Copyright ©2001 Massachusetts News, Inc. Photocopying and data processing storage of all or any part of this issue may not be made without prior written consent. 

Unitarian Professor Continues
to Divide Boston College

By Evelyn Reilly
January 2001

The appointment of an atheist to an important position in the Theology Department at Boston College is still dividing the Catholic school.

Prof. Margaret Schatkin, who has been prominent in her opposition, credits Massachusetts News with saving her reputation with an article which appeared in our September edition.

However, the official spokesman for the college, John Dunn, Director of Public Affairs, who reports directly to the President, says “the entire article” was false. When he was given the opportunity to clarify or correct anything, he refused.

It’s now believed that the President of the College, Rev. William P. Leahy, S. J., questioned the appointment of the atheist, David Vanderhooft, in April but felt he didn’t have enough facts at that time to do any more. Some say he now believes he was misled.

It apparently was his intervention in April that caused the Chair of the Department for nine years, Donald Dietrich, to resign from that position in May. He had gone public in February with his opposition to the Pope’s recent statement, Ex Corde Ecclesiae, as reported in the Patriot Ledger (February 16). He saw the requirement of church approval to teach Catholic theology as a violation of academic freedom and he planned to defy the mandate.

Sources say there will continue to be conflict and stress until President Leahy takes a public stand in the matter.

“It is so obvious to me now, that freedom cannot exist without a free press,” Prof. Schatkin says. “Mr. Dunn would do well to consider the Ninth Commandment to not speak falsely against his neighbor. He probably does not understand what is at stake in this issue, namely, the Catholic identity of Boston College.”

Prof. Schatkin is Slandered
Prof. Schatkin says that fellow faculty members, many of whom were Jesuits, told her that there was nothing wrong with a Unitarian directing undergraduate Catholic theology. There had never been a question that he was a Unitarian until the news of his appointment became public.

Professor Schatkin said that when she learned that the college spokesman, John Dunn, had publicly questioned her integrity and sanity, she was very hurt, because in an earlier phone conversation, Dunn had assured her he believed she was telling the truth about Vanderhooft. He then claimed she was a disgruntled faculty member who wanted the job and was possibly mentally unstable.

Many others expressed amazement that Dunn would assail her character in such a way, even if she had applied for the job, which she did not do. Dunn made similar comments to Massachusetts News’ reporter Tom Duggan, to Father Tom DiLorenzo who had aired the topic on his radio show in July and to Tim Drake, a freelance reporter for the National Catholic Register.

They questioned whether someone who flagrantly slandered a respected, long-time professor should continue to be BC’s chief spokesperson. Following the Massachusetts News story in September, the new Department Chair, Stephen Pope, issued an email to the theology department directing members not to speak to the media.

Father Leahy Deceived?
Despite claims by Dunn that Vanderhooft is a Dutch Reformed Protestant, Vanderhooft has signed the membership book at the Follen Community Church, Unitarian Universalist, in Lexington and he teaches Bible studies there. Signing the book, according to its former pastor for 19 years, Polly Gild, represents a commitment to the theology of the church, which disavows the basic tenets of Christianity. One cannot teach there without being listed as a member and committing to its doctrine.

Vanderhooft’s resume did not refer to the Follen church as being a Unitarian Universalist church, though it is listed as such in the phone book and prominently on its signs. Was this an attempt on Vanderhooft’s part to mislead BC? 

At his hiring in 1996, Vanderhooft was well liked, but it was apparent that he had no interest, training or knowledge of Christian theology.

While his resume is impressive in its depth of Old Testament and Ancient Near East history, including language and archaeology, there is nothing on his resume to indicate any interest in Catholicism other than membership in a Catholic Biblical Association. Former students of his said they enjoyed his classes and were impressed with his depth in Old Testament history, but as David Nix, a recent theology graduate put it, “theology is not Vanderhooft’s game plan, nor is the Catholic faith.”

Erich Langborgh of Campus Report, a publication of Accuracy in Academia, who researched the issue further after Massachusetts News broke the story in September, wrote “Vanderhooft allegedly trashed the Trinity at his first tenure review in May, 1998 and characterized the Bible as a human document that had nothing to do with the Holy Spirit.” He called the Holy Spirit “a sociological entity.”

C. J. Doyle, Executive Director of the Catholic Action League of Massachusetts said, “Whether Vanderhooft is a Unitarian agnostic or Dutch Reform Calvinist, his appointment flies in the face of Pope John Paul II’s apostolic constitution, Ex Corde Ecclesiae, which cites Canon 810 of the Code of Canon Law requiring teachers of theology to be ‘outstanding in their integrity of doctrine.’

“Good Jesuits used to be characterized by their zeal for souls, especially the young. What does it say about the Jesuits of BC that they are willing to entrust the theological formation of young Catholic students to someone who apparently does not believe in the divinity of Jesus Christ and certainly does not believe in all the truths of the Catholic faith?”

Some BC faculty reserved judgment after the initial report, saying it hadn’t been proven that Vanderhooft is really a non-believer, but that if it were proven, he should be removed. Many now say the evidence is irrefutable.

Who is Responsible?
Who is responsible for Vanderhooft’s receiving such an important appointment? The Executive Committee of the Theology Department, which is dominated by liberal Catholics and non-Catholics, appointed him without explanation. Many of them are proponents of a relatively new, but strong, movement called “comparative theology.”

What part did the college President and Board of Trustees play in the appointment? Massachusetts News has been informed that such decisions are normally made within the Theology Department. Father Leahy would get involved only if necessary, and it would be extraordinary for the Trustees to be involved. In this case, however, Father Leahy did question the appointment but may have been mislead by Vanderhooft’s claiming to be a Dutch Reform Protestant and concealing his Unitarianism.

Do They Care About Undergrads?
The Theology Department claims that Vanderhooft does not need a “mandate” from the bishop to teach theology. Even if that reasoning is not a skirting of Ex Corde Ecclesiae, the question remains, why appoint a non-Christian to that position in the first place, especially with the College’s recent publicizing of its Catholicism in its mission statement?

A recent graduate of the doctoral program in theology told Massachusetts News, “The appointment of Vanderhooft is a further indication of the disdain and neglect of the undergraduate students by the Theology Department. This is not just a theological scandal, but also an academic one. A quick investigation of the directors of undergraduate studies in other departments of BC shows that in contrast to Dr.Vanderhooft, they are long-term seasoned Boston College tenured professors with deep knowledge of their subjects and commitment to undergraduates.”

Anthony Zizza, a recent BC graduate with a double major in theology and psychology, said further, “It is sadly the case that many students enter BC as Catholics and leave as disillusioned and confused agnostics.” Former students like Zizza speak of a “widespread moral and religious relativism on campus.”

That comment was echoed by Leila Miller, a BC graduate who authored an article entitled, “I Was Robbed” decrying the lack of foundational Catholic training throughout her life, including at BC.

As discussed at the National Conference of Catholic Bishops’ semi-annual meeting in November, it is becoming more obvious that undergraduates particularly need basic training, a solid grounding in basics of the faith. The in-depth exploration of other religions, dissident theology, etc., should wait until graduate school.

With the appointment of Father Leahy as President and with the current Board of Trustees, many hoped that Boston College would see a renewal of its Catholic foundation. It, along with so many other religiously affiliated colleges and universities, had undergone a decades-long gradual process of secularization to woo more students, to cater to the “academy” and to eliminate any risk to government funding. Rev. James Tunstead Burtchaell, C.S.C, chronicles that history in The Dying of the Light.

Why Is Unitarianism a Problem?
Catholicism, Calvinism (including Dutch Reform) and most other Protestant denominations accept the doctrine of original sin, whereas one of Unitarianism’s basic tenets denies it. Whether humanity has a basically “sinful” or “sinless” nature represents a fundamental difference among religions.

Belief in the divinity of Christ is essential to being a Christian. Unitarians may follow the moral teachings of Jesus, but they must deny his divinity.

In Unitarianism, belief in “human progress” means that man is responsible for his own destiny and God has little or nothing to do with it, if He exists. Atheists, agnostics, humanists and pagans are all included under Unitarian Universalism’s umbrella.

‘Comparative Theology’ a Threat to Faith 
Following the appointment of Vanderhooft, Dr. David Stephens, a Baptist who received his doctorate in Systematic Theology from BC, completed a study in August of the comparative theology curriculum at BC. Grateful for having had the opportunity to study under some fine professors in the Theology Department and appreciative of the ecumenical spirit he encountered, he is now concerned about the College’s possible loss of theological integrity due to the comparative theology movement.

He distinguishes between comparative religions, which alumni would recall is basically a study of what other religions believe, and comparative theology.

Comparative theology, a relative newcomer at BC, is becoming dominant and has a specific agenda. It is a method of study more supportive of Unitarianism than Catholicism.

Comparative theologians are “inclusive pluralists,” meaning they don’t want to offend anyone by saying one religion is superior to any other. Their motivation is to minimize conflict between religions, but in the process they end up saying that all religions are equal, which opens the door to picking and choosing among all the claims of the various religions.

The problem is, what criteria do you use to choose among these claims? The criteria they have established turn out to be humanistic (human-centered) criteria. One of the rules is that there can be no claim to privileged truth. Similar to moral relativism, which denies the existence of absolute moral truth, comparative theologians deny that any religion can have an exclusive claim to religious truth. In such a world, Divine Revelation is out, as is any kind of authoritative uniqueness. Dr. Stephens says such an approach “militates against the vital core of Christian faith” and is incompatible with Boston College’s claim to fidelity to its orthodox Catholic teachings.

When asked “Would an accurate analogy be setting up the rules of a game so the home team always loses?” He responded, “It is not quite that deliberate, but regardless of the motivation, the effect is there.”

Dr. Stephens says, “There is an attempt to accommodate the religious message to the culture, therefore anything that’s abrasive or exclusive is held as suspect. The result is a denial of such exclusive claims and a search for the minimum common denominator among various religions.”

He believes the real stumbling block to comparative theology in all of this is the Resurrection of Christ, a fundamental tenet of Christianity. It is “exclusive” in that a denial of the bodily resurrection of Christ disqualifies one from claiming the title of Christian. Such “exclusive” claims make pluralists uncomfortable.

Dr. Stephens writes, “a Christian theologian who adopts the comparative theology method is launched upon a track that makes firm commitment to any original faith stance to be extremely doubtful, even unlikely.”

Dr. Stephens emphasizes in his paper that he deeply appreciated “the privilege of doctoral training at the feet of the theological faculty of BC.” He obtained his doctoral training prior to the establishment of comparative theology at BC, but his experience sensitized him to the ecumenical largesse of the BC theological faculty. He writes, “Yet the very critical openness to difference that characterizes that ecumenicity is reasonably bounded by the integrity of the tradition from within which it has operated. I learned from the experience, and others, that ecumenicity with traditional integrity is, at least, a possibility. Indeed, ecumenicity (without) traditional integrity is an oxymoron.”

“Accordingly, my interest in the development of comparative theology at BC has been piqued by what I have perceived to be a threat to genuine ecumenicity and traditional integrity by its published agenda, premises and procedures. The Christian faith makes some hard, exclusive, theological . . . claims that constitute the core of its integrity. Any agenda, premise or procedure that negates or corrodes that core vitiates the very possibility of genuine ecumenicity in the name of some other objective. The BC comparativists seem to be aware of this while being committed to a pluralistic inclusivism which militates against that vital core of Christian faith.”

In this light it is easy to see how comparative theologians would be eager to have a Unitarian chair the Theology Department, regardless of what faith he was baptized into.

It is ironic that the people on campus most strenuously defending Boston College’s Catholicity in this issue are a Lutheran and a Baptist.

Observers say the point remains. Vanderhooft may be a fine Old Testament history teacher but if he was appointed under false pretenses, should he stay in that very important post? The decision may well mark a turning point for Boston College in its movement to strengthen its Catholic identity.