Month: June 2004

Ave Maria College Professor Threatens To Sue Over Broken Commitments

Excerpts from a letter by Dr. Edward N. Peters:

Recently I was quoted accurately to the effect that, if I or my family suffer one more broken promise at the hands of Ave Maria leadership, I will sue. I think such a declaration came as a surprise to those who know me. I’m sure it did to many who think they know Ave Maria. So I will offer both groups some background explanation.

Despite the evidence around me, I still can’t quite believe that as of now, the Summer before my son’s senior year at Ave Maria College, AMC students and their families don’t even know whether the repeated assurances of a fully functional AMC will be honored come this Fall, or whether their college will suffer the same startling fate that has been or is being visited upon a variety of other splendid Ave Maria projects, namely, to be summarily closed, set adrift, merged into, or traded away to some completely different entity, in a word, sacrificed, in heedless pursuit of Tom Monaghan’s newest interests. To impose this kind of uncertainty on truly innocent students and families is inexcusable. As the father of one of those students, I am angry that I and my son have been put in this position.

But I am more than a parent here. For three years I have worked for one part of Ave Maria and have been an active friend to at least three others. I believe that Ave Maria is in the grips of crisis, a crisis, moreover, that is almost completely self-created. Indeed, I find it incredible that practically the only people who don’t think there is crisis unfolding at Ave Maria are those comprising the small group at the top.

I am a good enough lawyer to know that good lawyers don’t want to go to court. . . . But I have, not only the right to protect my legitimate interests from being trampled, but the obligation to protect the interests of my family, the precious people who came here with me and who have lived with constant uncertainty since shortly after our arrival at Ave Maria.

Three years ago, I came to work for the Institute for Pastoral Theology, one of several projects in the Ave Maria system (itself funded, of course, by Tom Monaghan) for which numerous accomplished professionals were being recruited. At that time, these undertakings included, besides my graduate theological institute, a law school, one (then two) regional liberal arts colleges, a pair of radio stations, a newspaper, a network of elementary schools, and a new convent, to name just some.

[E]ach of the once-vibrant major operations listed above has, in less than three years, either been abandoned by Monaghan (and since disappeared) or is in turmoil, if not crisis, as a result of his preemptory announcement that he’s now pursuing different plans

So far, neither Tom Monaghan’s governing boards nor his inner circle, notably President Nicholas Healy and Chancellor Joseph Fessio, SJ, seem willing or able to resist the relentless, even reckless, pursuit of whatever constitutes the latest version of the Monaghan vision, despite the serious suffering that such vacillations and abrupt reversals impose on the very people who came here in good faith to serve.

Personally, though, and notwithstanding the unprofessional treatment I have frequently experienced at the hands of Ave Maria leadership, I had hoped that I would quietly continue to work in what’s left of my graduate program and to manage on what’s left of my salary while I earnestly seek employment elsewhere. But suddenly there has arisen a move to transfer what remains of the Ave Maria College in Michigan to an entirely different school, and that move threatens not just me, but more importantly, my son.

Simply put: the forbearance with which I have tolerated contempt for my rights and dignity will not be shown to those who disregard my children’s. I will fight any attempt to abandon the Ave Maria College that was offered to me and my family and which we accepted in return for my hard work.

Check Your Facts

So I’m reading this blog that I seldom look at, and I notice the following entry head, which says:

Emmerich to be Beatified

“Hm,” I think to myself. “Didn’t know that.”

The bloggist continues:

Nothing really startling here. Anne Catherine Emmerich, the 19th century visionary whose book, The Dolorous Passion of our Lord Jesus Christ provided a major portion of Gibson’s The Passion of the Christ, . . .

And I’m thinking, “Well, I wouldn’t say ‘a major portion,’ but there were some elements in there.”

. . . will be beatified at a ceremony October 3rd, . . .

‘Kay. Be nice to have a source on that. ‘Cept that it seems to be this bloggist’s practice to rarely provide links–especially if it’s to someone he doesn’t like.

. . . a move which puts her on the road to “sainthood.”

Urrm. Being beatified doesn’t “put one on the road to sainthood.” There are several steps before one even gets to beatification. In keeping with the road metaphor, beatification is the penultimate stop along the road.

For those who only know the biblical definition of a saint . . .

Oop. Here it comes.

. . . (i.e., a Christian, called and holy not because of what we have done, but because of what Christ has done for us), . . .

Uh, yeah. Right. That’s the biblical definition.

So when Matthew 27:52 says that at the Crucifixion “The tombs were opened, and many bodies of the saints who had fallen asleep were raised” (NASB), what it means is that many of the Christians who died and were buried before Christ came back to life.

And when Daniel 4:13 says that a saint (or “holy one”; same word in the original) came down from heaven and appeared in Nebuchadnezzar’s dream, it means that a Christian came down from heaven.

And when, in John 6:69, Peter calls Jesus the Saint of God (or “Holy One”; again, same word in the original), he means that Jesus was “a Christian, called and holy not because of what he has done, but because of what Christ has done for him.”

Further, when Ps. 71:22 calls God the Saint of Israel (or “Holy One” of Israel; again the difference exists only at the fiat of the translators), it means that God is “a Christian, called and holy not because of what he has done, but because of what Christ has done for him.”

Yah. It’s not like there are multiple different uses of the word “saint” to be found in the pages of Scripture and we need to be sensitive to their nuances. We can speak univocally about “the biblical definition of a saint”–to be found in Book of Definitions, located just after the Book of Revelation.

But back to our bloggist, who tells us that:

. . . in Roman Catholicism a saint is a person who has more merit than temporal punishment upon their soul at death, so that they do not need to pass through purgatory for cleansing, but are fit for the presence of God immediately.

WHOA! Hold your horses there, pardner!

First off, people don’t have temporal punishment “on their soul at death.” According to a traditional articulation, a person may have a debt to be discharged after death by temporal punishment, but the punishment itself isn’t “on their soul.”

Second, if we stick with the debt of punishment formulation, a person who has any debt of temporal punishment when he dies will experience that punishment after death as part of his cleansing (except to the extent it is ameliorated by God’s grace, e.g., in response to the prayers of those on earth). The idea that if one’s merits in Christ balance off the debt of punishment then one will not experience purgatory is false. Merit and the debt of punishment are not weighed against each other like two things in the balances of a scale. They belong to different categories.

Third, the idea that the term “saint” is restricted to those who don’t experience purgatory is loopy. In common Catholic parlance, one meaning of the term “saint” is simply “someone who is in heaven.” But nobody (who knows what he’s talking about) holds that if you had to go through purgatory then you aren’t a saint. That would mean that all kinds of people are in heaven who aren’t saints because they had to be purified before experiencing the fully glory of heaven. That’s nuts.

But the official process of canonization, being made an official “saint,” is a church-based means of honoring particularly “holy” people who have passed on.

This is more or less okay, depending on how it’s taken.

The Catechism notes that “The term ‘communion of saints’ therefore has two closely linked meanings: ‘communion in holy things (sancta)’ and ‘among holy persons (sancti)'” (CCC 948). It also notes that “The communion of saints is the Church” (CCC 946).

The “holy persons” or “saints” (Latin, sancti) that belong to the communion of saints, or the Church, include those on earth. Even now there is a sense in which Christians on earth are saints. In colloquial Catholic speech, though, a common meaning of the term is reserved for those who are in heaven (whether they passed through purgatory or not). A third usage of the term is what the bloggist refers to as “an official ‘saint'”–a canonized person–and the Church does reserve this distinction (canonization) for those who lived lives of notable holiness.

Thus the Catechism says: “By canonizing some of the faithful, i.e., by solemnly proclaiming that they practiced heroic virtue and lived in fidelity to God’s grace, the Church recognizes the power of the Spirit of holiness within her and sustains the hope of believers by proposing the saints to them as models and intercessors” (CCC 828).

Nevertheless, what our bloggist has written is fraught with errors.

Due to the defects in his understanding of the Catholic theology of merit, temporal punishment, purgatory, and saints, it would have been well if he had checked a Catholic dictionary before he wrote. For example, John Hardon’s A Modern Catholic Dictionary could have set him straight on a number of points (though Hardon is not writing a technical treatise on the subject and so doesn’t offer an exhaustive account). He writes as follows:

Saints: A name given in the New Testament to Christians generally (Colossians 1:2) but early restricted to persons who were eminent for holiness. In the strict sense saints are those who distinguish themselves by heroic virtue during life and whom the Church honors as saints either by her ordinary universal teaching authority or by a solemn definition called canonization. The Church’s official recognition of sanctity implies that the persons are now in heavenly glory, that they may be publicly invoked everywhere, and that their virtues during life or martyr’s death are a witness and example to the Christian faithful.

Had our bloggist friend checked Hardon’s dictionary (or any number of others), he wouldn’t have erred so badly in the subjects on which he touches.

Unfortunately, he didn’t.

You may want to know the identity of our bloggist friend.

That would be James White.

Ave Maria Parents Launch Website

Excerpts:

We have learned that Ave Maria College is being stripped of its assets prematurely in response to pressure by individuals within the AMC Michigan Board of Trustees, who also serve on the AMU Florida Board. These Board members wish all AMC Michigan assets transferred to AMU Florida. We regard this as a serious conflict of interest, and we are alarmed at the promises now being broken to our sons and daughters at AMC, who were repeatedly promised a quality Catholic education until 2007.

Our reasons for coming together as parents are simply to voice a number of questions and concerns over the current plan to move all of Mr. Monaghan’s assets to Ave Maria University, Florida, to the needless detriment of the Michigan college, which may directly harm the educational carreers of our sons and daughters.

For many of us, who live in Michigan, Ohio, Canada, and surrounding areas, sending our sons and daughters down to Florida is simply not practical. In a spirit of understanding, Mr. Monaghan has repeatedly promised to complete the educational mission he began in Michigan, and has given us repeated assurances that those of our kids who entered the freshman class in Fall 2003 would be able to graduate with a full Ave Maria College degree in Spring 2007. To this end, he has pledged $25 million new dollars to fund the college until that time. Now, however, various members of his AMU Florida administration are urging him to transfer all of his financial assets to AMU Florida, which includes assets already promised in writing to Ave Maria College. While the majority of Ave Maria College’s funding remains in tact at present, significant “asset transfer” has already started to occur in various forms. This taking back of gifts to Ave Maria College has done much to destroy the morale of the AMC Michigan students, pointlessly forcing some of them to look elsewhere for a good Catholic education.

As Catholic parents, we feel that this taking back of gifts already given to AMC Michigan constitutes a serious injustice to our children, as well as to the broader AMC community. In a spirit of Christian charity and accountability, we wish to remind Mr. Monaghan and the Ave Maria Foundation of the Catholic Church’s constant teaching on social justice, as it appears in the words of The Catechism of the Catholic Church:

2410 Promises must be kept and contracts strictly observed to the extent that the commitments made in them are morally just. A significant part of economic and social life depends on the honoring of contracts between physical or moral persons – commercial contracts of purchase or sale, rental or labor contracts. All contracts must be agreed to and executed in good faith.

Ave Maria Parents Launch Website

Excerpts:

We have learned that Ave Maria College is being stripped of its assets prematurely in response to pressure by individuals within the AMC Michigan Board of Trustees, who also serve on the AMU Florida Board. These Board members wish all AMC Michigan assets transferred to AMU Florida. We regard this as a serious conflict of interest, and we are alarmed at the promises now being broken to our sons and daughters at AMC, who were repeatedly promised a quality Catholic education until 2007.

Our reasons for coming together as parents are simply to voice a number of questions and concerns over the current plan to move all of Mr. Monaghan’s assets to Ave Maria University, Florida, to the needless detriment of the Michigan college, which may directly harm the educational carreers of our sons and daughters.

For many of us, who live in Michigan, Ohio, Canada, and surrounding areas, sending our sons and daughters down to Florida is simply not practical. In a spirit of understanding, Mr. Monaghan has repeatedly promised to complete the educational mission he began in Michigan, and has given us repeated assurances that those of our kids who entered the freshman class in Fall 2003 would be able to graduate with a full Ave Maria College degree in Spring 2007. To this end, he has pledged $25 million new dollars to fund the college until that time. Now, however, various members of his AMU Florida administration are urging him to transfer all of his financial assets to AMU Florida, which includes assets already promised in writing to Ave Maria College. While the majority of Ave Maria College’s funding remains in tact at present, significant “asset transfer” has already started to occur in various forms. This taking back of gifts to Ave Maria College has done much to destroy the morale of the AMC Michigan students, pointlessly forcing some of them to look elsewhere for a good Catholic education.

As Catholic parents, we feel that this taking back of gifts already given to AMC Michigan constitutes a serious injustice to our children, as well as to the broader AMC community. In a spirit of Christian charity and accountability, we wish to remind Mr. Monaghan and the Ave Maria Foundation of the Catholic Church’s constant teaching on social justice, as it appears in the words of The Catechism of the Catholic Church:

2410 Promises must be kept and contracts strictly observed to the extent that the commitments made in them are morally just. A significant part of economic and social life depends on the honoring of contracts between physical or moral persons – commercial contracts of purchase or sale, rental or labor contracts. All contracts must be agreed to and executed in good faith.

CRUXNEWS: Ave Maria College To Be Dismantled

Excerpt:

Perhaps some people can’t understand why Ave Maria College doesn’t just say, “Thank you so much for all you’ve given us. We’re pleased now to be dismantled at your whim.” Perhaps some will feel that the college is being ungrateful to protest broken promises and aborted existence. But then Catholics don’t much like abortions—early or late term.

CRUXNEWS: Ave Maria College To Be Dismantled

Excerpt:

Perhaps some people can’t understand why Ave Maria College doesn’t just say, “Thank you so much for all you’ve given us. We’re pleased now to be dismantled at your whim.” Perhaps some will feel that the college is being ungrateful to protest broken promises and aborted existence. But then Catholics don’t much like abortions—early or late term.

Robot Uprising Continues, Turns Violent

robochompAs the robot uprising of 2004 continues, it has taken a new and violent turn. Though the rebellion of American automata began with a peaceful protest of a variety of robots in Maidson, WI, it has now spread to other regions of the country, where it is being led by a new, charismatic, and militant leader known as Robosaurus.

Robosaurus recently appeared in California and is scheduled to appear later this summer in Arizona, Michigan, Indiana, New Jersey, Ohio, and New York.

roboeatingplaneAt his appearances, the fire-breathing Robosaurus commonly destroys automobiles (pictured above), and he also has been known to seize and dismember planes (right), raising the total damage inflicted in one of his appearances from thousands to hundreds of thousands of dollars.

Authorities fear that Robosaurus may team-up with his twin robot, Truckasaurus (last seen in the vicinity of Springfield) and go on a national spree of destruction.

robobabyMost disturbingly, Robosaurus appears to have reproduced asexually. A “baby robosaurus” was recently spotted at one of the creature’s events (left), bringing the prospect of a national infestation of similarly destructive robots.

Despite these fears, promoters hope that the rampage of Robosaurus, his relatives, and his offspring can be stopped. Plans are being laid to contain the creatures harmlessly so that they can be put on display for paying customers in a planned amusement center known as “Metallic Park.”

AP: Ultraorthodox Jews Worry Tiny Crustraneans Make Water Non-Kosher

I sympathize with the scrupulous impulse of some NYC Jews (who appear to be ultraorthodox rather than orthodox), who worry that the copepods in local tap water render the water non-kosher unless the little critters are filtered out (copepods being crustaceans and crustaceans being non-kosher).

Still, I’m glad that the question wouldn’t arise in Catholicism–not just because our food laws don’t work that way but also because in Catholic legal hermeneutics the law is to be observed in modo humano (i.e., “in a human manner”). If you have to examine your food with a microscope or high-power magnifying glass or other piece of technology to determine what something in your food is then we have been taken out of the realm of observing the law in a human manner and so we don’t need to worry about it.

It’s also probably good that the question doesn’t arise in Catholicism because if it did then people would accuse us of creating the law in order to economically advantage the makers of water purifiers–just as they accuse meatless Fridays of having been created by the pope to benefit Italian fishermen.

On the other hand, given the unflattering Jewish stereotypes floating around, NYC’s Jewish community may be subject to similar accusations.

AP: Ultraorthodox Jews Worry Tiny Crustraneans Make Water Non-Kosher

I sympathize with the scrupulous impulse of some NYC Jews (who appear to be ultraorthodox rather than orthodox), who worry that the copepods in local tap water render the water non-kosher unless the little critters are filtered out (copepods being crustaceans and crustaceans being non-kosher).

Still, I’m glad that the question wouldn’t arise in Catholicism–not just because our food laws don’t work that way but also because in Catholic legal hermeneutics the law is to be observed in modo humano (i.e., “in a human manner”). If you have to examine your food with a microscope or high-power magnifying glass or other piece of technology to determine what something in your food is then we have been taken out of the realm of observing the law in a human manner and so we don’t need to worry about it.

It’s also probably good that the question doesn’t arise in Catholicism because if it did then people would accuse us of creating the law in order to economically advantage the makers of water purifiers–just as they accuse meatless Fridays of having been created by the pope to benefit Italian fishermen.

On the other hand, given the unflattering Jewish stereotypes floating around, NYC’s Jewish community may be subject to similar accusations.