Making colleges Catholic: bishops & academics reach common ground.

Can the Catholic church in the United States find ways to bring persons of opposing viewpoints to "common ground"? On at least one front, there is good news on that question. Last November 13, the National Conference of Catholic Bishops voted 224 to 6 to approve the work of its committee to implement Ex corde ecclesiae, John Paul II's 1990 apostolic constitution on Catholic higher education. The committee had spent six years trying to achieve consensus on how to apply the general norms of Ex corde "concretely at the local and regional levels." As a participant in the committee's work, I found its final, peaceful accord an improbable feat, and the overwhelming vote of approval cause for astonishment. There are, I believe, some lessons to be learned.

It was because of the extraordinary differentiation among Catholic universities worldwide that the papal instruction left the details of its implementation to local and regional hierarchies, and added that they should take into account each university's own statutes and, "as far as possible and appropriate, civil law."

But how make it happen? The issues raised in Ex corde were contentious. They had been on the table in the United States since the "Land o' Lakes" document of 1967 - issued by a gathering of eminent Catholic educators - had proclaimed the need for Catholic universities to have "a true autonomy and academic freedom." Did this mean that a Catholic university need not - should not - have a formal relationship with the hierarchy? With the advent of independent boards of trustees in the late '60s, what replaced the control by religious communities? Who would make final decisions about the Catholicity of the institution, and by what criteria? What was to be done about the perceptions voiced by many within and outside the academic community, liberals and conservatives alike, that Catholic higher education was in danger of diluting or even losing its specifically Catholic character in the drive for academic excellence, academic freedom, government and foundation grants, and more students?

What is most striking about the final committee report by the NCCB last November is not only its content but its authorship. The committee was composed of seven members of the hierarchy "assisted" by eight college or university presidents (see box, page 16). These were two groups with differing and conflicting agendas, so that when the two sides first came together in an impressive conference room at NCCB headquarters, the atmosphere was clearly adversarial. The universities had already responded negatively to earlier drafts of the norms. They argued that any hierarchical document imposing church authority on Catholic schools of higher education would damage their standing in the wider academic community, raise legal hazards, undercut their eligibility for government and foundation grants, and deny the intrinsic necessity of academic freedom if a university is to serve the church and society in its research and teaching. At least some educators saw the prospect of ecclesiastical control as threatening the very survival of their institutions.

The bishops' concerns were equally familiar. Their office conferred on them responsibility for safeguarding orthodoxy in theological teaching, for seeing to the moral formation of students, for reminding administrators of their responsibility to the entire Catholic community for their programs and public image. So the issues were partly philosophical - what makes, and keeps, a university Catholic? - and partly "political" - who decides? Who's in charge here? No wonder there was tension at the committee's first meeting. It wouldn't have been much higher if each side had brought cheerleaders and a marching band.

Eventually, as I've already signaled, that initial hostility and fear were overcome. But it wasn't easy. Arguments were repeated and rebutted many times over, so much so that over the course of many meetings and consultations committee members more than once wondered aloud whether they had not come to a dead end. When a draft set of norms was discussed at the 1994 meeting of the Association of Catholic Colleges and Universities - three years after the committee first gathered - Boston College President J. Donald Monan, S.J., spoke of the present "collision course" between the universities, with their concern for professionalism and autonomy, and the perceived need of the Roman curia's Congregation for Catholic Education to extend control over theologians teaching in Catholic universities.

The sticking point all along was the fearsome Canon 812, which reads: "It is necessary that those who teach theological disciplines in any institute of higher studies have a mandate from the competent ecclesiastical authority." Ex corde ecclesiae (article 4, No. 3) incorporated the canon: "Catholic theologians, aware that they fulfill a mandate received from the church [emphasis added], are to be faithful to the magisterium of the church as the authentic interpreter of sacred Scripture and sacred tradition."

The presidents saw the inclusion of such language in the American norms as a disaster in the making. If it were included, how could they keep a straight face while telling accrediting agencies that their colleges and universities were truly autonomous? Some of the bishops, however, had personal experiences with dissenting theologians that moved them to seek some mechanism for dealing with universities where such theologians taught. It wasn't all that clear, however, that the requirement of a mandate would make a difference. What would it mean - a sort of Good Housekeeping Seal of Approval? Who would give it? What would be the fate of those who did not ask for or receive it? What would a university be expected to do if a theologian's mandate were withdrawn? What about Catholic universities in other countries that have no theology faculty; are they not Catholic?

There were, in short, enough debating points to all but guarantee an impasse. One reason it didn't happen was that all the participants wanted to avoid splitting the nation's Catholic colleges and universities into two groups: (1) orthodox and "Catholic"; (2) not-so-orthodox and therefore no longer to be called "Catholic." The patience of the chairman, Bishop John Leibrecht, was a factor. So also the release of humor; Notre Dame's "Monk" Malloy once dryly remarked that we should begin making plans for our tenth annual reunion. Another time, we resorted to role playing. First, all of us became presidents trying to explain Canon 812 to their theology faculties, and then we all (even the women!) became bishops looking to satisfy the vocal critics of "secularization" on Catholic campuses. Also of help were informal if serious exchanges of views at lunch tables and over coffee. The great chasm began to narrow.

On substance, a turning point was reached when the committee came to agree that if it were true that the colleges had become less identifiably Catholic, the remedy lay not in preoccupation with theologians but in serious exploration of the criteria of "Catholic identity" in higher education. Thus the discussion moved away from Canon 812 to ways by which the institutions might reaffirm and reinvigorate their mission within the church. The presidents did not question the validity of questions on this theme: whether efforts to recruit topflight scholars have led them to neglect the need of having faculty committed to the university's mission; whether parietal rules had been relaxed too far; whether correct decisions had been made with respect to the recognition of prochoice or gay/lesbian student groups. They insisted, however, that such problems would not be solved by external dicta from the bishops or from Rome. Instead, they approvingly cited such efforts as the "Collegium" program to help faculty appreciate the vocation of scholar and teacher within the Catholic traditions, and a program sponsored by the Association of Catholic Colleges and Universities to provide workshops for administrators and trustees, with specific attention to the special character of Catholic higher education.

In turn, the bishops on the committee came to acknowledge the need for better processes in judging theologians, more informal contacts with faculty and students, and a better understanding of some of the intricacies of American academic life. It began to seem more possible that the university's fierce defense of its independence and prerogatives could be reconciled with the bishops' pastoral concern and ecclesial responsibilities.

Two other initiatives of the committee were helpful. Three canonists and three theologians were commissioned to prepare position papers on the meaning of "mandate" as the term is used in canon law and church documents. Their findings on the ambiguity of the term led the committee to question how it could be implemented with any consistency or precision.

Then, after committee members reported on their progress to date at the 1994 meeting of the ACCU, and drew largely negative responses from both bishops and academics, the committee hired a "Project Director," Father Terrence Toland, S.J., to "facilitate" local and regional gatherings on the issues, to attend as many as he could, and to collect and analyze the meeting reports. After himself attending one such meeting in the Washington archdiocese, Cardinal James Hickey said it had been a most rewarding experience. Because of his comments and the field reports, the bishops agreed to put aside Canon 812 for the moment, to adopt a more pastoral and less legalistic approach, to focus on the fundamental issues, and to invite the regional meetings to follow suit. That brought satisfying results: the reports compiled by Father Toland showed broad support for colleges and universities that were truly committed to being Catholic, and little or no support for a juridical means of achieving that goal.

At this very moment one of the bishops called attention to an article in the September 1994 Newsletter of the Canon Law Society of Great Britain and Ireland in which the author, Bishop John Jukes of Strathearn, had suggested reflecting on the goal of Canon 812 and finding a way other than a juridical mandate to achieve the goal. If the goal was to safeguard the faith of the Catholic community, that end could be furthered without interfering in the established system of academic appointments; if a threat to the faith should arise, episcopal action could take place after the fact.

The idea wasn't new - it had been presented earlier by the canonist consultants - but it made a difference, in fact created a major turning point, when a bishop from another country suggested something similar. By this time, moreover, the committee members were able to listen to one another and to contemplate the possibility of a compromise, one that would neither destroy the link between the Catholic university and the church nor endanger the autonomy of the university.

They found the basis for compromise in Ex corde ecclesiae itself, in a passage which says that the bishops' responsibility to promote Catholic higher education "will be achieved more effectively if close personal and pastoral relationships exist between university and church authorities characterized by mutual trust, close and consistent cooperation, and continuing dialogue" [emphasis added].

These three characteristics are embodied in the norms approved by the NCCB.

* Mutual trust: Presidents and bishops affirm a trust in one another based on their shared baptismal belief and their joint responsibility to foster it. They achieve the purpose of canon law by seeking qualified faculty candidates who are committed to the Catholic faith tradition or, if not Catholic, are respectful of it. The bishops, for their part, agree to grant due process for theologians in accordance with procedures previously approved by the NCCB for optional use but now affirmed by the conference as the appropriate mechanism.

* Close and consistent cooperation: The diocese and the university will cooperate in areas of social justice programs, faith development, intellectual tradition, and campus ministry.

* Dialogue: The meetings and consultations fostered by the committee brought deep appreciation for dialogue among bishops, presidents, trustees, faculty, and students; such contacts are to be regularized.

Of the amendments proposed at the November assembly of the NCCB, the one that has attracted the most attention was proposed by Cardinal Anthony Bevilacqua of Philadelphia, who was not satisfied with the way that the troublesome Canon 812 had been handled in the norms and asked the conference to provide for its further study. He made clear, however, that he did not intend his amendment to hold up passage of the document.

It happened that Cardinal Joseph Bernardin lay dying in Chicago as the final vote was being taken. All during the '80s he had been an important player in discussions of the issues raised by Ex corde ecclesiae; to many of us it seemed that the process we had just witnessed served to demonstrate the possibility of achieving his goal of finding common ground by the dialogic means he urged and exemplified.

That doesn't mean the process is over; avoiding a standoff doesn't mean achieving solidarity for all time. For the moment the ball is in the court of the universities: Do they really want to be Catholic? What will they do about it? Among other things, will they foster mutual trust, close cooperation, and continuing dialogue with the bishops? It is in the bishops' court as well: Will they be partners in dialogue who listen as well as speak? And, when the next problem arises with a theologian, will they accept the claims of due process? And there's another player: Will Rome, in reviewing the norms, trust the judgment of the 224 bishops who approved this way of implementing Ex corde ecclesiae?

Time will tell. But something has already been achieved. However self-serving it may appear, I think the work of this committee presents a model of how things can work in the church. Through good will, intelligent debate, good humor, and perseverance, the group worked its way from confrontation based on historic disagreements and seemingly conflicting interests to a mood of mutual trust and respect that issued in basic agreement. Without agreement, the bishops might have faced continued confrontation, and academic leaders might have concluded that there could be no such thing as a "Catholic university." High stakes.

Following are the members of the Implementation Committee for Ex corde ecclesiae, appointed by Archbishop Daniel E. Pilarczyk of Cincinnati, then chairman of the National Conference of Catholic Bishops.

Bishop members: Bishop John J. Leibrecht, Springfield-Cape Girardeau, chair; Cardinal James Hickey, Washington, D.C.; Archbishop Francis B. Schulte, New Orleans; Cardinal Adam J. Maida, Detroit; Archbishop Oscar Lipscomb, Mobile, Alabama; Bishop James Griffin, Columbus, Ohio; Bishop James Malone, Youngstown, Ohio (retired)

University and college presidents: Dr. Dorothy McKenna Brown, Rosement College, Pennsylvania; Dr. Norman Francis, Xavier University of Louisiana; Karen Kennelly, C.S.J., Mount Saint Mary's College, Los Angeles; Raymond Fitz, S.M., University of Dayton; Rev. Edward Malloy, C.S.C., University of Notre Dame; Rev. J. Donald Monan, S.J., Boston College; Dr. Matthew Quinn, Carroll College, Helena, Montana.

Consultants: Alice Gallin, O.S.U., executive director, Association of Catholic Colleges and Universities; Msgr. Frederick R. McManus, professor of canon law, The Catholic University of America.

Staff of NCCB/USCC: Sharon Euart, R.S.M., associate general secretary; Rev. Charles Hagan, department of education; Rev. Terrence Toland, S.J., project director.

Alice Gallin, O.S.U., is currently a visiting professor at Saint Louis University. She is the author of Independence and a New Partnership (University of Notre Dame Press).