Orji, C. (2013). The Catholic university and the search for truth. Winona, MN: Anselm Academic.
Orji asks “is there a “Catholic Intellectual Tradition” (CIT)?”, and if so, what is it? He notes people (including Catholic “intellectuals”) are confused about it. Is CIT independent of the “magisterium” (revealed truth) and the official philosophy of the Church or can it include other philosophies? Is it “too Catholic” or “not Catholic enough”?
Orji argues that although CIT is associated with Catholic (church) tradition, it is also catholic in being “inclusive”, dealing with “questions common to all humanity, [it] advances human understanding and curiosity” regardless of religious affiliation … “diversity is a strength and not a weakness” (p. 21). But all members of the Catholic institution must be committed to the mission of “thoroughgoing intellectual and personal engagement with the ideas of Catholic culture and thought”; “No organization can long survive, much less succeed, if its members either don’t care about its mission or are opposed to it” (p. 21-22).
Like many other authors, including Newman and Lonergan, Orji claims the centrality of theology in a Catholic university, not only because of the intellectual training and unifying role, but as “playing a key role in the transmission of values at the heart of Catholic faith” (p. 37). However, there are both conservative and liberal (or progressive) approaches to Catholic theology and the question of academic freedom. Orji concludes that CIT is not “synonymous with the magisterium” or Church dogma, but is “first and foremost, a learning tradition” which welcomes all disciplines (p. 44), and suggests there is a (usually healthy) “dialectical relationship” between CIT and sacred authority (p. 45). Because CIT is “a convergence of faith and understanding” it is elastic and will continue to grow and expand (p. 48).
Orji traces the history of CIT from early Christianity (“the seeds of the tradition were sown in the words and deeds of Jesus” p. 49) through Augustine and the middle Ages, Aquinas and the Enlightenment to Cardinal Newman (whose views on education he summarizes). He also introduces Jesuit theology Bernard Lonergan, who he describes a “transcendental Thomist” (p. 63). One of his early contributions was to “fuse the ideas of Newman [a man of interiority and investigation) and Thomas Aquinas [a man of theory and processes” (p. 59). Lonergan noted the need to integrate “revealed and acquired knowledge” through freedom from bias and “in dialogue with the empirical sciences” (p. 60-61)
Orji traces the decline of Catholicism (and religion generally) in the 1960’s, seeing it as a challenge to CIT and making the identity of Catholic universities “ambiguous” (p. 78). This was exacerbated by Catholic universities emulating secular research-based institutions and “hiring faculty that at times seemed indifferent to their faith tradition and Catholic identity” (p.88). He cites several authors who see the declining numbers of Catholic faculty as instrumental in a “crisis in Catholic in Catholic higher education” and call for “strategic hiring or hiring for mission” (p.99-100). However, Orji argues that non-Catholic faculty and staff “can and do contribute enormously to the mission” and that Catholic universities should “reach out to them” and to non-Catholic institutions, collaborating on questions such as science and religion and faith and the intellectual life. He suggests that facing some of the challenges to Catholic university identity have led to some positive outcomes.
Part Two of the book focuses on Bernard Lonergan, and as such will be of particular interest to Praxis participants. Orji aims to present Lonergan’s ideas “in a way that readers unfamiliar with his works will find accessible” (p. 110), although it is helpful to have some previous exposure to Lonergan’s work.
Orji brings clarify to Lonergan’s commitment to “integrating the old and the new”; which he calls “transposition” – “going beyond the riches of the past in order to meet the challenges of his time” (p. 115). Lonergan saw “the transposition of Catholic philosophy, theology, and education as a requisite demand”, but cautioned that one must first understand the old (“one cannot transpose what one does not know”. The new is analogous to the old, and the new can therefore preserve all that is valid in the old by achieving a higher synthesis” (P. 115). This integration of old and new is a valuable contribution to CIT, especially taken with Lonergan’s rejection of classicism, which assumes there is “one normative culture” for all time that is in favor of understanding multiple cultures (or pluralism, a more anthropological perspective) with their own histories and traditions. Lonergan takes the Second Vatican Council’s call for Aggiornamento (“completing the old with the new”) very seriously.
Orji includes sections on Lonergan’s view of authenticity, self-transcendence and the functional specialties, particularly noting that “CIT stands or falls on authenticity” (p. 129). A wonderful example of inauthenticity is Orji’s account of C.S. Lewis’s “Bulverism”, where one declines to consider whether arguments are sound or unsound, but “simply dismisses them [by drawing attention to] the psychological history or socioeconomic circumstances of those who advanced them” (p. 140).
Orji attempts to correlate Lonergan’s ideas (particularly his transcendental method, GEM, which he refers to as “CM” – cognitional method) with Howard Gardner’s work on “multiple intelligence”. To me the “matching” of Gardner’s eight “intelligences” with Lonergan’s components of GEM and “patterns of experience” seems rather contrived, but it illustrates how both Lonergan and Gardner recognized that “individuals differ … in their mentalities and the way they learn” (p. 175). To assume there is one way of learning (classicist) or one way of acquiring knowledge that transcends time and place, is to miss the point of education (p. 175).
A critical point is that “Catholic schools do not fulfill their mission if they fail to be places of rigorous and vital intellectual inquiry” (p. 173). Lonergan speaks of the “relentless search for knowledge” (p. 174) and he and Gardner both emphasize the importance of asking questions as the basis of education and intellectual transformation. Orji concludes chapter 6 by noting that “the Unrestricted questioning [following GEM] of the human spirit also leads to God” and that “the rationale for the Catholic Intellectual Tradition is realized when everyone – scientists, poets, teachers et al. – are good at what they do”. Equally “one need not necessarily be a member of the Catholic Church to fulfill this mission. One needs only a passion for the truth and an openness to the ultimacy such a passion raises” (p. 176).
Chapter 7 describes eight “modules” of how CIT uses Lonergan’s concepts (including GEM) and the importance of intellectual conversion as a specific aim of Catholic universities, bearing in mind that intellectual conversion can lead to moral and ultimately religious conversion. “An intellectual conversion translates into a moral conversion when it helps one to choose the truly good” (p. 219).
The “final reflection” of chapter 8 addresses constructing identity – communal and individual – again stressing the underlying principle of authenticity. Orji concludes with five “advantages of Catholic education” that include an emphasis on religion and the theological virtues of faith, hope and charity (“for the Catholic university, faith or belief is a form of knowledge”, p. 241), the integration of faith and reason, and a notion of the good. Orji affirms the rich heritage of CIT but notes “the uncertainty, even ignorance, of many [Catholic colleges and universities] regarding the tradition” (p. 244). He calls for Catholic institutions to conduct “self-studies” of CIT.
Questions
- What might a “self-study” of the Catholic Intellectual Tradition look like?
- Is it possible to say there is a single Catholic Intellectual Tradition?
- How can CIT and its relationship with University Mission be better communicated to students, faculty and staff of all faith traditions?