by Thomas J. Reese, S.J.

The following are highlights from remarks given by former Woodstock fellow Thomas J. Reese to friends and benefactors of the Woodstock Theological Center at a February dinner held in the Riggs Library at Georgetown University.

I have been asked to begin a conversation this evening that is aimed at giving "good advice" to the Woodstock Theological Center.  Father Jim Connor has asked me to describe the world from the "Olympian heights" of my position as editor in chief of America, the national Catholic weekly magazine.

Let me list three points that I think are important for a theological center such as Woodstock to consider: the role of religion in society; the issues Woodstock should deal with; and organizational models.

First, the role of religion in society.  In the last couple of decades a sea change has occurred in the attitude of academics and opinion leaders on the role of religion in public life.  In the 1960s, the "God is Dead" movement epitomized the belief that Marx and Freud were right: religion had no place in a healthy and free person or in modern society.  No one, except the blind secularist, would hold these positions today.  Empirical evidence shows that believers are healthier and happier.  Religion has been a liberating force first in the American Civil Rights movement and then in South Africa, Eastern Europe, and Latin America.  With the death of Communism, the most powerful organized force working for the poor and the oppressed is the Catholic Church.  On a global level, we have also seen the rise of Muslim and Hindu political activity.

Along with a growing respect for the role of religion in society is a growing fear of religion on both the left and the right.  On the left, religion, especially the Catholic Church, is criticized by pro-abortion groups, such as Planned Parenthood, and by some feminist groups.  In the United States, these are joined by the public school lobby and teachers' union whose economic interests are threatened by competition from private schools.

On the right, large corporations and vested interests feel threatened by the church's preferential option for the poor.  Whether it be in China, India, or Latin America, political and economic elites feel threatened by religion when it empowers the poor and disenfranchised.  The increase in the number of murders of priests and ministers reflects this fear.

Religious beliefs have social and political implications, and churches are recognized as political actors in today's world.  The Bush administration's proposals for partnership with faith-based organizations is only the latest example of this.

All of this means that the opportunities open to the Woodstock Theological Center are greater than ever.  People today expect to hear theological and ethical reflection on the critical political, economic, and cultural issues facing us today.

Second, what are the topics or issues that Woodstock should deal with?  I think that the problem we face here is the immense number of important issues facing the church and the world.  All you have to do is read the morning newspaper (or America magazine) and the problems facing the world are evident: global warming, cloning, abortion, drug abuse, sexism, racism, globalization of culture and the economy, illiteracy, human rights, terrorism, ethnic and religious conflict, war, refugees, starvation, dysfunctional families, natural disasters, AIDS, environmental degradation, etc.  And when you look at the church you haveconcerns about the role of women, declining numbers of vocations, the role of theologians, faith and science, lay leadership, inculturation of the faith, centralization of authority, ecumenism, spirituality, prayer, etc.

The problem is not finding worth-while topics.  The problem is that choice means not only saying yes, it also means saying no.  For example, one criteria might be that if there are lots of other people dealing with an issue, we should ignore it.  This would mean saying no to dealing with issues like cloning, abortion, and other bioethical issues since there are lots of bioethical centers around the country.  It would mean saying no to doing studies of Ex Corde Ecclesiae and the role of theologians in the church, since this is a well-plowed field.  We might also ask whether business ethics is an appropriate field for Woodstock when there are hundreds of business ethics centers around the country.

Granted Woodstock's location in the nation's capitol, the application of Catholic social teaching to the making of public policy seems an entirely appropriate area of specialization.  I am sure there are others.

Finally, let me talk about models of how Woodstock might operate.  One model would be the Woodrow Wilson Center, which has a small core of permanent fellows and a larger number of visiting fellows.  This model would allow the center to host experts from all over the world to work on projects that are in sync with the center's mission and goals.  The interchange among the fellows would be enriching for them and the center.

The second model is that of the Manhattan project.  You pick an issue and you require everyone at the center work as a team and focus their attention and energies on that issue.  Thus if the application of Catholic social teaching to public policy were the issue, then everything else would have to be trimmed away so that the focus is on that project.  This model requires teamwork and strong leadership.

The third model is the genius model.  Here you hire as permanent fellows the brightest people you can find and afford and you let them do what they want.

The fourth model is the entre-preneurial model.  Here you hire fellows and tell them that if their programs are not financially self-sufficient in two or three years, they are fired.

Finally, all these models change depending on whom you think are the Center's primary customers.  Is it other scholars?  Policy makers?  The general public?  This will determine the issues you take on and the fellows you recruit.

Being editor at America has helped me clarify the issues that face Woodstock because many of the issues you face are the same as the ones I face.  There are hundreds of topics I would like to have articles on, but finding someone knowledgeable, willing and able to write for America's audience is not easy.

I have gone on too long.  My purpose was to start the discussion, so let me quit and open the floor to suggestions, comments and questions.