Few things irritate the university elites more than the
sentiments expressed in the traditional Collect for the feast of St. Albert the
Great that we observed this past week.
Deus, qui beátum Albértum, Pontíficem tuum atque Doctórem, in humána sapiéntia divínæ fídei subjiciénda magnum effecísti…
Translated: O God, who didst make blessed Albert, thy Bishop
and Doctor, great by subjecting human wisdom to divine
faith…
The meaning is clear. St. Albert’s greatness was not to
be found in his brilliant mind, though he definitely had one. His greatness was
to be found in the fact that he subjected his science to the rule of faith.
Academic pursuits are to be laid open and exposed to the power and the force of
faith. Academic pursuit is to be submissive to faith; academic pursuit must obey
faith.
And this is how it ought to be in the rational order, for
faith is what we know with certainty, while human science is, and always has
been, changing law. Each generation either discards previous science for new,
or adds to and modifies past science to explain new discoveries and new
propositions. The faith, on the other hand, has always been the same, and
always will be. No discovery in the natural order, no new philosophical
proposition, will ever change the reality of God and the truth revealed to us
in His Incarnation. From atomism to quantum physics, and on to some other
understanding as contradictory as all previous understandings, no matter what,
God is in His heaven, unchanged. Thus, if human science contradicts the faith, the
logical and clear sighted man would be skeptical of the ever changing human
science.
That, however, is not the case in regards to modern man,
who is skeptical of all things having to do with faith, but absolutist in
regards to the ever changing laws of human science. I was once asked why I didn’t
“agree with the obvious facts of evolution.” I answered that I haven’t enough
faith to believe in evolution. Indeed, it takes more faith to believe in the unseen and
unobserved and unexamined and untested “facts” of evolution than it takes to
believe in what is seen and heard and felt daily in regards to my Catholic
faith. This speaks to the realism of religious faith. We believe what we
experience. The modern sophisticate, who hasn’t the time for religious faith,
but banks instead on his human science, believes only that which he can quantify
and chart out. While this might be nice and neat, mathematical, and precise, it’s
hardly an adequate or humane substitute for lived experience.
And how utterly sad it is when this attitude is applied
to the divine sciences. There is a kind of quantifying that goes on in the
modern Catholic university. The “datum” of the faith is subjected to human
science, to the changing laws of natural science, sociology, economics,
philosophy, etc. The “datum” of faith, it is judged by the university elites,
must be modified, re-molded, re-envisioned, adapted, updated, in order to bring the "datum" of faith into conformity with the science of modern man. The end result of this subjecting faith to science is a faith changed, and certainly not the faith given to us by God. This is
the recipe for dissent, the same dissent that runs rampant through our Catholic
colleges and universities.
This is the dissent and division that Archbishop Carlo
Maria Vigano, papal nuncio to the United States, recently addressed at the
University of Notre Dame. He spoke of the danger posed by faculty members at
Catholic universities that present opinions and positions at odds with the
teachings of the Catholic Church. This, Archbishop Vigano contended, weakens
the Church and makes it susceptible to manipulations and even persecutions.
The problem has been identified. It has been addressed.
But is the proper remedy being applied? It apparently is not, as is evidenced
by what most Catholics in the United States heard on the feast of St. Albert
the Great at their novus ordo Masses:
O God, who made the Bishop Saint Albert great by his joining of human wisdom to divine faith…
Joining? That is terribly different
than subjecting,
isn’t it? The Collect in the Ordinary Form of the Roman Rite means something
very different from what the Collect in the Traditional Latin Mass conveys.
While the traditional Collect conforms both to what the Church has always
taught and to logic, the novus ordo
Collect conforms to only one thing: the
pride of modern man who puts his science on the same level as divine faith.
If the novus ordo
is the liturgical standard that Archbishop Vigano proposes to those he
addressed at the University of Notre Dame, then he might as well have been
speaking to the wall. He can wax eloquently all he wants about division and
dissention in our Catholic universities, but the liturgy he celebrates does
nothing but foment those same divisions and dissentions.
And the light shineth in the darkness and the darkness did not comprehend it...
ReplyDelete