THE USE AND TRAINING OF EXPERTS IN THE TEACHING OFFICE OF THE CHURCH
2. ECCLESIASTICAL UNIVERSITIES AND FACULTIES
CIC does not define ‘ecclesiastical universities and faculties’, but their purposes are described in CIC canon 815:
‘By virtue of its mission to proclaim revealed truth, the Church has the right to have its own ecclesiastical universities and faculties to study the sacred sciences and subjects related to them, and to teach these disciplines to students in a scientific manner’.
Morrisey, however, defines ecclesiastical universities as ‘institutes in which the sacred sciences - principally theology, sacred Scripture, liturgy, church history and canon law, and
93 CCEO, c. 644. See Appendix II.
94 CCEO, c. 596. See Appendix II.
95 CCEO, c. 606§1. See Appendix II.
106
ancillary subjects such as philosophy, patristics, archaeology and languages - are studied and taught scientifically’.96 The Constitution on Ecclesiastical Universities and Faculties,
Sapientia Christiana (1979), describes Ecclesiastical universities as those Catholic universities ‘concerned particularly with Christian revelation and questions connected therewith and which are therefore more closely connected with her mission of
evangelization’.97
CIC provides that ecclesiastical universities and faculties must be directed and approved by the Holy See; their statutes and program of studies must also have the Holy See’s approval.98 Only these institutions may award degrees which have canonical effect.99 CIC provides that the canons applicable to Catholic universities - governing the appointment of suitable teachers and their removal, the mandates required to teach theological subjects, and the provision for pastoral care of students - are applicable also to ecclesiastical universities and faculties.100 Bishops and religious superiors are obliged, insofar as the Church requires it, to send clerics and members of religious institutes who are ‘outstanding in character,
intelligence and virtue’ to ecclesiastical universities or faculties.101 The law infers here that those who attend these educational institutions belong in this category, and, moreover,
implies that those who teach them must have appropriate expertise. Indeed a commentator on CCEO recognises the ‘expertise’ of students of the sacred sciences, which implies that
students are, at least, being trained by the Church to be future experts.102 Moreover, CIC canon 821 encourages bishops to establish other institutes for ‘higher religious studies’:
‘Where it is possible, the Bishops’ Conference and the diocesan Bishop are to provide for the establishment of institutes for higher religious studies, in which are taught theological and other subjects pertaining to Christian culture’.
A duty is placed, therefore, on Bishops’ Conferences and diocesan bishops to provide for the establishment of these institutions, where possible, and to ensure that theology and ‘other subjects pertaining to Christian culture’ are taught. The canons on Ecclesiastical universities
96 Morrisey, L&S, p445, para 1601.
97 SCh, Forward III. See Appendix VI.
98 CIC, c. 816. See Appendix I.
99 CIC, c. 817. See Appendix I.
100 CIC, c. 818. See Appendix I.
101 CIC, c. 819. See Appendix I.
102 Pospishil, p367.
107
provide for the establishment of institutes for higher religious studies, but do not clarify what canons govern those institutes.
Appointment of Teachers: Apart from CIC norms governing Catholic universities, the Constitution on Ecclesiastical Universities and Faculties (1979), promulgated following consultation with ‘experts’,103 requires the statutes for each ecclesiastical university or faculty to: provide for different ranks of teachers (which implies different levels of expertise);104 define the authorities responsible for hiring, naming and promoting them;105 and set out procedures for their suspension or dismissal,106 especially in matters concerning doctrine.107 Disputes are to be resolved internally, but failing this ‘experts’ are to be consulted.108 Whilst, neither the experts nor their functions are defined, consultation with experts from outside the institution is implied.
Disciplines and Qualifications of Teachers: CIC provides that Ecclesiastical universities and faculties are bound by norms on the qualities required of teachers at Catholic
universities.109 Moreover, CIC requires close cooperation with other universities, even non-ecclesiastical ones, so that through scientific research a greater knowledge is acquired.110 This is another example of consultation with outside bodies. The Declaration on Christian Education (1965) spoke of the role of the ecclesiastical universities and faculties in preparing students not only for the priesthood, but for teaching higher education (which is an example of the Church training future experts) and also for the ‘more rigorous intellectual
apostolate’.111 The objectives of ecclesiastical universities and faculties were to: ‘make more penetrating inquiry into the various aspects of the sacred sciences’; deepen the ‘understanding of sacred Revelation’; hand down and clarify the legacy of Christian wisdom; create and continue dialogue with non-Catholics and non-Christians; and ‘answer questions arising from the development of doctrine’, all of which imply a degree of expertise in various fields.112
103 SCh, Forward VI. ‘Experts’ are not described, but legal experts are implied. See Appendix VI.
104 SCh, Article 23. See Appendix VI.
105 SCh, Article 24. See Appendix VI.
106 See Appendix VI: SCh, Article 30.
107 Norms for the correct implementation of SCh, Article 22, N1. See Appendix VI.
108 Ibid., Article 22, N2, N3.
109 CIC, c. 818. See Appendix I.
110 CIC, c. 820. See Appendix I. Non-Catholic universities are not mentioned; they are not explicitly excluded.
111 GE, 11. See Appendix VI.
112 Ibid.
108
The Constitution Sapientia Christiana (1979), although abrogating previous law,113 reiterated the objectives of the Declaration on Christian Education (1965), by describing the role of ecclesiastical universities and faculties in similar vein.114 The Constitution refers to Ecclesiastical faculties of ‘other sciences’, which, although lacking ‘the special link with Christian revelation’, are still of assistance to the Church in its mission, have a ‘particular relationship with the Church's Hierarchy’, and are ‘destined for the education of both
ecclesiastical and lay students’.115 The Constitution (1979) acknowledges teachers’ ‘weighty responsibility’ to meet the needs of students.116 It requires all teachers to ‘be marked by an upright life, integrity of doctrine and devotion to duty’.117 However, those who teach
‘matters touching on faith and morals’ must do so in full communion with the Roman Pontiff and the Magisterium and those who teach ‘disciplines concerning faith or morals’, must make a profession of faith and possess a canonical mission from the Chancellor or his delegate.118 This implies the requirement for teachers of these particular subjects to be a Catholic in full communion with the Church.119 ‘Other teachers’ require ‘permission’.120 However, all
‘permanent’ teachers or those promoted to the ‘highest ranks’, must receive a nihil obstat from the Holy See.121 The Constitution (1979) also provides that permanent teachers are required: to be distinguished by their wealth of knowledge, witness of life and sense of responsibility; to have a ‘suitable’ doctorate, or equivalent ‘title’ or ‘exceptional and singular scientific accomplishment’; to demonstrate proof of suitability for scientific research,
especially by published material; and to demonstrate teaching ability. These provisions are to be applied ‘in proportionate measure’ to non-permanent teachers.122 On-going training is implied, but these requirements did not find their way into CIC.123 The Constitution’s
‘special norms’, detailing the subjects, aims, objectives, and method of teaching for each
113 SCh, Forward VI. See Appendix VI.
114 SCh, Forward III. See Appendix VI.
115 SCh, Forward III. See Appendix VI.
116 SCh, Forward IV. See Appendix VI.
117 SCh, Article 26, N1. See Appendix VI.
118 SCh, Article 26, N2. See Appendix VI. See ft 73 above for the distinction between a mandate and a mission.
119 Strictly, the wording requires those who teach matters ‘touching’ on faith and morals to do so (that is the teaching is to be done) in full communion with the Magisterium, whereas the profession of faith required from those who teach disciplines ‘concerning’ faith or morals would be required to be (that is, the teacher must be) in full communion.
120 SCh, Article 27, N1. See Appendix VI.
121 See Norms for the correct implementation of SCh, Article 16 for a definition of ‘permanent’ teachers; Article 19, N1 for the requirement that the Statutes establish when a permanent status is conferred and Article 19, N2 for a description of the nihil obstat. See also SCh, Articles 20; 27, N2; and 28. See Appendix VI.
122 SCh, Article 25, N1 and N2. See Appendix VI.
123 SCh, Forward V. See Appendix VI.
109
discipline, emphasise the ‘particular nature and importance’ of, for example, theology, canon law and philosophy.124 Provision is made for many and various subjects, indicating the range of expertise required.125 These requirements, even more rigorous than those for Catholic universities, emphasise the Church’s vigilance over the standard of teaching required in Ecclesiastical universities and faculties and implies expertise on the part of teachers.
Moreover, the Constitution (1979) requires assistance from ‘experts’ in the future establishment and planning of universities and faculties. The experts involved are not defined, but there is a suggestion that bishops, academics, canonists and other university personnel are included.126
Although CIC provides that the same qualities are required of teachers in Ecclesiastical universities as are of teachers in Catholic universities, there is no explicit requirement that the more stringent norms for teachers in seminaries apply, even though candidates for the
priesthood study at ecclesiastical universities and faculties.127 Whilst outside the seminary, candidates require special care, but within seminaries, specific expertise is required in training candidates for ordination.128 Seminarians must be educated in: sacred sciences;
languages; philosophy; theology; scripture; canon law; liturgy; and ecclesiastical history.129 In addition, the Constitution on the Sacred Liturgy (1963) provides that candidates be educated in sacred art, implying that they can become experts in this subject for the purpose of protecting the Church’s patrimony.130 Seminarians must receive pastoral formation, have pastoral practice, and be prepared for all that ministry entails.131 Therefore, teachers in seminaries must not only be adequately trained, but must have obtained canonical doctorates or licentiates; there is no provision for an ‘equivalent’ title.132 That different teachers are
124 SCh, Article 65. See Appendix VI.
125 Provision is made under Article 85 of the special norms for subjects such as: Christian archaeology; Biblical studies and ancient Eastern studies; Church history; Christian and classical literature; Liturgy; Missiology;
Sacred Music; Psychology; Educational science or Pedagogy; Religious science; Social sciences; Arabic studies and Islamology; Mediaeval studies; Oriental Ecclesiastical studies; “Utriusque Iuris” (both canon law and civil law). See also Article 86, which entrusts responsibility to the Sacred Congregation for Catholic Education for special norms relating to these subjects.
126 SCh, Articles 60; and 61. See Appendix VI.
127 CIC, c. 253§1. See Appendix I.
128 CIC, c. 235. See c. 236 for similar provisions for candidates for the permanent diaconate. See Appendix I.
129 CIC, cc. 248; 249; 250; 252§§2, 3; and 257§2. See Appendix I.
130 SC, 129. This was reiterated later in PCCCAHPC, 27. See Appendix VI.
131 CIC, cc. 245, 246§2, 247§1; 255; 256; and 258. See Appendix I.
132 CIC, cc. 239§1; and 253§§1 and 2. See Appendix I.
110
required for different subjects implies that the expertise required is of such a standard that they are not expected to reach this doctorate standard in more than one subject. Moreover, the whole program of teaching is to be coordinated.133
As one of the guiding principles for the revision of CIC 1917 was that of subsidiarity, it might not, on the one hand, be surprising that the universal law says little about specific requirements for university teachers, leaving individual institutions to produce their own Statutes, albeit in accord with the Apostolic Constitutions and other legislation.134 On the other hand, lack of specific provisions leads to lack of clarity. Apart from the controversy which we have seen above, as to which subjects require the teachers to hold a mandate, there is also ambiguity as to precisely what institutes are covered by the universal law on
Ecclesiastical Universities and Faculties and what constitutes an ‘equivalent title’ to a canonical doctorate required for permanent teachers under the Constitution (1979).
Institutes of Higher Religious Studies: Commentators differ as to which canons govern these institutes. As we have seen, according to Morrisey, the sacred sciences taught in Ecclesiastical universities are principally theology, sacred Scripture, liturgy, church history and canon law, and the ancillary subjects are philosophy, patristics, archaeology and languages.135 Morrisey considers that because the institutes for higher religious studies, envisaged by canon 821 are not universities (despite the subjects taught) they are not bound strictly by, but ‘could well be guided by’ the principles contained in the canons on
Ecclesiastical universities and faculties.136 Coriden, on the other hand, acknowledges that canon 821 was moved from the chapter on Catholic universities to that on Ecclesiastical universities and faculties, precisely because the Commission revising the Code considered that these institutes ‘ought to depend entirely on ecclesiastical authority, otherwise they inevitably produce serious disagreements’.137 He implies here that the provisions on
Ecclesiastical universities apply to these institutes. McManus, although acknowledging this reasoning, disagrees: he holds that as these institutes of higher religious studies do not have
133 CIC, c. 254. See Appendix I.
134 For the principles guiding the revision of CIC 1917, see James A Coriden, An Introduction to Canon Law (New York, 1991), p36,
135 Morrisey, L&S, p445, para 1601.
136 Morrisey, L&S, p446, para 1607. Morrisey considers these institutions include ‘institutes of religious studies, pastoral, missionary, catechetical institutes, and the like’.
137 Coriden, Text&Comm, p578.
111
ecclesiastical status, they are not governed by the Constitution on Ecclesiastical Universities (1979) or by CIC canons 815-820 on Ecclesiastical Universities and Faculties, but by CIC canons 807-814 on Catholic Universities and Other Institutes of Higher Studies.138
However, canon 821 refers to institutes for higher religious studies and is placed in the chapter on Ecclesiastical Universities and Faculties, whereas CIC canon 814 refers simply to
‘institutes of higher studies’ and is placed in the chapter on Catholic Universities and Other Institutes of Higher Studies.139 Therefore, albeit that canon 821 was moved from the chapter on Catholic universities to that of Ecclesiastical universities, it must have been so for a purpose; one might, therefore, expect the more stringent provisions of the Constitution and canons on Ecclesiastical Universities and Faculties (relating to the disciplines, qualifications, and mandates) to apply to these institutes of higher religious studies.
Doctorates and Equivalent Titles: Again, commentators differ on this issue. Coriden considers that although only Ecclesiastical universities and faculties can award degrees with canonical effect, ‘it has been a frequent practice to accept equivalent degrees in teaching positions and equivalent expertise in other church offices’.140 However, McManus implies that non-canonical and equivalent degrees are acceptable as qualifications only ‘in cases where an equivalent expertise is mentioned in a canon’ or when ‘the requirement of a canonical degree may be readily satisfied, for example, by suitable experience’.141 The Constitution (1979) explains that the required ‘suitable’ doctorate is one corresponding to the subject taught, but merely states that in the absence of a canonical doctorate at least a
canonical licentiate is required.142 Lack of clarity, therefore, remains.
The lack of clarity in the canons leads commentators to disagree on further issues. Canon 819 obliges the competent Superior to send outstanding young people to ecclesiastical universities and faculties when the good of the Church requires this.143 McManus, in line with this text, considers that Superiors have a ‘duty’ to send ‘qualified’ students to these
138 Frederick R McManus, New Comm, p976.
139 CIC, c. 814. See Appendix I.
140 Coriden,Text&Comm, p577, citing the Ordinationes, AAS 71 (1979), p500, n17], which implements SCh.
141 McManus, New Comm, p974, citing the Norms for the Correct Implementation of SCh, Article 17. See Appendix V.
142 Norms for the Correct Implementation of SCh, Article 17. See Appendix VI.
143 CIC, c. 819. See Appendix I.
112
institutions; that is, those students who fulfil the requirements.144 Coriden, however,
considers that the canon ‘warmly encourages’ Superiors to do so, citing the decree of Priestly Training (1965), and the Decree on Christian Education (1965) in support.145 He says these documents ‘simply encourage higher studies in the sacred sciences and other areas’, and the canon ‘directs attention to the ecclesiastical universities and faculties as places to pursue them’.146 However, he makes no reference to the fact that CIC post-dates these documents.
Moreover, it would be difficult to establish that the Church did not require such people to be educated although the canon is ambiguous as to whether or not the Church’s need must be established positively.
The provisions for Ecclesiastical universities and faculties can be compared with those of CIC 1917 and CCEO. CIC 1917 dealt only with Catholic universities and faculties (under the title ‘schools), not Ecclesiastical universities and faculties. However, like under CIC: the Church claimed the right to found schools of any kind; the canonical Constitutions of
Catholic Universities were reserved to the Holy See and their statutes required the Holy See’s approval; and the granting of canonical degrees required a faculty from the Holy See.147 Unlike CIC, however, CIC 1917 made provision for those with a canonical doctorate to wear a ring and biretta.148 CCEO defines ‘ecclesiastical’ universities and faculties as those
canonically erected or approved by the competent ecclesiastical authority, which teach the sacred sciences and related subjects and have the right to confer academic degrees which have canonical effect.149 CCEO further defines their purpose, but makes no specific provision for the appointment or suitability of teachers.150 Statutes must conform to the norms of the Apostolic See, including those governing the appointment and dismissal of teachers.151 CCEO has no specific requirement for teachers to take a profession of faith or an oath of fidelity, nor for the applicability of norms for Catholic universities to Ecclesiastical universities and faculties.
144 McManus, New Comm, p976.
145 Coriden, Text&Comm, p578. OT, 18 and GE, 10. See Appendix VI.
146 Coriden, Text&Comm, p578.
147 CIC 1917, cc. 1375- 1377. See Appendix III.
148 CIC 1917, c. 1378. See Appendix III.
149 CCEO, c. 648. See also CCEO, c. 649 for a definition of the competent ecclesiastical authority. See Appendix II.
150 CCEO, c. 647. See Appendix II.
151 CCEO, c. 650. See Appendix II.
113
Although the statutes of individual Ecclesiastical universities and faculties are required to make provision for: different ranks of teachers; defining the competent authority for appointing and removing teachers; and the processes involved, the Bishops’ Conference could do much to remove or reduce the ambiguities in universal law. For example, new legislation could clarify: which experts are to be consulted both if difficulties arise but cannot be resolved within these institutions and when planning the future establishment of
universities and faculties and their specific role; the disciplines, and sub-disciplines, from which these experts, and indeed teachers, are to be drawn and the qualification required of them; what subjects and institutions require teachers to have a mandate; who is responsible for granting or obtaining the mandate; what conditions warrant removal of the mandate; what constitutes a ‘suitable’ doctorate and ‘equivalent title’; and (given disagreement between canonists) that the Superior is obliged to send outstanding young people to ecclesiastical universities or faculties.