Notre Dame Drops ‘Catholic Mission’ Language From Staff Values

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

When I was at mass, there were probably 30 college girls in mantillas and jeans.

There are several younger girls who wear mantillas at our middle of the road NOVA Catholic masses. Yes, there is an appetite for more traditional liturgy--one of my daughters is in choir and prefers to sing in Latin--but I also think they think it looks cute. I don't think mantillas -----> tradwives.

What’s a mantilla?

Catholic women used to have to wear a veil over their head in the church during Mass.

When the requirement went away, it quickly disappeared as an American cultural tradition.

This is people bringing that back . . . it is no longer required but is not barred. In modern context it is usually taken as a sign of agreement with a trend toward increased conservatism, the kind that in Catholic Churches goes hand in hand with Opus Dei, Latin Mass, and publicly disagreeing with any pope that is more focused on the things Jesus said to do in the Gospels than fighting abortion, divorce, and the Gays. It is not strictly a sign of conservatism and can (a little naively, usually) be a sign of modesty and outward devotion.

The specific term mantilla (MON-TEA-UH in faux phonetic English) is specifically taken from the Spanish version which was once common for Spanish women in contexts beyond Church even though it was an overwhelmingly Catholic country. The big black thing draped over your head, etc.

If you haven't heard of a mantilla, it's probably a good sign.

Wow, thank you for this helpful explanation and context. I'm a protestant Christian and was not understanding why we are talking about some seemingly Spanish word in this discussion.

DP: For more context, women stopped wearing hats/veils at mass in the 60s, though it was officially changed in 1983. I was born in the 60s and never saw anyone wearing a hat or veil in church other than a bride or old lady until the last three years. To me, it comes across as performative in a way that goes against Catholic teaching about performative religious practices. But I conceed that for some it may be a genuine, though not required, modesty choice.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

When I was at mass, there were probably 30 college girls in mantillas and jeans.

There are several younger girls who wear mantillas at our middle of the road NOVA Catholic masses. Yes, there is an appetite for more traditional liturgy--one of my daughters is in choir and prefers to sing in Latin--but I also think they think it looks cute. I don't think mantillas -----> tradwives.

What’s a mantilla?

Catholic women used to have to wear a veil over their head in the church during Mass.

When the requirement went away, it quickly disappeared as an American cultural tradition.

This is people bringing that back . . . it is no longer required but is not barred. In modern context it is usually taken as a sign of agreement with a trend toward increased conservatism, the kind that in Catholic Churches goes hand in hand with Opus Dei, Latin Mass, and publicly disagreeing with any pope that is more focused on the things Jesus said to do in the Gospels than fighting abortion, divorce, and the Gays. It is not strictly a sign of conservatism and can (a little naively, usually) be a sign of modesty and outward devotion.

The specific term mantilla (MON-TEA-UH in faux phonetic English) is specifically taken from the Spanish version which was once common for Spanish women in contexts beyond Church even though it was an overwhelmingly Catholic country. The big black thing draped over your head, etc.

If you haven't heard of a mantilla, it's probably a good sign.

Wow, thank you for this helpful explanation and context. I'm a protestant Christian and was not understanding why we are talking about some seemingly Spanish word in this discussion.

DP: For more context, women stopped wearing hats/veils at mass in the 60s, though it was officially changed in 1983. I was born in the 60s and never saw anyone wearing a hat or veil in church other than a bride or old lady until the last three years. To me, it comes across as performative in a way that goes against Catholic teaching about performative religious practices. But I conceed that for some it may be a genuine, though not required, modesty choice.

They are the Catholic taliban.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

When I was at mass, there were probably 30 college girls in mantillas and jeans.

There are several younger girls who wear mantillas at our middle of the road NOVA Catholic masses. Yes, there is an appetite for more traditional liturgy--one of my daughters is in choir and prefers to sing in Latin--but I also think they think it looks cute. I don't think mantillas -----> tradwives.

What’s a mantilla?

Catholic women used to have to wear a veil over their head in the church during Mass.

When the requirement went away, it quickly disappeared as an American cultural tradition.

This is people bringing that back . . . it is no longer required but is not barred. In modern context it is usually taken as a sign of agreement with a trend toward increased conservatism, the kind that in Catholic Churches goes hand in hand with Opus Dei, Latin Mass, and publicly disagreeing with any pope that is more focused on the things Jesus said to do in the Gospels than fighting abortion, divorce, and the Gays. It is not strictly a sign of conservatism and can (a little naively, usually) be a sign of modesty and outward devotion.

The specific term mantilla (MON-TEA-UH in faux phonetic English) is specifically taken from the Spanish version which was once common for Spanish women in contexts beyond Church even though it was an overwhelmingly Catholic country. The big black thing draped over your head, etc.

If you haven't heard of a mantilla, it's probably a good sign.

Wow, thank you for this helpful explanation and context. I'm a protestant Christian and was not understanding why we are talking about some seemingly Spanish word in this discussion.

DP: For more context, women stopped wearing hats/veils at mass in the 60s, though it was officially changed in 1983. I was born in the 60s and never saw anyone wearing a hat or veil in church other than a bride or old lady until the last three years. To me, it comes across as performative in a way that goes against Catholic teaching about performative religious practices. But I conceed that for some it may be a genuine, though not required, modesty choice.

They are the Catholic taliban.

Ridiculous and offensive

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

When I was at mass, there were probably 30 college girls in mantillas and jeans.

There are several younger girls who wear mantillas at our middle of the road NOVA Catholic masses. Yes, there is an appetite for more traditional liturgy--one of my daughters is in choir and prefers to sing in Latin--but I also think they think it looks cute. I don't think mantillas -----> tradwives.

What’s a mantilla?

Catholic women used to have to wear a veil over their head in the church during Mass.

When the requirement went away, it quickly disappeared as an American cultural tradition.

This is people bringing that back . . . it is no longer required but is not barred. In modern context it is usually taken as a sign of agreement with a trend toward increased conservatism, the kind that in Catholic Churches goes hand in hand with Opus Dei, Latin Mass, and publicly disagreeing with any pope that is more focused on the things Jesus said to do in the Gospels than fighting abortion, divorce, and the Gays. It is not strictly a sign of conservatism and can (a little naively, usually) be a sign of modesty and outward devotion.

The specific term mantilla (MON-TEA-UH in faux phonetic English) is specifically taken from the Spanish version which was once common for Spanish women in contexts beyond Church even though it was an overwhelmingly Catholic country. The big black thing draped over your head, etc.

If you haven't heard of a mantilla, it's probably a good sign.

Wow, thank you for this helpful explanation and context. I'm a protestant Christian and was not understanding why we are talking about some seemingly Spanish word in this discussion.

DP: For more context, women stopped wearing hats/veils at mass in the 60s, though it was officially changed in 1983. I was born in the 60s and never saw anyone wearing a hat or veil in church other than a bride or old lady until the last three years. To me, it comes across as performative in a way that goes against Catholic teaching about performative religious practices. But I conceed that for some it may be a genuine, though not required, modesty choice.

There’s still one in Spain and Latin America and sometimes in the Philippines.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:On a different ND note, this is worth a read:

https://www.theplayerstribune.com/cj-carr-notre-dame-football

I'm not sure how going to ND counts as going against the grain. It's a pretty good, popular college. I don't know anyone who would raise their eyebrows over someone attending.

THAT is your take after reading that piece about CJ Carr and his relationship with his brother???

I give up.

[Anonymous]

Catholic = MAGA.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:On a different ND note, this is worth a read:

https://www.theplayerstribune.com/cj-carr-notre-dame-football

I'm not sure how going to ND counts as going against the grain. It's a pretty good, popular college. I don't know anyone who would raise their eyebrows over someone attending.

THAT is your take after reading that piece about CJ Carr and his relationship with his brother???

I give up.

It's a heartfelt story of course, but that's the only mention of ND in the article, and this thread is about ND, not CJ Carr. Hence, the question.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Personally, I am not in favor. I work at Georgetown and it has moved far from its Catholic mission.

wn

Georgetown is Jesuit (not just "Catholic"). You sure they've moved away from the Jesuit mission?

IMO, yes.

Agreed - it has become far too woke and watered-down its values in comparison to other Jesuit universities.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

When I was at mass, there were probably 30 college girls in mantillas and jeans.

There are several younger girls who wear mantillas at our middle of the road NOVA Catholic masses. Yes, there is an appetite for more traditional liturgy--one of my daughters is in choir and prefers to sing in Latin--but I also think they think it looks cute. I don't think mantillas -----> tradwives.

What’s a mantilla?

Catholic women used to have to wear a veil over their head in the church during Mass.

When the requirement went away, it quickly disappeared as an American cultural tradition.

This is people bringing that back . . . it is no longer required but is not barred. In modern context it is usually taken as a sign of agreement with a trend toward increased conservatism, the kind that in Catholic Churches goes hand in hand with Opus Dei, Latin Mass, and publicly disagreeing with any pope that is more focused on the things Jesus said to do in the Gospels than fighting abortion, divorce, and the Gays. It is not strictly a sign of conservatism and can (a little naively, usually) be a sign of modesty and outward devotion.

The specific term mantilla (MON-TEA-UH in faux phonetic English) is specifically taken from the Spanish version which was once common for Spanish women in contexts beyond Church even though it was an overwhelmingly Catholic country. The big black thing draped over your head, etc.

If you haven't heard of a mantilla, it's probably a good sign.

Wow, thank you for this helpful explanation and context. I'm a protestant Christian and was not understanding why we are talking about some seemingly Spanish word in this discussion.

DP: For more context, women stopped wearing hats/veils at mass in the 60s, though it was officially changed in 1983. I was born in the 60s and never saw anyone wearing a hat or veil in church other than a bride or old lady until the last three years. To me, it comes across as performative in a way that goes against Catholic teaching about performative religious practices. But I conceed that for some it may be a genuine, though not required, modesty choice.

There’s still one in Spain and Latin America and sometimes in the Philippines.

I've lived in Spain and attended mass regularly, always without any head covering -- very few of the women present were wearing mantillas, and the ones who did were very old. There may be an official rule in Spain on the books (though I doubt it), but it's not common practice.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:It is very normal for businesses and institutions to update their mission statements.

Here is the old mission statement: Leadership in Mission: "Understands, accepts and supports the Catholic mission of the university and fosters values consistent with that mission."

New statement: In all that we do we seek to advance Notre Dame’s mission as a global, Catholic research university.

Community: Treat every person with dignity and respect
Collaboration: Work together with honesty, kindness, and humility
Excellence: Pursue the highest standards with a commitment to truth and service
Innovation: Embrace opportunities with creativity and dedication

So instead of the vague "Catholic mission" verbiage, they list the things that make up the Catholic mission.

You glossed over the removal of - accepts, supports ... fosters values with ... that mission: "Understands, accepts and supports the Catholic mission of the university and fosters values consistent with that mission."

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It is very normal for businesses and institutions to update their mission statements.

Here is the old mission statement: Leadership in Mission: "Understands, accepts and supports the Catholic mission of the university and fosters values consistent with that mission."

New statement: In all that we do we seek to advance Notre Dame’s mission as a global, Catholic research university.

Community: Treat every person with dignity and respect
Collaboration: Work together with honesty, kindness, and humility
Excellence: Pursue the highest standards with a commitment to truth and service
Innovation: Embrace opportunities with creativity and dedication

So instead of the vague "Catholic mission" verbiage, they list the things that make up the Catholic mission.

You glossed over the removal of - accepts, supports ... fosters values with ... that mission: "Understands, accepts and supports the Catholic mission of the university and fosters values consistent with that mission."

DP: Yes, they left that out because it is difficult/ impossible for managers to give landscape workers and powerpoint employees a numerical rating on the criteria "Understands, accepts and supports the Catholic mission of the university and fosters values consistent with that mission."

The change was NOT a change of ND's mission as an organization, but rather an update of the categories on which staff employees (not faculty) would be reviewed each quarter/ year.

The old criteria was likely useless, with almost all employees getting full credit (or, more problematically, rated by their direct supervisors, who were not trained as theologians or Catholic lay ministers, on how Catholic the employee appeared to be).

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:On a different ND note, this is worth a read:

https://www.theplayerstribune.com/cj-carr-notre-dame-football

I'm not sure how going to ND counts as going against the grain. It's a pretty good, popular college. I don't know anyone who would raise their eyebrows over someone attending.

THAT is your take after reading that piece about CJ Carr and his relationship with his brother???

I give up.

It's a heartfelt story of course, but that's the only mention of ND in the article, and this thread is about ND, not CJ Carr. Hence, the question.

DP: you need to read more closely. For CJ Carr, choosing ND went against the grain bc his family is Michigan royalty. His father was QB for Michigan and his grandfather a head coach. Michigan is one of ND's main rivals. Therefore, choosing ND was like a Montague choosing a Capulet.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:On a different ND note, this is worth a read:

https://www.theplayerstribune.com/cj-carr-notre-dame-football

I'm not sure how going to ND counts as going against the grain. It's a pretty good, popular college. I don't know anyone who would raise their eyebrows over someone attending.

THAT is your take after reading that piece about CJ Carr and his relationship with his brother???

I give up.

It's a heartfelt story of course, but that's the only mention of ND in the article, and this thread is about ND, not CJ Carr. Hence, the question.

He’s the starting QB for ND and therefore a role model and ambassador for the university. The entire article is about what Carr values (family, determination), the way he has lived his life, and how he worked through heartbreaking adversity.

Another example of ND seeking students of high character.

C’mon.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:The Catholic Church is generally accepted as a problematic institution. Any university that wants top talent as staff or students is going to read the writing on the wall. If you are Catholic and have not realized this, you need to get your head out of the sand.

By who? By people who know their behavior and beliefs are bad for them and others, but can’t stand to be reminded of that? Certainly not by the more than 1.4 billion Catholics worldwide.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Personally, I am not in favor. I work at Georgetown and it has moved far from its Catholic mission.

wn

Georgetown is Jesuit (not just "Catholic"). You sure they've moved away from the Jesuit mission?

IMO, yes.

Agreed - it has become far too woke and watered-down its values in comparison to other Jesuit universities.

What’s wrong with that? Everyone needs to stay woke.