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. Obviously, 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 judgements 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 academic 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
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 neighborhood. 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 exception. 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
245
This makes the Catholic university an educational freak that puts the students 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-denominational 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 understand 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
^ 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.