When the Department of Theology's unfortunate resolution was brought before the Senate by the Executive Committee of the Senate, I took it at face value. I believed that a question of proper procedure was involved--both from the perspective of the Department and the President. After I made an enquiry into the matter, I came to believe that the crucial issue was the qualifications of the candidate. I no longer believe either to be true. Not the text, but the subtext of this contretemps ultimately implicates three issues:
1) the legitimacy of the presidency of the present incumbent,
2) the question of the continuing special relation between the University and the Congregation of Holy Cross, and
3) the Catholic character of the university.
Those who support the President and those who wish to see the University maintain its special relation with the Order and its Catholic character ought to be on notice that others do not share their vision of the university. I note, too, when in the debate over the resolution, which was adopted by a vote of 29 to 5, I raised the question of text and subtext, no one spoke up and quarreled with my view of what was ultimately involved.