![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png)
Boston College is supposedly a Catholic university.
It has recently appointed an atheist, member of a Universalist church, as its Director of Theology.
It has recently appointed an atheist, member of a Universalist church, as its Director of Theology.
no subject
Date: 2006-05-09 03:17 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2006-05-09 03:40 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2006-05-09 04:00 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2006-05-09 04:11 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2006-05-09 05:47 pm (UTC)As for the rest, do you have any idea how repetitious, how conventional, how unpenetrating, how samey, is your unquestioning acceptance of questioning authority as the goal of education? You are repeating the stalest and most restrictive of modern cliches, and you do not realize it.
no subject
Date: 2006-05-09 05:37 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2006-05-09 09:41 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2006-05-10 03:48 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2006-05-10 04:29 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2006-05-10 04:50 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2006-05-10 09:56 am (UTC)I can imagine hiring a guy of the other faith, who is well-versed in thology to teach it. If his ability to provide accurate and fair, even if not sympathetic, account of the dogma, is to be trusted, than he can be hired. The question if he can keep to the letter and the spirit of his contract, and the ability of his employers to check if he teaches what he is supposed to teach and not try to advance his own agenda, this question is open; but that's Boston College's problem.
As pathagonian said, it's rather amusing.
no subject
Date: 2006-05-10 10:08 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2006-05-10 12:47 am (UTC)Unfortunately, the only websites left on the topic at this point seem to be outraged blog-rants that spend most of their time quoting some Lutheran professor who was against this.
no subject
Date: 2006-05-10 03:43 am (UTC)What I do not understand is you of all people taking this position. You ought to be aware that Catholic theology is both a complex and a rational endeavour. Students, unless they are both extraordinarily pious and extraordinarily lucky, come to college knowing almost nothing of it - with the exception of Thomas Aquinas, the great theologians are not mentioned even in Philosophy classes. (Have you ever heard Suarez or Simeon the New Theologian discussed in any philosophy class?) And its capacity to produce "creative" thought (I hate the expression, on fairly obvious grounds) cannot be overrated. The amount of things that may be said, debates that may be had, fascinating writings that may be studied, on the notion of the Trinity alone, would be quite enough for several years of study. Instead of which, this guy interjects his own predilections between the students and any knowledge of this enormous field, which is what they are presumably paying for to study in a presumably Catholic college. From what it is reported, it is all too evident that the theology he teaches is the kind he favours; that is, Universalism. And we wonder that there are priests who do not understand Transubstantiation or are unable to explain to the faithful the basic dogmas of the Church.
no subject
Date: 2006-05-10 04:23 am (UTC)I assume when you say the powers are "vast and vague" you're referring to the comment by the Lutheran professor who opposed his appointment which claimed that the Director of Undergraduate Studies is a "very important position with broad, vague, undefined powers." But note that this is from a professor leading the charge as it were against Mr. Vanderhooft's appointment, quoted in an article (if we're reading the same one) that is obviously also against his appointment, and is directly contradicted by a spokesperson from the university. When I first read it, the claim jumped out at me as simple fear-mongering—nobody makes any attempt to indicate just how this guy has vast underfined powers or what he means to do with them. If you read through the pages of the Theology department website, it seems that the role of the DUS is basically limited to helping students choose their elective courses after two years of required core courses (during which I certainly hope they'd learn about St. Simeon). Surely a position with a two-year term limit wouldn't be the one that involves setting the direction of the department! You might object to this and perhaps rightly so, but it's certainly a lot less sensational than saying an atheist (and it's apparently controversial whether he is an atheist, or even a UU—I find it odd that if he was an out-and-out member, he'd be listed as a "friend of the church") was "recently" appointed "Director of Theology." The same goes for the claim that he trashed the doctrine of the Trinity at his tenure review: even the obviously hostile article qualifies this with an "allegedly."
My point is that it's hard enough to figure out the actual facts of this case (given that all the sources I can find online are angrily opposed to his appointment) without adding in sensationalistic details. His opponents claim that his position is some vast Wizard of Oz job where behind the scenes he controls all department policy in order to instill heretical doctrines into the heads of impressionable college students (apparently utterly ignorant of theology, even after two years of required introductory classes in theology) causing chaos, widespread contraception, the overturning of the world in fire and water, etc. etc. I think it's obvious we're getting only one side on this issue, and I think you can agree with that while still questioning whether a non-Catholic ought to be appointed to this position.
no subject
Date: 2006-05-10 05:01 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2006-05-10 05:43 am (UTC)It doesn't seem to me that every Catholic on the blogosphere is angry about this: I counted less than 10 blogs, and most of them seemed to reference the article that you and I are looking at, which seems to be the only bit of first-hand reporting on this. (And, in my experience, conservative Catholic blogs seem to agree reasonably often.) In any case, this whole thing seems to build rather a weak case without us having any information at all from the "other side's" point of view—apparently there was an article in their school paper, but it's not available anymore.
In any case, I think it's important to acknowledge that: (1) Mr. Vanderhooft wasn't appointed "Head of Theology Studies", (2) he wasn't appointed "recently"—in fact, his term expired a few years ago (3) he's labeled an atheist by the professor apparently most vociferously opposed to his appointment—he denies the charge and (4) the university's own spokesperson, along with the course selection information on their website, indicates that the position is purely that of an adviser, to help undergraduates pick advanced elective courses for their theology majors.
no subject
Date: 2006-05-10 06:09 am (UTC)2) And that makes a difference because? The university authorities who appointed him "a few years ago" are still the same, with the same attitudes - that they are Jesuit only increases my distrust, given the more-than-notorious record of the Jesuit order in general and its American branch in particular in the last few decades (cf.Robert Drinian, Georgetown University, etc. etc. etc.).
3) I hope you can spot the logical disconnect between "The professor most vociferously opposed to his nomination calls him an atheist" and "therefore he's probably not an atheist." If I objected to the nomination of, say,
4) I cannot believe you take anything that "the university's own spokesperson" says seriously. Surely you know enough of universities to know that, commpared to them, political parties are a paragon of straight talking, correct information, and impartial views.
no subject
Date: 2006-05-10 06:23 am (UTC)Vanderhooft as a "functional atheist," which sounds more like a term of abuse than anything else.
Regardless of whether university spokespeople are more honest than Cretans or less so, there's obviously a disagreement on some factual issues here, and I'm not going to swallow whole the words of an self-professedly biased university professor quoted in a badly written article that shares the same point point of view. (There's nothing wrong with the fact that they're biased, as long as we can check their accounts against other sources.) I don't think this is unreasonable.
Incidentally, the actual chair of the Theology department is Kenneth Himes, a Franciscan, for what that's worth.
no subject
Date: 2006-05-10 06:27 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2006-05-10 06:32 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2006-05-10 06:34 am (UTC)The Dominicans are my favorite order as well.
no subject
Date: 2006-05-10 06:49 am (UTC)More news from Boston College, showing just the kind of Catholic school it is
Date: 2006-05-10 09:16 am (UTC)http://www.townhall.com/print/print_story.php?sid=196883&loc=/opinion/columns/jonahgoldberg/2006/05/10/196883.html