"Catholic" and "Inclusive"

As a non-Catholic, I speak with some trepidation  here, but ... I very much agree with Richard's comments about Catholic legal education.  Of direct relevance to recent discussions here are his comments that "the community [at a Catholic law school] must contain many Catholics, particularly on its faculty.  These Catholics ought to be people who embrace their identity as faithful sons and daughters of the Church, and in particular who embrace the Catholic intellectual tradition. It is certainly not enough that the school have a few Catholics like this, or Harvard would be a Catholic law school because Mary Ann Glendon is on the faculty there."  Also Richard's comment that "[n]on-Catholics would be welcome of course, but as Ex Corde states they would be expected to understand and respect the Catholic identity of the school."

I endorse what Richard says.  (My dispute with Jason Adkins at The Seventh Age has been over his implications that the University of St. Thomas School of Law doesn't have many such Catholics and doesn't make the Catholic intellectual tradition central, which are suggestions that I assert are demonstrably false.)  There can be debates over what precisely constitutes "many," and the precise line for defining "faithful," but everyone should agree with Richard that a small percentage of faithful Catholics will find it hard to set the course for the institution.  (That's in no way meant to denigrate the fine efforts of Mark Sargent and others to bolster Catholic identity at their institutions incrementally, which is the only possible way under many circumstances.)

To turn to another issue that may be of general interest.  In continuing to criticize St. Thomas Law for speaking of its "inclusiveness," Jason asks:

Doesn't Catholic mean integrated and universal, that is, inclusive? Contrary to Tom Berg's comments, if the school wasn't worried about how people perceive labels or believe people perceive buzzwords in characteristic ways (as I suggested), then it wouldn't need those qualifying phrases in the first place.

Yes, "catholic" surely means universal, but that does not necessarily translate over to the big-C "Catholic" institution(s), and certainly not necessarily over to societal understanding of those institutions.  There are plainly widespread perceptions in society about the Church's non-inclusivity and "narrowness."  Many people with those perceptions are simply not open to the Church's insights in any good-faith way, but many others may be otherwise open to many aspects of Catholic intellectual and social thought.  Some of the perceptions about "narrowness" are accurate, and of course in many cases "narrowness" is good because that term is just a pejorative label for clear truth-telling (note also the good deal of discussion these days about whether the Church in fact needs to be more "sectarian" and "pure").

But other perceptions about Catholic "narrowness" are unfounded.  When I tell people I teach at a seriously Catholic law school, I frequently am asked:  "Do you allow non-Catholics there?"  This is the sorry state of understanding in the culture.  There is nothing weak-kneed or dishonorable about correcting such misimpressions:  nothing weak-kneed or dishonorable in being concerned about "how people perceive labels," if those perceptions and labels are inaccurate.  Such misperceptions, if left unaddressed, may seriously and unfairly impede the ability of the institution to reach the culture with its true Catholic-based mission.

Tom B.