One of the reasons for Land O'Lakes was the desire to retain federal and state funding. "Autonomy" and "academic freedom" in that context means simply that neither the bishop or an order (or all bishops combined or the Pope) has the legal right to tell the University what to do. Whether or not that was a wise move, experience demonstrates that it need not have resulted in a loss of Catholic identity. Of the 21 schools recommended by The Cardinal Newman Society as robustly Catholic, the vast majority are autonomous in this sense. There is, of course, Catholic University, and also Steubenville and Belmont Abbey; but most, if not all, of the rest are governed by boards in which laypersons hold the majority. This includes such wonderful places as Dallas University, Thomas Acquinas, and Christendom. Land O'Lakes, accordingly, while a pre-condition for secularization, did not make it inevitable. What happened was that schools like Notre Dame have given the wrong answer to the questions posed in the second Land O'Lakes statement: "Numerous religious universities have made over their governance to new trustees, most of them laymen and some not members of the sponsoring communion. Other colleges may sever their church affiliation in order to qualify for the government funds they find necessary for survival. "There is much change within the schools, also. The prime guarantee of a college's religious formation has been control: control of governance, of administration, of teaching and of discipline. As this strong control recedes and gives way gradually to sponsorship rather than containment, will an explicitly religious commitment endure the wider exposure? In an environment where academic competition is accorded ultimate preference, can any privilege for religious conviction be retained? If a particular religious tradition can be understood freely and best within a context of pluralism, would a purposefully sought openness in the college population represent reform or disintegration?" Right question; wrong answer. It has resulted in a much fuller measure of disintegration than of reform. Part of the reason has been that Notre Dame and other schools have taken autonomy to mean that they are no longer part of the Church at all, but are rather independent contractors. That they are not bound to obey the bishop or even the bishops assembled does not mean that they should treat them with no more regard than some theology professor on their faculty. This issue of authority and deference can be knotty; but when President Jenkins rejects the strongly held view of his bishop, seconded by so many of his colleagues, in a case in which the claims of Catholic identity are so strong and those of academic freedom so weak, it is plain that Fr. Jenkins's notion of autonomy is that of a wall of separation between University and Church. Notre Dame will do all sorts of good things for the Church except listen to its voice.