After reading Professor Vernon Gregson’s letter to the editor in the Sept. 3 issue of The Maroon, I felt it necessary to clarify the circumstances surrounding Christian Brugger’s departure from Loyola. These circumstances hint at a fundamental weakness I perceive in Loyola’s ability to inspire critical thinking in the classroom and provide students with a well-rounded education.

First, Gregson’s comments regarding Brugger’s voluntary departure from the religious studies department are misleading. Certainly, Brugger made a choice to leave Loyola, but it was not a desirable circumstance as insinuated by Gregson’s letter.

Brugger made it known in a Maroon article last May that he left because of hostility he experienced from within the department, not simply because he received a better offer from another institution. He felt ostracized by some members of the department who disagreed with his adherence to orthodox Catholic teachings as the truth.

Eventually, the tension within the religious studies department culminated with the department twice voting to recommend to the dean that Brugger’s contract not be renewed. Because of the two departmental votes and the adverse working conditions, Brugger felt he had no choice but to accept a position at another institution.

I spoke with Brugger and his family before they left, and I know they would have much preferred to stay in New Orleans and at Loyola under more accepting circumstances. He and his family loved Loyola and formed meaningful relationships with numerous students. They were fond of their home here and established a network of friends. Hence, their experience in leaving was full of hardship, not of joy.

In addition, I am uncertain of Gregson’s intention when he related Brugger’s conversion experience to his class reading selections. Gregson’s comment can be interpreted to mean that Brugger’s present-day Catholic beliefs are narrow-minded and simply the result of a college conversion experience that blinded him from rational thinking. If this was Gregson’s intention, his comment was patronizing. It insinuates a degree of naiveté and ignorance in Brugger’s theological convictions.

I think Gregson is missing the point here. He should not speculate over the cause of Brugger’s present-day Catholic faith, but rather assess the way in which Brugger provided a fair and thorough account of the Catholic faith in his classes.

This is the question that Loyola and the religious studies department have yet to adequately address: at a Catholic university that promotes itself as a well-rounded and critical-thinking university, are students receiving a fair and thorough treatment of defined Catholic teaching as handed down by the Magisterium of the Church? In my experience and in the experience of many students I knew at Loyola, the answer is no.

While a few Loyola professors did fairly present the Church’s positions, the prevalent classroom experience involved professors who, perhaps unintentionally, presented students only with arguments that dissented from or confused Magisterial Church teaching on theology, morality or philosophy.

Certainly, students should receive fair presentations of positions that disagree with the Magisterium, because confronting and understanding differing ideas is essential to a healthy college education. But I do not want a professor, who is misinformed of or resentful toward the Magisterium of the Church, to be the only voice I hear at a critical thinking university, much less a Catholic university.

I want to arrive at my own conclusions after hearing a fair and thorough presentation of the Church’s position, and Brugger was one of the very few professors who was able and willing to do that during my time at Loyola.

~ Philip Braun is a 2003 graduate of the College of Arts and Sciences from New Orleans