Here’s Bishop D’Arcy’s statement in response to Fr. Jenkins’ Closing Statement.

This is all the more surprising because the University of Notre Dame’s Board of Trustees and the officers of the university traveled to the Holy See for their February meeting, immediately after Father Jenkins’ January presentation to the Notre Dame community. They visited some close collaborators of Pope Benedict XVI, cardinals and bishops, and even, briefly, the Holy Father himself. Presumably this indicated at least an openness to considering the teachings of the Holy See on matters relevant to a Catholic university community. Yet, upon returning to Notre Dame and listening to varied viewpoints, they made no mention of the principles of Pope John Paul II, and the Second Vatican Council before him, relative to freedom of inquiry in general and to academic freedom in a Catholic university in particular. It seems appropriate to raise the question as to why were such principles not considered worthy to be part of the campus-wide debate.

Ouch. Now some of you may not understand, that if you’re waiting for Bruskewitz-style fireworks, you’re not going to get it here. But Bishop D’Arcy is so mild-mannered and even-keeled in his temperment (I do not know the man, but have only seen him presiding at Mass and, er, buying a newspaper at the convenience store on the corner) that this, in D’Arcy-speak, is the equivalent of a Bruskewitz "Some woman."

It stings.

Father Jenkins noted that he even took time to visit with the young women who had acted in this unfortunate play at the heart of the present controversy. Knowing Father Jenkins, I am sure that this was a pastoral visit and showed his desire to assist them spiritually. But, it seems appropriate to ask, if Father Jenkins gave access to these young women and allowed himself to be influenced by them, as he claims, is it too much to expect that he also would have given access to the understanding of academic freedom in a Catholic university put forward by Pope John Paul II? The papacy, after all, is a teaching office. Would it have been too much to expect that, after his gracious visit to the Holy See, (memorialized in the pictures sent out to alumni and to all U.S. bishops in the recent edition of Notre Dame Magazine) the teaching of Pope John Paul II on academic freedom might have at least been part of the conversation, which went on at Notre Dame for 10 weeks? It might even have had some influence. If, as Father Jenkins says, it was his determination that “we should not suppress speech on this campus,” then the speech of Pope John Paul II might have become an influential part of the dialogue. But, if it was the intention that it not be admitted and discussed, what would be the purpose of going to Rome?

[snip]

[snip]

Since Father Jenkins’ decision, I have received many letters. Among those letters, I especially try to notice those from students. I have had visits from students who feel betrayed by this decision and the rationale that accompanied it. Young people are idealistic. John Paul II and Pope Benedict XVI, in his recent visit to Cologne, have nourished this Christian idealism, and asked all of us to serve these young people and never let them settle for anything less than an unselfish and devoted life, and such unselfishness will only last when it is rooted in faith. They rightly look to us and to our institutions to live by faith. It is the very best thing we can give them. Without it, we fail them.

I have taken special joy in seeing the flourishing of the theology department at the University of Notre Dame. I have encountered many young people who are learning the great tradition of Catholic theology, and I have been especially moved to see them come in contact with the wisdom of the Fathers of the Church, strengthening their own commitment to the Catholic faith. Indeed, in recent years, I have linked our diocesan program of training catechists to the Notre Dame Department of Theology, with very enriching results. I see this as an act of trust in the theology department and in its leadership. What is more important than the catechists who pass on the faith to our young people, and to adults as well?

My pastoral concern is not only because of the decision not to ban the play, but because of the rationale that accompanied the decision. It fails to give room to the great truths of the faith. The teaching of the church on sexuality, on academic freedom, on the relationship between a man and a woman and on the human body is hardly mentioned, except to admit that the play stands apart from, and is even opposed to, Catholic teaching. The truths of faith seem not to have been brought to bear on this decision. Is this an omission that will mark the future of such decisions for this school so blessed by Our Lady and by countless scholars and students over the years? I pray that it not be so; for that would, indeed, mark it as a mistake of historic proportions. As a shepherd with responsibility to Notre Dame, I must point out to her leaders that this judgment and the way it has been explained calls for further, more informed consideration.

Only when Notre Dame makes its great decisions in light of the truths of faith will its Catholic identity grow. To set aside these truths, as seems to have happened in this case, at least in the campus-wide discussions and in Father Jenkins’ Closing Statement, is to turn away from its vocation. It lacks fidelity to Father Sorin’s original enterprise and to the vocation to which every Catholic university is called.

Does this decision and the way it was explained mean that Notre Dame and its leadership will no longer make its critical decisions based on faith, on revealed truth, on those things which come from God and the church, but only on those things that may seem to endear it to secular institutions of higher learning? I pray that this may never be so.

That’s pretty strong. It’s the strongest statement I’ve heard this bishop make about anything in the 6 years I’ve lived here. And, you say…words..words..words. What about action? I have no idea what "action" could be taken in this situation, for a Bishop is not the dictator of an independent university, even if it is Catholic, within his diocese. Nor would dictatorial actions be helpful, if you think about it seriously. But even I, cynic that I am, was impressed by the directness of Bishop D’Arcy’s words: "And you went to visit the pope….why?"

And, for those of you who need to catch up, here’s an open letter on the issue from Professor John Cavadini, Theology Department chair

And another from Fr. Bill Miscamble of the History Department