The Catholic Thing

The Catholic Thing is a daily column rooted in the richest cultural tradition in the world, i.e., the concrete historical reality of Catholicism.

  1. 12h ago

    The Anthropological Unity of Magnifica Humanitas

    By John M. Grondelski Magnifica humanitas, Pope Leo XIV's inaugural encyclical, is largely understood by the public as addressing artificial intelligence. The general public's view is that, like his namesake 135 years ago in Rerum Novarum, Pope Prevost intends to address the "new things" of the 21st century. To quote Abraham Lincoln: "There is some truth in this. . ." But to continue his quotation, ". . .I am glad of it, but it is not WHOLLY true." (emphasis in original) There are even those who want to spin Magnifica humanitas as a papal abandonment of "pelvic theology" in favor of "social justice." There is far less truth in that. While the pope sought to address "new things," good stewards know how to bring out of the Church's storehouse "things old and new." (Matthew 13:52) Yes, we need to address "new things." But we address them with the wisdom of old. What is a more central point to Magnifica humanitas, however, is a more central anthropological truth: the human person cannot be replaced. The human person is non-substitutable. As Vatican II reminded us, the human person is the one creature on earth that God wanted for itself. (Gaudium et spes, 24) The challenge artificial intelligence poses, on the practical level, is the likelihood of causing human unemployment by the technologization of work, especially basic work often branded as "entry-level." That especially threatens vulnerable populations: the young, trying to break into the job market; the inexperienced; and the untrained. If, a decade ago, a certain smugness told miners to "learn to code," today's hubristic reply might be "polish your barista skills." Employment and unemployment are not just economic phenomena because work (as Pope John Paul II noted 45 years ago in Laborem exercens) is not just a cost factor. Employment is essential to human flourishing (which is a bigger and more important category than even economic prosperity, though they are not exclusive). People need to work. A society that deprives people of work – in the name of a utopian vision or to maximize profits – is an inhuman society. And let's not allow some people to get away with downplaying that truth because they won't admit what they want is a society driven purely by economics. As in the old adage, these are folks who know the price of everything but the value of nothing. AI also poses a theoretical challenge. Ever since Plato – and especially since Descartes – there's been a temptation to think of the human person as a mind merely inhabiting a body. Contemporary transhumanism simply radicalizes that mistake by imagining consciousness detached from embodiment. Christian anthropology insists instead that the human person is an embodied unity whose dignity cannot be reduced to information or computation. (Of course, according to certain early theologians, it was precisely that incarnational state that provoked diabolical rebellion). That some "transhumanists" have visions of minds detached from bodies dancing in their heads suggests that the theoretical threat continues. The core problem is not technology: it's humanity. Oren Cass captured this problem in his reflections on the common social-event question, "What do you do?" It typically functions, Cass observes, to pigeonhole people: doing X gets you special creds, doing Y is meh (except when the specially credentialled need food deliveries, plumbing repairs, or electrical work). Very few ask the question from the standpoint of the Christian anthropological value of work, i.e., what does who you are find expression in what you do? A crucial truth of Magnifica humanitas is the centrality and irreplaceability of the human person. Man is not just a thinker that a machine can replace. Man is not just a worker that a robot should replace. The encyclical asks the question: do you think that a person's qualitative distinction trumps his potential functional technological-economic substitutability? Is a person more than just a cog in somebody...

  2. 1d ago

    The TLM and the Four Last Things

    By Robert Royal I recently attended the funeral of a young man who died tragically. It happened to be a solemn high Traditional Latin Mass, entirely licit and even affirmed by the presence of our local bishop, his retired predecessor, and a couple dozen priests. That liturgy, however, was – all extraneous considerations aside – definitely not something to be reduced to the controversies surrounding the recent SSPX consecrations, the back and forth about Traditionis custodes (Pope Francis' sharp curtailing of the TLM), or the short- and long-term fallout of Sacrosanctum Concilium (the Vatican II document on liturgy). It was all directed towards prayer for the eternal destiny of the young man's soul and the souls of us all, which – sad to say – seem to get scant attention in the Church today, even at funerals. It was a deeply moving experience, and it got me thinking, afterwards, as to why modern funerals so often are not. There's been a massive shift in the Church towards what are often even called – even at Catholic funerals – "celebrations of the life" of someone who has died. And there seems to be an unspoken current running beneath it all that, despite all Our Lord's warnings about the narrowness of the gate, everyone ends up in Heaven. (By the way, it won't do to blame Hans Urs von Balthasar or, more recently, someone like Bishop Robert Barron among others, for encouraging this attitude. I noticed during the Rosary before Mass that the Fatima prayer contains the formula, "And lead all souls to Heaven, especially those most in need of thy mercy." Sure. The prayer doesn't say that all are saved, or even that many are. And in truth, to judge from the Scriptures, not all of us are. But it certainly expresses that hope, which we all should have.) Still, the easy assumption that all or almost all are saved is not only a theological question. We have to recognize that it basically short-circuits the whole of Christian life, which is at least a drama, and oftentimes a spiritual battle. If not, why, then, did Jesus have to die on the Cross to save us? Why, even, does He have to tell us to leave all and follow Him? We know that missionary work (now replaced by the tonier but vaguer "evangelization") has also dissipated in recent years. Is it too much to think that missionaries now are just another victim of the soft and formulaic "dialogue" and "respect" for other religions (and none) that seem to have displaced the command to preach the Gospel to all nations? And is that, too, just another consequence of the current etiquette that pretty much everyone is eternally fine, whatever they believe or, often enough, even whatever they do? There was a time when everyone in the Church, even schoolchildren (in my own case), was taught about the "Four Last Things": Death, Judgment, Heaven, and Hell. There was no squeamishness in talking about such ultimate matters – but this was before the advent of the Christian snowflake. It's all still present in the Catechism of the Catholic Church (¶ 1020-1060). But does anyone preach such truths or take them seriously anymore? And how long before, without renewed attention to the main things, they disappear entirely from catechesis? There are even teachings, Catholic teachings, in the Catechism about Purgatory. There's been a long-running debate between Catholics and Protestants over whether Purgatory is mentioned in the Bible. If you accept the text of the Old Testament that the early Church used, which included prayers offered for the dead (Maccabees), Purgatory is the logical consequence. It is not, if you choose the slimmer canon of Jewish Scriptures, as do some Protestants, which had a complex history but was probably defined some centuries later by rabbinic Judaism after the destruction of Jerusalem and dispersal of the Jews. If you think about it for a moment, unless Purgatory exists, it makes no sense to pray for the souls of the dead. The families and friends of the departed can gather toge...

  3. 2d ago

    Focused on Eternity

    By Fr. Benedict Kiely As a young man of around fourteen or fifteen, it was an amusement, late at night in my bedroom in England, gently to move the dial on the shortwave section of my radio until it picked up the faint crackling broadcasts of Radio Tirana. It was the late 1970s and Albania was a mysterious and almost impossible place to visit. The broadcasts, with the signal going in and out, spoke of decayed Western capitalism and the glorious achievements of the Communist regime of Enver Hoxha. Sadly, at that early stage in my life, I did not realize that the humor of listening to this absurd propaganda hid the unutterable horrors of what ordinary Albanians, especially the persecuted Church, was enduring. Hoxha, the "Supreme Comrade, Sole Force and Great Teacher," after taking power in 1945, winning the "election" with an implausible 93 percent of the vote – his Communist Front was the only party allowed to stand – began immediately to persecute all religions, but attacked the Catholic Church with particular ferocity, alleging that it was a foreign and disloyal entity. Priests, bishops, and many laypeople were arrested, sent to work camps and prisons, tortured, and denounced. At one point, it is estimated that a third of Albanians were spied upon by their government, making Albania the world's first true total surveillance State. Christ's warning that children would betray their parents and parents their children came true; the possession of Bibles or religious images, if seen in the house, would lead to arrest and imprisonment. This persecution was intensified when, in 1967, Hoxha declared Albania to be "the world's first atheist State." All religious buildings, of all faiths, including all the churches, were either destroyed or occupied for secular purposes. The cathedral in Shkoder, the most Catholic part of Albania, for example, was turned into a gymnasium. The tortures and experiences of clergy and laity during this period, until the regime finally fell in 1991, defy belief. Saint John Paul II said that "history has never seen before what happened in Albania." Reading the chapter on Albania in Robert Royal's magisterial book The Catholic Martyrs of the Twentieth Century, one is dumbfounded by the depravity and demonic cruelty inflicted upon Albanian believers. Prisoners were tied in sacks with wild animals – one of the beatified Albanian martyrs, a religious novice, Blessed Maria Tucci, was tortured to death in this manner. Along with other equally bizarre tortures and death sentences, prisoners of conscience were forced to work in mines and in other extreme conditions, with thousands dying of starvation, exhaustion, and sickness. Yet despite this intense persecution, as Communism collapsed between late 1990 and 1991, the underground Church emerged. Secret seminaries had been in operation, and a few of the priests who had been in captivity appeared in public. One such was Father Ernest Simoni. Ordained in 1956, he had been sentenced to death in 1963 for celebrating a Requiem Mass for President John F. Kennedy. When word reached Hoxha that Father Simoni would only utter words of forgiveness, somehow divine grace touched the heart of the dictator, and his sentence was commuted to life imprisonment. When arrested, he had told his captors that "we must forgive, love, and pray for our enemies." Suffering for nearly thirty years in prisons and the copper mines, he finished his sentence working for ten years in a sewage canal. Saint John Paul II visited Albania for one day in 1993 and ordained four bishops: men who had been secret seminarians were ordained shortly afterwards. During his pastoral visit to Albania in 2016, Pope Francis wept as he heard Simoni, then 84-years-old, dispassionately and humbly describe his suffering. To honor all the martyrs, including white martyrs like Fr. Simoni, Pope Francis named Ernest Simoni a Cardinal in 2016. A martyr, as we know, is a witness, if necessary to the point of death. A witne...

  4. 3d ago

    American Heroism and Our Lady of Walsingham

    By Joanna Bogle This summer, as in so many summers past, I will be making a pilgrimage to Walsingham. This Norfolk village is the home of England's national shrine to Our Lady, and I'll be on a coach from London, and telling the story of the shrine along the way. One result of our country's complicated history is that many Catholics – here at home but also abroad – don't know the story of some of our ancient shrines, abbeys, and churches. Better known is the modern story that starts with Henry VIII's destruction in the 1530s, with resulting horror and heroism, and the poignant – and it has to be said, hauntingly beautiful – sight of great ruined arches standing amid glorious and silent countryside. The Walsingham story starts with the vision of a lady – her name has come down to us as Richeldis – living in this part of Norfolk, some six miles from the sea – in the 11th century. The year is 1061 and it is a time of uncertainty. Who will be the next king? Edward the Confessor has no heir. There are rumors that the throne has been promised to William of Normandy. Meanwhile Christendom itself feels threatened. The Moslem religion has swept across what were once the Christian heartlands of the Middle East, and the Holy Land, where Christ Himself lived and walked, may soon be in their hands. Pilgrimages which have been taking place for centuries are now dangerous. In the vision, Richeldis heard Our Lady ask that her house, the holy house at Nazareth, be rebuilt in Walsingham. Richeldis set about the task – she had been given the exact specifications – but the workmen struggled to make the measurements work. Nothing seemed to fit. They retired to rest after some grueling days with the thing unfinished. That night, all slept soundly. The next morning, the sun rose on a perfectly completed house. Down through all the following years – through the Norman Conquest and up to the 16th century – pilgrims flocked to Walsingham, filling the lanes and highways summer after summer. The village flourished – a great Priory was built, in addition to a Franciscan house, and of course many taverns welcoming travelers from across Europe. Then came the destruction under Henry, and long years of abandonment and silence, and then the restoration – initiated by a local Anglican vicar – and the new story began. Traveling in a coach is the main way modern pilgrims reach Walsingham: there is no railway station. Much more enjoyable is a walking pilgrimage with overnight stays in pleasant villages and glorious walks down country lanes. I have done it in traditional style – sleeping on the floors of church halls and so on – and also in greater comfort, with overnight stays in comfortable rooms. Like so many other pilgrims, I have memories of prayers said in wooded glades and picnics in sunny meadows – and the sense of triumph on arrival, especially if the timing has worked and we arrive at the main Pilgrim Mass on a Sunday, sore feet forgotten as we join in rousing hymns and grateful prayers. I've also attended some of the great events held at Walsingham over recent years – the big New Dawn gatherings with hundreds of families camping in the neighboring fields, the Youth 2000 pilgrimages with a new generation beginning the fresh evangelization of our country at the start of a new Millennium. And I've been at Walsingham as coaches arrive from parishes or dioceses or from various ethnic groups – notably the Tamil pilgrimage with delicious food cooked on arrival and generously offered to all. But my main reason for writing about all this for an American Catholic readership is something specific, in this year when America is marking its 250th anniversary. As our coach makes its way from London to Walsingham through Cambridgeshire, we will effectively pass a little bit of America on the way. Not literally – the stretch of land is British sovereign territory. But at one point the great Stars and Stripes flaps against the sky, and the gateway leads you along wide...

  5. 4d ago

    The Bifurcated Brain

    By David Warren One of the best ways to keep everybody angry, and thus to let us share in the modern experience, is to use words in a left-brained sort of way. I refer, of course, to Iain McGilchrist, the writer who has given us the most thorough and accessible account of our two brains. For we, like the other senior animals, have a left hemisphere and a right hemisphere. Both are in use for ordinary consciousness unless one or the other has been cancelled by some horrific accident. McGilchrist is an abnormally intelligent neuroscientist, an influential psychiatrist, and was a credible English professor in his earlier Oxford life. He remains the master of several disciplines in the humanities. It is rare that we find such a crossover to scientific authority. The intellectual world now seems to specialize in one or the other: science or socialism. But he is not spouting scientific bafflegab. He really does demonstrably know what he is talking about. And he is not one of those tedious "new atheists" either. Left and right brains had been frequently treated in pop literature, before, which was crudely aware of the cerebral hemispheres, generally in a silly, pop-fashion way, that often confused one hemisphere with the other. Because McGilchrist isn't a flake and is conversant with physiological research (he has trained as a doctor), he can actually be considered an authority. Nor is he innocent of epistemology and metaphysics. Read his book The Matter of Things (2021), some 1500 reasonably entertaining pages, or his earlier magnum opus, The Master and His Emissary: The Divided Brain and the Making of the Western World (2009). Of course these books will require attention, as anything would, which tracks back to the scientific revolution and explains its limitations. As mere collections of quotations from Western thought, they are formidable. What McGilchrist establishes is that the left brain provides the factitious, unimaginative, and naturally arrogant mental order, which was used by our swamp ancestors to identify "stuff" – specifically, food — by ruthlessly excluding all other objects in the environment. It is machine-like, especially in the sense of showing no curiosity, and no remorse, except in the context of its limited function as complement to right-brained thinking. But it is essential to human and most other forms of life, and one can't get rid of it without dying. But if one thinks nature and the human mind function like a machine, or in some other deterministic way, one already suffers from left-brained thought and is one of nature's aspiring automatons. It remains the natural method of bureaucracy, of mechanical "progressive" advance, and of systems of censorship and blind power. Indeed, bureaucrats might be expressly defined as "persons we could do without," just as they contrast with more intelligent forms of life. This may sound like a prejudiced political statement, but I beg the reader to study the sciences surrounding "brain lateralization" in order to form his own (hopefully right-brained) conclusion; or rather, "impression," for the right brain is never so sure of itself. It cannot be, for the right brain is left to investigate such awkward things as beauty, goodness, and truth, and so far as we are finite beings we cannot know their perfection, or final extent. Conversely, when we were limited to the left-brain functions, we could not know that the transcendentals were even possible. They are irrelevant to the task of finding food, after all, or even to identifying poisons. If one were a Communist, however – that is, a heroic left-brained revolutionist – one would inevitably have the opinion that nothing else is important. We call this "scientific materialism," and in fact it kills you. But the right-brained exist for another purpose (in addition to keeping the left-brained from killing themselves). Instead of locating food sources, it is necessary for several other purposes, and must continuously survey...

  6. 5d ago

    In Praise of Imperfect Heroes

    By Stephen P. White I am in Poland, as I am every July, for the Tertio Millennio Seminar, a three-week meeting on Catholic social teaching and the thought of John Paul II. As we often do, we began our seminar with Mass in the St. Leonard's chapel. It was there that a newly ordained Karol Wojtyla offered his first Mass on November 2, 1946. The chapel dates from the 11th century. Built in the Romanesque style, it has little decoration beyond the arches and columns. It does, however, contain the mortal remains of some of Poland's great heroes, and their sarcophagi provide all the ornament the chapel requires. King Jan III Sobieski, who saved Europe by defeating the Ottoman Turks at the Battle of Vienna (1683), is buried there alongside his wife. Sobieski's predecessor, King Michał, lies nearby. The other three tombs in the chapel are the tombs of men who fought, unsuccessfully in each case, for Polish independence. General Władysław Sikorski, the Prime Minister of the Polish government-in-exile and commander-in-chief of the Polish Army during World War II, is also buried there. Sikorski died tragically in a plane crash during the war. He was buried in England, and his remains were only permitted to return to Wawel in 1993 after the fall of Communism. When Poland ratified the first modern constitution in Europe (the second in the world after the United States Constitution) in 1791, the Russians invaded to put a stop to it. Józef Poniatowski led Polish forces in defense of the new Constitution, an effort which ultimately failed and resulted, eventually, in the first partition of Poland. Beside the tomb of Poniatowski lies Tadeusz Kościuszko, who crossed the Atlantic in 1776 to join the American army. He designed the fortifications at West Point and played a decisive role in the American victory at Saratoga. He was a lifelong champion of Polish independence, a dream he never realized, and long after his death became the namesake of the RAF's Polish Squadron during the Battle of Britain in World War II. In life, Kościuszko was known for his unimpeachable character. He was a true devotee of human freedom, wherever it was threatened. One example: Kościuszko made his friend, Thomas Jefferson, the executor of his will, which ordered that his not insignificant American assets be used to purchase American slaves, free them, and set up schools for their education. (For complicated reasons, including legal challenges that ended up before the Supreme Court, Kościuszko's will was never carried out.) Young Father Wojtyła chose to offer his first Mass among the tombs of these Polish heroes, not from some misguided sense of nationalism, nor because they were successful in preserving or achieving Polish independence (most weren't). Nor was the future pope under any illusion that these heroes were great exemplars of the Catholic faith; not all heroes are saints. Nevertheless, these men were true heroes. And while they may not have been heroic examples of faith, hope, and charity, they possessed real virtues: justice and fortitude, to be sure, but also loyalty and a willingness to sacrifice for the common good. These heroes used those virtues in the service of their people and their beloved nation. And so while most of these "secular" heroes never lived to see Poland free, and are not counted as saints, their memory and example were precious – indeed, formative – to a young Karol Wojtyła who did become a saint. Moreover, John Paul II understood, from both Polish history and his own experience of Nazism and Communism, just how precious and fragile freedom can be. This shaped his view of freedom in the modern age, and in particular, his admiration for (and occasional critiques of) our own experiment in ordered liberty here in the United States. Politics requires virtue. This is true always and everywhere, but it is particularly true in a democracy (or if you prefer, a republic) like our own. People who cannot govern themselves cannot be expected t...

  7. 6d ago

    The SSPX and the French Revolution

    By Msgr. Thomas G. Guarino As everyone knows by now, the ordination of bishops carried out by the Society of St. Pius X (SSPX) has resulted in the automatic excommunication of the six bishops involved. No matter how it may spin its canonical status, the Society is now definitively outside of the Catholic Church. Insofar as the SSPX denies the authenticity of Vatican II, this outcome was inevitable. After all, Pope Leo himself has been uniting the Church around the Council, devoting his weekly audiences to examining, and profusely praising, conciliar teaching. One cannot cogently argue, as the SSPX does, that Vatican II was not a legitimate council. (Subsequent developments, of course, can be debated, and are – within the Church.) In fact, the great synod bears every mark of an authentic ecumenical council of the Catholic Church. What are these marks? • The Council was formally convoked by the bishop of Rome, John XXIII. • Ahuge number of bishops, over 2,500 from the entire world, was gathered at the Council for debate and deliberation from 1962-1965. • All bishops could speak freely or, if desired, submit written comments (which were then carefully examined by the Theological Commission). • The Theological Commission (where the conciliar documents were drafted or reviewed) was composed of a mixture of more conservative and more progressive bishops and theologians. A review of their journals reveals that even the smallest points were debated freely and at great length. • Anyone who studies the texts of Vatican II will see the extraordinary care and balance achieved by the documents – which underwent numerous drafts before final voting. • Paul VI always insisted that the concerns of the (more conservative) minority be adequately addressed. To cite only two examples: At the last minute, Paul mandated nineteen changes to the Decree on Ecumenism (Unitatis Redintegratio) in order to satisfy those bishops who wanted a stronger accent on the truth mediated by Sacred Tradition. Secondly, Paul insisted on the Nota Explicativa Praevia appended to the Dogmatic Constitution on the Church (Lumen Gentium). This interpretative note was added to ensure, in juridical-canonical language, that papal primacy was in no way jeopardized by episcopal collegiality. • Each one of the sixteen conciliar documents was approved by an overwhelming majority vote. • Each of the documents was formally promulgated by the Bishop of Rome, Paul VI. In truth, one could more easily marshal questions about the First Vatican Council, held in 1869-1870. At that council, episcopal speakers were occasionally shouted down, and some seventy bishops left Rome so as not to vote "non placet" on the infallibility of the papal magisterium. The argument against the legitimacy of Vatican II, made by the founder of the SSPX, Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre, is straightforward. He and his movement contend that the most recent council fulfilled the long-standing dream of liberal Catholicism: marrying the Church with the French Revolution. The Council allegedly betrayed the ancient Catholic faith by incorporating the three chief principles of the revolution of 1789: liberté, égalité and fraternité. The conciliar declaration on religious freedom (Dignitatis Humanae) is little more than the "liberty" of the revolution – leading inexorably to indifferentism in religious matters, thereby undermining Catholic truth. And in promoting episcopal collegiality, Lumen Gentium made common cause with the revolutionary notion of "equality," speaking as if all bishops were equals, thereby corroding papal authority and primacy in the process. And the revolutionary "fraternity" may be found most clearly in the Decree on Ecumenism, wherein the SSPX argues that contemptible heretics are now facilely called "separated brethren." Also central to the SSPX argument is a statement by Yves Congar, one of the important theological experts at Vatican II. In October 1963, the Council took several votes in order t...

  8. Jul 7

    Pope Leo and Catholic Education

    By Randall Smith Magnifica humanitas has been widely discussed for its approach to artificial intelligence. Pope Leo emphasizes the importance of the schools for training people to retain their humanity in the face of these challenges. If we took the encyclical as a guide to education, what sort of education would that be? An essential goal would be to educate students about the dignity of the human person and what is required for the integral development: body, soul, and spirit. It would teach students that, "elevating any single dimension of human existence to an absolute is always a mistake." The university would have to model this respect for dignity in its own actions and in the rules governing the community. A Catholic university would teach its students not only about rights, but also about their responsibilities and duties. Such an education would consider the nature of the common good and our obligations to it. Given the pope's comments, an authentic education would be one in which "a love for truth" is fostered. "When people come to believe that nothing is genuinely true and that principles are hollow," he writes, "when questions about what is true lose their appeal, and a pragmatism takes hold that is content with what appears useful or effective," the bonds of trust needed for democratic life are weakened. And so, "we are in need of a healthy realism that avoids both political idealism and cynicism," and avoids any ideology that, "in order to preserve its own worldview, tends to choose facts selectively, distorting and renaming them," whose proponents "eventually, inhabit a reality constructed to fit their own convictions." But in addition to avoiding the error of assuming there is no truth, or that there is just "my" truth and "your" truth, students should also be taught to avoid the error of assuming that reaching truth is relatively easy. Students should learn, writes the pope, that authentic education is "a long journey requiring patience and therefore needs time for development and for engagement with reality beyond appearances." They should be taught how "truth is often distorted in order to serve particular interests and communication strategies." Students should learn the value of technology, but also how "technology shapes those who use it." And they should be taught to avoid succumbing to the dominance of the pervasive "technocratic paradigm." Computers and cell phones would not be a ubiquitous presence. A "genuinely healthy" community would integrate "rhythms that incorporate silence, in-depth study, reading and judicious analysis, for without these elements inner freedom may be compromised." Universities should take care that a "culture fostered on the internet does not become an instrument of excessive distraction, homogenization or dominance." Rather, they should establish settings "in which inner freedom and critical thought can mature." Attaining such "inner freedom" and the ability for "critical thought" require the virtues, intellectual and moral, and a university fails if it does not inculcate them. So too, the pope speaks repeatedly of the importance of dialogue "to establish a set of basic agreements that enable the creation of a shared vision, upon which everyone can move forward together." Dialogue of this sort is not easy; it requires patience, discipline, and skill and "an attitude that seeks to forge bonds of fraternity built on listening, an open demeanor, making time for each other and even wasting time together." "As knowledge becomes increasingly fragmented," he warns, "it becomes difficult to grasp reality as a whole, to ask profound questions about meaning, or to develop authentic, critical and creative thought." Thus, a "principal challenge" for universities "lies in the integration of knowledge," hence they must cultivate in their students "both the capacity to connect and synthesize knowledge in order to grasp complexity, and the skills necessary to verify facts." "Many educat...

Ratings & Reviews

4.7
out of 5
35 Ratings

About

The Catholic Thing is a daily column rooted in the richest cultural tradition in the world, i.e., the concrete historical reality of Catholicism.

More From Faith & Reason Institute

You Might Also Like