Content Server

A Catholic University: Some Reflections By William J. Hegge, O.S.C.

All human persons acquire a world-view by being born and raised in a certain place, at a certain time, in a particular culture. Much of the society to which they belong enters into them, so that the various individual members manifest the various societies. These pre-scientific experiences are the reality where all sciences finds their formal object and are the constant background against which all scientific work is done. In this manner all science points toward man.

It is this that makes the university a requirement. A university is not a luxury but a necessity, because science demands integration. Reality with which science deals is not made up of unrelated, disconnected, merely juxtaposed beings; rather it is a meaningful whole. The paradox is that physics exists in virtue of its own proper method which is not philosophical and nonetheless requires philosophy. For the task of philosophy is the task of integration. Willy-nilly a university has a world-view. It has a principle of order no matter what, and if a university refuses all "Weltanschauung", it accepts one by doing so.

Naturally a Catholic university has the Catholic "Weltanschauung" and just as much right to exist as a university with a different philosophy of life. However, every so often we are reminded of G. B. Shaw's remark that a Catholic university is a contradiction of terms. But why should this be an objection only to a Catholic university? All universities are bound by some "Weltanschauung" or other. They all have their "faith" and are tied to their world-view. Secondly, freedom does not debar limitations. Academic free-dom is not academic license. Clearly, one essential characteristic of freedom is non-determination. But another is determination, because freedom is some-thing. Herein lies the mystery of freedom that is it both indeterminate and determinate. Drop one of the two and the mystery is gone and so is freedom.

Yet, it would not be fair to let the problem go at that. It cannot be denied that in practice the ecclesiastical authority interferes with a Catholic university, with its department of philosophy and especially with its depart-ment of theology. This has been and is the practice. However, the point is whether or not this is inherent in a Catholic university. I do not think it is. Rather, I see it as an abuse arising from the failure to distinguish properly * William J. Hegge, O.S.C., has taught dogmatic theology at the University

of Notre Dame. He also serves on the faculty of the Crosier House of Studies, Fort Wayne, Indiana.

(241)

242 Encounter

between Faith and theology. Faith is not theology. A medieval Bishop, St. Anselm, defines theology as Faith that seeks understanding. Indeed like theology Faith too must be expressed, because it must reply to the question that inquires after the content of one's Faith. But this expression does not coincide with a scientific wording of one's Faith which is theology. Obvious-ly, theology includes Faith; without Faith theology cannot be. But the one is not the other. The ecclesiastical authority is the guardian of Faith and its expression, not of theology and its expression. Theological arguments must be met by theological counter-arguments and must not run into ecclesiastical commands. In this context the task of the ecclesiastical authority is to listen to the department of theology in a Catholic university, not to teach it.

As so many others, I am defending academic freedom in the name of science, but I am not defending it with the usual argument of the ivory tower. I will not debase academic freedom by claiming that it has nothing to do with life as those who would defend the fine arts against ethical judge-ments debase that which they defend. They argue that since an object eu art is naturally the result of an artistic action it must be met only with an artistic counter-action. Ethical judgment is not an artistic action but a moral one and thus, they claim, must not meddle in the fine arts. Such argument is false and debasing, because it refuses to recognize that an artistic action is a human act as well. As such, as a human act, the artistic action enters the field of moral concern. Similarly, a theological action is also a human act and as such, as a human act, enters the moral field. Thus the argument of the ivory tower cannot be the foundation upon which academic freedom rests. Rather, I defend academic freedom in virtue of historical fact and human nature that show that academic freedom had a terrific struggle during its birth and its continued existence. If academic freedom is not allowed, science and theology too will vanish. It is this that seems to me the basis for acade-mic freedom.

What, then, is the historical fact? It is that experimental science was born and came into its own by seizing the academic freedom it was not given. There are cases in history where academic freedom was fruitfully taken against the will of the majority of civilized people. Such an instance is Darwin. Socrates was attracked on matters religious and moral. He used academic freedom to teach people to have open minds and to ask questions on their own. If Socrates would not have seized academic freedom, the development of philosophy would have been retarded. Of course, without Socrates the Socratic method would have been invented by someone else who would have changed the name but not the method. But he too would have faced difficulties similar to Socrates's.

Secondly, I defend academic freedom in virtue of human nature. Human nature has always shown itself weak and arrogant under the force of

A Catholic University: Some Reflections 243

power. It is not that men in authority do not have the right to defend that authority. As a matter of fact they have a duty to defend it, for without authority society ceases to be. But authority is no tool of science. Science thrives on arguments and counter-arguments. If all scientists mouth the same theses, science will die. Science is as valid as its arguments. Science lives by insights, intuitions and working-hypotheses. It sustains itself by attacking its own principles. If science is to live and grow, we must take the risks generated by academic freedom. Again, there is a strong tendency in nature to impose one's will upon others, to use whatever little knowledge one possesses to dominate others. Social conformity is an example. It can happen on a large scale, as in a nation, or on a small scale, as in a neighbor-hood. But the imposition of one's will upon others is no scientific device. A tendency correlative to the former and its opposite without which the former cannot exist is the desire of the majority of humans for conformity. In Dostoevski's Grand Inquistor, Christ, having returned to earth, is taken to prison and accused of having put the fearful burden of free choice on men. Most men, explains the Inquisitor,2 want to be united in one unanimous and harmonious ant heap. And does not psychology teach that the conflict between a persons's need to strive toward maturity and freedom and his inclination to remain a child and hug the protection of parental substitutes is typical of man? The majority of men wants to be led, wants conformity and this occurs in universities as well as in any other place. And so it might happen that the over-all administration of a university must interfere in a particular department that has over-stressed conformity. Of course, these tendencies are also beneficial and necessary, for without them there would be too many chiefs and no Indians. But I am indicating their pejorative aspect. Science, also theology, cannot flourish but in the atmosphere of academic freedom.

Although this seems true to me, it is not the whole truth. It is true in the great, great majority of cases; it is the general rule and the usual way Catholic universties should be run. But I should like to refer to an excep-tion. I can imagine a case, exceptional but nonetheless valid, where a scientific argument is rightly answered not by a counterargument but by a command. Indeed academic freedom must be had as we have seen; it is a great good and a high value. But it is not an absolute! In the olden days the European aristocracy defended itself by calling on a divine right. But the divine right did not exist. It is just as wrong to defend academic freedom as if it were of divine right. This is no contradiction of my opinion described above, but only the insertion of proper balance. Father Neil McCluskey, S.J., has put academic freedom versus ecclesiastical authority in a sentence that is at once clear and revealing. He said, "there is no more academic iuri^frcation for the entry by a local bishop or provincial into the university

244 Encounter

discipline of theology than there is for the local mayor or governor to intrude into the field of political science." Indeed, and I have shown above what seems to me the ultimate reason for it. Some have concluded from Father McCluskey's statement that he maintains that the ecclesiastical authority must NEVER interfere. Such is not my interpretation of his assertion. His statement must be read in its context, it does not imply such inference. As a matter of fact, it seems to me his very analogy taken from government in society implies the opposite. Catholic theology has always defended the morality of rebellion, if the highly exceptional circumstances are present that permit the overthrow of government. Government is a great good and a necessity, but it is not an absolute. Before rebellion is moral, all means to destroy the corruption in government must have proved ineffective. These means are not the ones to which individual citizens might resort, but are the means of government like the House of Representatives, the Senate, the courts and so on. But if they are without avail, then the citizens may use their own means to fight the corruption. Academic freedom versus ecclesias-tical authority is a similar case. Usually, academic freedom must prevail and scientific arguments must be met by counter-arguments, for these and not commands are the instruments of the academic world. But just as it can be imagined that a government is so decayed that the ordinary means by which the decay must be destroyed are totally insufficient and other means like rebellion must be used, so it can be conceived that a Catholic university is so corrupt that the academic means are of no avail and the ecclesiastical authority must use other instruments like excommunication. Again, although usually the great scholars and creative thinkers will show up at the great universities, there are exceptions. All bigness might be buried under its own weight. Locke and Hume philosophized independently from the large un-versities. The same is true for Nietzsche whose philology not philosophy has its roots in the university. Usually great painters will appear at the great art centers, but there are exceptions; young Picasso is an instance. In this con-text, the article by R. Legger in the Wall Street Journal of May 19, 1967 is appropriate. It appears that some well-known scholars leave the great centers of higher learning in order to teach at little known institutions. Among their reasons are a desire for academic freedom, for less pressure. Harvard professor Riesman is quoted as stating that "the small schools' vital importance is that they provide countervailing models to the big, research-orientated universities and the prestige schools; it is terrible im-portant to keep these small, changing models alive." All this shows that although top Catholic universities with their academic freedom are needed and the sooner we get them the better, they are no absolutes.

A second current objection viewing the Catholic university in its existential condition observes that we today live in a pluralistic society.

A Catholic University: Some Reflections 245 This makes the Catholic university an educational freak that puts the stu-dents in an unreal environment and does not educate them for the real world which is pluralistic. Again it must be stated that all universities have a philosophy of life and hence this objection might be valid for non-Catholic universities as well. On the other hand, if one were to maintain that Catholic universities are the only ones that have reason for existence, the objection would be valid. But a Catholic university is only one of the many possible universities. Finally, the proposal that only non-denominational universities should exist that include various theological faculties, such as Catholic, Protestant, Jewish, Islamitic seems false to me. The proposal makes the very mistake it hopes to overcome; it is exclusive. Also non-denomina-tional universities have a world-view that will permeate those universities. There is quite a difference between a Catholic university and a Catholic theological faculty at a state university. The defense of endowed universities versus state universities by R. Hutchins has always seemed correct to me. State universities need the balance of endowed ones. This is an instance of a more general principle, namely the principle of variety, the ultimate basis of which is the limitation of every and any creature. Antitrust laws and the rights of minorities are further instances of this principle. Without variety in institutions of higher learning the road to intellectual dictatorship is wide open. The unity should be one of variety and not one of uniformity. The reader might recall that unity of uniformity has time and again been used as an argument for Latin in the Mass! People have claimed they felt the unity of the Church when they went to Mass in Japan and did not hear or see much difference between that Mass and the one back home in the United States.

These are a few reflections on the crurent topic of a Catholic university. A thorough scrutiny of the idea of a Catholic university should comprise many a study, historical, philosophical and so on. It should even include a philosophical investigation of the term "Catholic," a word used long before the birth of Christ and one that can change its meaning in a generation. For instance, today Catholics have a different understand of the phrase "Roman Catholic" than their Catholic grandfathers had. Today we under-stand it to point to a necessary visible center of the Church which happens, but does not need, to be Rome. Again, such inquiry would have to consider practical topics. For example, if the department of theology in a Catholic university is to have a central place, inter-disciplinary seminars are needed, seminars that are real and not only an exchange of information. Here the question will arise about the practicality of the classic proposal that all professors should have a common ground in the humanities, so that an interchange of ideas between the various departments becomes possible. Theoretically, this proposal makes very fine sense. But is it practical, will

246 Encounter

it ever be realized in the midst of continued specialization? Maybe such interchange will never come about until the burden is put on the professors of theology. In this case they would have to be knowledgeable in another discipline as well, some taking biology, others sociology, a third group psychology and so on. But an article such as this precludes such extensive study, a study which is nonetheless necessary. In this article I have only suggested the possibility and the necessity of a Cathoic university in the context of a pluralistic society.

^ s

Copyright and Use:

As an ATLAS user, you may print, download, or send articles for individual use according to fair use as defined by U.S. and international copyright law and as otherwise authorized under your respective ATLAS subscriber agreement.

No content may be copied or emailed to multiple sites or publicly posted without the copyright holder(s)' express written permission. Any use, decompiling, reproduction, or distribution of this journal in excess of fair use provisions may be a violation of copyright law.

This journal is made available to you through the ATLAS collection with permission from the copyright holder(s). The copyright holder for an entire issue of a journal typically is the journal owner, who also may own the copyright in each article. However, for certain articles, the author of the article may maintain the copyright in the article. Please contact the copyright holder(s) to request permission to use an article or specific work for any use not covered by the fair use provisions of the copyright laws or covered by your respective ATLAS subscriber agreement. For information regarding the copyright holder(s), please refer to the copyright information in the journal, if available, or contact ATLA to request contact information for the copyright holder(s).

About ATLAS:

The ATLA Serials (ATLAS) collection contains electronic versions of previously published religion and theology journals reproduced with permission. The ATLAS collection is owned and managed by the American Theological Library Association (ATLA) and received initial funding from Lilly Endowment Inc.

The design and final form of this electronic document is the property of the American Theological Library Association.