{"id":118,"date":"2018-05-12T17:06:53","date_gmt":"2018-05-12T21:06:53","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/blogs.shu.edu\/cheb\/?p=118"},"modified":"2018-05-12T17:06:53","modified_gmt":"2018-05-12T21:06:53","slug":"the-church-and-two-philosophers","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/blogs.shu.edu\/cheb\/2018\/05\/12\/the-church-and-two-philosophers\/","title":{"rendered":"The Church and Two Philosophers"},"content":{"rendered":"

D’Souza, M. O. (2016).\u00a0A Catholic philosophy of education: The church and two philosophers<\/em><\/a>. Montreal: McGill-Queens University Press.<\/p>\n

\"\"This book discusses Catholic education in the light of documents from the Church\u2019s 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.\u00a0d’Souza addresses Catholic education generally rather than higher education specifically, but the same principles apply, including a focus on educating \u201cthe whole person\u201d, pluralism, diversity and unity, personal and community transformation, and the common good.\u00a0 There is far more to the book than I have noted here, and it will reward a close reading.<\/p>\n

D\u2019Souza 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.\u00a0 He includes summaries of many writings from this period, which provide a rich background.<\/p>\n

Key points from Maritain include the relationship between philosophy and education, the dynamic nature of learning (in which the student is \u201cthe main agent\u201d), the vital role of the teacher in formation of the student as a unity (including the spiritual dimension), and the \u201csocial mission of education\u201d (p.58).\u00a0 Lonergan works to reconcile \u201cmodernist\u201d secular empiricism with Catholic philosophy and identity (although rejecting conservative classicism) through his transcendental method of cognitional understanding (GEM).\u00a0 A key point for D\u2019Souza is Lonergan\u2019s criticism of \u201cconceptualism\u201d \u2013 thinking only about concepts without understanding them so that no \u201ceducation\u201d occurs (p. 73). He describes Maritain and Lonergan\u2019s positions on education as \u201cprior to and after the Council\u201d (Vatican II), demonstrating both continuity and change in the Catholic philosophy of education. Maritain\u2019s tradition \u201cstresses the liberal arts and humanities as integral to education and education as wisdom\u201d while Lonergan emphasizes that \u201cstudents must grow as persons and subjects\u201d (p.77).<\/p>\n

D\u2019Souza observes that Maritain discusses the \u201cmeans, goals, and end of education\u201d, while for Lonergan, \u201cknowing becomes the foundation\u201d, attentive to \u201chistory, context, and the particularities of time and culture\u201d (p. 98).\u00a0 He provides a useful summary of GEM and differentiation of consciousness, concluding that Lonergan<\/p>\n

\u201cmakes 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 \u2026 how this diversity is unified in the knowing and understanding of the student\u201d (p. 106).<\/p>\n

Also, he notes that \u201cLonergan\u2019s cognitional method is hardly for Catholics alone \u2026 One desires to know whatever one\u2019s religious affiliation\u201d so it is \u201cneither compromised by religious diversity, nor claims to find perfection in religious supremacy\u201d (p. 109-110).\u00a0 This is important for the plurality and diversity of today\u2019s students and faculty.<\/p>\n

For Maritain, the \u201cinternal and spiritual unity of the student\u201d (p. 122) demands education based on a broad understanding of subjects taught, without the \u201cnarrowing of premature specialization\u201d (p. 125).\u00a0 Like Lonergan, he emphasizes the need for students to appropriate and internalize knowledge, noting that \u201crote learning as a means to pass exams is never educational\u201d (p.129).\u00a0 Lonergan sees that specialization is inevitable and makes integration difficult, but sees a general education as providing \u201ca foundation that enables specialization to be situated in a broader discourse of knowledge and understanding\u201d (p. 134).<\/p>\n

D\u2019Souza gives a cogent explanation of Crowe\u2019s 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 \u201cpour information into the mind\u201d (p. 135).\u00a0 There is a dynamism between the two vectors and education is the achievement of harmony between them.<\/p>\n

\u201cTransforming values and judgements into part of one\u2019s experience depends on personal understanding. The communication of beliefs and traditions is similar.\u00a0 After all, human knowledge relies upon trust and upon beliefs that are not each, individually, confirmed by personal verification\u201d (p. 137).<\/p>\n

D\u2019Souza\u2019s chapter on \u201cthe vocation of the teacher\u201d emphasizes the role of teachers in helping students to develop as independent and well-informed thinkers \u2013 \u201cforming whole persons\u201d (p.145).\u00a0 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.\u00a0 He stresses the role of the teacher as model (Christian witness) and as \u201cmoral authority\u201d (p.162). \u00a0Explaining Lonergan\u2019s views on forming students\u2019 understanding of values, subjectivity and the relationship between knowing, judging, and doing, he observes that \u201cmaking a judgment is an act of rational consciousness, while actually making a decision is an act of rational self-consciousness<\/em>\u201d (p.165). Failure to make independent judgements and decisions makes students (and teachers) what Lonergan calls \u201cdrifters\u201d who simply go along with crowd.\u00a0 Citing Lonergan on the need to expand students\u2019 horizons and overcome bias: \u201cpeople see what they want to see and ignore the rest \u2026 education includes moving students from their worlds<\/em> into the world<\/em>\u201d (p. 167-8).<\/p>\n

Summarizing the heart of the CCE documents, Maritain and Lonergan, D\u2019Souza concludes that<\/p>\n

\u201cthe how <\/em>and why<\/em> 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\u201d (p.174).<\/p>\n

The chapter \u201csociety, culture, and the common good\u201d returns to the societal implications of education.\u00a0 The CCE identifies the problems of contemporary society (and the challenges for Catholic education) as \u201crelativism, materialism, pragmatism, and technocracy\u201d (p. 177). \u00a0[I would add \u201cexpectation of instant gratification\u201d to this list].\u00a0 D\u2019Souza concludes that a Catholic philosophy of education must \u201cinclude meeting society and culture where they are [i.e. acknowledge these challenges] and yet moving them to a communal and collective higher plane\u201d (p.206). He concludes that \u201cboth Maritain\u2019s humanism and Lonergan\u2019s cognitional theory\u201d facilitate \u201cindividual and societal transformation\u201d, respecting the dignity of the student as a person\u201d and celebrating \u201cintellectual, religious, and cultural diversity\u201d (p. 208-209).<\/p>\n

In his final chapter, d\u2019Souza 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 \u201ccompleted\u201d but has the goal of ongoing transformation (for Lonergan; Maritain refers to this as \u201cfreedom\u201d) and unity of the human subject.\u00a0 He refers to this succinctly as \u201cthe perennial relationship between being and becoming\u201d (p. 214). \u00a0A key point here is that<\/p>\n

What a Catholic philosophy of education offers is the broadening and widening of the horizon against which reality is perceived, understood and responded to\u201d (p.220), further noting that this is not restricted to Catholics but \u201coffers 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\u201d (p. 221). Finally, \u201cCatholic education can offer a vision of ordering and unifying one\u2019s life, personally and communally, by loving wisely and well\u201d (p. 234).<\/p>\n

Questions<\/h4>\n
    \n
  1. D\u2019Souza emphasizes the need for \u201cteacher training\u201d \u2013 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 \u2013 indeed many are hired based on their research and publications.\u00a0 Also many are not Catholic or even religious.\u00a0 How do we accommodate\/address this?<\/li>\n
  2. D’Souza notes a growing \u201creligious illiteracy\u201d among parents, students and teachers. He calls for more religious education in schools and teacher training.\u00a0 Should there be more \u201creligious education\u201d in colleges and universities?<\/li>\n
  3. Like Lonergan, d\u2019Souza believes that students actively seek knowledge and understanding. Does this belief hold up in today\u2019s \u201cinstant information\u201d environment?\u00a0 How can we foster the search for truth?<\/li>\n<\/ol>\n

    For librarians:<\/h4>\n

    D\u2019Souza notes that \u201ceasy access to information \u2026 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\u201d (p. 149; this is a quotation from CCE \u201cEducating Today and Tomorrow\u201d 2014 http:\/\/www.vatican.va\/roman_curia\/congregations\/ccatheduc\/documents\/rc_con_ccatheduc_doc_20140407_educare-oggi-e-domani_en.html<\/a><\/p>\n

    Related to the third question above:\u00a0 is it a mistake for librarians to continually refer to \u201cinformation seeking\u201d and \u201cinformation literacy\u201d?\u00a0 If we think of \u201cinformation\u201d as \u201cexperience\u201d it is only the first stage in coming to know.<\/p>\n

     <\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

    D’Souza, M. O. (2016).\u00a0A 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\u2019s 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 … Continue reading “The Church and Two Philosophers”<\/span><\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":116,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_monsterinsights_skip_tracking":false,"_monsterinsights_sitenote_active":false,"_monsterinsights_sitenote_note":"","_monsterinsights_sitenote_category":0,"footnotes":""},"categories":[3],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-118","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-catholic-higher-education"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/blogs.shu.edu\/cheb\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/118","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/blogs.shu.edu\/cheb\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/blogs.shu.edu\/cheb\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/blogs.shu.edu\/cheb\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/116"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/blogs.shu.edu\/cheb\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=118"}],"version-history":[{"count":1,"href":"https:\/\/blogs.shu.edu\/cheb\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/118\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":120,"href":"https:\/\/blogs.shu.edu\/cheb\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/118\/revisions\/120"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/blogs.shu.edu\/cheb\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=118"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/blogs.shu.edu\/cheb\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=118"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/blogs.shu.edu\/cheb\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=118"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}