Catholic Higher Education

What occurs to you in looking at this collage of recently-appointed presidents at Jesuit colleges? Only in the fourth paragraph does author Michael J. O’Loughlin move beyond his characterization of these leaders as “laypeople” by noting Pope Francis’ appointment of more women to top Vatican positions. Far be it from me to do a gender analysis of why women are being selected to lead Jesuit colleges except to note that they were probably the most qualified.

O’Loughlin’s article is useful. He analyzes data about the “not new” emergence of lay leaders at colleges operated by religious orders, male and female: 78 percent or 149 of 188 colleges and universities have lay presidents. I find the whole topic of Catholic higher education important because I am concerned about how lay Catholic leadership will be developed in future years. I know many of my now elderly generation of laity emerged from Catholic colleges with deep knowledge and commitment to the faith and the possibilities of Vatican II. I also know, from my own experience, that more and more professors choose to teach Catholic subjects at secular institutions, sometimes because of constraints imposed by worried leaders at Catholic ones, and other times because the rest of the world is interested in exploring Catholicism.

I want to focus on how Catholic college aspire to form lay Catholic leaders today. O’Loughlin links to two documents developed to guide two chains [my term] of Catholic institutions, those operated by the Sisters of Mercy and those operated by the Jesuits. The documents are as different as they could be, but both leave me hopeful.

The Mercy document does begin with the foundress of the order, Catherine McAuley, and her concern for poor women and children, ­but goes on to say “she humbly modeled for those around her a Mercy way of life which included empowering and trusting others to go forth and do likewise; that is, respond to needs of your time and place with your gifts and talents in a way that speaks of the mercy of God.” And there is a humility about this document: “While certain values, virtues, and approaches are not exclusive to Mercy, the following are some of the common and challenging characteristics that we often recognize across the Mercy tradition and which seem to be alive today in Mercy Higher Education and which we aim to model in all that we do.”

Then the “flexible” “Mercy Way” moves to academic concerns, describing the general approach as “reflection upon actual experiences, along with research and analysis, and the practice of modeling.” The whole document is two typed pages. It’s a mission statement intended to guide and inspire, but it does get specific about what’s important.

1. A Focus on MISSION does not ignore the relationship of the college or university “as a sponsored work of the Sisters of Mercy of the Americas” which “is described, ritualized, and effected through a Covenant.” All subsequent references to “leadership” present it as responsible for the mission but there’s no allusion to membership in the order.
2. A Focus on COLLABORATION “the delicate art,” exercised “never perfectly,” but always striving to improve.
3. A Focus on HOSPITALITY goes beyond welcoming everyone to welcoming “Questions, challenges, and conflicts” in the academic setting.
4. A Focus on COMPASSION into ACTION begins with teaching ethics to inspire action, especially with concern to marginalized women, and ends with equitable management practices.
5. A Focus on HOLISTIC Approaches as might be expected, “attends to the whole person in the context of the human community and the wider community of Earth.” What I did not expect is “efforts are made to provide space for non-Christian religious gatherings and to further encourage inter-religious understanding, appreciation, and events.”
6.  A Call for VISION a Mercy vision, “for quality education with a conscience,” which “sends forth students who have as their purpose to make a difference in their families and communities.”

That’s what I’m hoping for this generation emerging from Catholic institutions. O’Loughlin does interview Dr. Julia Cavallo, the laywoman executive director of the Mercy Higher Education Conference. “Many Sisters of Mercy will say to me, ‘You are Mercy now,’” she said. “They see our partnership and our relationship as vital to the continuation of Mercy.” There are eighteen institutions in the conference in states north of the Mason-Dixon line from Maine to Nebraska. I did not link to each of them to see how many had lay presidents, men or women, but I welcome that information in the comments.  

The Jesuit document, Characteristics of Jesuit Higher Education: A Guide for Mission Reflection, is 41 pages with professional graphic design. All the photos include women and men students. Arturo Sosa, SJ, the current Superior General, is quoted the most in the initial pages so that it felt more patriarchal than Mother McAuley felt matriarchal, but that may be my prejudice. St. Ignatius Loyola, the founder of the Jesuits, is also referred to, especially as the author of the Spiritual Exercises and of the Examen, the format of this document.

I am not going to provide as much detail as I did above because I am running out of space and because it seems impossible to copy the text of this document. Are you grateful?

One useful reference I will make is to the most concise definition of Catholic Social Teaching in the Glossary on page 36. The document ends with a month-by-month calendar of the year-long evaluation process. There are 28 Jesuit Colleges in this Association scattered more fully around the United States, from Seattle to Mobile. I suppose the same search for male and female leadership could be conducted among them.

But let’s look at the program. The examen includes seven themes to be evaluated with detailed questions about how everyone and everything from the board of trustees to athletics affects the following:

1. Leadership and Public Commitment to the Mission
2. The Academic Life
3. The Pursuit of Faith, Justice & Reconciliation
4. Promoting an Ignatian Campus Culture
5. Service to the Church
6. Relationship to the Society of Jesus
7. Institutional Integrity

They are well worth reading, especially if you are involved in higher education. I will note that there’s plenty of text as well as questions; for example, the four Jesuit preferences on page 4. Theme #3 on pages 19-20 examines racism, white supremacy, and colonialism “in the institution’s early days” and there are questions about how successfully that has been addressed and understood. Laudato Si is addressed on pages 21-22. The one university president who is pictured with students and quoted is Tania Tetlow, presently at Loyola New Orleans, on page 25: “It would be a place that demands that every student go out and change the world.” Of course, including a woman leader is important to change the image of who can provide lay leadership in a Jesuit institution.

Tetlow is the new president of Fordham, to circle back to the beginning. She’s also the daughter and niece of long-ago friends of mine as well as present-day friends of WOC, which I probably have mentioned before and which pleases me no end. O’Loughlin goes on to quote other leaders in Jesuit higher education, but just let me conclude that I hope these institutions have the same impact on their more diverse students that those of our generation had on us.  

There are many other chains of Catholic colleges and universities, and many free-standing ones, like Catholic University in Washington. If you’re involved with one of them, or a Mercy or Jesuit institution, please be encouraged to add a comment about the mission, contemporary or historic. That is our future.