Some readers of Life after RC have stated common criticisms against colleges like Christendom and TAC.
For example:
It's a mixed bag.
I wouldn't send our children there [AMU]. (For what it's worth, I wouldn't send them to TAC or Christendom either. To my way of thinking, all three schools are too insular and idiosyncratic to do the kind of educating I think our children need.)
and:
Our daughter, who graduated several years ago from the University of San Francisco said basically the same thing. She thought that those schools would make it too easy for her to just hide away and not face things in the world.
She was pleased that she could talk with the most radical feminist or homosexual or whatever and engage them and actually give them a positive perception of Christianity. Something to think about I guess when choosing schools.
and:
One of the comments that friends who live in Front Royal made was that many of the graduates from Christendom tend to stay in the area and work for the college or HLI or Seton school rather than going out into the world and being a light there. I could see this happening at AMU as well since they are trying to build a town around the university.
I always thought that sounded like a wonderful idea until I read a talk by a cardinal from a family conference somewhere in South America. He basically said that we are not to form insular Catholic ghettos but get out into the world and transform it.
My daughter also commented as she was going through college that many of the students who had gone to Catholic high schools, both diocesan and independent, orthodox and not, seemed to have a much more difficult time making good choices about moral issues than some of the public schooled students. I found that very interesting.
Her position was that she was able to observe her group of peers in school and see the results of their choices, both good and bad, which then affected the choices she made after she left home.
Allowing our daughter to make some of these choices independent of our desires(I was hoping for FUS for her), and then watching home-schooling families as well as friends that our daughter made in college, has changed my opinion about a lot of these things. I am not nearly as inclined to think that sheltering our children is as positive a choice as I did in the past.
Are students of schools like Christendom hyper-pious and uncritical students? First we must ask what sort of education they receive. Then we can ask whether the sort of education they receive prepares them for the "real world." Are there Christendom graduates who are remain Republican cheerleaders by the time they graduate? Yes. But this is true of many Catholics who study at larger colleges and universities as well. How many schools offer an education that is grounded in a proper understanding of the American political tradition and political philosophy, which would enable Catholics to take a more critical look of the Republican party? Very few--I don't know of any, even if there are some TAC alumni who take a reactionary Catholic view of the American founding.
Still, one is more likely to receive an education that equips him to discern and criticize the false beliefs of modernity at Christendom than at a public school or a larger, more-established Catholic school. Some would argue that the lack of coursework in the sciences stunts Christendom students. But I would contest that Catholics who imbibe the doctrine of contemporary sciences are not really better off, since they are unable to distinguish between conclusions that have been attained through sound reasoning and those that have not. The uncritical acceptance of modern science by Catholics may do more to discredit Christianity and hinder evangelization than humble ignorance.
As for whether such an education adequately equips students for life after graduation--I would agree that it doesn't. But this is a problem affecting students at larger institutions, secular or Catholic, as well. All are involved with the higher education bubble to some degree. All contribute to that trend which stunts maturity and promotes infantilization, though at least Catholics at Christendom and FUS are more eager to embrace married life and its responsibilities soon after graduation. Immaturity and lack of real world experience can be found everywhere, not just small Catholic colleges. There are students at Christendom who must work in order pay for their education. There are many whose education is paid for by scholarships, parents, or loans. How is this any different from any other college or university in the United States?
As for the assertion that Catholics who attend Christendom and other alternate Catholic schools are less able to deal with sin and the temptations of the real world, I find this also to be questionable, hinting of presumption or some sort of pelagianism. Catholics can resist temptation and stay in the state of grace only through grace, not by their efforts alone, and God provides sufficient grace to any Catholic, regardless of the circumstances, to avoid sin. Given the arrangements of many dormitories and the lack of supervision or moral oversight, Catholics are more likely to be led astray at large universities than at schools like Christendom. Who is more likely to be "spiritually mature"? Is this a question that can be answered? But Catholic colleges that have daily liturgies and offer frequent opportunities for confession and communal devotions are better than those that do not.
If Christendom fails to give its students a better grasp of the lay vocation in the here and now, then how much more true is this of larger schools, which have a greater effect against localization? Catholics are called to live as witnesses of Christ, but among the neighbors in accordance with the order of charity. Is it easier to observe the order of charity in Latin American than in the United States? (Is it easier to be a complacent Catholic in Latin American countries, to take that sort of outward profession to others for granted?) Is life in the United States more fragmented and atomistic? Catholics should be striving to be rooted as possible, instead of acquiescing to the living trends imposed by industrialization and centralization. (And here again, I think it is more likely to find countercultural Catholics at small schools like Christendom than at Boston College, students more willing to embrace agrarianism and economic freedom.) The cardinal's admonition, while true, is not complete. There is also the requirement of charity to strengthen bonds with extended family and to "network" with other Catholics. Witnessing to non-Catholics then becomes a consequence of living in a diverse society, rather than the primary duty which gives shape to the Catholic lay vocation.
I still need to finish that follow-up post on Catholic co-education and colleges...
.
No comments:
Post a Comment