The initial word of this whole incident was published by a traditionalist Catholic periodical called Church Militant, which is edited by noted Traditionalist Catholic writer Michael Voris. To explain a little about Voris (born 1961), he is a Catholic author who takes a very conservative, traditional stand on many moral and social issues, and honestly there is a lot of common ground that I would agree with him on (especially in opposing the LBGT agenda that is trying to overtake the Catholic Church in recent decades). He has written some viable material, and some of what he says does have validity on certain issues. But, like other "RadTrads," Voris does tend to at times go off the deep end, and he also tends to give into conspiracy theories on some things, and the issue with my university is one of those. Voris's slanderous remarks against Franciscan University were some of the most venomous vitriol I have heard in a while, and he even accuses the University of theological liberalism (which, honestly, I have never seen evidence for) and all of this over some reports he came across of a textbook. So, while on other issues I would agree with Voris, on this one he missed it totally. Now to talk about the issue a little more in detail.
Michael Voris, Traditionalist Catholic editor of "Church Militant"
The controversy began when the Chair of the English Department at Franciscan, Dr. Stephen Lewis, assigned a class of his a certain book by one Emmanuele Carrere (born 1957), a French atheist and virulent anti-Catholic writer whose 2014 novel The Kingdom was the subject of the controversy. Lewis assigned segments of The Kingdom for his students to read, and that caused a crap-storm, although not without valid reasoning. Carrere's writing is very explicitly pornographic, and it has no compatibility with the Catholic worldview, and he also borders on the blasphemous in The Kingdom when he sexualizes the Virgin Mary in such a gross way that it really takes a strong stomach to read it. Some students, parents, and faculty were so upset by Lewis's assignment of that reading that they made a protest which came to the ears of folks like Voris. Voris, instead of looking into the character of the professor himself, went off on a tangent in an article blasting Franciscan University for its "theological liberalism and apostasy," and in doing so it also brought some negative press to the university. As we will see, Lewis had a good intention but perhaps an unwise execution of that intention, and therefore it is important that we know the facts of the story first.
French atheist author Emmanuel Carrere
Dr. Stephen Lewis, Chair of the English Dept. at Franciscan University
Almost immediately, the President of Franciscan University, Fr. Sean Sheridan, issued a statement on the issue, and it was followed by similar statements from my own faculty advisor, Dr. Bob Rice, as well as Dr. Hahn. The statements that Fr. Sheridan, Dr. Rice, and Dr. Hahn issued were articulate, they reaffirmed the mission of the University as passionately Catholic in worldview and theologically orthodox, and they also issued apologies to the students and parents while at the same time allowing a fair assessment of Dr. Lewis's intentions, which I concur with wholly. As noted in Fr. Sheridan's statement, the use of the book was a mistake, but also he noted that he did not believe Dr. Lewis had any malicious intentions in utilizing it (which I agree with as well). As Fr. Sheridan notes in his statement, the purpose that Lewis utilized the text was "as a tool to contrast how Catholics and non-Catholics approach faith in literature and to prepare students for challenging conversations with people who think like Carrere" ("Fr. Sheridan's Letter to the FUS Community," not dated, at https://www.lifesitenews.com/news/franciscan-u-apologizes-after-first-defending-pornographic-book-that-blasph - accessed 1/14/2019). Dr. Rice also defends rightly Dr. Lewis's character when he notes in his statement, "Even more troubling was a recent article (meaning Voris's) because it directly involved a colleague of mine in the English Department, a man who I know to have a sincere faith and love for the Church" (Bob Rice, "I (Still) Love Franciscan," published 1/10/2019 at https://bo-rice.com/2019/01/10/i-still-love-franciscan/?fbclid=1wAR3oygQXVRtWT6GZr_kdkwud3Sg3l3qilJ6Rhv1jEwzF07ru_R9x1Awpmew - accessed 1/14/2019). As Franciscan University is also a Newman Guide-approved school, the Cardinal Newman Society also weighed in on the book itself by noting that the book is "contrary to the mission of a Catholic college," and that three observations were important:
1. An English reading assignment that is viciously blasphemous (in this case in regard to Our Lady) and is explicitly pornographic is reprehensible, disgusting, and without academic merit.
2. Defending an assignment entailing reading such a book on academic freedom grounds completely warps the true meaning and purpose of academic freedom, which the author of the Newman Guide statement notes protects teaching and research within the confines of a professor's discipline and in comformity to truth, which is foundational to a university like Franciscan's Catholic mission.
3. Fr. Sheridan presented a clear and strong apology that entailed implementing policy changes that would safeguard against future scandals, and in the Newman Guide's assessment Franciscan appears to have acted quickly in replacing the professor as chair of the English Department. This apology deserves to be accepted with charity and wisdom.
The Newman Guide author also appears to be supportive of Fr. Sheridan's response, which is fortunate, and affirmed that Franciscan does continue to uphold its much-deserved reputation as a strongly faithful Catholic college ("Statement Regarding Franciscan University of Steubenville and the Newman Guide," published 1/11/2019 at https://newmansociety.org/statement-regarding-franciscan-university-of-steubenville-and-the-newman-guide/ - accessed 1/14/2019). I think the Newman Society did the right thing, and I wholeheartedly concur with their statement. And, that leads to some concluding thoughts on my part.
I love my alma mater, Franciscan University of Steubenville, and by all indications for me it is one of the soundest, most orthodox Catholic universities in the country. Many "RadTrads" such as Voris unfortunately go looking for their proverbial axes to grind, as to many of those people anything that is post-Vatican II is for them somehow "evil" and "apostate," despite the fact that many good and devout Catholic people attend the "Ordinary Form" (or "Novus Ordo") Mass and it in no way has shaken their own vibrant Catholic faith. As a professed Traditionalist myself who prefers the pre-1962 Tridentine Mass, I am aware that the Novus Ordo has a few kinks yet to work out, and liturgical abuses do exist no doubt, but I am not ready to totally dismiss everything that is post-Vatican II, including many of the documents that came out of that Council, many of which do have some rich insights which are fully in line with Magisterial teaching. And, not everything about the Novus Ordo is bad either - it has some good things in it too, although my personal preference is the older form. I say all of that to make the point that often people like Voris jump on something like this like a buzzard on a gut wagon because they are seeking to justify their own ambivalence against anything that is post-Vatican II. It is sad really, and despite a commendable theological orthodoxy, many "RadTrads" need to make a little visit to the confessional to deal with some of their own issues on this, as what they do oftentimes is devoid of true Christian charity and is more about their own axes to grind than it is about resolution to an issue. That being said, let's get back to the textbook issue.
I commend Fr. Sheridan - whom I have had the privelege of meeting, and found him to be a man who possesses a godly humility and a wise demeanor - for articulating such a clear statement, and for taking the action he did on the issue. Removing Dr. Lewis as Department head was probably a wise measure at this time, and I believe Fr. Sheridan had good premise for doing so. As for Dr. Lewis, I don't know him personally, so I am not in any position to judge his heart or character, but with the evidence presented, I would like to make a couple of important observations. First, as mentioned, I believe Dr. Lewis to have a good intention concerning what he did, and as Fr. Sheridan and Dr. Rice noted, I also believe there was no malicious intent on his part in assigning the text. However, despite intention, perhaps Dr. Lewis was somewhat unwise in his execution of his intention, which created the stink in the first place. If I would have been Dr. Lewis, there are two steps I would have followed before utilizing such a text in my classes:
1. I would have first consulted with Fr. Sheridan and my peers for approval to use the text, and would have gotten some input from colleagues both in the Department and from faculty peers as a whole.
2. Before using the text in a class, I feel a disclaimer of some sort would have been in order, particularly in written form - this would have informed the parents and maybe advised them that this was a controversial text that didn't reflect the position of the University or the professor himself, and that the purpose of using it would be stated in such a way that it would be easily communicated to both students and their families.
In other words, I think Dr. Lewis's mistake was a simple, unintentional error in judgment, and it is hoped he will learn from the experience. I personally believe he will, and as Dr. Rice and others I do know have vouched for his faith and character, I trust that will be the case as well. None of us are immune from such things, as I myself have erred on occasion too. For instance, recently I encountered a misunderstanding generated in my 6th-grade Religion class I teach at my parish when discussing the doctrine of the Resurrection of the Dead at the last day, and innocently one of my students said when I mentioned how we would be raised incorruptible and in the bodies God intended for us, "So, we will all look like the Kardashians!" The comment was innocent, and quite honestly it was humorous, but one of my other students went home and told his parents, and that same Sunday I was approached and "chastised" by these parents for bringing up the Kardashians in class (which I didn't do myself). I had to explain to these misinformed but well-intentioned parents what happened, and luckily the situation was straightened out. However, it just proves that oftentimes a cultural reference, if you are not clear on intentions, can be taken out of context and cause a stink, and my experience with the "Kardashian" comment in many ways is similar to Dr. Lewis's with this controversial novel. And, that lays a responsibility on students and parents as well - before you accuse a professor or teacher of "going rogue," it is probably a wise idea to talk to them first and maybe get their reasoning behind it, as it may be something innocent or maybe is being utilized to make some point. It also admonishes the students in said class to pay attention as well, as perhaps Dr. Lewis did explain his intention but it got "lost in translation."
In my own earlier experience with Southeastern University, where actual liberalism was taught by the Religion Department faculty, I actually did try to see it from their perspective before I made a final judgment, and in that instance my original convictions were confirmed. However, Dr. Lewis is not these liberal Pentecostal academic elitists, and honestly there is no comparison. However, it took a lot of digging and seeing where those guys at Southeastern were coming from, and at times it was hard because as persons some of them were actually friendly and likeable. This is why the Church teaches the use of faith and reason together to discern things, as they balance each other out. Facts are an important part of this process, and when you have a certain bias towards something (as Michael Voris does against the post-Vatican II Church) it can be a hindrance rather than a help. That being said, I will now close by saying that I believe Dr. Lewis to be a good man of integrity and a capable educator who is also a fallible human being who made an error in judgment, and I still love Franciscan as a sound Catholic university true to its mission and in no way compromised theologically or morally. Hopefully others who read up on this situation will see it likewise. Thank you.
