fpb | You couldn't make it up dept. no.31: But if they appointed a creationist as Director of Science...

Let's not forget the two salient problems I had with your post: this position is not "Director of Theology" (sounds like the equivalent of chairperson or something), nor is Mr. Vanderhooft still the director, as you can see at the contact page for the department.

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.

I doubt whether you understand what Unitarian Universalist actually means. These groups started, indeed, as Socinian churches, still with some of the characteristics of a real Church - a doctrine, an ecclesiastical leadership, a notion of prayer and a definite image of God. (In point of fact, they started as English Presbyterian churches; it was the collapse of faith in the English and Anglo-American Presbyterian body, in the course of the eighteenth century, that gave rise to Unitarianism.) But in the course of three centuries, their remaining doctrine has been dissolved to the point where they are now little more than friendly societies for the entertainment of pseudo-religious attitudes. It is perfectly possible to be an Universalist and an atheist, or for that matter a Buddhist. So you are mistaken in suggesting that the association between Universalism and atheism is sensationalistic nonsense, and I regret to have to add that you do not seem familiar with the very Universalist theology - or rather, theory - that you take on yourself to defend. It seems to me that to nominate a Muslim would have been a lot less disruptive of real Catholic teaching. And if every Catholic on the blogosphere is angrily opposed to the appointment, does that not suggest to you that there may be good reasons to be? Bloggers do not, as a rule, agree on much, and dissent between Catholics - even conservative Catholics - is especially fierce and insistent. But all orthodox Catholics know that the older and richer so-called Catholic universities in the USA, Notre Dame, Boston College, and especially Georgetown, are notorious foci of dissidence and anti-Church activity. So is, in general, the American Jesuit order. Their appointments are suspect almost from the start. This one is so fantastically execrable as to really demand the reaction it received.

I'm more than aware that atheists can be Unitarian Universalists. It doesn't follow that a UU is an atheist, though. And I don't see where I defended Universalism, which as you know my Church regards as a heresy, with (IMHO) good reason.

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.

1) Granted, and I apologize for the misreading.
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,

kennahijja to teach Lutheran philosophy in a Lutheran university, let alone to have a major influence on the direction of students' studies, on the grounds that she is, a), an atheist, and b) a Marxist, I hope you would not make the howler of suggesting that my mere objection indicates that she is probably none of the above.
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.

If

kennahijja denied that she was an atheist and a Marxist then that probably indicates that she isn't, since I have no reason to doubt her honesty. It's telling that the Lutheran professor only refers to Mr.
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.

I mentioned

kennahijja exactly because she is both things, by her own proud assertion. And being a "functional atheist" seems to me quite a sound description of most Universalists.

"Franciscan" means precious little, considering how many orders lay some claim to Francis' heritage. Some of them, I know, are more or less in schism, and in general the Pope seems to feel that they are out of control, since he appointed a Papal administrator to their head church of Assisi. Certainly the fact that someone is a Franciscan does not by itself commend my respect. (If I ever took orders, anyway, I would be a Dominican - but, alas, they have their corrupt branches too.) The Jesuits are only the most visible exponents of a rot that has taken hold of very many of the older religious orders.

Um, as far as I know, he's a member of the Order of Friars Minor, the largest branch (i.e., not a Capuchin or that other branch). I daresay they're still reasonably orthodox though; perhaps even more so than the Dominicans.

The Dominicans are my favorite order as well.

Let me put it this way: I find the election of a Universalist to a position where he can influence the reading of all Theology students in a supposedly Catholic university a very dubious step indeed. And the bland public statements from the authorities, that everything is for the best in the best of all possible world, seem to me to fit in a pattern of behaviour with which I and all orthodox Catholics are all too familiar. Given that this is a Jesuit college, that it is based in Paul Shanley's and Bernard Law's Boston, that institutions of its kind are notorious for taking their claim to academic freedom a lot more seriously than their claim to Catholicism, and that I happen to know that other unorthodox things have taken place there - well, as far as I am concerned, they are guilty until proven innocent. There is more than enough ground for suspicion there, with or without a "hermeneutics of suspicion" (see next post).

And why I expect the worst from them and generally get it.
http://www.townhall.com/print/print_story.php?sid=196883&loc=/opinion/columns/jonahgoldberg/2006/05/10/196883.html

You couldn't make it up dept. no.31: But if they appointed a creationist as Director of Science...

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

More news from Boston College, showing just the kind of Catholic school it is