Carrying water for the enemies of authentic Catholicism these days seems to be one of the best forms of clickbait money can’t buy.
And now it’s Franciscan University of Steubenville’s (FUS) turn.
The call-out text of an article posted this week at InsideHigherEd.com by Colleen Flaherty leaves little doubt as to where the author comes down on the current controversy at FUS:
“Roman Catholic colleges have some of the most open curricula among religious institutions. But that didn't stop Franciscan University from banning a book that portrays the Virgin Mary as sexual -- and ousting a department chair for teaching it.”
Ms. Flaherty’s Banning a Book, in the Name of ‘True Academic Freedom’ hits the ground running:
Franciscan University of Steubenville removed a professor of English as department chair after he assigned a book that portrayed the Virgin Mary as someone who had sex. It also banned the book from campus going forward. A faculty member in the humanities at Franciscan who did not want to be identified by name, citing the contentious nature of the issue, confirmed reports on social media that Stephen Lewis is no longer chair of English due to his inclusion of Emmanuel Carrère’s The Kingdom in the syllabus for an advanced seminar.
It may be Ms. Flaherty’s opinion that Catholic schools mustn’t fuss and fret over a “little thing” like the perception they may be playing fast and loose with the doctrine of Mary’s perpetual virginity, but that certainly isn’t the opinion of FUS. For obvious reasons, the controversy surrounding the use of this book (in any capacity) was already being dealt with by the FUS administration last year, long before recent Internet reports had escalated it into a public scandal all across the blogosphere.
Lost in all the e-outrage and virtue signaling was the fact that for the past year, FUS had been quietly and appropriately (in order to avoid public scandal) resolving this problem in line with administrative policies based on the principles of Matthew 18:15-17. It was due at least in part to the blogosphere’s demand for instant-gratification that some of the facts and timeframes were blurred, opening FUS to the accusation of not acting swiftly enough to address the problem.
Nevertheless, and in the wake of this incident going public, the University again did the right thing and took immediate public action to assure students, parents, alumni and, yes, donors that the situation was being taken seriously.
FUS President Father Sean Sheridan wasted no time issuing a public apology (even to Our Lady herself) for any scandal caused by The Kingdom having gotten over the wall last year. Of course, that apology opened FUS up to charges (coming from the Left this time) that the University is engaging in de facto “book burning” and failing to uphold the sacrosanct standards of academic freedom.
Mission accomplished! Father Sheridan could now be taken to task by all the right people on the Left, Ms. Flaherty and InsideHigherEd.com included:
In an open letter to the university, the Reverend Sean Sheridan, president, apologized “to anyone who has been scandalized” by Lewis’s use of The Kingdom, which he said was “so directly pornographic and blasphemous” that it has “no place on a Catholic university campus.” He pledged that it would never be taught again at Franciscan.
Fifty years ago, every Catholic university president in this country would have done the same in the wake of such an incident. But according to Inside Higher Ed, this now amounts to a level of censorship that “alarmed advocates of academic freedom”:
Sheridan said a Catholic education should prepare students to “stand for the truth” by exposing them to views both familiar and hostile to their faith. At the same time, he said, “Professors must weigh the benefits and risks of exposing their students to the works of those who oppose the church. They must walk the fine line between underpreparing their students for the mighty tasks ahead and overexposing them to material that may cause them spiritual harm.”
In a directive that has especially alarmed some academic freedom advocates, Sheridan went on to say that he’d asked the university’s chief academic officer, Daniel Kempton, and the Faculty Standards Committee to “immediately review and revise our existing policy on academic freedom to prevent future use of scandalous materials.”
But wait, there’s more. In a post to the American Association of University Professors’ "Academe" blog, contributing editor John Wilson describes Father Sean Sheridan’s apology and decision to black-list the book as a “crisis of campus free speech and an attack on reasoned academic discourse”:
“There is no better example of a crisis of campus free speech and an attack on reasoned academic discourse than a university banning books and ordering its academic freedom policies to be rescinded. This case is a stark reminder that the most repressive universities in America today -- the places where the administration literally is banning books – are conservative religious colleges.”
So, not unlike the Simcha Fisher attack on Christendom College, this is a broadside against the very idea that conservative Catholic colleges can hold themselves to higher standards in defense of objective truth and Catholic teaching.
Essentially, we’re witnessing a sustained attack on religious freedom itself. Error at a Catholic university must be afforded the same basic rights and protections as Truth (i.e., the Catholic “version” of it, that is). The enshrinement of the inalienable rights of error must be guaranteed on Catholic campuses as anywhere else in academia. And there will be no exceptions, not even for a small Catholic school like FUS.
In a comment beneath the Flaherty piece, editor John Wilson takes it upon himself to further lecture Franciscan University on true versus false academic freedom:
“True” academic freedom as used by Franciscan is a misnomer. All repressive institutions believe in truth, in the sense of promoting their own vision of truth and giving people freedom if they agree with everything the authorities say. What defines academic freedom is the willingness to allow false ideas, to allow dissent and disagreement with what the orthodox powers-that-be think the truth is. “True” academic freedom is a repudiation of academic freedom. Franciscan's university theme for this year is “Be Not Afraid.” They ought to follow that doctrine. No university should be afraid of allowing controversial books to be read.
Here’s the basic problem for critics of FUS: The folks writing the tuition checks and making the donations choose “repressive” places like Franciscan precisely because of its commitment to uphold Catholic teaching and objective truth. The critics of FUS are themselves being repressive when they demand that right be rescinded.
But the reality is this: In our free market society there are plenty of Catholic-in-name-only schools that allow academic freedom and diversity to trump everything else, including and especially Catholic teaching. Franciscan is merely providing an alternative, which essentially means that their critics not only have a problem with religious freedom but also with the free market. Because if FUS is actually violating standards of academic freedom so egregiously, why not let the free market determine whether or not FUS stays in business?
Who died and made the likes of Mr. Wilson and Ms. Flaherty the hall monitors of Catholic higher education whose job description includes school-marming the rest of us on the dangers of Catholic pride? Would they take the same brave stand in favor of a university’s freedom to assign textbooks that undermine the agenda of the LGBT community? I think not.
This is anti-Catholic bigotry, pure and simple. We’re not to be afforded the freedom to promote and defend the absolute Truth of Christ, not even within the confines of our own private institutions.
And here’s the kicker: FUS is getting it from both sides now—with one side advancing against the University for being too Catholic and the other for not being Catholic enough. And while I understand the point of view of the former, I’m a bit unclear as to that of the latter. Especially after FUS’s public defense of the Blessed Virgin Mary had brought down the wrath of the left-leaning academic establishment, why are conservative Catholics still blasting FUS and promising to withhold support?
Keep in mind that the professor at the center of all this, Dr. Stephen Lewis, did not endorse The Kingdom as a flawless piece of positive literature. In fact, he seems to be arguing the opposite, that it is precisely the author’s flaws and eventual apostasy that make this book germane to his course study.
In a recent article on FirstThings.com, Dr. Lewis explains:
I assigned the book in an upper-level course to students whose maturity and intellectual preparation I knew well. Our class read the entire text, focusing not on a few lurid passages but on its appropriation of Renan’s method and its related atheistic concept of witness, so as to understand the superiority of Christian methods and concepts. The aim was not to shock, but to edify. I share the revulsion Catholics rightly feel toward lewdness and blasphemy, but in the end I decided that my students could benefit by reading this text.
It is not necessary for a fair-minded person to agree with Dr. Lewis in order to nevertheless acknowledge that the man’s intention was clearly not to undermine Catholic belief, a point on which he himself insists in the same First Things defense:
“…many observers have assumed that Franciscan University’s decision to remove me from my role as chair of the English Department confirms that I assigned the book out of hostility to orthodox Catholic belief… nothing could be further from the truth...”
Last year, The Kingdom was even favorably reviewed by Cassandra Nelson of First Things. And while a First Things review can hardly be said to justify Dr. Lewis’s decision to use the book, it does put this situation in a different light. The book was already the subject of debate among conservative Catholic academics as to whether or not its fallen-away (from the Catholic Faith) atheist author might have something meaningful to impart to readers attempting to understand the mystery of iniquity.
I myself would argue that it does not, and so it is not my intention to here defend the book or the decision to use it; but neither does it seem right or charitable to paint Dr. Lewis as some porn-peddling creep for holding the position that the book has merit for college-level critical analysis.
In fact, just on the basis of the positive reviews by First Things and in other venues, most other Catholic universities would likely have vigorously defended Dr. Lewis’s right to use the book, arguing that its merits were obviously subject to debate even among faithful Catholics.
Franciscan University, to their credit, decided it was more important to defend the Mother of God and remove any potential risk of scandal.
This, at any rate, is how we see the controversy. But since we can’t speak for FUS, I decided to reach out to Dr. Michael Sirilla, Director of Graduate Theology and a faculty member at FUS for 18 years, who was kind enough to give us a comment:
“Regarding the recent Church Militant article and the first statement issued by the University, I can only affirm what my colleague and friend Scott Hahn wrote publicly, ‘Assigning this book was irresponsible and imprudent. Defending it is unwise and wrongheaded.’ Our President, Fr. Sean Sheridan, issued a proper response the following day, apologizing first and foremost to Our Lady and Our Lord. I and many of us here, know Fr. Sean personally and know his response to be genuine and honest.”
Newsflash from Dr. Sirilla: FUS is not perfect. Mistakes happen and, thanks be to God, mistakes are owned and corrected. I happen to agree with Dr. Hahn and Dr. Sirilla, and so I appreciate the fact that there are enough Catholics still concerned about scandal within the faculty and administration to nip a problem like this in the bud.
Bottom line is this: Even the discovery of just one controversial book at Franciscan University prompted a swift and decidedly pro-Catholic administrative response seldom seen any more in the halls of academia—with the president publicly apologizing and promising never again to allow something like this to happen.
One wonders how many other schools claiming to be Catholic today would take similar action in a case like this. And even Dr. Lewis himself, to his credit, has apparently stood by Franciscan’s decision, declining to publicly take issue with the administration even after being demoted as chair of the English department. Instead, he reportedly attended a Holy Hour called in reparation for any scandal caused by the incident.
Dr. Sirilla spoke to The Remnant, by the way, on his way to join the large FUS contingent in Washington, D.C., for this year’s National Right to Life March. The culture on the FUS campus is obviously pro-life, pro-family and proudly pro-Catholic.
FUS professors are committed to the support of Catholic families seeking an alternative to the Christophobic and anti-Catholic culture permeating so many other Catholic institutions of higher learning.
There’s even a growing Traditional Latin Mass movement on campus, with the TLM celebrated nearly every weekend of the semester by one of the most prominent priests at FUS. Traditionist students also gather for the weekly TLM just down the hill at the Church of St. Peter in Steubenville. And not a few FUS students have walked with The Remnant on the Pilgrimage to Chartres over the years.
In fact, here are some of the FUS students, on Franciscan’s campus, who will be volunteering to help our French brothers set up tents for over ten thousand pilgrims at this year’s Chartres pilgrimage:
The "Gazebo Gang" and their Sacred Heart flag
Most of these FUS students have volunteered to help erect tents for over 10,000 traditional Catholic pilgrims on the 2019 Chartres Pilgrimage in France.
So, from our point of view as traditional Catholics, things could be a lot worse at FUS.
“It is not true that Franciscan is losing its Catholic identity, slipping into heresy, promoting porn or sacrilege/blasphemy, or otherwise ‘going the way of Notre Dame’, as has been alleged in other media,” says Sirilla. “I am happy to assure anyone that, in every single department of the University, the fundamental disposition of my colleagues is to serve Christ and His Church faithfully.”
In fact, there has been a conscious, concerted effort over the past ten years to hire solidly orthodox Catholic scholars in theology, philosophy, sociology, psychology, the sciences, mathematics, nursing, education, etc. The trend is towards more orthodoxy, not less, with every candidate for the faculty required to write a statement explaining how he or she will not only maintain, but also enrich, Franciscan’s passionately Catholic nature. Failing to do this means said applicants will not move on to the interview stage.
By the way, when we asked Dr. Sirilla about a certain diversity committee rumored to be in the works at Franciscan, he told us: “We do not have a diversity committee.”
Bottom line, friends, let’s be careful not to throw the baby out with the bathwater here. There are forces in this country that would like nothing better than to see small Catholic oases such as Franciscan University of Steubenville close their doors for good. Let’s not assist them by needlessly undermining one of the last schools standing that swears to uphold Catholic teaching.
Order your E-Edition today and get the last three months free!
As a life-long traditional Catholic who disagrees with FUS on key issues involving the Mass and the Second Vatican Council, I nevertheless thank God that FUS is, to the best of their abilities, trying to hold the last bit of Catholic ground in academia, and I would ask Remnant readers to pray for them and encourage them to stay in the fight for Catholic freedom and identity as they continue to offer an educational alternative wherein Christ is revered, His Mother is honored, and His Church is defended.
Go Barons!
