Thanks to the Internet Padre , we have the text of this excellent speech from Rev. John Jenkins, president of Notre Dame Univeristy, to the faculty yesterday.

The subject is academic freedom and the Catholic university, and the specific occasion is the university’s relationship to the "Queer Film Festival" and the proposed now 4th annual production of the VM.

This is a striking speech that all of you should read because it finally, at last, lays out the issues forthrightly and compassionately. He teases apart the various aspects of the issue, and, after his preparatory remarks, enters the question by talking about the Oberammegau Passion Play, and the 19th century revisions that heightened the anti-Semitism of the piece, and how the Vatican asked, a century later, that the play be revised, or else it could not be performed:

In 1965, with the promulgation of the encyclical Nostra Aetate by Pope Paul VI, the Catholic Church condemned anti-Semitism and any suggestions that Jewish people collectively are culpable for the death of Christ. In 1970 the Church withheld from the play its missio canonica Bits assurance that the play is consistent with Catholic doctrine–and the Archbishop of Munich said that the play should be revised. In 1990 and again in 2000 the script was revised to remove the anti-Semitic elements. Some complain, however, that the current script lacks the theatrical and religious power of the Daisenberger script.

Suppose that students or faculty proposed a performance at Notre Dame of the Daisenberger passion play. They may be sincerely attracted by its theatrical power, or by its dramatic or religious power. Whatever their motives for performing this play, however, I do not believe that such a performance could be permitted at Notre Dame. Its anti-Semitic elements are clearly and egregiously opposed to the values of a Catholic university. Even if those wishing to stage the performance had pure intentions, the staging of the play at Notre Dame would appear to endorse or at least acquiesce in a tolerance of an anti-Semitisim whose consequences are only too clear to us.

Let me be clear on what I see as the problem here. There would no objection to a faculty member assigning the Daisenberger script in a class, or to any student reading or writing a paper on the script of this play. Further, any faculty member or student would be free in their own name to praise the play, or advocate for its performance in the Observer or in another publication. Nor would I seek as President to prohibit an unofficial performance involving members of the University community in space away from campus. My concern is not with censorship, but with sponsorship. The difficulty, as I see it, is that the play would be performed at the University of Notre Dame, using its facilities, implicitly or explicitly sponsored by the university, one of its units, or by a recognized organization of the the university. A reasonable observer would assume that the university is sponsoring an event that, in fact, is clearly and egregiously at odds with its values as a Catholic university.

This is exactly what so many have been saying on this score for years. Those who defend university sponsorship of points of view antithetical to Catholic teaching on Catholic university campuses are always talking about sex. They would be the first to object (and rightly so) to "alternative views" or "questions and exploration" in presentations that embrace racism, sexism, anti-semitism or expanded use of capital punishment.

I have spoken here about a dramatic production. But I can imagine, hypothetically, a similar issue with conferences sponsored by units of the university or recognized organizations–although I know of no such examples during my time at Notre Dame. Consider titles of the following imagined conferences:

Childish Fancy and Adult Ignorance: Theism as Delusion and Psychosis
The Moral Legitimacy of Infanticide and Euthanasia
The Moral Acceptability and Strategic Value of a First-strike Nuclear Attack

If a conference were proposed at Notre Dame under one of these titles, and all speakers defended the position that the title suggests, and there was no one arguing persuasively for a position compatible with a Catholic position, I do not see how the university could sponsor such an event. Again, the problem would be that this Catholic institution would seem to be sponsoring an event that supports or appears to support a position clearly and egregiously contrary to the certain central values of Catholicism.

Again, let me be clear. The university certainly can host individual speakers who defend atheism, or infanticide, or euthanasia, or a first-strike nuclear attack. It is essential to a university that there be a variety of views expressed vigorously, even those contrary to deep values of Catholicism. We are richer, and the Catholic intellectual tradition is strengthened, if a variety of views are expressed and discussed. The difficulty is that these imagined conferences either are or at least appear to be, in their title and content (as I described it), one-sided presentations ofBand perhaps advocacy for–positions that are clearly at odds with deep values of Catholicism. If they are sponsored by the university, or by one of its units or recognized organizations, their occurrence would suggest that the university sponsors not merely open discussion of controversial topics, but endorses or at least considers compatible with its values the particular positions that are being advanced.

He then continues by examining the different types of academic freedom on a university campus: that of faculty, that of students, which is similar, but not identical to the faculty, and then of divisions and groups within the university, which is different still.

He concludes by saying he will be doing a lot of listening to viewpoints over the next weeks, but what is just as striking as his honest grasp of the issues involved is his forthright statement of how he will make a decision:

In addition to these very important issues, there is something else at stake. As I begin my presidency, I am aware that, as I make particular decisions and undertake initiatives, I am establishing patterns and expectations for how I will lead in this position. Consequently, it is important not only what decisions I make, but how I make them. On matters of significance, I will always strive to make decisions, consonant with my authority, according to my most informed and considered judgment about what is best for this university and its mission. I will not lead by consensus, nor by majority vote, nor in response to the pressures that individuals or groups inside or outside the university may bring to bear. However, prior to making a decision on an important matter, I will, as appropriate and practicable, strive to solicit and listen to the views of relevant individuals and groups. Central to the obligations of my office are the twin responsibilities of listening to the views of members of this community prior to a decision, and then making that decision.

What with the prez of Providence, Fr. Mark Steitz down in Dallas and this…a good week for priests teaching the truth and leading with love, fidelity and firmness!

More please…