|
|
When I picked up the latest issue of the University Concourse and spotted an article regarding courtship, I had to sigh. I fully expected a typically Steubenville affirmation of this oddest of rituals. I was, however, most pleasantly surprised, and not a little impressed, to find that someone had actually taken a Catholic (not to mention common sense) approach to dealing with the topic. As an engaged person on campus, I find your treatment of the love that leads to marriage refreshing. Thank God that someone has finally focused on how beautiful a dating relationship has the potential to be! My fiance and I both are very grateful that you chose to address the fallacies of the courtship theory--an idea that is, we believe, inherently unCatholic. One can only hope that on a campus so justly famous for its vibrant Catholicism this richer understanding of love will finally come to supplant its Protestant cousin.
Catherine Egan: FUS junior, English/drama major A personalist point regarding economics Mr. Thomas Storck and I are in nearly total agreement as regards economics and morality. His comments in the last issue of the Concourse were an excellent effort toward bringing dogmatic economic liberals to the insight of serious problems with the capitalist spirit. I would just add one point to Mr. Storck's insights, and that is a clear sense of personalism. We must keep in mind that politics deals with persons who can know why they choose one course of action over another. The ultimate goal is not "moving men and women to act justly," but rather encouraging them to desire justice and to act justly because they have an insight into why it is right. This point must be very clear when talking about distributism or other kinds of political action. When a valid insight (such as the problems with capitalism, which the distributists understand) is obtained, there is a temptation to immediately implement the idea. This impatience circumvents the arduous task of leading others to gain the insight and desire a change of life, which is the only acceptable way in dealing with free citizens in the political order. Though political action has its role to play, this goal is in fact better achieved through cultural channels such as writing--the method Mr. Storck has currently employed.
Philip Harold: FUS senior, philosophy major One of the biggest problems I have with Ben Brown's articles is his assumption that his definition of a "liberal arts education," of a "university" and (seemingly from his latest submission) a "truly Catholic vision" are the correct ones. While he is eloquent and passionate in defending his beliefs, he does so by pointing to things not yet agreed-upon. Similarly, it would seem that many contributors take it for granted that Newman's idea of a university is the proper model for FUS (and indeed any "true" university) to follow. Is it not possible that an alternate view of education, its ends and purposes, might be just as worthy of our consideration? St. Bonaventure, for example, held to a position that education was intended to be in service to man; that knowledge in one sense may be an end in itself, but that it was also a means to other ends? And would Ben Brown & co. see it as a betrayal or perhaps less "Catholic" if FUS would choose the Bonaventurian model over Newman's? His argumentative words to Professor Kelly were unwarranted, especially since Professor Kelly made no mention of Brown's articles. Brown was simply using Kelly's article as an occasion to restate his position, only this time it was particularly arrogant. For him to suggest that FUS should not call itself a university because we're not living up to his (medieval) model is beyond the pale. I, for one, appreciated Professor Kelly's expression that FUS is trying to serve both needs (stronger liberal arts core and strong professional training), and his expression of support for their respective goods. His attempt to peacefully resolve this debate by recognizing the fact that the faculty and the University are even attempting to wrestle with this thorny issue was noble. It certainly did not deserve to be treated so disdainfully by Brown. The core curriculum at FUS may indeed need improvement. I have no quarrel with those who advocate for a stronger liberal arts core for all students; as a matter of fact, I thank Ben Brown for his persuasive writing in past issues, as it has helped me arrive at the realization that I do support a stronger core. But there are important considerations that the faculty and the Core Curriculum Task Force must address. What I and others have tried to do in a hitherto congenial manner is to remind Concourse readers that these issues (professional, and indeed, life preparation for FUS students) are not ancillary issues--they are central to the debate. I think it's irresponsible when these serious considerations are not sufficiently mentioned in the quest for a liberal arts ideal.
Jason Negri Your recent article on courtship gives me something to think about. I had thought highly of the opinion of a Protestant minister's wife I knew who said she wished her first kiss had been at her wedding. I am rethinking that idea. Because of the strong influence of Puritanical ways of thought on the Christian culture in the United States (both in the Protestant world and in the Catholic world through Jansenism), I think Christians need to watch out for ways of thinking that seem very orthodox/conservative, but in reality lack a fullness of truth. I myself write children's stories as a hobby. Under the influence of fundamentalist Protestant fears of New Age/pagan encroachments, I always feared to go too far in writing fantasy or even science fiction. I felt a load lift off my back when I read an article entitled "Unicorn Hunters," in a prominent Catholic magazine which exposed this way of thinking as Puritanical, and mentioned several Catholic children's story writers who use fantasy as a way to promote the Truth, including C.S. Lewis, Madeleine L'Engle, and J.R.R. Tolkien.
Jeff Zare: FUS class of '97
© The University Concourse, May 4, 2000 |
