In the nine years since its release, Ex Corde Ecclesiae has sparked heavy discussion among bishops and Catholic academic leaders around the country, most of it very fruitful. As talk about general goals and principles has moved to specific norms for implementation, however, resistance from some quarters has grown more vocal.

One example: Commonweal magazine devoted much of its April 9 issue to commentaries – from a journalist, an attorney, a theologian, a university president, etc. – on why the particular norms of implementation developed for the United States are a bad idea. The norms include a provision, based on Canon 812 of the Code of Canon Law, that "Catholics who teach the theological disciplines in a Catholic university are required to a have a mandate granted by competent ecclesiastical authority" – in other words, in most cases, by the local bishop.

Scheduled to be voted on by the U.S. bishops later this year, the norms include other key elements which require Catholic universities to demonstrate a "commitment to be faithful to the teachings of the Catholic Church" and a "commitment to Catholic ideals, principles and attitudes in carrying out research, teaching and all other university activities . . ." They further stipulate that on a university's board of trustees, "as much as possible, the majority of the board should be faithful Catholics" and "each member of the board must be committed to the mission statement of the university" – which, in turn, should "foster and strengthen at every level [the university's] Catholic nature and character."

The Commonweal contributors do offer clear, articulate arguments – but ones which don't finally persuade. They acknowledge that (1) yes, Catholic universities do have a "Catholic identity" problem; but claim that (2) these norms will not achieve their goal and will actually do more harm than good, because — in seeking to mollify Rome — they stress canonical enforcement over real renewal; and therefore (3) we need to slow down the juridical implementation process with a five-year or similar moratorium and "refuse to be bullied by deadlines into rash . . . or self-destructive actions."

After nine years of reflection and discussion, it's hard to see what another five would accomplish. It's a bit like listening to an uncle who has declined to acknowledge his medical condition for years, finally admit it . . . but only in order to argue against this remedy at this time. Moreover, at this point, any moratorium proposal runs the risk of being seen as just a wager against the future: i.e., a new Pope might have a new agenda. The proposed implementation norms will surely be improved and refined before the bishops vote on them in November. But they are valuable precisely because they're specific, clear and practical. Without them, or something very much like them, we will have worked nine years to achieve ambiguity.

Catholic parents have a right to send their children to Catholic centers of higher learning and expect a faithful Catholic education. The Church has a right to expect Catholic universities to be sources of authentic Catholic thought and partners, in their particular way, in the task of evangelization. And for believers, "oaths of fidelity" and "teaching mandates" should be no more burdensome than the love which animates permanent marital vows or religious consecrations.

The vocations of public leadership and academic leadership are not finally so far apart. Catholic individuals — and institutions — make their greatest contribution to American society when they root themselves, their actions and their identities, first and clearly in their faith.