I took the opportunity to pass along my two cents and John was kind enough to spend some time clarifying some points. I found it very helpful and  I thought that it might also be of interest to those who continue to faithfully follow our now rather occasional posts (both of you).  He agreed to allow me to post our exchange.   Thoughts (after reading the exchange of course)?

Dr. Milbank,

I thank you for stopping by our little blog the other day to post your clarifications to Hierothee’s post. I am interested in your Modern Theology article you mentioned in which you counter Fr. Kerr’s criticisms of JPII’s and B16’s Nuptial Mystery theology. This is a particular interest area of mine as I am working on finalizing a manuscript on JPII’s Theology of Fatherhood. Could you provide me with the issue/date of the article’s publication, or if you would be so inclined, might you send along an electronic copy of your article? I would be much obliged in either case.

As a side note: I understand the great variety of thinkers involved in RO. Nevertheless, if RO is to be a coherent (not to mention fruitful and perduring) theological movement it would seem that something so fundamental as a consistent and sound anthropology to which all in the RO school must assent should be articulated. After all, the analogia entis, which I believe RO is trying to re-appropriate into Anglican thought, infers that if you get the human person wrong then all of your theological speculation is destined to go astray. The often erroneous anthropology articulated by some in RO I think is the source of Hierothee’s reservations about the movement (at least it is mine). For what it might be worth, I would argue that articulation of a sound anthropology ought to be a major concern for RO.

With every good wish,

____________________________________________________

Dear David Delaney,

Many thanks for your email.   RO isn’t a movement that demands ‘assent’ to a list of propositions. In my view that should be for Church bodies alone. It’s a loosely defined ethos, tendency and network, close to several other tendencies and to more specifically defined movements: to Communio, the JP II Institutes, Communio e Liberazione, Focolare (beginning a little), Russian sophiologists and to the entire nouvelle theologie legacy.

RO does not see itself as an Anglican movement, but as an ecumenically Catholic movement that includes Catholics, Anglicans, Orthodox, and some ‘post-Protestants’ in the Protestant communions.

Anthropology is crucial as you rightly say. I suppose though that theologians might agree in general about human nature and its relation to God and still disagree about questions of gender and sexuality — even though there is an intimate link.

On the latter front, as on some others, I would say that RO has evolved and that currently it is somewhat more ‘conservative’ than it was at the outset. This applies both to a shift in perspective on the part of individuals and the arrival of younger more emphatic people plus the falling-away of some of the first batch who have moved towards a more liberal position. Others of that same batch remain highly sympathetic to RO in many, or even most ways, while being critical in others.

If this helps, I would say that perhaps the most crucial RO-leaning authors are now John Milbank, Catherine Pickstock, Conor Cunningham, Simon Oliver, Adrian Pabst, Phillip Blond, Aaron Riches, Andrew Davison, Michael Hanby, Robert Miner, Peter Chandler, John Montag, Anthony Baker, Alessandra Gerolin, John Hughes, Matt Bullimore, Angel Mendez OP and John Betz — along with many other emerging names in the UK and elsewhere. (If I’ve left someone out here inadvertently, then apologies.) But there are several others who would not formally identify with the movement but are very close to it indeed and very supportive of it.

Of the above names, six are Catholics, one is Eastern Orthodox and eight are Anglicans of which three are likely to become Catholics in the future. (This does not at present include me.) The ecumenicity is therefore reflected in personnel as well as in theory.

In terms of my own positions re gender and sexuality I suspect that some Catholics would find me a shade too liberal, but in terms of contemporary positions I would be classed as extremely ‘conservative’: against abortion, experiments on foeteses, against any idea that homosexuality can be the subject of equal rights, in favour of the importance of sexual difference, critical of liberal feminism, and holding the opinion that the separation of sex and procreation is in effect a state capitalist programme of bioethical tyranny etc etc. To my mind the Papacy is the crucial bulwark against this, even if I favour married clergy, ordaining women (my wife is an Anglican priest who is at least as conservative as the current Pope in most ways) and recognising gay civil partnerships (though certainly not gay marriage, which I regard as ontologically impossible — I also think that civil partnerships not linked to sex should be included for reasons of inheritance etc.) Some within RO are more conservative than me on these points.

In more general terms RO represents a desire for a rethought metaphysical realism — linking Thomism to the French Spiritual realist tradition — Biran, Ravaisson, Bergson, Blondel, Lavalle, Bruaire etc. This is what a more philosophical version of the nouvelle theologie needs I think and many on the continent like Emmanuel Tourpe agree. It also of course supports Lubac’s position on the supernatural and reads this in a radical way that favours an integralism of philosophy and theology and of the social and the spiritual in the the practical arena. The Anglicans amongst is also think that the deeper currents in Richard Hooker’s thought go in this direction.

Politically an originally Christian socialist direction has evolved into a post right versus left associationism/communitarianism that stresses civil society and civil economy against both the state and the agnostic capitalist market. In the UK Blond and myself are seen by British Catholics as the best interpreters and supporters of Caritas in Veritate even though we both Anglicans. The CoTP at Nottingham has links to Blond’s thinktank Respublica and Pabst’s embryo organisation Cosmopolis.

I hope that all the above is of some interest and use to you in assessing what is going on here!

All best wishes,

John Milbank

I have only one point that I wish to draw from her presentation: and, above, I’ve only linked to a news account of it, as I did not have time to see if it was published on line. Her own husband’s theology was, presumably in contrast to West’s, thoroughly aristocratic in spirit, in the ancient tradition of orthodox monastic theology, seeing the Christian life, whether in the married state or celibate, as ascensional in Christ. He was horrified and repulsed by pornography and sodomy. These were, for him, unlike for many contemporary Catholics, even orthodox Catholics, vile and violent misuses of human freedom and of the body, as gravely serious in their nature and consequences as any sin. He was incapable of even joking about these acts, contrary to the blithe attitude of so many Catholics today.  

Hildebrand was a man of genuine Catholic tradition and greatness of spirit. He was not a fashionable pre-vericator in expounding the nature of the Catholic tradition. He is a genuine role model of the faith for our times, especially, I would suggest, for lay Catholic men. Would that all Catholics today could see their lives as truly in Christ as Hildebrand did and allow their sensibilities to be shaped accordingly.

He is the antidote to those many theologians in the Anglosphere today who would claim to recover the great tradition of Catholic theology all the while thinking that it is morally right that, for instance, ”civil unions” for SSA couples should be established.

[And, I would add, the very idea of "women's ordination" would likewise be horrifying to Hildebrand, and he would see it as connected to the same gross and diabolical misunderstandings of Catholic tradition and of the nature of the body that lead one to blithely ignore the grave consequences of sodomy or pornography.  But I'd have to do a very long essay on that to make the point clear -- I only offer it here as an aside. And, besides, this is David's area of expertise, not mine.]

He is insightful at times in the area of the relation of theology to economics. He refuses, at least on the surface, to let theology be placed by the social sciences. Concomitantly, he recognizes that something is very wrong with a purely secular culture that has cut out any connection between itself and the divine, lacking any reference to the Christian sacred. He realizes that such a culture tends to promulgate barbaric practices in the realm of politics and economics. He even, on occasion, laments the “consumerizing” of sexual practices in post-1968 European culture.

In the recent  interview linked to above, published just today, in fact, he even goes so far as to argue that Pope Benedict XVI’s visit to England is very much needed and that the beatification of Cardinal Newman is a work of unity: as Newman, he argues, was both Anglican and Catholic and a treasure to both communions.

Anyone who is concerned with the integrity of the traditional faith, might, on occasion, be taken in by his words. But it is not long before a strange dissonance creeps in. For he speaks out of both sides of his mouth.

No sooner does he commend the high tradition of Patristic and Scholastic theology, then he starts in odd directions in regard to sexual issues. So, for instance, in the programmatic book on “Radical Orthodoxy,” which he compiled and edited, he publishes an essay (by another author, but presumably representative of the radically orthodox position) commending the practice of homosexual sexual unions as a sign of Trinitarian love, a position that he has never, to my knowledge, refuted. His critique of consumerism in the realm of sexual ethics can only fall to the ground with such an ideology in place.

In commending Pope Benedict XVI’s visit to Great Britain, he adds the remark that the ordination of women to the episcopacy in the Anglican Church will prove to be, in the long run, a great ecumenical achievement,  especially now that, on Milbank’s opinion, the Pope’s recent provision to Anglicans who want to convert to Catholicism, Anglicanorum Coetibus, has shown that the Catholic Church recognizes Anglicanism to be a valid tradition, along the lines of Eastern Orthodoxy. This will, he implies, lead to a fluidity between the communions that will force the Catholic Church to confront the issues of homosexuality, the ordination of women, and married priests more forthrightly than it has done previously.

I suppose that this an interesting point to some extent, inasmuch as it gives a different perspective on Anglicanorum Coetibus than one generally hears from the Catholic side. Many traditionalist Catholics think that the provision will strengthen Catholic tradition, because it will presumably bring in converts who want more of that tradition and not less of it. Milbank in fact argues precisely to the contrary.

But this is why I think Milbank comes across as rather delusional in the end. The Catholic Church is not going to ordain women — ever, just as it has never done in 2,000 years, and not simply because of cultural conditioning that has presumably affected the Church’s disciplinary practice. The debate is closed, and it will not be opening any time soon, except among aging college professors who will be long dead before they ever have had a chance to carry out the revolution that they have so long desired. To the extent that Anglicanism pushes in that direction, the Catholic Church will close its ears. At the same time, the Catholic Church is not going to canonize the act of homosexual sex — ever, just as it has never done in 2,000 years. Milbank has accused John Paul II of being a Romantic for arguing for traditional marriage on the grounds of the nuptial analogy of the body. But, in fact, it is Milbank who has accepted, hook, line, and sinker, the libertine premises that have traditionally accompanied the Romantic ideology.

Milbank’s reading of the tradition comes across as tendentious and twisted. In the end, I think that the best that can be said of him is that he is a theological modernist who just happens to love some smells and bells. And, by the way, he is completely out of touch with the direction in which the Catholic Church is headed. Few young Catholics today, who take their faith seriously, are attracted to the kind of pansexualism that Milank would have us submerged in. The young priests, who will soon be bishops and popes, are going in a direction diametrically opposed to the Milbankian option. And, besides, he has hardly spearheaded a renewal of the life of faith in his own Anglican communion. We’re hardly talking about a personage on the level of John Paul II here. Radical Orthodoxy may be appealing to a handful of subversive and socially awkward eggheads, but it is not the path to spiritual renewal in Christianity.

The primary exponent of this new theological politics in Britain is Phillip Blond, who was widely considered by pundits before the most recent elections in Britain to be David Cameron’s political guru. Cameron heads the new “conservative” coalition government in Britain. Blond himself is generally associated with the so-called radical orthodoxy of John Milbank and Catherine Pickstock which, as David has argued on this blog, is in fact quite radically unorthodox.  The radically (un)orthodox are basically as libertine as it comes in matters sexual, no less than the Corinthians to whom Paul preached conversion.

Perhaps it is no surprise, then, that the new “conservative coalition” in Britain is pushing an internationalist eugenics program that rivals anything that we saw in the 20th century, or among the immediate predecessors to the Cameron government in Britain.

The Anglophone world has been a great source of evil in the world in this regard, for well over a century now. One can hardly imagine anything coming out of this world, operating from within its own nominalist premises, that might shift the balance in a more virtuous direction. The British Empire is not dead, unfortunately. They still have far too much money to work with. One can hardly speak with any more assurance of the American Empire.

The head of the Religion Department, Robert McKim, made it clear on a number of occasions in the year I was there, that he did not like the arrangement between the U of I and the Newman Center.  His preference was that we use the money the Newman Center was paying the faculty toward a Catholic Chair.  He and other professors mentioned the type of person they thought should have such a chair.  First among the qualifications was someone who was capable of criticizing his faith (is it any wonder why many of my students could not distinguish between critical thinking skills and criticizing things they did not like?).

As if to demonstrate what they meant by who should be teaching Catholicism at the U of I, the department invited two “Catholic” scholars in two consecutive years to give their annual “Thulin Lecture on Religion and Contemporary Culture.”  Can you guess who their preferred type of Catholic scholars might be?  In 2007 they invited Charlie Curran and in 2008 they brought in Elisabeth Schüssler Fiorenza.  Certainly here they have scholars who have no compunction about criticizing the faith, but I would argue that neither do they have the capacity to critically explain the Catholic faith from an inside perspective.  With “Catholic” scholars such  as these, you may as well have a Buddhist or Muslim teaching Catholicism…in fact, the latter might even be more even handed.

Whether it will be a Catholic chair, one of the existing professors of Christianity (both of whom have exhibited animus toward authentic Catholic thought in a variety of ways), or a new hire there is little doubt in my mind that after Ken Howell those who teach these classes will no longer be engaging the students with authentic Catholic thought.  As an example, one of the existing professors of Christianity was assigned to “mentor” me in establishing a syllabus I was developing for a class on Catholic morality.  He advised me that since there was no continuity between the early Church Fathers and Scripture, that I should remove the Scriptural background from my syllabus.  You see, in the department of religion, those teaching about Christianity have to hold to Harnackian orthodoxy (i.e. the Hellenization of Christianity).  He also advised that I remove all discussion of Church documents from my syllabus because no one really cares about what the Church teaches anyway.  Of course, I indicated to him that to follow his recommendations would give a distorted view of Catholic morality.  I said that Harnack’s theory was simply that, a theory about which we disagreed.  I also told him that the Magisterium was one of the unique things about Catholicism; that whether you followed it or not, everyone teaching about Catholicism has to take it as a point of reference.  Of course, one can see more clearly now why I was deemed ill suited to teach in their department.

It seems that the U of I did not waste this crisis.  They took it as an opportunity to abrogate an almost century long agreement so that they now have the ability to choose a professor who thinks as they do; that is, one who may not be qualified to teach authentic Catholic thought but at least will not be given to call into question secular orthodoxy.

On the one hand, this is positive news.  The commission of the faculty senate has put the lie to the claims by LAS that teaching about the Catholic faith in a class about Catholicism is hate speech.  Nevertheless, the good fruit is laced with poison.

The offer seems to be exactly what I was afraid of.  The prohibition against Dr. Howell’s association with the Newman Center is another violation of his academic freedom and it is likewise a violation of his freedom of religion.  How many other adjuncts or part time faculty are prevented from working for an organization associated with their faith as a condition of employment?

The U of I appears to be making an economically untenable offer with the intent of voiding a 90+ year relationship with the Newman Center.  I suspect that they are banking on the fact that since Dr. Howell cannot work for the Newman Center, which paid him a full professor’s salary, he will not be able to afford to take the position.  The U of I is offering him perhaps a little more than a quarter of his Newman Center salary.

Even if Dr. Howell does manage to figure out how to make such a situation work, at the very least this stipulation seems to corroborate my experience that all too many at the U of I have a prejudice against faith. To suppose that being paid by a religious institution somehow disqualifies a professor from academic rigor and fair-mindedness is bigotry of the first order.  The fact that seminaries all across the country, whose faculty are paid by religious bodies, are also accredited by such associations as that which accredits the U of I (North Central Association of Colleges and Schools) indicates that funding from a religious source provides no warrant for suspicion.  Indeed, Catholic Chairs at major universities usually involve funding from Catholic donors and consultation with the local bishop about faculty appointments.  I do hope that this offensive stipulation is challenged.

See here and here for my previous posts on this matter.

Paul,

I apologize for the delay in responding but our summer session is wrapping up and a host of other issues makes this a very busy time for me so I was only able to grab a minute here and there to jot down some responses to your questions:

“what reason the religious department gave you for not rehiring you as an adjunct“

Technically, I was not an adjunct but I was on visiting professor status.  I explain this more fully in my blog post here (http://cosmos-liturgy-sex.com/2010/07/14/they-finally-won-background-on-ken-howells-firing/ ).  In that post I also explain the events surrounding the Program for the Study of Religion’s (as it was then called) decision, but in sum: I was informed about 2/3s of the way into the fall semester (2006) that I would not be granted an adjunct appointment for the following year.  Dr. Robert McKim, the director of the Program for the Study of Religion, called me into his office to tell me that evaluations of my classes by two faculty members from the Program had indicated that I was not suited to teach with them.  He would not share with me any specifics of the evaluations but he said in general the problem resolved around the fact that I had appeared “too much like I believed what I was teaching.”  I am not sure what other disciplines for which this is a problem, but for Dr. McKim and at least a voting majority of the faculty for the Religious Studies Department, belief when it comes to teaching about the Catholic Church seems to be a problem.

“Do you think your case is similar to Dr. Howell’s?”

Yes I do.  Dr. Howell’s case is much clearer of course.  He has taught at the U of I for almost a decade and at least since 2005, I believe, every semester he has been ranked by his students as an outstanding professor.  Many of these times, he was the only one in the religion department to receive such recognition.  Thus, he has a long and stellar record as an outstanding teacher with the department.  In his case, he was also told the explicit content which the University decision makers found objectionable.  This happened to be an articulation of the Catholic Church’s use of the classical natural law tradition to show its conformance with Church teaching in the context of same sex attraction.  The content of the class had been approved by the College of Liberal Arts and Sciences, as is the case with all approved classes.  The inability to teach what the Catholic Church teaches and why she does so when it is the explicitly approved topic of the class, simply because it does not comport with current dominant ideology about same sex attraction is unmistakably an infringement on the purpose of a university and the academic freedom that lies at the heart of a university’s mission. To do so in this case was called “hate speech” in a complaint. It seems to me that in this context, the phrase “hate speech” is being used as an ad hominem attack to censor discussion that calls into question an accepted popular dogma, in this case the belief by many in academia about what we might call the “secular sacredness” attached to same sex attraction. In my case, it was the very fact that I “appeared to believe” what the Church taught that was enough to disqualify me to teach.  The similarity in both cases is that academic freedom seemed not to apply to Christians teaching about the content of their religion merely because they also accepted that content as true.  It is important to note that no claim was made against either of us that we expected the students to believe, pressured them to believe, graded students based upon belief, or that we did not maintain academic standards.  I “seemed to believe” what I taught and Dr. Howell’s belief, which violated U of I’s (or at least LAS’s) “standards of inclusivity,” both were the reasons for our departure.

“Does the UI have a problem with Catholics expressing themselves?”

We will have to wait to see the results of the Faculty Senate Committee’s investigation to see if such a charge can fairly be made against the university as a whole, but this clearly seems to be the case within the College of Liberal Arts and Sciences and the Department of Religion.

“Do you have the right as a professor to express your personal opinions?”

I think that a professor has a duty to allow students to know where he is coming from.  In journalism this is often referred to as “full disclosure” I believe.  If students are to critically assess what is being presented, they should have the opportunity not simply to evaluate the arguments, they should also have access to information about the professor’s personal position in order to more clearly contextualize the arguments. Perhaps it may be the case that other relevant data may have been intentionally or inadvertently left out due to the professor’s position.  A student has a right, in fact a duty, to fully evaluate and so make up his/her own mind about an issue in a fully informed manner.  There are very few disciplines in which the professor’s personal views are deemed inappropriate to classroom discussion.  This includes some of the most controversial topics of our time.  That is of course, unless the views depart for accepted “orthodoxy.”  Academic Freedom standards in the academy actually protect the right of a professor to discuss relevant controversial topics.  The American Association of University Professors cites a Supreme Court decision in this regard on the matter of academic freedom:  “As the Supreme Court said in Keyishian v. Board of Regents, 385 U.S. 589 (1967), ‘Our Nation is deeply committed to safeguarding academic freedom, which is of transcendent value to all of us and not merely to the teachers concerned. That freedom is therefore a special concern of the First Amendment, which does not tolerate laws that cast a pall of orthodoxy over the classroom’” (http://www.aaup.org/AAUP/pubsres/policydocs/contents/1940statement.htm ).  Unfortunately, the “orthodoxy” demanded by LAS and the Department of Religion squelches rational dialog about the very content of which the class is supposed to be about.

“…have you kept any documents from the time in question?”

I have some documents.  One that may be of interest is attached.  It is a copy of the e-mail notifying Dr. Howell the Program’s refusal to allow me to teach.  It is very vague and it was never explained to me what exactly was meant by the reasons given.  As a result, I was never given a chance to respond to the charge that I was “not well equipped” and that point never came up as a separate issue in the discussion I had with Dr. McKim about their decision and so I am left to assume this is also a reference to the “offending” manner in which I taught.  Furthermore, the topics of the classes which Program faculty evaluated were theological and philosophical matters associated with the First and Second Vatican Councils, topics about which I am well suited to teach and about which I was evaluated in my graduate studies.  Thus, I would be very surprised if the two faculty members evaluating me would have been qualified to critique my expertise in these areas.  Nevertheless, the e-mail’s reference to “the way in which they need to be taught at a secular university” was clearly citing Dr. McKim’s explanation to me that I taught too much as though I believed what I was teaching.

The ICT had its predecessor in a cooperative arrangement between the Spaulding Guild (the original instantiation of what is now St. John’s Catholic Newman Center, the parent organization of the ICT) and the University of Illinois.  The director of the Spaulding Guild, Fr. John A. O’Brien, joined with nine other campus ministry organizations to petition the University to accept for credit in the university, some courses the student centers would teach in their respective institutions.

On December 9^th 1919 the faculty Senate and the Board of Trustees approved an arrangement with these centers.  This allowed the Guild to teach Catholic courses for university credit under the supervision of a university appointed committee.  The stipulations for this arrangement required that the Guild follow certain guidelines.  These included that it incorporate, submit their proposed courses to the university for approval, provide instructors with a Ph.D. or equivalent education, provide their own facilities, and limit enrollment in the courses to students of sophomore standing or higher.

In the 1970s, controversy erupted over the credit course system that had been created by these campus ministers in 1919.  The controversy began developing in the late 1950s.  At that time, credit course enrollment had been integrated into the university’s registration process and the committee which had supervised the courses had been abolished (though their supervision was transferred to another body). These changes angered a small but powerful group of faculty members from the philosophy and sociology departments.  These faculty were members of the local chapter of the American Association of University Professors (AAUP) and through the AAUP began making formal assaults on the credit course system, pressing for its discontinuance.

The ministers of the campus ministries, organized through the Religious Worker’s Association (RWA), fought the attack throughout the 1960s.  As the decade wore on, however, the heads of several foundations backed down, fearing that unless they compromised, they would have no voice in future decisions.  By the late 1960s, Fr. Duncan (the director [1943-1997] of what was now the Newman Foundation), was waging an increasingly lonely battle to keep the credit-course system intact, arguing that theology, which was the heart of religion, should be taught as an academic subject only by those trained in it. To the surprise of many, on May 17, 1972, the Trustees voted six to two to keep the credit courses (the above two paragraphs are from an unpublished history assembled by a friend of mine).

In 2000 the issue erupted again in which the Program for the Study of Religion again tried to eliminate the courses being offered in the Newman Foundation.  By this time, the Foundation, thanks to Msgr. Duncan’s influence , was the only remaining campus ministry center to be teaching these credit courses.  The director of the Foundation was now Msgr. Stuart Swetland who continued the battle with the same vigor.

The compromise he was to reach now included the discontinuation of teaching the courses as theology courses in the Newman Foundatoin.  The arrangement was modified in 2001 with the Program for the Study of Religion within the Liberal Arts School, subsuming these courses into its program and appointing two Newman Foundation professors as adjuncts within the Program.  These faculty would not receive any compensation from the University.  The courses were now taught as religious studies courses.  They were taught from an interior perspective, but they did not presume or expect faith on the part of the students.  These course turned out to be some of the most popular courses offered by the Program for the Study of Religion.  All of the classes offered by Msgr. Swetland and Ken Howell were regularly full and the instructors were ranked as excellent by their students almost every semester.

When Msgr. Swetland was reassigned in the spring of 2006, the battle erupted again.  The plan was for me to replace Msgr. Swetland in his classes.  Ken Howell notified the Program of this desired change.  The director was Robert McKim (the same person who “fired” Ken Howell earlier this year).  He was of course quite cool to the idea.  This stage of the controversy began with an invitation from the Program for me to meet with the faculty so “we could get to know one another.”

The meeting turned out to be something of an inquisition for which I was unprepared.  Three days after hearing that I would be taking Msgr. Swetland’s courses over, I was asked to cite the books I would use, layout on the fly a syllabus for these courses and answer specific questions about the topics posed by each of the faculty members.  Perhaps I should have expected this, but of course I was unprepared as I had not taught the courses before.

The faculty deemed me not competent to teach and declined to allow me to replace Msgr.  Swetland.  This was at the end of the academic year in the spring of 2006.  Over the summer Ken pushed Robert McKim on the issue.  McKim agreed that it was probably an unfair evaluation and that things likely would have gone differently if I had been given a chance to prepare for the meeting.  Much to the chagrin of the faculty, McKim relented and gave me a one year visiting appointment.  I have to admit that McKim did recognize he would take a lot of heat for this but decided to do the right thing.  Generally, I think McKim tried to be fair, even if his heart is with those who wanted to see us gone…or else his penchant for getting along weighed in our favor.  Nevertheless, he was always quite candid about his distaste for the current arrangement and his desire for a Catholic Chair whom the department would select (given they took to inviting “Charlie” Curran and Elizabeth Fiorenza as their guest lecturers one can see whom they would want to be the Catholic Chair).

However, during the fall semester of 2006 I was informed that the faculty had decided to begin a program to evaluate their adjuncts just in time for my inaugural semester.  I do not know if any others ever were evaluated, but McKim admitted that this was something new.  I had two faculty members sit in on two of my classes.  One of these members, one of them very hostile about Christian beliefs.

Of the two classes evaluated, one was on Vatican I and the Church’s response to Liberalism.  The other was on the background leading up to the calling of the Second Vatican Council.  While I think I was fair, I clearly laid these issues out from an interior Catholic perspective trying to explain the Catholic worldview and how this led to the events we were studying.  A few days later, I was called in to Robert McKim’s office.  He informed me that the “star chamber” had decided that I was not appropriate to teach within the Program.  He said that he could not share with me their deliberations and that the decision was final.  He did indicate to me that in general, the feeling was that I came across too much as though I believed what I was teaching.  McKim is one (perhaps the only one in what is now a Department) who thinks that students should not know what the professor thinks about what he teaches, presuming that this is the only way to be “objective.”

With my departure, this left finding a way to eliminate Ken Howell as the final step in a battle that had begun nearly 60 years prior, that is to eliminate people of faith from teaching subjects having to do with their faith.  To be fair, there are others who practice their faith who teach about their faith.  Conspicuously missing are those of the Judeo-Christian traditions.

It seems to me that this prejudice against people of faith is predicated upon a secular presupposition that there is an inherent conflict between faith and reason.  This premise is likely a vestige of the presumption that any kind of faith demands fideism which has permeated much of the Protestant religious experience in the United States.  While this fideism has its most obvious manifestation in Fundamentalism, it has its roots in the Reformed and Lutheran schools who adopted Ockham’s Voluntarist Nominalism.  Nevertheless, this premise is simply a rationalization as I see it.  My experience was that there seems  to be almost a fear of engagement with Catholic thought among many of these academics.  The U of I Department of Religion (it transitioned from a Program to a Department in 2007 or 2008) represents a gamut of responses to Catholic thought: from hostile ad hominem attacks, to snobbish dismissal, to fearful avoidance of any discussion.  This is not all of the faculty, but it describes at least the vocal leaders.

Ken’s firing was made easy by the 2001 arrangement.  Adjuncts have no rights and I suspect that this was foreseen.  Even though the arrangment was supposed to continue into the indefinite future, an almost century old agreement, the stipulations of the agreement made it only a matter of time before the desires of the hostile faculty members would prevail.  In some ways, it is amazing that they did not find a reason to get rid of Ken earlier.   I suspect that because he always had full classes, no complaints, and was rated excellent by his students for at least 10 consecutive semesters, and they were not paying for his services they found it very difficult to justify.

It is easy to see that they needed something like this sensitive, politically correct scheme to complete their nearly 6 decade-long effort to expunge people of particular faith perspectives from the classroom.  One even wonders if this might have been a set up.  Based upon Ken’s description of the events and an evaluation of the two documents upon which the U of I seems to have made its decision (Ken’s e-mail to his students and the anonymous complaint by an ostensible friend of one of Ken’s students), it seems that the “star chamber” decision was simply a calculation that they could get away with it this time.  I suspect they thought no one would be able to defend Ken’s e-mail because they have never seriously engaged with Catholic thought.  For the time being any way, they seem to have won…

When will I come to the end of my pilgrimage and enter the presence of God?

About a year ago a very good friend of mine made a comment similar to this as we were talking one evening.  Unfortunately, as I am wont to do, I responded with my thoughts on the matter rather than listening to her.  Here are some of those thoughts for what they are worth.

I lived for the first three decades of my life in a veritable spiritual coma until God, in in His great mercy, sent His Holy Spirit to administer a holy 2×4 upside my hard Irish noggin.  Slowly but surely as I came to understand of God’s great love and His plan for us, I found myself yearning for a quick end to the journey in order to experience what eye has not seen.  That is, I did until my spiritual life began to progress and I came to realize how unprepared I was.

A couple of years ago, this was made quite clear to me.  One evening, my wife noticed that my right pupil was dilated more than my left.  I mentioned this to my doctor who showed great concern.  He immediately scheduled me for a battery of exams and referred me to several specialists.  As I was to learn that there were quite a few possible causes for this; most of them very serious to fatal.

Over the next couple of months I had ample opportunity to contemplate this question.  The experience was a most sobering one.  The very real possibility that this question might be answered: “very shortly,” brought what I knew previously in a more dispassionate way home to me in a much more personal way.

I realized that my moral courage was quite lacking. I realized that my trust in God left much to be desired.  I came to understand how very large the gap was between where I was and where I needed to be.  This made an imminent  particular judgment not a joyful prospect.  Eventually, I received a benign diagnosis.  Perhaps this is why I have not made all that much progress since then.

Nevertheless, at times the insanity of life can still cause me to ask this question.  But now I recognize much more clearly that my yearning needs to correspond better to my personal holiness.  Thus, during these times I pray for the holiness needed to be ready to pray this antiphon.