February Round-Up
Parents at the Synod, Asylum in Trouble, and Cuts at a(nother) Catholic College
Yesterday’s post announcing the One-Year Anniversary Special took the place of this week’s free article, but I wanted to make sure to include my usual round-up of stories of interest to theologians and ministers and announcements of upcoming articles.
Of Interest…
Writing for America, my friend and former colleague Brian Doyle notes that the voice of parents was underrepresented at last October’s Synod on Synodality. And he has a point. Having surveyed most of the participants in the weeks before the gathering, it’s true that only a handful appeared to be parents. There have been articles on the presence, or lack thereof, of deacons, and even parish priests, but Doyle rightly points out how the relative absence of parents in the proceedings shaped the discussion. Interestingly, he argues that it is not so much that parents would bring to the Synod assembly a distinct set of issues, but rather that they bring a different perspective to the issues that were highlighted at the Synod, including the leadership of women in the Church, the inclusion of LGBTQ persons in the Church, and navigating religious diversity. Parents bring to the table a perspective shaped by the concrete, everyday challenges faced by their children, the dilemmas of raising children as responsible Catholics, and a desire for a better world in which their children can grow up. Although parents could have more easily participated in the synodal process at the local and national levels, Doyle notes the practical problems of asking parents to participate in the worldwide Synod for nearly a month. If the Vatican can bring 300 parish priests to Rome to ensure their voice is heard, surely the Church can also do something in the months leading up to the second session of the Synod this October to give parents a voice, too.
The very day I published an article lamenting the apparent political consensus around restricting the process for applying for asylum, a consensus represented by the failed Senate border security bill, it was widely reported that the Biden administration is considering executive actions that would implement those aspects of the bill impacting the asylum process, such as completely barring applications for asylum outside of ports of entry when the number of Customs and Border Protection encounters with migrants at the border reaches a certain level, and raising the standard of proof necessary for an asylum seeker to establish a credible fear of persecution in their home country. These polices would reportedly be implemented without the balancing measures included in the bill, such as making work permits immediately available to asylum applicants and increases to the number of family reunification and employment visas issued each year. As Politico also notes, any executive action would also lack the funding included in the Senate bill. If this reporting turns out to be true, these executive actions would reinforce my point that, despite the exhortations of the US bishops and Pope Francis, there’s a growing disregard for the rights of asylum seekers.
I also noted that Bishop Mark Seitz of El Paso had spoken out against the Senate bill, making the case that it did not adequate protect the right of asylum. Bishop Seitz has unfortunately been in the news again this week, in this case challenging Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton’s lawsuit against Annunciation House, a religious nonprofit in El Paso that serves migrants who have recently crossed the U.S.-Mexico border, alleging that the organization facilitates illegal entry into the country. This is just the latest anti-immigrant stunt carried out by the Texas state government, the most deadly of which was the placing of razor wire fencing across the Rio Grande, despite the opposition from the Border Patrol (the Supreme Court recently ruled that the Border Patrol can remove the fencing). I will hopefully have more to say on all of this in an upcoming article.
As Brian Fraga reports at the National Catholic Reporter, the faculty at Manhattan College, an independent Catholic college with a Lasallian heritage located in the Bronx, approved a vote of no confidence in the college’s president, Milo Riverso, after the administration had terminated the contracts of 25 percent of the faculty and moved to cut several academic programs, including the religious studies major. These decisions came in response to decreased enrollment and large budget deficits, although the faculty’s reaction was driven not just by the budget situation, but by a perceived lack of consultation as decisions regarding the cuts were made. This situation is all too familiar; as most readers know, a similar situation arose at my former institution, Marymount University, just over a year ago, although at Marymount there was not a vote of no confidence in the president. As I’ve written before, as situations like these continue to occur, theologians will need to rethink our relationship to the university and reinvent how we carry out our vocation.
Coming Soon…
As I suggested above, I still plan on returning to the issue of migration and asylum, and in particular how U.S. Catholics might respond to the current situation. I had planned on doing so earlier this week, but hopefully I can publish this as this week’s article for paid subscribers.
Next week, my goal is to write on the Los Angeles Religious Education Conference which took place a few days ago. I still need to make my way through the Spanish-language material!
I’m still working on putting together some interviews for the near future, so stay tuned!
And finally, don’t forget that through the end of March, you can get 20% off a new monthly or annual subscription to Window Light, good for the next year. This special is in celebration of the one-year anniversary of the newsletter! Click below to sign up for the discount.