ARTICLES

What Did the Pope Say About USF?

By Joe Marti

A response to controversies surrounding the University of San Francisco fell in the lap of Archbishop William Levada in May. Only a handful have seen the letter signed by the pope, but those close to the situation who have seen it say that it strongly suggests the return of the St. Ignatius Institute to its former state, including the rehiring of the former directors and allowing it autonomy. After the document wound its way from Cardinal Ratzinger (who reportedly helped to draft it), the Holy Father, the Jesuit General Jose de Vera, and Cardinal Christoph Schönborn, Archbishop of Vienna and general editor of the new catechism, it came to Archbishop Levada. Sources say receipt of the letter by the archbishop came within a week of Cardinal Ratzinger's May 5 letter, which said, "The Holy See is involved in the question of the survival of Saint Ignatius Institute. It is my fervent hope that we will be able to avert the consequences which would result if the institute were effectively dismantled."

After receiving the letter, Levada assembled a group of four scholars in the Bay Area to interview "about 17 people," according to Raymond Dennehy, one of the former institute professors. Kim Summerhays, another former institute professor, said that the interviews were one-on-one and took place in mid-summer. Neither professor would comment on the content of the interviews while negotiations are continuing. Summerhays would only comment on the sentiments expressed in the meeting by him and his fellow former institute professors to the interviewers. He said, "We represented a legitimate alternative to a relatively liberal theology department. A characteristic of the SII was an unflinching allegiance to the magisterium."

Maurice Healy, director of communications and outreach for the Archdiocese, said, "Dialogue has taken place, the details of which have not been made public. The last time it came up [Archbishop Levada] said he had fulfilled his role to facilitate a dialogue between the parties." Healy went on to add that at this point the details of the dialogue have been relayed to the congregation of Catholic education. "It is not our role to make public the details of the dialogue," he said. Father Joseph Fessio, founder of the institute, likewise said that he would not comment for this article "while the process continues" at the congregation.

Whether the institute will be restored remains a question, but the University of San Francisco has experienced a pullback in donations. According to a source in the president's office, this was most noticeable after a July 7San Francisco Chronicle story on the controversy, people called "just about every day for a week canceling donations." Additionally, the institute has seen its enrollment drop more that sixty percent. The direct result, a source close to the president said last summer, is that the school retained a public relations firm to deal with the volume of negative press.

Open mockery of the cultural shift on campus appeared in a November 15th university student newspaper, theFoghorn. The piece was entitled, "All I want for X-mas is a Jesuit Professor." The author, Maggie Ford, suggested that the university reimburse her for the money she will have paid the school for her years of education. She writes, "I will graduate this December without ever having attended class taught by a Jesuit professor. I will graduate without knowing why a Jesuit education costs $30,000 a year. I will graduate feeling tricked, academically disappointed and monetarily ripped off." She goes on to express belief that the university should be sued for pulling the old "bait and switch." On December 3rd, Privett responded to this and otherFoghorn features, including an advice column piece that rankled people in the paper and the Jesuit community. The question posed to the humorous advice column 'Dear Tiffany' was, "Why do the Jesuits act so fruity?" The answer offered by the columnist was not published, but read, "You may want to sit down for this one. It's because they're gay ... queer as a three dollar bill." Privett responded by expressing his "disappointment with theFoghorn." He wrote that the opinion section was not following his standard of providing "provocative pieces," "tight reasoning," and "fresh metaphors" and suggested that it had become simply a "forum for therapeutic venting" and "slash and burn negativity." In the case of Ford's piece, Privett chose to defend a Jesuit-less Jesuit university rather than commiserate with Ford over a lack of vocations to teach classes that formerly would have been taught by priests. He wrote, "Most recently, an editorial in the opinion section argued that Jesuit education is education offered only by Jesuits. This makes as much sense as arguing that Chinese cuisine is food prepared only by Chinese chefs."

As to the 'Dear Tiffany' issue, Privett did not comment publicly. However, according to a worker at the paper, the event made Privett "really offended." In fact, the print version of theFoghorn, while it ran the original question, changed the answer. The new version called for the writer to 'come out of the closet." It is not known if this was at Privett's personal request, or if the editors already knew that the president was going to turn up the heat on the student-run paper.

At its quarterly meeting on September 11, the university board of trustees approved a new mission statement for the university. The school called it "a new Vision, Mission, Values statement for the university." The result contained little mention of traditional Catholic teaching and no mention of the word 'God'. The new document begins: "The University of San Francisco will be internationally recognized as a premier Jesuit Catholic, urban University with a global perspective that educates leaders who will fashion a more humane and just world." The rest of the document, like the introduction, points to the ultimate goal of Jesuit education as creating individuals committed to changing the world. The mission of educating the world about Christ or saving others is not included in the document. One part seems to suggest a future for the university that may not include Catholicism. It reads: "[the University of San Francisco] welcomes and respects people of all faiths or of no religious belief as full partners who contribute their own values and beliefs to enrich the University enterprise."

In a December edition of the staff newsletterUSFnews, an article on the emerging university instructed that, "the old role of a Catholic university-to train men and women for Catholic life-is of less universal importance than training students for professional life." In the same newsletter, Father Francis J. Buckley, a USF Jesuit, made a point. "It's important for people to understand they can be Jewish and Catholic, just as you can be Buddhist and Catholic," he said, "It breaks down a lot of stereotypes." Assistant professor Kevin Chun pointed out the fruits of a Jesuit education in his class on Asian American psychology during the fall semester. According to students, the class spent a week devoted to gay and lesbian issues in the Asian American community. He explained to his class that, "to ignore it would not be a Jesuit education. The University essentially strives for an education with a purpose."

If, and when, the letter from Pope John Paul II is made public, some students wonder if the mission of the university will change to reflect more allegience to the Church. As disgruntled junior Pete Halpin, a student in the Saint Ignatius Institute and an early leader in the movement to reinstate its former directors puts it, "I probably could have gone to [San Francisco] State and gotten a better Catholic education for the money."

TOP