Academic freedom on Catholic campuses: The perspective of a (recent) student

Dear Kate Childs Graham!

Loved your article but cannot help but notice your name. Childs is my maiden name and I am wondering if we are related? My Childs family comes from the Philadelphia area originally, then Lewiston, PA, where my great grandfather started a wholesale grocery business. We have lost cousins and it would be fun if you are one of them?
Write back if you want. Jeanne

The Catholic stance on abortion is not under discussion. Abortion is murder.

Now, as a Church, how are we going to deal with those in power who actively promote terrible evils like abortion?

Some argue that we cannot be focused on "one" issue among many (as if the natural right to life wasn't central enough).

Others argue that, as a Church, we need to present a unified witness to the world.

Fordham apparently doesn't believe in giving a unified Catholic witness to the world. They are more interested in asserting their own independence and the Church's "diversity".

Of course, this dilutes the power of the Catholic witness... and our ability to promote change.

There is a fine line in Catholic colleges between allowing free speech and an exchange of ideas, and supporting faculty who espouse ideas in direct opposition to the Catholic Church's teachings. Parents who send their children to a Catholic college should be able to expect the Catholic point of view to PREVAIL in the classroom, and for the school to present outside speakers who inspire students to apply their Catholic faith in their life choices. If one wants a secular education, it's readily available and usually less expensive.

Kudos to University of San Diego.

Dear Ms. Graham,

The crux of your point revolves around who or what is responsible for forming consciences and Catholic thought. You remark, "I was prohibited from analyzing different viewpoints, and I was not given the space to develop my own conscience." Apparently, you *were* able to analyze different viewpoints, and you had professors who -- courageous martyrs that they are -- probably did not want to "force Catholicism down your throat". Your complaint seems to be rather that CUA did not provide you with speakers who openly contradict what the university and Church are crystal clear about.

Everyone's conscience is formed by external factors. How does one form one's own conscience without external aid? And would it not rest on the shoulders of a Catholic school to help form a Catholic conscience?

Permit, for a second, a cliched-but-germane hypothetical: Would you be upset if you were prohibited from hearing a Nazi sympathizer or racial bigot speak? Shouldn't you be able to 'hear all viewpoints' reasonably presented? Clearly not. There are prudential judgments made by institutions (especially ones that are avowedly religious) all of the time. That you happen to wish (1) that the Church's teaching on abortion were less clear, and (2) that the Church's teaching on war and capital punishment were more explicit, does not ipso facto mean that CUA is responsible for providing you with dissenting teachers/speakers. There are certainly enough sources of non-Catholic viewpoints from without, enough (it seems) that they have convinced you of their point despite the putatively oppressive hand of conservative Catholics and mean-spirited bishops. To argue that Catholic campuses are suppressors of information these days is an untenable argument. It's simply not so.

I am not, mind you, dismissing your very valid point made about the need to engage in discussion about capital punishment, poverty, and war. It is only to say that the Church's teaching on abortion is a non-negotiable, right up there with our understanding of racism and genocide. *How* poverty, war, and capital punishment are addressed in society (e.g., gov'tal vs. individual agency, just war theory, the state's responsibility for providing security, etc.) are matters of prudential judgment and thought. Best, Fin

I agree with Patricia Shreves Saracco that the Catholic point of view should PREVAIL in the classroom at a Catholic. In addition, this should include ALL Catholic teachings, and not "sweep under the carpet" objections about outside speakers who clearly violate the Church's teachings. If a speaker who heavily supports government funded embryonic stem cell research (intrinsically evil) or the death penalty is allowed to speak, perhaps a followup should be presented detailing why this person's stance is in direct violation to the Catholic teachings. I feel that ALL issues should be addressed, even if not "equally in violation".

I am graduate of Fordham University where I got my M.A. in religion and religious education. I am proud what I read here about my University.
In my country I have experienced that after my return from studies at Fordham I was asked to resign from my position as a lecturer in our Catholic establishment for higher education for catechists.
It was price that I had to pay for my studies at Fordham in my country.
I enjoyed my studies very much because they gave me understanding what is going on in the Church.
I am grateful to the Bishops' Conference of the USA who partly granted me scholarship, although I do not have position to share my knowledge and understanding with others in my country.

I think we sometimes forget that when the first universities arose in Europe in the Middle Ages, even though it was under the aegis of the church, open debate was the method of investigation. Free speech was a sine qua non of university life, and students argued over different positions not only in class but in the pubs and in the streets of the cities. The so-called scholastic method used by Thomas Aquinas is based on Aristotle's method of investigation, which examines all aspects of the issue and then draws a conclusion - but only after examining all the angles. No one was afraid to listen to speakers with different points of view. Given our roots in the scholastic tradition and also the rich intellectual history of the Catholic tradition, it is so sad nowadays to see the dumbing down of Catholic University life. If the bishops are really confident of the sound intellectual foundations of their teaching, why are they so afraid of students debating and engaging with different points of view?

Just who decided that pro-choice was pro-abortion. What lousy thinking. Had to be a celebate male.

I continue to be amazed at the complete disconnect between the so-called enlightened elite and what it means to be faithful to the Church. Both sides need to be brought to attention. We are still using words "conservative" and "liberal" which, I believe have become the two most distructive words in the English language. The reality is, if we are really being honest, have both ideologies residing in each of us. So lets stop using archeic and divisive labels. Church leadership needs to bring true "pastoral" and "compassionate" direction and teaching to the "truth" of the faith not be headhunters and spies for those who might stray from the "truth". The same is true of the so-called enlightened elites, who think it is in vogue to reject or rebel against the mainline teaching of the Church under the title of Catholic Academic Freedom. Both sides have lost a very important virtue, that of "HUMILITY". Catholic Universities have the right and obligation to teaching the "truth" as 2000 year tradition celebrates it. People also have the right to follow or not follow its precepts. But when we speak in the name of a Catholic Institution we have the obligation to speak in the name of its truth and that which it represents. This is NOT Liberal or Conservative it is being AUTHENTIC!!! It isn't just about me or you, it is about all of us.

Students should be exposed to various viewpoints on the important issues of the day even if they do not agree with the Church's teaching if for no other reason than that they will be ill equipped to combat "error" unless they understand the other side's logic. It has been said a million times, but the best way to combat wrong ideas is with right ideas and not by suppressing any ideas.

Academic freedom is important but theology is theology. We cannot remake theology to fit our wishes. Stinking thinking will always remain stinking thinking.

Ms. Childs Graham -

I agree that college students should be critical thinkers who take on big ideas from a broad spectrum of important thinker. That is not to say that all ideas are equally right, true, or valuable, but that learning requires wrestling with big ideas. This should hold true regardless of whether a university is Catholic or secular. The pursuit of truth is a universal vocation.

Outside classroom walls, however, a Catholic university has a unique obligation to form the conscience and character of its students. That is the distinguishing characteristic of a Catholic university, in my view. I'd be curious to know what YOU consider the distinguishing characteristic of a Catholic university. So, as such, an administration must set an example for its students by living out the Catholic faith that animates it. I think it more than reasonable for a university to exercise its own right to free speech by not providing a platform for individuals fundamentally at odds with Church teaching, if providing such a platform could be seen as an endorsement of an idea or behavior that is morally wrong. This power should be used judiciously and prudently, I would say, but it should be used.

I also take objection to your assertion that Sen. Sam Brownback is at odds with Church teaching. Abortion is an intrinsic evil according to the Church and cannot be justified under any circumstance. While the situations are rare when war and the death penalty are just, these situations can and do exist, and identifying such situations is a matter of prudence. Finally, to follow the Beatitudes and Christ's admonishments to care for the least among us in no way obligate Christians to support federal government social programs. Being opposed to a particular social program is not in any way equivalent to supporting abortion rights. Therefore, I think you draw a false equivalence between speakers who support abortion rights and speakers who have a position on an issue the Church leaves up to prudence.

Egan.....? This would be the same Egan who was "guilty" of covering up and failing to remove from active ministry in the diocese of Bridgeport, CT clergy who committed sexual abuse crimes against children? Where is the "consistent" pro life ethic here? God only knows what he has also been capable of in his current New York position. Please!!!!!

Three cheers for Fordham!!!

Dear Kate: If a KuKuxKlan leader wanted to speak on why Blacks and Jews and homosexuals are inferior, or even sub-human; would you still allow him to speak so that all students can get a well rounded range of views to choose from? Probably not. So why allow a speaker on campus who thinks it is perfectly OK to torture,de-capitate, dismember and poison little children without even the benefit of anesthetics?

I agree with Manuel Aliaga that the church has to present a consistent and unified witness to the world. Abortion is murder; it cannot be condoned. War is also murder; not only of the other country's soldiers who are all human beings and children of the same God, but also our own young men and women sent to occupy other people's lands, as well as the thousands of innocent women and children often regarded as collateral damage. Bombing of villages in Afghanistan and Iraq are clearly acts of mass-murder; therefore they must also be condemned. Likewise, execution is murder and pro-life advocates should be clear that it is against Catholic teachings. So, if abortion is not open for discussion university officials should also insist that all these other issues which Kate Childs Graham points to are also closed topics. So, Manuel Aliaga, be consistent in ensuring the church does not promote all these terrible evils.

Perhaps a man will evolve into a creature who can have a baby. In that event I will support two men getting married. You see, I believe that there was message in the story of Adam and Eve even if that is not exactly the way it happened. I think the snake is still around.

Dear Kate,
Thank you for your posting. I am encouraged to know that Fordham University was not swayed by the apparent power of Cardinal Egan. Many in the hierarchy of our church would have us believe that the Catholic teaching on abortion is unchanged and unchangeable. This is simply not true. As science and society have evolved so has our teaching.

In my opinion, Catholic Universities are the best place to have authentic dialogue with an unlimited range of opinions and positions raised. This deep inquiry should not be threatening and yet it seems that it is these days. What better way is there to form one's conscience regarding current and pressing matters affecting our lives?

As far as I know, the primacy of conscience prevails over all ethical/moral decision making for Catholics. One rarely hears any mention of that fact and yet it is the teaching of our church. No person can be made to go against her or his conscience. Every faithful Catholic has the responsibility to inform her or his conscience and then act accordingly, no matter who is giving the order. That holds true in the decision concerning abortion just as it does in the decision to enter the military, to engage in brutal interrogation practices, to engage in harmful business practices, and on and on.

Again, thanks to Fordham and thanks to you for sharing this episode. My hope is that more of us, individuals in private or public life, will find the courage of our convictions and claim our ministry within this church we love.

Peace

My Professor. I had Rosemary Radford Reuther as a Professor when I was doing my graduate studies. I actually thought her ideas were very interesting.

This freedom of academic speach vs. adherence to Church teaching is a false arguement and a red herring. Pro-choice speakers are not allowed as guest speakers at Catholic Universities because they are pro-choice but because they are usually left leaning in their politics. They are banned from speaking even when they are not speaking about the issue of abortion. This exclusion of pro-choice people is not really about being pro-life. It is the desire for right-wing ideology to dominant in our church and in our national discourse. This is why it is unevenly applied when it comes to pro-war/pro-capital punishment people. It is because it is not really about saving the life of the unborn. If it was about life greater effort would be made to make the choice for life an easier one for women through support for day-care and early childhood education. The pro-life movement has supported an anti-life party because they are not really pro-life but right wing fanatics who use the Church's pro-life teaching as a trojan horse to further their right wing agenda. The pro-life bishops are in the tank for the republican party and that is why they attack Obama about his pro-choice stance at the same time remain totally silent regarding what Bush has done in Iraq, to the enviroment, to allowing of torture etc etc. The radical prolife bishops are once again in an abuse of power when they attempt to limit discourse at universities and in the public sphere. Catholic bishops abusing their power in the church, what else is new.

The old saying was "shirtsleeves back to shirtsleeves in 3 generations". Now it is back to Pre-Vatican II in 3 generations of Catholic student academic life...

I continue to be amazed at the complete disconnect between the so-called enlightened elite and what it means to be faithful to the Church.
Associate Online Degree

Parents who send their children to a Catholic college should be able to expect the Catholic point of view to PREVAIL in the classroom, and for the school to present outside speakers who inspire students to apply their Catholic faith in their life choices. If one wants a secular education, it's readily available and usually less expensive.
club penguin

War is also murder; not only of the other country's soldiers who are all human beings and children of the same God, but also our own young men and women sent to occupy other people's lands, as well as the thousands of innocent women and children often regarded as collateral damage. Bombing of villages in Afghanistan and Iraq are clearly acts of mass-murder; therefore they must also be condemned. Likewise, execution is murder and pro-life advocates should be clear that it is against Catholic teachings.
clubpenguin