St. Louis University is a Jesuit-run institution, which recently won a court decision that says it “is not controlled by a religious creed.”
The school had asked the Missouri Supreme Court to declare that it is not “controlled by the Catholic Church or by its Catholic beliefs” as part of a dispute over $8 million in “tax increment financing” for its new arena.
The Missouri Constitution prohibits public funding to support any “… college, university, or other institution of learning controlled by any religious creed, church or sectarian denomination whatever.”
The debate came down to two words: “control” and “creed.” Does the guiding mission of a Catholic university align with the specific system of religious faith espoused by the Catholic church? And if so, does that system of faith control the actions of the university?
The university said it is not owned or controlled by the Jesuits or by the Catholic Church (or even by the mission of those organizations), but that it is directed by its mostly lay board of trustees.
Isn’t this the sort of result we’ve been wanting from the court system for years?
The obvious response is to say that St. Louis University, from this point on, should no longer advertise itself as either a Catholic school or even a Jesuit school. Nor should it say that it offers an education “in the Jesuit tradition.” After all, some are saying, SLU is only acknowledging what we already know to be true: that what it does is not guided by Catholic moral principles.
A rare moment of levity in the process was provided by the ACLU of all people: “In a friend-of-the-court brief filed on behalf of the Masonic Temple Association, the American Civil Liberties Union said it was ‘surprising the University would sell its heritage for $8 million.’” Why should it be surprising, one might reply? The Son of God was sold for 30 pieces of silver, after all.
Wait a minute… Maybe that’s not what it says
Technorati Tags: Catholic | university | St. Louis | Missouri | courts | lawsuit | First Amendment | Establishment Clause | religious freedom |
In your lede, you refer to SLU as “Jesuit-run.” The whole point of the suit is that SLU said it was not. It is run by a large board, of whom most are not even Catholic, let alone Jesuit.
Isn’t the president, Fr. Larry Biondi, a Jesuit? Does he not run the university?
Er, yes and no. Would you say our federal government is “Republican-run” because the president is Republican? Here’s a recent quote:
Source here.
Well, yes, I would if I were making a point about someone claiming that the operation of the federal government has nothing to do with Republican Party principles.
The president is Republican, the White House staff is Republican, all the cabinet officers are Republicans…
OK, OK. I am guilty as charged of using a bad analogy. 40 lashes with a wet hyssop.
Suffice it to say, Biondi would not consider the school “Jesuit-run,” simpliciter.
I suppose I should plead guilty to defending an ambiguous statement against your valid question. Perhaps I should just have written Jesuit-founded and been done with it.
BTW, and more apropos to your post, I believe the first interpretation is the correct one.
“Is our knee-jerk response to criticize the Jesuits once again, no matter how satisfying, overshadowing an ability to see a clear victory for freedom of religion in this country?”
Should have been the first line.
“The university said it is not owned or controlled by the Jesuits or by the Catholic Church (or even by the mission of those organizations), but that it is directed by its mostly lay board of trustees.”
Yes, the lay board directs it. Jesus Christ OWNS the university.
Archbishop Sheen predicted this decades ago when he said it would be better to send the kids to a public school than most Catholic schools because at least at the public school the kid would have a shot at retaining his or her faith.
St. Louis isn’t a Catholic school anymore and hasn’t been for years so when they send out those begging letters to the alumni the only response is to throw them in the trash.