
A Proposal for the Fulfillment of Catholic
Liberal Education
Next | Previous |
Contents
V. THE CATHOLIC TEACHER
It follows that a school which defines itself by ignoring
such distinctions will be at best a number of professors pursuing
disparate or contrary purposes in the context of uneasy co-existence.
Individual teachers may accomplish something with their students,
and administrators of good character may supply their personal
principles for the lack of institutional order, but they will
do so in spite of the rationale of their school, which of
itself tends to nihilism and tyranny. On the other hand, it
does not follow that a school which does define itself in
the context of those distinctions will be successful in realizing
its true purposes. The condition is necessary but not sufficient.
For even given that the importance of distinguishing the primary
from the secondary--in all the ways mentioned above--is a
matter of conviction, and given that the distinctions are
actually seen in many cases, there still remain many ambiguities
whose attempted resolution may ultimately defeat the intended
purpose of the school. The cause of these ambiguities is that
the principles which guide thought and action, whether they
are received from experience or by faith, are understood somewhat
indistinctly at first, even when their truth is certain. Hence
it remains a primary necessity throughout the intellectual
life to clarify the principles. But here arises the possibility
of serious mistake, for an attempted clarification may depart
from the original principle; thus, though secondary or even
false, the seeming re-statement will take on the authority
of the original, with the most destructive results. And if
such failures arise concerning the principles, how much more
must they arise concerning what is demonstrable or probable,
the proper object of teaching and learning?
So it is that from the beginning men have sought teachers--other
men who share the same principles but see them more clearly
as well as seeing the order which results from them. Thus,
among men, the relation of teacher and learner presupposes
shared principles and yet an inequality in the understanding
of those principles. But the need for a teacher at the same
time poses a problem: how is the inferior to recognize the
superior, since his inferiority consists precisely in the
lack of that which would enable him to judge? Because this
problem is unavoidable as well as difficult, sophists have
always abounded and prospered.
The only secure resolution of this problem is that the shared
principles themselves should unmistakably indicate the teacher.
Now nature, insofar as it shapes our experience, is the guiding
principle of the life of reason, but it fails to distinguish
reliably between the teacher and the sophist. For nature instructs
us through the external features of things, which often fail
to correspond to what is internal. Divine Revelation, on the
other hand, not only communicates the truth but also designates
teachers to clarify, define and explain it. Thus, our Lord
told His apostles "anyone who listens to you listens
to me" (Luke 10, 16) and commissioned them to teach,
promising to remain with them forever. On this account, the
believer embraces at once Christ as the supreme teacher and
the successors of St. Peter and the Apostles as altogether
truthful and divinely appointed interpreters of His teachings.
And further, insofar as many doctrines which pertain to human
wisdom are of crucial importance for the Christian life, the
teaching authority of the Apostles extends to them also; indeed,
nearly every central philosophical issue is relevant in some
way to divinely revealed truth. Thus it follows that the Catholic,
in the very act of his belief, has also found the teachers
who will define and explain what he believes, show him its
consequences, and rectify his whole intellectual life as well.
Here then grace perfects nature even with respect to what
is strictly natural.
The Catholic school, therefore, if it is to be faithful to
the teaching of Christ, will differ from its secular counterpart
in two essential respects. First, it will not define itself
by academic freedom, but by the divinely revealed truth, and
second, that truth will be the chief object of study as well
as the governing principle of the whole institution, giving
order and purpose even to the teaching and learning of the
secular disciplines.
Next | Previous |
Contents |