THE CHRONICLES of AVE MARIA©: AVE MARIA– The Promise, The Reality (Part 4)

Looking for  The Chronicles of Ave Maria©  ?

Related reading:

AVE MARIA UNIVERSITY:  A Special Report

AVE MARIA, FLORIDA and THE JACKSON LABORATORY:  A Blow from a Hatchet”– Eugenics and the Catholic Perspective

A CONSTITUTIONAL LAW SCHOLAR’S ANALYSIS OF THE AVE MARIA TOWN “SCHEME”:

AVE MARIA and ABORTIONS… The Controversy Behind Monaghan’s Ave Maria Town “Scheme

+   +   +

NOTE:  ARREST of Dan Dentino, Dean of Students, VP for Student Affairs and Adjunct Professor of Theology at AVE MARIA UNIVERSITY.  CLICK HERE for Naples Daily News report and to search for updatesin the Naples Daily News website.  You may also follow this case online at Collier County Clerk of Courts.

+   +   +

September 7, 2009

A dead thing can go with the stream, but only a living thing can go against it.”

G.K. Chesterton–  The Everlasting Man, 1925

AVE MARIA:  The Promise, The Reality (Part 4) — Full Text

by MARIELENA MONTESINO de STUART

Part 4 was published in the September 10th, 2009 issue of The Wanderer, as the front page feature story.  It  appeared online at 1:00pm Eastern Time on September 4, 2009.
  
AVE MARIA: The Promise, The Reality (Part 4) by Marielena Montesino de Stuart  - Front Page Feature Story, September 10th, 2009 issue of The Wanderer

AVE MARIA: The Promise, The Reality (Part 4) by Marielena Montesino de Stuart - Front Page Feature Story, September 10th, 2009 issue of The Wanderer

AVE MARIA:  Misrepresentations

Ave Maria has the appearance of being grand, because it has involved so much human effort, resources, and millions of dollars; yet, up close it is very small, due to its unclear mission, and because it has been hindered by the deviation from the original plan — that is, the original widely advertised promise: an orthodox Catholic university, and a town with an affirmed public Catholic identity.

As described in Part 1 of this series, upon my arrival in Ave Maria in August 2007 I began to sense that misrepresentations had been made about Ave Maria. Students started their lives in the new campus with an article from the Naples Daily News dated August 25, 2007, announcing that “Ave Maria cannot even call itself a ‘Catholic university’ — as it used to on its web site — without diocesan approval.  “It’s not a Catholic university,” diocesan spokeswoman Adela Gonzalez-White said. “It’s a private university in the Catholic tradition.” (This status has not changed).

Marielena Montesino de Stuart

This meant that the administration of Ave Maria University all along had been misrepresenting the university on their web site, and in their promotional materials, by calling it “the first new Catholic university in America in 40 years.” The Naples Daily News best described the difference between being “Catholic” and “in the Catholic tradition”: “the distinction means more than pure semantics. Catholic universities must agree to follow a number of Church norms on education, usually under the administration of the bishop.”

In addition to the misrepresentations made about the university and the Catholicity of Ave Maria Town — which will be explained in further details in this article — both Tom Monaghan and Ave Maria University President Nicholas J. Healy Jr. also misrepresented and distorted their relationship with the Diocese of Venice.

Here are some examples:

In September, 2007 I met personally with Healy in his office to ask questions regarding,

A) Why the resistance to Summorum Pontificum? After all, Fr. Fessio was willing and able to celebrate the Extraordinary Form (the Latin Mass).

Healy said that they (Monaghan and the university administration) were obediently following the guidelines of the bishop of the Diocese of Venice. Other than that, he would not give me a clear answer. I immediately sensed I was asking a question he did not like.

B) Where did the Communion rail go?

I explained to Healy that the Communion rail kept disappearing from the temporary chapel at the Student Union — and the “chaplain” (he had no official approval from the bishop to call himself chaplain) would give me the same justification, that they (Monaghan and the university administration) were being “humble and obedient to the bishop of the Diocese of Venice.”

When I insisted that the bishop could not possibly be opposed to kneeling at the Communion rail, the “chaplain” would not give me an answer.

Healy did not give me a clear answer either, but said that they (Monaghan and the administration of the university) were being obedient to the bishop of the Diocese of Venice. I insisted that the bishop could not possibly object to the use of the Communion rail. Healy still would not give me an answer.

C) I inquired about the status of the “Oratory” (the name that Monaghan and the university administration were using — also without ecclesiastical approval) when referring to the big church built by Monaghan. (An Oratory is a place of prayer other than the parish church, set aside by ecclesiastical authority for celebration of the Mass and devotional services).  It was named Quasi-Parish of Ave Maria Oratory, after the bishop assumed liturgical and pastoral responsibility of the church.

Healy said that he could not discuss the status of the Oratory, nor when we could expect the bishop to dedicate it — but he insisted that they (Monaghan and the university administration) were being obedient to the bishop — and that I needed to be patient.

D) I asked him if their intentions were to ask the bishop if Fr. Fessio could be the pastor. (I was new and unaware about the degree of hostility that existed). Healy responded that Fr. Fessio is a theologian and a businessman — and that his talents would be better applied in those fields — not as a pastor.

The only concrete thing that Healy did during our meeting was to take down my contact information, including my name, my husband’s name, and my children’s names — on his yellow legal pad (Healy is a lawyer) — so that I could be contacted.

As I was leaving his office, he walked behind me. I made a comment about the Catholic identity of the town. He responded — “Oh no, it would be too boring if it was just Catholic.”

I never heard from Healy again.

Ave Maria, Florida

Ave Maria, Florida

The Misrepresentations Continue

The following excerpts contain Healy’s statement to the Naples Daily News, published January 18, 2008:

“‘We won’t make any comment about the relationship with the diocese,’ Healy said last week.

“‘We’re very hopeful that things will get resolved and it will become clear. There are issues that are not easily understood and hard to explain and we don’t want to comment on it’…according to Healy the university community is a ‘private association of the faithful,’ a status granted by Dewane’s predecessor Bishop John Nevins.

Nevins, Healy said, confirmed Fr. Robert Garrity, a university employee, as the association’s chaplain or more technically a spiritual adviser.”

The following excerpt contains the statements made by Adela Gonzalez-White, spokeswoman for the Diocese of Venice, in the Naples Daily News published February 9, 2008:

To my knowledge the Diocese has nothing on file to indicate this request [for a private association] was ever made or granted.”

This status with the Diocese of Venice has not changed.

Gonzalez-White added that “no bishop with the Diocese of Venice has ever appointed a chaplain at Ave Maria University.”

When told of the diocese’s comments, Healy said that private associations don’t need explicit diocesan approval and there were “hundreds if not thousands” of associations operating without that sanctioning. Healy said changes to Church laws might not do enough to reflect the laity’s growing influence after the Second Vatican Council. “It might take a while for canon law to catch up to all that,” he said.

By March 2008, my husband and I had grown very impatient. Our son was ready to receive his First Holy Communion, and our daughter was ready for Confirmation — but the big $24 million church that appeared on every real estate promotional brochure for Ave Maria, remained locked — except for occasional musical performances, charismatic “healing services,” and tours or visitor hours — for the purpose of raising money.

So, I decided it was time that we speak with the man at the center of it all — Tom Monaghan.

My husband and I met with him at his office for about 15-20 minutes. I respectfully and kindly spoke to him about my life under Communism, the efforts we made to move to Ave Maria across the United States with two young children. How we had changed our lives and made huge sacrifices to come to this town. He remained quiet. He appeared emotionally distanced from the conversation. We explained that our children were ready for their sacraments. That we were not going to go to another parish for their sacraments, since we had crossed this continent to have a full Catholic life inside Ave Maria Town — just like he had promised, and inside that big church he had advertised so much. My husband asked him similar questions about the status of the Oratory. We received no answers. He seemed uncomfortable with our visit.

The only thing that Monaghan said was that he could not speak about his communications with the bishop, and that he had to be obedient and patient, and that the bishop did not want him to talk about “it” — whatever “it” was. That we should not have any expectations about the “Oratory” in terms of the sacraments that our children needed, and that he could not give us any opinions.

We went home sad and deeply disappointed. A few days later, it was announced that the bishop would be dedicating the Oratory on March 31, 2008.

What we did not know was that the “humble” “patient” and “obedient” descriptions used to  justify the obscurity behind the “Oratory’s” pending status — was actually Monaghan’s attempt to carry out a Protestant-style control, by assuming the “Right of Presentation” (the right of a bishop to appoint an administrative priest or pastor).

This was an even deeper disappointment — since we had spent months hearing people in the town calling the bishop “difficult” — while Monaghan, Healy, and the “chaplain” had personally told us that they had to be “humble” “patient” and “obedient,” while they waited for the bishop.

The Difficulties Were Not Over

On Wednesday July 16, 2008, during the noon Mass — well after Bishop Frank J. Dewane had taken over the liturgical life of the Oratory, and the Communion rail had been restored to its rightful place — a priest, who is a faculty member at the university, stopped me and my two children in the line of communicants, to admonish us that we should not be kneeling at the Communion rail to receive Holy Communion. After Mass, this priest proceeded to lecture me outside the Oratory, in public and in front of my children, about “standing to receive Communion in the United States.” This went on for several minutes. The following day, he apologized to us as we were leaving the church.

On Saturday, July 19, 2008 (Vigil Mass), another priest, who is also a faculty member at the university, publicly humiliated me immediately after Mass, in the middle of the church, and in front of my children — while others were still praying in the pews. He told me that “we were trying to be different” for kneeling at the Communion rail to receive Holy Communion during the Mass he had just celebrated — and that if we wanted to kneel at the Communion rail again, we would have to wait for “one of Fr. Fessio’s Masses.” This priest has never apologized — and when he passes us by he avoids eye contact.

During both incidents I remained respectful, and calm; however, the actions of these two priests have left a negative impression on my children that they will never forget.

These priests, who as faculty members remain involved in the formation of young men and women at this university, obviously did not understand that one of the motivations for me to come to this town, was the advertisement of reverence, by Monaghan and by the university administration. Even a virtual tour of the Oratory online showed a beautiful Communion rail. And yet, the reverence that had been promoted so much, was under attack in Ave Maria.

A few weeks later, the quasi-parish administrator appointed by the bishop, announced that never again would anyone be kept from kneeling at the Communion rail to receive Holy Communion.

Paradoxically, the above incidents took place within a period of seven days following the Mass at the Ave Maria Oratory — during which my son received First Holy Communion, and my daughter was confirmed — and both knelt at the Communion rail, as they received the Body of Christ from the bishop.

Fear Of The Secular World

Unbeknownst to many who purchased homes in Ave Maria Town between 2006 and 2007, Tom Monaghan and his developer partner, Barron Collier, had shifted their course — by denying in some secular news programs the original promises of a town that would adhere strictly to Catholic moral laws in its administration. Was there something unconstitutional in the original promotion of the town that prompted Monaghan to have more fear of the secular world, and not enough fear of God?

This public denial of the Catholic identity of the town is a contradiction to the mission of the Ave Maria School of Law, founded by Monaghan — where he claims that future lawyers will be taught to defend God’s natural laws in our society. One would expect that Monaghan would set the example for these future lawyers, by living up to his original promise of Ave Maria Town.

Sacred Words For A Secular Venture

Monaghan, in partnership with Barron Collier, has violated something sacred: the use of Our Heavenly Mother’s name and the Angel Gabriel’s announcement of the Divine Conception of our Lord Jesus Christ, Ave Maria, by appropriating these sacred words for a secular venture: Ave Maria Town. Furthermore, using the name Ave Maria to name a town, constitutes a religious representation to attract faithful Catholics. After all, the vast majority of residents would not be here if this had been named Buddha Town.

The excuse thrown in the faces of the faithful Catholics who trusted Monaghan’s original Catholic marketing promises of Ave Maria Town, has been that those of us who signed on the dotted line to buy homes in this town between 2006 and 2007, should have known about Monaghan’s backpedaling in some secular news shows.

This excuse is not only ludicrous — but an insult and a violation of the good faith and trust of faithful Catholics. As if faithful Catholics across America were supposed to know when to tune in to a secular show, suspecting that a backpedaling move would be made in the secular media by Monaghan and his Barron Collier partner, Paul Marinelli, now deceased.

Why did he announce his backpedaling to a secular audience, instead of announcing it directly to the traditional Catholics that he had been targeting for donations to the university, and for the promotion of the town? Did he ever announce his backpedaling in his fundraising letters, in Ave Maria’s The Angelus (which until a few months ago covered Ave Maria Town) — as well as in church bulletins and traditional Catholic news sources?

The Wall Street Journal reported on August 19, 2006 that after the ACLU threatened a lawsuit — and Monaghan had already backed down, he continued to “tailor his message to his audience.” In June [2006] he told a Catholic gathering in Denver that “our plan is that no adult material will appear on the town’s cable system and the pharmacy will not sell contraceptives.”

It seems obvious that Monaghan has played both sides, in the way that he has misrepresented Ave Maria Town.

One thing is clear: we trusted Tom Monaghan, the Catholic man — but I guess we were not supposed to trust Tom Monaghan — the businessman.

Identity Crisis

Ave Maria Town and Ave Maria University have proven costly and disruptive to many — who bought into both, trusting the original promise. Yet, there are those who persist in blaming the thwarted Ave Maria situation on the economy. What is clearly evident is that Ave Maria Town lost its biggest selling point when Tom Monaghan and Barron Collier denied its much-publicized Catholic identity.

And the university, with the ongoing questions regarding institutional instability, accreditation, and lack of clear mission (See Parts 1, 2 and 3 of this series), has experienced a remarkable turnover of employees — losing even some of their top faculty members. The current narrow economic margins, worsened by professional risks, could not quiet Dr. Matthew Levering, who wrote the now famous Levering Memo, outlining his concerns about Ave Maria University’s instability. Dr. Levering no longer teaches at Ave Maria University. (See Part 2 of this series.)

This turnover of employees and loss of former loyal supporters is even more remarkable, when one considers that Ave Maria University was established in 2003.

MENORAH on Ave Maria University grounds - December 2007

MENORAH on Ave Maria University grounds - December 2007

Catholicism In Parentheses

There are many examples of attacks on the Catholic identity of Ave Maria — but one represents vividly this environment:

One evening in December 2007 — my first Christmas in Ave Maria — I took a stroll to the center of town, when I came upon a Menorah placed on the grounds of Ave Maria University. This Menorah was visibly displayed, and could immediately be seen by anyone visiting the center of the town — a bold message of interfaith dialogue — from a university that, to this day, has not been recognized as Catholic by Church authority.

If the administration of Ave Maria University has any serious intentions of obtaining official Catholic recognition from the Church, it should concentrate on that; furthermore, the administration would be well-advised to read the contents of a letter written by Benedict XVI, published in the Italian newspaper Corriere della Sera (November 23, 2008) where he states that “an interreligious dialogue in the strict sense of the word is not possible.”

The Pope also added that in true theological terms “a true dialogue is not possible without putting one’s faith in parentheses.” Benedict XVI clarified that what is important is “intercultural dialogue, which deepens the cultural consequences of basic religious ideas.” It is worth noting that my Orthodox Jewish friends agree with the Pope on this matter.

While this Menorah was displayed on the Ave Maria University grounds, not a single “Merry Christmas” sign was placed in Ave Maria Town by the town’s developer, nor by its administrative associations. Only “Seasons Greetings” and “Happy Holidays.” One brave family placed a homemade sign with the message “Merry Christmas, Mr. Monaghan” across from the Oratory. The sign soon disappeared.

And — so as to assure the secular world that this is not a Catholic town, in October 2008 Ave Maria even welcomed a “Pet Psychic” to an event for dogs and dog owners.

Challenging Church Authority

The reason that the Knights of Columbus is successful as a lay initiative, is that the Knights work in support of the clergy; however, many other lay initiatives have as their raison d’être to challenge Church authority.

These lay initiatives that challenge the authority of the Church are growing like mushrooms in the dark, and they present what would appear as a solution to the “crisis” of the Church — i.e., the bishops who have failed to speak firmly in support of the Church’s teachings when the political and social climate openly attacks the most basic foundations of human dignity; however, while the intentions of these lay groups may seem noble, many questions must be asked regarding the way in which they operate and the outcome of their endeavors. Their questionable practices have led the Vatican to embark on inquiries and investigations of these groups, after their practices have misguided many individuals and their families into a state of disorientation as to what is authentically Roman Catholic.

The important battle against relativism in the Church seems to be undermined by lay initiatives like Ave Maria University. Rules concerning social justice, charity toward our fellowmen, respect for institutional rules and agreements — seem to disappear when “the greater good” is in the balance. This leads one to ask — just “what IS this greater good” — and “at what price” — and “whose greater good” is it anyway?

Does “the greater good” mean being rewarded for supporting the administration of Ave Maria University — even when the administration is not living up to the highest standards of an institution of higher learning? (See Parts 1, 2, and 3 of this series.)

It seems that at Ave Maria University “the greater good” is “the bottom line.”

An Ecumenical Feast — Or A Waste Of Catholic Talent?

The associate director of admissions at Ave Maria University, Michael Williams, very recently — and suddenly, resigned from his position after several years of support and involvement with Ave Maria University.

Sources say that approximately four years ago, Williams stood on the floor of the New York Stock Exchange, when he turned to one of his colleagues and enthusiastically mentioned Monaghan’s promise of an orthodox Catholic university.

Soon after, Williams, a faithful Roman Catholic, found the beckoning of Monaghan’s promise so appealing that he decided to come to Naples, where he could be closer to his parents and some of his siblings, and began to work at the interim campus of Ave Maria University. Williams is described as a dedicated and hard-working individual, who has a clear understanding of the type of academic standards needed in a Catholic liberal arts college — and the value that these standards have in Catholic higher education.

Williams has been replaced by two individuals who are not Catholic — a remarkable administrative decision, considering that the administration at Ave Maria University seems to be making overtures about obtaining Catholic recognition. But are they sincere about it?

The fact that they have hired two individuals who are not Catholic to lead the Admissions Department — positions that are crucial to Catholic standards of academic preparedness and fairness — indicates more and more that the administration of Ave Maria University has either lost its Catholic compass — or is determined to become an ecumenical and charismatic institution — that will appeal to president Healy’s “broad Catholic middle” — at best, or to anyone (Catholic or not) that is willing to walk in the door.

Moreover, two of the six members of the University Council are not Catholics. The University Council is comprised of the highest-ranking members of the administration, who are involved in making major decisions at Ave Maria University.

This brings us back to Nicholas J. Healy’s rebuttal to my Open Letter to the Ave Maria University Board of Trustees in the Naples Daily News (see Part 1 of this series) — where Healy asserted that Ave Maria is a “mixture of faiths and worship styles.” More and more, his assertion seems to be true.

Monaghan’s “Two-for-One”  Deal

I recently came across a pizzeria-style corporate fundraising letter signed by Tom Monaghan, dated August 15, 2009. Noted under the date are the words “The Assumption of the Blessed Virgin Mary.” He states that he needs your help “to help thousands, millions of people get to Heaven.” Monaghan goes on to say, “When we strive for, and inspire the next generation to make Heaven their aim, we sometimes get the earth thrown in as well! Not a bad two-for-one deal!” Monaghan then asks for $1,000, $2,000, $3,000 or more, and encloses his “AMU Chancellor Tom Monaghan’s MONEY BACK GUARANTEE.”

Such a personal plea for money, “to help as many people get to Heaven as possible,” deserves a personal response:

Mr. Monaghan: St. Boniface baptized thousands and dealt with the challenges of other Christians who had fallen out of contact with the hierarchy of the Roman Catholic Church — but he worked in full obedience to the Church’s hierarchy and the Pope. The magnitude of his accomplishments in leading the German people to Christ cannot be measured — and he did it without a cent in his pocket — and without a “Money Back Guarantee.”

Your Money Back Guarantee has been set in motion. Please have your checkbook ready. There will be a long line waiting at the door.

+ + +

COMPANION ARTICLES:   “AVE MARIA: The Promise, The Reality”    Part 1,  Part 2,  and  Part 3
 
IMPORTANT RELATED READING: 
You may also read Marielena Montesino de Stuart’s commentaries through: RenewAmerica, USAToday, The Dallas Morning News, U.S. Politics Today (an EIN Service for Political Professionals-*) Poynter Online, Spero News, Daily Estimate, The New Liturgical Movement-Poland, The Naples Daily News, Les Femmes-The Truth, Culture War Notes,  ProLife Blogs,  The Wanderer, etc.

© All Rights Reserved

E-mail: ContactTRCW@aol.com

Notice to readers

THE CHRONICLES OF AVE MARIA©: AVE MARIA– The Promise, The Reality (Part 3, Full Text)

Looking for  The Chronicles of Ave Maria©  ?

Related Stories:

AVE MARIA, FLORIDA and THE JACKSON LABORATORY:  A Blow from a Hatchet”– Eugenics and the Catholic Perspective

A CONSTITUTIONAL LAW SCHOLAR’S ANALYSIS OF THE AVE MARIA TOWN “SCHEME”:

AVE MARIA and ABORTIONS… The Controversy Behind Monaghan’s Ave Maria Town “Scheme”

+   +   +

The Roman Catholic World

A dead thing can go with the stream, but only a living thing can go against it.”  G.K. Chesterton–  The Everlasting Man, 1925

+   +   +

August 21, 2009

by Marielena Montesino de Stuart

Bookmark and Share

AVE MARIA: The Promise, The Reality” (Part 3) appeared as the front page feature  article in The Wanderer’s August 20th, 2009 Edition (available online as of 1:00pm Eastern Time, on Friday, August 14, 2009).

The Attack On Catholic Identity at Ave Maria University

THE WANDERER - August 20th, 2009 Edition - Front Page Featured Article "AVE MARIA: The Promise, The Reality" (Part 3)

THE WANDERER - August 20th, 2009 Edition - Front Page Feature Article "AVE MARIA: The Promise, The Reality" (Part 3)

Human endeavors claiming to be noble and truth seeking have a way of attracting outstanding individuals. A notable example is German Munoz, Ph. D., a distin­guished professor and author, who in 2003 spearheaded what became an ambitious recruitment of students in the Archdiocese of Miami, in support of Ave Maria University.

Dr. Munoz, a respected writer in the field of social sciences, has also written articles analyzing the present state of the Roman Catho­lic Church and its liturgy.  These can be found at www.drgermanmunoz.com. Dr. Munoz chairs the Wolfson Campus Department of Social Sciences at Miami Dade College — America’s largest, with eight campuses and a student body of more than 167,000.

As a faithful Roman Catholic — drawn by the advertisement of an “orthodox” Catholic university, Dr. Munoz began working to channel students to Ave Maria University. He then took the project to Miami Dade College ( a secular institution which does not promote or endorse Ave Maria University) — where he collaborated with professors who would assist students in their dis­cernment of colleges, by amplify­ing their options — to include Ave Maria University.

To this end, Dr. Munoz was the person involved in initiating an “ articulation agreement” — that would allow Miami Dade College students to have their credits trans­ferred and accepted by Ave Maria University. Dr. Munoz’s efforts are even more noteworthy, given that he placed his distinguished aca­demic reputation and efforts in sup­port of AMU starting in 2003 — in spite of the fact that there were ac­creditation issues, that remain pend­ing to this day.

In an interview with Dr. Munoz, he expressed the following opin­ions, regarding the current state of and issues surrounding Ave Maria University:  

Ave Maria, Florida

Ave Maria, Florida

Since 2007 I’ve been observ­ing the real nature behind the ‘or­thodox’ image that had been pro­moted by the administration of Ave Maria University. This became even more evident and devastating when I attended a meeting on campus, in­volving the administration, faculty, and students. It became obvious to me that Ave Maria University had become another example of the ‘ modernist’ lay movement that is undermining the Church, under the disguise of the word ‘orthodox.’ The strong Catholic identity we had hoped for at Ave Maria was being undermined. The Traditional Latin Mass was not given its rightful place as desired by our Holy Fa­ther.

“This is all misleading parents and students to think that Ave Mar­ia University is the solution to the problems found in Catholic higher education — when in fact they are behaving much the same as univer­sities like Georgetown and Notre Dame, among others, which have lost their Catholic identity and mis­sion. This is false advertisement in­volving a breathtaking amount of money, resources, and human effort — and it needs to be reined in by the Vatican.  Even the secular world takes seriously truth-in-advertise­ment laws.”

Dr. Munoz considers that Ave Maria University’s administration has “betrayed” many who trusted the advertisement and promotion of AMU as an “ orthodox” Catholic institution. Dr. Munoz added that he is following closely the admin-i­strative situation at Ave Maria Uni­versity, and is also fully aware that the liturgical schedule that we en­joy at the Ave Maria Oratory, in­cluding the Latin Mass, is due to Bishop Dewane’s pastoral guidance and efforts.

Dr. Munoz, who has dedicated his life to the field of higher education, added that as a Catholic parent he is keenly aware of the difficulties that many parents and students face when trying to decide on the prop­er Catholic college — which was another factor that compelled him to support Ave Maria University when he became a Founding Mem­ber; however, Dr. Munoz added:   

Based on the events of the past two years, and the questions sur­rounding Ave Maria University, fur­ther referral of students to AMU is being reconsidered.”

The Bishop’s Role In Catholic Identity

His Excellency Frank J. Dewane, bishop of Venice in Florida, as­sumed the liturgical responsibilities of the Ave Maria Oratory in March 2008. His pastoral care is not just extended to the faithful Catholics of the Town of Ave Maria and to the students at AMU, but it encompass­es his right of participation in reli­gious vocation programs at the uni­versity, to ensure that they are be­ing conducted pursuant to Church laws, and with episcopal oversight. As reported in Part 1 of this series, Bishop Dewane has accepted a re­cent invitation to join the AMU Board of Trustees, as an ex officio member.

This very recent step to bring the presence of the bishop to the Board leads to a series of questions, regard­ing the Catholic recognition that Ave Maria University needs to ob­tain, if it is ever going to be allowed to identify itself as a Catholic insti­tution.

The Ave Maria University admini­stration has not offered any expla­nation for the removal of the Pre­-Theologate Program from its web site. Was this due to lack of episco­pal oversight? Many fine young men have been part of this program. Where do they stand now, when they return to classes only to find the title of their program gone? What does this say about academic institutional instability, and the use of financial resources, donations, and human efforts that have been put into the Pre- Theologate pro­gram, and its advertisement as such? The Ave Maria University adminis­tration owes an explanation to the students, the residents of Ave Mar­ia, as well as parents across this na­tion.  

Ave Maria University: A New Secular Environment?

A person who is a fund-raiser for Ave Maria University recently ex­plained to me that Ave Maria Uni­versity’s administration is aggres­sively seeking the enrollment of non-Catholic and secular students, in order to maintain a functional level of new student enrollment, and that Ave Maria University can no longer survive by depending on the recruitment of Catholic students only. Although this person did not ask for anonymity, the name is be­ing omitted given the retaliation experienced by Fr. Joseph Fessio, SJ, as well as former faculty members who have been called “ academic terrorists” by Tom Monaghan.

An administrative member of the university, who asked for anonymi­ty, added that AMU administra­tion’s attempt to recruit secular and non-Catholic students will result in failure and misuse of resources, be­cause the institution is not equipped to handle such changes — both fi­nancially and logistically.  

The Future: Ave Maria University, Notre Dame, Georgetown — What’s The Difference?

If the Ave Maria University ad­ministration persists in aggressive­ly recruiting non-Catholic and sec­ular students, what is being done to accommodate the needs of Catho­lic students in a student population that is shifting, and could eventu­ally outnumber Catholic students? Will there be a Newman Center? How will the current Catholic fac­ulty be affected? If the objective will be to evangelize non-Catholic and secular students, will the professors be expected to exercise “ministeri­al” responsibilities — like the Ave Maria School of Law professors? (pursuant to Tom Monaghan’s re­cent statements).

The bishop of Venice in Florida has never designated “ ministerial law professors” in his diocese. In spite of this reality, would the AMU administration attempt this designa­tion of its professors — and wouldn’t this jeopardize the possi­bility of ever gaining Catholic rec­ognition, pursuant to Church laws? This recent approach from Mr. Mon­aghan to define law professors as having “ministerial” duties is a per­fect example of Catholic lay initia­tives overstepping their boundaries — and running amok.

Is Ave Maria University becom­ing a “mixture of faiths and worship styles” — the way Ave Maria Uni­versity’s President Nick Healy de­scribed the town of Ave Maria, in his Naples Daily News March 8, 2009 rebuttal to my Open Letter to the Board of Trustees?

Given the above scenario, what would be the incentive for a faith­ful Catholic student to attend Ave Maria University, or faithful Catho­lic parents to support and send their children to Ave Maria University, versus Notre Dame or Georgetown — or other secularized Catholic col­leges? Notre Dame and Georgetown have groups that support the needs of traditional/ conservative Catho­lics students, to counteract the sec­ular presence on campus. Why would we want this kind of diluted Catholic identity at Ave Maria Uni­versity?

The original mission of AMU, which includes Chastity Teams and the promotion of moral guidelines pursuant to the Servant of God Pope John Paul II’s Theology of the Body, will be increasingly chal­lenged by the presence of a secular student body — which will force Catholic students into separate groups, in order to find an environ­ment that supports the Church’s moral teachings — much like it hap­pens at Notre Dame, George­town, and other secularized Catho­lic campuses.  

Questioning The Cardinal New­man Society’s Center For Cath­olic Higher Education

Given that Ave Maria University does not have official recognition from the Church to call itself “Cath­olic” — and given the questions re­garding institutional instability, vi­ability, lack of transparency regard­ing finances and recruitment of stu­dents, why is The Cardinal Newman Society’s Center for Catholic High­er Education promoting Ave Maria University in its Newman Guide to Choosing a Catholic College?

The following letter to the editor of the Naples Daily News (July 6, 2009 edition) was sent by Patrick J. Reilly, president of The Cardinal Newman Society:

“Editor, Daily News:

Re: Liam Dillon’s Daily News  article, on June 26, ‘Bishop’s ap­pointment to Ave Maria board in­dicates closer ties to university,’ mis­takenly concludes that Ave Maria University’s current lack of recog­nition as a Catholic university by Bishop Frank Dewane ‘doesn’t trou­ble’ the Cardinal Newman Society, because AMU is recommended in our Newman Guide to Choosing a Catholic College.

“It is the basis of our work to ad­vocate conformity of Catholic high­er education to the Church’s guide­lines, including recognition as Catholic by the local bishop.  “When we included AMU in the 2007 edition of the Newman Guide,  the university was listed in the U.S. bishops’ Official Catholic Directo­ry,  and it was our misunderstanding that AMU had diocesan recognition. “We are thrilled that AMU is seek­ing that recognition and applaud the apparent progress that has been made by the election of Bishop Dewane to AMU’s board of trustees.

“Patrick J. Reilly, Manassas, Va., President, The Cardinal Newman Society.”

Based on Patrick J. Reilly’s state­ment above that “it is the basis of our work to advocate conformity of Catholic higher education to the Church’s guidelines, including rec­ognition as Catholic by the local bishop” — will it remove Ave Mar­ia University from the Newman Guide 2009, until AMU receives di­ocesan recognition? What about all the parents and students that have been led to Ave Maria University believing that it is a Catholic insti­tution, as a result of a “misunder­standing” by the Cardinal Newman Society?

We expect that an institution like the Cardinal Newman Society, which advocates on its web site that the Newman Guide “ is the first col­lege guide to show students where they can learn and grow in a genu­ine Catholic environment without the nonsense that has overtaken even some of the most well-known Catholic universities,” would take the responsible step of making a more clear and widely publicized statement regarding their position on Ave Maria University, one that would address those who purchased the 2007 Newman Guide, in addi­tion to the removal of Ave Maria University’s listing from the Cardi­nal Newman Society web site, until it obtains diocesan recognition.  

What Exactly Is Ave Maria University?

The current picture of Ave Maria University shows a lack of consis­tency in mission — which is wors­ened by the lack of transparency re­garding the questions that have been raised on the subject of financ­es, institutional instability, and via­bility. (See Fr. Fessio’s second firing and the Levering Memo, in Part 1 and Part 2 of this series.)  

Thomas Aquinas College

The following information re­cently appeared on the web site of  The Catholic Business Journal:

Thomas Aquinas College is one of the country’s best institutions for undergraduate education, accord­ing to The Princeton Review, and it ranks number one in the country for ‘most religious students.’ The ed­ucation services company features the four- year, Catholic school in the new 2010 edition of its popu­lar guidebook, The Best 371 Col­leges ( Random House/ Princeton Review, July 28, 2009).

The Princeton Review profiles only the best of America’s 2,500 four- year colleges — about 15% of them. It includes detailed profiles of the colleges with school rating scores in eight categories, plus ranking lists of top 20 schools in 62 categories based on The Princeton Review’s surveys of students attending the colleges.”

Of special note in this year’s re­port on Thomas Aquinas College is that the school is one of only 13 in the country to be named to the first­ever ‘Financial Aid Honor Roll,’ re­ceiving a highest possible rating of 99. It also received a rating of 99 for its academics, and is one of the ‘Top 50’ institutions in the country. Further, it is ranked in the Top 20 in 8 of 62 additional categories.”

This flagship annual college guide by The Princeton Review profiles only the best of America’s 2,500 four- year colleges — about 15% of them. It includes detailed profiles of the colleges with school rating scores in eight categories, plus ranking lists of top 20 schools in 62 categories based on The Princeton Review’s surveys of students attending the colleges.”

If Ave Maria University wants to succeed as a Catholic university, it will have to follow the path of Thomas Aquinas College. Ave Mar­ia University would have to ac­knowledge that the current ad­missions problems that it is fac­ing are due to the fact that it needs to fight for the same type of students that attend Thomas Aquinas College.  To that end, Ave Maria University would be well- advised to change its cur­rent policies — but that would require a radical change of ad­ministration.

Also, click on the following links for Part 1,  Part 2 and Part 4 of  “AVE MARIA: The Promise, The Reality”


Marielena Montesino de Stuart

You may also read Marielena Montesino de Stuart’s commentaries through: RenewAmerica, USAToday, The Dallas Morning News, U.S. Politics Today (an EIN Service for Political Professionals-*) Poynter Online, Spero News, Daily Estimate, The New Liturgical Movement-Poland, The Naples Daily News, Les Femmes-The Truth, Culture War Notes,  ProLife Blogs,  The Wanderer, etc.

© All Rights Reserved

E-mail: ContactTRCW@aol.com

Topics for DiscussionAve Maria, Ave Maria University, Tom Monaghan, Nick Healy, Ave Maria University Chancellor, Ave Maria University President, Catholic Identity, Dr. German Munoz, Miami Dade College, Wolfson Campus Department of Social Sciences, Orthodox, False Advertisement as a  Catholic University, Ave Maria Oratory, Frank J. Dewane, Bishop of Venice in Florida, Thomas Aquinas College, Georgetown, Notre Dame, Chastity Teams, Theology of The Body, The Cardinal Newman Society, Patrick J. Reilly, Father Joseph Fessio SJ, The Levering Memo, The Catholic Business Journal, Best Colleges, The Princeton Review, Financial Aid Honor Roll, The Wanderer.

+   +   +

UPDATE:  May 06, 2010:  Commentary and Analysis by the President of the Catholic Media Coalition

UPDATE April 25, 2010:  The Wanderer issued a statement about this article on their 04/29/10 issue, available at www.thewandererpress.com

Notice to readers

THE CHRONICLES OF AVE MARIA©: AVE MARIA- The Promise, The Reality (Part 2)

Looking for  The Chronicles of Ave Maria©  ?

Related Stories:

AVE MARIA, FLORIDA and THE JACKSON LABORATORY:  A Blow from a Hatchet”– Eugenics and the Catholic Perspective

A CONSTITUTIONAL LAW SCHOLAR’S ANALYSIS OF THE AVE MARIA TOWN “SCHEME”:

AVE MARIA and ABORTIONS… The Controversy Behind Monaghan’s Ave Maria Town “Scheme

+   +   +

The Roman Catholic World

A dead thing can go with the stream, but only a living thing can go against it.”  G.K. Chesterton–  The Everlasting Man, 1925

August 7, 2009

The following article appeared as the feature story on the front page of The Wanderer, August 13, 2009 issue, which was available online on  August 7, 2009.

by MARIELENA MONTESINO de STUART

Bookmark and Share 

The Aftermath of Part 1
 
Since the Knights of Columbus, there has probably never been a more ambitious lay initiative than Ave Maria. Yet, the promise, ver­sus the reality, was never more ev­ident than during the events of this last week.
THE WANDERER - August 13th, 2009 Issue - Front Page Featured Article- "AVE MARIA: The Promise, The Reality" (Part II)

THE WANDERER - August 13th, 2009 Issue - Front Page Featured Article- "AVE MARIA: The Promise, The Reality" (Part II)

The aftermath of Part 1 of this article clearly reflected the control and personality- centered commu­nity environment that exists around Tom Monaghan. While this series is not about the writer, it is never­theless important to understand the social environment that exists in Ave Maria.

One only has to visit the Fumare blog to witness firsthand the ad hominem attacks and hatred from many of the respondents to last week’s article — including not a few individuals inside the town of Ave Maria, who are supporters of Tom Monaghan. These individuals took advantage of their anonymi­ty in their attempt to intimidate me, by posting despicable comments that involved not just profanities, but references that included terrible personal violations, and went as far as to detail the whereabouts, activ­ities, and ages of my young chil­dren.

Similar attacks took place for many days after the publication of my Open Letter to the Board of Trustees, published by the Naples Daily News, on February 17, 2009 ( printed in Part 1 of this article). The Naples Daily News also had to remove some readers’ comments, because of the use of profanities, and because of the way in which they detailed our lives.

While there are individuals who have written comments expressing support for me, they have done so anonymously — which is further evidence that they too, are afraid of retaliation.  

Is there unreasonable fear of evil conspiracies, and intolerance of critical inquiry — that lead to injustice? 

ave-maria-all-rights-reserved-by-marielena-montesino-de-stuart8

Ave Maria

A sound and stable institution and community may have dis­gruntled former employees, or residents that show opposing opinions — but will not vilify them.

Tom Monaghan has referred to professors as “academic terrorists” — when they have voiced their disagreement with his policies and decisions.

John Hittinger, former Dean, AMU St. Mary’s in Michigan, stated in 2003, “ The dark side is the dependence upon Mon­aghan’s arbitrary focus or level of interest and its idiosyncratic definitions of Catholic faith — Mr. Monaghan seems oblivious to Church doctrine on social justice in his treatment of facul­ty and staff. . . .”  

Interaction With The Community

A sound and stable academic institution that identifies itself as being under the Magisterium of the Catholic Church, encour­ages a dialogue and listens to the community that was built in part to support it, particularly when the community shares a liturgi­cal life with the university, through the local church — and it does so without feeling threat­ened.

On the other hand, in Ave Maria, where the vast majority of the residents are Catholics who came attracted by the “ orthodox” Catholic university, and the town with the Catholic identity built partly to support it– residents are not invited to voice their opin­ions on the future of the univer­sity— nor on decisions that af­fect the life shared by the town and the university.

The firing of Fr. Fessio affect­ed the community not just emo­tionally, but in its spiritual con­nection with a priest who cele­brated Mass and administered sacraments, both for the univer­sity community and the residents of the town.  

Is there absolute authoritari­anism without meaningful ac­countability?

A sound and stable institution will willingly disclose informa­tion, such as finances, and gen­erally will tell you more than you want to know. A sound and stable institution shares deci­sion- making and encourages ac­countability and oversight.

On the other hand, the ad­ministration of Ave Maria Uni­versity has been repeatedly questioned (at least four times in the last nine months) as to the financial status of the in­stitution.

Fr. Joseph Fessio, SJ, was fired last month as a result of a con­versation he had in November 2008, with the then Chairman of the Board of Trustees, when he discussed information, based on public records, regarding issues that affect institutional stability and fiduciary responsibility.

Why would his objections end in his dismissal?

Vic Melfa, a former member of the Board of Trustees, left the board after having voiced his concerns to the administration involving institutional stability and fiduciary responsibility.

Mr. Melfa’s statements given after his departure indicate that he did not receive satisfactory answers.

Dr. Matthew Levering, a well ­known Professor of Theology and author, who became a strong supporter of Tom Monaghan and Nick Healy during the time Ave Maria College was operating in Michigan, wrote the now famous “ Levering Memo” — which en­tered the public domain in Feb­ruary 2009. In his memo he posed serious questions to Ave Maria University’s administra­tion, involving the finances and the viability of the institution. It is our understanding that Dr. Matthew Levering also ad­dressed the administration in the presence of other faculty mem­bers, where he expressed his con­cerns. Have his memo and ques­tions been answered?

Dr. Levering has joined the faculty of another university, and is scheduled to begin teaching there at the end of this month.

During a conversation with a high- ranking member of the uni­versity, who asked for anonymi­ty, I inquired if the questions posed in the Levering Memo had ever been answered by the admini­stration. This individual respond­ed that “ it is one of the legitimate pending matters.”

Given the importance of the is­sues addressed in the Levering Memo, and the important position that Dr. Levering held as a faculty member at AMU, it would seem to this writer that Dr. Levering’s ques­tions would mean more to the ad­ministration than simply “ future business” — or in the words of the high- ranking member of the uni­versity, a “ pending matter.”

For readers that have not read the contents of the Levering Memo, we present it herewith:

January 30, 2009:

(1) The financial situation is murky, but it appears to be dark indeed.  In an email to AMU faculty written a few weeks ago, I called for further financial data to be provided to the faculty.  We received financial information on a sheet presented at the Retreat.  That financial information, however, did not dispel my concerns. I don’t have the sheet at hand, so my numbers are based solely on memory; but if I recall somewhat correctly, the University’s expenses stood at around $35 million, and the University’s actual revenue from sources other than the Foundation stood at around $10 million.  If I recall correctly, the Foundation shed a lot of money last year, and now is down to a total of $33 million, almost as much as it spent last year.  The natural question, then, is what happens if the Foundation – what with moving the law school to FL plus the regular AMU expenses – is down to $8-10 million by the end of this budget year.  To put it another way and thereby clearly state my first question: How much money can we anticipate the Foundation to have at the end of this budget year?

(2) If I understand correctly, the Board agreed to handle the financial situation in two major ways: first, to sell some of the University’s land assets, and second to increase the number of paying students at the University.  Regarding the University’s land assets, I would like to see an appraisal of what these assets could bring on the market.  If Barron Collier is planning to purchase some of AMU’s land assets at a certain price, that information would help greatly in getting a sense of the financial situation.  My working assumption is that the land assets are at present valuable solely for farming, or at least that if purchased by a real estate investor the land assets would be purchased at a fraction of what AMU paid in 2002.  The second question then is whether the University has gathered data based upon recent sales as regards the value of the University’s land assets.

(3) The University plans to market its product, 4-year undergraduate education, aggressively this Spring.  If I understand correctly, two new admissions personnel have been hired to spearhead an admissions drive and thereby significantly increase the revenue from students.  The question that normally comes up is how much revenue we can actually hope to raise from this source, and whether it will really make much of a dent in our deficit in the next four years.  But I have another concern, namely ensuring that we are being as truthful as possible to the students and families to whom we market our product this Spring.  These students/families will presumably know very little about AMU’s financial status.  Trying to apply the Golden Rule, I assume that we will want to be able to assure these students/families that when we offer them a 4-year education, AMU actually has the financial liquidity to operate on its current campus and with its current majors for at least 4 years.  We have a moral obligation to ensure that this is the case.  If it is not the case, then of course we have a moral obligation to tell the potential students/families of the risk.  This takes me back to (1) and (2).  We need to know what resources the Foundation plausibly will have over the next four years, and we need to have an independent appra isal of the liquidity of the land assets.  The point is that without an audit and a clear 4-year financial plan, we cannot appropriately invite students/families into a 4-year undergraduate program in which students/families will be investing over $20,000 a year.  If we fail in due diligence, or if we know now that there is a problem but bring them in anyway, then we are failing not only in financial stewardship but also spiritually as regards love of neighbor and truth-telling to these young people and their families.  The third question then is whether we can receive an audit and 4-year financial plan that demonstrates sufficient liquidity, and does not presume rosy scenarios regarding revenues.  Without this audit and demonstration of liquid assets, I fear that all of us (to different degrees) are participating in something that we may later deeply regret, namely selling to young people and their families a 4-year educational product that we do not have sufficient reason to believe can be delivered.

(4) The University’s graduate programs are a special case.  I am formally involved in the admissions process for graduate students in the M.A. and Ph.D. programs.  The M.A. program requires a two-year commitment of resources on the part of the University. The Ph.D. program requires a five-year commitment of resources on the part of the University.  In order to recruit students into the M.A. pro gram responsibly, we would need a financial audit clearly showing liquid assets and the financial plan for the next two years of AMU’s existence.  In order to recruit students into the Ph.D. program responsibly and in good conscience, we would need a financial audit clearly showing liquid assets and the financial plan for the next five years of AMU’s existence.  My fourth question then is whether we can receive this information so as to undertake responsibly the labor of graduate admissions.

(5) Particularly for the undergraduate and Ph.D. programs, the issue of cost-cutting is an important one.  Even the rosiest portraits of the increase in student revenue over the next four years may not take away the deficit.  We have reason to believe that the resources of the Foundation may not last much more than one or two years. Therefore year 3 and year 4 are particularly problematic.  As part of the financial plan articulated now, cost-cutting in years 3 and 4 would be necessary.  One imagines that certain programs and certain majors would need to be cut; perhaps salaries would need to be cut.  Even presuming a University of 600 paying students, the various annual costs of the University—45 faculty, a number of staff, financing the debt for the housing subsidies and for the new dorm, operating the facilities, library, sports teams, student services etc—will be large.  After the Foundation’s money has basically been all spent, how long can a small Catholic university go on with 45 faculty?   We need to know now, therefore, what programs the 4-year financial plan envisions being cut.  Certainly the doctoral program, just to name one, would seem to be likely to be cut.  In order to be able to undertake responsibly the labor of advertising for and recruiting students, we need to have a sense of what is going to be cut, according to the present long-term financial plan.  Students want us not to let them down by failing to speak important truths to them.  My fifth question then is what plans do we have, or do we need to develop, regarding cost-cutting.

(6) Regarding the future, many of us are worried about our beloved University.  We also want to be able to assure ourselves and our friends (including those who send their children to us for undergraduate or graduate education) that Ave Maria University has a feasible, clear plan for dealing with the apparent depletion of the Foundation’s liquid assets and for dealing with our huge deficit without an overly optimistic set of scenarios.  What if the reason that we have not been presented with a clear plan is that if we knew the truth, it would leak out and corrode the University’s ability to attract students, thereby destroying our jobs?  This question has given me some pause.  On the one hand, even to preserve our jobs, we would not want to be complicit in fooling anyone about our product and our ability to deliver it. We want to be truthtellers—Veritatis Splendor—and to love others no matter what the personal cost.  On the other hand, it would be a foolish thing to corrode public confidence in our University without sufficient reason for doing so.  I would say this: If we had a clear plan now, and that plan sadly indicated that financial failure was likely within the next four years, then we could do a number of things to make the transition easier.  We could plan a “teach-out” operation, and we could ensure that sufficient resources are available for enabling faculty and staff to find other jobs.  This would be much, much better than a sudden collapse later.  My sixth question then is whether we could agree that whatever the difficulties that a clear plan would reveal, a clear plan would be better than the current murky situation, even as regards the security of the faculty and staff.

(7) We all know that if the Foundation’s funding is truly nearing depletion, and if Ave Maria University will therefore have to sell off land assets quickly, this will become public relatively soon.  Someone, whether it be a Catholic newspaper or a local newspaper, is going to break the story.  It will probably be picked up by the national media.  If the reality at AMU really is bad, then it would be better for the University itself to make the bad news public.  This would show how much the University values truth-telling, as opposed to the secular culture in which businesses and banks are promoted as sound until the day they crash.  The University will be put in a terrible spot if the media begin to probe and the University’s spokesmen have to put on a good front.  Then the media will ask all of us “what did we know and when did we know it,” and the public will probably have trouble accepting our answer that we were totally ignorant.  On the other hand, if the financial reality at AMU in truth is good, then we would be well served by making that truth as clear as possible to the outside world (as well as internally).  In this case, then, it really is the fact that “the truth will set us free.”  My seventh question is whether AMU can be upfront in making its financial situation publicly clear before the media enter into the fray.

(8) Regarding public relations, if AMU is financially in trouble, and if the Foundation is going to be basically depleted soon, then those who love Ave Maria need to ask how new major supporters of the University are going to be found.  The Bishop of Venice clearly will need to be a supporter, if we are to attract further Catholic donors.  ; Other major donors will need to be brought in via a desire to save AMU’s magnificent potential.  My eighth question then regards the formation of a clear plan to inform outside-AMU public opinion, especially that of serious Catholics, about the great potential and value of AMU.

Before we end this installment, I would like to remind readers that the questions presented in my Open Letter  printed last week in Part 1, have yet to be answered, except that His Excellency, Bish­op Frank J. Dewane, was finally invited to join the Board of Trust­ees. He accepted the invitation, as a non- voting ex officio member.

Paradoxically, one of the first experiences we have had in Ave Maria after Bishop Dewane ac­cepted the invitation to join the Board, is having to read the state­ment issued by the spokesperson from the Diocese of Venice, clari­fying that Bishop Dewane had never been consulted about the fir­ing of Fr. Fessio.

AMU President Nick Healy’s at­tempt to a rebuttal of my Open Let­ter in the Naples Daily News re­sulted in no answers. The title of his rebuttal, Ave Maria Embraces Mixture of Faiths — Worship Styles, speaks for itself.

+   +   +

COMPANION ARTICLES: 
> “AVE MARIA: The Promise, The Reality”    Part 1,  Part 3 and  Part 4

Marielena Montesino de Stuart

You may also read Marielena Montesino de Stuart’s commentaries through: RenewAmerica, USAToday, The Dallas Morning News, U.S. Politics Today (an EIN Service for Political Professionals-*) Poynter Online, Spero News, Daily Estimate, The New Liturgical Movement-Poland, The Naples Daily News, Les Femmes-The Truth, Culture War Notes,  ProLife Blogs,  The Wanderer, etc.

© All Rights Reserved

E-mail: ContactTRCW@aol.com

Topics for Discussion:  Ave Maria, Ave Maria University, AMU, Ave Maria University Council, Ave Maria University Board of Trustees, Bishop Frank J. Dewane, Father Joseph Fessio SJ, Firing of Priest, Fiduciary Responsibility, Institutional Instability, Tom Monaghan, Nick Healy, Barron Collier,  Naples Daily News, The Wanderer, Open Letter, Ex Corde Ecclesiae, Catholic town identity, Personality-Centered Environment

Notice to readers


THE CHRONICLES OF AVE MARIA©: AVE MARIA- The Promise, The Reality (Part 1)

Looking for  The Chronicles of Ave Maria©  ?

Related Stories:

AVE MARIA, FLORIDA and THE JACKSON LABORATORY:  A Blow from a Hatchet”– Eugenics and the Catholic Perspective

A CONSTITUTIONAL LAW SCHOLAR’S ANALYSIS OF THE AVE MARIA TOWN “SCHEME”:

AVE MARIA and ABORTIONS… The Controversy Behind Monaghan’s Ave Maria Town “Scheme

+   +   +

The Roman Catholic World

A dead thing can go with the stream, but only a living thing can go against it.”  G.K. Chesterton–  The Everlasting Man, 1925

August 3, 2009

The following article appeared as the feature story on the front page of The Wanderer, August 6, 2009 issue, which was available online on  July 31, 2009.

By MARIELENA MONTESINO de STUART

Bookmark and Share

Part 1

Marielena Montesino de Stuart

Ave Maria is my second “ prom­ised land.” When my family and I freed ourselves from the grip of the Communists in Cuba and arrived in the promised land of the United States, we left behind years of per­secution, political imprisonment, executions, and hunger. But most of all we left behind the inhuman practice of silencing dissent— si­lencing our ability to speak the truth of the injustices we suffered. Free speech, and the ability to express dissent is what separates civilized societies from uncivilized ones. It is what my father was im­prisoned for — and many mem­bers of my family gave up their lives for, as devout Roman Catho­lics. So, it is in this spirit of free­dom, truth, and loyalty to the Church, that I tell the following story.

The Wanderer - August 6, 2009 Issue. Front page featured article AVE MARIA: THE PROMISE, THE REALITY by Marielena Montesino de Stuart

Human projects rise and fall based on the ideas they present — but if these ideas are not support­ed by strong moral conditions, no amount of money or promises will allow them to flourish.

It is the absence of these moral conditions that has led so many devout, conservative, faithful Cath­olics, who once supported Tom Monaghan’s idea of Ave Maria, to now express their strong objections about Ave Maria University’s ad­ministration, under the leadership of its founder.

This outpouring of dissent, again — not from liberals, but from so many conservative faith­ful Catholics, through various Catholic media, is truly notewor­thy. This stands in stark contrast to those inside Ave Maria, who have remained alarmingly silent. Is this silence borne out of fear?

When the university and the town of Ave Maria officially opened in the summer of 2007, the expectation, from the world, was that Tom Monaghan’s promise of an “ orthodox” Catholic university — and the town with the Catholic identity built in part to support it, would be the answer to the dream of thousands of faithful Catholics. Those who longed for a place to gather, worship, and raise their families — in an environment both possible under our Constitution, and under God’s natural laws.

Anyone who visited Ave Maria in the spring of 2007 could have easily compared it to the surface of another planet. The remoteness, and the absence of topographical prominence, other than the church and a few buildings, made it seem almost surreal. A place so barren could only be supported through the lure of big promises. How else would anyone be attracted to the middle of a swamp, teeming with alligators, panthers, bears, pythons, wild boar, and a plethora of insects almost the size of helicopters.

The promise of a self-sufficient thriving community, as promoted by Tom Monaghan in partnership with the developer, Barron Collier, seemed extraordinary. In a world where the hopes for our children’s future seem more and more bleak, the thought of a promised self-suf­ficient community with a Catholic identity, to help support an “ortho­dox” Catholic university, was much too precious to turn down.  

ave-maria-all-rights-reserved-by-marielena-montesino-de-stuart7

Ave Maria

Within the first year, the disap­pointments and the exodus began. The moral conditions needed to support a project of the magnitude of Ave Maria were not there — not because there weren’t participants and residents supporting the moral conditions needed — but because many of the key players had gone in another direction.

The emphasis became — “Is Ave Maria a Catholic Town? Absolute­ly not”; “Every Family, Every Life­style, Every Dream” — is what the developer, in partnership with Mon­aghan, advertised on their web site.

“Every lifestyle”?

The faithful Catholics who came here to support Tom Monaghan’s Catholic dream did so to get away from “every life­style.” Why would they come to a town, in a remote location of the Everglades — which until six weeks ago did not even offer a place to buy the most basic necessities, to experience “ every lifestyle.” The marketing of this town has been an ongoing controversy — but that’s another story. The fact remains, that now faithful Catholics are afraid to come — and “all lifestylers” would rather display their style elsewhere. So, the uniqueness of the town (a Catholic identity) being publicly denied — shattered the dreams of many who came, or were planning to come.

Some of the faithful Catholic fam­ilies that purchased homes in Ave Maria, with great joy, sacrifice, and enthusiasm, have subsequently sold them at a great loss. Some seem to be “ walking away” from their property. Others came, hoping to buy — then saw the disconnect be­tween the promise and the reality, then withdrew their offers on the purchase of homes. The remarks from those who have left or are try­ing to leave include, “it wasn’t what we thought it would be” to “ we want to put it behind us” or “ we cannot discuss it.” The Naples Dai­ly News reporter could hardly ever obtain an attributable statement about problems concerning the uni­versity and the town from a resident in nearly a year and a half, since the town opened.

Why, one would ask, would a town with a promised Catholic iden­tity and a promised “ orthodox” Catholic university elicit such part­ing remarks? Why would people be afraid to say why they left, or are trying to leave, to the Naples Daily News, or to anyone, for that matter? What are the people who have left, or are trying to leave, concerned about? Are they afraid of retaliation? Some may be leaving for strictly personal reasons — but those that are, or have been connected with the university, will not speak.  

Dare To Dissent

Fr. Joseph Fessio’s second firing last month is evidence of retaliation. In his written statement following his firing he explains the reasons for his dismissal:

“ This morning ( Monday, July 20), Dr. Jack Sites, Academic Vice President of Ave Maria University, flew from Houston, where he was attending a meeting of the South­ern Association of Colleges and Schools, to San Francisco, to in­form me personally that I was be­ing dismissed from Ave Maria Uni­versity. . . . He said that the reason for my dismissal stemmed from a conversation I had in November of 2008 with Jack Donahue, then chairman of the board of AMU. At that time I felt it an obligation to speak to the board chairman be­fore the upcoming board meeting, to make sure he was aware of the urgency of the university’s finan­cial situation. After I had in­formed him, using projections based on publicly available doc­uments and statements, he asked me what I thought was the solu­tion. I told him that there were policies being followed that were at the root of the problem, that the present administration was irre­vocably wedded to those policies, and that without a change of ad­ministration the university was at great risk.”

So, Fr. Fessio expressed his con­cerns to a member of the Board of Trustees — regarding information of vital importance to institution­al stability and fiduciary respon­sibility. The Ave Maria Universi­ty administration reacted through retaliation, by firing him. This cli­mate is not conducive to student protest, particularly because most of the students are in some form of scholarship or tuition assis­tance. It is not clear if Ave Maria University students even publish an independent student newspa­per where dissenting opinions can be freely expressed. There has not been consistency in the under­standing and reaction from the stu­dents, regarding the events that are taking place.

These circumstances are remi­niscent of Communist or totalitar­ian regimes — where people’s dis­sent ends in retaliation, and where information is suppressed. Ave Maria is not just another urban de­velopment. It was an ambitious project with colossal plans and wonderful Catholic promises. Why would a place like this send people into silence?

The only known open support for Monaghan inside the town of Ave Maria has come from a hand­ful of individuals. The question is: How many of these individu­als — and to what extent — are beholden to Monaghan and his enterprise? And do they really get the whole picture? What the pub­lic has not seen is the other side — those residents, who feel disap­pointed, afraid and isolated, with no way out.  

The Surprise

One underlying factor not known to many about Ave Maria, is the ownership and control that the university has over the town. The media have chronicled that many of the professors and staff that purchased homes in Ave Mar­ia, did so by accepting incentive second mortgages of up to $ 150,000 issued by the universi­ty — which would have to be re­turned to the university within 90 days, pursuant to the terms con­tained in the contract, excerpted below:

Jury Trial Waiver.   The Borrow­er hereby waives any right to a trial by jury in any action, pro­ceeding, claim, or counterclaim, whether in contract or tort, at law or in equity, arising out of or in any way related to this Security Instrument or the Note. Definition of Maturity Date. The Maturity Date of this Note shall be the first to occur of the following events; when the Property is sold or trans­ferred, upon any acceleration of the Note or first mortgage on the Property for default or otherwise, upon obtaining any subordinate mortgage financing on the Prop­erty, within ninety (90) days of the date when a Borrower leaves the full time employment of Ave Mar­ia University, Inc. unless the Bor­rower is totally and permanently disabled according to the Ave Maria University disability poli­cy, not later than three ( 3) years of any Borrower’s death or retire­ment from the University such pe­riod being determined based upon Borrower’s years of service to Ave Maria University, when the Prop­erty is no longer used by Borrow­er as Borrower’s primary resi­dence.

This financial arrangement makes Ave Maria University the employer, loan officer, and bene­ficiary of the purchase.

In addition, ownership of busi­nesses in the available retail busi­ness space owned by Monaghan in partnership with Barron Colli­er (under the name of Ave Maria Development) includes financial incentives, such as free leased space. These factors, in effect, make Ave Maria largely a compa­ny- owned town. Almost none of the faculty members are tenured, and many members of the staff are “ at will employees.”

Showing moral courage under such a beholden state has proven to be difficult in a financially con­trolled environment like Ave Mar­ia.  

Free Speech: The Open Letter

As the spring of 2009 drew near, I decided that, as a private citizen of Ave Maria, and as a family who is financially independent from the university and the town, and its governing district board, it was time that I addressed in writing some of the issues that were of concern to many, regarding the ad­ministration of Ave Maria Univer­sity. These issues directly affect the residents, as investors in this town built around, and — in a symbiotic relationship — with the university. So, on February 17, 2009 the Naples Daily News pub­lished in their editorial pages my Open Letter to the Ave Maria Uni­versity Board of Trustees.  Here is the complete text of that letter:  

My Open Letter To The University’s Board Of Trustees

As a resident of Ave Maria, and one attracted to move here in part by the advertised presence of an “ orthodox Catholic” university, I wish to present the following com­ments and questions to the Board of Trustees of Ave Maria Univer­sity, for discussion during the Board’s meetings scheduled to take place on February 19 and 20, 2009.

My husband and I moved with our young children to Ave Maria in August 2007, seeking the or­thodox Catholic environment that Mr. Tom Monaghan had promot­ed through the creation of a uni­versity that would follow the Ap­ostolic Constitution of the Ser­vant of God, Pope John Paul II in Ex Corde Ecclesiae. This is mani­fested through promotional mate­rials and the use of the words Ex Corde Ecclesiae (“ From the Heart of the Church”) and the title of Pope John Paul II’s Encyclical Let­ter Veritatis Splendor (“ The Splendor of Truth”) in the univer­sity’s logo.

This expression of Ave Maria University’s stated loyalty to the guidelines of Catholic education set forth by Pope John Paul II was further supported by the use of the Oratory’s image surrounding the words Ex Corde Ecclesiae. As par­ents, we were filled with tremen­dous hope that this return to tra­ditional Catholic higher education and obedience to the Magisteri­um, would repair the terrible dam­age caused by the infamous Land O’Lakes Statement of 1967, which disassociated Catholic higher ed­ucation from episcopal guidance.

Upon arriving in Ave Maria, we found that the Catholic orthodoxy that had been advertised, was sud­denly under attack by the same ad­ministration that had promoted it. For example, at this new so- called “ orthodox Catholic” AMU cam­pus in Ave Maria my children and I were not permitted to kneel at the communion rail; paradoxical­ly, kneeling at the communion rail had been routinely permitted — in fact, it was a tradition at the old AMU campus, only a few miles away in the community of The Vineyards, in Naples.

Many persons interested in moving to the new Town of Ave Maria had attended Mass at the old AMU campus in The Vine­yards and witnessed the use of the communion rail — something clearly indicative of a return to a level of reverence and belief ab­sent in so many other places.

The opposite was true at the new AMU campus in Ave Maria, where the student body had to bravely and respectfully argue for use of the communion rail, but AMU’s administration stubbornly refused to comply. When I asked the priest who claimed to be “ Chaplain” where the communion rail was, he responded that it had been removed and placed in an undisclosed location.

What followed were months of an adversarial environment in­volving our local Bishop’s author­ity. This was a shocking experi­ence, considering that this is a Bishop universally regarded as an orthodox Catholic. This situation became worse, as AMU’s institu­tional identity was being ques­tioned.

The Naples Daily News report­ed during the month of February 2008, that the president of AMU had said that although “ Catholic” status has not been conferred upon the university, changes to church laws might not do enough to re­flect the laity’s growing influence after the Second Vatican Council, and that “ it might take a while for canon law to catch up to all that.” This clearly did not lend credence to the AMU administration’s claim to uphold Catholic orthodoxy. To the contrary, Catholic orthodoxy does not engage in power strug­gles with an orthodox Catholic Bishop.

Need I say that nothing, abso­lutely anything could have pre­pared me for the division and de­fiance I witnessed against our Bishop, or for the persecution I suffer as an orthodox Catholic, to this day, inside Ave Maria. What a profound disappointment it has been, to my family, and to others — who are interested in being loyal to the Church, and were attracted to Ave Maria by AMU’s marketing to “orthodox” Catholics.

The months passed in this sus­pended state, and the pressure built on all sides. As the need for Sacra­ments increased, something that could only be provided through obedience to the local Bishop and under his pastoral care, AMU final­ly reached an agreement with the Catholic Church, allowing the Ora­tory to be under the control and guidance of the Bishop.

Today, we feel blessed and privi­leged to have the Oratory under the pastoral care of Bishop Frank Dew­ane. Despite pressures from the AMU administration, the Oratory is presently a haven from idiosyncrat­ic and unorthodox practices that oc­curred on occasion, prior to episco­pal supervision.

The question now is the future of Ave Maria University, and its lack of legitimate recognition by the Catholic Church; consequently, I present to the Board of Trustees the following questions:

1. Why doesn’t the local Bishop have episcopal oversight of AMU, through permanent institutional par­ticipation in the Board of Trustees? Articles 5.1 and 5.2 of The Catho­lic University Within the Church, in Ex Corde Ecclesiae, indicate that “ every Catholic University is to maintain communion with the uni­versal Church and the Holy See; it is to be in close communion with the local Church and in particular with the diocesan Bishops of the re­gion.” It further states that “ each Bishop has a responsibility to pro­mote the welfare of the Catholic Universities in his diocese, and has the right and duty to watch over the preservation and strengthening of their Catholic character.”

2. If AMU has pursued episcopal oversight through other means, oth­er than through the local Bishop (such as through the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops, or directly through Rome) then AMU’s administration would be well- ad­vised to provide written proof that such steps have been taken, in pur­suit of official Catholic recognition. Or, is AMU simply not interested in taking the steps necessary to obtain episcopal recognition as authenti­cally Catholic? Is the stumbling block yet again a reluctance to sub­mit to the Catholic Church — to surrender power and control? Or does the AMU administration sim­ply not care about Ex Corde Eccle­siae?   If that is so, the words Ex Corde EcclesiaeVeritatis Splen­dor should be removed from the university seal immediately, as it is misleading students, their parents, donors, as well as current and pro­spective residents of the Town of Ave Maria.

3. Why doesn’t the administra­tion of AMU openly advertise its well- known stubborn bias for the Charismatic Movement and the “Praise & Worship” Mass, and its dislike of Sacred Music and the Ex­traordinary Form (Latin Mass)? Is it merely to entice traditional and or­thodox students (and residents) to AMU and to the Town of Ave Mar­ia? In other words, the type of Cath­olics that are drawn to Ex Corde Ec­clesiae?

Why not more Catholic honesty? This defiance against the expansion of the use of the Tridentine Rite goes not just against Pope Benedict XVI’s Summorum Pontificum, but also against the advice of Cardinal Antonio Canizares Llovera, prefect of the Congregation for Divine Wor­ship.

4. Why has the administration advertised that AMU is a Catholic University, when Article 3.3 of Ex Corde Ecclesiae states: “A Univer­sity may refer to itself as a Catholic University only with the consent of the competent ecclesiastical author­ity, in accordance with the condi­tions upon which both parties shall agree.” The administration certain­ly knows this. Again, more honesty is needed, or better — do whatever it takes to comply with Ex Corde Ecclesiae.

5. In consideration of the fact that AMU markets itself as faithful to Ex Corde Ecclesiae, to donors, stu­dents, and residents, is AMU a “Catholic institution” — or a for­profit real estate/educational corpo­ration?

6. Why serve on a Board of Trust­ees of a so-called “orthodox Catho­lic” university, if you are not going to take Ex Corde Ecclesiae serious­ly — the guiding, and most recent document from the Vatican on Cath­olic university administration?

Ave Maria University will never achieve serious recognition in Cath­olic academia, unless it strictly com­plies, in both words and actions, with Ex Corde Ecclesiae. Since the opening of the new campus here in Ave Maria in August 2007, I have seen the expectations and the mo­rale surrounding AMU deteriorate day by day. The current situation is not only damaging to its distin­guished faculty, but also to the fu­ture of the university, as well as to the Town of Ave Maria.

In light of the serious issues and questions presented above, as well as in consideration to the faculty, current and prospective students, parents, residents, donors, and bene­factors, it is incumbent upon the Board of Trustees to take the nec­essary steps to begin the process of requesting the resignation of the current administration at Ave Maria University, and to seek a new lead­ership — leadership that will sin­cerely and faithfully support and live up to AMU’s logo — Ex Corde EcclesiaeVeritatis Splendor.

Respectfully yours in Christ,

Marielena Montesino de Stuart

COMPANION ARTICLES:  

“AVE MARIA: The Promise, The Reality”  Part 2,   Part 3 , Part 4

The Chronicles of Ave Maria©

You may also read Marielena Montesino de Stuart’s commentaries through: RenewAmerica, USAToday, The Dallas Morning News, U.S. Politics Today (an EIN Service for Political Professionals-*) Poynter Online, Spero News, Daily Estimate, The New Liturgical Movement-Poland, The Naples Daily News, Les Femmes-The Truth, Culture War Notes,  ProLife Blogs,  The Wanderer, etc.

© All Rights Reserved

E-mail: ContactTRCW@aol.com

Topics for Discussion:  Ave Maria, Ave Maria University, Ave Maria University Council, Ave Maria University Board of Trustees, Bishop Frank J. Dewane, Father Joseph Fessio SJ, Firing of Priest, Fiduciary Responsibility, Institutional Instability, Tom Monaghan, Nick Healy, Barron Collier, Ave Maria Development, Ave Maria University 2nd Mortgages, Naples Daily News, The Wanderer, Open Letter, Ex Corde Ecclesiae, Summorum Pontificum, Latin Mass, Catholic town identity, Charismatic Movement, Healing Masses.

Notice to readers

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.