Supporters of Catholic higher education across the country are concerned with the recent events at Providence College. They should be. This small liberal arts college, run by the Dominicans of the St. Joseph Province, has built up a reputation for maintaining its Catholic identity when so many other institutions of higher learning have ceased to be “Catholic” in any meaningful sense. Thus when they read or hear of a student being harassed without clear support from college officials for putting up a RA poster supportive of traditional marriage, they rightly wonder whether one of the last holdouts is ready to fall. This is the exact sentiment expressed by Bishop Tobin in a letter sent to Michael Smalanskas, the courageous and faithful student at the center of the controversy.
In the bishop’s words: “Providence College is standing at the crossroads and now has to make a conscious decision about which road to travel. Will it maintain, proudly, unapologetically and unambiguously, its Catholic heritage by preaching, teaching and living the Catholic Faith in all its beauty and richness? Or, like so many other institutions today, will it succumb to modernist trends and become just one more progressive, secular bastion of political correctness?” As a longtime member of the Theology Department, let me both publicly thank Bishop Tobin for his support of Michael and his perceptive analysis of the situation of my college. My gratitude extends to the Rhode Island Catholic for its bold editorial on the situation. Catholics have a strong instinct to support the institutions of their diocese, but sometimes support means speaking hard truths.
The college does not share that gratitude and has submitted a series of corrections and complaints. I would like to respond briefly to them. The first regards whether it was the college or Michael who deemed him unsafe to remain in his dorm after the poster was torn down, angry RA’s entered his hallway after hours, and his actions and person were condemned by students on social media. From what I understand, it was a mutual decision with Michael and the campus security working together to assess a developing and volatile situation. I must admit that I fail to understand the import of this defense. Does the college really want to state publicly that Michael was overreacting that night, especially now that a demonstrable threat to his physical wellbeing has come to light?
I am also perplexed at the college’s claims of immediate support for Michael. I accompanied Michael to his meetings with college officials and I would characterize the response as uncoordinated at best and irresponsible at worst. For example, when we met with the interim security chief, it was clear that the requisite information regarding the harassment had not even been conveyed to him although almost two weeks had passed. The referenced meeting with a group of vice presidents was worse. More concerned with scolding Michael than for his safety, they rejected our request that a clear statement be issued to the student body that the poster was not to be torn down again (it was vandalized four times) and that harassment of Michael was unacceptable. This reasonable request was rejected and the message sent out encouraged students to participate in a march against Michael’s actions as a way of supporting LGBTQ students he had made feel “unsafe.”
It is true that Father Shanley’s second email to the community repudiated actions against Michael but this was only after the president’s first email, which did not do so, proved insufficient to quell the controversy. While Bishop Tobin is correct that being a college president these days is a very taxing job, Father Shanley had it in his power to calm matters early on when Michael’s father asked for a meeting to discuss his son’s safety. It was denied. Even more troubling is that Father Shanley has, as of this date, refused to even respond to Michael’s multiple and respectful entreaties for a simple conversation.
Concerning the meeting with the chaplain on the night in question, I can only report that Michael felt it was more about castigating him for causing trouble than offering support. That said, the chaplains eventually sent out their own email that clearly, and pastorally, stated the Church’s affirmation of the God-given dignity of homosexual persons, the need for respectful interactions, and that marriage is, and only is, between one man and one woman. The email expressed what we all know to be true: the relationship of the Church and homosexual persons is fraught with difficulty and raw-feelings. In dealing with such a delicate issue it is very easy to say the wrong thing and very hard to find the right words. Catholics, however, believe that there is beauty in the Church’s teaching on sexuality and we deprive people of a saving truth when we place it under a bushel basket.
Of course, complex events yield different interpretations and readers will have to decide whom to believe; yet the fundamental facts are undeniable and disturbing. A Catholic student caused a firestorm by putting up a poster supportive of Catholic teaching on marriage. A previous poster supporting same-sex marriage was undisturbed and, I am told, celebrated. Instead of publicly and clearly coming to the student’s and the doctrine’s defense, the school evinced greater concern for the feelings of those offended by the expression of Church teaching, even implying that students ought to be safe from it. Clear statements from the college were only forthcoming after the affair hit the media and manifold complaints from donors and alumni poured in. The college’s nitpicking aside, PC truly does stand at a crossroads and should be grateful to Michael Smalanskas for alerting all those who care for Providence College, especially the Dominican friars responsible for its Catholic identity, that it is high time to make a decision regarding its future.
Dr. James Keating is an associate professor of theology at Providence College.
