I guess that’s why I see the merits of having something like the CNS. And perhaps instead of attacking it as saying some schools aren’t “catholic”…which I don’t think it does, perhaps we should give them some constructive suggestions on how they could improve their criteria?

If we were to do such a thing…what do you guys/gals think would be something constructive to add to their criteria in order to improve their list in your view?

I wrote to them and asked what their specific criteria were for their list and they said the primary factor is “Catholic Identity.” Their Q&A section reveals a little more. Here’s a clip from it:

This Guide represents the Catholic colleges that we were able to identify as placing a premium on their Catholic identity in all aspects of campus life. They also provide a good education. Among those colleges not included in the Guide are some with strong academic credentials but that do not have, in our opinion, the same commitment to Catholic identity. The opportunity for strengthening spiritual formation during the college years is enhanced where Catholic teachings are constantly reinforced. We believe that the best combination of spiritual and academic commitment is reflected in the colleges recommended in this Guide.

They also say:

What is Ex corde Ecclesiae?
It is the Apostolic Constitution on Catholic higher education issued by Pope John Paul II in 1990. The document, which is available at
TheNewmanGuide.com, identifes what constitutes Catholic identity at Catholic colleges and universities and specifies General Norms
to achieve a Catholic mission. These Norms are binding on Catholic colleges as an application of Canon Law. In 1999 the U.S. bishops approved guide-lines to implement Ex corde Ecclesiae in the
United States; these became effective in 2001.

Compliance by the U.S. Catholic colleges and universities varies widely. Clearly, a Catholic institution that minimizes or subverts Ex corde Ecclesiae, which has the force of Canon Law, has serious problems with its Catholic identity. All colleges recommended in this Guide
enthusiastically support and abide by Ex corde Ecclesiae.

What are you all’s thoughts on that and how their criteria process could be improved to better reflect what you feel the list should be?

I agree with everything expressed in this piece and do know that college presidents and faculties, secular and religious, have this almost medieval approach to the university being priveleged ground. Seems to me, on top of all this that the times are indeed changing, from the bottom up at the gigger schools and “outside-in” with the advent of new Catholic colleges that this 1999 document has traction. We do, however, need to remember that everything in our beloved church happens in God’s good time, not ours. So as one who prays constantly for patience it is important to remember that today’s young Catholic has more together with regard to her/his faith than I did when I was that age. I am encouraged.

Comment box discussions are challenging for many reasons and it’s easy to get caught up on specific ways things are worded that stick out to you personally, but may not have been intended in that way by the writer. I know that’s the case with the way some interpreted or over simplified a few of the things I wrote. It’s easy to end up spending too much time defending the way we worded something or the way somebody took offense or the way we didn’t really mean it like that, etc. All the while, as Mark said, if we were all discussing over a meal we’d probably most all be nodding our head in agreement, learning from each other and building some solid friendships.

I think it’s safe to say that we’re all much more interested in how we help solve the bigger problem of improving the true Catholic identity of our many imperfect Catholic colleges.

Here is something that was written even way back in 1999 (i think)….what do you all think?

http://www.academia.org/campus_reports/1999/december_1999_4.html

Once again, I have no doubt that the CNS is trying to serve the greatest of causes in which the Church is engaged, this side of Jerusalem.

Once again, I have studied the matter and come to the conclusion that the CNS, despite its laudable intentions, has actually done a disservice.

So we have a disagreement.

Our disagreement, however, is not over CNS’ intentions; neither is our disagreement over the gravity of the crisis (whether inside the Church or whether within the larger society…culture…civilization); our disagreement is over the real usefulness of a single tool.

Perhaps this puts things into perspective.

For the record, I think that when Georgetown allowed the President’s people to cover the iota – eta – sigma (IHS), they betrayed their Catholic identity much more fully, and compromised their commitments far more profoundly, than did ND.

I dealt with ND extensively over at my place, especially here: http://fidetrat.blogspot.com/2009/04/nd-obama-what-williamson-affair-has-not.html

On G’town, I had this:
http://fidetrat.blogspot.com/2009/04/hoya-saxa-what-rocks.html

Can we now agree to disagree about the relative usefulness of the CNS guide and begin to talk constructively about how to strengthen Catholic identity on campus?

Best, C.
p.s.

If all are agreed, I would be happy to put something up over at my place, so as not to hijack Matt’s com-box.

Great post and my frustration needs to be put placed in the form of prayer! You didn’t say this, but profoundly this is what I got from your post.

You stated:

My training and study has led me to believe that I must work within the system somehow (again, I am not sure how) to correct, improve, influence, teach, give example and do every other form of evangelism combined with prayer to make better what I see.

We are all part of the body of Christ, and we cannot possibly do it all on our own, I think you realize that. I struggle with this at times, but I have to remember to be the person that God called me to be. I have to remember to be an instrument for Him. Unfortunately the instrument (me) can be out of tune too often, so I am asking God to tune me before he uses me as an instrument in the orchestra!

Anything we do we should do it for Him. I fail at times, but what matters is how fast we pick ourselves up and push forward.

You state,

If we fight to call some not on “our” side, then I fear the opponent has succeeded.

I am afraid that some maybe wolves in sheep clothing. I have a hard time discerning those who are on “our” side. I don’t know what is worse a secular school or a school that claims to be one thing, but the actions sometimes do not reflect the claims it makes.

I am also one of those Catholics who refuse to go to a parish where the crucifix is not present. So I may be too orthodox/conservative for some.

The points you raised about the general decline we see in Catholic society/civilization is indeed tragic and I am incredibly wounded, as i think we all are, by what we see. As an individual, I do what I can as prompted by the Spirit but there are still many moments of despair. My training and study has led me to believe that I must work within the system somehow (again, I am not sure how) to correct, improve, influence, teach, give example and do every other form of evangelism combined with prayer to make better what I see. Because the world is ruled by a cunning adversary and he likes nothing more than to sow division. We are armed by God and whatever boot camp you go to, the training had better be fantastic, because the enemy is strong. We have all sorts of Catholic Universities. The ones on CNS and ones that are not. But I am convinced that if we fight to make them better it benefits the next generation. If we fight to call some not on “our” side, then I fear the opponent has succeeded. I guess in a nutshell that is why I found the CNS article distressing. In my humble opinion, it somehow labeled these others as unworthy. I will not allow that to happen in my little chunk of the world. I can’t let that happen. If I do, I have abandoned all those kids to the world. Maybe I read to much into the CNS list. I did read Fr. Groeschel’s condemnation of ND as a whole and some of the other bits that go with the list. I admit it did form my opinion about what it was trying to do. I stand here (well, at least IMAGINE that I am standing) and declaring what I hold to be true. I don’t think we differ, any of us, in our love for the Faith. And we all love where we spent years of our lives in formation. For all their flaws, they did produce US, after all…lol.

BTW, thank you so much for your clear explanation and pointers to the question i asked about Catholic identity. It helped me greatly.

Since you asked, I went to a parochial high school, took French and Latin (though not well, lol). As a point of comparison, my daughter graduated from Villanova in 2001 with a major in psychology and a minor in theology. The theology was obviously more rigorous than what I had experienced. Her background was public hs where she took french and latin (very well indeed). It kinda reminds me of my original reason for getting into this discussion now that I ponder it. It seems to me that you basically get out of the college what you put in. If you are engaged and want a certain type of experience, you will likely get what you aim for, big or small college, catholic, secular, whatever. A catholic identity is what the person brings and what the person causes to happen and what the college nurtures. I believe strongly in the working of the Holy Spirit in each of us, even when we are late teens…lol. Villanova helped form me into the Catholic I am today, however one sees me, a sinner but a son of the Father…and I helped form Villanova into what it is, positives and negatives together. In a place with 20,000 students, a small city such as Villanova, the Catholic identity is there but may feel different that that at another smaller school or one with a hospital or a seminary as part of it. In the end, I am responsible for my Catholic identity. I chose Villanova myself for what it was at the time, a true Catholic University that would help develop MY Catholic identity. 25 years later, my daughter, with my input, made the same choice, was affected I think positively and clearly felt she had a role on campus to make that Catholic identity shine and grow. So, I guess it all comes down to each person praying and then acting.

I think a prerequisite question to this would be, “What does it mean to be Catholic?” If a University is going to make a claim to be a Catholic University are there some standards that need to be met? To me it is not that difficult, Catholic identity requires that the College community understand its ecclesial nature and mission.

Is there a mission statement you would look to or perhaps a declaration of conformity to the Magisterium?

Faithfulness is always a great start. The mission statement should be in line with what I said above, but what good are missions statements when they are directly neglected.

I will also quote the “Apostolic Constitution on Catholic Universities” ~

“By its very nature, each Catholic university makes an important contribution to the Church’s work of evangelization. It is a living institutional witness to Christ and his message, so vitally important in cultures marked by secularism, or where Christ and his message are still virtually unknown.”

I get lost in these discussions without some definitions. It appeared that CNS tried to make a list but I am not sure what they used as objective criteria.

In regards to objective criteria and the list it has. I believe you will find your answers here (http://thenewmanguide.com/TableofContents/TwentyQuestionsandAnswers/tabid/644/Default.aspx)

In short they looked for those who actively lived their catholic identity. They did not screen for size or locale or other extraneous criteria. Perhaps this is or is not objective enough for some or all.

we have to realistically admit that they are far from where ND is in terms of academic rigor

I just don’t think that has to be admitted. Academic rigor is a function of curriculum, faculty dedication and expectations, and the overall intellectual aptitude and interest of the students. I would think that any school can be as rigorous as any other.

I also suspect that having world-famous scholars in the classroom could be as much an impediment to academic rigor as an aid — in every case it would have to depend on the individual teacher. Seems to me that a teacher who is often on the lecture/book-flogging circuit and is a minor celebrity in the academic world, would have to be an extraordinary human being to also be a world-class teacher. I suspect that some of them are, and some of them aren’t.

You ask what I meant by the following: “One of the things the CNS does not seem to understand is that learning theology is not a matter of being fed doctrine by the spoonful.”

Said shortly, I meant what I said.

That is too short, though.

If I were to draw the thought out a little bit, I would do it thus:

1. The Cardinal Newman Society (CNS) seems to believe that getting an education in theology is a matter of being fed doctrine by the spoonful.

2. Where the CNS sees what it understands to be didactic activity that corresponds to such a program, it will deem the place praiseworthy.

3. Thus, CNS praises a school (by, e.g., making it appear in the CNS Guide to Catholic Colleges and Universities) inasmuch as CNS understands a school’s didactic program to be in accord with its vision of what theological education is.

I hope that in this breakdown the emphasis falls sufficiently on CNS’ deficient understanding of that, in which real theological education consists. I also hope it is sufficiently clear that I do not think the schools on the CNS list necessarily fit the CNS bill. To the extent that I am familiar with the schools on the list, I can say they do not fit that bill.

Rachel has spoken eloquently in response to your indictment of her use of the Wyoming example. The discussion requires nothing further from me in that direction.

Looking back over the discussion, it is curious to find you you, Ben, and a few other late-comers, particularly concerned to take umbrage at certain pithy turns of phrase that appear within a lengthy and wide-ranging discussion of a thorny issue, and then establish the righteousness of your indignation.

None of us is unfeeling. None of us is immune to the emotional concomitants involved in the issues we are discussing here. We are trying to deal with each other gracefully, and we are willing to give each other the benefit of the doubt.

I think we ought, all of us, to continue to assume the very best in our interlocutors. The debate, and all our souls, will doubtless benefit from the practice of such graciousness.

Best,
C.