TROUBLE at the University of Dallas?
By Patrick Fagan
DEPENDING on how the Board of the University of Dallas votes tonight I (proud father of five UD alumni children) may well be telling folk: “Don’t send your kids to UD. It used to be great but now is a danger to their faith.” At issue is the introduction of a curriculum of the School of Ministry for undergraduates.
In a newly released promotional video for the University of Dallas, the new president Thomas Keefe states unequivocally, “There isn’t an institution that compares to the University of Dallas in its fidelity to the Church and its academic rigor.” How brave he is in keeping it so will be clear tonight at the Board meeting.
The UD theology department gives undergraduates the real goods – the full faith and orthodoxy. Yet UD is poised to offer a new undergraduate major in pastoral theology next fall to be taught by the School of Ministry, not the current theology department. Unlike theology and the rest of UD’s departments, this school is not well known and has had a rather separated existence, but is now about to become part of the UD mainstream.
Before voting the Board should conduct an open inquiry into the School of Ministry and, if it wants to retain the affections of its “faithful” Catholic base, make sure all faculty are behind the Church in all its teachings without equivocation. (Undergrads need clear doctrine, professional theologians can explore the edges.)
Take, for instance, Professor Jerome Walsh, who is currently teaching an Old Testament course to School of Ministry graduate students. Walsh’s interests in the Old Testament include publication of a lengthy analysis of Leviticus in which he claims that Israel’s holy law only ever meant to condemn the completed act of sodomy and that “other forms of male–male sexual encounter, encompassing the whole range of physical expressions of affection that do not entail penetration, are not envisaged in these laws” (see p. 209, warning: graphic content). Will this be taught to undergraduates?
Another cause for concern is Sr. Dorothy Joanitis, O.P., who has openly advocated for optional celibacy for priests, as well as for female ordination. While her SOM colleague Dr. Marti Jewell thinks lifting the ban on celibacy is a legitimate option, Sister Joanitis goes even further, presenting to a synod of bishops the following: “To alleviate the injustices imposed upon the People of God, we offer these practical solutions to you, the Synod of Bishops on the Eucharist. . . .allow women to be ordained” (blog link; the original website has been taken down). Like Prof. Walsh, Sister appears to have an interest in weakening the Church’s teachings on homosexual acts, defending Eucharistic ministers who “question a church teaching they see as justifying violence against their son and other homosexuals” and in her piece nominates Bishop Gumbleton as the authority on good conscience in regard to homosexual acts, while rejecting then-Cardinal Ratzinger.
Another SOM faculty member and a former Call to Action member, Dr. Scott Opperman, seems to be of the same mind. On a website designed to encourage new vocations, he co-wrote that “[r]eligious women and men aren’t oddities; they mirror the rest of the church they serve: there are introverts and extroverts, tall and short, old and young, straight and gay, obese and skinny, crass and pious, humorous and serious, and everything in between.” Does this pattern of dissent carry over into the classroom?
Dr. Opperman taught Moral Theology last fall. His syllabus included only two required texts. The first is Richard Gula’s Reason Informed by Faith. Gula is a public advocate for euthanasia. The book is a prolonged defense of proportionalism, which denies the existence of intrinsically evil acts. Gula derides the Church’s teachings on these acts as “classicist moral viewpoints” (p. 36). He wants his readers – Opperman’s students – to disagree with the Catholic Catechism’s teachings on fornication, homoeroticism, direct killing of the innocent, contraceptive intercourse, and the like. The book asks readers – again, Opperman’s students – leading questions, ones that lead to serious error:
Take the case of the married couple who have all the children for whom they can care in a reasonable way. They cannot enlarge their family without compromising the well-being of their present children. At the same time, the couple feels that fairly regular sexual expression is necessary for the growth and development of their marriage. They do not feel that they can respond adequately to both values and follow the proscription of contraception in Humanae Vitae. What do they do? (p. 290)
Loading ...
So if that department already exists and is already teaching error, how is this different? I mean, it sounds bad already, or am I missing something.
@Rob Kaiser
The School of Ministry (SOM) is a graduate only section of the University of Dallas. Up until now, it had no interaction with the undergraduate program. Because the problems were localized and isolated into the little known school, it had no doctrinal impact on the Catholic identity of UD. This new program would extend the influence of the SOM into the undergrad program.
That being said, the problems with SOM had indeed festered too long. Faculty, students, and alumni were aware of its heretical views long ago. However, the university administration has always supported the SOM and never faced any real opposition…until now.
Now that it has been exposed, hopefully the entire cancer be removed altogether and UD can move forward being the best Catholic college in America, a title to which it can justfully lay claim.
Boggles the mind that so many believe there is no further need for a living prophet upon the earth, when, clearly, so many of God’s children struggle to correctly interpret Holy Writ, and especially during a time when moral relativism is so prevalent in our society, and not without grave consequences. If the great “I AM” thought it necessary to communicate His will to prophets of yore, and if we take Him at His word that He is “the same yesterday, today, and forever,” then He will continue to act according to His own previously established pattern, found in Amos 3:7.
@Amy
not sure what you mean by that. Who are the prophets: the student, faculty, and alumni of the University of Dallas who oppose heretical teaching or the School of Ministry that advocates non-penetrative sexual encounters between men?
SOM is apparently supported by both the Dallas and Ft. Worth Dioceses, as those both joined with it in putting on the Ministries Conferences. One of my relatives attended, and she is singing the praises of women’s ordination, empowerment, ditching Latin from the Mass, and more after attending this past fall. Huge numbers of laity attend these annual conferences. And SOM trains deacons and their wives for at least three dioceses (Dallas, Ft. W., and Tyler). I find this a situation in need of great attention of the bishops to ensure The Faith is being faithfully taught. It appears it is not at the present time. My understanding is that a Master’s degree program (4 degrees, I think) issues UD diplomas from SOM. Is SOM accredited through UD? The set-up apart from the Theology Dept. of UD is indeed odd.
Program for 2010 Ministry Conference can be found here:
http://resource.udallas.edu/132/Program_2010.pdf
To sign the petition requesting that the Board proceed with caution in order to maintain the untainted, orthodox nature of the Theology program, please click here: http://www.ipetitions.com/petition/udschoolofministryundergradprogram/
Thanks for posting that, Ashley. I signed it.
According to the UD website and the President’s forum, the Bishops (Farrell and Vann) weighed in on the new degree and they’ve behind been involved with establishing it. According to the President’s forum, the Bishops ultimately decide which faculty get to teach the courses. I also heard that a few of the faculty mentioned were already under review by the University and the Bishop. Apparently two of them did not get their contracts renewed for next year.
But, if you look back at Dr. Fagan’s article today, there is a retraction at the bottom about one person. I’m not trying to argue with Dr. Fagan, but might it be a possibility that there might be misunderstanding about some of the other faculty as well? I’ve heard the Bishop sing the praises of the work of the School of Ministry and I find it hard to believe that he’d be supportive if what Fagan describes were really truly happening. The Bishop is often at SOM programs and meets with the faculty. Again, I’m not trying to denegrade Dr. Fagan, but perhaps the Bishop is already handling the concerns. Does the University or the Diocese really have the right to discuss personnel matters publicly? What can we really expect them to share while things are being investigated? Again, I have heard through the grapevine that 2 faculty members at SOM are not returning next year due to not renewing their contracts, but I don’t know if that’s something that the school can really disclose from an HR perspective.
Here’s a video from the Bishop that’s being circulated from the diocese: http://www.cathdal.org/pages/news-item?r=KQ5VAOWZID&send_to=%2F
Excellent points A. Hoffman, I think that Dr. Fagan’s correction shows that he is only interested in the facts of the case. If an internal investigation does indeed exist, then this article can only urge the administration onwards to completing it. If one did not exist already, and is now commencing, then the article did an even more important service. Either way, good will come of it, even though this experience has been extremely painful for ALL members of the University of Dallas community. If a Washington D.C. father was willing to entrust a school in Texas with the academic formation of five of his children, there is little doubt that he has deep affection for the University of Dallas. I’m sure that it pained him as much as it pained everyone involved. But doing the right thing doesn’t always feel comfortable does it?
All of this is not surprising given that the University of Dallas is mainly run by non-Catholics.
The provost, dean of Constantin College, vice-president for university advancement, vice provost and vice president for admissions and financial aid, et. al. are all non-Catholics. It’s no wonder why no one cares whether professors are Catholic or not.
@pat Please be fully factual in your posting — especially when you say “et al. are all” — deans are the primary academic leaders of a University, and three of the five deans of the University ARE Catholic (not to mention the University’s associate vice president, executive vice president, and President are Catholic). So one cannot say that UD is “mainly run by non-Catholics.” That’s an unwarranted insult to the Catholic deans and administrators. Moreover, one does not have to be Catholic to be respectful of fostering a Catholic presence on a campus — to say otherwise is a false and disrespectful premise. One can make an argument regarding whether the school’s decision was good or bad without painting a broad brush stroke that paints people falsely.
@Brad. UD is much more than a school with “a Catholic presence.” Heck, even Georgetown can boast of “a Catholic presence.” I wouldn’t go so far as to say that UD is run mainly by non-Catholics; I would rather UD be led by a virtuous Mormon than by a dissenting Catholic. But maintaing the Catholic identity of UD requires an administration that really knows the faith. When administrators believe that Ex Corde Ecclesia is primarily a document about the bishop’s relation to a University and when they equate a single Bishop with the entire Magesterium (which is collegial and must be in union with the Pope…something most of us learned in middle school), we have a fundamental lack of knoweldge. As disturbing as this is, what is more worrisome is the administration’s willingness to use the Bishops and Ex Corde as a club to swing back at those who want nothing more than simple answers about dissenting faculty. They are digging themselves into a hole from which it will be difficult to crawl out.