we need to accept it.
I think Jim holds solidarity and collaboration really mean obedience, even blind obedience.
I agree with Mrs. Steinfels that the call for colaboration won’t happen because too much listening is demanded.
:But in those days the magisterium of theologians was more understood and respected by the Church than is the case since the rise of modern ultramontanism. ‘
Bill –
It seems to me that you are using “Church” as a synonym for “hierarchy” here. Therein, I think, is a great part of the problem. The hierarchy is not the the whole Church, at least not according to Vatican II.
It seems to me that “university” meant something rather different in those much maligned medieval days.. The faculties were required to present *all* views thoroughly and fairly. The scholastic method forced them to be thorough, and their great understanding of logic gave them a sharp tool to contest unfair representations of their positions . But all that has been abandoned, as have the public debates among the theologians. Ironically, “medieval” has become a dirty word in Catholic universities even as it is being rehabilitated in the secular ones.
I whole-heartedly accept Archbishop Wuerl’s claim that it is the function of a bishop to make known to his flock whether or not the universities — or at least certain teachers — in his diocese conform to Church doctrine. But he is limited by human nature, to Church doctrine *as he understands it*. It also assumes that *he* knows the limitations of his own opinions.
What this boils down to is that the bishops are duty bound to tell us as best they can which teachers qualify as authentically Catholic. But the bishops must also recognize that their own competence is dependent on, even *determined by* the competence of the theologians . Also, as a corollary, it is the duty of the theologians to help expand the teachings of the Church and to help correct past errors. (I suspect that the Holy Spirit invented theologians to make theological fools of themselves so the bishops won’t have to do as often as they do.) (Joke, fellas, joke. Sort of.)
So we all need a theological epistemology, one that can help inform the judgments of the bishops, the theologians, the moral philosophers, and, yes, to some degree the laity. It must answer this question: how do individuals know what an authentic “Church teaching” is? And, yes, exploration of that topic needs to start with the meaning(s) of “Church teachings”, including the meaning(s) of “Church”. Not to mention getting into general epistemology and the value and limits of history/tradition.
Then they can start talking about the meaning(s) of “unity” and “one”. I expect all this would take centuries. (The first thing we do, let’s kill all the Vaticanistas :)
Jim P: You’ll recall that those first shepherds didn’t always agree with one another.
True, Margaret. But they worked it out. And in the ND situation, if there is a notable divergence of opinion among the American bishops, it hasn’t manifested itself publicly. The two most reasonable ways to interpret the silence of the majority of bishops, istm, would be agreement with those who have spoken out, or apathy.
Not having been raised a Catholic and not having gone to any Catholic schools, I think I’m confused about the purpose of Catholic universities. I’d think that a university’s mission would be the search for truth but the way Catholic universities are described here, their purpose seems to be to simply make students more “Catholic”?
Excellent summation, Ann. Ecclesiology – simply, three legged stool made up of the hierarchy, theologians, and the sensus fidelium.
Interesting points from Fr. Cozznes in regard to these relationships, authority, and obedience. Link to NCR: http://ncronline.org/news/church-will-submerge-any-emergence
Highlights from the article: “Cozzens referred to authority as “one of the biggest issues for my ordained brothers of the priesthood. … We’re in the midst of a crisis of authority right now because in a feudal system, authority calls for one virtue over the others, and that’s obedience.”
“Cozzens is telling priests that he believes “our first authority has to be the Gospel,” followed by conscience as we understand the Gospel. “I’m going to Gospel values ahead of conscience. The third authority should be the church as not only the bishops, but the sensus fidelium [Latin for "sense of the faithful"]. If I behave in a way that is contrary to the communion of the church, I really have to ask myself, ‘Don, do you know what you’re doing here?’ ”
“In a sense, he says, the hierarchy of Gospel, conscience and church “is a false hierarchy because I think that those three dimensions of the spiritual life of the baptized Catholic are not necessarily one, two and three.”
Reinforcing Ann’s and Bob’s thoughts on this issue.
Jim P: “And in the ND situation, if there is a notable divergence of opinion among the American bishops, it hasn’t manifested itself publicly.”
There is no difference of opinion on abortion. There is clearly a difference of opinion on how bishops should relate to universities as well as on honorary degrees. I don’t take the silence of the majority on UND to be apathy.
Ann, you couldn’t have put it more perfectly. And Bill, thanks for the Cozzens link, depressing as it is. He’s on the money, too. (Sigh…)
Following through on the elsewhere-mentioned reference to the Society for the Study of Newman ….
The primary purpose of a University is intellectual and pedagogical, not moral or religious.
“The view taken of a University in these Discourses is the following. — That it is a place of teaching universal knowledge. This implies that its object is, on the one hand, intellectual, not moral; and, on the other, that it is the diffusion and extension of knowledge rather than the advancement. If its object were scientific and philosophical discovery, I do not see why a University should have students; if religious training, I do not see how it can be the seat of literature and science.”
From the “Preface,” The Idea of a University
“I’d think that a university’s mission would be the search for truth but the way Catholic universities are described here, their purpose seems to be to simply make students more “Catholic”?”
Hi, Crystal, hopefully those two endeavors aren’t mutually exclusive …
Jesus said “I am the good shepherd,” the operative word here being “I.”
Perhaps some outspoken (read: “orthodox”) hierarchs are taking this sheep stuff too far???
So it seems to me.
Jim,
Yes, I’d hope they aren’t mutually exclusive too. But what happens at a Catholic university when facts and beliefs conflict, or even when beliefs and beliefs conflict? If students cannot be exposed to some facts or some beliefs for fear they might stray from Catholicism, it would seem like search for truth (or at least the chance to question what’s true) isn’t the goal of education there. There was an old episode of The X-Files where Agent Mulder joked that you can’t get good science at a Catholic school :) – I doubt that’s the case but I’m reminded of guys like Jesuit theologian, Roger Haight.
Surprising (?) intervention from Bishop Donald Trautman (HT: Whispers in the Loggia):
Trautman called Sunday “a day of shame and blemish for the Catholic record and reputation of Notre Dame University. Its relationship to the Catholic hierarchy and to the fundamental principles of the Church has been fractured and will take new leadership to rebuild.”
Ad in today’s South Bend paper: http://catholics-united.org/files/Obama-welcome-to-ND.pdf
Note who is signing this ad – interesting contrast between the 60+ bishops and respected university theology professors.
Reading the ad, signed, by in my opinion a reasonably distinguished group of lay theologians (and Fr. Reese), I thought of how the CTSA a while back wanted to try to build greater harmony and collaboration with the hierarchy.
It seems here’s another way they just are on different pages – folks deeply catholic in academe viewing things differently from ordinaries.
Beyond a call for collaboration in this, it seems like we’re stuck.
Some here. like Jim, think it’s ultimately sdo what the the Bishop says -epicopus locutus est, causa finita est and ts.
But others, like Miller (see todays’ posting at NCR,) say the Bishop’s are failing in what they’re supposed to be doing.
I found the Cozzen’s argument compelling -we’re living in a submerging Church, and it’s leadership that’s submerging us.The closing of ranks by heirarchy on one side and many theologians on the other just shows two sides to a story about tactics – and I for one will not stand by the dividers and not uniters.
Susan — Thanks. Glad my post made sense to you.
By the way, fellow bloggers, my brother is a shepherd, and loves being called one. His wife, however, balks at his calling her a “shepherdess”. I was much surprised to discover that sheep are large animals (around 180-200 lbs.), and they are typically obstreperous — all of them (not just the liberal ones, ha). That’s why shepherds need those very nasty sheep-dogs (some of which are German) to keep them in line, But the lambs are adorable.
Yes, you can carry the Jesus-the-shepherd analogy too far. Much too far.
(If you think German shepherds are mean, you should meet the Scottish shepherds — they control the sheep by biting their legs and skewering them with a fiercely threatening look in their beady little eyes! I am not making this up.)
The questions on Monday and beyond will be’ Is criminalizing abortion the only valid Catholic response?” If you are pro-life but suggest that criminalizing abortion is neither possible/probable are you to be condemned as pro-choice? The bishops in the past have failed in their attempt to keep criminalization for contraception, easy divorce, homosexual and adulterous hetro sex. Maybe the distinction is that these are private actions and not state initiated actions like forced abortions in China. Maybe the concentration should be to eliminate state tax funds being used to facilitate abortion.
Do the bishops have the expertise/training to advocate that criminalizing behavior is the only moral/efficacious way be insure that Gospel values are promulgated in a pluralistic culture?? I suggest that the clerical abuse cover-up and the refusal to allow the abuse to be criminalized gives too many bishops a credibilty gap that will not be overcome. I suggest bishops initiate a full court press on family support for women who have un-wanted pregnancies. Families are the core transmitters of Gospel values.. not schools/colleges/universities… even parishes.. As a grandparent I have little faith that the civil law or universities will be the conduit for my grandchildren’s future behavior
“If it were just these men on the basis of their own intelligence or virtuous conduct or bureaucratic skill, nobody would follow them. I wouldn’t. But it isn’t just them. The Holy Spirit doesn’t forsake us, and one of the ways she shows her fidelity is by guiding our shepherds.”
Jim this is just so incorrect. Even Benedict has said that the Holy Spirit did not choose many popes because we have had so many bad ones. Secondly, from Constantine on the decisions were made mainly by emperors not the bishops. The bishops consented to the emperors with very rare exceptions. Justinian who was totally involved with theology made the union of church and state final. After him there was little controvery. He settled the Trinitarian question not the bishops.
And are you going to excuse, in our time, the bishops kowtowing to the Third Reich. You cannot pledge obedience to leaders who allowed people to be slaughtered like that. Your idea of obedience, I submit is deeply flawed.
The bishops do not have a good record in upholding the values of Jesus. I grant that they can be granted authority. But it is an authority that must be driven by service and not being silent about all those people sent to the gallows because they disagreed with the bishops or emperor.
You cannot absolve yourself of responsibility by saying I am following the bishops. Period.
Bill D.,
That is a very short list of supporters for the presidential visit. I’ve seen longer lists including many religious who would prefer to see the US RC Church recast into something resembling the United Methodists. Interesting contrast they give to the fighting Irish of yesterday and ND’s seeming capitulation to the secular and relativist culture represented by the granting of an honorary degree – something Arizona State would not give. Somehow I get the impression that yesterday’s Fighting Irish would be none to pleased to see their example tied to those who disobey the clear wish of the sitting bishop of South Bend.
We cannot ignore the fact that 70 + bishops, ranging from the Bishop of Lincoln to the Bishop of Erie PA. evidences a refreshing clarity we’ve not seen too often in the last generation. God be praised!
I think that numbers do not necessarily tell us anything about the right or wrong of a thing, including UND’s invitation to our President to speak at their commencement exercises today. “very short list of supporters”, “70+ bishops” simply tell us who thought it was important enough to speak publicly, but maybe not even that… How many theologians, priests and bishops simply didn’t have the opportunity to sign that open letter welcoming the President to UND?
I suspect that those who fear that the depth of their beliefs would not withstand scrutiny in a university setting would have a lot invested in controlling what goes on in “Catholic higher education”. I agree with Ann, that the defining by any bishop of what is authentic Catholic learning is almost wholly subjective. Maybe fulfilling the demands, definitions, and dictates of certain bishops about what makes a university “Catholic” would in reality make “Catholic and university” when put together, inherent contradictions.
After the foofaraw has died down, Ed’s query about what will happen Monday and after is much to the point.
I keep thinking about Fr. John Dear these days when I think about this.
We were doing a senior newsletter mailing a couple of weeks ago, and his name came up. From otherwise sweet old folks, venom dripped from their lips about him and how could he attack us good people who worked so hard (here in Los Alamos)for our country’s security.
Of course. the conversation here isn’t always one sided – the other side was represented by the local late Ed Grothus (who would dress up in full episcopal regalia and tell everyone in ear shot to stop all this nuclear stuff) bombarding in his lifetime our local paper with missives of both length and bloviation.
The problem was there was little rational discourse and lots of incivility and even hatred.
I think the problem is when one uses only one’s small frame to look at a problem, it’s easy to get to where we are, say in the right to life questions of the day.
I fear that discourse and rational argument and “common ground” are increasingly harder to come by.
As in the discussion in today’s Times letters to the Editor about nuclear arms reduction, reaching that goal by pragmatic means over time seems harder to accheive in a world divided on the issue.
Maybe too, so abortion and folks who beleive the road there will only get done by positive pragmatic steps.
I’ve just read Archbishop Wuerl’s remarks. I do not understand why Peter Nixon, and everybody else, for that matter, is not appalled. When our bishop says “Hop” we’re all supposed, in the name of “solidarity” to Jump?