Ads


Mary and the Modern University

Cleaving to the truths of revelation, insisted Pope John Paul II in Ex Corde Ecclesia (“From the heart of the Church”), issued twenty years ago Sunday, energizes the inquiring mind, giving us confidence that truth is worth the effort of discovery. The main thrust of the Pope’s vision contradicted the usual assumption the Church and the university represent antithetical traditions: the Church teaching with authority and shutting down debate, the university encouraging free and open inquiry.

We know, of course, that this easy dichotomy must be false. As a matter of historical fact, the intellectual vitality of Christianity gave birth to the medieval university. In America, religious groups of various sorts founded the vast majority of private colleges and universities. Something about the life of faith clearly nurtures the life of the mind.

What, then, does Christianity add to academic life? What should make teachers and students at Catholic colleges and universities–and other Christian institutions of higher education–confident in the intellectual integrity of their enterprise?

The first source of confidence is simple. As John Henry Newman pointed out, a Catholic university sustains a genuine universality of knowledge. Today, many faculty members at secular colleges and universities exhibit a shocking ignorance of (if not disdain for) Christianity. This diminishes the intellectual caliber of their institutions. For only a rank ideologue can deny that a deep knowledge of the Christian tradition is necessary for a serious understanding of Western culture.

Indeed, religions of many sorts play an essential role in all known cultures–even of the recently secular West. As a result, those educated under the dominion of a secularist mentality suffer a stultifying parochialism. By contrast, at Catholic universities, no matter what their personal beliefs, students are more broadly equipped to study history, philosophy, and literature, as well as the social sciences. They are more likely to see human realities more clearly, because they are less likely to be blind to the religious dimension.

The second source of confidence is less obvious, but more important. Education does not just expose us to different ideas. It trains our intellectual habits, and the influence of the Church creates an atmosphere of piety and devotion crucial to deep learning.

The modern era favors images of discovery—Columbus finding America, Newton gravity, and so forth—and the modern university favors the idea of learning as individual discovery. Yes, we need to be open to new possibilities, but most of what we need to know comes from learning what others have thought, which too much emphasis on exploration often leads us to neglect.

Scientists intuitively recognize as much. Courses of study in chemistry and physics put students through their paces. They must first learn before they can question. They need to absorb the scholarly consensus before they can explore its boundaries.

Complacency is also a threat. Bright students sometimes learn little, either because they aren’t interested or because they imagine they already know the subject matter. Professors get bored with their disciplines or are so confident in their pet theories that they become immune to new thoughts and new ideas. Sadly, as I have discovered in my years in the university, there is no correlation between intelligence and the capacity to learn. Too often, complacency closes us off to the possibilities of knowledge.

To avoid these perversions of the intellect, we need something akin to piety and devotion, which gives proper shape to intelligence and guides native enthusiasm. The life of the mind should be marked by the humility and ardor that characterizes the heart of the believer before the gift of Christ’s body and blood: “I am not worthy to receive you, but only say the word and I shall be healed.” We must be humble enough to recognize how little we know, while remaining confident enough that truth beckons us to approach her again and again.

Benedict XVI has observed, as did John Paul II and many others, that our postmodern intellectual culture tends toward skepticism, cynicism, and irony. The natural sciences proceed with confidence, but elsewhere in the university a critical sensibility obtains that offers the negative, empty confidence that one has seen through the illusions of truth. All too often the result is a personal resignation that only rouses itself to denounce the convictions of others as delusions, deceptions, and expressions of will-to-power.

Skepticism gains ground, because the search for truth can seem foolhardy. Who’s to say what is true? How can we be sure our ideas of truth are not just the product of our self-interest, culture, or genetics? Perhaps the postmodern nihilists are right, and we’re kidding ourselves when we imagine truth to be something real rather than useful.

To counter this doubt, often so temptingly plausible, a Catholic university offers something truly precious: a taste for the adventure of truth. Critics are quick to notice that faith does not carefully add up evidence. It does not tarry to check and re-check arguments. On the contrary, faith involves an impetuous abandonment of the self. When the Angel of the Lord comes to Mary, she is told a truth–the truth of human destiny–that she cannot understand. Her response: “Behold, I am the handmaiden of the Lord; let it be to me according to your word.”

Her self-abandonment to the incarnation of the Son of God, the very source of truth, leads the subsequent tradition to refer to the Virgin Mary as the Seat of Wisdom. She does not, of course, speak against weighing evidence or scrutinizing arguments. Instead, the example of the Virgin may teaches us something very important about the life of the mind.

Truth rarely comes to us through decisive proofs or rock solid evidence. She entices, seduces, and leads us forward with partial disclosures. Coy rather than forward, by and large truth offers herself to those who give themselves to her, which is why a willingness to abandon oneself turns out to be crucial for the life of the mind. As the Catholic theologian A. G. Sertillanges once wrote: “Truth serves only her slaves.”

Reason differs from faith, of course. We should not abandon ourselves utterly to any scientific theory and philosophical doctrine. The critical moment remains. Yet something of the Blessed Virgin’s life-abandoning faith must be part of a living culture of truth. The adventure of conviction—that is the something crucial that Christianity adds to academic life. Without it higher education declines into technical education, a hoop for young people to jump through on the way to their careers, and not an intoxicating exploration of the life of the mind and of truth.

R.R. Reno is a senior editor of First Things and Professor of Theology at Creighton University. He is the general editor of the Brazos Theological Commentary on the Bible, to which he contributed the commentary on Genesis. He recommends A. G. Sertillanges’ The Intellectual Life.

Comments:

8.12.2010 | 9:09am
On the matter of the state of scientific inquiry today, the delightful little thought experiment by Professor (of physics and Nobel laureate) Robert Laughlin, entitled The Crime of Reason, sheds some bright light at the very head of the staircase.
8.12.2010 | 11:40am
Ars Artium says:
Subtle (and not-so-subtle) disdain, even ridicule: These are powerful weapons employed by those entrusted with our children's education. Another is skillful manipulation (conscious or unconscious) of young people's normal desire for independence from parental teaching. "Abandon hope" that Truth exists. "Join us".
8.12.2010 | 11:52am
MacGabhann says:
The metaphysical Catholic view sees immanent reality as a transcendently ordered realm that man must seek to understand through faith and wisdom, and in so doing is obliged to conform to, and maintain that order.
The English speaking secular Calvinist view, exemplified by Oxbridge and the Ivy League, denies transcendence as a matter of principle and so sees immanent order not as something to which man is morally obliged to conform to, but rather as something man is free to transform as he will.
The approach of the conformist is to teach the history of philosophy alongside philosophy, for then the student bears in mind that philosophy is an elaboration of the original insight that while man is the measure of the world, God is the measure of man. The approach of the transformist is to ignore history as being irrelevant to the task in hand: acquiring knowledge and power to order the world.
8.12.2010 | 2:06pm
Mary Jane says:
Our Church tells us that if we just pray and have faith, we can walk on water, and make bread appear out of thin air; we can perform all the wonders that Jesus did, and "greater things than these."

Is this however really a foundation for a great education? Does this really fit what we find in experience? Or in Science class?
8.12.2010 | 4:26pm
MacGabhann says:
Mary Jane:

Here’s the point: you don’t acquire an education in Science class, you only, at best, acquire a training. A training tells you how to do things to achieve particular practical ends, and a training may lead you to devise ways of achieving particular practical ends.
An education, on the other hand, is what you acquire when you understand why you ultimately do things to achieve practical ends.
The natural sciences never explain “why,” they only describe ”how.” How does the apple fall from the tree? If falls to the ground in accord with the law of gravity. Why does it fall to the ground in accord with the law of gravity and not shoot up into the sky? Who knows? Certainly not the scientists, because they are not interested in “why” questions, only “how” questions that allow them to describe phenomena, not explain them.
Press a why question on a scientist and ultimately you’ll come up with a blank. For example, why bake bread? So you can eat it and not starve. Why not starve? So you won’t die. Why not die? So you can live. Why live?
Ultimately, the “why” question can only be answered by one who has been educated to the whole truth, but one can only begin to access the whole truth through faith. Why? You have to have faith first before you can become educated enough to answer that question.
8.12.2010 | 5:56pm
Maria says:
Years ago, my sister in law adivised , to start the day with the rosary and to see how good the day can go ...prostrate on the floor , spending 15, 20, 30 min ...for The Spirit to take dominion ...a practice many a grandmother has not forgotten ..and how could they , when they could remember well , how every childbirth was like a woman going into a battelfield ..

Our own times , yes on the very campuses , are they any less dangerous ..

when there are plenty who choose to make their very selves , not temples of the Holy Spirit ..but of the fallen ones ..

' For your enemy the devil is like a prowling lion ..' and all the confusion it brings ..

Much attack on Motherhood and its dignity ..Marriage ,which derivess from the term Matrimony ..meaning Motherhood ...

Those who feel that they are trapped in relationships that have nothing to do with Motherhood ...should they not be using a term like 'smearage ' ...with the hope that one day , they would be free enough to have healtheir , stable relationships that no longer smear their God given identities ...( Smearex can be the term for that phase )

Meanwhile , our own Mother relatedness can be the way to get us not even wanting to have to walk on waters or get bread out of thin air ...being loved by such a Mother who can guard us against the enemy , as an army set in battle array ..and who feeds us too, with power of forgiveness , to be filled with merciful love , all not from thin air, but from the very Breath of The Spirit Himself ...

.
8.12.2010 | 6:19pm
Mary Jane says:
Here's the problem: 1) science tells us that many of the "factual" things religion promises, are flatly false. That is a very bad thing in itself; it means religion is making many false statements, and telling us it is holy.

But then too, 2) therefore, given its many false factual statements, its ideas about what underlies factual reality, the "why" of things, is almost certainly false as well.

Are you sure this is a good education?
8.12.2010 | 7:07pm
Ars Artium says:
Re: Mary Jane: To believe, one must begin at the beginning. Fr. James Schall addresses the question, "How can we know what is?". His book, "The Order of Things" offers a different perspective on life's meaning than is on offer in our present cultural environment. If you are a college student, you will almost certainly find yourself feeling quite alone in your search, but you will not be alone. If you accompany your study with prayer that is genuine and open to beauty and grace, you will find yourself in the company of those who through all times have sought the living God. "Seek and you shall find."
8.12.2010 | 7:20pm
Bob G says:
Mary Jane, you are out to lunch!

"science tells us that many of the 'factual' things religion promises, are flatly false."

Science does no such thing. Name one "thing" religion "promises" that science shows is false. They operate in wholly different realms. Science cannot disprove anything about religion unless the religion in question is crossing the boundary into physical science.

I suppose you would say that science "tells us" there can't be a resurrection. But science can't do it. All it can say is that it has never seen a resurrection. Neither can science say there are no miracles. All it can say is that a miracle would be outside its scope. Yet there clearly have been miracles.
8.12.2010 | 10:50pm
Avdotya says:
I am just writing to applaud Bob G. He put it so well that there is nothing more I could possibly write to make the point any clearer.
8.12.2010 | 10:50pm
John2 says:
With about ten years remaining in my academic lifetime, I resonate to Professor Reno's advice to be "humble enough to recognize how little we know, while remaining confident enough that truth beckons us to approach her again and again."

At this point in life, I know more than half of what I will ever know. It isn't enough.

At the end of this life we are still massively ignorant, even the geniuses among us. But what else is there to do? Learn what I can, teach it to the next cohort, offer it to God, and do it in His name.

Thanks for the reminder of Sertillanges little gem. Now to find my copy in this mass of papers, folders, and books....
8.12.2010 | 11:10pm
Mary says:
Science says it has never seen a resurrection.
8.13.2010 | 7:19am
truly wonderful article...thank you for it...wonderfully expressed
8.13.2010 | 2:59pm
Mary says:
Is "blind" faith really the answer? Does the Bible really stess "faith" as much as that?

Actually, the Bible warned that there would always be many "false prophets" and "false" and "decieit"ful things, throughout every aspect of religion; even those who say they are Christians, following a "Christ," calling "Lord, Lord," can be following a foretold "false Christ."

THEREFORE, it may be we are supposed to have faith in God himself... but not have faith, in any church or preacher or priest.

Instead of having faith in holy men and others who say they are telling us what "the Lord said," actually, we are supposed to look very, very carefully, critically at them - to see if they really are from God, as they claim. We are to look to see if they really are producing the material wonders - like miracles - that they promised, very, very regularly and reliably.

But what happens when we look at most of those who presume to speak for God, today? At our Neo Cons, and even priests? We find they are not producing all the wonders that they promised; or that real followers of God are supposed to produce.

So what should we deduce from that?

Eventually, when many people go to University, and learn to think rationally ... they begin to notice apparent problems, in the things we were told to believe and have faith in, as children. In particular, there are even theological errors, in too much stress on "faith"; on "blind" faith especially.
8.14.2010 | 3:52pm
John says:
Mary,
I understand your point regarding the poor examples that our Church and conservative leaders have produced. I understand your angst with the hyper-enthusiasm we've seen in the Church for charisma and lack of substantive catechesis.
I think though, you fail to see a larger point: Our world--we, the People--have always been a fallen race since Adam & Eve. We're going to see bad examples along with the good. We should never allow ourselves to become too skeptical of faith when our leaders don't live up to their mandate to be holy.

As well, I've long since quit believing that academia has much willingness to provide useful answers. I think it quite telling that, while I'd never heard of Ayn Rand before college, neither had I heard much of anything about Aquinas, Augustine, or any of a number of the Church's saints.

In particular, if modern thinkers are truly so enlightened, why have I not heard anything about how they think so much more cogently and well than Aquinas' Summa Theologia? Why haven't I heard a competent disputation of that work from the premiere professors of Harvard, Yale, or other prestigious Ivy League schools? For that matter, why haven't I heard a competent professor effectively dispute Duns Scotus' theory on Mary's Immaculate Conception?

I think I haven't heard these occur because they can't. I suspect most of our "enlightened" teachers may even fear to tread these paths because their arguments are inadequate.

Reason certainly can go a long way toward understanding life. I think though that reason requires being educated by faith before it can attempt to prepare us for eternal life.
8.14.2010 | 6:53pm
John2 says:
Hi John,

Nice to meet you on FT. You are pretty much on target. Reason and faith go together, as is abundantly clear through reading the authors you cite and many others. Indeed, we have an encyclical called “Faith and Reason” (Fides et Ratio); I give our skeptical friends a back-of-the-envelope summary of this little gem as they show a need. Faith and reason are not in conflict; nor were they ever.

Turning to the bigger picture, the church as a body is far ahead of any of its individual members. That goes for the bishops who are supposed to be teaching our faith. I hate to criticize them, but (according to me) they dropped the ball many years ago. What puzzles me is why a man of the cloth will not do his job. What kind of man can misread the duties of a bishop so thoroughly????

As to the bigger academic picture, from my perch as a professor I suggest that you will hear next-to-nothing useful from us because:
1. Very few professors know the faith. Professors Reno, Schall, et al. are exceptions, not the rule.

2. Those professors who know the faith have no one to dispute with. The Dawkins, Hitchens, et al. of our current parade of ‘atheists’ are reduced to recycling arguments that were comprehensively defeated hundreds of years ago. If The Angelic Doctor were active in academia today, he would have to compose his own counterarguments. He would find no competent opposition.

3. Academics outside religious fields have gone almost silent. Faithful practicing Catholic faculty are often afraid their careers will suffer if the university finds out what they are. Turning to non-believers, I often say that the reason nobody teaches the faith in academia is because all know Catholicism is true; opponents give up when they begin to explore the astonishing history of the church and the waterfall of heresies tabulated and refuted. Not to mention the frequent reports of its death (all greatly exaggerated).

Of course, there are exceptions to all this, but I think it is a workable broad-brush picture of our situation and the odium that accrues to contemporary bishops and professors. I think the bishops are more to blame.

I wish I didn’t think that.
10.4.2010 | 3:45am
At the end of this life we are still massively ignorant, even the geniuses among us. But what else is there to do? Learn what I can, teach it to the next cohort, offer it to God, and do it in His name. Those who feel that they are trapped in relationships that have nothing to do with Motherhood ...should they not be using a term like 'smearage ' ...with the hope that one day , they would be free enough to have healtheir , stable relationships that no longer smear their God given identities ...( Smearex can be the term for that phase )
type the text above in the box below

Links

Blogs

Find Us

Contact