The Archdiocese of St. Paul and Minneapolis recently published new guidelines that address the question of who can speak at Catholic institutions in the archdiocese.
According to the guidelines, which debuted in November, a prospective speaker’s previous writings and presentations must “be in harmony with the teaching and discipline of the church.” In addition, “those living a lifestyle at variance with church teaching would also not be eligible [to speak].”
These guidelines make some sense for parishes as well as for Catholic elementary and high schools. But if the archdiocese tries to replace St. Thomas’ current speaker policy with these more restrictive rules, the university’s claim to be a school that is “inspired by Catholic intellectual tradition” would be weakened.
If a university is inspired by Catholic intellectual tradition, it is open to the discussion of different opinions. It encourages informed debate among students and doesn’t restrict students’ access to speakers, as long as those speakers are respectful and don’t insult the Catholic faith.
St. Thomas’ current speaker policy strikes a healthy balance. The Rev. John Malone, vice president for mission, said St. Thomas’ policy allows for the expression of a diverse range of opinions while simultaneously advancing Catholic teachings.
“We would insist regardless of who’s speaking that we state our Catholic position,” he said. “People who come here who have a different position than that, they should talk about what they’re here to talk about, not to take a tack on various positions of the Catholic Church.”
This is a rational way of deciding which speakers should be allowed at Catholic universities. Prohibiting speakers based on their lifestyle choices, on the other hand, could have harmful repercussions. Students would benefit from listening to a speaker discussing poverty in Third World countries, even if the speaker’s personal lifestyle isn’t perfectly in line with Catholic teaching. As long as the speaker is there to talk about the issue and not to sell the benefits of his or her lifestyle, I don’t see a problem.
Malone said no one has decided yet exactly how or if the new guidelines will apply to St. Thomas, but he doesn’t think they will replace the university’s current policy. However, he also said he thinks the archdiocese would like some form of the new policy to be put into place at St. Thomas.
This can’t happen if St. Thomas wants to keep its reputation as a university that promotes intellectual freedom and informed discussion. The policy we have now provides us with a good mix of new ideas and respect for Catholic teachings. It’s always a precarious balancing act, of course, and I’m sure there will be numerous discussions in the future about which speakers should or shouldn’t come to campus.
But as we debate what being a Catholic university means, we should remember that listening to opposing viewpoints can actually strengthen our own beliefs. St. Thomas should continue to offer students access to different opinions so we can be informed citizens who are aware of many viewpoints, not just our own.
Katie Broadwell can be reached at klbroadwell@stthomas.edu
As a Catholic and an alumnus of UST, I fully support the Archbishop’s policy, and, should he choose to extend that policy to St. Thomas, I would fully support that. I don’t feel that the policy unduly infringes on academic freedom at all. Plus, as stated in Ex Corde Ecclesiae, article 5 section 2, “Each Bishop has a responsibility to promote the welfare of the Catholic Universities in his diocese and has the right and duty to watch over the preservation and strengthening of their Catholic character. If problems should arise conceming this Catholic character, the local Bishop is to take the initiatives necessary to resolve the matter, working with the competent university authorities in accordance with established procedures(52) and, if necessary, with the help of the Holy See”. If His Excellency decides to apply this policy to St. Thomas, and will help safeguard the Catholic identity of St. Thomas, who am I to question his judgment? Archbishop Nienstedt is the chief teacher of the faith in this archdiocese, and, unless he is doing something contrary to what the Church teaches or what the Holy Father wishes, we as Catholics are to defer to his judgment. Archbishop Nienstedt cares deeply about UST, and I am confident that whatever he decides will be what is best for UST.
Kaite, you wrote a very well articulated piece, and I could not agree more fully. This is a university not an elementary school and our student body should be treated like the rational adults we are. By preventing the students from being exposed to a broad range of opinions and “lifestyles,” the university would be doing students an enormous disservice. Our graduates would not have the same diverse, broad-ranging education that graduates of other institutions have access to. In other words, our graduates could become less competitive in the workplace. As we know, this is not the best time for such a disadvantage to present itself. Face it, not everyone falls into what Catholic Church defines as “ideal,” and students must be prepared for the real world. I am much more comfortable with having our graduates being well-informed and fully-prepared to defend their world view. If everyone believed the same exact thing and behaved in the same exact way intellectualism and healthy, civil discourse would be dead. As long as the University has the opportunity to state the Catholic view, I don’t understand why our students cannot realize the full benefits of a world class, 21st Century education.
As a Catholic and current student at the University of St. Thomas, I absolutely feel that such a restrictive and closed-minded policy is a direct infringement on academic integrity and the Catholic intellectual tradition the University seeks to promote. Indeed, I feel I can summarize my perspective with three contentions. First, I believe that any such policy cheapens and undermines the authentic Catholic faith shared by a great number of students. What can be said of a faith that can be shattered by a guest speaker? Or about the intellectual integrity of someone who feels that their ideas must be safeguarded against anything that could cause them reflect upon THEIR faith? Second, there has been a dearth of responsibility in the opposition to speakers on Catholic campuses nationwide. Notre Dame was reviled for welcoming President Obama, but no one stirred when it welcomed President Bush, whose Iraq War was opposed by Pope John Paul II and whose hairtrigger use of the death penalty contradicted Church teachings on the subject. Finally, I can’t get over the idea that when such limits are placed on speakers differing views, our Catholic community relfects the one that persecuted Galileo centuries ago, rather than an institution that is capable of promoting good in this world…
In case any of you would like to read the Archdiocesan speaker policy for yourselves, you can find it here:
http://thecatholicspirit.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=2841&Itemid=27
Here is an excerpt from Pope Benedict’s address to Catholic educators in the U.S.: “In regard to faculty members at Catholic colleges universities, I wish to reaffirm the great value of academic freedom. In virtue of this freedom you are called to search for the truth wherever careful analysis of evidence leads you. Yet it is also the case that any appeal to the principle of academic freedom in order to justify positions that contradict the faith and the teaching of the Church would obstruct or even betray the university’s identity and mission; a mission at the heart of the Church’s munus docendi and not somehow autonomous or independent of it. Teachers and administrators, whether in universities or schools, have the duty and privilege to ensure that students receive instruction in Catholic doctrine and practice. This requires that public witness to the way of Christ, as found in the Gospel and upheld by the Church’s Magisterium, shapes all aspects of an institution’s life, both inside and outside the classroom. Divergence from this vision weakens Catholic identity, and, far from advancing freedom, inevitably leads to confusion, whether moral, intellectual or spiritual.”
Mr. Hunt, this policy would not infringe in any way with academic freedom or the free exchange of ideas on campus. This policy, if applied to UST, would spell out criteria regarding who may speak on campus, not what is taught at UST.
There’s a passage in the New Testament that states that, as Catholics, we are to be “in the world but not of the world”. St. Augustine, building on that, speaks of two cities: The City of God and The City of Man, which exist alongside each other. Citizens of the City of Man are concerned solely with worldly affairs, while citizens of the City of God are concerned with remaining faithful to God and His Will. Secular universities are concerned with the worldly success of their students, and, as such, prepare them to be citizens of the City of Man, but Catholic universities are concerned with the academic, moral, and spiritual formation of their students, and prepare them to be citizens of the City of God. Pope Benedict states that “A university or school’s Catholic identity is not simply a question of the number of Catholic students. It is a question of conviction–do we really believe that only in the Word Made Flesh does the mystery of man truly become clear? Are we ready to commit our entire self, intellect and will, mind and heart-to God?”
Mr. Blissenbach and others who may be interested, here are a few relevant excerpts from the Declaration on Christian Education from Vatican II. To begin, there is absolutely an obligation to the City of Man. To be sure, this does not supercede the City of God, but why else would Vatican II conclude,”a true education aims at the formation of the human person in the pursuit of his ultimate end and of the good of the societies of which, as man, he is a member, and in whose obligations, as an adult, he will share.”? Perhaps this segment is applicable as well. “So indeed the Catholic school, while it is open, as it must be, to the situation of the contemporary world, leads its students to promote efficaciously the good of the earthly city and also prepares them for service in the spread of the Kingdom of God…” Even the specific segment regarding Catholic universities contends, “Thus there is accomplished a public, enduring and pervasive influence of the Christian mind in the furtherance of culture and the students of these institutions are molded into men truly outstanding in their training, ready to undertake weighty responsibilities in society…” http://www.vatican.va/archive/hist_councils/ii_vatican_council/documents/vat-ii_decl_19651028_gravissimum-educationis_en.html
So it is clear that the mission of a Catholic university demands the exploration of perspectives that help create a better and more holisitic understanding of the world in which its students will be expected to engage. Ultimately, I feel your last post is a clear cut example of a type of logical fallacy called false dichotomy. You explain that a Catholic cannot engage in the City of Man AND God, whereas clear, documented, relevant teaching from the Catholic Church clearly and accurately explains otherwise. As an aside, I would like to offer the perspective that subjecting potential speakers to a religious or moral litmus test is inherently incompatible with the concept of academic liberty, and certainly limits the free flow and exchange of ideas. For instance, would the University reject the appearance of a renowned biology lecturer who donated a portion of his appearance fee to his Mosque? If yes, this policy is abhorrent. If no, then it is clear that this policy is being interpreted as merely a political one, and is even more troubling.
“Every Catholic University, without ceasing to be a University, has a relationship to the Church that is essential to its institutional identity. As such, it participates most directly in the life of the local Church in which it is situated; at the same time, because it is an academic institution and therefore a part of the international community of scholarship and inquiry, each institution participates in and contributes to the life and the mission of the universal Church, assuming consequently a special bond with the Holy See by reason of the service to unity which it is called to render to the whole Church. One consequence of its essential relationship to the Church is that the institutional fidelity of the University to the Christian message includes a recognition of and adherence to the teaching authority of the Church in matters of faith and morals. Catholic members of the university community are also called to a personal fidelity to the Church with all that this implies. Non-Catholic members are required to respect the Catholic character of the University, while the University in turn respects their religious liberty”- John Paul II, Ex Corde Ecclesiae, Sect.3 Paragraph 27 http://www.vatican…
Mr. Hunt,
Notice that I said “in the world but not of the world”. That’s key. I didn’t say that students at a Catholic university should not be involved in the world. In fact, that’s essential in order to bring others to Christ. However, citizens of the City of God are involved in the world in order to bring others to Christ and Him to others. We are, in the words of St. Francis of Assisi, to “preach the Gospel at all times, and, if necessary, use words”. Also, while we engage the world, we do not succomb to it. Being a Catholic is countercultural, because much of what we believe is not shared by the citizens of the City of Man. To citizens of the City of Man, the world is the “end all be all”, and there is no God and no reality beyond the world.
Here’s a link to Ex Corde Ecclesiae: http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/john_paul_ii/apost_constitutions/documents/hf_jp-ii_apc_15081990_ex-corde-ecclesiae_en.html
“Hence it is that in this proper object of her mission, that is, “in faith and morals, God Himself has made the Church sharer in the divine magisterium and, by a special privilege, granted her immunity from error; hence she is the mistress of men, supreme and absolutely sure, and she has inherent in herself an inviolable right to freedom in teaching.'[10] By necessary consequence the Church is independent of any sort of earthly power as well in the origin as in the exercise of her mission as educator, not merely in regard to her proper end and object, but also in regard to the means necessary and suitable to attain that end. Hence with regard to every other kind of human learning and instruction, which is the common patrimony of individuals and society, the Church has an independent right to make use of it, and above all to decide what may help or harm Christian education. And this must be so, because the Church as a perfect society has an independent right to the means conducive to its end, and because every form of instruction, no less than every human action, has a necessary connection with man’s last end, and therefore cannot be withdrawn from the dictates of the divine law, of which the Church is guardian, interpreter and infallible mistress” Pius XI, Divini Illus…
Here’s a link to Divini Illus Magistri http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/pius_xi/encyclicals/documents/hf_p-xi_enc_31121929_divini-illius-magistri_en.html
As you can see, from that excerpt, Archbishop Nienstedt, should he choose to do so, has every right to insist that St. Thomas adopt that speaker policy, by virtue of his episcopal authority as chief teacher of the faith in the Archdiocese.
Speaking from personal experience, I clearly remember the day during my freshman year that I learned about St. Thomas’ restrictions on speakers which I thought was already too strict. It was this policy that first caused me to consider transferring and I was only a few weeks into my first semester at a school of which I had previously been fully supportive. I transferred after freshman year in large part due to policies like this that exist at UST. It is disheartening to hear that the policy may become even more strict. I entirely agree with what Corey and others have been saying. A policy that restricts intellectual discussion on a college campus is obviously detrimental to the education received at that institution. Michael’s point about it not infringing on classroom discussion is irrelevant because a significant amount of learning in college occurs outside the classroom. In order for St. Thomas to remain a competitive, well-respected institution of higher learning it cannot afford to allow intellectual debate to be hindered in any way. The fact that St. Thomas students are forced to even argue this point is worrisome because this is a complete non-issue at virtually every competitive college and university around the country.
“In order for St. Thomas to remain a competitive, well-respected institution of higher learning it cannot afford to allow intellectual debate to be hindered in any way. The fact that St. Thomas students are forced to even argue this point is worrisome because this is a complete non-issue at virtually every competitive college and university around the country.”
St. Thomas is not, nor ever been, an elite private university, nor should St. Thomas strive to be that. St. Thomas is a Catholic university, and, as such, St. Thomas’ mission and identity and purpose is distinct and vastly different from that of a private university. Catholicism is at the heart of who St. Thomas is as a university, as Monsignor Murphy emphasized in the 1980s.
To move the discussion away from church documents for a moment, because in all honesty I have seen nothing that shows that my interpretation of Vatican II was incorrect, let me cast this issue in another light. St. Thomas students inject an incredible amount of money into the diocese. This money comes from Catholics, Protestants, Jews, Muslims, Atheists, and others. The school accepts their payments each and every semester, and confers to them degrees each and every year. Hundreds of thousands of dollars each year pour into the diocese as a direct result of St. Thomas framing itself as a “elite, private university”, which you seem to so thoroughly disregard, Mr. Blissenbach.
First of all, the Archdiocese has no financial ties to St. Thomas, so tuition and fees collected at UST have no impact on the Archdiocese.
Secondly, Matthew 16:26 states “For what is a man profited, if he shall gain the whole world, and lose his own soul?”
What good are riches when they are gained when you sacrifice your mission as a Catholic university to preach the truth, and jeoporadize the spiritual well-being of your students in the process!!!
Mr. Hunt, it all depends on who rules your life: The Almighty God, or The Almightly Dollar. No man can serve two masters.
Money has never and will never rule my life. It has never mattered to me how much money I have so long as I have the basics to survive. I trust that God will provide me with what I need to do His will if I but submit my will to His and seek to follow Him. He knows what’s best for me more than I do.
I respect your viewpoint if you disagree with me, but that’s how I see things.
Also, I’m perfectly fine with people who don’t follow and/or don’t believe what the Church teaches coming to St. Thomas, but if they choose to come here, they should be aware that they chose to come to a Catholic university and should be respectful of the Catholic identity of the university. I wouldn’t demand that the University of Minnesota put crucifixes up in classrooms and cease serving meat on Fridays in Lent if I were a student there, because I respect that the University of Minnesota is a public, secular university.
Michael, if you believe St. Thomas should not strive to be an “elite” private university then clearly it is not worth it for the two of us to discuss this issue any further. If UST wants to become the type of insitution that you are recommending, then the administration must make that abundantly clear in its literature directed at prospective students. It must explicitly state that St. Thomas values religion above academic rigor. And if such a campaign is undertaken, I can guarantee that enrollment will fall, the acceptance rate will rise even higher, and the university will be taken less seriously in the eyes of employers. Luckily, UST’s administration will never do this because, like the administration of any university, UST’s administration is always trying to make the school more well-known and well-respected and in that way increases the value of the degree from that school.
Michael- for one how would Jon’s example of a biology lecturer compromise the Catholic mission of UST? For two, are you also against the UST Christian Muslim dialogue center? Because that seems to me a manifestion of the desire to promote peace and mutual undestanding, certainly Catholic principles, yet this speaker policy seems as if it could be interpreted to not allow for Muslim scholars to be brought to campus to speak in that capacity.
“For instance, would the University reject the appearance of a renowned biology lecturer who donated a portion of his appearance fee to his Mosque? ”
I don’t know.
“Michael- for one how would Jon’s example of a biology lecturer compromise the Catholic mission of UST?”
I never said that it would and I never said that it wouldn’t. That’s a matter for the Archbishop to determine.
“For two, are you also against the UST Christian Muslim dialogue center? ”
If it promotes legitimate interreligious dialogue in accordance with the teachings of the Catholic Church and in line with directives from the Holy See, rather than promoting religious indifference, then I support this center. If not, then I do not support it.
“Because that seems to me a manifestion of the desire to promote peace and mutual undestanding, certainly Catholic principles, yet this speaker policy seems as if it could be interpreted to not allow for Muslim scholars to be brought to campus to speak in that capacity.”
Interpretation of this policy is the proper domain of the Archbishop of Saint Paul and Minneapolis. It’s up to him to decide how much of this policy applies to St. Thomas and how the policy is to be interpreted.
“Michael, if you believe St. Thomas should not strive to be an “elite” private university then clearly it is not worth it for the two of us to discuss this issue any further.”
Very well, if that’s how you feel, then that’s how you feel.
“If UST wants to become the type of insitution that you are recommending, then the administration must make that abundantly clear in its literature directed at prospective students.”
Agreed.
“It must explicitly state that St. Thomas values religion above academic rigor. ”
I’m not calling for that. I think both are important and I think being faithfully Catholic and having academic rigor is compatible. Notice I said that a Catholic university is concerned with the academic, moral, and spiritual formation of its students. I wouldn’t have said academic formation if I didn’t think strong academics are important. Anyone on campus who knows who I am can vouch for me that I think strong academics are important. John Paul II also makes that clear in Ex Corde Ecclesiae and makes it clear that Faith and Reason are perfectly compatible in Fides Et Ratio.
“nd if such a campaign is undertaken, I can guarantee that enrollment will fall, the acceptance rate will rise even higher, and the university will be taken less seriously in the eyes of employers. ”
We’ll just have to agree to disagree on that, because I think the opposite will happen.
“Luckily, UST’s administration will never do this because, like the administration of any university, UST’s administration is always trying to make the school more well-known and well-respected and in that way increases the value of the degree from that school.”
I wouldn’t be too sure about that, Mr. Commers. Strengthening UST’s Catholic identity is one of Father Dease’s goals.
Ms. Pogin and Mr. Hunt,
Let me also make it clear that I see no conflict between being faithful to the teachings of the Catholic Church and a desire to promote peace and justice in the world. Being faithful to what the Church teaches means being faithful to all of the teachings of the Church, both dogmatic teachings and social teachings, including the teachings on just wars, human sexuality, economics, marriage and family, human dignity, respect for the environment, bioethics, and everything else.
Gravissimum Educationis also states “A Christian education does not merely strive for the maturing of a human person as just now described, but has as its principal purpose this goal: that the baptized, while they are gradually introduced the knowledge of the mystery of salvation, become ever more aware of the gift of Faith they have received, and that they learn in addition how to worship God the Father in spirit and truth (cf. John 4:23) especially in liturgical action, and be conformed in their personal lives according to the new man created in justice and holiness of truth (Eph. 4:22-24); also that they develop into perfect manhood, to the mature measure of the fullness of Christ (cf. Eph. 4:13) and strive for the growth of the Mystical Body; moreover, that aware of their calling, they learn not only how to bear witness to the hope that is in them (cf. Peter 3:15) but also how to help in the Christian formation of the world that takes place when natural powers viewed in the full consideration of man redeemed by Christ contribute to the he good of the whole society.(9) Wherefore this sacred synod recalls to pastors of souls their most serious obligation to see to it that all the faithful, but especially the youth who are the hope of the Church, enjoy this Christian education…
Michael- your first comment cited that the diocese has the right and the duty to preserve the Catholic character of the university. My point is just that if the policy can be interpreted to exclude these perfectly reasonable scenarios (and I don’t think there’s any question that it can be interpreted that way), which would not harm the Catholic character of the univeristy then the policy is too extreme.
“Michael- your first comment cited that the diocese has the right and the duty to preserve the Catholic character of the university.”
Actually, my point was that the Archbishop has the right and the duty to preserve the Catholic character of the university, but that’s very close.
“My point is just that if the policy can be interpreted to exclude these perfectly reasonable scenarios (and I don’t think there’s any question that it can be interpreted that way), which would not harm the Catholic character of the univeristy then the policy is too extreme.”
Can you cite a relevant excerpt that those two scenarios would violate?
Michael, I think you might be missing the point of what I was saying… My argument is not that these examples violate anything you quoted from Catholic teaching. It’s like, if the doctor tells you that eating carrots is good for your health- but then you choose to eat nothing but carrots. It’s not that your diet violates the doctor’s orders, but that it takes them too far. We have these hypothetical scenarios that seem to promote not only real education, but Catholic values, yet the policy conceivably wouldn’t allow them.
I think you misunderstood my question. What part of the Archdiocesan speaker policy would those two scenarios presumably violate, and why?
You’re right I did; both the part where the speakers previous writings and presentations must be in harmony with Church teaching, and that they must not be living a lifestyle at variance with Church teaching.
Sorry, forgot to mention why: Muslim scholar, because clearly their previous writings and presentations are from a Muslim perspective, not Catholic, and a Muslim lifestyle is not a Catholic lifestyle. Biology lecturer, because one could easily argue that someone who donates money to a mosque is living a lifestyle at variance wtih Catholic teaching as well. Or say the biology lecturer has given a presentation in the past advocating Islam, but their presentation on campus is strictly on biology. That would also violate the policy.
“We’ll just have to agree to disagree on that, because I think the opposite will happen.”
You really think that St. Thomas will rise in selectivity if it becomes more religious? Look at Yale, Harvard, and even Macalester. All three were once religious schools that have now become entirely accepting of other religions and viewpoints and would never consider such a restrictive policy. It is not a coincidence that all three schools are now highly competitive, prestigious universities (or colleges in the case of Mac). There are no examples of a university that was once secular significantly increasing in competitiveness due to an increase in religiousness so I don’t know how you think St. Thomas would achieve that. In any case, if this thread is any representation of the larger student body at St. Thomas, it is obvious that most students oppose this type of restrictive policy. Hopefully UST’s administration will listen to its own students.
Bjorn, the shepard is to lead the sheep not the other way around. Archbishop Nienstedt is our shepard. Thus we follow him. I agree with everything Michael has said and I repsect Archbishop Nienstedt. As a Catholic instituition in his his archdiocese UST should follow his lead. If you do not what to sumbit to the Archbishop, then I suggest you leave UST. I pray that you don’t. Archbishop Nienstedt does not have an easy job, he has a difficult mission in leading us all towards Christ and the fullness of the faith, pleas pray for him.
“Look at Yale, Harvard, and even Macalester. All three were once religious schools that have now become entirely accepting of other religions and viewpoints and would never consider such a restrictive policy.”
No, what happened is that all three schools succombed to the waves of secularization that swept through virtually all Protestant universities in the early 1900s. I read a book that talks about this, entitled “The Soul of the American University: From Protestant Establishment to Established Nonbelief”, written by George Marsden, a retired professor at Notre Dame. According to Dr. Marsden, these universities replaced their Protestant identities with atheist identities, and they are now extremely hostile to religious viewpoints, especially Evangelical Christianity and Catholicism, far from the model that St. Thomas should seek to emulate.
“It is not a coincidence that all three schools are now highly competitive, prestigious universities (or colleges in the case of Mac)”
Correlation does not necessarily equal causation. Plus, all three schools have an academic elitist country-club atmosphere and all express disdain for Catholic and Evangelical Christian viewpoints, and charge a much higher tuition than St. Thomas does, which is not compatible with social justice.
Ms. Pogin, thanks for your explanation. I need to ponder over it a bit but should get back to you by Saturday.
“There are no examples of a university that was once secular significantly increasing in competitiveness due to an increase in religiousness so I don’t know how you think St. Thomas would achieve that. ”
Look at the explosive growth of the seminaries and the Center for Catholic Studies at the University of St. Thomas (which started out with one or two majors in 1993 and now has over 300 majors!), or look at the Catholic University of America, which was once more secular but now is faithfully Catholic without having lost its credibility in the eyes of the world.
Plus, I know of many people that would want to send their children to a faithfully Catholic university, and for those people there’s more that matters when looking at a university than what its rating is in the U.S. News and World Report or the Princeton Review.
“In any case, if this thread is any representation of the larger student body at St. Thomas, it is obvious that most students oppose this type of restrictive policy. Hopefully UST’s administration will listen to its own students.”
I can assure you that this thread is not representative of the student body at St. Thomas.
Mr. Commers,
For your information, I graduated from St. Thomas in May of 2009, so I’m far from the out of touch old alumnus that you claim me to be, and there are many, many students on the St. Thomas campus who agree with the claims I’m making here. I worked with many of them on initiatives to strengthen the Catholic identity of St. Thomas, especially amongst the student body, so the views I express here are more mainstream than you think.
This thread has just become comical at this point. Firstly, Paul, if you had read my previous posts you would have noticed that I have already left St. Thomas for that exact reason. I did not agree with what the administration was doing so I transferred out. And if UST’s administration continues to make poor decisions then UST will continue to lose competitive students.
Michael, to say that competitive universities are “hostile” to religion is simply not true. Have you actually spent time at Yale or Harvard? I have friends that transferred out of both to attend my current college and neither have said that the school is in any way hostile towards religion. My current school is a competitive liberal arts college not affiliated with a religion and therefore is accepting of ALL religions, not just one. St. Thomas, on the other hand, is hostile to other religions as is evidenced by this very policy! I have learned far more about religion at my current school than I ever did at St. Thomas.
Also, Mr. Blissenbach, I entirely agree with you that high tuition rates are not compatible with social justice. But I cannot help but find it amusing that you would bring that issue up because St. Thomas has been ranked in the top ten universities in the nation for “Students Graduating with the Most Debt” (and that is the only category in which UST was ranked). All highly competitive universities have incredible financial aid and therefore allow students of modest means to attend. So in reality, St. Thomas charges a much higher tuition rate than Harvard, Yale, or any other highly ranked school. Thus, by your own standards, St. Thomas is not compatible with social justice.
Bjorn- I totally agree with you that the policy in question is unacceptable- but it’s the policy of the archdiocese. As of right now, UST hasn’t adopted it (and in all sincerity, I doubt we will). Of course, that doesn’t mean there isn’t hostility towards other religions.
Mr. Commers, read my op-ed that I wrote for TommieMedia, and you’ll understand why I find St. Thomas’ Catholic Identity relevant in today’s modern society.
https://www.tommiemedia.com/opinions/letter-learn-to-look-at-the-world-through-catholic-eyes/
“Thus, by your own standards, St. Thomas is not compatible with social justice.” As far as affordability is concerned, I’ll concede that St. Thomas has work to do to ensure that all qualified students, regardless of income level, can afford to attend, but St. Thomas is starting to make itself more affordable, and there’s a lot that St. Thomas does that is in line with Catholic social teachings and with social justice.
Thanks for this fascinating discussion that has quickly spiraled out of control. The point I think that needs to be made (and perhaps some have made it, but not explicitly) is that the intellectual and Catholic identities are not mutually exclusive. They don’t have to be in competition. Here is the University’s mission: “Inspired by Catholic intellectual tradition, the University of St. Thomas educates students to be morally responsible leaders who think critically, act wisely and work skillfully to advance the common good.” The key point is “Catholic intellectual tradition.” To me, this suggests that the Catholic view is important to the university, but intellectual conversation is not to be quashed. And, as I said before, excluding viewpoints is a threat to intellectualism, which is central to the mission of our institution.
“My current school is a competitive liberal arts college not affiliated with a religion and therefore is accepting of ALL religions, not just one.”
Good for you, but I’ll dispute the claim that all secular colleges are accepting of all religions. Here’s my counterexample of something that happened right here in Minnesota, and I participated in a prayer-vigil protest against it. http://minnesota.publicradio.org/display/web/2007/02/28/popeplay/
You’d never see an anti-Jewish or Anti-Muslim play put on by St. Thomas, yet three years ago, the University of Minnesota found it perfectly acceptable to put on a play that mocks the papacy . If this was a play mocking any other religion, it would not have been allowed to be staged.
Corey, I agree that it’s possible to be both a faithfully Catholic university with strong academics, and most of us in this discussion, I think, would concede that point. What we disagree on is how to go about establishing that, and, while I have my own views on the topic, which I have expressed in this discussion, I trust Archbishop Nienstedt to make the decision he feels would best safeguard the Catholic identity of St. Thomas without diminishing the strong academics we are known for as a university. St. Thomas would not be St. Thomas without either element, and I want to make that point very clear. I also believe that St. Thomas has a much stronger Catholic identity than many Catholic universities, and I think that’s a good thing. I had a better scholarship offer from the University of Minnesota-Morris, but I chose to attend St. Thomas precisely because of UST’s Catholic identity. I respect those of you who came to UST for other reasons, but I chose St. Thomas because of its Catholic identity.
I have a few more points expressed by Ms. Pogin and Mr. Commers that I need to follow up on tomorrow, but, other than that, I think I’ve already made all the points I want to make. Thank you everyone for a great discussion! I may not agree with all of you, but I respect your views.
Kathryn, thanks for the reminder that UST has not actually accepted the policy yet and it’s good to hear that the school probably won’t adopt it. I can’t imagine they would, but it’s been over a year since I transferred out so I wasn’t sure if things had become even more conservative since then.
Mr. Blissenbach, I actually already read your op-ed when it was first posted a while ago. I was thinking of commenting on it but decided against it. I suppose now that it’s been brought up again I’ll ask the question I had been planning on asking. Namely, is there really a difference between “seeing the world through a Catholic’s eyes” as opposed to seeing the world through the eyes of another religion? Can you give an example where a Catholic would see something differently than a Jew or a Buddhist? I had other issues with your piece as well but I’m not going to bother getting into them.
“As far as affordability is concerned, I’ll concede that St. Thomas has work to do to ensure that all qualified students, regardless of income level, can afford to attend, but St. Thomas is starting to make itself more affordable, and there’s a lot that St. Thomas does that is in line with Catholic social teachings and with social justice.”
I agree that St. Thomas does a good amount for social justice. I was simply pointing out the fact that it was hypocritical of you to say that Harvard and Yale are less in line with social justice due to high tuition rates when in fact it costs more money to go to UST than it costs to go to Harvard or Yale.
Furthermore, Mr. Blissenbach, I never said that all secular schools are accepting of all religions so I don’t know why the U of M example is relevant. I said that my current college, which is not affiliated with a religion, is more accepting of other religions than St. Thomas. Since I have attended both institutions I can make that statement with total confidence- there is really no comparison, especially considering the fact that UST would even consider the type of policy we are discussing
Mr. Commers, you said earlier: “Michael, to say that competitive universities are “hostile” to religion is simply not true”
I think my counterexample disproves that point, as the University of Minnesota is a competitive university, and you presented your statement as true of all competitive universities.
“Sorry, forgot to mention why: Muslim scholar, because clearly their previous writings and presentations are from a Muslim perspective, not Catholic, and a Muslim lifestyle is not a Catholic lifestyle. Biology lecturer, because one could easily argue that someone who donates money to a mosque is living a lifestyle at variance wtih Catholic teaching as well. Or say the biology lecturer has given a presentation in the past advocating Islam, but their presentation on campus is strictly on biology. That would also violate the policy.”
Sorry it took a while to get back to you. I could see how these examples could violate the policy, but they could also meet the requirements of the policy. I think the policy is fair, but if it were implemented at St. Thomas, we would need much more clarification as to what is and isn’t permissible, particularly with regard to non-Catholic speakers and interfaith dialogue events.
“Mr. Blissenbach, I actually already read your op-ed when it was first posted a while ago.”
Good, I was starting to wonder whether anyone read it or not, since no one commented on it.
” I was thinking of commenting on it but decided against it. I suppose now that it’s been brought up again I’ll ask the question I had been planning on asking. Namely, is there really a difference between “seeing the world through a Catholic’s eyes” as opposed to seeing the world through the eyes of another religion? Can you give an example where a Catholic would see something differently than a Jew or a Buddhist?”
Absolutely. Thanks for asking! I’ll post an example as a separate comment in a minute or so
“I had other issues with your piece as well but I’m not going to bother getting into them.”
I don’t mind critical comments, and I’d really like to know what issues you have with my op-ed, but if you don’t want to get into them, then that’s fine.
Mr. Commers,
Since Catholics, Jews, and Buddhists have very different beliefs, it would make sense that looking at the world through Catholic eyes is very different from looking at the world through Jewish eyes or Buddhist eyes. But, since you wanted an example, I thought of one.
Judaism, Catholicism, and Buddhism disagree on God. Buddhists don’t believe that there is a God or any sort of supreme being, Jews believe in God but believe that He is one being and one person, whereas Catholics believe that God is one God composed of three consubstantial persons (God the Father, God the Son, and God the Holy Spirit), or a trinitarian conception of who God is.
Just out of curiosity, what is your religious background? You don’t have to answer, but if you did it’d help me understand where you’re coming from.