With concerns swirling around the Vatican Synod on Young People this October, the Church’s appalling failures to protect its young from predators, and the growing scourges of pornography, sexual activity, and STDs among even Catholic youth, it’s the right time to reconsider how the Catholic Church should be attending to the current generation.1
I propose that we need to renew the once-familiar notion of the Church as mother to the Faithful.2 The Church gives us new life through baptism and instructs, feeds, comforts, strengthens, forgives, protects, and challenges us as we seek to make our way through the world and reach our heavenly goal.
Specifically, young people need the Church to maintain an authoritative style of parenting that exhibits both deep concern for the child’s wellbeing and confidence in what is right and true. This image of responsible motherhood suggests a hopeful path forward for today’s Catholic schools, colleges, and youth ministry.
Parenting Styles
Parents may be labeled “authoritarian,” “authoritative,” “indulgent,” and “uninvolved”—these are the “parenting styles” often used by researchers to categorize naturally occurring patterns of parental practices and values.3
An authoritarian parenting style is highly directive, with little or no deference to child input and little warmth. It is marked by obedience, strictness, structure, order, clarity, high demands, and rule orientation. Authoritarian parenting may have low levels of communication and harsh discipline (shaming).
An authoritative parenting style is both demanding and responsive. It is marked by clear standards but with disciplinary methods that are supportive and assertive, rather than simply punitive and restrictive. Authoritative parents balance demandingness and responsiveness: they firmly enforce rules and standards expecting them to be met while encouraging independence and communication.
An indulgent (“permissive”) parenting style is marked by responsiveness, leniency, and empathy more than demands and expectations. It allows for considerable self-regulation, avoids confrontation, and is democratic and engaged. Permissive parenting is marked by tolerance and acceptance of a child’s impulses, makes few demands for mature behavior, and minimizes punishment.
An uninvolved parenting style is marked by very few demands and very little parental responsiveness, and it leans toward neglect and rejection.
It should be clear that this last “uninvolved” style is not conducive to healthy and balanced children. But what do decades of research tell us about the relative merits of the other styles, and how might that guide Holy Mother Church?
The ‘Cool’ Mom
Studies show that authoritarian parenting’s harsh control can lead to even more undesirable behavior in the long run and possibly anxiety and low self-esteem. It may also limit a child’s opportunities and decision-making abilities.4
For Mother Church, the negative impact of employing this style is the stuff of legend and lore. Some older-generation Catholics tell stories of the “bad old days” when nuns beat kids and priests told everyone they were going to Hell each Sunday from the pulpit. Incredibly, some young people today have picked up on the tale. In surveys preparing for the youth synod, they complain that the Church seems out of touch and judgmental.
That’s not a plausible characterization of the Church today, but it could simply be what children have always said about their parents. More than 50 years after the social revolutions of the 1960s and the impact of Vatican II, there is little evidence that today’s youth experience a harsh, shaming, and unresponsive Church. Here’s a thought experiment: List three permissive-oriented Catholic universities, schools, and parishes that you know well. Should be a snap! Now repeat the list for currently authoritarian-oriented universities, schools, and parishes. Not so easy.
Instead of authoritarianism, it’s permissiveness and relativism that saturate all elements of the experience of young people today. The crisis facing current youth is not one of rigid Catholics trying to box them in, but of the permissiveness of liquid modernity drowning them in false tolerance and relativism and leading them to think that any truth claim is short-sighted and mean. The dictatorship of relativism has blinded and enslaved many of our young people, hindering their willingness to seek the truth and conform to it when it is discovered. This may also impede their ability to make meaningful commitments and flourish as dynamic disciples.
The solution to this challenge is not more permissiveness, even though this is a temptation: One can almost hear some youth (or even some adults trying to reach them) saying: “Gee, all of the other churches get to have divorce, contraception, pre-marital sex, homosexuality, cool services, fewer demands, less moralism. Why can’t we?” We know from the sad experience of Protestant sects that this is not a recipe for ecclesial growth and commitment. But there is still the temptation to ditch adult responsibility under the guise of being more “relevant” in the lives of youth. Plus there is comfort in conforming to the age and the very human pleasure of rejoicing in our hip-ness in relation to others who are not as “with it.”
This is how one mother recounts her mom’s group discussions of permissive parenting and attempting to be a child’s friend or “the cool mom”:
I was told that if I was friends with my child, they would tell me everything. Other moms said they wanted to be a “cool” mom, and that they wanted their child’s friends to think they were “cool.” I asked what makes a “cool” mom, and my friends all said the same thing: not many rules (like staying up late watching TV, playing video games, computer, cell phone and texting without any rules or consequences for breaking those rules), not being “overprotective, ” letting their child go to the house of a friend they don’t know, letting them hang out at the mall at quite young ages (because everyone else is), letting them have a Facebook account before they are 13. I could go on and on… and I realized I must be in the minority, because to me it sounded like a cool parent is a parent that lets their child run their house. Apparently a cool parent doesn’t want to disappoint their child or deal with conflict and has a hard time saying no or setting limits.5
Research has revealed that permissive parenting deprives children of the direction and guidance necessary to develop appropriate morals and goals.6 Rejecting discipline (i.e., control, punishment) is related to poorer psychological adjustment in children. Permissive parenting has also been shown to contribute both directly and indirectly to antisocial behavior, including increased conflict orientation in adolescent males.7 The chaotic and inconsistent parenting associated with permissiveness can be harmful to healthy relationships leaving children prone to weaker and ambivalent parent bonding and a feeling of insecurity when encountering an adult world.
These are not outcomes the Church can accept, especially in light of the recent scandals and a culture that presses young people into immorality and deviancy. Hands down, authoritative parenting, which is both demanding and responsive, outperforms authoritarian and permissive styles in virtually all areas. Authoritative parenting has been found to relate to higher self-esteem and life-satisfaction and to lower depression in children.8 Research shows these children have better conduct in school, higher cognitive performance, and less drug use and delinquency.9
So authoritative is good; authoritarian and permissive, not so good. By embracing her role as an authoritative mother, the Church engenders the trust, closeness, and dependability that will lead to healthy bonding and lifelong development in the young.
Avoiding Permissiveness
What does permissive parenting look like from Mother Church? It might look like trying to be a friend rather than a parent; like dropping standards; like coddling weakness and calling it strength; like being afraid to speak truth to kids who do not seem to want to hear it; like changing who you are and what you believe, because you fear kids will leave you. It might look like this passage from the document prepared for the upcoming Synod on Young People:
Young people want a “less institutional and more relational” Church, that is able to “welcome people without judging them first,” a “friendly and proximate” Church, an ecclesial community that is like “a family where you feel welcomed, listened to, cherished and integrated.” Also according to the Pre-Synodal Meeting, “we need a Church that is welcoming and merciful, which appreciates its roots and patrimony and which loves everyone, even those who are not following the perceived standards.” (68)
They expect to be accompanied not by an unbending judge, nor by a fearful and hyperprotective parent who generates dependence, but by someone who is not afraid of his weakness and is able to make the treasure it holds within, like an earthen vessel, shine (cf. 2 Cor 4:7). Otherwise, they will ultimately turn elsewhere, especially at a time when there is no shortage of alternatives. (142)10
This is not to say that permissiveness is the intent of the document’s authors or the synod—only that it is a temptation and a possible outcome. This is a concern especially if the youth are overly idealized or approached with fear or pandering, or if their childish complaints are weaponized in an attempt to change Church doctrine.
How can we prevent such an outcome? By sticking to a research-proven, authoritative style with the youth.
What might this look like? It looks like caring more about young people than whether or not they care for you. It looks like calling them to their better selves; like presenting a challenge and making love-based demands; like speaking straight and affirming that compromise with lies is a false life; that courage, humility, and patience are absolute requirements for holiness and happiness; that life is tough and the road is hard, but the destination is worth it. That destination is clear: Christ Jesus.
Authoritative parenting from Mother Church might look like these gems spoken to the youth at various times by Saint John Paul II:
Do not be afraid. Do not be satisfied with mediocrity. Put out into the deep and let down your nets for a catch.11
It is Jesus you seek when you dream of happiness; He is waiting for you when nothing else you find satisfies you; He is the beauty to which you are so attracted; it is He who provokes you with that thirst for fullness that will not let you settle for compromise; it is He who urges you to shed the masks of a false life; it is He who reads in your hearts your most genuine choices, the choices that others try to stifle. It is Jesus who stirs in you the desire to do something great with your lives, the will to follow an ideal, the refusal to allow yourselves to be grounded down by mediocrity, the courage to commit yourselves humbly and patiently to improving yourselves and society, making the world more human and more fraternal.12
Genuine love… is demanding. But its beauty lies precisely in the demands it makes. Only those able to make demands on themselves in the name of love can then demand love from others.13
The way Jesus shows you is not easy. Rather, it is like a path winding up a mountain. Do not lose heart! The steeper the road, the faster it rises towards ever wider horizons.14
Authoritative parenting might also look like this observation from Pope Benedict XVI:
I believe that it is dangerous for a young person simply to go from achieving goal after goal, generally being praised along the way. So it is good for a young person to experience his limit, occasionally to be dealt with critically, to suffer his way through a period of negativity, to recognize his own limits himself, not simply to win victory after victory. A human being needs to endure something in order to learn to assess himself correctly, and not least to learn to think with others. Then he will not simply judge others hastily and stay aloof, but rather accept them positively, in his labours and his weaknesses.15
Stay Bold and True
Our young people do not need—and many do not even want—the Church to try to be cool. We need to relate to them authentically as the loving parents we are, rather than wanna-be hip friends. What they value is authenticity. They need people and organizations to believe what they say and do what they say. They celebrate and trust those who “stay true to themselves.”
Our success with youth will come if we stay bold and true to Christ. Eternity and youth are perfectly harmonized in He who is the alpha and omega. “Jesus Christ is the same yesterday, today, and forever” (Heb.13:8).16 He is alive, still with us and still young. It is not He who changes with each new generation of young people; it is His unchanging relevance which is ever new to each new generation. As St. John Paul II put it:
The Church of Christ is a fascinating and wonderful reality. She is ancient, being almost two thousand years old, but, at the same time, forever young, thanks to the Holy Spirit working within her. The Church is young because her message of salvation is young, that is, relevant for all times.
This is the confidence that our shepherds need to have during the Synod on Young People, the Faith, and Vocational Discernment. Jesus Christ spoke “with authority,” and that is how He revealed Himself. Young people today need to know this Christ who speaks with the authority of the Father. His Church leaders need to be confident that she possesses moral and doctrinal truth, and that truth is what young people most need to hear.
Our young people need the Church. Like a caring mother, the Church listens attentively to her young people to understand their needs. But she has the solutions! As mother to the Faithful, she teaches truth and forms young people in humility to listen to the Word and love His commandments.
With this in mind, the Synod on Young People can bear great fruit; but it will not if the Synod is dominated by a spirit of permissiveness and weak confidence in the Church’s superior wisdom. The failure to assert rightful authority is a danger to the lives and souls of young Catholics around the world.
https://cardinalnewmansociety.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/04/Blessed-mother.jpg458730Dr. Dan Guernseyhttps://cardinalnewmansociety.org/wp-content/uploads/CNS-logo-2C-450-tag2.pngDr. Dan Guernsey2018-09-04 14:54:112020-06-19 14:37:22Should the Church Be a Permissive Parent?
The news is filled these days with reports of sexual assaults against college students, even at some of the most committed and faithful Catholic colleges.
The numbers are disputed, but it’s appalling that even one parent’s daughter would suffer such a violation during what should be happy years of growth in college. The victims of these horrible crimes deserve our prayers, compassion and support as well as justice from our legal system.
Moreover, Catholic colleges should be prepared to offer Christian counseling and support for victims. Too often, colleges of all types and sizes have been found ill-equipped or unprepared to address what appears to be a growing problem.
Ultimately—and most importantly—the assaults must be stopped. Off campus, this is largely the responsibility of law enforcement, although a proper moral formation of students at Catholic colleges can help substantially. On campus, colleges bear great responsibility for preventing these crimes from occurring in the first place.
Insisting upon a culture of chastity and sobriety in campus residences helps protect students while upholding Catholic beliefs and identity.
It’s a commonsense solution.
And it is in this respect, that some of America’s most faithful Catholic colleges have important lessons to teach the rest of higher education—even most other Catholic colleges.
By preserving traditional norms for student access and behavior in campus dorms, faithful Catholic colleges effectively combat on-campus sexual assault.
Such policies come naturally for faithful Catholic institutions, because they are firmly rooted in Catholic morality and fulfill the colleges’ mission of human formation in the light of Christ.
If only the rest of the nearly 200 Catholic, residential colleges would do the same. Catholic families should demand it. It’s long past time that Catholic colleges get on board and set an example of proper campus life, rather than invite the tragic consequences of the secular campus model.
Insisting upon a culture of chastity and sobriety in campus residences helps protect students while upholding Catholic beliefs and identity. It’s a commonsense solution.
Real prevention
Focusing on prevention efforts in campus dorms is how colleges can most immediately and effectively have an impact on sexual assault.
Although most sexual assaults against college students occur off campus—where college leaders have no control over the environment or student behavior—a sizable portion, about a third, occur within student dorms. That’s where colleges bear direct responsibility for protecting their students.
According to the federally funded “Campus Sexual Assault Study” (2007), which considered offenses against female students from 2005 to 2007, 28 percent of the assaults that involved the use of physical force and 36 percent of the assaults against an incapacitated (often drunk) victim occurred in campus residences.
…28 percent of the assaults that involved the use of physical force and 36 percent of the assaults against an incapacitated (often drunk) victim occurred in campus residences.
For most colleges today, preventing sexual assault means educating students about consent to sexual activity, empowering women to avoid and resist assault, and strengthening disciplinary and reporting procedures. These are all very important strategies, and every Catholic college should embrace them.
Still, much more could be done on campus, where college leaders have the authority to regulate student behavior and the environment. Catholic colleges should be leading by example!
Drinking and the hook-up culture
A campus culture of chastity and sobriety is important to reducing sexual crimes, and Catholic colleges should have the moral courage to make it happen.
Alcohol is strongly associated with sexual assault. A report published in 2000 by the U.S. Department of Justice, “The Sexual Victimization of College Women,” found that “frequently drinking enough to get drunk” was one of the four main factors contributing to sexual assault. And the Justice Department’s 2014 report, “Rape and Sexual Assault Victimization Among College-Age Females, 1995-2013” (2014) found that 47 percent of victims perceived their attacker was drinking or using drugs.
These crimes are also associated with the “hook-up” culture on many campuses. One study, “Some Types of Hookups May Be Riskier Than Others for Campus Sexual Assault” (Psychological Trauma, 2016) found that 78 percent of on-campus sexual assaults took place during casual sexual encounters.
Sex and drunkenness are commonplace on the typical college campus. So, we have two risk factors for sexual assault—drinking and casual sex—occurring frequently in campus dorms.
So, we have two risk factors for sexual assault—drinking and casual sex—occurring frequently in campus dorms.
Even when alcohol is restricted on campus, students may return to their rooms intoxicated from off-campus drinking. Isn’t it common sense that colleges should strive to reduce opportunities for sexual activity in student residences, especially at the times when students are more likely to be drinking?
Sadly, few secular colleges today would attempt any restriction on sexual activity. College leaders, the media, and even many victims’ advocates deem casual sex a rite (and right) of passage for college students. They are therefore limited to prevention strategies that have minimal impact on the dorm environment.
But Catholic colleges that take their identity and mission seriously should actively and enthusiastically embrace policies that reduce sexual activity in campus residences.
Every college serious about its Catholicity should be eager to protect the bodies and souls of its students.
Creating and fostering a culture of chastity and sobriety in campus residences is a commonsense way to create a safe and moral environment. Moreover, it is elemental to a faithful Catholic education.
Catholic colleges especially need to be concerned with more than just sexual assault. Consensual sexual activity is a serious sin that has two victims of their own poor decisions. Every college serious about its Catholicity should be eager to protect the bodies and souls of its students.
Step one: single-sex residence halls
A first step toward reducing sexual assault on campus is to designate all dorms single-sex. Coed residence halls have been associated with greater alcohol abuse and sexual activity, as documented by Dr. Chris Kaczor in his 2012 report for The Cardinal Newman Society, “Strategies for Reducing Binge Drinking and a ‘Hook-Up’ Culture on Campus”.1
A 2009 study in the Journal of American College Health, “The Impact of Living in Co-ed Resident Halls on Risk-Taking Among College Students,” found that “students in co-ed housing (12.6%) were more than twice as likely as students in gender-specific housing (4.9%) to indicate that they had had 3 or more sexual partners in the last year.” The study also found a higher likelihood of binge drinking in coed dorms.
And another study, “The Impact of Current Residence and High School Drinking on Alcohol Problems Among College Students” (Journal of Studies on Alcohol, 2002), found that “students living in coed dormitories, when compared with students in single-gender dorms, incurred more problem consequences related to drinking.”
Notre Dame’s experience indicates that, while single-sex residence halls should be helpful in reducing sexual assault, they are only a first step to building a campus culture of sobriety and chastity.
The vast majority of Catholic colleges resemble their secular counterparts in sponsoring coed dorms—but thankfully, not all do. The Newman Society has identified more than 10 percent of America’s Catholic colleges that have bucked the trend of the past 50 years. Colleges with single-sex residence halls include some of the nation’s most faithful Catholic colleges and even a few that have waffled on their Catholic identity.
Most notable among the latter group is the University of Notre Dame. This is an instructive case, since its students report multiple sexual assaults in the University’s single-sex dorms each year. Notre Dame’s experience indicates that, while single-sex residence halls should be helpful in reducing sexual assault, they are only a first step to building a campus culture of sobriety and chastity.
Step two: stronger visitation policies
The second step—arguably more important than single-sex dorms—is for colleges to adopt and enforce policies restricting opposite-sex guests in dorm rooms.
Catholic parents understand the effects of temptation and our fallen nature. They know that there is good reason for never letting their teenager have a boyfriend or girlfriend alone in a bedroom. It’s what Catholics have long described as a “near occasion of sin.”
Why do so many Catholic colleges ignore this basic understanding? Don’t the high rates of abortions, STDs and sexual assaults among young men and women teach us something about the limits of self-control?
… 82 percent of U.S. Catholic colleges allow closed-door visitation until 2 a.m. or later on weekends….
More than a quarter of Catholic colleges have open visitation at all hours of the night!
Since most campus residences are little more than bedrooms with a chair and desk, it’s common sense that they should be off-limits entirely to opposite-sex visitors.
Instead, 82 percent of U.S. Catholic colleges allow closed-door visitation until 2 a.m. or later on weekends, and 88 percent allow it until midnight or later on weekdays, according Adam Wilson’s 2016 report on visitation policies for The Cardinal Newman Society.2
More than a quarter of Catholic colleges have open visitation at all hours of the night!
Think about that for a moment. What message does it send to students? And what care does it show for helping students remain chaste?
Loose visitation policies indicate low expectations and suggest a college’s lack of concern for natural consequences, including sexually transmitted diseases, pregnancy, abortion, and (have Catholics forgotten?) mortal sin.
And the consequences might also include sexual assault.
The “Campus Sexual Assault Study” found that 52 percent of forced sexual assaults and 90 percent of assaults on incapacitated victims took place between midnight and 6 a.m.—and most others between 6 p.m. and midnight. The later at night, the greater the likelihood of drinking and casual sex, and therefore the greater the danger for students.
Couldn’t Catholic colleges, then, restrict opposite-sex visiting hours to the daytime as an immediate intermediary step?
Better still, colleges should protect students by sensibly forbidding opposite-sex guests in campus bedrooms at nearly all times, like many evangelical Christian colleges and a few standout Catholic colleges. These include:
Christendom College (Va.)
John Paul the Great University (Calif.)
Northeast Catholic College (N.H.)
Thomas Aquinas College (Calif.)
Thomas More College (N.H.), and
Wyoming Catholic College. (Wyo.)
Others, like Franciscan University and Ave Maria University, have limited visiting hours and require open doors.
No more excuses
We have discussed these ideas with Catholic college leaders, and one common explanation for allowing opposite-sex visitation and coed dorms is that students need opportunities to socialize. Gathering in dorm rooms has become an accepted and even expected part of the college experience.
There are also physical plant constraints. Despite all the amenities of the typical campus, most colleges have not created adequate spaces for students to gather outside their private rooms.
Some leaders focus on the link between alcohol and sexual assault, strictly enforcing sobriety on campus while taking a softer approach on sexual activity with messaging that appeals to students’ virtue.
Drinking, however, often occurs off campus, with later consequences for on-campus behavior. And relying on students’ self-restraint amid a culture obsessed with sexuality and pornography seems quite risky and naïve.
Some college leaders worry that they’ll lose students if opposite-sex visitation isn’t allowed.
The difficulties, then, of building a campus environment that demands chastity and sobriety in campus residences are real enough. But they seem surmountable at a college committed to safety and Catholic morality.
The difficulties, then, of building a campus environment that demands chastity and sobriety in campus residences are real enough. But they seem surmountable at a college committed to safety and Catholic morality.
Especially for Catholic colleges, protecting students’ health and their immortal souls must be the higher priority.
Especially for Catholic colleges, protecting students’ health and their immortal souls must be the higher priority.
Adopting commonsense student dorm room policies won’t stop off-campus sexual assaults, and it won’t solve every problem on campus. It doesn’t mitigate the responsibility to provide adequate support for victims of assault. But it could help prevent the many assaults that do occur in dorm rooms as a predictable consequence of casual sex and drinking, while upholding the Catholic mission of the college.
It is here that college officials and those concerned with combatting sexual assaults should emulate the commonsense and faithful policies of some of the Newman Guide colleges noted above.
Ten years ago, Pope Benedict told Catholic educators3 in the U.S. that the crisis of truth is rooted in a crisis of faith.
Catholic colleges should face the ugly truth that, for many of them, their dorm policies may have the effect of undermining their important faith-filled missions. The fact that this is unintentional—and perhaps even contradicted by other efforts to teach moral behavior—does not make the problems go away.
Catholic colleges should face the ugly truth that, for many of them, their dorm policies may have the effect of undermining their important faith-filled missions.
There is nothing anyone can do to eliminate concupiscence and evil in the world. All the more reason that we believe every Catholic college should build a campus climate that celebrates chaste, Catholic living. This is what Catholic families should expect from Catholic education.
The Cardinal Newman Society’s mission is to promote and defend faithful Catholic education. We believe that families have a right to expect that a Catholic education will uphold Truth in accord with the timeless teaching and tradition of the Catholic Church, so as to prepare young people for this world and for eternity with God in heaven.
https://cardinalnewmansociety.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/04/Issue-Bulletin-Header-845-x-321-px-01.png13383521Cardinal Newman Society Staffhttps://cardinalnewmansociety.org/wp-content/uploads/CNS-logo-2C-450-tag2.pngCardinal Newman Society Staff2018-08-13 03:09:302020-06-18 12:32:28Catholic Colleges Should Lead Charge Against Sexual Assault
As a follow up to the controversial 2014-15 Synod on the Family, the Vatican is preparing to convene a new Synod on Young People, the Faith and Vocational Discernment next October.
And for the first time, they have invited the faithful—in particular young people aged 16-29—to fill out a questionnaire to help shape the Synod’s direction.
Newman Society staff has already begun to review the Synod’s Preparatory Document and questionnaire. Even at this early stage, we are concerned about the direction the Synod could be headed.
In part, our concerns stem from questions about flagrant manipulation of process and reporting raised by a number of bishops attending the last Synod. We’re also seeing red flags in the Vatican’s distribution of an inappropriate and ill-conceived sex-ed program written in Spain. The Cardinal Newman Society—and other Catholic groups—have raised concerns about the explicit material in this misguided project.
More specifically, however, we are troubled by what is in and—perhaps more importantly—not in the Preparatory Document and the questionnaire.
According to the Preparatory Document, “the Church has decided to examine herself on how she can lead young people to recognize and accept the call to the fullness of life and love, and to ask young people to help her in identifying the most effective ways to announce the Good News today.”
That sounds like an important topic for the Church to address, but at first read the Synod’s initial documents would seem to be more interested in community organizing, activism, and worldly concerns than the formation of young people in the truths of our faith—i.e., Catholic education.
In late September, organizers issued a news release adding a note about “the importance of education in the formation of a complete identity,” but we will have to wait and see what that means.
The planning documents gloss over some of the most serious problems facing youth today, including the rise of atheism, attacks on the family, how to live the faith in a hyper-secular world, the collapse of marriage as a societal norm, the rise among young people of serial fornication and so-called “shacking up” as a replacement for marriage, and myriad other issues which put the souls of young people at risk.
Instead, the documents focus on issues such as employment, politics, social media, and the environment—important topics which are perhaps better suited for think tanks, academics, or public officials than a Church Synod on “Faith and Vocational Discernment.” These are also comfortable topics to which youth have a natural affinity. Will we have the courage to challenge them on the topics they really struggle with: truth, fidelity, chastity, humility, faithfulness, self-sacrifice, and life-long commitment?
And it’s important to note that the Synod defines “vocation” not as we would think of it, but more broadly as a “vocation to love.” This broad definition could open the door to a wide range of problematic topics.
Consider that at a planning seminar convened by Synod organizers in September, Catholic News Service reported that one delegate, self-described as a “philosopher and sexologist,” advocated discussion of “sexuality and affectivity.” Another reportedly said, “‘It’s important to open up and talk’ about sex, sexuality and sexual orientation…. ‘And it’s central to vocation.’”
A professor from England reportedly lamented that it was “‘hard to figure out’ what the Vatican wanted from the seminar. ‘Is it to listen to young people? Does that mean they are willing to change something? Are they willing to change the criteria for ministry?’”
Given what happened at the last Synod, the fact that these issues are being raised by delegates at a planning seminar is cause for concern.
Fortunately, the Vatican has offered the questionnaire, giving the faithful a way to influence the Synod’s direction. It is imperative that you, as Cardinal Newman Society Members, let Synod organizers know what you think. To that end we have created a page on our website for you to access various Synod documents and the questionnaire: NewmanSoc.org/YouthSynod
Please visit the site, encourage well-formed youth to fill out the questionnaire, and spread the word to your family and friends.
We will provide a more thorough analysis of the Synod in the coming months. In the meantime, please pray that the upcoming youth Synod will uphold timeless Church teachings, recognize the importance of faithful education to the formation of children, and help lead souls to Christ.
Saints John Bosco and John Paul II, ora pro nobis!
https://cardinalnewmansociety.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/04/facepalm.jpg458730Cardinal Newman Society Staffhttps://cardinalnewmansociety.org/wp-content/uploads/CNS-logo-2C-450-tag2.pngCardinal Newman Society Staff2017-10-13 14:46:182020-04-17 14:46:47Storm Clouds Ahead for Youth Synod?
Catholic families need the Church’s help facing what amounts to a second “sexual revolution” in America. To that end, there are many good efforts to understand and rebuff the radical “gender ideology” and false ideas about sexuality, marriage and the nature of the human person that are taking hold in American society.
But a recently released sex education program promoted by the Vatican’s Pontifical Council for the Family, in its current form, is not what families need.
The Meeting Point: Course of Affective Sexual Education for Young People was developed by married couples in Spain and has enjoyed the support of the Council and the Spanish bishops. It’s being presented as a work in progress, “an opportunity to convene a large community of people to collaborate, to work, to exchange experiences and knowledge in this special field of education.” The Council is inviting feedback for what may be future improvements to the program or alternative options. Thus far, no directives to use this resource have been issued by the Vatican or the U.S. bishops.
Even so, there is danger that the program in its current form will be adopted by Catholic educators and families since it’s seen as having a stamp of approval “from the Vatican.” But this program is clearly not ready for Catholic schools or homes.
As The Cardinal Newman Society found in our review of the program, following upon similar criticisms, The Meeting Point “makes frequent use of sexually explicit and morally objectionable images, fails to clearly identify and explain Catholic doctrine from elemental sources including the Ten Commandments and the Catechism of the Catholic Church, and compromises the innocence and integrity of young people under the rightful care of their parents.”
This is not what Catholic families need while facing today’s corrosive culture, which is only getting worse. According to one national survey, acceptance of premarital sexual activity spiked in the 1970s and changed little in the next two decades, only to suddenly jump again in the new millennium. Most Americans now believe that premarital sex is “not wrong at all.”
I was struck by another recent report indicating the rapid slide of morality even outside the U.S. The article published last month in The Guardian declared, “Welcome to the most promiscuous Olympics in history.” Apparently what occurred off-screen in the Olympic Village during the Summer Games required the distribution of 450,000 condoms and other bedroom aids, supplied with a wink and a nod by the International Olympic Committee.
Such evidence of a declining culture shows why families need to ensure a faithful Catholic education for their children, especially as public schools become increasingly dangerous to the soul. It’s also why Catholic parents should reject any sex education for their children that does not fully conform to Catholic standards and does not have their permission and approval.
Saint Pope John Paul II wrote in Familiaris Consortio:
Sex education, which is a basic right and duty of parents, must always be carried out under their attentive guidance, whether at home or in educational centers chosen and controlled by them. In this regard, the Church reaffirms the law of subsidiarity, which the school is bound to observe when it cooperates in sex education, by entering into the same spirit that animates the parents. (Sec. 36-37)
In its 1995 publication The Truth and Meaning of Human Sexuality: Guidelines for Education within the Family, the Pontifical Council for the Family also recognized the essential role of parents in ensuring education that is sound and faithful. It instructed parents, as the primary educators of their children, to refuse to “tolerate immoral or inadequate formation being given to their children outside the home” (Sec. 44). Sadly, The Meeting Point fails the parent test.
There’s much to be admired in the work of the Pontifical Council for the Family, but The Meeting Point in its present form is a significant departure from the traditional approach to Catholic instruction about human sexuality. Even if its unique approach to affective, conversational learning deserves further study by the Council, the program is not ready for Catholic homes and schools. The times demand much better from Catholic education.
How do Catholic schools best serve students who struggle with same-sex attraction or gender dysphoria (popularly called “transgendered”)? What should a school’s policies prescribe in order to prevent confusion, disputes and even litigation?
Previously, these questions were often addressed behind closed doors, as administrators worked quietly on a case-by-case basis and often within traditional moral norms. However, since this past summer’s Supreme Court ruling supporting same-sex marriage and the social acceptance of superstar Bruce Jenner’s gender dysphoria, Catholic schools face an increasingly public challenge to their teaching and mission.
This dynamic became painfully evident in the recent decision by a Rhode Island Catholic school, which ignited a national firestorm by refusing to admit transgendered students and then was pressured to reverse its policy within just a couple of days. The correct instinct that a Catholic school cannot accommodate willful gender confusion gave rise to a weak position statement, holding that transgendered students could not be admitted due to a lack of facilities to accommodate them. Activists seized upon the opportunity and offered to “crowd source” the necessary facilities, forcing the school to reverse its policy of strict exclusion.
While some Catholic school leaders might be persuaded to avoid this thorny issue, or to embrace a false compassion that is inconsistent with Catholic teaching, instead the Rhode Island school’s misstep highlights the grave necessity of a more comprehensive policy approach to sexuality in Catholic schools. Catholic schools must bravely serve all students, including same-sex attracted or gender dysphoric students, by forthrightly presenting and upholding truth. That’s why — in addition to the excellent resources for Christians already available from Alliance Defending Freedom, The Heritage Foundation and the Liberty Institute — The Cardinal Newman Society has released a new handbook of Human Sexuality Policies for Catholic Schools to help Catholic educators with specific exemplars and language tied to their Catholic mission.
Working with students who have these sexual inclinations is complex, especially since a Catholic school is called to serve everyone who has the capability and desire to partake in its mission. It must also be clear that all students are expected to follow the same school policies, and not work against the school’s mission, or its moral and religious standards and ends.
A Catholic school which clearly articulates the faith in these matters is bound to make some enemies in the common culture, and even possibly to be threatened with legal action. But Catholic educators must never compromise the faith, or the authentic good of their students, for fear of public ridicule or potential litigation. In fact, it is precisely a deeply felt and lived Catholicism, rooted in an authentic love for all students, which is the best protection against litigation. The more clearly and comprehensively a Catholic school articulates its unique religious mission and identity, and the more securely it anchors its policies for all students in this mission, the more protected it is from potential litigation. Such a comprehensive, mission-based approach ensures that students struggling with issues of human sexuality or gender dysphoria are not singled out for different treatment, but rather are held to the same faith-based standards as all students in the school.
Know Thyself
Since it is critical that Catholic schools ensure that all policies are consistent with their Catholic mission, they need to clearly articulate that mission. Pope Pius XI describes the purpose of Catholic education as “securing the Supreme Good, that is, God, for the souls of those who are being educated, and the maximum of well-being possible here below for human society.” Expanding upon this, the Church’s Code of Canon Law #795 sums up the mission of Catholic education this way:
Since true education must strive for complete formation of the human person that looks to his or her final end, as well as to the common good of societies, children and youth are to be nurtured in such a way that they are able to develop their physical, moral, and intellectual talents harmoniously, acquire a more perfect sense of responsibility and right use of freedom, and are formed to participate actively in social life.
The final end for which Catholic schools prepare their students is union with God through Christ. A Catholic school also facilitates students’ participation in the common good. Both goals are accomplished by integrally and harmoniously developing the students’ minds, spirits, morals, and bodies so that they might use their freedom properly. What is proper or good as a means of attaining our final end of salvation is always understood in terms of Church teaching, based on the person and truth of Jesus Christ.
This is what Catholic schools do. This is who we are. This is what we offer.
Those who do not want to receive what we offer are free to go wherever they want to find what they think they need. We are not required to change our standards to meet the needs of those who reject all or part of our efforts, especially if changing our standards works contrary to our mission. Those students or families who only want to benefit from a part of the mission, such as our intellectual formation, must still participate with goodwill in the full program.
This program includes formation of the whole human person. We cannot disaggregate our efforts or offer our formation a la carte, because: “In the Catholic school’s educational project, there is no separation between time for learning and time for formation, between acquiring notions and growing in wisdom,” according to the Vatican Congregation for Catholic Education. The Congregation also emphasizes that everything in a Catholic school is Catholic, and the faith is everywhere:
What makes the Catholic school distinctive is its religious dimension, and that this is to be found in a) the educational climate, b) the personal development of each student, c) the relationship established between culture and the Gospel, d) the illumination of all knowledge with the light of faith.
A student or family may not like every part of the complete educational project, but they should be expected to participate in the complete mission, to the fullest extent possible for their state of life, and never do anything that works against the mission, or protests it. Surely those whose religious practices and beliefs run counter to Church teaching might experience conflicts as the school maintains mission integrity. Sincere questioning of the practices and traditions of the Catholic faith, in order to more deeply understand them, ought to be welcome, but openly hostile and public defiance of Catholic truths or morality are signs that a student may not be a good fit for a Catholic school’s primary evangelical mission and, therefore, may be denied admission.
All students should be welcome in our schools, including those working through issues of gender dysphoria and same-sex attraction, but all students must be willing to work within the religious mission of the school, and comport themselves according to the social and moral norms of the distinctive Catholic environment they have freely chosen.
Love One Another
A Catholic school always interacts with others in an attitude of deep respect. This respect is based on the essential human dignity of each person, who is made in the image and likeness of God. There is no room in a Catholic school for hatred, injustice, or a lack of charity or compassion. It is also true that while all people have an inherent dignity and fundamental freedom that must be respected, one need not have inherent respect for all that people do. Respect for particular human behaviors must depend on how completely they fulfill the proper nature of humanity as created by God.
Those who experience challenges in the proper exercise of their sexuality can be respected as members of the human family, and yet still be challenged in behavior which the Church considers as not fulfilling its proper nature. Catholic schools are places to clarify and distinguish between error and truth, sin and virtue, order and disorder, according to reason, natural law, revelation, and Church teaching. Catholic schools make no secret about what the Church teaches regarding human sexuality. We cannot compromise that teaching by looking the other way when one is in serious error, and we cannot allow for the advocacy of error in our hallways. We do this in humility to the truth, and out of love for others.
Respect and love can only transpire in the truth. Love entails seeking the authentic good of the other. A simple definition of “good” is when a thing well-fulfills its potentialities and purposes. Love, then, involves assisting another to fulfill their full human potentiality as created and loved by God.
While many groups differ as to what exactly constitutes human good, the purpose of a Catholic school is to address these issues from a distinctly Catholic perspective, and within a deeply felt and lived Catholic culture. When this dynamic is focused on issues related to human sexuality, it is clear that the Catholic Church has a distinct and defined theology regarding the potentialities and purposes of human sexuality. The Catholic school must ensure that these are presented, even in the face of a hostile common culture, with conviction, integrity, and charity. A school’s pastoral, and policy practices must be written in fidelity to the moral guidance and teachings of the Catholic Church in all areas that touch on human nature, including issues related to human sexuality.
We situate this teaching in the conviction that the mission of a Catholic school includes the integral formation of the whole person: body, mind, and spirit. The whole person includes the student’s attitudes, dispositions, and behaviors, of which the very complex area of human sexuality is a part. As a Catholic institution, we believe that our bodies are gifts from God, and temples of the Holy Spirit. We believe that human sexual behavior is only properly oriented to the ends of love and life in the context of a sacramental marriage.
We believe that the body and soul are intimately united: the body does not contain the soul, like water in a glass, but rather holistically and naturally expresses who we are in the order of creation as physical/spiritual beings. We believe that the sexes are complementary, and that “male and female he made us.” Our given biological sex is part of the divine plan. The Church teaches that sexual identity is “a reality deeply inscribed in man and woman” that is rooted in one’s biological identity, and that a person “should acknowledge and accept his sexual identity.” Biological identity and sexual identity are never disaggregated. Both are gifts from God for us to perfect and bring into harmony according to his plan and guidance. They are not ours to reject, or to change outside of their proper functioning at our own will, because we believe God has made a mistake which we must correct.
Catholic schools understand truth to be the state in which the mind is in conformity with reality: a reality which entails the fullness of God’s creation and divine plan. We also affirm that reality is knowable through the use of properly functioning senses and reason, as well as through the aid of divine revelation.
In this context, a student who wishes to express a gender other than his or her biological sex is understood as operating outside of the “reality deeply inscribed” within. Assisting the child in his or her disconnect with this reality — however sincerely experienced — by agreeing to participate in the child’s efforts to change gender expression, is contrary to the pursuit of the truth. Authentic love, a gift of the self for the good of the other, requires that we compassionately dwell in the truth, and assist those we love to do the same. We will lovingly accompany the student through the inherent challenges of this situation, but in the fullness of love, must also insist upon integrity between reality and comportment for the good of the child, and for the common good.
In a similar vein, we love and respect all of our students, but Catholic schools cannot condone or respect unchaste or disordered sexual activity. Every member of our school is called to a life of holiness, and that holiness includes living a chaste life appropriate to one’s vocation, whether as single, married, or consecrated religious. The Church defines chastity as the successful integration of sexuality within the person and, thus, the inner unity of man in his bodily and spiritual being: “The chaste person maintains the integrity of the powers of life and love placed in him. This integrity ensures the unity of the person; it is opposed to any behavior that would impair it. It tolerates neither a double life nor duplicity in speech.” Also, because the Catholic Church teaches that same-sex attraction is intrinsically disordered, and that sexual activity is only appropriate for the purposes of love and life within sacramental marriage, those students experiencing this disordered inclination may not advocate for it, or express it in the context of our Catholic school classes, activities, or events. The Church encourages individuals experiencing same-sex attraction to pursue the virtues of chastity, self-mastery, and friendship, instead of acting upon those inclinations, romantically or sexually—as is the current norm in much of secular society.
Authentic Good for All Students
Once properly situated in the broad context of a school’s Catholic mission, particular efforts to work respectfully and holistically from within a Catholic context and culture with students experiencing same-sex attraction or gender dysphoria can be better understood, and more clearly articulated. Because the Church teaches that for all its students sexual activity is only properly exercised toward the ends of both love and life in the context of a valid marriage, and because it teaches that same-sex attraction is disordered, the school can and should prohibit actively advocating for, or manifesting same-sex attraction, at school and school events. Similarly, because a Catholic school does not disaggregate gender from biological sex, the school can clarify that it accepts people with gender dysphoria, but still holds them accountable to all policies and procedures (including dress code and facilities use) concordant with the student’s biological sex.
Granted this is a complex and potential litigious topic, but Catholic schools must be willing to secure the authentic good of their students, in season and out of season. If students and families want to pursue a competing concept of the good, that is, of course, their right; but Catholic schools do not need to provide, nor accommodate, a competing version of the good. It is our right and our responsibility to live the truth with love in complete fidelity to Christ and his Church.
Our message of love and human flourishing must be faithful, pastoral, and clear. Our Catholic schools should be open to all who wish to join our mission of complete human formation of our students for their own salvation and good, and for the good of others.
https://cardinalnewmansociety.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/04/Perspectives-in-Cathlic-Ed-Web-Header-845-x-321-px-01.png13383521Dr. Dan Guernseyhttps://cardinalnewmansociety.org/wp-content/uploads/CNS-logo-2C-450-tag2.pngDr. Dan Guernsey2016-04-28 16:16:222020-05-26 15:06:08Serving “LGBT” Students in Catholic Schools
Clearly, then, Catholic identity is not dependent upon statistics…
It demands and inspires much more: namely that each and every aspect of your learning communities reverberates within the ecclesial life of faith. Only in faith can truth become incarnate and reason truly human, capable of directing the will along the path of freedom (cf. Spe Salvi, 23). In this way our institutions make a vital contribution to the mission of the Church and truly serve society. They become places in which God’s active presence in human affairs is recognized and in which every young person discovers the joy of entering into Christ’s “being for others.”
Pope Benedict XVI remarks given at Catholic University of America, April 17, 2008
The Church has always taught the beauty of human sexuality and that each person, made in the image and likeness of God, should live chastely, according to his vocation. Although not a recent phenomenon, our society has in many ways become blind to these beautiful teachings of the Church and has espoused a radically new, secular view of the human person. This new philosophy has affected all aspects of the moral life, not only those that involve human sexuality.
The sexual revolution, heralded as liberation in the 1960s, eventually took its toll even in our Catholic institutions of higher learning. The Church has always taught the beauty of human sexuality and that each person, made in the image and likeness of God, should live chastely, according to his vocation. Although not a recent phenomenon, our society has in many ways become blind to these beautiful teachings of the Church and has espoused a radically new, secular view of the human person. This new philosophy has affected all aspects of the moral life, not only those that involve human sexuality.
Out of a desire to meet the needs of their ever-growing non-Catholic student population, and to keep up with their secular counterparts, Catholic universities began to abandon the various student life policies that reflected the teachings of the Church, particularly in the area of human sexuality.
When I was a sophomore at a large Catholic university in the early 1970s, I distinctly remember when the university administration instituted 24-hour inter-visitation in the residence halls. Up to this point, all the living arrangements were single-sex, with visitation policies prohibiting members of the opposite sex to spend time in each other’s residence halls. But then it all changed. From my own, first-hand experience, I can attest that these new policies had a devastating effect on campus residential life. I personally witnessed many friends and acquaintances who were deeply, adversely affected by what was perceived as the institution’s approval of promiscuity. The adults/administration seemed to be saying, “You are old enough to make up your own mind about sexual morality.”Out of a desire to meet the needs of their ever-growing non-Catholic student population, and to keep up with their secular counterparts, Catholic universities began to abandon the various student life policies that reflected the teachings of the Church, particularly in the area of human sexuality.
After a number of years of inter-visitation, Catholic colleges and universities began to allow co-ed dormitories. Not surprisingly, there are now many Catholic institutions of higher learning whose dormitories house both sexes; in some cases men and women are separated by floors, others by wings, and even others, simply by rooms. It is not too difficult to ponder the consequences of such a policy.
One of the reasons I was attracted to come to Christendom College was the fact that, since its founding, Christendom has been faithful to the commitment to encourage and bear witness to all of the Church’s teachings, including the beautiful teaching on chastity. Let me explain the reasoning behind this stance.
The rules and policies that a college enforces must truly reflect the institution’s beliefs—her mission and integrity. If a college is genuinely committed to being Catholic, then every facet of the college, including the rules and regulations governing student life, must reflect Church teachings, bringing those teachings to life and incarnating them for the students.
The Catholic Church has always taught that unmarried people of the opposite sex need to exercise a prudent reserve in relationships, especially because of the goodness, indeed the holiness, of intimacy within marriage. Anyone of maturity and good sense knows that permissive rules allowing young men and women to spend hours upon hours inside each other’s dormitory rooms not only contradict the Church’s teachings on prudence and chastity, but also seriously jeopardize the purity of these young people. When students perceive the disconnect between exhortations by college administrators to live a virtuous life and residential policies that are not conducive to that calling, they not only lose their trust in the institution, but they also become seriously confused about what is right and what is wrong. When this happens, the institution fails in its mission to teach the whole truth about the human person.
Some voices in both secular and Catholic academia believe, since the students are generally over the age of 18, and therefore, in the eyes of the law, adults, that there is no need to implement policies affirming and encouraging chastity. Some insist that these young adults are mature and should not be told what to do in this regard. Others maintain that the students need only encouragement and good example, that these will be sufficient inducements to their becoming virtuous men and women who live a chaste life. Clearly this reasoning is deficient as evidenced by rules governing consumption of alcoholic beverages. Rules are meant to reinforce morals and foster virtuous behavior, just as they do in the home life; they are meant to complement, not contradict each other.
Given the brutal collapse of our secular culture, we need to have the courage to embrace a “contra mundum” stance. An authentically Catholic college, one striving to do the will of the Church, as faithful disciples, should not only adopt residential policies that separate and respect the dignity of the opposite sexes, but it should also provide many examples and events that promote and illustrate the joy of virtuous living, such as pro-chastity speakers or a course devoted to St. John Paul II’s Theology of the Body. This two-pronged attack offers a greater chance of success in bearing witness to the power and truth of Catholic teaching.
Our Catholic institutions of higher learning need to foster virtue and be countercultural as a corrective to our nation’s secular universities, many of which are floundering and debasing human dignity in this sensitive area. We need to bear witness to the truth and convince our beloved young people that they have a dignity and a calling far greater than that which is promoted by the secular world.
https://cardinalnewmansociety.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/04/Perspectives-in-Cathlic-Ed-Web-Header-845-x-321-px-01.png13383521Dr. Timothy O'Donnellhttps://cardinalnewmansociety.org/wp-content/uploads/CNS-logo-2C-450-tag2.pngDr. Timothy O'Donnell2016-04-18 03:28:002020-05-26 15:07:00Encourage, Enact, and Enforce: A Residential Blueprint for Witnessing to the Church’s Teachings on Chastity during the College Years
In a hyper-sexual society, once-traditional morals have eroded even in our Catholic institutions—and especially on many Catholic college campuses. Research shows that the pervasive “hook up” culture on the typical American campus is found even at many Catholic colleges, a fact that will not surprise most Crisis readers.
Given the documented consequences of the Sexual Revolution, it’s long past time that Catholic colleges take the lead on campus reform, creating cultures that reinforce the expectation of chastity. Solutions are by no means simple, as the casual sex scene has become an accepted norm of college life—even seemingly acceptable to many Catholic parents who would never allow such behavior in their homes. But while there’s no quick fix, Catholic colleges can at least start to address the problem by observing the residence life policies of those few faithful Catholic institutions and their other Christian counterparts that promote a culture of chastity.
Good solutions often begin with good data, so The Cardinal Newman Society has published a review of the dorm visitation policies at 191 residential Catholic college campuses in the United States. Our report, Visitation Policies at U.S. Catholic Colleges, is a factual overview of policies that regulate student visits to those campus residences that function, at least in large part, as student bedrooms.
https://cardinalnewmansociety.org/wp-content/uploads/nguyen-dang-hoang-nhu-HHs_PrvxSQk-unsplash-scaled.jpg19202560Adam Wilsonhttps://cardinalnewmansociety.org/wp-content/uploads/CNS-logo-2C-450-tag2.pngAdam Wilson2016-02-23 21:02:072020-05-26 15:11:19New Dorm Visitation Study Reveals Need for Reform
This report presents the results from a Cardinal Newman Society study of the visitation policies in student residences at residential Catholic colleges, not including seminaries, in the United States.1 Data used in the report was collected during the summer of 2015.
The report primarily evaluates visitation hours—the times during which colleges permit students of the opposite sex to be present in student bedrooms (including single-room residences) on campus. The report also presents information on other residence life policies that regulate the interaction between male and female students in campus residences. The report considers the policies of Catholic institutions and then compares policies of select Catholic and other Christian colleges.
In the first part of the report, it is found that the vast majority of Catholic colleges have residence life policies that permit students of the opposite sex to visit each other in bedrooms until early morning hours, behind closed doors. More than one quarter of the Catholic colleges permit students to stay overnight in an opposite-sex bedroom at least one night a week. Very few Catholic colleges prohibit opposite-sex visitation entirely. About a third of Catholic colleges have policies that explicitly forbid sexual intimacy in campus residences. The report also explores additional policies that regulate student behavior during visitation times, including open-door rules.
In the second part of the study, a sample of Catholic and other Christian colleges was selected in order to compare visitation policies. The selected non-Catholic Christian colleges have substantially more limited opposite-sex visitation hours than their Catholic counterparts and are stricter about prohibiting sexual intimacy in residences. Many of the selected Catholic institutions are ambiguous in their policies regarding sexual intimacy.
Methodology
For the first part of this report, the researcher attempted to review policies regarding opposite-sex visitation at all residential Catholic colleges in the United States. Policies were identified for 191 Catholic colleges, but no policies were found for three Catholic colleges.2 Another ten Catholic colleges were nonresidential and therefore not included in the study.3 The visitation hours for all Catholic colleges are included in Appendix A at the end of this report.
For the second part of the report, the researcher compared a sample of 40 Catholic colleges affiliated with the Association of Catholic Colleges and Universities (ACCU) and 40 non-Catholic Christian colleges affiliated with the Council of Christian Colleges and Universities (CCCU). For a rough parity between samples, they include only institutions that were rated in the U.S. News & World Report Best College Rankings and Lists in 2015.4 For both Catholic and other Christian institutions, six were selected from the U.S. News “National Universities Rankings,” six from the “National Liberal Arts Colleges Rankings,” four from each of the four “Regional Universities Rankings,” and three from each of the four “Regional Colleges Rankings.” The highest-ranked Catholic and other Christian colleges in each category were selected; however, some were excluded and replaced by other colleges, because no visitation information could be found. The samples do not allow for a strictly equivalent comparison, but nevertheless they are of interest because of their similarities in secular rankings and yet substantial differences with regard to visitation policies. The visitation hours for the sample of Catholic and other Christian colleges are included in Appendix B at the end of this report.
Information included in this report was collected during the summer of 2015 from various resources posted online by the colleges. Information was also collected through direct communication with some of the colleges by email and phone when there was insufficient data online. Online sources include, but are not limited to, student handbooks, student life or residence life handbooks, community standards pages and residence life information pages. The most recent official college documents which could be found at the time of the study were used.
Some institutions have stricter policies for freshmen than for other students. There is also variation in the visitation hours among different residences at some colleges. In such instances, the most relaxed hours for undergraduate students were recorded. Some institutions that set specific hours for visitation were reported to have open visitation due to the fact that they permit overnight opposite-sex visitation under certain circumstances. And some institutions that prohibit overnight opposite-sex visitation do not provide any time limits to visitation. These instances were reported as open visitation.
The report focuses on visitation hours for traditional campus residences. Some colleges have more relaxed visitation hours for students in campus apartments, houses, and townhomes with the rationale that such living arrangements include areas for visitors that are not bedrooms. Because the emphasis of this report is on bedroom visitation, the policies for such residences were generally not used for analysis in the first part of the report.
Similarly, some colleges that do not permit opposite-sex visitation do allow for common area visitation in residence halls. Such common area hours were not taken into consideration in this report, which is focused on bedroom visitation. The exception to this rule is when common area hours are set by a college, but the decision on visitation hour limits for bedrooms is left up to students. In these cases, the report uses the common area hours to determine the latest visitation hours in the bedrooms. These instances are not considered to have “open” visitation due to the fact that common area hours were always found to be more relaxed or equal to bedroom hours.
Institutions that rarely permit opposite-sex visitation during special open house events under close supervision are reported here as not allowing visitation.
The main categories of visitation hours utilized in this report are “Weekday Nights” (Monday through Thursday) and “Weekend Nights” (Friday and Saturday). Some colleges have opposite-sex visitation hours on only certain days of the week, but these are recorded as a college’s weekday or weekend policy, as appropriate. If the hours vary, the latest hour is recorded.
In the section considering policies on sexual intimacy in the first part of this report, only those policies that explicitly prohibit sexual activity were quantified. Other policies not recorded include those prohibiting cohabitation and overnight visits of the opposite sex, but without explicitly proscribing sexual intimacy. As the purview of this report is to gather specific visitation hours and definite rules regarding sexual intimacy, those policies not explicitly forbidding sexual intimacy were not considered in the analysis.
The charts in this report round down visitation end times to the closest hour.
The researcher took care to ensure accuracy and completeness of the information recorded but acknowledges the possibility of some mistakes or omissions given the amount of data involved in the research. If any errors are found or reported, they will be corrected in the online version of this report.
Catholic College and University Visitation Policies
Overview
Overall, 182 (95 percent) of the 190 residential Catholic colleges studied permit opposite-sex visitation at some time during the week. Of these, only a handful have open-door policies. About one-third of the colleges have policies expressly prohibiting sexual intimacy in student residences.
Weekend Night Visitation
Fifty-four Catholic colleges (28 percent) have “open” hours on weekend nights (Friday and Saturday), meaning that opposite-sex students can stay in student bedrooms without time limits. Forty-nine (26 percent) permit visitation without time limits on both weekend and weekday nights. Some colleges (39 or 21 percent) do not set any hour limits to visitation on weekends; nine of these (5 percent) leave it up to students to determine, meaning that students are free to establish with their roommates—by means of a residence contract or other agreement—the hours during which opposite-sex guests are permitted. And some (13 or 7 percent) have unlimited opposite-sex visitation for only some students, usually upper-classmen or seniors. All of these instances5 are defined as “open” visitation for this report.6
There are a few examples of open visitation that should be mentioned. Edgewood College specifies a policy that permits “Weekend Opposite Sex/Intimate Partner Visitation Hours.” Edgewood states, “All students are eligible to have 24-hour weekend visitation of guests. Visitation hours in which members of the opposite sex and same-sex intimate partners are permitted are: Weekend visitation hours begin 8:00 a.m. Friday and run through 11:00 p.m. Sunday.”7
A few colleges were considered to have open visitation in light of exceptions made to other standard policies. Examples include La Salle University, which sets opposite-sex visitation hours on weekends. However, La Salle permits overnight visitation in some residence halls “in recognition of such residences’ structural designs and the possibility of legitimate needs for group study,” although it is discouraged.8 The College of New Rochelle sets opposite-sex visitation limits for all students, but says, “The only exception in Angela Hall is that seniors or those over age 23 may have overnight guests of the opposite sex.”9 Similarly, St. Mary’s College in Indiana, which is an all-female college, has visitation hour limits and permits only female overnight guests, with the exception of “Regina South Tower, where male guests may stay over night.”10 Regina South Tower is a residence hall for senior students with one-, two-, three-, and four-bedroom residences. And Seton Hall University sets hours for visitation, but also states that students “can co-host with someone of the opposite gender if you wish to host someone of the opposite gender. Your co-host and guest must remain with you at all times.”11
Eight colleges (5 percent) do not permit any opposite-sex visitation in student residences on weekends.
Of the remaining colleges, the median latest visitation hour is 2:00 a.m. Nearly half of the Catholic colleges studied (91 or 48 percent) end weekend visitation in the 2:00 a.m. hour. A few have later hours: two (1 percent) end visitation at 4:00 a.m., while nine (5 percent) end visitation in the 3:00 a.m. hour. Fourteen colleges (7 percent) end visitation in the 1:00 a.m. hour, 10 (5 percent) end visitation at midnight, one (.5 percent) ends visitation at 11:00 p.m., and another (.5 percent) ends visitation at 10:00 p.m.
Exhibit C – Colleges with Weekend Night Visitation Ending between 3 a.m. and 4 a.m.
College
Visitation Until
Alvernia University
3:00 AM
College of Saint Mary
3:00 AM
Creighton University
3:00 AM
DeSales University
3:00 AM
D’Youville College
3:00 AM
Fordham University
3:30 AM
Mount Saint Mary College
3:00 AM
St. John’s University (NY)
3:00 AM
St. Louis University
4:00 AM
University of Scranton
3:00 AM
Xavier University of Louisiana
4:00 AM
A few Catholic colleges begin weekend visitation hours in the late afternoon or evening instead of the morning as is typical, thereby reducing the total number of hours in which opposite-sex visitation is permitted. For example, Ave Maria University12 permits visitation between 6:00 p.m. and 12:00 a.m. on weekend nights, and the Franciscan University of Steubenville13 permits visitation between 7:00 p.m. and 11:00 p.m. on weekend nights. As noted below, both colleges also have “open-door” policies during visitation hours.
Weekday Night Visitation
Forty-nine Catholic colleges (26 percent) were found to have open visitation hours on weekday nights (Monday through Thursday). Ten (5 percent) do not permit any opposite-sex visitation in student residences on weekday nights.
Of the remaining Catholic colleges, the median latest visitation hour is midnight. Seventy-one of the colleges (37 percent) have visitation hours ending in the 12:00 a.m. hour, 22 (12 percent) in the 1:00 a.m. hour, 23 (12 percent) at 2:00 a.m., and two (1 percent) in the 3:00 a.m. hour. Some colleges end visitation hours before midnight, with nine (5 percent) ending at 11:00 p.m., three (2 percent) ending at 10:00 p.m., and one (.5 percent) ending at 9:00 p.m.
Of the 190 Catholic colleges studied for this report, five (3 percent) have some form of an open-door policy together with visitation hours. Such policies require that doors remain fully or partly open when members of the opposite sex are present in student residences.
For example, the University of Dallas14 and St. Gregory’s University15 stipulate that the bolts on doors must remain open, thus preventing locked doors and total privacy. Ave Maria University requires that doors be “propped open.”16 The Franciscan University of Steubenville requires residence doors to be “open.”17 And St. Martin’s University requires doors to be open only during the last few hours of visitation each night.18
Open-door policies coincide with relatively limited visitation hours at Ave Maria University, the Franciscan University of Steubenville, and the University of Dallas. The visitation hours at St. Gregory’s University and St. Martin’s University are about on par with most other Catholic colleges.
Policies on Sexual Intimacy and Other Behavior in Residences
About one third of the Catholic colleges (60 or 32 percent) were found to have some form of a policy explicitly prohibiting sexual intimacy on campus. Some colleges (40 or 21 percent) make clear that sexual intimacy is reserved for marriage. Some (52 or 27 percent) mention Catholic teaching or Catholic identity language while prohibiting sexual intimacy. Thirteen (7 percent) prohibit “overnight visits” or “cohabitation” for the purpose of sexual activity, but do not specify that sexual intimacy is also forbidden at other times of the day. Eight (4 percent) prohibit sexual “overnight visits” or “cohabitation” while also mentioning Catholic teaching or Catholic identity language in support of the policy, but do not specify that sexual intimacy is also forbidden at other times of the day.
Of the eight Catholic colleges that prohibit opposite-sex visitation in residences, half of them—Aquinas College in Tennessee, Christendom College, Northeast Catholic College, and John Paul the Great Catholic University—also have policies explicitly prohibiting sexual intimacy. For those that do not explicitly prohibit sexual intimacy, the point may be moot as opposite-sex visitation is already forbidden.
Overview
The second part of this report is based on a comparison of the visitation policies at 40 members of the Association of Catholic Colleges and Universities (ACCU) and 40 members and affiliates of the Council of Christian Colleges and Universities (CCCU) that are included in U.S. News and World Report’s 2015 Best College Rankings and Lists. See the “Methodology” section on page 2 for details on how the colleges were selected.
The comparison is interesting, because although most Christian sects share similar beliefs about the immorality of sexual activity outside of marriage, the CCCU colleges studied have more limited visitation hours than the Catholic colleges. Many of the Catholic colleges do not set limits on how late students of the opposite sex may visit student bedrooms, while none of the CCCU colleges was found to have open visiting hours. The most common latest time that the Catholic colleges permit opposite-sex visitation is 2:00 a.m.; the most common latest time among the CCCU colleges is midnight.
Many of the CCCU colleges and one of the Catholic colleges have other policies in place related to opposite-sex visitation. These include open-door and open-bolt policies and lights-on rules. Whereas most colleges in both sets have at least some coed residence halls for students, more than half the Catholic colleges and just five of the CCCU colleges offer only coed halls without single-sex options.
Policies, teachings, and regulations related to sexual intimacy on campus were compared between the CCCU and Catholic colleges. A greater number of the CCCU institutions studied have some sort of a statement that forbids premarital sexual intimacy. Colleges of both types that prohibit sex on campus make reference to their mission and/or identity to support the policy. Many Catholic colleges reference “cohabitation” or overnight visits in their policies regulating student behavior in the residences, but often the terms are used ambiguously and do not explicitly prohibit sexual intimacy in student residences. Some do include Catholic teaching and prohibitions on sexual intimacy in their language.
Weekend Night Visitation
Among the 40 Catholic colleges studied, 11 (28 percent) have open visitation hours in primary campus residence halls on weekend nights (Friday and Saturday). Two (5 percent) end their weekend visitation hours in the 3 a.m. hour, more than half (21 or 53 percent) end at 2:00 a.m., two (5 percent) end in the 1:00 a.m. hour, two (5 percent) end at midnight, and just two (5 percent) allow no opposite-sex visitation on weekend nights.
By contrast, none of the 40 CCCU colleges studied has open visitation hours on weekend nights. Two (5 percent) end their hours at 2:00 a.m., one quarter (10 or 25 percent) end at 1:00 a.m., 14 (35 percent) end at midnight, six (15 percent) conclude in the 11:00 p.m. hour, and one (3 percent) ends visitation in the 10:00 p.m. hour. Seven of the CCCU colleges (18 percent) allow no opposite-sex visitation on weekend nights.
Weekday Night Visitation
Among the Catholic colleges, 11 (28 percent) have open visitation hours on weekday nights (Monday through Thursday). One college ends its visitation hours at 3:30 a.m. on weekday nights, four (10 percent) end at 2:00 a.m., six (15 percent) end in the 1:00 a.m. hour, 15 (38 percent) end at midnight, and one ends at 11:00 p.m. Two (5 percent) do not allow opposite-sex visitation hours on weekday nights.
For the CCCU colleges, none of the institutions studied have open visitation hours on weekday nights. One CCCU college (3 percent) ends weekday night visitation hours at 2:00 a.m., another (3 percent) ends at 1:00 a.m., seven (18 percent) end in the 12:00 a.m. hour, eight (20 percent) end in the 11:00 p.m. hour, and 15 (38 percent) end in the 10:00 p.m. hour. Eight CCCU colleges (20 percent) do not allow opposite-sex visitation on weekday nights.
Ten of the Catholic colleges (25 percent) have open visitation hours on Sunday nights. One Catholic college (3 percent) ends visitation hours in the 3:00 a.m. hour, four (10 percent) end at 2:00 a.m., six (15 percent) end at 1:00 a.m., 15 (38 percent) end at midnight, one (3 percent) ends at 11:00 p.m., and one (3 percent) ends at 8:00 p.m. Two of the Catholic colleges (5 percent) do not permit opposite-sex visitation on Sunday nights.
One of the CCCU colleges studied (3 percent) ends visitation hours on Sunday nights at 2:00 a.m., another (3 percent) ends at 1:00 a.m., nine (23 percent) end in the 12:00 a.m. hour, six (15 percent) end in the 11:00 p.m. hour, eight (20 percent) end in the 10:00 p.m. hour, two (5 percent) end at 9:00 p.m., two (5 percent) end at 8:00 p.m., and two (5 percent) end at 5:00 p.m. Nine of the CCCU colleges (23 percent) do not allow opposite-sex visitation hours on Sunday nights, and none have open visitation hours.
A few of the institutions studied were also found to have stricter visitation hour rules for first-year students, including three Catholic colleges (8 percent) and one CCCU college (3 percent).
Among the Catholic colleges, Loyola University New Orleans gives first-year students a visitation period ending at midnight seven days a week prior to completing their “Roommate Agreement” form. Upper-class students do not have such a restriction.19
At Villanova University, first-year students are limited to midnight on weekday nights and 2:00 a.m. on weekend nights, but upperclassmen have open visitation seven days a week.20
Similarly, Wheeling Jesuit University ends first-year student visitation at midnight on weekday nights and 2:00 a.m. on weekend nights, but grants upperclassmen a 2:00 a.m. limit on weekday nights and 24-hour visitation on weekends. Wheeling Jesuit gives several exceptions that can be made to its upperclassmen weekday visitation policy, so the University is listed as “open” in Appendix B of the report.21
Messiah College, a CCCU member, limits both first-year and upper-class students to visitation ending at 10:00 p.m. on Sunday, 10:00 p.m. on Wednesday and 1:00 a.m. on weekend nights. Messiah grants upperclassmen an additional night of visitation on Monday until 10:00 p.m.22
Students Set Visitation Hours
Another way some (4 or 10 percent) of the Catholic colleges address opposite-sex visitation on campus is by allowing students in the same rooms, floors, or wings in residence halls to decide on their own visitation hours. None of the CCCU colleges in the study allow this.
For the purposes of this study, colleges that allow students to set their own hours are considered to have open visitation policies when there is no limit set for them. Where students are permitted to set their own hours within a college-established limit, the latest end hour is reported.
A residence life official at Santa Clara University told us, “Standard policy is that students and their roommate(s) set their own visiting hours in the residence halls, and the University doesn’t have gender-specific restrictions.”
Loyola University New Orleans permits upperclassmen to have open visiting hours, but it limits first-year students to visiting hours ending at midnight until they “have completed and reviewed their Roommate Agreement with a Residential Life staff member.”23
The College of St. Benedict in Collegeville, Minn., has typical visitation hours until midnight on weekday nights and until 2:00 a.m. on weekend nights. However, it “expects” that roommates “determine what hours you wish to host” visitors of the opposite sex.24 Villanova also permits freshmen to set visiting hours by means of roommate living agreements, as long as they are within the pre-set limits imposed by the University.
Typically, colleges require students to respect the wishes of their roommates when bringing visitors into the residence. For instance, both St. Francis College in New York and Stonehill College have open visitation. Stonehill stipulates, “Whether during the day or overnight, guests are only permitted to be in that individual residence hall room with the consent of a resident’s roommate(s).”25 And St. Francis College says, “In consideration to the rights of roommates and other residents, there are limits to the duration and frequency of such visits. A resident may have only one overnight guest at any given time.”26
Visitation in Campus Apartments, Townhomes, and Houses
Some universities offer students alternative residence options in apartments, townhomes, and houses on campus. These options are more prevalent at the 40 CCCU colleges than at the 40 Catholic colleges studied. Apartments, townhomes, and houses on campus are typically reserved for upper-class students. In general, visitation hours were found to be more relaxed in these types of living arrangements.
Only three of the Catholic colleges studied offer students on-campus living options in apartments, townhomes, and/or houses. Two (5 percent) end opposite-sex visiting hours at 2:00 a.m., and one (3 percent) has open visiting hours.
Exhibit J – Catholic College Apartments, Townhomes and Houses Visitation Hour End Times
Catholic College
Weekend Nights
Weekday Nights
Sunday Nights
Belmont Abbey College
2:00 AM
2:00 AM
2:00 AM
University of San Diego
2:00 AM
2:00 AM
2:00 AM
Rockhurst University
open
open
open
At the CCCU colleges, 14 offer campus residential options in apartments, townhomes, and/or houses. On weekend nights, one (3 percent) has completely open visitation hours, three (8 percent) end their hours at 2:00 a.m., five (13 percent) end at 1:00 a.m., two (5 percent) end at midnight, and three (8 percent) end at 11:00 p.m. On weekday nights, one (3 percent) has open hours, two (5 percent) end at 2:00 a.m., one (3 percent) ends at 1:00 a.m., four (10 percent) end at midnight, and six (15 percent) end at 11:00 p.m. On Sunday nights, one (3 percent) has open hours, two (5 percent) end at 2:00 a.m., one (3 percent) ends at 1:00 a.m., five (13 percent) end at midnight, and four (10 percent) end at 11:00 p.m.
Exhibit K – CCCU College Apartments, Townhomes and Houses Visitation Hour End Times
CCCU College
Weekend Nights
Weekday Nights
Sunday Nights
Gordon College
12:00 AM
11:00 PM
11:00 PM
Trevecca Nazarene U.
12:00 AM
11:00 PM
12:00 AM
Azusa Pacific Univ.
1:00 AM
12:00 AM
12:00 AM
Biola University
1:00 AM
11:00 PM
John Brown University
1:00 AM
12:00 AM
12:00 AM
Pepperdine University
1:00 AM
1:00 AM
1:00 AM
Spring Arbor Univ.
1:00 AM
12:00 AM
12:00 AM
Baylor University
2:00 AM
2:00 AM
2:00 AM
George Fox University
2:00 AM
12:00 AM
12:00 AM
Wheaton College
2:00 AM
2:00 AM
2:00 AM
Cairn University
11:00 PM
11:00 PM
11:00 PM
LeTourneau University
11:00 PM
11:00 PM
11:00 PM
Univ. of Valley Forge
11:00 PM
11:00 PM
11:00 PM
Seattle Pacific Univ.
open
open
open
Open-Door/Open-Bolt Policies
Only one of the Catholic colleges (3 percent) was found to have an open-door or open-bolt policy for opposite-sex visitation. By contrast, more than half (21 or 53 percent) of the CCCU colleges have open-door or open-bolt policies. Appendix C lists the colleges with this policy.
Lights-On Policy
Eleven of the CCCU colleges studied (28 percent) have lights-on policies. Most of the institutions that implement this policy do so in addition to an open-door rule. Typically, the lights in a student bedroom are required to be left at least partially on, so that the occupants present during opposite-sex visitation are visible from outside the room.
None of the 40 Catholic colleges studied implements this policy.
Single-Sex Residences
Eight of the Catholic colleges (20 percent) and 13 of the CCCU colleges (33 percent) studied have only single-sex residence halls on campus. Eight Catholic colleges (20 percent) and 17 CCCU colleges (43 percent) have both single-sex and coed halls on campus. Twenty-one Catholic colleges (53 percent) and five CCCU colleges (13 percent) have only coed residences.27
For both Catholic and CCCU colleges with only single-sex residences, it was found that they have roughly the same kind of opposite-sex visitation policies as the rest of the institutions studied. Even when considering together institutions with only single-sex residences and those with both single-sex and coed residences, there is still no noteworthy difference in average visitation hours when compared to all institutions.
Several of the institutions studied have varying forms of prohibitions on sexual intimacy. Some colleges specify that they prohibit pre-marital sex, and some identify specific forms of sexual intimacy that are prohibited. Others say instead that “cohabitation” is against college policy. Only the colleges that specifically disallow sexual intimacy were considered by this study to have a sexual intimacy prohibition in place. Aside from assessing prohibitions on sexual intimacy, this section of the report is based on general observations and is not quantified.
Eleven of the Catholic colleges studied (28 percent) provide some sort of official statement that sexual intimacy is reserved for marriage and/or is inappropriate among students. Thirty of the CCCU colleges (75 percent) have such language in place.
Catholic examples include:
Benedictine College states that it is “committed to the teachings and moral values of the Catholic Church, including the belief that human sexuality… is to be genitally expressed only in a monogamous heterosexual relationship of lasting fidelity in marriage.”28
Gregory’s University states, “Contrary to the pervasive opinion of secular culture that views casual sexual activity among unmarried persons to be the norm, St. Gregory’s University affirms the Church’s teaching that the rightful context for sexual activity lies exclusively within the union of sacramental marriage.”29
The University of Notre Dame says that it “embraces the Catholic Church’s teaching that a genuine and complete expression of love through sex requires a commitment to a total living and sharing together of two persons in marriage.” Notre Dame further states that students “who engage in sexual union outside of marriage may be subject to a referral to the University Conduct Process.”30
Villanova University cites Catholic teaching and states that “a genuine and complete expression of love through sexual union requires a commitment to living and sharing of two persons in marriage.” And Villanova says that it “reserves the right to take action under the Code of Student Conduct for students found in violation of this policy.”31
Xavier University in Ohio “draws to the attention of all its members the traditional and wise Catholic moral teaching that properly locates sexual activity within the relationship of a man and a woman united for life through marriage as husband and wife.” Xavier further states that its religious identity “impels us to recognize the norm of chastity for everyone, whether homosexual or heterosexual.”32
CCCU institutions that make reference to their missions or values while advancing policies regarding sexual intimacy include:
Baylor University’s policy states that it “will be guided by the biblical understanding that human sexuality is a gift from God and that physical sexual intimacy is to be expressed in the context of marital fidelity.”33
George Fox University cites Scripture and states “only marriage between a man and a woman is God’s intention for the joyful fulfillment of sexual intimacy,” and “Sexual behaviors outside of this context are inconsistent with God’s teaching.”34
Oklahoma Wesleyan University forbids students from engaging “in any behavior that promotes, celebrates, or advertises sexual deviancy or a sexual identity outside of the scriptural expectation of sexuality.” The University affirms “the exemplar and standard of heterosexual monogamy within the context of marriage.”35
Wheaton College states that it upholds “a biblical sexual ethic that reserves consenting intimate sexual expression within a marriage between a man and a woman.”36
Many of the CCCU colleges studied go beyond only specifying that sexual intimacy should be reserved for marriage and also include language prohibiting other forms of sexual activity and related practices. For example, The Master’s College cites several Scripture verses, states that sexual intimacy is reserved for marriage, and includes the language, “Any form of sexual immorality such as pornography, fornication, adultery, homosexuality, bisexual conduct, is sinful and outside of God’s design for sexual intimacy (Lev 18:1-30; Romans 1:18-29).”37
Dordt College has a similar policy and says, “the college firmly holds to the biblical teaching that premarital intercourse is forbidden. Further, behavior (e.g. nudity, lying in bed together) that encourages such intimacy will not be tolerated by the college.”38
Messiah College, under its section on Scriptural Guidelines, mentions that “we are to avoid such sinful practices as… sexual intercourse outside of marriage, homosexual behavior, and sexually exploitative or abusive behavior.”39
Some of the other CCCU colleges studied prohibit premarital sexual intimacy without mentioning their religious mission in the same context. For instance, Biola University states, “Any behavior that is considered compromising, sexually inappropriate, or causes others in the community to be uncomfortable is prohibited.”40
Trevecca Nazarene University states that students are not allowed to engage “in acts of sexual immorality, such as premarital and extramarital relations.”41 Malone University stipulates, “Sex should be exclusively reserved for the marriage relationship, understood as a legal, lifelong commitment between a husband and wife.”42 And Pepperdine University prohibits “Sexual activity outside a marriage between husband and wife including, but not limited to, premarital, extramarital or homosexual conduct.”43
Nearly all of the colleges studied were found to have specific sections for policy regarding sexual misconduct in their student handbooks. While none of the 40 Catholic colleges studied were found to prohibit premarital sex as a part of their sexual misconduct policies, several of the CCCU colleges studied do. Taylor University states as part of its sexual misconduct policy, “Remaining sexually pure is God’s plan for our lives. The following [sexual misconduct] guidelines are intended to provide direction when dealing with students who are sexually involved outside of the marriage relationship.”44 Calvin College also states under its sexual misconduct policy that “premarital intercourse is in conflict with Biblical teaching,” and those “engaging in such conduct face disciplinary action including parent/guardian notification, or suspension.”45 While not mentioning sexual misconduct per se in the same context, Wheaton College specifies, “Intimate sexual expression outside the biblical boundary of marriage may increase the risk of miscommunication about consent.”46
Many of the Catholic colleges studied prohibit “cohabitation” or overnight visits by members of the opposite sex, rather than specifically prohibiting all premarital sexual relations among students. Overall, there is much variance among Catholic colleges in the ways they use the term cohabitation and describe overnight visitation policies.
For instance, some Catholic colleges stipulate that visitors of the opposite sex are not permitted overnight, but they do not explicitly prohibit sexual activities at other times of the day. The College of the Holy Cross says, “Guests are not permitted to stay overnight in the same room with a member of the opposite sex.”47 Seattle University specifies, “Given the values of Seattle University, cohabitation is not permitted in University residence halls or apartments. Only guests of the same gender as their resident hosts are permitted to stay overnight in the residence halls, provided that the guest is not in an amorous relationship with the resident host.”48 Saint John’s University in Minnesota also stipulates, “Guests of the opposite sex are not permitted to stay overnight in any student residence.”49
Some Catholic colleges, without making direct mention of sexual activities, do not define the term cohabitation, or they use it broadly to mean any visitor who is not the primary resident staying in a campus residence for an extended period of time. For example, Stonehill College says, “reflective of Catholic values and moral teaching, Stonehill encourages relationships between young adults that foster physical, emotional, and spiritual well-being and, as such, the College does not permit cohabitation.”50 Wheeling Jesuit University has a broad policy which defines cohabitation as “the consistent presence of a guest who spends a day/night or longer period of time in a student’s residence hall room.” Wheeling Jesuit stipulates that “Visitors of the same or opposite gender found to be a consistent presence… will be considered to be engaged in cohabitation, and the host and student(s) involved will be subject to conduct review through the Office of Residence Life and Student Conduct.”51 And Bellarmine University states that “Cohabitation exists when a person who is not assigned to a particular residence hall room or apartment uses that room or apartment as if he or she were living there.”52
A couple Catholic colleges have policies that specifically prohibit overnight sexual encounters, but they do not include language prohibiting sexual relations at other times. Georgetown University defines cohabitation as “overnight visits with a sexual partner” and says it is “incompatible both with the Catholic character of the University and with the rights of the roommates.”53 Creighton University stipulates, “Overnight visits with a sexual partner is incompatible both with the Catholic nature of the University and with the rights of the roommate and is strictly prohibited.” It defines cohabitation as “living together outside of marriage in an intimate relationship.”54
A few of the Catholic colleges studied have very loose or practically nonexistent policies regarding sexual relations among students. Rockhurst University, which has open visitation, stipulates that “Guests may not stay for more than two consecutive nights (48 hours) unless permission is obtained from the Resident Director.”55 A residence life administrator from St. Francis College stated, “Currently there is no policy specifically prohibiting sexual activity in the residence halls. However, any activities taking place in a room must have the consent of all residents of the room including their roommates.”
Appendices
Appendix A – Visitation Hour End Times at Catholic Colleges and Universities
Catholic College
Weekend Nights
Week Nights
Sunday Nights
Single-Sex or Coed Residences
Aquinas College
none
none
none
Single Sex
Bellarmine University
2:00 AM
2:00 AM
2:00 AM
Both
Belmont Abbey College
12:00 AM
12:00 AM
12:00 AM
Single Sex
Benedictine College
1:30 AM
12:00 AM
12:00 AM
Single Sex
Boston College
open
open
open
Carroll College
2:00 AM
1:00 AM
1:00 AM
Coed
Christian Brothers University
2:00 AM
12:00 AM
12:00 AM
Coed
Clarke University
2:00 AM
12:00 AM
12:00 AM
Both
College of St. Benedict
2:00 AM
12:00 AM
12:00 AM
Single Sex
College of the Holy Cross
open
open
open
Coed
Creighton University
3:00 AM
1:00 AM
1:00 AM
Coed
Fairfield University
open
open
open
Coed
Fordham University
3:30 AM
3:30 AM
3:30 AM
Coed
Georgetown University
open
open
open
Coed
Gonzaga University
2:00 AM
2:00 AM
2:00 AM
Both
John Carroll University
2:00 AM
12:00 AM
12:00 AM
Coed
Loras College
2:00 AM
2:00 AM
2:00 AM
Coed
Loyola Marymount University
2:00 AM
2:00 AM
2:00 AM
Both
Loyola University Maryland
2:00 AM
12:00 AM
12:00 AM
Loyola Univ. New Orleans
open
open
open
Coed
Marquette University
2:00 AM
1:00 AM
1:00 AM
Both
Merrimack College
12:00 AM
12:00 AM
12:00 AM
Providence College
2:00 AM
12:00 AM
12:00 AM
Both
Rockhurst University
open
open
12:00 AM
Both
Santa Clara University
open
open
open
Coed
Seattle University
2:00 AM
1:00 AM
1:00 AM
Coed
Seton Hill University
2:00 AM
12:00 AM
12:00 AM
Coed
Spring Hill College
2:00 AM
12:00 AM
12:00 AM
Coed
St. Francis College
open
open
open
Coed
St. Gregory’s University
2:00 AM
12:00 AM
8:00 PM
Single Sex
St. John’s University (MN)
2:00 AM
12:00 AM
12:00 AM
Single Sex
St. Michael’s College
2:00 AM
1:00 AM
1:00 AM
Coed
Stonehill College
open
open
open
Coed
Thomas Aquinas College
none
none
none
Single Sex
University of Great Falls
1:00 AM
11:00 PM
11:00 PM
Coed
University of Notre Dame
2:00 AM
12:00 AM
12:00 AM
Single Sex
University of San Diego
2:00 AM
12:00 AM
12:00 AM
Coed
Villanova University
open
open
open
Coed
Wheeling Jesuit University
open
open
open
Both
Xavier University
2:00 AM
1:00 AM
1:00 AM
Coed
CCCU College
Weekend Nights
Week Nights
Sunday Nights
Single-Sex or Coed Residences
Anderson University
12:00 AM
10:00 PM
9:00 PM
Both
Asbury University
1:00 AM
12:00 AM
12:00 AM
Azusa Pacific University
12:00 AM
10:00 PM
10:00 PM
Both
Baylor University
2:00 AM
2:00 AM
2:00 AM
Biola University
12:00 AM
11:00 PM
11:00 PM
Both
Cairn University
none
none
none
Calvin College
1:00 AM
10:00 PM
10:00 PM
Both
College of the Ozarks
none
none
none
Single Sex
Covenant College
11:00 PM
none
5:00 PM
Coed
Dordt College
12:00 AM
10:00 PM
10:00 PM
Both
Eastern University
1:00 AM
10:30 PM
10:30 PM
Geneva College
1:00 AM
12:00 AM
8:00 PM
Both
George Fox University
12:00 AM
11:00 PM
12:00 AM
Both
Gordon College
12:00 AM
10:00 PM
10:00 PM
Goshen College
12:00 AM
11:00 PM
12:00 AM
Coed
Houghton College
1:00 AM
11:00 PM
11:00 PM
Single Sex
John Brown University
12:00 AM
10:00 PM
none
Both
LeTourneau University
11:00 PM
11:00 PM
9:00 PM
Single Sex
Lipscomb University
none
none
none
Single Sex
Malone University
12:00 AM
11:00 PM
11:00 PM
Single Sex
Messiah College
1:00 AM
10:00 PM
10:00 PM
Coed
Mississippi College
12:00 AM
12:00 AM
12:00 AM
Single Sex
Oklahoma Baptist University
11:00 PM
10:00 PM
none
Both
Oklahoma Wesleyan University
none
10:00 PM
8:00 PM
Single Sex
Olivet Nazarene University
none
none
none
Single Sex
Pepperdine University
1:00 AM
1:00 AM
1:00 AM
Both
Point Loma Nazarene University
1:00 AM
12:00 AM
12:00 AM
Both
Roberts Wesleyan College
1:00 AM
12:30 AM
12:30 AM
Both
Samford University
12:00 AM
10:00 PM
10:00 PM
Both
Seattle Pacific University
12:00 AM
11:00 PM
11:00 PM
Single Sex
Spring Arbor University
11:00 PM
10:00 PM
11:00 PM
Single Sex
Taylor University
12:00 AM
none
5:00 PM
Both
The Master’s College and Sem.
none
none
none
Both
Trevecca Nazarene University
12:00 AM
11:00 PM
12:00 AM
Single Sex
Trinity International University
11:30 PM
10:30 PM
11:30 PM
Both
Union University
none
none
none
Single Sex
University of Valley Forge
10:30 PM
10:30 PM
none
Both
Waynesburg University
2:00 AM
12:00 AM
12:00 AM
Single Sex
Westmont College
1:00 AM
12:00 AM
12:00 AM
Coed
Wheaton College
11:00 PM
10:00 PM
10:00 PM
Coed
Appendix C – Comparison of Open-Door, Open-Bolt, and Lights-On Policies at Sample of Catholic and CCCU Colleges
Catholic Colleges with Open-Door/Open-Bolt/Lights-On Policies
Number of colleges from sample: 1/40
College
Open-Door/Open-Bolt
Lights-On
St. Gregory’s University
✔
CCCU Colleges with Open-Door/Open-Bolt/Lights-On Policies
Number of colleges from sample: 21/40
College
Open-Door/Open-Bolt
Lights-On
Anderson University
✔
Biola University
✔
Cairn University
✔
Calvin College
✔
Covenant College
✔
✔
Dordt College
✔
✔
Eastern University
✔
George Fox University
✔
Gordon College
✔
✔
Houghton College
✔
✔
John Brown University
✔
LeTourneau University
✔
Malone University
✔
✔
Mississippi College
✔
Oklahoma Wesleyan University
✔
✔
Samford University
✔
Spring Arbor University
✔
✔
Taylor University
✔
✔
Trinity International University
✔
✔
Union University
✔
University of Valley Forge
✔
Westmont College
✔
Wheaton College
✔
https://cardinalnewmansociety.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/04/Catholic-Education-Report-Web-Header-845-x-321-px-01.png13383521Adam Wilsonhttps://cardinalnewmansociety.org/wp-content/uploads/CNS-logo-2C-450-tag2.pngAdam Wilson2016-02-19 02:54:142020-06-18 12:25:07Visitation Policies at U.S. Catholic Colleges
Half of all four-year, residential Catholic colleges in the U.S. are within five miles of Planned Parenthood facilities, a study by The Cardinal Newman Society has found. Catholic pro-life leaders warn that the close proximity of these Planned Parenthood centers threatens the well-being of students and the culture of Catholic campuses.
Planned Parenthood is, by its mission, directly opposed to Catholic values on sexuality, artificial contraception and abortion. Many of its centers perform abortions and distribute contraceptives.
In its review of 188 four-year, residential Catholic colleges in the U.S., The Cardinal Newman Society found that 92, or 49 percent, are within five miles of a Planned Parenthood facility. Of these, 13 are within one mile or less, 37 are within 1.1-3 miles and 42 are within 3.1-5 miles (see tables below).
“Catholic colleges didn’t invite this situation, but they can respond by demonstrating genuine concern for their students and fighting Planned Parenthood’s attempts to lure students to their centers,” said Patrick Reilly, president of The Cardinal Newman Society.
“It’s important that Catholic colleges help pregnant students with counseling and referrals,” Reilly said. “But it’s also very important that they promote a campus culture that assumes and promotes chastity, educate students about sexual morality and the problems with contraception and sterilization, and dissuade students from entering Planned Parenthood centers by informing them about Planned Parenthood’s dreadful practices.”
In interviews with the Newman Society, Catholic pro-life leaders also stressed the need for college administrators to warn students about the dangerous influence of Planned Parenthood, America’s largest abortion business, and work to build a pro-life culture on campus.
“With so many abortion clinics near Catholic colleges, pregnant women may be even more tempted or pressured by others to seek abortions,” said Deirde McQuade, assistant director for pro-life communications for the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops (USCCB) Pro-Life Secretariat. “These colleges especially need to build a life-affirming culture and support network — one that both promotes chastity and welcomes life with creative solutions for students, staff and faculty alike.”
Father Frank Pavone, national director of Priests for Life, said the presence of a Planned Parenthood business so close to campus is “a threat to the lives of the children carried in the wombs of pregnant students, and a threat to the health of any student who purchases Planned Parenthood services.”
“Moreover,” he said, “it poses a near occasion of sin, since Planned Parenthood markets evil and sells death, as well as promotes a perverted view of human sexuality.”
American Life League Vice President Jim Sedlak agreed, arguing “a Planned Parenthood facility so close to Catholic campuses poses a real threat to the sexual morality of life on campus.”
Government statistics show Planned Parenthood relies on the college-age demographic for its abortion and contraception business. About one-third of all abortions in the U.S. occur among women aged 20-24, and another 13.5 percent occur at younger ages, according to the federal Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.
In 2012, Students for Life of America (SFLA) reported that 79 percent of Planned Parenthood businesses are located in zip codes that are within five miles of a college campus. But students don’t seem to be fully informed about what these centers do: an SFLA survey the same year found that 59 percent of college-aged respondents did not know that Planned Parenthood commits abortions.
“Planned Parenthood preys off young girls in crisis, locating right near our high schools and college campuses, telling them abortion is their only real option in their moment of desperation,” warned SFLA.
Catholic Colleges Within Five Miles of Planned Parenthood Facilities. [Click to Enlarge]
Proximate Danger
Having already identified numerous links between Planned Parenthood and Catholic colleges, published in the August 2015 report A More Scandalous Relationship: Catholic Colleges and Planned Parenthood, the Newman Society decided to research the threat posed by Planned Parenthood clinics near Catholic college campuses.
The location of Planned Parenthood facilities was identified by entering the zip codes of four-year, residential Catholic colleges in the search function at PlannedParenthood.org. The distances between these facilities and college campuses was verified using the mapping function at Google Maps and recording the estimated driving distances. Because driving distance is almost always longer than walking distance or a straight-line measure, the actual distances between the Planned Parenthood offices and campuses is likely shorter than what is reported here.
Results were divided into three categories of distances from the college campus to the nearest Planned Parenthood facility: one mile or less, more than one mile and up to three miles and more than three miles and up to five miles.
The Newman Society found that Loyola University Chicago is the Catholic college closest to a Planned Parenthood facility, which is located right across the street from the University’s Lakeshore campus. Several reviews of this Planned Parenthood on the website Yelp reveal how the clinic impacts students and compromises the University’s Catholic policies.
“The proximity of this Planned Parenthood to Loyola’s Lakeshore campus is wonderful for those of us that go to a school that refuses to give birth control,” stated one review from Tracy K. Another review by Tom A. noted, “Since I go to a Catholic school and can’t get free condoms, it’s nice being able to cross the street and get them for 25 cents.”
“When I was a student at Loyola my best option for birth control was this Planned Parenthood,” wrote a former student, Virginia T.
The Newman Society reached out to Loyola University Chicago and its pro-life advocacy group for comment on whether students are properly informed or warned against patronizing the nearby Planned Parenthood, but no response was received by time of publication.
At some other Catholic colleges with nearby facilities, Planned Parenthood has attempted to exert influence over the colleges’ pro-life decisions.
In February 2015, the University of Scranton — which has a Planned Parenthood facility only about half a mile from campus — announced that it would end its immoral employee insurance coverage for abortions, including in cases of rape, incest and when the mother’s life is compromised. University President Father Kevin Quinn, S.J., faced immediate backlash from Planned Parenthood, which accused him of “cruel indifference.” However, Fr. Quinn courageously insisted that covering abortion in any situation was not in line with the University’s “Catholic and Jesuit mission.”
Back in September 2014, an unofficial student group, “Students for Sex and Gender Equality and Safety,” sought to change Fordham University’s policy prohibiting the distribution of birth control on campus. A January 2015 rally on the streets of Manhattan was reportedly joined by representatives from the Planned Parenthood center located about 3.5 miles from Fordham’s Manhattan campus and four miles from its Bronx campus. Also, the Planned Parenthood Federation of America headquarters is located just a mile and a half from Fordham at Lincoln Center.
In 2007, Duquesne University’s president, Dr. Charles Dougherty, directed a campus-based radio station to stop running advertisements for Planned Parenthood. In response, Planned Parenthood — which has a facility located less than a mile from Duquesne’s campus — launched a public relations effort pressuring Dougherty to reverse his decision.
Providing Student Assistance
Some Catholic colleges with nearby Planned Parenthood facilities sponsor health centers with access to pro-life counseling and resources.
Saint Louis University (SLU), for example, is located 1.2 miles from a Planned Parenthood facility, and its student health center “does not offer contraception,” Nikki Kuhlman, a senior at SLU and chair of the Pregnant and Parenting Student Assistance, told the Newman Society. If students come to the health center needing pregnancy assistance, they are “referred to a nearby Catholic hospital for procedures that extend beyond the reach of the campus clinic, especially prenatal care.” Additionally, the University’s “Pregnancy Resources” website lists several pro-life pregnancy centers.
The Pregnant and Parenting Student Assistance Committee was started at SLU in 2008. “We have a university endowment that lets us offer financial assistance to students who have children or find themselves pregnant,” Kuhlman explained. “We’re also working hard to help SLU become a more parent-friendly environment. There are multiple nursing suites across campus, we partnered with the bookstore to offer free textbook rentals to some parents, and we brought a Feminists for Life Pregnancy Resource Forum to campus in 2014.”
Other colleges strive to ensure a Catholic campus culture that embraces chastity while openly opposing the practices of Planned Parenthood. At Newman Guide-recommended John Paul the Great Catholic University (“JP Catholic”) in Escondido, Calif., the administration and office of student life take great pains to ensure the campus’ pro-life culture.
JP Catholic has a Planned Parenthood “within about two blocks” of campus, Julia Carrano, dean of students at the University, told the Newman Society. Although the facility does not perform surgical abortions, the abortion drug RU-486 is prescribed there, and Carrano explained that the administration provides talks and training sessions for students on contraceptives and abortifacients.
“Students have wondered why we protest outside this local clinic, as opposed to the larger one in San Diego which performs [surgical] abortions,” said Carrano. “So we have explained to them that prescribing RU-486 is still providing early-term abortions.” Moreover, by focusing on the nearby Planned Parenthood facility, Carrano stressed that the students are being encouraged to “make an impact in their local community.”
“This clinic is right next to their grocery store,” Carrano explained. “We want our students to be present and to encounter people who are suffering in their local community. That’s what will make a difference.”
The University also brings in medical professionals and doctors to talk to students about women’s health, abortion and contraception. All incoming freshmen and transfer students are required to take a class called “Intellectual Life and Virtue,” which has a special focus on the Corporal Works of Mercy. The class requires students to complete service projects, one of which involves praying outside the local Planned Parenthood. And every Saturday, students come together to pray the Rosary outside of the facility.
JP Catholic also has several unique student-led initiatives focused on promoting the pro-life message. One of the University’s households, the ΖΩΗ Life House, adopted as its mission: “To protect the sanctity of life by raising awareness of the true pro-life mission, and promoting alternative options to abortion and contraception.” Additionally, the household has a stated commitment of opposing the local Planned Parenthood, and to that end, they host monthly street corner protests.
“Colleges have an opportunity to help students really commit to the pro-life message, not just as something handed down to them by their parents,” said Carrano. “These young people will be future leaders in our health communities, our businesses — we have the opportunity to form their minds and their understanding.”
Life-Affirming Practices
“A Planned Parenthood abortion mill poses a threat to its entire community, both in the fact that babies are killed there and the general moral corruption that spreads into the community that allows it to operate,” said Father Shenan Boquet, president of Human Life International. “The Catholic university has a special obligation to oppose this evil in their communities through prayerful and peaceful witness at the clinic, and through educating the surrounding community about what happens there.
“It is an imperative of both social justice and basic Catholic moral doctrine that the Catholic institution oppose Planned Parenthood at every turn, that they speak the truth in love, leaving no impression that the abortion business is welcome in their community,” he added.
But it’s also important to keep in mind that “no one model fits all colleges,” the USCCB’s McQuade pointed out, adding that different colleges will benefit from incorporating different pro-life practices, depending on availability and resources.
Working to affirm life creatively “will look different on different campuses and institutions. The most important element is that Catholic colleges have a well-informed network that can offer tangible resources and aid in crisis pregnancy situations,” said McQuade.
McQuade noted that the Jubilee Year of Mercy presents “a beautiful opportunity to promote new, life-affirming practices” on campuses. She suggested options such as “designated housing for parenting students” and “academic flexibility and part-time student options built into degree programs.”
https://cardinalnewmansociety.org/wp-content/uploads/Planned_Parenthood_in_Houston_Texas_2010.jpg15362048Kim Scharfenbergerhttps://cardinalnewmansociety.org/wp-content/uploads/CNS-logo-2C-450-tag2.pngKim Scharfenberger2016-01-19 17:59:302020-05-26 15:14:14SPECIAL REPORT: Planned Parenthood Offices Located Near Half of Catholic Colleges, Alarming Pro-Life Leaders
The mission of Planned Parenthood has nothing in common with the values of the Catholic Church, and no Catholic college should be collaborating with Planned Parenthood or its representatives on any matter—most especially those related to sexuality or the education of young adults.
That has been the message of The Cardinal Newman Society since 2011, when our researchers identified and exposed more than 150 instances of Catholic college ties to Planned Parenthood, the nation’s largest abortion business and purveyor of artificial contraception. The report, A Scandalous Relationship: Catholic Colleges and PlannedParenthood1 exposed associations with Planned Parenthood that were discovered on college websites through April 2011. Many colleges responded by deleting, moving, or hiding the online evidence of scandal, and so the report was updated in May 2011.
Prompted by recent videos exposing Planned Parenthood’s harvesting and selling of aborted baby body parts, The Cardinal Newman Society has again conducted a public search of Catholic college websites. We have identified 63 new or continued relationships with Planned Parenthood and its representatives since May 2011.
This report is limited to evidence found online. We have ample reason to believe that ongoing associations with the abortion giant have been scrubbed from many Catholic college websites since our 2011 report. And as we noted then, “What is publicized on the Internet often indicates more extensive concerns hidden from public view, so while the information contained in this report is shocking and scandalous, it is only based on a rudimentary search of college websites and likely does not capture all ties to Planned Parenthood at Catholic colleges and universities.”
Every one of the relationships that we expose in this report ought to appall any Catholic who values human life and relies on Catholic educators to teach in complete fidelity to the Catholic faith. The scandal is only greater because of the recent revelations of the abhorrent practices at Planned Parenthood. There is no minor instance of a Catholic college’s cooperation with Planned Parenthood or employment of a past employee or representative of Planned Parenthood, unless the employee has clearly disavowed support for the organization and indicated full agreement with Catholic teaching.
As in 2011, the relationships include referrals to Planned Parenthood for “health” services, internships and fellowships with Planned Parenthood, unapologetic disclosures of employees’ past work with Planned Parenthood, and other ties. The problems are again spread across many institutions, with a high concentration of Jesuit colleges.
We repeat our conclusion four years ago:
If one considers—from a faithfully Catholic perspective—the fact that Planned Parenthood is the largest abortion provider in the United States and a leading contributor to what Pope John Paul II labeled a “culture of death,” any relationship to Planned Parenthood or those who have worked for such an organization is simply unacceptable. In no way can the work of Planned Parenthood be considered compatible with the mission of Catholic higher education or the moral teachings of the Catholic Church.
Furthermore, any relationship to Planned Parenthood endangers students who may develop a sense of comfort with an organization that destroys innocent lives, ruins souls, and plays a leading role in the demise of American culture. A Catholic educator who cares for the wellbeing of students would do everything possible to dissuade a student from entering the doors of a Planned Parenthood clinic. Nothing good can come of it.
Finally, the brazen manner in which Catholic colleges and universities are publicly disclosing—even proudly touting—their ties or the ties of their employees, students and alumni to Planned Parenthood is shocking. There appears to be a pervasive attitude toward Planned Parenthood that regards the abortion and contraceptive agency as benign. This attitude is simply inconsistent with a genuine Catholic sensibility.
We urge Catholic colleges and universities to embrace a no-tolerance position for any relationship with Planned Parenthood—including disqualifying candidates for teaching positions with previous experience working with or for pro-abortion organizations.
There are matters of Catholic identity which require discernment and which may not point to simple solutions. There is no such nuance here—Planned Parenthood is a serious danger to the health, lives and souls of innocent students. There is no place for Planned Parenthood on a Catholic campus.
Counseling and Medical Referrals
On its website, Alverno College (WI) offers a City of Milwaukee Health Department brochure2 on domestic violence that recommends Planned Parenthood of Wisconsin for medical assistance. The web link indicates that the brochure may have been posted by the College’s human resources department.
The Boston College Law School (MA) website includes the booklet, Consent to MedicalTreatment by Minors in Massachusetts: A Guide for Practitioners,3 a publication of the School’s Juvenile Rights Advocacy Project, which advises doctors on minors’ legal rights to obtain family planning services and abortions and offers a list of family planning providers in Massachusetts, including Planned Parenthood/Preterm Health Services of Greater Boston and Planned Parenthood of Central Massachusetts in Worcester, Mass. Both the Boston4 and the Worcester5 centers advertise “Abortion Services,” “Morning-After Pill (Emergency Contraception)” and “Birth Control.” Although the booklet was published in 2006 and exposed in The Cardinal Newman Society’s 2011 report on Catholic college associations with Planned Parenthood, it has not been removed from the School’s website and instead has been moved to a new URL.
The library at the College of Saint Rose (NY) recommends and links6 to Planned Parenthood as a “Health and Wellness” resource for “Sexual health and family planning services for both men and women.” The same page points to the pro-abortion group Our Bodies, Ourselves7 as a resource. No Catholic or pro-life options are included.
The Health Services at the College of Saint Rose (NY) provides online advice at “Ask the Nurse Practitioner: Questions & Answers from Campus,”8 including the recommendation that students with questions about sexually transmitted infections contact the Upper Hudson Planned Parenthood Albany Health Center in Albany, N.Y. It also recommends www.itsyoursexlife.com,9 a website that details condom and birth control use, tips for “safe sex” and methods of preventing pregnancy. Upper Hudson Planned Parenthood advertises10 services including “In-clinic abortion (up to 14 weeks),” “Abortion pill (up to 9 weeks),” “Emergency contraception (EC) or the morning after pill,” and other artificial contraception.
Through its student support services regarding sexual assault, Gonzaga University (WA) provides students a “community resource map”11 from the Spokane Crime Victim Service Center. It refers students to Planned Parenthood for “health care” services.
Update September 10, 2015: Links removed from site. Mount Carmel College of Nursing (OH) health sciences library lists Planned Parenthood under its “patient education” resources12 for “Women’s Health.” The site links to a form13 for scheduling injections of the contraceptive Depo-Provera at six clinics affiliated with Planned Parenthood of Central Ohio. Now titled Planned Parenthood of Greater Ohio (according to its website), the clinics advertise14 services including “Abortion services –abortion pill or in-clinic abortion,” “Birth control” and “Emergency contraception – also known as EC or Plan B.”
Update September 10, 2015: Links referring to “Sexual Health Resources” removed from site. Redirects to University’s Sexual Assault Information and Counseling Services. A chart of “Sexual Health Resources”15 on the Mount Mercy University (IA) website identifies and links to Planned Parenthood of the Heartland in Cedar Rapids, Iowa, as a resource for “Pregnancy/STI Testing,” “HIV/AIDS Resources,” “Health Education,” “Women and Children’s Services,” “Sexual Health Advocacy” and “LGBT Resources.” The description of Planned Parenthood of the Heartland mentions services including “Birth control supplies and information; Pregnancy testing; Abortion pill; In-clinic abortion; …Emergency contraception (ECP’s/Plan B).” A similar chart on the University’s website for “Counseling and Therapy Resources”16 identifies and links to Planned Parenthood of East Central Iowa (which has now merged with Planned Parenthood of the Heartland) for “General Counseling,” noting that “Specially trained staff members are available that can talk with individuals about their pregnancy options.” Another similar chart for “Family and Youth Resources”17 identifies Planned Parenthood of East Central Iowa as a resource for “Family.” Each of the charts is produced by Linn County Community Services, but the URLs suggest that the first two were posted to the University website as Student Life resources, and the third is labeled “academics.”
The Health and Wellness Center at Trinity Washington University (DC) recommends and links18 to the Planned Parenthood Federation of America as a “Women’s Health” resource. The same page links to the Emergency Contraception Website19 as a resource for students.
The Xavier University of Louisiana website includes a “counseling” resource20 published by Safe Horizon,21 which encourages victims of sexual assault to contact Planned Parenthood and provides contact information.
Internships and Job Referrals
A Boston College (MA) list22 of past credited internships for sociology students, with the notation “Last Updated September 1, 2014,” includes the Planned Parenthood League of Greater Boston and the Planned Parenthood League of Massachusetts. In the same document are “listings” for available internships “Added August 2013,” including a position at the Planned Parenthood League of Massachusetts. It notes, “The mission of PPLM is to protect and promote sexual and reproductive health and freedom of choice by providing clinical services, education and advocacy.” The Greater Boston23 center advertises “Abortion Services,” “Morning-After Pill (Emergency Contraception)” and “Birth Control.”
Boston College (MA) highlights24 the successful employment of graduates who majored in linguistics, including a 2011 graduate who is “Advocacy and Communications Coordinator at Planned Parenthood League of Massachusetts.”
Update September 10, 2015: Links removed from site. The Office of Advising and Student Services25 at the DePaul University (IL) College of Science and Health and the University’s Career Center26 both recommend that pre-health students consider volunteering for Planned Parenthood.
Mount Saint Mary’s University (CA) touts27 the success of its students generally—and also specifically28 its history, political science, and health care policy students—in getting internships with Planned Parenthood.
The Career Services at Seattle University (WA) prepares29 students for potential job interviews by providing a scenario30 in which the student interviews for a position with Planned Parenthood.
Update September 10, 2015: Document removed from site. Stonehill College (MA) recommends “Planned Parenthood Counselor” as a potential professional career path for gender and sexuality studies majors in the college’s official Book of Majors.31
Update September 10, 2015: Document removed from site. The University of Dayton (OH) book32Careers of Sociology Majors celebrates “some of the occupations of UD alums from our department,” including a Planned Parenthood “Agency or Program Director.”
Update September 10, 2015: Page removed from site. The University of San Diego (CA) recommends potential careers33 at Planned Parenthood for students who have majored in women’s studies.
Faculty, Staff, Leaders
Kate Pew Wolters currently serves as a director34 on the Aquinas College (MI) Foundation Board, a fundraising board. As a major donor of more than $1 million to Aquinas, she also is a former trustee. As chairman of the Steelcase Foundation35 and president of the Kate and Richard Wolters Foundation,36 she helped direct37 at least $296,000 to Planned Parenthood.
The College of Saint Rose (NY) employs Ellen Cole,38 a visiting psychology professor who is a current board member39 for Upper Hudson Planned Parenthood—a fact that is fully disclosed on her C.V.40 on the College website. The Cardinal Newman Society first exposed41 the scandal in June 2012, citing an August 2011 press release that announced42 Cole as a board member. Upper Hudson Planned Parenthood advertises43 services including “In-clinic abortion (up to 14 weeks),” “Abortion pill (up to 9 weeks),” “Emergency contraception (EC) or the morning after pill,” and other artificial contraception. The C.V. also indicates that Cole was on the board of directors of Planned Parenthood of Alaska from 2003 to 2007.
Creighton University (NE) employs Samantha Senda-Cook,44 an assistant professor of communication studies, despite the fact that she previously volunteered for the Planned Parenthood Federation of America—which is disclosed on her C.V.45 on the University’s website.
Craig Klugman, the incoming chairman of health sciences at DePaul University (IL), has endorsed the services of the Planned Parenthood clinic where his mother once worked. “I always viewed my mom as doing important community health work for women who could not get services elsewhere because of finances, lack of education, or living in fearful relationships,” he wrote. He publicly defended Planned Parenthood’s disbursement of aborted fetal parts as “a legal and (debatably) ethical enterprise” with “the intent of saving lives and improving the quality of life.” Klugman’s blog was reposted by Georgetown University, with the caveat that the views on the website “do not necessarily represent” those of the Jesuit institution.
Fairfield University (CT) employs Michael Pagano,46 an associate professor of communication, despite the fact that he acted as a physician’s assistant at Planned Parenthood of Eastern Oklahoma and Western Arkansas in the early 1990s—a fact revealed in his C.V.47 on the University website. Pagano’s employment at Fairfield continues despite a Cardinal Newman Society article exposing48 the scandal in March 2014.
Georgetown University (DC) employs John May,49 adjunct assistant professor of demography in the University’s Department of International Health. May is a visiting scholar at the Population Reference Bureau, a relationship that is highlighted on his faculty page despite the Bureau’s advocacy for contraception. According to his C.V.50 on the University website, May has worked for projects funded by the International Planned Parenthood Federation.
Georgetown University (DC) employs Sameh El-Saharty,51 adjunct assistant professor in Georgetown’s Department of International Health, and notes on his faculty page that he has worked for the International Planned Parenthood Federation as well as the United Nations Fund for Population.
Georgetown University (DC) employs Jennifer Demma,52 clinical faculty director and adjunct instructor in the nurse-midwifery program, even though she states openly in her C.V.53 that she was a certified nurse-midwife from 2007 to 2012 for Planned Parenthood of Minnesota, North Dakota and South Dakota. The Planned Parenthood affiliate advertises54 services including “Abortion Services,” “Pregnancy Testing and Options Counseling,” “Birth Control” and “Morning-After Pill.” Her C.V. also reveals that Demma was a Registered Nurse at the Philadelphia Women’s Center,55 an abortion clinic that performs surgical abortions before 22 weeks of pregnancy.
Georgetown University (DC) employs Debora Dole,56 assistant professor and assistant program director in the nurse-midwifery program, whose C.V.57 on the University website clearly identifies her past employment as a certified midwife with Planned Parenthood of Cincinnati. Dole’s C.V. indicates that she is also a full-time assistant professor at Xavier University (OH), but the latest reference to Dole on Xavier’s website is in a 2013-2014 student handbook58 for the School of Nursing.
Georgetown University Law Center (DC) employs Zoe Segal-Reichlin59 as adjunct professor of law at Georgetown University Law Center (DC)—but her full-time job is Associate General Counsel of the Planned Parenthood Federation of America, a fact that is brazenly highlighted in her Georgetown profile. The scandal was exposed in the Newman Society’s 2011 report on Planned Parenthood ties to Catholic colleges, but Georgetown’s website indicates that Segal-Reichlin continues to teach.
Georgetown University Law Center (DC) employs Rebecca Reingold60 as an associate of the Center’s O’Neill Institute for National and Global Health Law. Her faculty profile highlights her past work as an advocacy coordinator at International Planned Parenthood Federation/Western Hemisphere Region, as well as her past work for the pro-abortion Center for Reproductive Rights and her past membership on the board of directors of the pro-abortion Law Students for Reproductive Justice.
In 2014, Loyola Marymount University (CA) came under fire when it was revealed that the final two candidates61 for dean of its Bellarmine College of Liberal Arts had both previously worked with Planned Parenthood. Dr. Robbin Crabtree62 was hired by LMU from her position as dean of arts and sciences at Fairfield University (CT), despite her past service on the Advisory Board and Media Relations Committee for Planned Parenthood of Putnam County, Ind., according to her online C.V.63 (see page 64). The other finalist for the dean position was Ramón A. Gutiérrez from the University of Chicago. On his C.V.,64 under the banner of consultant, Gutiérrez listed “Planned Parenthood Federation of America, New York, New York (Hispanic attitudes toward sexuality).”
Loyola University Chicago (IL) employs Christine George65 as associate research professor in the Center for Urban Research and Learning, despite her past employment as an organizational consultant66 for Planned Parenthood Midwest Region.
Santa Clara University (CA) lists Carol Mayer Marshall67 on the advisory board of the Markkula Center for Applied Ethics, noting that she has served on “numerous Boards” including “local and State Planned Parenthood” and the pro-abortion “NARAL (Chair of Leadership Committee).” The University also notes that Marshall has been “Active in pro- choice Republican politics.”
Seattle University (WA) employs Debbi Lewang,68 an adjunct faculty member in fine arts, whose C.V. on the University website shows that she worked as an accountant for Planned Parenthood in Seattle, Wash., for three years.
Seattle University School of Law (WA) employs Sara Ainsworth,69 visiting assistant professor, who co-authored a report70 on The Deceptive Practices of Limited Service Pregnancy Centers for Planned Parenthood and Legal Voice. According to her faculty profile, Ainsworth has served more than a decade as senior counsel of Legal Voice,71 which advocates for abortion rights and same-sex marriage.
Siena College (NY) employs Diane Strock-Lynskey,72 a professor of social work, whose faculty profile notes that she worked as a project director of a Teen Pregnancy Prevention Training Program for Planned Parenthood.
The University of Notre Dame (IN) employs Dianne Pinderhughes,73 presidential faculty fellow and professor of Africana studies, even though her C.V.74 on the University website touts her past service on the “Local Advisory Council” of Planned Parenthood of Champaign.
The University of Portland (OR) employs Marie Napolitano,75 associate professor of nursing, whose C.V.76 on the University’s website reveals that she had been a nurse practitioner with the Virginia League of Planned Parenthood in Richmond, Va., for three years.
The University of San Diego (CA) employs Bob Beatty,77 an instructor in the School of Leadership and Education Sciences whose faculty profile touts his past work for Planned Parenthood San Diego.
The University of San Diego (CA) employs Kathy James,78 associate professor of nursing, and notes in her “biographical sketch”79 that she studied under Planned Parenthood and UCSF for a certificate in “Obstetric/Gynecological Nursing.
Honors and Platforms
In spring 2014, Kate Pew Wolters was honored80 by Aquinas College (MI) as commencement speaker, identifying her as chairman of the Steelcase Foundation.81 In that role and as president of the Kate and Richard Wolters Foundation,82 she helped direct at least $296,000 to Planned Parenthood.
In October 2013, Fairfield University (CT) hosted actress America Ferrera83 for its “signature lecture series,” despite the fact that Ferrera was a well-known activist for Planned Parenthood, having headlined events for the abortion giant including its “Playing Politics With Women’s Health: The 2012 Election and Why It Matters ”84 luncheon put on by the Planned Parenthood Action Fund. She also hosted the event at which Planned Parenthood bestowed its highest honor, the Margaret Sanger award,85 to Hillary Rodham Clinton. Ferrera appeared in a commercial86 urging voters to vote against Proposition 8, which legally codified marriage as between a man and a woman.
In November 2014, the Politics Department at Fairfield University (CT) funded “Let’s Talk Sex,” a student event87 which featured Planned Parenthood representatives and a discussion of “all the types of sex that can be had.”
In February 2015, Georgetown University (DC) hosted a sexual health panel,88 during which adjunct nursing professor Carol Day89 told students that they had a “right” to contraception. The panel featured representatives from Planned Parenthood Metropolitan Washington.
In October 2014, the O’Neill Institute for National and Global Health Law at Georgetown University (DC) collaborated with the International Planned Parenthood Federation to host an event90 featuring Planned Parenthood award winner Janet Benshoof, who also founded the Center for Reproductive Choice. The event celebrated a publication91 partly sponsored by the Georgetown Institute, Conscientious Objection and Abortion: A Global Perspective on the Colombian Experience, which examines doctors’ rights to refuse to carry out abortions, beginning with an argument by the regional director of the International Planned Parenthood Federation for Latin America and the Caribbean.
In May 2014, the School of Education at Loyola Marymount University (CA) invited President and CEO of Planned Parenthood Los Angeles Sue Dunlap92 to speak on campus regarding “Education’s New Role in Women’s Health.” The 20 centers of Planned Parenthood Los Angeles93 provide a “comprehensive range” of services including abortion and birth control.
Update September 10, 2015: Planned Parenthood mention removed from alumna profile. In March 2012, Mount Mercy University (IA) honored alumna Maureen Osako94 as a “Woman of Influence,” noting her service on the board of directors of Planned Parenthood of East Central Iowa (which has now merged with Planned Parenthood of the Heartland). The University itself lists95 services at the clinic including “Birth control supplies and information; Pregnancy testing; Abortion pill; In-clinic abortion; …Emergency contraception (ECP’s/Plan B).”
In October 2012, the Seattle University School of Law (WA) hosted “reproductive justice roundtables,”96 with speakers including a Planned Parenthood representative to “discuss the Affordable Care Act and what it means for students and their reproductive health.” The event was organized by the University’s Law Students for Reproductive Justice.
In November 2014, the University of San Diego School of Law (CA) hosted a reproductive rights discussion,97 “Burwell v. Hobby Lobby: The Decision and its Impact on Reproductive Rights,” including panelist Tracy Skaddan, whom the University identifies as general counsel of Planned Parenthood of the Pacific Southwest. According to the clinic’s LinkedIn page,98 its services include “contraception, STD testing and treatment, sterilization, and safe and legal abortion.”
Academic Activities and Referrals
The Capital Breast Care Center at Georgetown University (DC) provides a link to and lists Planned Parenthood as a partner99 without which its work “would not be possible.”
The library at Georgetown University (DC) provides a research guide100 on “Health Inequities/Political Economy of Health: Activism” that describes Planned Parenthood as “a commonsense approach to women’s health and well-being,” while also providing a direct link to the organization’s website. While pointing students to Planned Parenthood and NARAL Pro-Choice America, the guide does not include links to pro-life resources.
In an official note101 dated April 2015, Antoinette Hays, president of Regis College (MA), touted nursing students’ service as nurse-midwives for Planned Parenthood in Grenada. Although abortion is not legal in Grenada, Planned Parenthood promotes and distributes birth control.102
Update September 10, 2015: Public access to document now denied. Regis University (CO) offers a course103 for its Master of Arts in Marriage and Family Therapy, in which students are required to complete a “creative project” to “get personally involved in an area of gender or sexuality that you have not experienced.” An option is to “Volunteer for or involve yourself in an organization or event that addresses gender or sexuality issues,” and suggested organizations include Planned Parenthood and homosexual groups (but no pro-life organizations).
The Markkula Center for Applied Ethics at Santa Clara University (CA) provides a biology lesson plan104 that encourages the teacher to teach students about birth control “and then enlist the assistance of qualified speakers.” The Center advises, “Planned Parenthood continues to be a good reference/resource in this area” and provides a link.
In the “Human Sexuality” course 105 at the College of Saint Rose (NY), “Planned Parenthood will visit class and talk about safety and equipment for protection. Explicit pictures will be used and scientific terms will be used to refer to sexual parts and acts.”
The Women’s and Gender Studies program at the University of Detroit Mercy (MI) recommends “external sites of interest”106 including the Planned Parenthood Federation of America, the Feminist Majority Foundation and the National Organization for Women.
Student and Alumni Recognition
In May 2014, the Interdisciplinary Ed.D. Program in Leadership at Creighton University (NE) praised an alumnus107 for accepting a position as director of outreach and education for Planned Parenthood of the Heartland.
A spring 2012 newsletter108 from the Women’s and Gender Studies program at Duquesne University (PA) celebrated alumna Lay Cunningham for her work in Planned Parenthood’s Boulder Health Center.
The Public Interest Law Scholars Program at Georgetown University (DC) provides financial assistance for law students dedicated to public service. The profiles of 2014 awardees109 include one who “spent her summers interning at Planned Parenthood.” One of the 2017 awardees110 previously worked in the Office of the President of Planned Parenthood Federation of America.
For a series of student profiles, the Georgetown University (DC) School of Foreign Service chose a graduate student111 who previously worked as a team leader with Planned Parenthood League of Massachusetts.
Update September 10, 2015: References to Planned Parenthood removed from Bedient and Reidelberger Scholarship descriptions. The Master of Fine Arts program in creative writing at Saint Mary’s College of California touts the fact that two scholarships112 are named for women who worked with Planned Parenthood. The Bedient Scholarship for Excellence in Poetry is named for Vanessa Bedient, whom the College says was director of Planned Parenthood in Santa Barbara and San Francisco. The Reidelberger Scholarship for Excellence in Poetry is named for Molly Reidelberger, who volunteered at Planned Parenthood for 15 years, according to the College.
The Sullivan Leadership Award at Seattle University (WA) is a full-tuition scholarship for students “with diverse leadership styles and personal backgrounds.” The University’s profiles celebrating the awardees include a Class of 2019113 recipient who volunteered for the Planned Parenthood Teen Council, a Class of 2016 recipient114 who was a Planned Parenthood Teen Council Member, and a Class of 2011 recipient115 who was a member of Planned Parenthood’s PEER (Peer Education Encourages Responsibility) group.
In 2012, the Seattle University (WA) College of Arts and Sciences gave the Fr. Eugene Buechel, S.J., Award,116 for an undergraduate anthropology student who has achieved “the highest standards in both scholastic achievement and service to others,” to a student with the following description: “[Name deleted] declared her major in cultural anthropology after taking a class called Culture and Reproduction, which dealt with many issues of sexual and reproductive health around the world. Sexual and reproductive health has been a passion of hers for many years. Annelie has spent time living in Denmark and Costa Rica as well as the United States and was fascinated by the drastically different ideas these places have about issues such as family planning and sex education. Throughout her time at Seattle University, she has been a very active volunteer with Planned Parenthood of the Great Northwest as well as completing an internship with their education department.
Next year, Annelie is planning on serving with AmeriCorps in the Seattle area. Annelie eventually hopes to go to graduate school for a Masters in Public Health or Nurse-Midwifery and work for an organization such as Planned Parenthood.”
In 2012, the Seattle University (WA) College of Arts and Sciences gave the Public Affairs Program Wilson Award117 to a student who is described as a political activist who worked for Planned Parenthood Votes Northwest.
Update September 10, 2015: Planned Parenthood mention removed from alumna profile. The University of San Diego (CA) Department of Political Science and International Relations118 praises a recent graduate for her contributions in the sexual health field and work with Planned Parenthood Mar Monte.
Conclusion
The new video evidence of Planned Parenthood’s abhorrent practices only strengthens The Cardinal Newman Society’s argument that Catholic colleges should avoid all cooperation with Planned Parenthood and its employees and volunteers. Such an association—which undermines the Church’s pro-life efforts, endangers the health and purity of students and employees, and risks leading both Catholics and non-Catholics astray from the Church’s teaching on the dignity and sanctity of human life—is a scandal and violates the mission of Catholic higher education.
Entrusted with the health and well-being of their students, Catholic colleges should be accountable to Catholic teaching in all areas of institutional life. We urge Catholic educators to end any association with Planned Parenthood and to teach respect for all human life.
https://cardinalnewmansociety.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/04/Issue-Bulletin-Header-845-x-321-px-01.png13383521Kim Scharfenbergerhttps://cardinalnewmansociety.org/wp-content/uploads/CNS-logo-2C-450-tag2.pngKim Scharfenberger2015-08-18 18:28:312020-06-15 17:08:25A More Scandalous Relationship: Catholic Colleges and Planned Parenthood – A Special Investigative Report
