November 20, 2009
 
|
 
|
 
|
 
|
 
|
 
|
 
|
 
|
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
| On Answering Questions |
| by Rev. James V. Schall, SJ |
| 11/02/09 |
|
We never know what curiosities former students will come up with. Eric Wind, an ex-student long interested in the history of Georgetown College, found for sale on eBay an old examination given at Georgetown in January 1929. (Let me note that this test was not Schall's, as in January of 1929, he was but one year old.) The student taking the test was Lawrence Mehren; it was given by Rev. John J. Murphy, S.J., a name I had not run across before. On the test are twelve questions; the students were asked to do ten. I do not know how much time they were given.
The questions of 1929 are brief and to the point:
Evidently, Mehren skipped questions 2 and 6. We do not know what grade he received; nor, alas, do we have his answers. Actually, this little test-sheet should go for a lot of chips; I hope the good folks at eBay know what it is. Some wry philanthropist should perhaps give a copy to each of the bishops.
Several things might interest us on reading these "mid-year examination" questions. The first would be that such a list, however interesting, could be found in no examination in any of today's Catholic institutions, probably including seminaries. The second is that the students are not asked their "opinion" or, even worse, their "feelings" on any of these issues. Nor is it asked if they believe in any of the answers they give. They are simply asked to answer the questions in a coherent and intelligent way. No doubt, the professor probably found numerous "wrong" answers among the erstwhile Georgetown students of 1929.
Obviously, evolution was a hot topic at the time. The students must have known that the relation of tradition to Scripture was based on the awareness that Scripture itself depended on some tradition that pre-existed its being written. The students were appraised of the arguments about the meaning of Christ as true God and true man, with its origin within the Trinity.
This course is billed as "apologetics," a word with Socratic overtones. Its presupposition is that any intelligent young man should know many things, whether he likes it or not. (In 1929, the young ladies were attending their own colleges, where they surely were asked similar questions by some perceptive Madame of the Sacred Heart or Dominican nun.)
We seldom teach apologetics any more. We teach theology or religious studies. The first is usually considered a science, though not exactly the same science that Aquinas called it. The second is a sort of survey. The religion requirement has been steadily decreasing in most schools; often there are but two required courses, one a sort of general overview of God and His doings taught by most anyone, the second usually fulfilled by studying what some other religion besides Christianity said about it all. The buzz words are pluralism, tolerance, peace, justice, "let's just get along."
Are there things we should know to be saved? St. Paul and St. John, among others, seem to have thought so. Indeed, revelation itself is something that "seeks intelligence." So the reason of faith is worth a look. Our lives may depend on it.
Whatever we may think of "the scientific evidence against the evolution of the body of man," these questions indicate that in the 80 years since Mehren took his mid-term, a definite devolution of mind is underscored when important questions of what the Faith holds, and why, are simply not asked or authoritatively answered.
Such a test also reminds me of Pope Benedict XVI's Caritas in Veritate. Our academic institutions have replaced theoretic intellect with practical intellect. Ethics has taken the center, not unlike classic Roman thought. But by itself, ethics usually becomes the latest ideology or political enthusiasm. Charity not only needs truth, but students need truth. Without it, they act in a vacuum. Truth asks questions but, more importantly, gives answers. This understanding was at the heart of that 1929 mid-term.
Rev. James V. Schall, S.J., teaches political science at Georgetown University. His latest book, The Mind That Is Catholic, is published by Catholic University of America Press. Readers have left 8 comments. I'd love it if someone would do a follow-up with answers to that test. I know the originals aren't extant, but surely someone who knows more Catholic theology (or should I be saying "apologetics"?) than I do does actually know the answers. . . I'm embarrassed to say I don't even know what some of the questions mean.  Written by Scarlett I hope that you are blessed for your humility Scarlett. I would like to see the answers to these questions as well. Written by Mark I think this test says a lot about that time, and the instructor who gave it. Let's see who will answer these. I sure have no need to try, but I am interested in one. Answer #4. Please. Dei Verbum has something to say to #4, and it makes me wonder whether we will get spin or honest answers. Written by Rich Whew! Glad we don't have to deal with problems like that now. Global Warming and "Diversity" issues are much easier to handle. Written by Howard These were touched upon in a secondary way when I was in the seminary (of a great big American archdiocese). Please, Fr. Schall, enlighten our minds so that our wills may be strengthened! Written by Fr. Bob I think the men who wrote <i>Dei Verbum</i> took that test at some point in their academic careers. I wish they had insisted that their successors also encounter such exams! Written by Richard A Here is a fairly short answer to #4 as requested by Rich. Others please flesh out the arguments to a fuller extent. Q: Why is Tradition superior to Holy Scripture? A: Tradition is superior to Holy Scripture due to the fact that Tradition was required for Holy Scripture to even exist. The Catechism states: "The first generation of Christians did not yet have a written New Testament, and the New Testament itself demonstrates the process of living Tradition." Neither the apostles, nor the succeeding, immediate generations had any concept of the New Testament has we know it. It was only through Sacred Tradition that the Scriptures came to be defined late in the 4th century. Dei Verbum, in numbers 7 and 8, lays out the principle that the primary way the Gospel message is to be preserved is through Sacred Tradition, both apostolic preaching and authentic teaching authority. This would include the Scriptures, in a special way, as inspired by God through the Sacred Tradition. Dei Verbum does clearly state that the Magisterium is not superior to the Word of God but this in no way equates "Word of God" with Scripture alone. Without Sacred Tradition as the living and authentic interpreter, Scripture would become unmoored and become a tool by which any fool could interpret for himself what it means (aka Protestantism). Thus, Sacred Tradition is superior to Sacred Scripture. In many ways, this can be equated to the Church and Her hierarchy. The Pope is clearly superior to laypeople but that superiority is not due to his being better but by his capacity to serve the People of God. Written by Eric I can only provide a scarce and tattered response from memory, as it's been a few years since my last theology class. But in regards to number 4, I would use Rev. Schall's own analysis provided in the article; namely that Holy Scripture is a collection of canonical texts that come to us as a result of a Tradition guided by the Holy Spirit. Scripture was not created ex nihilo in a vacuum devoid of sociological, historical, and linguistic peculiarities. This is not to say that Scripture should be reduced to merely those things, like many modern scholars suggest-- it is merely to say that the notion of Sola Scriptura is flawed. The Bible did not fall out of the sky into Luther's lap in 1517. Scripture arises out of Tradition, and the claim of Sola is not only bad history and exegesis, but it is also self-annihilating: for where in Scripture do we find the claim "by scripture alone?" It is from Tradition that we receive Scripture, as it is from Tradition that we receive the liturgy. But hopefully someone better versed in Biblical hermeneutics can provide a more concise and detailed answer. And please correct me if there is anything wrong in the above response. Written by FX |
|
 |
