Vatican City, Jul 29, 2019 / 04:00 pm (CNA).- The Pontifical John Paul II Institute issued a statement Monday, defending recent changes at the school. But some students and faculty members say that explanations do not address the full picture of issues at the theological institute.
“The academic project of the new Institute, approved by the Congregation for Catholic Education, is designed as a widening of reflection on the family, and not as a replacement of themes and topics. Such expansion, showing even more the centrality of the family in the church and in society, confirms and relaunches with new vigor the original and still fruitful intuition of St. John Paul II,” the July 29 press release said.
The statement aimed to respond to concerns raised by students, alumni, and faculty members of the Institute following the recent approval of its new statutes, or governing documents. The new statutes were called for in 2017, when Pope Francis reestablished the institute, broadening its focus from theology to include “family sciences.”
The Institute was initially founded in 1981 as a center for the study of Christian anthropology and theology, especially in light of the philosophical ideas expressed in Pope St. John Paul II’s “Love and Responsibility,” and the set of his teachings that eventually came to be called the “Theology of the Body.”
When Pope Francis legally refounded the Institute two years ago, he said he hoped its work would be “better known and appreciated in its fruitfulness and relevance.”
Adding a focus on the social sciences, he said, would be an expansion of “the field of interest, both in terms of the new dimensions of the pastoral task and the ecclesial mission, as well as in the development of human sciences and the anthropological culture in such a crucial field for the culture of life.”
The July 29 press release acknowledged that while a chair of fundamental moral theology at the school will no longer exist, changes made to the institute’s curriculum are intended to ensure that “moral doctrine of marriage and family,” and “theological ethics of life,” remain a part of the institute’s coursework.
Fundamental moral theology is already required in the “first cycle” of theological studies required for admission to the Institute’s graduate programs, the press release said.
But a professor at the Institute told CNA that scholarship in the field of fundamental moral theology has been a long-standing part of the school’s identity, and that other subjects also covered in the first cycle, such as Christian anthropology, remain a part of the Institute’s curriculum.
The professor, noting that Humanae vitae is not expressly mentioned in the Institute’s new statutes, said that the school’s chair of fundamental moral theology was established at the Institute’s inception, at the insistence of the school’s founder, Pope St. John Paul II.
“It is important to know that in the old statutes of 2011, based on a few words from Ratzinger about the Institute’s contribution to fundamental moral theology, explicit mention of fundamental moral theology was included,” the professor added.
Regarding concerns raised about faculty dismissals, the press release said that because of its partnership with the Pontifical Lateran University, the Institute has reduced its number of course offerings, and therefore not retained some professors, “according to a policy of consistency and economy.”
Some professors may be eligible for rehire, according to the future faculty needs of the Institute, the press release said.
Among those no longer included among the Institute’s permanent faculty is Monsignor Livio Melina, who held a chair in fundamental moral theology and served as the Institute’s long-time president. The press release said that Melina would no longer hold a permanent faculty position because the chair in moral theology “no longer exists.”
Also dismissed is Fr. Jose Noriega, DCJM, a professor of moral theology at the institute.
Noriega is the superior general of the Disciples of the Hearts of Jesus and Mary, a Spanish religious community of 24 professed members. The press release said that Noriega could not continue on the faculty because of a provision in canon law which forbids holding two ecclesiastical positions which are “incompatible.”
Noreiga’s term as superior general of the Disciples of the Hearts of Jesus and Mary ends in January 2020.
Noriega has served as superior for 12 years. The priest told CNA that during his years as superior, including three years under the Institute’s current administration, the issue has not been raised to him by anyone at the Institute.
Noriega also said that there is no proof that his faculty position is “incompatible” with a leadership position in his religious community. He noted that during the time he has held both positions, he also served as editorial director of the Institute.
The press release took issue with reports that a new hiring process will be centralized in the office of the Institute’s Grand Chancellor, Archbishop Vincenzo Paglia, noting that “the appointment of new permanent teachers must be done through an open competition.”
Such a competition, according to the statutes, is judged by a commission constituted by the institute’s president, a faculty member, and an external member nominated by the Grand Chancellor or a vice-chancellor. Tenured faculty members can veto the commission’s decision by a two-thirds majority.
The faculty member told CNA that because the chancellor appoints the Institute’s president, the composition of faculty hiring commissions remains subject to his influence and control, noting that only one member of hiring commissions, the one appointed by the faculty, would have independence from the administration’s preferences and intentions.
“Analysis of the statutes shows that the concentration of power in the hands of the Grand Chancellor is true,” the professor told CNA.
The June 29 statement also disputed reports that 150 students had signed expressing concern about the direction of the school. The statement said that only a few representatives of the students had signed the letter, which “asked for explanations about the innovations taking place.”
“All students were promptly informed of the news and reassured, in accordance with art. 89 of the statutes, about the three-year validity of the old curriculum. Everyone will be given the opportunity to choose between old and new systems and to draft any new plans of study.”
The faculty member said that while the Institute has told students they may continue in their preferred curriculum, changes to course offerings will make that impossible for those students who wish to continue with the Institute’s traditional theological offerings.
One of the letter’s organizers told CNA that, to date, 246 students and alumni have added their signatures to the letter through a website set up for that purpose. Organizers say they intend to publish the letter in the coming days.
A student at the Institute, herself among the authors of the letter, told CNA that while students received communication from the Institute’s administrators before they sent their letter, they have received no response to their concerns.
“We students have expressed our reactions of pain and our request for clarification, addressing the academic authorities, to understand, to know what is going on; to express our support to the professors that have been fired overnight –and it is the time to say it, by an academic institution only because they were spiritual and cultural heirs of John Paul II, only because they believe in the teachings regarding marriage and family from Humanae vitae.
With the new order and the new statutes, we don’t have changes that have been shared and agreed upon, but replacements and expulsions. We are witnesses to a true coup d’etat; it is not an integration and alignment of new courses and professors to what already exists and works, but instead the end of an era, with the expulsion of serious and thoughtful persons,” she added.
[…]
Pope Francis will not say this because of political reasons, but I will: this war along with its sufferings is caused by the unjust desires of only one human being, Vladimir Putin.
Certainly the recent aggression rests with Mr. Putin but what interests set up the scenario in the first place & put the Ukraine in harm’s way? The Western nations haven’t been doing the Ukraine any favors by offering them false hopes.
The Ukrainians don’t appear to have a single ally which is truly sad.
The following article of March 28 by Sandro Magister is the sober and necessary antidote to this article: http://magister.blogautore.espresso.repubblica.it/2022/03/28/ukraine-is-fighting-but-for-francis-no-war-is-just/
Perhaps someone should suggest that while everyone has the right to choose personal non-violent surrender, those responsible for the Common Good and the welfare of others have no right, for example, to sacrifice the necks of the wives and children to the knife of an assailant.
On May 3, 1983 the (United States) National Conference of Catholic Bishops published the pastoral letter: “The Challenge of Peace: God’s Promise and Our Response.” In this document, the pacifist ideology of unilateral disarmament (Pax Christi) was replaced. Pope John Paul II had placed Cardinal O’Connor in a review position and required the document to be submitted to Rome two or three times for clarity on moral principles (apart from ideology) and actual prudential judgment, e.g., “…Equally important in the age of modern warfare is the recognition that the justifiable [!] reasons for using force have been restricted to instances of self-defense or defense of others under attack” (n. 214).
Also in 1983 the German and French bishops’ conferences published pastoral letters (German: “Out of Justice, Peace;” and French: “Winning the Peace”), printed together by Ignatius Press in 1984 under the editorship of James V. Schall, S.J.). The three pastorals stressed, alternatively, the danger of nuclear holocaust and the place for deterrence, the danger of Soviet weapons superiority along the then Iron Curtain, and the danger of state-sponsored Marxism. But none was pacifist.
In the interests of synodality (!) perhaps these sober assessments by bishops’ conferences should influence papal one-liners tending to criminalize self-defense (somewhere: “all wars are unjust”).
Yet, there is also the point to be made, with needed force and precision, that the lucrative arms trade does tilt toward easy escalation (anywhere) almost inevitably toward global disaster. But it is precisely at such times that one hopes for, and has a right to look forward to, from the perennial Catholic Church, very measured application of moral theology to increasingly complex, concrete circumstances. Is Putin listening? North Korea? Iran?
In the circumstances of Gethsemani, Peter was instructed not to use his sword, but was he told to never own it?
Agreed
If only more Pto-Life Christians , Catholic Christians, gather in Earnest with Discernment?
Was not evangelism of Billy Graham , Johnathan Edwards, Saint Paul, put to shame and guilt?
Wether in 1949? Or 1743? There was need!
When a man, a woman, can stay in need of redemption but not a distinguishing mark of wanting treat change
“PICK UP YOUR MAT AND WALK”, “YOUR SINS HAVE BEEN FORGIVEN”. “Now, Go and SIN no more”
Words of such force and magnitude.
What is the difference in your life? What is the difference in my life?
Let me be partially sarcastic – how long will it be until the Pope says something to which the powers-that-be at twitter take offense and cancel him, or whatever it’s called.
FYI – I have NO social media accounts, or whatever they’re called, and have no intention of changing that. If that puts me out of touch, so be it. I confine my ruminations(?) to CWR.
You’re so right. The propaganda media love Bergoglio. In 10 years I have never read so much as a word of criticism of him. Thank you for pointing this out.
Obviously you do not read widely. Sandro Magister and some rad trad anti-Pope Francis sites seem to be your sources.
As usual, your ignorance and malice are on full display. I explicitly referred to the liberal propaganda media of which you are a feckless myrmidon.
I usually read these four Catholic sites: CWR, NCRegister, wherepeteris, and Vatican news. Which ones do you consider to, be liberal? Oh, and I read mercatornet, which is not strictly a religious site, but it is more Catholic than most Catholic sites.
It’s complex! The common adage when caught between seeming offsetting principles. One humorous anecdote was the advertisement of a hapless [former] roommate standing by a pile of belongings being thrown out the apartment window by a visibly impervious woman. A passerby stops and looks at him quizzically, he responds, “It’s complicated!”.
Where do we find justice? For heroic Ukraine, as well as land grubber, cowardly giant Russia [how the entire media, US generals, both political parties view the matter for once all are unanimous]. How simple! Would that it and other issues were so easy to judge. Although Russia is [presumably by natural law itself] a perennial demon. That makes unanimity on Russia easy. How can any just claim for security from Nato [let’s not forget Nato is as a dangerous to Russia as it is to Papua New Guinea, perhaps even Pago Pago].
Now the war cry is, let’s destroy Russian ambition by destroying it’s army in Ukraine. War criminal Vladimir Putin [or is it Rasputin?] has cast his evil spell on the Russian people. Unfortunately, his policy of devastation of Ukraine by bombardment when land forces fail fulfills the prophetic vision of credentialed pundit and armchair world strategist. So the arms continue to pour into Ukraine, perhaps far more lethal in the making, the killing and misery continues on increasing scale, the war cries reaching ‘fever pitch’.
Maybe, perhaps maybe, in this one instance, Pope Francis is correct in calling war, all war bad. After all, it’s against the odds that he’s always wrong.
One wonders just who Pontiff Francis thinks he’s talking to.
Q1 – Is he suggesting that Ukrainians are immoral for fighting against a foreign army that invaded their country?
Q2 – Is he preaching to the choir so that he can say he said something about the Russian invasion of Ukraine, but has carefully calibrated the statement to be sure it is without any meaning?
Chris, although I agree Pope Francis is generally ambivalent, as he seems here, he did, for example, say to the media earlier in reference to Ukraine, “That when a country is attacked it defends itself, everyone, including civilians”. He added that Russia’s attack was a massacre. His fear of a nuclear confrontation [even a tactical nuclear exchange would be devastating for Europe and the US] has justification with an escalating proxy war. Biden is making wild comments that could cause an apparent paranoid Putin to respond.
Pope Francis has been denouncing this war right from the beginning of this invasion. He is not preaching to the choir but to the world. He is, and has always been, against war.
Malware alert! Yes and no…
Pope Francis first denounced only the “conflict”, which is different from later publicly recognizing this “invasion” (your word) as an act of “war” (your word). His earlier comments were received by many as meaning “neutrality” in the face of overt aggression (https://www.wsj.com/articles/pope-francis-laments-war-in-ukraine-without-taking-sides-11648226928).
So, yes, Pope Francis broadly denounces war; yet, the earlier non-position implied that both parties are equally guilty–that self-defense is immoral.
Pope Benedict XV likewise denounced World War I, but at least he had a plan rather than a platitude (“To the Belligerent Peoples,” August 1, 1917).
Summarizing, his propositions for that war were the need to assert moral force over material force, simultaneous disarmament, arbitration in place of conscription, free movement of people and commerce especially at sea, restitution of territories seized during the War (!), and harmony among national aspirations and with the common good (!). Dismissed at the time, parts later reappeared (without attribution) in President Wilson’s Fourteen Points of Peace (Jan. 8, 1918), one of which became the right to national self-determination.
Unlike the AT & T smartphone advertisement, it is complicated.
Upon reflection, I find that my use of the word “platitude” is inaccurate and probably unjust….Without knowing the right word, my meaning goes something like this…
First, the hair-trigger nature of modern technology with its catastrophic potential does raise novelties not in play when Augustine defined the just war.
Second, if it is true (?) that papal advisors are thinking about an exhortation amending just war theory, I would hope such a statement does not displace concrete prudential judgment with undefined “fraternity.”
Third, instead, on the application of moral theology (Catholic Social Teaching) to very convoluted circumstances on steroids, did Catholic academia abdicate its potential contributions the moment it claimed the total autonomy of the Land O’ Lakes Declaration (1967)? Overwhelmed now by administrative hyper-compartmentalization, plus the trendy ideologies of identity politics and intersectionality and STEM—who is left to help an overtaxed Pope Francis answer such modernday conundrums as subsidiarity and solidarity, both together, and the (forgotten) Common Good?
How, too, to clearly articulate both the nature and backstory of global flash points, while also affirming with courage that there is no peace without justice, and no justice without truth?
What is truth? Other than mislabeled “platitudes,” what is the knitty-gritty right word (in addition to the Word) for all of the above? What is our protection from too-simply airbrushing that all war is immoral—even measured self-defense, or deterrence against rogue-state nuclear blackmail?
One can denounce the war in different ways. Pope Francis, who condemns war in his writings, played an active role behind the scenes which only his stance allowed him to do. But since that was to no avail, he took a tougher stance. The correct strategy I thought.
Given Pope Francis’s inability exercise restraint on what he says and does in public, and repeated contradiction of existing, unchangeable Church doctrine, not only on Just War Teaching, but also other issues (such as support for homosexual unions, and his averment that Apostates “remain part of the Church”), I think it would be fair to ask about his mental state and whether he still healthy enough to hold office. Many experts have, after all, questioned the mental health of President Biden and former President Trump for the same or similar reasons.
If he is losing it, then his handlers are guilty of elder abuse by parading him around and allowing him to humiliate himself.