Case #2: The Notre Dame Paradox
Document Actions
Descriptive Dimension
What is the central question this case addresses? What are the pertinent facts of the case? According to each party, what are the morally irrelevant issues and what is morally irrelevant?
Normative Dimension
What are the basic human goods or ends that the parties involved are trying to realize (for examples, alums who give money and the University administration which sets policies connecting donations to the ticket lottery? What general principles, specific rules or duties, help reconcile or prioritize these goods?
Practical Dimension
How do the parties involved arrive at a final judgment about this issue? Is the disagreement among parties involved and irreconcilable? If there is agreement, is there anything preventing them from acting on their decisions?
Fundamental Dimension
What factors, if any, constrain the University from making a decision different from the one guiding its present policy? What factors, if any, constrain alums from either contributing or not contributing money to the University? In other words, does each party have the freedom to make a decision? How does the decision in question contribute to the formation of character of each alumnus and the institution?
Sources for Discernment
On what basis are the goods, principles and practical judgments in this case defended to those who would decide the issue differently? What reasons are given? Do those involved appeal to scripture, tradition, reason, personal experience? For each party, should appeal to the University's Mission Statement or the Constitutions of the Congregation of the Holy Cross factor into this decision?
