While on a recent summer pilgrimage to St. Louis (the “Rome of the West”) with twenty-five of my students at Our Lady of Walsingham, we were able to visit at least eleven different magnificent churches for which the city is justly famous. Aside from attending Mass and admiring the exquisite sacred architecture (from an age not so long ago when the very structure of the churches were built as if to manifest the Theology of the Catholic church in stone, mosaics, and stained glass) the students were also able to exploit the acoustics of each of these churches with their voices!
Thanks to the quick thinking work of a colleague, we were able to capture one of these moments in the gorgeous “new” Cathedral Basilica of St. Louis. Here the students are singing Sicut Cervus in a setting for which Palestrina envisioned it.
As for you, do not be called ‘Rabbi.’ You have but one teacher, and you are all brothers.
Now it is not only clear from this text (Matthew 23:8), but I have had it on authority from multiple sources that the word ‘Rabbi’ means ‘teacher.’
Hence the King James version of this same passage reads,
And do not be called teachers; for One is your Teacher, the Christ.
Now, what exactly is Our Lord saying here? Is this a case of Our Lord using hyperbole as he was sometimes known to do (e.g. “And if thy right eye offend thee, pluck it out, and cast it from thee”). So under this interpretation, he might be saying,
Don’t get puffed up and arrogant because of your various titles, especially those that indicate that you might have some kind of wisdom!
Or perhaps, along the same lines, our Lord is simply exhorting us to humility? As if he is saying,
Given that teachers and instructors tend to be intellectually proud, do not be called teachers!
I am not a professor at an Ivy League school. Nor am I a professor at a tier 2 school, nor a professor at a tier 3 school. As a matter of fact, I am not really a professor at all!
No, I am a ‘teacher’ at a relatively small unknown (and unknown unfairly!) high-school. Nonetheless, even I know what it feels like to be intellectually proud! So I can imagine that our Lord might say “do not be called teacher” to me.
But could He have also been saying something else?
For example, could Our Lord have been saying,
Do not be called teachers, because guess what? There are no teachers among you!
Could it be that our Lord is not just using hyperbole, but is rather pointing out that, in the strict sense of the term, there are precisely no teachers among men? In other words, He is saying,
Call no man teacher, because God alone has claim to this title.
God alone is a teacher in the most interior and prime way. And therefore our Lord is reminding us that God alone is to be thanked and praised for being the cause of every good thing we have including our most prized possession, to wit, any small wisdom that we might have?
Why is this?
Well, just think about it for a minute. Think about what a teacher is. Isn’t a teacher supposed to be someone who teaches? And if someone teaches, doesn’t that mean that he has some sort of knowledge which he transfers from himself to a student?
In other words, since he knows something he is able to cause his students to know those same things through a process which we call “teaching.”
But wait a moment! Is this really possible?
Is a teacher really able to cause knowledge in his students?
Interestingly the Latin word for teacher is ‘doctor, doctoris’ and it is no wonder because we might ask the exact same questions about doctors. Our Lord might just as well have said,
Do not be called doctors.
This is because, as we all know, a doctor is not someone who makes sick people healthy. A doctor is rather someone who supposedly knows how to work with nature so that the sick will heal themselves!
As the great Heraclitus said,
Wisdom is to speak the truth and act, according to nature, giving ear thereto.
The wise doctor is, thus, someone who ‘listens to nature’ and ‘speaks’ and ‘acts’ according to what nature herself proposes in bringing a sick person to health.
But the important thing to remember is that the principles of health are already in the sick person! The doctor did not implant these seeds of health in his patient.
The seeds of his health are already there and the doctor merely knows how to aid those seeds to flourish and restore the sick person to health. He does this by either removing impediments or supplementing what nature herself needs in order to restore health.
And therefore, St. Thomas Aquinas points out that, just as the seeds of health are in the sick, so are the seeds of knowledge already in the ignorant. The teacher is one who aids and abets nature in bringing those ‘active’ seeds of knowledge to full flower.
Therefore, just as the doctor is said to cause health in the sick man with nature working, so also one is said to cause knowledge in another by the activity of the power of reasoning in that person, and this is called teaching. In this way one person is said to teach another and to be his teacher.
And he further distinguishes two ways that the mind might come to know,
Therefore, just as someone can be healed in two ways — first by the action of nature only, second by the collaboration of nature and medicine — so also there are two ways of acquiring knowledge. First, when the mind moves by its own natural power to an understanding of things previously unknown to it. This is called discovery (inventio). Second, when the mind is helped by an outside power of reason. This is called teaching (disciplina).
But the incipient causes of all of our knowledge have been implanted in us by God Himself. The wise teacher, like the wise doctor, is one who merely knows how to water and nourish those incipient causes of our knowledge. The teacher can not cause knowledge in a student except as a sort of secondary cause; the teacher might facilitate the growth of knowledge in his student from the active seeds of knowledge that were implanted in the student by God Himself!
It was He alone who planted in us the ability to understand. It was God who sowed the first principles in us and the light of intelligence by which those principles are known and in which all of our subsequent knowledge is rooted.
God alone is the primary and interior cause of our knowledge. God alone can be called teacher.
Now you dear reader, if you see for yourself what I am saying, and if this has provoked you to understand something new, may call me ‘teacher.’
But you may only call me ‘teacher’ in a secondary way. Because I have only enabled you to see something that you ‘knew all along’ in a seminal way.
Today, Holy Thursday, is the day for singing the ancient chant Ubi Caritas!
UBI caritas et amor, Deus ibi est.
Congregavit nos in unum Christi amor.
Exultemus, et in ipso iucundemur.
Timeamus, et amemus Deum vivum.
Et ex corde diligamus nos sincero.
Which I translate freely,
Where charity and love are, there is God. The love of Christ has gathered us into one. Let us exult, and let us take delight in Him. Let us fear and let us love the living God. Let us love out of a sincere heart.
This of course is only the first verse. But it is beautiful! And totally appropriate for today’s feast!
Apparently this chant was composed sometime between the fourth century and the twelfth century. Now how is that for historical precision?
Obviously all religious music will occupy itself with words appropriated from scripture or at least in some way grounded in scripture. Whether using the words of a psalm, or composed as a sort of ‘poetic meditation’ on this or that passage in scripture, all religious music, Christian Rock, traditional hymns, modern strophic and non-strophic music base themselves on the words of Sacred Scripture.
And so I think it is fair to call all this music, music that includes the words of scripture or at least sentiments that root themselves in scripture, “religious music.”
Often it is this requirement alone that appears to be enough for many with regard to what makes music religious or not. If the music includes words that are spiritual or scripture-based then it is religious music and therefore qualifies for use at liturgical functions and even Mass.
Church organists and music directors are well acquainted with the struggle to maintain some kind of standard for music at weddings and funerals. It is not uncommon for organists to receive requests like Maria (AKA How do You Solve a Problem like Maria?) from the 1965 Rodgers and Hammerstein film musical hit The Sound of Music. Or Frank Sinatra’s My Way at a special beloved’s funeral.
In order to re-direct these kinds of songs to perhaps the receptions following such liturgies, the church organist can always fall back on the simple rule that any music played at Mass must at least be based on Holy Scripture. As disappointed as the bride and groom or a grieving family might be, at least this standard is understandable to most.
But we also need to make a distinction between religious music and sacred music.
Let us stipulate that sacred music, and not just religious music, ought to be the norm at sacred functions such as the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass. Does that sound reasonable? There is a time and place for every good thing but one of the important tricks in life is to get the time and place right!
So where do we turn for our understanding of what sacred music is? Well, quite obviously to that papal champion of sacred music – none other than Saint Pope Pius X!
As an interesting aside – a thought that that I think is original to me! – PPX penned his great Motu Proprio on sacred music that most assuredly has the most lyrical, the most musical sounding title…Tra le sollecitudini!
Isn’t that the perfect title of a papal instruction on sacred music?! Reminiscent of a Verdi opera?
As we were saying let us reserve the name sacred music (i.e. “”Musica Sacra”) for that special music which the church itself appears to propose as set forth in this marvelous motu proprio!
In Tra le sollecitudini, Pope Pius XI says that sacred music is distinguished by three marks (which for those of you who hate reading long passages – I have kindly emboldened the relevant parts):
Sacred music should consequently possess, in the highest degree, the qualities proper to the liturgy, and in particular sanctity and goodness of form, which will spontaneously produce the final quality of universality.
It must be holy, and must, therefore, exclude all profanity not only in itself, but in the manner in which it is presented by those who execute it.
It must be true art, for otherwise it will be impossible for it to exercise on the minds of those who listen to it that efficacy which the Church aims at obtaining in admitting into her liturgy the art of musical sounds.
But it must, at the same time, be universal in the sense that while every nation is permitted to admit into its ecclesiastical compositions those special forms which may be said to constitute its native music, still these forms must be subordinated in such a manner to the general characteristics of sacred music that nobody of any nation may receive an impression other than good on hearing them.
And where are these three qualities to be found?
These qualities are to be found, in the highest degree, in Gregorian Chant, which is, consequently the Chant proper to the Roman Church, the only chant she has inherited from the ancient fathers, which she has jealously guarded for centuries in her liturgical codices, which she directly proposes to the faithful as her own, which she prescribes exclusively for some parts of the liturgy, and which the most recent studies have so happily restored to their integrity and purity.
Whoa!Now that is impressive. But wait there’s more!
“On these grounds Gregorian Chant has always been regarded as the supreme model for sacred music…”
As if that is not enough, PPX sets forth the sacred music litmus test!
…it is fully legitimate to lay down the following rule: the more closely a composition for church approaches in its movement, inspiration and savor the Gregorian form, the more sacred and liturgical it becomes; and the more out of harmony it is with that supreme model, the less worthy it is of the temple.
Nothing makes us aware more poignantly that our permanent home is not on this earth than the Catholic traditions that surround our major feast days. No matter where our earthly home is, it is our Catholic traditions that remain permanent despite the ever flowing Heraclitian world of flux through which we travel as strangers and sojourners.
Lion: Well, that is quite a mouthful! And, if I might say, a rather melancholic opener for the fifth day of Christmas!
Ox: Yes indeed, what does Heraclitus have to do with the spirit of Christmas?!
Lion: Too much eggnog?
Ox: I shouldn’t wonder!
Thank you my friends, I am quite well. My thoughts are merely provoked by the passing years and the changing circumstances that attend the mere fact of living in this mortal sphere. Yet there are some things that remain the same else where would we be? Some things must remain permanent for us, and, as I was suggesting, there is a powerful permanence in the Catholic traditions that surround our major feast days.
Lion: Ah, I see. Langley is alluding to his recent move from the lush green North East to the rather arid Martian climes of Colorado.
Ox: Martian climes?
Lion: Yes- Martian. The soil is red just like it is on Mars.
Ox: Well, Colorado is rather reddish-but your comparison, Lion, is offensive! There are no pine trees on Mars! Colorado is nothing like Mars! Where are the Bristlecone pine trees on Mars? Where are the Blue Spruce? The Douglas-fir? Where are the Engelmann Spruce and the Limber Pine? Mars has no Lodgepole Pine nor any Narrowleaf Cottonwood! No Quaking Aspen. No Piñon Pine. No Plains Cottonwood or Ponderosa Pine. Lion, there is quite simply no comparison between Mars and Colorado. Where are the Rocky Mountain Juniper on Mars? Where are the Subalpine Fir and White Fir?!
Lion: My apologies Ox. I didn’t realize this was a sensitive subject. I was only referring to the reddish color of the earth. I suppose the very name “Colorado” has something to do with this?
Ox: Yes- but that is as far as the comparison goes Lion….
My good friends, excuse me, but I merely meant to make a comment about the importance of Catholic traditions in establishing human identity and reminding us of where our permanent home is. I will admit that my family has experienced some momentous changes in the recent past, and that has made me more reflective on the reality of change itself. Yet some things remain the same and, most importantly, those are the things wherein Christians find their identity! Without these things – these permanent spiritual realities so beautifully reflected in the physical traditions-or rather enfleshed and concretized and instantiated in the simple beautiful traditions that surround the Faith- I say without these things then where would we find ourselves?!
For example take the simple matter of these delicious Baby Jesus buns! Nothing says Christmas Morning better than these soft scrumptious buns with a cream cheese filling! Together with a rich hot cup of coffee (freshly ground coffee mind you!) freshly ground from a medium roast whole bean! (I enjoy the Kirkland Home Blend even if it was roasted by Starbucks!)
Now in addition to those Baby Jesus buns, my wife makes a cheesy Egg Strata, with fresh Iowa sausages bestowed upon me by an overly grateful student as an appreciation for her class with me reading Herodotus! Now, these sausages were delightful and, as I learned, came directly from her mother’s family’s farm. Apparently, this family has raised pigs for generations and as a newcomer to the western regions of the country, my family has now become a beneficiary of the cultivation of the most delicious sausage ever!
Now every Christmas morning the question arises concerning the right Cava to employ in our Mimosas. This year we chose M. CHEVALLIER CARTE NOIR CAVA BRUT which I recommend for two reasons: 1) it is inexpensive and therefore one does not mind mixing it with orange juice 2) it is Brut! which signifies that it is dry- surprisingly and counterintuitively dryer than the sparkling wine that advertises itself as “Extra Dry” Apparently “Brut” means dry – nonetheless one would have thought a sparkling wine or Champaign advertising itself as extra dry would in fact be drier. But again, this is simply not the case. In my opinion one should only purchase a sparkling wine, Cava, or Champaign that advertises itself as Brut!
We keep the ingredients unmixed until they are combined in the glass according taste.
Now, that fruit salad is essential on Christmas morning is self evident. But it is also nice to have a few berries to throw into one’s mimosa. This year something happened to the price of strawberries. They appeared to be roughly double the cost that I am used to. Fortunately, raspberries seemed to be more than reasonably priced as were the pineapples!
It’s always tough fitting everyone around the table, but fortunately my wife’s father built a couple of strong wooden benches that do the trick. There is just no way to fit sixteen or seventeen people around a table without benches.
What is Christmas about? What is Advent about except to prepare for and celebrate the arrival of Wisdom Himself, in the form of a little baby, into the warm hospitable stables of our own hearts!
We have been doing our best to prepare for His arrival by making our house fair, so to speak. Ideally, we have engaged in some penances and spiritual practices, prayers and songs. Why? Well to welcome Wisdom of course!
And so Christmastide provides us with an excellent opportunity to reflect on many things surrounding the birth of Our Lord, not the least of which is Catholic education.
Christmastide and Catholic education? “What on earth does Christmas have to do with Catholic education?” you ask!
Quite simply “Everything!”
It is, of course, through education that the mind is disposed towards grace. It is specifically through a Catholic liberal education that the minds and hearts of the young are formed into more fitting homes for the arrival of Wisdom Himself.
I suppose some might use the fact that Our Lord arrived in a stable to play down the importance of making a suitable home, in their own souls, for the arrival of Jesus. But this is not a good interpretation of the stable. One would not want to say,
Jesus was born in a stable, so certainly he will also not hesitate to be ‘born in my mind’ even if is a veritable intellectual pig pen!
Granted of course that Jesus, on His part, is ready to meet each of us wherever we happen to be, but that doesn’t mean that we, on our part, should not try to the best of our ability to give Him a fitting reception.
And that is the point of a Catholic liberal education-to do what we can on our part to give Jesus a fitting reception into our hearts. And by “on our part” we might say in virtue of those gifts that we have received through our human nature, as opposed to the gifts that we have received through our participation in the sacramental life of Christians.
And everyone is capable of engaging in a Catholic liberal education to a greater or lesser extent. As a matter of fact, although it pains me to have to point this out, I think we have to admit that acquiring a Catholic liberal education is a requirement of our nature.
It is an obligation placed on all.
This is what Robert Maynard Hutchins was getting at when he said,
The liberal arts are not merely indispensable; they are unavoidable, Nobody can decide for himself whether he is going to be a human being. The only question open to him is whether he will be an ignorant, undeveloped one or one who has sought to reach the highest point he is capable of attaining. The question, in short, is whether he will be a poor liberal artist or a good one.
Now there are some who perhaps still think that I am saying that Jesus prefers the company of the educated and the intellectually gifted. As if to say He only came for the wise men and not the shepherds.
But don’t tell me that those shepherds were hell-bent on avoiding liberal education like so many of our contemporaries. It wasn’t as if they were keeping watch in the fields by night completely distracted, “wired” and engrossed in the ugly music or “social media” of their day!
The angel who said “fear not” would not have said “fear not” if they were, in fact, actively engaged in pursuits which were adverse towards the arrival of Wisdom! The shepherds did not reject liberal education and substitute the pursuit of temporal goods in its place.
I take it as a self-evident matter that those shepherds were practicing liberal education to the utmost of their ability! When they were not looking in awe at the stars they were probably soothing their souls with beautiful music on their pipes. They lived the Quadrivium!
You laugh and say I stretch the point.
No, listen to the wise Duke in As You Like It as he describes the education of those who, like the shepherds, might be said to be in a certain kind of “exile” but who manage to find “tongues in trees,” and “books in the running brooks, sermons in stones, and good in everything”!
Now, my co-mates and brothers in exile, Hath not old custom made this life more sweet Than that of painted pomp? Are not these woods More free from peril than the envious court? Here feel we not the penalty of Adam, The seasons’ difference; as the icy fang And churlish chiding of the winter’s wind, Which when it bites and blows upon my body, Even till I shrink with cold, I smile and say ‘This is no flattery; these are counsellors That feelingly persuade me what I am.’ Sweet are the uses of adversity, Which, like the toad, ugly and venomous, Wears yet a precious jewel in his head; And this our life, exempt from public haunt, Finds tongues in trees, books in the running brooks, Sermons in stones, and good in everything. I would not change it.
Those shepherds were following the advice of Heraclitus better than most when he said,
Wisdom is to speak the truth and to act, according to nature, giving ear thereto.
The shepherds were doing the best they could in developing their hearts and minds and the gifts of human nature in the circumstances in which they were placed, and consequently they were rewarded with Wisdom.
Over the course of my thirty years as an unwitting member of a loosely knit community that might even amount to a ‘movement’-an education reform movement-I have certainly met many whom I feel fortunate to call friends, who care deeply about Catholic education, and out of sheer goodness (and often at great personal cost!) want to do something better for their own children and the children of others, but who are, unfortunately and through no fault of their own, victims of the very education that they seek to reform.
I believe it is too optimistic to say that education is in crisis. Like sailors having survived, for the moment, a torpedo at sea and are perhaps floating about in the water staring at the sinking ship, the word crisis no longer seems relevant. Disaster, catastrophe and collapse seem like words more apt for describing the present educational state of affairs.
No breaking news here. The catastrophe in education runs very deep and it is possible to identify a great many possible causes for it. Those of a religious persuasion will immediately point to the obvious and diabolical absence of school prayer and Godlessness. Or my politically minded friends rail against the neglect of teaching history accurately and the use of insidious and false history texts. They say “If only they would teach history, these kids might have a clue!” Literary folks bemoan the abandonment of the great works, Shakespeare, Dante, and Cervantes – even Homer! I myself often complain about the destruction of education when Harvard University jettisoned its Latin and Greek requirement (somewhere around the year 1900!). And of course the entire educational establishment had to follow in lockstep. Others might point to the deleterious encroachments that technological advances have made on the minds of our students eroding their imaginations and memories, enabling them to substitute technology where hard work used to be required.
But these days, I am almost embarrassed to mention any of these defects when I hear what destructive forces are at work in the schools and what is being imposed on the minds of children against the will of their parents! One shudders.
Nonetheless, after the hurricane hits, we ordinarily pick up the pieces, gather up what can be salvaged and try to restore order as best we can. But here is the point. In restoring order to education we cannot, and should not, pick up the pieces that led to the collapse!
To be specific, a significant error stands in the way of education that involves a question at its very roots. The question is, how should a curriculum be divided?
Now, I know that to many people, discussions about ‘the way things should be divided’ might seem like a petty question of ‘semantics.’ It took me a long time before I realized that working out fundamental divisions on an intellectual level is really a matter of chief importance. St. Thomas Aquinas and Julius Caesar taught me that division is the first task in either tackling an important intellectual problem or a difficult enemy.
St. Thomas never attempts to answer a question of any significance without first discussing its divisions. Amateur Thomists, like me, always skip these discussions. Years later we realize that St. Thomas was not spending time on his divisions simply out of an overly zealous desire to be thorough. Actually, it is in getting fundamental divisions correct that the lion’s share of important intellectual work is accomplished. Likewise, mistakes in fundamental divisions are where important battles are lost.
Those involved in education, at some time or other, need to tackle the question of school curriculum. After all, a school’s main activity, as surprising as this might be to some, stems from its curriculum. Schools are still thought of as a place where students go to learn. And they learn through a set of ‘courses’ and the entire set of courses is what we call a curriculum!
Therefore, the question, for us would-be reformers, becomes this: What is/are the most fundamental division/s in a curriculum?
It is in getting this primary question right that we may have a chance at having what we might call a well-designed and thoughtful curriculum. If we get this question right, we might actually have a chance at constructing an excellent school. On the other hand a wrong answer might condemn our efforts to amounting to nothing more than piling more rubble on to the educational mess that was left by the original disaster.
Now what has been the prevalent answer to this question over, say, the last century, during the latter part of which we especially have detected the educational disaster? What is the modern division of the curriculum that governs the thinking at nearly every college, university, secondary and even primary school in the known world?
The modern division is this: Every curriculum is wholly divided into two parts! On the one hand we have the sciences and on the other we have the humanities.
Now, we need to recognize this division as a very bad one.
Please understand, I do not cast a stone here, because I too have been a victim of the intellectual custom of our day. It is well nigh impossible to escape serious errors, and especially those to which we have become habituated through the sheer force of custom, which Shakespeare calls a tyrant and Pindar calls a king.
Why do we say that the moderns’ division of the curriculum into science and the humanities is a bad one? Why does this division undermine the efforts of those who wish to restore Catholic classical education? We need to examine each of the terms first.
In his excellent essay on this very subject, my old philosophy teacher, the late Marcus Berquist sets forth the modern understanding of these two terms (i.e. science and humanities) with incisive clarity (despite the nebulous understanding of them by the moderns themselves!).
According to the current understanding of these terms, the distinction between science and the humanities is the distinction between the natural and the human. The natural sciences, like Biology, Chemistry and Physics are thought of as sciences by which we can know (and hopefully manipulate!) the objective world of nature. The term science these days appears to especially signify what we might call the mathematical sciences, and the more any particular field of study can mathematize itself the more scientific it becomes!
But what precisely is meant by the term ‘humanities’?
Professor Berquist begins to explain this term saying,
…no matter what we do with the term “humanities,” there is no getting the “human” out of it, so that any intelligible interpretation of the term involves some reference to man and the things of man: the things he does, the things he makes, the things he thinks. Accordingly, it would seem that certain disciplines are named “humanities” because they are about man or are pre-eminently referred to man in some way.
The humanities will often include subjects like Literature, History, and Philosophy. Catholic schools might even include Theology as among the humanities! According to this view, the humanities are those studies whereby man achieves his freedom by becoming more human. These studies humanize him. As Berquist brilliantly says,
There are several ways of understanding this, but what it seems to mean in the present context is that man becomes himself more fully through self-discovery and self-awareness. Since art, literature, history, and philosophy are all expressions of his humanity, he becomes conscious of himself as man through studying them. In this view, then, man is liberated insofar as he is humanized, and he is humanized by becoming conscious of himself through the study of culture. Liberal studies are the same as humane studies.
This might sound sort of convincing at first glance- perhaps because of the ancient adage, “Know thyself.”
Certainly there is a sense in which the entire life of the mind is built on that injunction given by the seven wise men of Greece. So what is wrong with the division?
The first problem is that those who surrender, wholesale, the understanding of the term science to the moderns betray the very highest science to which the entire Catholic educational enterprise is ordered – namely Theology, the “Queen of the Sciences.” I should add that along with this betrayal of the Queen of Sciences is the betrayal of her entire court- namely philosophy and all her minions (e.g. the seven liberal arts).
The second problem is that the division of curriculum into sciences and humanities orients the intellectual life of man in a way that is antithetical to its proper orientation.
For a better understanding of this remember that it was Thales, the first philosopher, who taught us that our intellectual aspirations should be pointed heavenward. It was Thales who, with his head tilted to the stars gazing in admiration, was said to have fallen into a ditch. The moderns would have us keep our gaze focused on the sublunary sphere, the sphere of the mathematical sciences and the world as it is in reference to man.
These assertions may seem easily refutable by those who misunderstand the point advanced here. We do not deny that the mathematical sciences occupy an important place in the intellectual life of man. Nor do we assert that subjects like literature and history are to be neglected!
We do, with some indignation, reject the overly narrow understanding of the sciences to exclude the highest of sciences Philosophy and Theology. To deny the Aristotelian and Thomistic understanding of science (later expounded by St. Boethius) is to deny the heart and soul of the intellectual life.
Finally to imply that Philosophy and Theology are artifacts in the same sense as the fine arts or literature is to level a death-stroke at the subjects which should be held at the pinnacle of Catholic education. Philosophy and Theology are not defined as ‘what man has thought‘ or ‘human thoughts about nature and God.’ They are, rather, understood as intellectual endeavors whereby man himself can raise himself above his nature to the greatest extent possible and even become more like God.
In a tear-inspiring passage, Aristotle expressed substantially the same point nearly 2500 years ago, perhaps addressing those who like Protagoras held man as the measure of all things,
If reason is divine, then, in comparison with man, the life according to it is divine in comparison with human life. But we must not follow those who advise us, being men, to think of human things, and, being mortal, of mortal things, but must, so far as we can, make ourselves immortal, and strain every nerve to live in accordance with the best thing in us; for even if it be small in bulk, much more does it in power and worth surpass everything.