A reader sent me a link to the following story:
St. Louis University, a Jesuit school proud of its Catholic heritage, celebrated a legal victory last week that affirmed it is not controlled by the Catholic church or by its Catholic beliefs.
The Missouri Supreme Court agreed with the school in handing down a decision that the city of St. Louis did not violate state and federal constitutions by granting the university $8 million in tax increment financing for its new arena.
Opponents of the $80 million arena sued the school in 2004, halting construction.
The Missouri Constitution prohibits public funding to support any "… college, university, or other institution of learning controlled by any religious creed, church or sectarian denomination whatever."
The debate came down to two words: "control" and "creed." Does the guiding mission of a Catholic university align with the specific system of religious faith espoused by the Catholic church? And if so, does that system of faith control the actions of the university?
In a 6-1 decision, the court said SLU "is not controlled by a religious creed."
Jesuit bashing it just too easy nowadays to be any fun.
8 comments
It’s not a surprise but don’t you think we should all mourn this? Or are we all beyond mourning them? As a graduate of another Jesuit institution, I find the whole thing terribly sad. Many of them really have no clue the pain they are causing many of us with their obviously conscious decisions to not only deny the tenents of the faith but through their active work against the Church. They would of course deny this but, hey, you know reality is what paradigm you decide to support or shift. Obviously, their paradigm has nothing to do with the faith they vow to defend. I guess I must just accept what I have denied for years – they are just an elite club of intellectuals misleading and lauging at us “small” folk who don’t know any better. Should I ask for a tuition refund?
Doesn’t liberal Jesuitism count as its own creed, separate and distinct from the Catholic faith? If so, the ruling was clearly faulty.
I do think it’s possible, whatever the trends, to confuse the Jesuits as an Order, individual communities of Jesuits, Jesuit institutions, the administrative bodies of said institutions, and individual Jesuits. Personally, I would be proud to have my son become a Jesuit, and I wouldn’t see it as his going over to the Dark Side of the Force. It is very, very easy to scapegoat an “Order” as a thing rather than a collection of individuals for the failings of its most visible members. Something akin to making all priests or, better yet, all Catholics, responsible for the pedophilia scandal.
Incidently, perhaps the ruling involved some hair-splitting over what it meant to “control” a university. Who “controls” Ave Maria? Wasn’t that a point of discussion recently?
The Jesuits…or Jesuit administrators…have made very conscious efforts in the last three decades to distinguish btw a “university in the Jesuit tradition” from one in the “Catholic tradition.” Make no mistake that this is no mistake. As for the distinctions that Literacy Chic wants to make…well, OK…but at some point the Members of any Body have to be held responsible for the actions of the Body. When I was a grad student in a state university, I grew so tired of listening to the frats distinguish btw the Fraternity and Individuals every time some fratboy got drunk and did something illegal or publicly embarrassing. At some point someone has to say, “But you picked him to be a member and he’s still a member!” Now, having said all that, let me say this: it is often the case, especially nowadays, that orthodox priests/brothers/sisters in otherwise dissident/heterodox orders and dioceses are systematically excluded from leadership positions by their group’s less-than-virtuous Bosses. I have frequently seen and heard of men and women being passed over for influential positions (vocations directors, novice director, student director, etc) b/c they are “morally rigid” or “not a team player.” Translation: they believe in right and wrong and they aren’t going to wink at violations of the canons or civil law. It takes a critical mass of men and women dedicated to the vows (notice I didn’t say morally perfect individuals!) to slowly move the order around.
Fr. Philip, OP
Another Jesuit Vanguard advances into the abyss.
it is often the case, especially nowadays, that orthodox priests/brothers/sisters in otherwise dissident/heterodox orders and dioceses are systematically excluded from leadership positions by their group’s less-than-virtuous Bosses.
I guess the problem is that where I come from, the Jesuits are still influential in secondary education, and the religious education that the boys receive is quality religious education. So somehow, somewhere, the hierarchy is still doing something right. And I can’t say I’ve seen any evidence that they exclude orthodox young men from joining. So I guess those young men are at fault for not joining the Benedictines or Opus. Or I guess the Dominicans, since they’re a teaching order also! Yes, the universities have problems. But so do many, many Catholic universities, especially those that strive (as most do not) to keep up with their secular counterparts and become R1 universities, with all that that entails. Somewhere the spirit of educational inquiry got mixed up with something else. But I’m not convinced that it’s all-pervasive, and I don’t think they’re beyond hope. There are high profile Jesuits who are more conservative. And the political choosing within orders is not new news.
According to the sole dissenting judge’s opinion, the court did not adequately develop the facts at issue. On the contrary, the sole criterion of judgment was whether the university engaged in proselytizing (“indoctrination or propagation of the faith”), and the finding was that it did not. (Clearly that, in itself, is a serious black mark against its Catholic identity.) Nevertheless, the judge went on, its “Catholic identity and governance” are what is at issue.
Clearly, too, the difference between “propagating of the faith” and “Catholic identity” should be nonexistent. For too many so-called Catholic institutions, however, boards have been trying to cling to an empty form of Catholic identity. The dissenting judge referred to the university bylaws and its Jesuit president as potential sources of contradiction to the findings of the court. What is truly at issue, then, is whether the board and faculty (not to mention the students) regularly flout these sources — or, indeed, whether the putatively Jesuit president flouts the founding Jesuit ideals.
Last year’s national *Courage* conference was hosted by Fr. Biondi and St. Louis University. A number of the faculty in the Psych Department (or whatever department the mental health professionals are part of) signed a protest letter addressed to Fr. Biondi that SLU would host such a conference. Hellooooooo! You’re supposed to be a Catholic University!!! I was very disappointed to hear that and I hear tell of lots of dissenting faculty at SLU. My niece is working on her advanced degree at SLU & so far has managed to avoid any brain washing from what I can tell.