|
|
As a student devoted to improving my own mind as well as the caliber of the education at this institution, I feel compelled to supply a voice in the on-going debate over the core curriculum. I wish to address in particular those members of the faculty responsible for modifying or ratifying the core curriculum at Franciscan University. I am disturbed by the lack of consistent direction provided for students in their chosen course of study. Consider the phenomenon of "major change" so prevalent among the members of this student body (myself included.) Most students, it seems, change their major at least once and many perhaps two, three or even (sad to say) four or more times before they graduate. What contribution has this, I ask, to our sense of the unity of truth, and hence to the value of our education? Far from suggesting that we as students have not the right to determine what we are to study while in college, I suggest rather that we rarely come to Franciscan University equipped with the tools to make such a decision, and all too often leave never having made an informed and satisfactory choice. I believe the function of a core curriculum should indeed be to provide men and women precisely with that fundamental knowledge Dr. Crosby spoke of, and that the first testimony to its effectiveness and its value is the aid it supplies its students in determining what exactly they ought to study. In this regard, I think, our core curriculum has failed us. Too many of us flounder. Kathleen van Schaijik appropriately lauded the unique quality of love of truth that study at this University imparts. But I think all too often we succumb to an aimless pursuit of this truth, for we have been provided no substantial archimedic point at which to aim our academic endeavors. One must first know something of the truth to love it intelligently. It seems we waste a lot of intellectual energy trying to supply ourselves with some sort of direction in our education. How effective then, will our general education finally be in directing us in life? I ask the faculty to please leave us no longer with the burden of breaking our own educational ground, but rather to provide us with a consistent, ordered, and sufficiently extensive core curriculum, mandated to us at the outset of our education, whereby we might earn the privilege of taking responsibility for our intellectual formation here at Franciscan University.
Katherine Kemmis,Junior, Humanities and Catholic Culture
I write regarding Kathleen van Schaijik's article on NFP in the February 13 issue of the Concourse. I was pleased to see this sensitive issue being discussed. I agree that we must becareful of judgementalism, since often we cannot judge whether or not one is in a state of sin. However, when the question is not sin, but the level of virtue one exemplifies, I believe we need to admit that some people display a particular virtue to a greater degree. For instance, when one sees the distinctive habit of a Sister of Charity, one thinks of the selfless love with which Mother Teresa ministers to people in need. This is impressive and in no way diminishes the love with which other religious serve people in their care. Just the same, when one sees a large family, as did the doctor refered to in her article, the blessing and generosity is obvious. This fact should not diminish the generosity of families whose blessings are less obvious. This also does not make one "more Catholic" since one is either Catholic. . . or not. The issue then cannot be "Catholicity." It is in fact generosity. I too have been impressed by large families, but this is not just my opinion. It is also the Church's. "Among the married couples who thus fulfill their God-given mission, special mention should be made of those who after prudent reflection and common decision courageously undertake the proper upbringing of a large number of children." (Gaudium et Spes 50, emphasis my own) "Sacred Scripture and the Church's traditional practice see in large families a sign of God's blessing and the parents' generosity." (CCC 2373) The Church herself recognizes the sign value of a large family, without dismissing the generosity of parents who, due to circumstances beyond their control are unable to have a large number of children. Children are "the supreme gift of marriage" (GS 50) and thus always and everywhere a blessing, even if their mother is bit "strung out." As for the issue of the interpretation of Humane Vitae, it seems the issue is the precise meaning of the words used to qualify appropriate reasons for the licit use of NFP. Under the heading "Responsible Parenthood" the document reads:"In relation to physical, economic, psychological and social conditions, responsible parenthood is exercised, either by the deliberate and generous decision to raise a numerous family, or by the decision, made for grave motives and with due respect for the moral law, to avoid for the time being, or even for an indeterminate period, a new birth." There are two roads for responsible parents: generously raising a large family or the decision to postpone this for grave motives. The issue then is the meaning of "grave." It is also the word used to qualify the matter necessary for a sin to be considered mortal. It seems to me the scope of meaning appropriate for the word "grave" in reference to mortal sin is the one that should also be used to determine the meaning of "grave" in reference to reasons to use NFP.
Carol Puccio, MA Theology program Kathleen van Schaijik replies: I am grateful for the opportunity Carol Puccio gives me to clarify my thoughts on this topic. Here's how I see it. The "providentialist" position is that the licit use of NFP is rare and always regrettable, whereas my claim is that it can be a "normal" part of Catholic family life, provided it is done in a right spirit, i.e. within the context of a generous and responsible ordination toward children. I claim further that the documentation (especially John Paul II's statements) as well as the experience of the faithful bears out my interpretation. (If the Church meant us to be providentialists, why did she not speak more plainly? Why did she not simply say: "Christian parents, have large families if you can. Beware of NFP; it is seldom licit.") I do freely admit that many big families emanate the virtue of generosity. I will even happily grant that the Church has a certain "preferential love" for big families (I have it myself), in the same way she has a preferential love for the poor. My objection is to those who take this preference as a warrant for claiming that couples who choose not to have large families are thereby compromising in their vocation. Just as her preference for the poor does not justify us in presuming that unpoor Catholics (who, after all, could be poor, if they chose) are compromising in their commitment to the Faith, the Church's praise of large families in no way implies that all families should be--if they could be--large. Had the doctor limited himself to saying that the large Catholic families he encounters in his practice inspire him by their generosity, I would have had no quarrel with him. They inspire me too. What I objected to was an implication (perhaps unintended) that those who practice NFP are keeping one foot in the world, so to speak, and are less radically committed to their faith than those he termed "providentialist." (True that people are not more or less Catholic in terms of their profession of faith; either they profess it or they do not. But they can be more or less Catholic to the extent they allow this profession to penetrate their day to day living. Surely there is some sense in speaking of a saint as being "more Catholic" than a person whose faith, though genuine, remains mainly on the periphery of his personal life.) I cannot agree with Puccio's having the discussion hinge on the word "grave." To me the meaning of the term is clear enough: it means serious, weighty, important; it is the opposite of unserious, frivolous, insignificant. Did I ever in my article suggest that it was okay to use NFP for less than serious reasons? I think rather that part of the "providentialist problem" comes in with an unnatural stress on this word, which distorts is plain meaning, almost making it seem synonymous with "life-threatening." I do not accuse Puccio herself of meaning this; indeed, I imagine we are really very close to each other (if not perfectly unified) in our opinions on the subject.
I am in receipt of the first two issues of the University Concourse and find the publication to be interesting, informative and diverse. Ms. DeLine's observations on the "Preach Out" in Issue 1 are refreshing and indicative of progress in the important area of ecumenism. From Mr. Fischer's piece on the music issue, which consumed entirely too much time and energy in the 80's at FUS, I gather that this matter has unfortunately survived well into the 90's. Of particular interest were the article and editorial concerning the need for a core curriculum. While not present for the debate between issues, I can imagine the potential extremes on the issue: from those who are comfortable with the curriculum as it stands to those concerned that there is too much of a "trade school" mentality. It appears from the content of both issues with regard to this particular discussion that the Concourse has lived up to its name and mission. The Editor's commentary in Issue 2 is commendably balanced and both the thesis and the conclusion are on point. Ms. Bratten's article on the absence of fine arts and appreciation for the same serves (perhaps deliberately) to strengthen the position that change is needed. My own experience as an accounting major with a significant additional concentration in history (resulting from interest sparked by taking humanities core courses) was in keeping with Dr. Convery's response in Issue 2 that students are free to "pursue areas of interest outside their major concentrations" by taking elective courses. Outside the classroom, however, myexperience was similar both to the Editor's (pre- and, to a lesser extent, post-graduation) and Ms. Bratten's. Clearly, some evolution of the core is advisable, but this issue needs to be approached with: 1) sensitivity to the strengths and flexibility of the current curriculum and the very positive learning experience already available, 2) a realistic understanding of the requirements of various licensing authorities for minimum in "major credits" in certain fields and, 3) a sense of balance on the other end of the "swinging pendulum" once changes are ultimately made. You are to be commended for the concept--and congratulated for the success--of the Concourse. I look forward to future issues.
Christopher P. Wright, Class of '87
© The University Concourse, March 12, 1996 |
