D’Souza, M. O. (2016). A Catholic philosophy of education: The church and two philosophers. Montreal: McGill-Queens University Press.
This book discusses Catholic education in the light of documents from the Church’s Congregation for Catholic Education (CCE) and the writings of Jacques Maritain and Bernard Lonergan. It is rather heavy reading, but very insightful and relevant, especially for Praxis participants. d’Souza addresses Catholic education generally rather than higher education specifically, but the same principles apply, including a focus on educating “the whole person”, pluralism, diversity and unity, personal and community transformation, and the common good. There is far more to the book than I have noted here, and it will reward a close reading.
D’Souza begins with a useful history of the Catholic philosophy of education before and after Vatican II, with particular reference to the importance of the latter and the shift from traditional Thomism. He includes summaries of many writings from this period, which provide a rich background.
Key points from Maritain include the relationship between philosophy and education, the dynamic nature of learning (in which the student is “the main agent”), the vital role of the teacher in formation of the student as a unity (including the spiritual dimension), and the “social mission of education” (p.58). Lonergan works to reconcile “modernist” secular empiricism with Catholic philosophy and identity (although rejecting conservative classicism) through his transcendental method of cognitional understanding (GEM). A key point for D’Souza is Lonergan’s criticism of “conceptualism” – thinking only about concepts without understanding them so that no “education” occurs (p. 73). He describes Maritain and Lonergan’s positions on education as “prior to and after the Council” (Vatican II), demonstrating both continuity and change in the Catholic philosophy of education. Maritain’s tradition “stresses the liberal arts and humanities as integral to education and education as wisdom” while Lonergan emphasizes that “students must grow as persons and subjects” (p.77).
D’Souza observes that Maritain discusses the “means, goals, and end of education”, while for Lonergan, “knowing becomes the foundation”, attentive to “history, context, and the particularities of time and culture” (p. 98). He provides a useful summary of GEM and differentiation of consciousness, concluding that Lonergan
“makes an enormous contribution to a Catholic philosophy of education, for the structure of knowing, understanding and the nature of true judgments serves not only the diversity of the school curriculum but … how this diversity is unified in the knowing and understanding of the student” (p. 106).
Also, he notes that “Lonergan’s cognitional method is hardly for Catholics alone … One desires to know whatever one’s religious affiliation” so it is “neither compromised by religious diversity, nor claims to find perfection in religious supremacy” (p. 109-110). This is important for the plurality and diversity of today’s students and faculty.
For Maritain, the “internal and spiritual unity of the student” (p. 122) demands education based on a broad understanding of subjects taught, without the “narrowing of premature specialization” (p. 125). Like Lonergan, he emphasizes the need for students to appropriate and internalize knowledge, noting that “rote learning as a means to pass exams is never educational” (p.129). Lonergan sees that specialization is inevitable and makes integration difficult, but sees a general education as providing “a foundation that enables specialization to be situated in a broader discourse of knowledge and understanding” (p. 134).
D’Souza gives a cogent explanation of Crowe’s two vectors in education, the way of achievement (from below up) and the way of heritage (from above down). Traditional teaching (especially for younger children) focuses on the way of heritage, but it also involves teaching students how to understand and make judgments (at the appropriate stages of development) and not simply trying to “pour information into the mind” (p. 135). There is a dynamism between the two vectors and education is the achievement of harmony between them.
“Transforming values and judgements into part of one’s experience depends on personal understanding. The communication of beliefs and traditions is similar. After all, human knowledge relies upon trust and upon beliefs that are not each, individually, confirmed by personal verification” (p. 137).
D’Souza’s chapter on “the vocation of the teacher” emphasizes the role of teachers in helping students to develop as independent and well-informed thinkers – “forming whole persons” (p.145). While primarily focused on pre-university education (there is a great deal about teacher training) the chapter is sobering and challenging in describing the tremendous responsibility teachers have for not just professional but also spiritual education and formation. He stresses the role of the teacher as model (Christian witness) and as “moral authority” (p.162). Explaining Lonergan’s views on forming students’ understanding of values, subjectivity and the relationship between knowing, judging, and doing, he observes that “making a judgment is an act of rational consciousness, while actually making a decision is an act of rational self-consciousness” (p.165). Failure to make independent judgements and decisions makes students (and teachers) what Lonergan calls “drifters” who simply go along with crowd. Citing Lonergan on the need to expand students’ horizons and overcome bias: “people see what they want to see and ignore the rest … education includes moving students from their worlds into the world” (p. 167-8).
Summarizing the heart of the CCE documents, Maritain and Lonergan, D’Souza concludes that
“the how and why of teaching will be integral to whether education is narrowly conceived as preparation for the future, focusing on skills and professions, or whether it is seen as human transformation, which includes a future occupation or skill” (p.174).
The chapter “society, culture, and the common good” returns to the societal implications of education. The CCE identifies the problems of contemporary society (and the challenges for Catholic education) as “relativism, materialism, pragmatism, and technocracy” (p. 177). [I would add “expectation of instant gratification” to this list]. D’Souza concludes that a Catholic philosophy of education must “include meeting society and culture where they are [i.e. acknowledge these challenges] and yet moving them to a communal and collective higher plane” (p.206). He concludes that “both Maritain’s humanism and Lonergan’s cognitional theory” facilitate “individual and societal transformation”, respecting the dignity of the student as a person” and celebrating “intellectual, religious, and cultural diversity” (p. 208-209).
In his final chapter, d’Souza notes the problem of viewing education solely as preparing students for their financial future. He recognizes that this is important, but concurs with Maritain and Lonergan that education is never “completed” but has the goal of ongoing transformation (for Lonergan; Maritain refers to this as “freedom”) and unity of the human subject. He refers to this succinctly as “the perennial relationship between being and becoming” (p. 214). A key point here is that
What a Catholic philosophy of education offers is the broadening and widening of the horizon against which reality is perceived, understood and responded to” (p.220), further noting that this is not restricted to Catholics but “offers a unity that is based on the student as one who seeks to know, understand and choose, and in this transcends religious and cultural distinctions” (p. 221). Finally, “Catholic education can offer a vision of ordering and unifying one’s life, personally and communally, by loving wisely and well” (p. 234).
Questions
- D’Souza emphasizes the need for “teacher training” – the formation of teachers in both professional and spiritual matters. However, most university faculty and instructors have had little or no formal training as teachers – indeed many are hired based on their research and publications. Also many are not Catholic or even religious. How do we accommodate/address this?
- D’Souza notes a growing “religious illiteracy” among parents, students and teachers. He calls for more religious education in schools and teacher training. Should there be more “religious education” in colleges and universities?
- Like Lonergan, d’Souza believes that students actively seek knowledge and understanding. Does this belief hold up in today’s “instant information” environment? How can we foster the search for truth?
For librarians:
D’Souza notes that “easy access to information … when it is not selected with critical awareness, ultimately favors widespread superficiality among both students and teachers, not only impoverishing reason, but also imagination and creative thinking” (p. 149; this is a quotation from CCE “Educating Today and Tomorrow” 2014 http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/ccatheduc/documents/rc_con_ccatheduc_doc_20140407_educare-oggi-e-domani_en.html
Related to the third question above: is it a mistake for librarians to continually refer to “information seeking” and “information literacy”? If we think of “information” as “experience” it is only the first stage in coming to know.