Ke.'r vj i vs Te_o©wv<_

A-D^ ^54^

_^ <ra37^H

THE

RTHOLIC

DOCUMENTARY REPORT ON
CATHOLIC INTELLECTUAL LIFE

IN AMERICA, 1958:

Part One. PhilOSOphy

JEROME KERWIN
REV. R. W. MULLIGAN, S.J.

REV. BENEDICT ASHLEY, O.P.

AUGUST 3, 1958



This month THE CATHOLIC
HOUR brings listeners selected
portions of the Symposium on The Ca-

tholic Contribution to American

Intellectual Life

,

co-sponsored by

the Thomas More Association and

Rosary College , and held in River

Forest, Illinois
,
June 14-15. 1958

Participants recorded for this

broadcast were Jerome Kerwin,

Professor of Political Science at

the University of Chicago, Rev

.

R • W. Mulligan, S.J., and Rev.

Benedict Ashley, O.P., on the

Pontifical Faculty at the Domini •

can House of Studies in River

Forest.

Father Ashley's original talk

has been abridged for CATHOLIC

HOUR presentation.

DeacMRted



Part One — Philosophy

KERWIN: This year, on the fourteenth

and fifteenth of June, a symposium was

held just outside Chicago on what has

probably been the most widely con-

sidered topic in American Catholic

publications and among Catholic Schol-

ars during the past year — the Catholic
Contribution to American Intellectual

Life. The chief questions were whether

Catholics have contributed what could

be expected of them to their country's

reservoir of thought and whether the

future will see an increased contribution.

In order to examine the topic more

clearly, it was broken down into six

parts, and a speaker was found for each,

Father Benedict Ashley, on the Pontifi-

cal Faculty at the Dominican House

of Studies in River Forest, Illinois,

spoke of our Philosophical contribution:

the President of Hunter College, George

Shuster approached it from the stand-

point of education: Catholics' Humani-

ties contribution was treated by Caroline

Gordon Tate, while the eminent psychi-

atrist, Karl Stern, gave a foreign view of

the topic: Jesuit Father Joseph Fichter,

head of the department of Sociology at

Loyola University of the South in New

- 1 -



Orleans, evaluated where we stand as

regards Social Sciences: and Dr. James

Reyniers of the Lobund Institute did the

same with the Biological sciences.

After each address, the session's

discussion chairman conducted a period

of general questioning from members of

the audience. Father Benedict Ashley,

O.P., opened the symposium with an

address on the Catholic contribution to

American intellectual life in the field

of Philosophy. Discussion chairman,

Father R. W. Mulligan, S.J., introduced

F ather Ashley.

(Father Mulligan gives a brief introduction

to Father Ashley.)

ASHLEY: Every culture is rooted in a

philosophy about man, his relation to the

cosmos, and the meaning of his life.

Even in a pluralistic society culture has

to rest on some area of compromise,

and this compromise requires a philoso-

phical defense.

The compromise on which our plural-

istic American culture rests needs a

philosophic defense of the dignity

of the human person, of his inalienable

rights, of the authority of a government

of the people under God, of the duty of

this government to encourage without

absorbing religious, educational, scien-

- 2 -



tific, technological and economic insti-

tutions. I say that this defense must be

philosophical because it must rest on

truths which are presupposed by all

these cultural institutions, and not mere-

ly created by them. We cannot justify

a bill of human rights by the fact -that it

is a man-made law, rather we must justi-

fy such a man-made law by something

presupposed to law.

The fundamental contribution of

Catholics to the philosophy of our nation

was made at its foundation. The source

from which every basic element of the

philosophy of American culture was

drawn was the synthesis of Greek and

Jewish culture produced by the Catholic

Church. If we examine the contributions

made to the foundations of American

culture by Protestantism or by secular-

ism, we will soon discover that what

they contributed is just what they had

derived from the Catholic synthesis.

By this I do not mean to deny the origin-

ality of American culture, or the genuine

contributions of many diverse traditions,

but I assert that no single element of

importance is new or is unaccounted

for in the Catholic synthesis. If we

ask whence the original character of this

combination of old elements, I think that

-3 -



we must answer that it does not lie in

some new principle foreign to Catholic

thought, but rather in the opportunity

which the American environment gave to

the realization of old ideals. Catholics,

Protestants, Jews, and Secularists have

found an area of genuine compromise in

in American culture because all really

originate in a common source

Our culture cannot survive or develop

in a healthy fashion unless in our coun-

try there are those who can give a genu-

ine defense of this common patrimony,

and who understand it so well that they

are able to see how it can be adapted

to the changing circumstances of new

times without destroying its vital

balance.

Catholic philosophers do not believe

in the total depravity of the human

reason, nor do they concede that it is

the mere product of evolution. Catholic

philosophers are not afraid to hold that

the values on which our culture rests

can be defended rationally and scientif-

ically without appeal to faith and with-

out surrender to mere custom. They

would like to share the work of defend-

ing the philosophical basis of American

culture, and of developing it still further

with non-Catholics, but they cannot

-4 -



escape the responsibility of taking the

lead.

We have now to ask whether Cath-

olics are really giving this leadership,,

and what -they must do to improve their

influence. By what 'Standard should we

judge this degree of sucess?

The current controversy has proposed

a standard in the form of a catch-word

which seems to me very unfortunate.

We are told that what Catholic philoso-

phers need is to devote themselves to

"scholarship". No doubt this bears a

charitable interpretation. Certainly

"scholarship" is a necessary element

of a great culture. No doubt too, Ameri-

can Catholics have not contributed their

quota to "scholarship". But scholarship

is not the main task of philosophy. We

may grant that a philosopher whose

scholarship is unsound is probably not

a good philosopher, but he may be an

excellent scholar and not much of a

philosopher. The term "scholarship"

ordinarily implies historical research.

We do not commonly praise a physicist

or a mathematician as a"great scholar",

unless he has added the study of history

as a side-line to his main work. Philo-

sophy is not a historical discipline, and

it is not concerned primarily with histo-

— 5 —



rical facts, or the reporting and analysis

of what philosophers have said. As a

teacher of the history of philosophy, I

would not wish to belittle the very real

services of history to philosophy, but I

would never want philosophy judged by

its degree of "scholarship' 1 . Such a

standard is common today because mere

philosophy seems unimportant. It man-

ages to maintain itself by adopting the

pose of scholarship which is considered

respectable.

On the other hand, philosophy also

cannot be judged by the standard of "re-

search" in the sense that such a stand-

ard is recognized in the natural and

social sciences. The philosopher does

engage in research, but it is only of

secondary interest. The philosopher

is not concerned with what is old as is

the scholar, and he is not concerned

with what is new as is the research

scientist. The philosopher is concerned

with wisdom which is neither old nor

new. He realizes that the wise men of

the past knew all that is really important

for man to know, and that in the future

nothing comparable will ever be added to

this perennial treasure. Like the truly

wise man of the Book of Ecclesiastes ,

the philosopher is convinced that fun-

- 6 -



damentally "there is nothing new under

the sun". The great truths of human life

are unchanging and it is they that give

meaning and form to all that does

change. ThO philosopher can Only smile

quietly at the enormous efforts which are

expended by men in digging up the past

and building up the future. His smile

is not patronizing and it is not dis-

illusioned, it is the smile of one who

sees the humor of the human situation

in which everyohe must run very fast,

like the White Queen, in order to keep

in the same spot.

The philosopher loves wisdom. He is

trying to court for himself that beautiful

wife, which every generation of lovers

must win anew. We do not think that

love must be new and original in order

to be worthwhile for every generation.

The philosopher knows that his court-

ship may take a life-time, but that the

important thing is that ho win wisdom

for himself, not that he produce some

new truth.

Hence our judgement on the Catholic

contribution to American culture in the

field of philosophy must be in terms of

whether it is producing lovers of wisdom,

men and women who have the habit of

wisdom, not by any other standard.

- 7 -



Certainly our expectations should not

be naively optimistic. Lovers of wisdom

have never been many, and American

culture as it has developed since the

Civil War has not produced many such

lovers.

From this point of view three very

obvious facts about the role of Cath-

olic philosophy in American culture

appear at once. They are so obvious

that they go unnoticed:

First, Philosophy cannot be very

influential in a society where philos-

ophical pluralism is carried to ex-

aggerated lengths as is today in the

United States where it is difficult

even to classify philosophers into

schools.

Catholics have a reasoned remedy

for this extravagance, namely the

acceptance of Thomism as a common

philosophy. This does not mean that

only Thomism is taught or permitted

among Catholics. It means that there

is a common patrimony which makes

possible mutual communication and

a solid educational foundation. Other

schools are forced to attempt the

impossible, namely to teach all phi-

losophies.

Second, Catholic seminaries have

-8 -



produced some 50,000 priests

who have fundamental training in

philosophy which they must constant-

ly bring to bear as leaders in local

communities, which sociology re-

cognizes as the real cradles of

culture. The only thing comparable

to this in American society has been

the influence of the philosophy of

Progressivism in our teachers'

colleges.

Third, Catholic colleges (and to

a considerable extent Catholic high

schools) provide a study of basic

philosophical principles much more

extensive than that given in any other

American system of schools.

If we compare these three facts with

the common American situation we can-

not help but be astonished. Perhaps

non-Catholic institutions are producing

many men of wisdom, but if they do so

it is certainly not because they devote

much direct effort at preparing either

an elite or a wider public in philoso-

phical truth. Indeed, their neglect to

aim at this preparation is the best proof

that it is not regarded as very important.

Whatever may be said of the defects of

Catholic institutions in developing

philosophical thinking, there is no doubt

— 9 —



that they attempt it on a wide and very

serious scale, and constantly bear

witness to the conviction that it is of

major importance.

I am,, of course, under no illusion that

giving courses in philosophy automat-

ically makes men wise, but I am sure it

we are trying to assess the condition of

our culture, these three facts make clear

that in the United States Catholics have

the leadership in keeping alive an elite

and a public which regards a philosophi-

cal point of view as indispensable and

of ultimate importance.

The controversy aboiit Catholic

cultural contribution has arisen recently

just because we are convinced of the

importance of philosophy, and hence are

shocked that our philosophy is bearing

so little fruit in American life. Every-

one will suggest his own answers to the

question: Why is our cultural influence

so weak, if our philosophy is so strong?

To me the following answers seem pri-

mary:

Our first defect is the inadequate pre-

paration of our clergy as well as reli-

gious and lay teachers in theology —
Notice that I say in theology, not in

philosophy. In line with the trends of

American life, the Catholic seminary in

- 10 -



America is under great pressure to make

its courses more practical. Lately pres-

sure is being applied to make these

courses more scholarly. An emphasis on

scholarship, and the idealization of the

theologian as a research scholar will

only make it more apparent that theology

is a very "impractical subject." Hence

not a few of our clergy are inclined to

regard theology as not very vital, a con-

cern of specialists. When theology is

neglected, philosophy cannot seem

important to a priest.

The only remedy for this is the re-

storation of the authentic conception of

theology as a wisdom which culminates

in prayer and bears fruit in charity.

St. Thomas envisioned theology not as

scholarship, but as a profound pene-

tration of the Word of God.

Another defect is our tendency to

give easy answers to hard contemporary

problems. Sometimes this takes the form

of ignoring the contemporary problem

altogether. We argue that if philosophy

is timeless it can afford to neglect the

passing problem of today. Although the

antecedent of this argument is very true,

as I have already indicated, nevertheless

the conseguent is false. The possession

of truth must be fertile if it is to be

- 11 -



genuine. If we do not show our age that

the answer to its problems lies in

perennial truths
,
we are not bearing

effective witness to the truth, and we

cannot pretend to love it sincerely.

However, I do not think this type of

easy answer is really a very prevalent

one. Attendance at any meeting of

Catholic philosophers or educators will

reveal that they are perpetually worrying

about how to meet contemporary prob-

lems. There is another type of easy

answer which is much more common

today.

This kind of solution aims at show-

ing both sides to be right, yet also at

dispensing the philosopher from the

hard task of synthesizing them. We ad-

mit that both positions are right but at

different levels . Or we admit that

changing social circumstances or the

advance of knowledge makes a new

answer necessary without, of course,

disproving the old. For example we are

faced today with the obvious problem

of reconciling modern science with our

traditional philosophy. How do we do

it? The solution is simple " philosophy

and science operate on two different

levels, therefore they cannot conflict,

but do not have to be reconciled". When

- 12 -



it is pointed out that this was not St.

Thomas 7 solution, we can quickly reply,
77 But he couldn't possibly have forseen

modern science .
77 Again we are faced

with the conflict between modern socio-

logy and traditional ethics. The solution

is simple. "Ethics deals with values

and is based on a metaphysical analysis

of man, while the social sciences are

empirical and value free. Therefore,

they cannot conflict and do not have to

be reconciled .
77 Again we are asked how

to reconcile the Aristotelian view that

art is imitation with modern non-object-

ive art. We reply very simply that "Only

in our age has art been freed from its

representational function."

We are faced with the pluralism of

modern society which seems so strik-

ingly different from medieval society

based on a common code. The solution

is easy, "Times have changed"

Now I grant that there are many

pseudo-problems in philosophy that arise

by trying to put together problems that

pertain to different levels of thought,

and I also grant that changing times may

change the application of principles. The

reason I call these solutions facile is

that once the distinction has been made,

we feel that our job is done. "Distin-

- 13 -



guish in order to unite" is indeed a

Thomistic motto, but where is this union

our distinctions are supposed to effect?

Can we honestly say that our neat dis-

tinction between philosophy and science

has led to a lively cooperation between

the two? No, I am afraid that we use

such distinctions as another way of

saying that since we have the truth that

really counts, therefore modern problems

are not really important.

Why do we fear a more direct contact

between philosophy and modern diffi-

culties? Is it not because this would

require us to pass judgement on our

times? A judge is not going to be very

popular unless he always gives a verdict

of acquittal. It is a grave responsibility

for a philosopher to look at his own age

and to decide what is false and what is

true in its culture. We are haunted by

the spectre of Galileo, and we fear to

correct modern science and modern

thought lest we should make a mistake.

Yet this is the role of the philosopher

and he cannot escape it. He must judge

every field of knowledge and of culture

by the permanent and unchanging prin-

ciples which it is his duty to maintain,

and he must fit whatever proves true

into a synthetic picture. This synthesis

- 14 -



does not have to be made anew in every

age. It is already made in its broad and

permanent outlines. The philosopher's

problem is to test the contributions of

his age and fit whatever passes the test

into its place in that outline. At present

we have two pictures. The outline which

we teach as "philosophy/' and the un-

organized details which we teach as

"science". Nor can we look to the

future for the coming of another St.

Thomas. Why do we need another St.

Thomas? His historical mission is com-

pleted; our mission is to fill in the

details of the picture whose outlines he

has firmly drawn.

KERWIN: And so began the Symposium

on the Catholic Contribution to American

Intellectual Life, which was held in

mid-June this year, just outside of

Chicago. On succeeding CATHOLIC

HOUR broadcasts this month, we shall

hear others as they addressed the

symposium, as well as some of the dis-

cussion that took place there.

KERWIN: Before we close this part

of our documentary report on the sympo-

sium in River Forest, it might be well

to point out one fact — on another
recent nationwide report on these sub-

jects, the prevailing mood of American

- 15 -



education in 1958 was referred to as

one of "agonizing re-appraisal". It is

a significant comment on the re-appraisal

that took place at this symposium that

it was anything but "agonizing," though

a frank and meaningful re-appraisal it

certainly was. Here we had no long and

haggard faces, no feelings of hopeless-

ness or of imminent panic. In an atmos-

phere of joy and confidence, Catholics

took stock of the situation, and while

they by no means found the facts as

encouraging as they might be, they,

nonetheless, faced them sguarely and

made their resolutions strong for the

future.

The symposium was sponsored by

the Thomas More Association (a national

organization designed to promote Cath-

olic reading) and the department of

Library Science, Rosary College, River

Forest, Illinois.

- 16 -



ADDITIONAL COPIES

ARE AVAILABLE FOR $.10 EACH.

BULK LOTS MAY ALSO BE

HAD AT THE FOLLOWING RATES:

10 TO 99 COPIES $.05 @

100 COPIES AND OVER 04 @

THE NATIONAL COUNCIL OF CATHOLIC MEN

1312 Massachusetts Avenue, N.W.

Washington, D. C.



Presented by

THE NATIONAL COUNCIL OF CATHOLIC MEN