I have mixed thoughts on the proposal. A group of us started something similar at the University of San Francisco exactly 50 years ago. But that was because the university had already surrendered (abjectly) to the zeitgeist. The proposal aims at doing what Catholic universities are for. It seems similar to the practice of some (not necessarily so) Catholic universities that have a 'Vice President for Mission' or some such. Verbum sapienti satis.
Sheen’s proposal, I think, was not to remedy Catholic character but an attempt to overcome structural problems in a modern research university. It presupposes an administration and faculty “on mission.”
If there are undergraduates at a Catholic research university, they should be getting a core Catholic liberal arts education--not as part of a special institute or through the efforts of a Vice President for Mission. There should be majors in subjects outside this liberal arts core. But if the university is Catholic, that core should be Catholic.
I defer to Father Fessio on all things involving Catholic education, but here is another form of the argument that there may be a prudential judgement that there could be things to save from the rubble instead a full rebuild from the ground up:
Does that mean that every Catholic university, to be Catholic, has to have a 'university within a university'? And then does the 'inner' university also need a university within it? Looks like infinite regress. Why not just a plain old Catholic university? Entia non sunt multiplicanda.
This makes me wonder about the roots of the CUA program of study I entered for doctoral work in Religion and Culture in 1998. It was meant to bridge both sacred science and secular society. So, from 1938 to 1998, there may have been permutations, but there's much of Sheen's proposal in the work I did decades later.
I have mixed thoughts on the proposal. A group of us started something similar at the University of San Francisco exactly 50 years ago. But that was because the university had already surrendered (abjectly) to the zeitgeist. The proposal aims at doing what Catholic universities are for. It seems similar to the practice of some (not necessarily so) Catholic universities that have a 'Vice President for Mission' or some such. Verbum sapienti satis.
Sheen’s proposal, I think, was not to remedy Catholic character but an attempt to overcome structural problems in a modern research university. It presupposes an administration and faculty “on mission.”
If there are undergraduates at a Catholic research university, they should be getting a core Catholic liberal arts education--not as part of a special institute or through the efforts of a Vice President for Mission. There should be majors in subjects outside this liberal arts core. But if the university is Catholic, that core should be Catholic.
I defer to Father Fessio on all things involving Catholic education, but here is another form of the argument that there may be a prudential judgement that there could be things to save from the rubble instead a full rebuild from the ground up:
https://fourthwatchcatholic.com/p/if-france-can-have-a-revival-maybe-catholic-colleges-can-too
His language of a “university within a university” suggests a core.
Does that mean that every Catholic university, to be Catholic, has to have a 'university within a university'? And then does the 'inner' university also need a university within it? Looks like infinite regress. Why not just a plain old Catholic university? Entia non sunt multiplicanda.
Free live event on Sept 30: "Blessed Fulton Sheen's Vision & the Institute of Catholic Culture" https://instituteofcatholicculture.org/share/fd1a1fff298c375602d6936fa6b37b82
Michael Pakaluk could have written this yesterday!
This makes me wonder about the roots of the CUA program of study I entered for doctoral work in Religion and Culture in 1998. It was meant to bridge both sacred science and secular society. So, from 1938 to 1998, there may have been permutations, but there's much of Sheen's proposal in the work I did decades later.