Monk's Tale
eBook - ePub

Monk's Tale

Way Stations on the Journey

Edward A. Malloy

Share book
  1. 328 pages
  2. English
  3. ePUB (mobile friendly)
  4. Available on iOS & Android
eBook - ePub

Monk's Tale

Way Stations on the Journey

Edward A. Malloy

Book details
Book preview
Table of contents
Citations

About This Book

In Monk's Tale: Way Stations on the Journey, Father Malloy carries forward the story of his professional life from when he joined the Notre Dame faculty in 1974 to his election as president of Notre Dame. His journey in this volume begins with the various administrative responsibilities he undertook on the seminary staff and in the theology department during his early years as an administrator and teacher, and continues through his tenure as vice-president and associate provost, up to the process that led to his selection as Notre Dame's sixteenth president. He reveals his day-to-day responsibilities and the challenges they presented as well as the ways in which his domestic and international travel gave him a broader view of the opportunities and issues facing higher education.

Less time-bound than the first volume, this second volume of Father Malloy's memoirs provides an account of his many commitments as a teacher, scholar, and pastor; as a staff person in an undergraduate residence hall; and as a board member in a wide variety of not-for-profit organizations. His account includes a chapter devoted to his fifteen years as a participant in the process that led to Ex Corde Ecclesiae, Pope John Paul II's apostolic constitution on Catholic higher education, and its implementation in the United States.

Disarming in its candor, laced with anecdotes, and augmented with photographs, Monk's Tale: Way Stations on the Journey captures the personality and tenacity of a young priest as he assumes ever greater responsibilities on a path toward the presidency of Notre Dame.

Frequently asked questions

How do I cancel my subscription?
Simply head over to the account section in settings and click on “Cancel Subscription” - it’s as simple as that. After you cancel, your membership will stay active for the remainder of the time you’ve paid for. Learn more here.
Can/how do I download books?
At the moment all of our mobile-responsive ePub books are available to download via the app. Most of our PDFs are also available to download and we're working on making the final remaining ones downloadable now. Learn more here.
What is the difference between the pricing plans?
Both plans give you full access to the library and all of Perlego’s features. The only differences are the price and subscription period: With the annual plan you’ll save around 30% compared to 12 months on the monthly plan.
What is Perlego?
We are an online textbook subscription service, where you can get access to an entire online library for less than the price of a single book per month. With over 1 million books across 1000+ topics, we’ve got you covered! Learn more here.
Do you support text-to-speech?
Look out for the read-aloud symbol on your next book to see if you can listen to it. The read-aloud tool reads text aloud for you, highlighting the text as it is being read. You can pause it, speed it up and slow it down. Learn more here.
Is Monk's Tale an online PDF/ePUB?
Yes, you can access Monk's Tale by Edward A. Malloy in PDF and/or ePUB format, as well as other popular books in Teología y religión & Biografías religiosas. We have over one million books available in our catalogue for you to explore.

Information

CHAPTER 1
Image
Back to the Seminary
After completing doctoral studies at Vanderbilt University in 1973, I moved back to Notre Dame full of energy and enthusiasm to function as a priest in full-time ministry for the first time since ordination. Even though I was still writing my dissertation, I was aware that an initial period of preparation in my life was at an end. My three years in residence at Vanderbilt had gone quickly. The Divinity School was a friendly, supportive environment for study and for broadening my base as a practicing theologian, and I was confident that I had something to offer as a teacher and a scholar. I also looked forward to serving as a liturgical leader, a counselor, and a pastoral presence in some more permanent setting.
I was a bit surprised when I was assigned to be the director of the College Seminary program at Moreau Seminary. Part of the surprise was related to my concern, sometimes expressed publicly, that the college years, especially the first two, are not the best time for entering the seminary. My own experience in the Holy Cross Order’s seminary system, admittedly at a time of great transition within the Church, indicated that the progress-to-ordination rate was rather low for those entering at the beginning of college. On the other hand, the recent liberalization of seminary life offered more leeway for seminarians who were not yet under vows to participate in regular college life. I hoped the new model would work more successfully.
My new home was a staff room on the northeast corner of the fourth floor of Moreau Seminary, facing Saint Joseph Lake. It had a work/lounge area, a bedroom, and a bathroom and was spacious enough for my books, other accouterments, and a couple of chairs where I could meet with students. Located at an end of the building, it was generally quiet except for the birds and bats that enjoyed strafing runs after sunset along the length of the long, curving structure. From my room I could see the Golden Dome. Little did I suspect that someday that building would become my base of operations.
In 1973–74 there were approximately fifty seminarians at Moreau, of whom twenty were in the college program. Father Jim Kelly, C.S.C., was the superior to whom I reported; however, the college program contained the largest single group in the house so I had a fair degree of autonomy in putting together its internal workings, including team meetings, counseling and evaluation sessions, liturgies, and apostolic projects. For the rest—community worship, meals, soirees, and the internal work schedule that served the common life—we were part of the larger house.
Moreau Seminary was no longer the place apart it had once been. Guests were now welcome, including family members, friends from campus, and, occasionally, people from some of the seminarians’ apostolates. Thursday was the big community day, with mass, a social, and dinner for the whole house followed by lucenarium (a version of evening prayer with the lighting of candles) and then a long social event. Thursday was also a dress-up day, which meant coat and tie for the seminarians, although the dress code through the week was generally relaxed and informal within the house. Monday was another community day but with no special evening gathering. The team meetings were fitted into the remaining days of the week, allowing for a more personal level of interaction between the staff and the seminarians.
As someone who was ordained only three years earlier, I was relatively young to have a central role in the formation process. I was assisted by Brother Chet Ziemba, C.S.C., a coadjutor brother of the Indiana Province of Holy Cross, whose main duties included tending to the grounds of the seminary and adjoining properties. He had come to religious life in his thirties and was blessed with street smarts and an “in” with the underground gambling syndicate in Chicago. Another assistant was André Leveille, C.S.C., who had been a teaching brother for many years and was now preparing to be ordained a Holy Cross priest. In my second year we were joined on the staff by Dick Rutherford, C.S.C., a theologian who was working on a research project.
The young men in the college program were bright, hardworking, and quite sincere in their process of vocational discernment. Some had enjoyed a loving, supportive family background while others had had to deal with family dysfunction and/or divorce. Some had good ego strength and self-confidence; others were still in search of their best selves. While celibacy is always an issue in seminary life, the collegians were not prohibited from social involvements with women; most such interactions were within group activities anyway. For most, the debates about the vows were more theoretical than urgent. A more pertinent dilemma for some, and part of what the staff had to be alert to, was the related issue of sexual identity in an all-male living environment.
As with most young people, good times were often identified with the consumption of alcohol. All the Moreau residents had access to alcohol, and most of the time it did not pose a problem. However, a few in the college program, as well as some post-Novitiate seminarians, manifested unhealthy behavior in this regard, so the staff had to wrestle with appropriate responses. This was a time when religious communities in general, along with the broader society, were starting to come to grips with the disease model of chronic alcoholism and the need for firm, supportive intervention.
The most important responsibility for the staff was to evaluate on a regular basis the seminarians entrusted to our care. At the college level we were primarily preparing young men to lead good Christian lives, whether or not they persevered in their initial decision to give the seminary a try. Some candidates took only a few months to decide that religious life and priesthood were not for them; they parted at the end of the semester or the end of the year with some appreciation for what they had learned and the friends they had made. The rest of the college group would eventually move on to the Novitiate, where the process of discernment was more concentrated. The hardest cases for all of us were those who enjoyed the security of seminary life but lacked the requisite personal skills and/or maturity to fully invest themselves in the program.
Since directing the college program was my first regular responsibility after graduate school, I invested much time and energy in it, but also focused on finishing my dissertation and reading widely in preparation for what I hoped would be my first teaching assignment. That moment arrived when Professor Stanley Hauerwas, a Protestant ethicist and a dominant figure in the Notre Dame theology department, was asked by Father David Burrell, C.S.C., chair of the department, to husband my candidacy through the various stages of the hiring process. Stanley and I hit it off despite our theological differences, and he invited me to co-teach an undergraduate class with him in the spring semester of 1974. It was my first teaching opportunity at Notre Dame since the seminars that I oversaw during my deacon year of 1969–70. I did not have to do much to prepare for the course except read the assignments and interact with Stan in front of the class. He was, and is, a controversialist by disposition, so he enjoyed the intellectual combat. The students seemed satisfied that they had signed up for a course where professors actually disagreed with each other in public.
My teaching appointment carried the rank of instructor until such time as my dissertation was completed, when I would automatically become an assistant professor. That meant that for the remaining three years of my directorship of the college program, I would also be engaged as a new, enthusiastic, excited faculty member.
In the summer of 1973, the Indiana Province Chapter elected Father Bill Lewers, C.S.C., as the new provincial. This was a moment of decisive change for the Province and for its apostolates. Bill had come to religious life after years as a law faculty member. He was worldly wise, yet full of high ideals. He had spent time in Chile after ordination and this had a profound effect on his hopes for the Church and his commitment to social justice. These values would remain with him the rest of his professional life, as a faculty member in the Notre Dame Law School and as the director of the Justice and Peace office of the U.S. Catholic Bishops Conference.
I was an active delegate at the Chapter at which Bill was elected, and he invited me to become a member of the Provincial Council, a group that met monthly to discuss the works, issues, and problems of the Province. I was honored by the invitation and went on to serve on the council for the next fifteen years, under two different provincials. Our most difficult decisions were not about finances or policies or apostolates but about personnel. Membership on the council and participation in its deliberations taught me early in my priestly life that there are limitations of power and office for those overseeing the well-being of a group of male religious, all of whom had personal histories and memories and could not be simply ordered to proceed in lockstep according to some Provincial decree. As councilors we had to take into account the strengths and weaknesses of each religious, the needs of our various apostolic commitments, and the rather explosive realities of a Church going through dramatic change.
Because of the Holy Cross Community’s heavy involvement in higher education, many of the positions that became open had specific requirements attached, such as a doctorate or its equivalent, and many of the administrative tasks presumed years of experience as a prerequisite. Some religious desired to work in new settings, and some of these in the absence of a community support system. There were also tasks that were necessary for the well-being of the Province, such as local superiors and heads of the various stages of formation. These jobs usually demanded personal sacrifice of those asked to assume them. In the end, there always turned out to be positions that went unfilled and individuals who (because of their own unsettledness) were unassignable. The meetings of the Provincial Council during my years on it were a constant reminder that the Indiana Province was like any large family—we had our high performers, our generous souls who would do anything they were asked to do, and our members whose mental, physical, or spiritual health meant that the rest of us would have to provide for their needs rather than have them involved in the active apostolate.
Learning such lessons while I was responsible for nurturing potential religious vocations was good for me. We had much to be proud of as members of Holy Cross, but there were no guarantees that early enthusiasm and manifest piety would necessarily lead to a healthy and successful life in ministry under vows. The old wisdom of Aristotle and Thomas Aquinas remained true: grace builds on nature and character, and self-integration and a loving heart are the work of a lifetime. The collective job of the seminary staff was to use our best skills of observation and counsel to enhance the chances that our seminarians would make good choices about what God was calling them to.
The seminarians’ year always began with a retreat at a Holy Cross camp in Deep Creek Lake in far western Maryland. In my own days as a seminarian, the social order of camp life was much more hierarchical and regimented than it was by the 1970s. The staff now lived in one of two locations—a well-constructed stone house in the center of the facility or an old farm house on the periphery, but except for the special living status for staff, interaction between seminarians and staff was non-stop. There was mass and prayer and meals in common every day. The rest of the time was spent in team meetings, athletic competition (on land or water), reading, touring, and relaxed moments. For the new members of the Moreau community it was a great opportunity to become acclimated and get to know names. Playing pitch-and-putt golf or going canoeing or playing volleyball after dinner were all excellent ways of getting a feel for the group and its style of interrelating. There were always chores to be done, from outdoor work to meal preparation to keeping the facilities clean and serviceable, and these too provided unpressured physical proximity.
One of the staff’s responsibilities was to introduce the men in a preliminary way to the history of Holy Cross, to the vowed life, to the expectations for the common life at Moreau, and to the practices of prayer, including the Divine Office. The staff wanted all the college men to make a smooth transition, and we were always observing, somewhat clandestinely, the social dynamics, alert for signs of homesickness or social unease. As in any comparable group, likes were attracted to like, and soon recognizable affiliations developed. No one ever left the program from Deer Park, so the experience must have been reasonably pleasant, even to the shy and questioning.
Part of my challenge as director was to achieve rapport with each of the collegians. In addition to participating in their athletic competitions and lingering at meals, I got in the habit of going on long walks with each college seminarian to guarantee a more private context for conversation. It had become fashionable by that time for seminary staff to be addressed by their first names, although some of the younger members never got to that point with the senior citizens among us. Since I was never much for titles, it was second nature for me to go by Monk, the nickname I had carried since grade school. I was Monk not only in the seminary but also with my students after I started teaching and with my dorm-mates later on in Sorin Hall.
Living in close quarters with college-age students meant that they inevitably discovered everyone’s strengths, weaknesses, and idiosyncrasies, and seminary life always develops a few mimics and humorists who ease the tension and keep everyone amused. Father Jim Kelly, C.S.C., the superior and rector, was a big man in every way—tall, stocky, and very much of a physical presence. His voice and mannerisms were relatively easy to imitate, so he became the most common focus of mimicry. Father Charles Sheedy, C.S.C., one of the oldest members of the staff and arguably the most popular, had so many memorable sayings and quirks that any seminarian of that era, even decades later, could tell stories about him. The coadjutor brothers who resided with us were universally loved and considered great models of committed religious life.
During these years I regularized the tradition of Monk Hoops on Monday and Wednesday nights in the Moreau gym. I was still close enough to my prime that I was a prolific scorer, and the rest of the seminary team was good enough for us to win most of the games. I always figured that such contests disabused the ND students of some stereotypes about seminarians and seminary life.
One side result of spending time with seminarians in basketball contests was the insights the sport helped me gain into their character. I could observe how selfish or team-oriented they were, how they handled success and adversity, and how persistent they were in developing their God-given talent. Such perspectives were only available to me for those seminarians who were reasonably coordinated and knew the basic elements of the game, of course, but as time went on I came to discover that the intuitions I gained about people on the court were usually reinforced by my fuller involvement with them in the rest of the common life.
One of the traditions of Moreau was a spring entertainment that the seminarians put on for the residents of the house, including the coadjutor brothers and the sisters who worked in the kitchen. From year to year this extravaganza could vary widely in content and quality. Since we always had a fair number of seminarians who could play musical instruments or sing, it was safe to have them perform the popular folk tunes of the day as well as more classical pieces. Non-musicians might read some poetry or a short creative piece they had written. The real challenge came when some group moved toward satire or local humor. For me, the operative standard of bad taste had to be what the eldest residents would both understand and find offensive. More importantly, we had to worry about the ego strength of any candidates who might find themselves imitated or mocked. There was always a temptation for seminarians to get even with peers who had offended them or to pick on the most vulnerable. They were more reluctant to spoof the staff directly, although in my eyes that would have been a healthier alternative.
One year when the college team was supposed to contribute a humorous act, I had to censor several items I saw in the rehearsal. I did so reluctantly, yet I knew that one or two of the seminarian targets (who had real problems) would have a tough time bouncing back from unsubtle attacks on their dignity. Generally, though, the entertainment ended with smiles all around. I was always happy when we survived another evening fraught with the potential for young creativity run amuck.
Because the seminarians had no required time for retiring and because I was by disposition a late-night person, I often ended up engaged in late bull sessions. We would touch upon every type of topic under the sun, from ND football to married priests to presidential politics, from welfare reform to the morality of contraception to our hopes and dreams for the future of the Catholic Church. Most of us saw ourselves as progressive Catholics, truly committed to the reforms of the Second Vatican Council. The more conservative among us would speak their minds as well, but their point of view was often muted both by the pace of change and the absence of a rallying point of generalized concern. Despite the continued controversies in American society and in the Church at large, our group was a hopeful lot, not deterred by disagreements or instances of the persistence of human malevolence. As a staff member, I had the extra advantage of my doctoral work and my level of experience, yet I never sensed that I inhibited the nature of those late-night conversations or unfairly steered their outcome.
Role reversal is an integral part of the passage to adulthood. Children become parents, students become teachers, athletes become coaches, low-level workers become bosses, and seminarians become priests and seminary directors. In my case, I always had a strong inclination to become a full-time academic and a priest/pastor/counselor, but it had never occurred to me that I might someday serve as director of the College Seminary program. Yet I had plenty of opinions about religious formation and vocational discernment in my years of preparation, and I was in favor of the vast majority of the changes in seminary life and culture that came in the wake of the Second Vatican Council. In some cases I was myself an active agent of progressive restructuring, either as a public critic of the traditional way or as a representative of my peer group in various deliberative bodies.
In the end, I feel that I received an excellent theological education, if at least partially at my own initiative, and that my apostolic experiences (on service projects in Latin America, in inner-city Detroit, teaching seminars at Notre Dame, at a mental hospital, and serving as a resident assistant in a dorm) were eye opening and consciousness raising. I began my priestly ministry with self-confidence, zeal, and a strong sense of being part of a collective ministry based on community living and mutual support. Despite what I considered the limitations of the pre-1960s Holy Cross seminary system, it nonetheless provided me with the tools for effective priestly ministry and an ever-emerging ecclesiology in terms of which I could imagine my future role in service of the Church and the Congregation. Now that I was assigned a full-time responsibility for a subsection of the Moreau Seminary program I had to figure out how to exercise constructive leadership, how to model in a personal way the ideals of Christian living, and how to competently instruct and fairly evaluate the young men entrusted to my care.
My problem with the highly rigid, rather autocratic seminary system of the past was that it was too easy for young men in formation to hide behind formal adherence to the rule and enforced separation from the world. Now that college seminarians had more freedom and a more typical college lifestyle, the chall...

Table of contents