Achieving the goals of Ex Corde Ecclesiae From the Heart of the Church A reflection by Bishop John M. D'Arcy, STD Since the publication of Ex Corde Ecclesiae, the Apostolic Constitution on Catholic Universities by Pope John Paul II on August 15, 1990, I, like many bishops, have been intensely engaged in a dialogue on the application of this document to Catholic colleges and universities in this country. Convinced that this dialogue is most productive when it is carried on directly and respectfully among Bishops and also between Bishops and college and university administrators, I have limited my remarks to such meetings. I have made an intervention at each meeting of the National Conference of Catholic Bishops when this matter has been discussed. Also, during the ad limina visit to the Holy See which each diocesan bishop makes every five years, I was invited to present some remarks when the bishops of our region (Indiana, Wisconsin and Illinois) met with Pio Cardinal Laghi and his collaborators at the Congregation for Catholic Education. It was my great privilege to offer some brief comments to the Holy Father during the 15-minute visit which he graciously and remarkably offers to each Bishop during the ad limina visit. In addition, like all the bishops who have Catholic institutions of higher learning within their dioceses, I have been engaged in regular dialogue with the local presidents of Catholic colleges and universities since 1991. In all these interventions, the points I have made have been substantially the same.  In order to understand the issues more clearly and be better prepared for the local dialogues, I have also sought out further consultation -- first, from two theologians whose expertise is ecclesiology, the study of the nature of the Church. They are Rev. Avery Dulles, SJ, and Rev. Francis Sullivan, SJ. I have also met with Professor George Marsden of Notre Dame. Professor Marsden, an eminent historian, is the author of "The Soul of the American University," a historical evaluation of how several great American universities, originally Christian and Protestant, lost their religious identity and became predominately secular.  Several months ago, my name appeared in the national Catholic magazine America as well as in a local newspaper in articles on this question. In neither of these places was my position adequately expressed. Therefore, there seemed to be a value to set out my own convictions in the hope that they would make a modest contribution to the present discussion.  The time allotted for intervention at national and international meetings is, of necessity, quite brief. So, while many of the points I make here are the same as I have made at our national and international meetings and in our local dialogues, they are considerably more developed, helped along by further dialogue, reflection and study. EX CORDE ECCLESIAE Ex Corde Ecclesiae is a magnificent document, presented by a man who loves the university setting and who looks back fondly on his time as a professor in the Catholic University of Lublin in Poland.  For many years I myself was deeply enriched by the beneficial experience of university life: the ardent search for truth and its unselfish transmission to youth and to all those learning to think rigorously, so as to act rightly and to serve humanity better.  (Ex Corde Ecclesiae 2)  The Holy Father also speaks as Universal Pastor and as the successor of Peter. In this document, he highlights the great themes of his historic pontificate and applies them to the Catholic university. Some of these themes are: the harmony as well as the dialogue between faith and reason, the dialogue between faith and culture, the dialogue with science, the dignity and the very meaning of the human person, human rights, the unity between freedom and truth, the relationship of knowledge to conscience, the spiritual life of young people and our ministry to them, academic freedom, the priority of the ethical over the technical, the primacy of the person over things and the spirit over matter, and the proper role of theology in a Catholic university. The Pope shows how all these themes taken together, if properly advanced, constitute a true Catholic identity. Quoting, with approval, the document received from the Second International Congress of Delegates of Catholic Universities entitled The Catholic University in the Modern World, the Pope declares:  In a Catholic university, therefore, Catholic ideals, attitudes and principles penetrate and inform university activities in accordance with the proper nature and autonomy of these activities. (Ex Corde Ecclesiae 14)  Throughout the document, the Pope supports academic freedom and shows the Church's respect for the autonomy of universities. He declares that the Catholic university:  possesses that institutional autonomy necessary to perform its functions effectively and guarantees its members academic freedom, so long as the rights of the individual person and of the community are preserved within the confines of the truth and the common good. (Ex Corde Ecclesiae 12) The Church, accepting the "legitimate autonomy of human culture and especially the sciences," recognizes the academic freedom of scholars in each discipline in accordance with its own principles and proper methods, and within the confines of the truth and the common good. (Ex Corde Ecclesiae 29)  Pope John Paul II, philosopher, theologian and former university professor as well as pastor, supports academic freedom, while also defining it and linking it to truth and the common good. THE RECEPTION It is hard to see how anyone who loves truth, sees the importance of the education of the young and values the gift of Catholic universities could be opposed to this document. It has a theological, philosophical and pastoral depth and provides a fresh and inspiring focus for Catholic colleges and universities. Indeed, it has been received with gratitude and appreciation. Much of it could be applied by way of analogy to our Catholic high schools and elementary schools which also are subject to influence from the surrounding culture and where Catholic identity cannot be taken for granted but must be constantly strengthened and defended through a strong component of religious education and pastoral care as well as through decisions and policies which preserve the Catholic identity for the future. The main area of concern among Catholic colleges and universities in this country has surrounded what has popularly been called the "mandate." This is a canonical requirement that those who teach theology in a Catholic college or university need a mission or mandate from the proper ecclesiastical authority. Because this has been the main point of discussion in the various dialogues and discussions and in the media, this issue will be the focus of my reflections.  An important clarifying distinction must be made here. There are certain universities and theological faculties which are called ecclesiastical. For example, three of the faculties of Catholic University in Washington, D.C., those in theology, philosophy and canon law, are ecclesiastical and so are governed by another document, Sapientia Christiana. This presents special responsibilities to Catholic University in these three disciplines. The Catholic Universities in Rome are ecclesiastical and are wholly governed by Sapientia Christiana. THE MANDATE What is actually said in Ex Corde Ecclesiae itself concerning the mandate is very brief.  In ways appropriate to the different academic disciplines, all Catholic teachers are to be faithful to and all other teachers are to respect Catholic doctrine and morals in their research and teaching. In particular, Catholic theologians, aware that they fulfill a mandate received from the Church, are to be faithful to the Magisterium of the Church as the authentic interpreter of Sacred Scripture and Sacred Tradition.  (Ex Corde Ecclesiae, Article 4, Norm 3)  First, it must be said that the goal of the mandate is eminently pastoral. It is deeply rooted in the Second Vatican Council where the responsibility of the bishop to see that the faith is taught accurately in his diocese is addressed. In the Council itself, we find the ecclesial basis for the mandate. Bishops are told to "make the faith shine forth, drawing from the storehouse of revelation, new things and old" (cf Mt. 13,52); "they make it bear fruit and, with watchfulness, they ward off whatever errors threaten their flock." (Constitution on the Church, Lumen Gentium 24) The individual bishop in a diocese has the canonical and pastoral responsibility, with the help of the Holy Spirit, to guard the deposit of faith and to see that it is accurately preached and taught. He is charged with "watchfulness." Pope John XXIII, at the outset of the Second Vatican Council, declared that this was at the very heart of the purpose of the Council.  The greatest concern of the Ecumenical Council is this: that the sacred deposit of Christian doctrine should be more effectively guarded and taught. (Pope John XXIII, Opening address to the Council - October 11, 1962.)  I can never forget the words of Pope John Paul II in his first pastoral visit to this country when he addressed the Catholic Bishops of the United States.  And what John XXIII considered as the aim of the Council, I consider as the aim of this post-conciliar period. This then is my greatest hope today for the pastors of the Church in America, as well as for all the pastors of the Universal Church: that the sacred deposit of Christian doctrine should be more effectively guarded and taught (John Paul II to the Bishops of the United States, Chicago, October 5, 1979)  Thus, the mandate is related to one of the bishop's most central pastoral responsibilities -- to guard the deposit of faith and to see that it is effectively taught. Indeed, this responsibility is apostolic in its origins as a reading of the First Letter of Timothy indicates. This same responsibility of the bishop is found in canon law in a general way (canon 753) and in a way specifically related to colleges and universities as well.  The Conference of Bishops and the diocesan bishops concerned have the duty and right of being vigilant that in those universities the principles of Catholic doctrine are faithfully observed. (canon 810,2 - cf canon 810-814, especially 812)  The mandate then is essentially pastoral. It also is related to a right: the right that the students have to receive the fullness of revealed truth in a cohesive and comprehensive manner, in a way which is properly sequenced and is faithful to the Church and the guidance of the Holy Spirit. To understand the issue fully, we must also examine the goal of the mandate from the mission of the theologians. It is at the same time simple but profound. Theologians are asked twice in Ex Corde Ecclesiae to be "faithful." Faithful to what? Theologians are called to be faithful to the principles of their science and to the Magisterium of the Church as the authoritative interpreter of Sacred Scriptures and Sacred Tradition. (cf Ex Corde Ecclesiae 29 and Norm 4,3) The call of both bishop and theologian then is to fidelity; both are called to be faithful to revealed truth.  The mandate also presumes, and wishes to foster, appropriate reciprocity as necessary to a constructive relationship between the pastoral role of the Bishop and the research and teaching role of the theologian. The Pope shows the importance of this relationship.  Theology has its legitimate place in the university alongside other disciplines. It has proper principles and methods which define it as a branch of knowledge. Theologians enjoy this same freedom as long as they are faithful to these principles and methods. Bishops should encourage the creative work of theologians. They serve the Church through research done in a way that respects theological method. They seek to understand better, further develop and more effectively communicate the meaning of Christian Revelation as transmitted in Scripture and Tradition and the Church's Magisterium. They also investigate the ways in which theology can shed light on specific questions raised by contemporary culture. At the same time, since theology seeks an understanding of revealed truth whose authentic interpretation is entrusted to the bishops of the Church, it is intrinsic to the principles and methods of their research and teaching in their academic discipline that theologians respect the authority of the bishops, and assent to Catholic doctrine according to the degree of authority with which it is taught. Because of their interrelated roles, dialogue between bishops and theologians is essential; this is especially true today, when the results of research are so quickly and so widely communicated through the media.  (Ex Corde Ecclesiae 29, emphasis added)  At the same time, Catholic educators on all levels and especially at the university level -- in all fields including theology -- have been urged by the Church to keep in close contact with their own times and to have a "lawful freedom of inquiry."  Those involved in theological studies in seminaries and universities should be eager to cooperate with men versed in other fields of learning by pooling their resources and their points of view. Theological research, while it deepens knowledge of revealed truth, should not lose contact with its own times, so that experts in various fields may be led to a deeper knowledge of the faith.  But for the proper exercise of this role, the faithful, both clerical and lay, should be accorded a lawful freedom of inquiry, of thought, and of expression, tempered by humility and courage in whatever branch of study they have specialized. (Second Vatican Council Constitution on the Church in the Modern World, Gadium et Spes no. 62)  There have been two distinct responses to the canonical norm which would expect every professor of Catholic theology in a Catholic college or university to seek a mandate from the Bishop. One reaction has come from many Catholic colleges and universities and the other has come from a number of bishops. On the part of many major Catholic institutions of higher learning, the mandate has brought considerable anxiety, some confusion, and even resistance. What is the reason for this? I am convinced, after substantive and respectful dialogue with the administrators of Catholic colleges and universities over the past several years and conversations with bishops around the country, that, while there are a number of reasons for this concern, including legal and financial difficulties, there is one concern which dominates. The spirit of American higher education presents difficulties for American Catholic colleges and universities -- a spirit which sees the approval of such a mandate as a violation of academic freedom. What are the concerns of the bishops? While deeply grateful for what the colleges and universities have meant within their dioceses over many decades and sensitive, like the Holy Father, to preserving academic freedom, some bishops have shared with me concerns that go to the heart of their pastoral ministry. Their concerns, sharpened by the careful study of Ex Corde Ecclesiae relate to the Catholic identity of the colleges and universities within their dioceses. More specifically, they relate to whether or not the proper place is given to the Church's Magisterium in the teaching of theology. At the same time, as a result of these dialogues, many bishops are increasingly aware of the difficulty which a predominately juridic approach to the problem creates for many Catholic colleges and universities. They hope that a solution which will strengthen the bond between the bishop and the theologian can be reached, a solution which protects the pastoral responsibility of the bishop and the theologian's freedom of inquiry.  So, the issue becomes clear. Some bishops have concerns that go to the heart of their pastoral ministry while theologians and other academicians, many of whom are committed to strengthening the Catholic identity of their institution, respond in this fashion: we are committed to the Church and to academic freedom and the acceptance of the mandate would tend to violate this freedom, would severely weaken our Catholic presence and Catholic influence in the whole enterprise of higher education and would even endanger the orderly governance of our institutions. How appropriate then, and how pastorally necessary, the call of Ex Corde Ecelesiae that "dialogue between bishops and theologians is essential." (Ex Corde Ecclesiae 29) ACADEMIC FREEDOM:  ARE THERE NO LIMITS? My response to the academicians, which I have put forward at our national and international meetings and at our local dialogues, is as follows. Are you making academic freedom an absolute? And, if not an absolute, then where are the parameters to this freedom? Does not every discipline have parameters and limits? More to the point for Catholic theology, what are these limits -- and, more specifically, what is the relationship between a Catholic theologian in a university and the Magisterium -- that is, the Church's teaching office? The Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith has addressed this question.  Freedom of research, which the academic community rightly holds most precious, means an openness to accepting the truth that emerges at the end of an investigation in which no element has intruded that is foreign to the methodology corresponding to the object under study. In theology, this freedom of inquiry is the hallmark of a rational discipline whose object is given by Revelation, handed on and interpreted in the Church under the authority of the Magisterium, and received by faith. These givens have the force of principles. To eliminate them would mean to cease doing theology. (Instruction on the Ecclesial Vocation of the Theologian Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith 1990, 12)  This definition clarifies the relationship between freedom of inquiry and truth and it also sets out the road toward a proper understanding of the nature of Catholic theology. The same document speaks of the difference and yet the bond between theologian and bishop.  The living Magisterium of the Church and theology, while having different gifts and functions, ultimately have the same goal: preserving the People of God in the truth which sets them free and thereby making them "a light to the nations." This service to the ecclesial community brings the theologian and the Magisterium into a reciprocal relationship. (Instruction on the Ecclesial Vocation of the Theologian, 21)  Both the theologian and the Magisterium are linked, or should be linked, in a reciprocal relationship rooted in their service to the ecclesial community and in their common service to revealed truth. Theologians and Catholic administrators who believe in and respect the vocation of the Bishop and his pastoral role are now, as a result of these dialogues, beginning to address these important questions. Thus the dialogue is beginning to bear fruit. The important questions are being posed.  Let me repeat then the present stage of the discussions. In conversations with some bishops around the country, I have learned of their concerns relative to the teaching of theology. From administrators and presidents, I have been made aware of the pressures, mostly from within their institutions, which make it difficult for them, if not impossible in their judgment, to open their institutions to the encouragement of the mandate and other initiatives now being proposed for the consideration of the bishops. At the same time, administrators of Catholic colleges and universities around the country are increasingly aware of their responsibility to preserve and strengthen the Catholic identity of their institutions. Their study of Ex Corde Ecclesiae, in communion with their bishops, has increased their sense of responsibility to take up this work afresh and to do it from within their institutions.  The principles and goals of the mandate seek to repair a link which should never have been weakened: the link between the Church's teaching office and the work of the theologian in the university. Surely, then, the goal which the mandate wishes to achieve -- appropriate reciprocity between the bishop and the theologian -- is both noble and pastorally necessary. Failure to repair this link will harm theology and could impair the pastoral ministry of the bishop. We are dealing here with critical matters. "If there occurs a separation from the Bishop who watches over and keeps the apostolic tradition alive, it is the bond with Christ which is irreparably compromised." (Instruction on the Ecclesial Vocation of the Theologian, 38) CATECHETICS AND THEOLOGY:  A CLAIM NOT PROVEN I believe it is necessary to address another concern which has been raised within the theological community. It is sometimes claimed that restoring appropriate reciprocity between theologian and bishop would reduce theology in the university to catechetics. But this claim does not seem to me to be tenable, for this reciprocity, properly understood, is intrinsic to Catholic theology. Indeed, the role of the catechist and the theologian cannot be placed against each other for both, while having different responsibilities, are the servants of revealed truth and both seek to communicate revealed truth. In catechetics and in theology, it is not the academy that is the ultimate criterion of truth. Rather, it is Scripture, tradition and the teaching of the Magisterium that is the standard. Also, sound catechesis is greatly helped by the research of theologians.  It is important to note that those closely acquainted with the present pastoral situation know well that many students are at the college level today with an inadequate knowledge of their faith. They need first to be more fully catechized before they can grasp the principles of the craft of theology. Thus, the theology department and a theologian in the Catholic college or university is not without catechetical responsibility. In response to this, some Catholic colleges and universities have begun to increase the catechetical component of their institution and have recognized that the "Catechism of the Catholic Church" is far from elementary and is well suited to advanced courses in Christian doctrine on the college level. Theology is defined classically as "faith seeking understanding." (St. Anselm) A more recent definition is also apt for our discussion. "Theology is a scholarly reflection on the faith by persons who have attained a high degree of competence, normally certified by advanced degrees or noteworthy publications." (A. Dulles, "The Craft of Theology," p.167)  Catechesis has a purpose which is not opposed to theology but is closely linked to it. "The primary and essential object of catechesis is, to use an expression dear to St. Paul and also to contemporary theology, 'the mystery of Christ' . . . . Accordingly the definitive aim of catechesis is to put people not only in touch but in communion, in intimacy, with Jesus Christ." (John Paul II, Apostolic Exhortation Catechesi Tradendae, Catechesis in Our Time, no. 5)  It should be remembered that both catechist and theologian, by the very nature of their vocation, are called to be faithful to a Word that is not their own. Does this concern about theology being reduced to catechetics indicate undue anxiety in the theological community about what has traditionally been accepted as the role of the Magisterium? Certainly there is a speculative and non-definitive dimension to theology as there is also a role of pastoral oversight for bishops. Is it not at this point that the tension, often hidden and unexpressed, reaches its peak? I refer to the tension between the bishop's role of pastoral oversight or "watchfulness," as Vatican II would have it, and the academic freedom of the theologian within the college or university. The causes of this tension must be clarified. Terms must be defined. How can this be done except through the kind of respectful dialogue which Pope John Paul II constantly promotes and which he promotes specifically between theologian and bishop in Ex Corde Ecclesiae, and does not such clarifying dialogue need to precede rather than follow the steps now being proposed? If it does not proceed, how can we expect the setting in place of the mandate to bear positive fruit for the life of the Church?  A CONTEMPORARY VIEW By far the most substantive, as well as the most balanced, presentation which I have found on this matter comes from Avery Dulles, SJ, in his work "The Craft of Theology" (Crossroads 1995). Because of the light it throws on this critical issue of academic freedom and theology in the college and university, I will quote it at some length.  Theologians need scope in which to develop tentative positions and to make hypothetical statements that could easily be misunderstood by nonspecialists. They are entitled to raise some legitimate questions about the current non-infallible teaching of the magisterium. They must of course be held to prudence in the ways in which they publicize their theories and hypotheses, but they cannot always be responsible for the uses that others make of statements quite proper in themselves.  Every theologian should enjoy academic freedom, in the sense of a right to inquire, publish, and teach according to the norms of the discipline. But because theology is an essentially ecclesial discipline, the freedom of the theologian must not be absolutized over and against other elements in the community of faith. While the freedom of the professor as an individual scholar should be respected, it should be seen in the context of other values. One such value is the integrity of Catholic theology as a mediation on the shared faith of the whole Church. Whoever substitutes a purely individual or deviant faith forfeits any title to be called a Catholic theologian. Another such value is the maintenance of sound doctrine, even in matters that are not strictly of faith. Although sound doctrine is a particular responsibility of the hierarchical magisterium, it is of crucial importance for theology itself. In the interests of their own profession, theologians should support the magisterium as it seeks to safeguard the apostolic heritage, whether by way of positively encouraging sound developments or by way of administering, on occasion, a word of caution or correction. The rights of the theologian as an academician become real only when situated in this ecclesial framework.  I conclude, therefore, that the prevailing secular model of academic freedom, as described by standard authorities, requires some modification before being applied to Catholic or other church-related institutions. The model shows signs of having been constructed with a laudable but one-sided purpose of protecting university professors from incompetent outside authorities, who might unjustly seek to impose their own ideas. This model overlooks the responsibility of theology to the community of faith and the mandate of the ecclesiastical magisterium to assure the doctrinal soundness of theology.  The secular model, moreover, is somewhat narrowly based on a theory of knowledge more suited to the empirical sciences than to theology, which rests primarily on divine revelation. The dogmas of faith do not have the same status in theology as currently accepted theories have for secular science. Those who practice theology with the conviction that revealed truth exists and is reliably transmitted by authoritative sources will see the need to work out a properly theological concept of academic freedom. Such an adapted version will protect authentic theology but will not separate theologians from the body of the church; it will not set them in opposition to the community of faith or its pastoral leadership. Theologians and bishops, in spite of their different roles in the Church, are fundamentally allies because they are alike committed to maintain and explore the unfathomable riches of Christ, in whom alone is given the truth that makes us free. (A Dulles, "The Craft of Theology," p.175-177)  TOWARD A SOLUTION:  TRUE DIALOGUE These reflections by a distinguished and highly respected contemporary theologian show the great need for further illumination of the relationship between the Magistenum and the theologians who practice in an institution of higher learning. The question about which I have pondered these several years and which I have discussed with bishops, theologians and administrators is this. How can the purposes of the mandate, which include strengthening the communion between theologians and bishops, be most fully achieved? I have considered this matter as a pastor with the responsibility to work in close and obedient communion with the Successor of Peter and with serious responsibilities to work to strengthen the Catholic identity of the colleges and universities within the diocese which has been committed to me by the Lord through the Church. I believe that at this time in our land, given the culture of American higher education and the prevailing concept of academic freedom, the difficulty of our Catholic institutions to clearly describe what academic freedom means relative to theologians and the Church's teaching office, and the fact that the prevailing idea of academic freedom does not seem to fit Catholic theology, we must establish and continue a structured, substantive, respectful and ongoing dialogue between university presidents and bishops, a dialogue which should slowly widen to include theologians, members of boards of trustees and other university officers. While there is no question that Catholic theologians in the university surely do have academic freedom, they need to define it more accurately, express it more clearly, and relate it to the nature of Catholic theology, and, while the Bishop surely does have pastoral freedom, he must exercise it with the gift of wisdom and apply it to university life with restraint and discernment if the goals of Ex Corde Ecclesiae are to be met. This means he must enter into a respectful dialogue where he listens closely to the concerns shared by the university and where he builds up the kind of trust and mutual respect which will help both the university and the bishop to place first the common good. Is not this what Ex Corde Ecclesiae itself calls for when it says that bishops will best promote, preserve and strengthen the Catholic identity of universities "if close personal and pastoral relationships exist between university and Church authorities characterized by mutual trust, close and consistent cooperation and continuing dialogue,"  (Ex Corde Ecclesiae 28, emphasis added) The presidents of many Catholic universities are telling us that they cannot implement the mandate. Many reasons are given for this. Some would expect turmoil within their institutions. They believe that serious legal challenges will develop. Some are convinced that the mandate will prevent them from attracting eminent scholars in various disciplines. One hears the claim that it will lessen their influence in the wider academic community. They fear that, rather than advance the goals of Ex Corde Ecclesiae, some of the present initiatives under consideration by the American bishops will impede the growing communion between bishops and Catholic colleges and universities. They wonder how the decision to grant or not grant the mandate will be made. What will be the result if some theologians seek the mandate and some do not? Many of the smaller institutions believe that these present initiatives will bring about their demise. This latter concern is more evident in certain parts of the country and in smaller Catholic institutions which do not have significant financial resources. This concern seems to be based on the fear of litigation. It must be said that many eminent legal scholars believe that legal challenges to the proposed juridic norms will be defeated. However, even these scholars expect that there will be litigation. (cf Symposium on Ex Corde Ecclesiae, University of Notre Dame, April 24, 1999, Journal of College and University Law Spring 1999) Are we to reject these concerns out of hand? Is such a rejection respectful? Is it true dialogue? Is it the appropriate response of pastors? Will such a rejection help to restore that reciprocity which Church documents call for and which is a requirement of both the office of bishop and the theologian? I believe we must take these concerns seriously, even as we rightly expect college and university administrators to take seriously our conviction that the link between the Magisterium and the theologian in the university must be strengthened if theologians, as requested by Ex Corde Ecclesiae, are to be "faithful" to Catholic doctrine and if bishops are to be properly assisted in their pastoral ministry. Such fidelity, indeed, does not lessen freedom, properly understood, but, in fact, guides and helps the theologian, whose prime responsibility is not to place a continuing "challenge" to the Magisterium but to explore its meaning, show its reasonableness, give it definition, develop it and communicate it to the men and women of this time.  Can we not expect to find from the colleges and universities increased understanding about our obligations as bishops -- especially our responsibility, to use the words of John XXIII, to "effectively teach and guard the deposit of faith." I have found that the presidents and administrators with whom I have spoken in our diocese -- and across the country -- do respect this obligation of ours and they want the institutions they represent to grow in their Catholic identity. They share our concerns that the faith be taught accurately. They live with significant pressures within their institutions, but they want to walk with us the long and sometimes difficult road to a stronger and ever more Catholic college or university. I support this approach of respectful, substantive and ongoing dialogue because I have seen how effective it has been in the diocese I serve.  Now it must be remembered that there are some, including both bishops and theologians, who believe that it is time to implement a different solution which would include, but not be limited to, making the mandate for theologians a requirement. I respect those who hold this position. They see this approach as a restoration of the proper relationship between the bishops and the theologians in the university. Will it restore such a relationship or will this approach prevent the needed healing? My experience leads me to fear a stalemate rather than fruitful progress if all the solutions now under discussion are made a requirement.  My conversations with the presidents and other Catholic faculty indicate that they want their institutions to be more and more Catholic. They know this includes a theology department which is truly Catholic. I have not found any of our Catholic presidents wishing the position of the Bishop to be merely ceremonial or on the margins of university life. In these dialogues, I have taken my inspiration from an important paragraph in Ex Corde Ecclesiae which has been warmly welcomed by these presidents. Bishops have a particular responsibility to promote Catholic universities, and especially to promote and assist in the preservation and strengthening of their Catholic identity, including the protection of their Catholic identity in relation to civil authorities. This will be achieved more effectively if close personal and pastoral relationships exist between university and church authorities characterized by mutual trust, close and consistent cooperation and continuing dialogue. Even when they do not enter directly into the internal governance of the university, bishops "should be seen not as external agents but as participants in the life of the Catholic university." (Ex Corde Ecclesiae 28) WHAT KIND OF DIALOGUE One of the difficulties of the road of dialogue in the implementation of Ex Corde Ecclesiae is that it can be seen as simply a stalling tactic, an unwillingness to face the difficult issues. My response to that concern is that the bishop must not let this happen. It is primarily his responsibility to see that the dialogue remains substantive and fruitful. So, I find it necessary to offer several characteristics of this dialogue.  * Above everything else, it would have to remain clear that the truths of faith are not up for grabs, but must be accepted by all as the only appropriate and pastorally sound starting place.  * The dialogue should be substantive and the difficult issues should be addressed.  * It should address the nature of academic freedom in a Catholic theology department, including the proper relationship with the Magisterium on the part of university theologians.  * It should address all the key points of Ex Corde Ecclesiae, including the responsibility to seek out Catholics, who are also eminent in their field, as faculty members.  * It should address the role of theology in interaction with other disciplines and include faculty from these disciplines.  * It should be widened to include theologians, deans and members of the Board of Trustees.  * It should be structured so that meetings take place on a regular basis -- for example, a certain number of times each year. * The goal of the dialogue should be the implementation of Ex Corde Ecclesiae. Such a dialogue reflects the breadth and depth of Ex Corde Ecclesiae for that document embraces the whole community of scholars and teachers. The time to work together to strengthen Catholic identity and apply the immense richness contained in Catholic teaching is at hand. Students are hungering for it. The local bishop is welcome on most campuses as pastor, preacher and friend. Meeting with his co-workers on campus, he can help the university strengthen its Catholic identity. This will be more difficult in some places than in others. Reform and renewal in the Church, whether of a diocese, a parish, a university or a theology department, is a work of grace and the works of grace usually take time.  If we force the acceptance of certain laws, will that ensure further progress, or will our progress be halted? My experience tells me that the road to substantive dialogue holds by far the most promise. There is a particular culture in the American academe, a culture in which administrators are able to bring about effective change only after wide consultation and dialogue. Professor Nicholas Cafardi, Dean of the Law School at the University of Duquesne, has described it to me as a culture that works "from the bottom up and not the top down, a culture committed to dialogue." Robert Wild, SJ, the President of Marquette University, agreed with this assessment and told me that, in the university setting, for decisions to achieve their goals, it is necessary to obtain as much faculty participation as possible. As bishops, we must realize that this is the dominant culture of the American Catholic university or college and, unless we understand it and work with it, how can we expect to influence it in the directions outlined in Ex Corde Ecclesiae? Pope John Paul II has placed great emphasis, more than any other Pope, on the dialogue between the Church and culture. Surely, he includes in this call the need for a dialogue between bishops and the culture of American academe. In fact, Ex Corde Ecclesiae specifically calls for, even requires, such a dialogue and, given the pervading culture of the American institutions of higher learning, dialogue and consultation present the best road to achieve the goals of Ex Corde Ecclesiae. Surely, neither the pastoral freedom of the Bishop nor the academic freedom of the theologian should be used to keep us apart. Would not this be a misuse of our respective charisms? It must not be allowed to happen. The freedom of both must always be subject to the truth and must seek the common good. So, there are two paths before us at this time. The road of structured dialogue is not easy. It requires intense effort but, if accompanied by the attitudes asked for in Ex Corde Ecclesiae, it holds much promise. The other road calls for a more juridic approach. My experience tells me it is less likely to achieve the great purposes of Ex Corde Ecclesiae. I believe intensified dialogues between bishops and college and university leaders initiated by the magnificent document Ex Corde Ecclesiae and expanded in the manner I have suggested afford, in the present context of American Catholic higher education, the best means of achieving the purpose of the mandate and of restoring the reciprocity between the bishop and the theologian which is so necessary for the Church to grow, and necessary also if the work of the theologian is to be truly ecclesial and effective. Such dialogues, I am convinced, also offer the best road to implement this document.  Bishops need theologians and theologians need bishops. The Church calls them to return to true reciprocity. Let the dialogue move forward with mutual respect along the lines set down in a splendid and pertinent document.  To be sure, theology and the Magisterium are of diverse natures and missions and cannot be confused. Nonetheless, they fulfill two vital roles in the Church which must interpenetrate and enrich each other for the service of the People of God. Both bishops and theologians will keep in mind that Christ is the definitive Word of the Father (cf Heb. 1:2) in whom, as St. John of the Cross observes, "God has told us everything all together and at one time." As such, He is the Truth who sets us free. (cf Jn. 8:36; 14:6) The acts of assent and submission to the Word entrusted to the Church under the guidance of the Magisterium are directed ultimately to Him and lead us into the realm of true freedom. (Instruction on the Ecclesial Vocation of the Theologian, Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith 40-41)  A PERSONAL NOTE There is one reason above all others why I have prepared these reflections. It relates to my vocation as a bishop. Central to that vocation is fidelity to the Successor of Peter. Two of the eight solemn promises which a bishop makes on the day of his episcopal ordination place on him the sacred responsibility to keep close and obedient communion with the Holy See. The promises and the responsibilities they call forth are central to my vocation and to my life, as they must be for every bishop. This commitment has been deepened by the inspiring example of Pope John Paul II. With other bishops, I have met this remarkable evangelizer on what he himself calls the "roadways of the world." It is especially in the ad limina visits that a bishop re-affirms his responsibility to be in close communion with the Successor of the Apostle, Peter. Here the visiting bishop grasps anew his relationship with Peter and the Universal Church. At the same, the Pope and his collaborators seek to understand the local Church, and each bishop senses keenly the obligation of presenting to the Apostolic See a true picture of the culture in which he labors with both the opportunities and difficulties which it presents for the life of faith. Included in my promises and responsibilities is the obligation of sharing with the Holy See the best way to promote and strengthen the life of the Church in the area where I serve. Pope John Paul II has a right to expect that I will share with him and his collaborators my convictions as to the very best way of assuring that Ex Corde Ecclesiae will be most fully implemented in our country. I would be remiss and unfaithful to my promises if I did not do so. I believe that what I have outlined represents the best possibility of achieving in this country the principles, goals, and content of this magnificent document and thus bringing forward the renewal and spiritual enrichment of Catholic colleges and universities in this country. That conviction is the reason I have written this article. I thank God that my episcopal ministry has been lived in communion with this Pope. It has been a Pontificate of ideas. Here are a few of them. * The dignity of the human person.  * The harmony between faith and reason. * The meaning of the human body and the true nature of human love. * Human rights. * The dignity of women. * Sacredness of all human life. * The unity between freedom and truth. * A new evangelization. * Evangelization of the culture. * Dialogue with culture. * Dialogue with science. * Dignity of work. * The vocation of the theologian. * The nature of the ministerial priesthood. * The meaning of reconciliation. * The true nature of ecumenical dialogue. * The meaning of martyrdom and its application to the life of the Church.  It is important that these concepts, so deeply rooted in our philosophical and theological traditions and so profoundly and attractively enunciated by Pope John Paul II, be brought more and more into our classrooms and into the enterprise of Catholic education on all levels, but especially in Catholic colleges and universities where the dialogue between faith and culture and between faith and science is most intense. The dialogue between bishop and theologian is a necessary condition for these ideas to be a force in the university and eventually in society.  The spirit and content of Ex Corde Ecclesiae must not fail. Too much is at stake. I believe that the road I have outlined represents the best opportunity for the fullest possible implementation of this magnificent document. I welcome the response of others and I present these reflections in the hope that they are constructive and will contribute to the present discussions.  I place these reflections in the hands of Mary, Mother of the Church, asking her prayerful intercession. Most Reverend John M. D'Arcy Diocese of Fort Wayne-South Bend