I found Msgr. Murphy's commentary to be insightful, challenging, and helpful. If you find my musings dreary at first, read on!
I think he is right in pointing out that Catholic Education--Catholicism even!--is confronted with an immediate dilemma, which must be engaged in a spirit of hope despite, indeed to spite, the very aura of gloom surrounding its present state. To point out the challenges of secularism which has gleefully brushed God aside; real postmodern relativism which unbinds the cultural glue of a shared worldview based on commonly held and transcendent values so setting us somewhat adrift on seas of pure self-reference; a Church which has gutted itself with scandal. Other challenges facing Catholic education, unmentioned by the author are dwindling numbers of Catholic students, teachers, and staff, financial hardship, a general weakening of Catholic identity. Indeed a dark night for culture and church.
But the true dark night is about purgation and then renewal!
Murphy is absolutely right that a lay spirituality of the Catholic educator is overdue. Right again in that it cannot simply be cobbled together (though it is everyday) or adopted whole cloth (pun intended) from the world of religious. We are operating from a spirituality by default, whether we are conscious of it or not, whether it is coherent and intentional or not.
Lay spirituality is distinctive (though perhaps not as distant from spirituality of religious life as the author suggests--I would argue with him over the supposed inappropriateness of the evangelical counsels [poverty, chastity, and obedience] for a Christian). Murphy is right to point signal the elements of work, family, and marriage as constitutive. I would love to see more discussion of de Sales' notion of the "secular state."
The best thing Murphy does is explain the priority of relatedness and relationship grounded in Trinity. On p. 12, he alludes to the fact that Trinity gives us our identity. God is love and love is relational--true love needs to be expressed (Creation) and then returned freely (Christ and Christianity) forming a bond in and through the Spirit.
He then suggests that ambiguity is another characteristic of life today which we should accept. I don't know what to think here. I want to agree and disagree. I want to fight ambiguity if its source is evil. I will accept it if it is God's will. To distinguish requires discernment. Murphy skips over this.
He also fails to mention Apostolicum actuositatem, a key decree on the laity from Vatican II which would round out his very good reflections.
I love the common sense reflection that one must begin in the staff room.
The five characteristics are genius! And then he frosts his cake with the sugary call to political engagement...but wait for the cherry...ahh yes, it must all be rooted in prayer. "...to do all this Catholic educators have to give themselves time to stand in the presence of God" (p. 24). Amen!
Tuesday, September 29, 2009
Tuesday, September 22, 2009
Durka pp. 60-82
As the Durka readings come to a close, I want to try and speak more exactly about what has been nagging me which also will dovetail our discussion from last week. At worst I am vainly indulging a misguided need to criticize a watered-down spirituality; at best I am pointing to a more complete, authentic, and richer vision of the spirituality of the eductator. You be the judge!
My freshman english teacher in high school offered to us unity and coherence as the twin gods of writing. As the years of my education have begun to add up and threaten to spill over, and eyesight deteriorates for having stared at so much Times New Roman, I find that the gods are about much more than literary style. Their domain is as much content and substance. So I hope will be my criticism.
In reading Durka I have lost the thread in many chapters. I have had a difficult time following the logic and the development of ideas. So often she seems to move from one idea to the other without bridging or building. As if she offers so many pieces but doesn't reveal the whole. Similarly, there are brilliant concepts and reflections in these pages: imagination, fidelity, formation of the human person; and there are some lukewarm concepts in need of development and explanation: ethic of caring (p. 50), humanization (p. 21); and some that are taken out of their proper Christian context: virtue, heart, wisdom, vocation, mystery. I am not looking for a full blown "theology of teaching" but a work that claims to present a "Spirituality For Those Who Teach" written by a professor of Religion and Religious Education at a Catholic University, using the language of Christian theology needs to acknowledge that it is indeed grounded in and informed by Christian theology. She comes tantalizingly close with a reflection like: "[Teaching] is a basic human art that depends upon the exercise of certain intellectual, moral, and spiritual virtues" (p. 75). And again, who is the "...One who calls us and sustains us..." (p. 78) but God in and through Jesus!
To circumlocute religion is to talk about religion without using the word religion. Durka signals Catholic Christianity all through these pages yet it is only in the final pages that she writes what she perhaps might have woven into her reflections from the very start. I couldn't but find myself asking why did not Durka write a book that treats explicitly of her observation that "It is only on the basis of a religious account of teaching that its true character can be fully grasped" (p. 76)? And "We...admit that our vocation as teachers depends upon faith" (. 78) It is Durka coming so close to the truest spirituality, the Christian spirituality of the teacher that for me makes my experience of this book frustrating.
My freshman english teacher in high school offered to us unity and coherence as the twin gods of writing. As the years of my education have begun to add up and threaten to spill over, and eyesight deteriorates for having stared at so much Times New Roman, I find that the gods are about much more than literary style. Their domain is as much content and substance. So I hope will be my criticism.
In reading Durka I have lost the thread in many chapters. I have had a difficult time following the logic and the development of ideas. So often she seems to move from one idea to the other without bridging or building. As if she offers so many pieces but doesn't reveal the whole. Similarly, there are brilliant concepts and reflections in these pages: imagination, fidelity, formation of the human person; and there are some lukewarm concepts in need of development and explanation: ethic of caring (p. 50), humanization (p. 21); and some that are taken out of their proper Christian context: virtue, heart, wisdom, vocation, mystery. I am not looking for a full blown "theology of teaching" but a work that claims to present a "Spirituality For Those Who Teach" written by a professor of Religion and Religious Education at a Catholic University, using the language of Christian theology needs to acknowledge that it is indeed grounded in and informed by Christian theology. She comes tantalizingly close with a reflection like: "[Teaching] is a basic human art that depends upon the exercise of certain intellectual, moral, and spiritual virtues" (p. 75). And again, who is the "...One who calls us and sustains us..." (p. 78) but God in and through Jesus!
To circumlocute religion is to talk about religion without using the word religion. Durka signals Catholic Christianity all through these pages yet it is only in the final pages that she writes what she perhaps might have woven into her reflections from the very start. I couldn't but find myself asking why did not Durka write a book that treats explicitly of her observation that "It is only on the basis of a religious account of teaching that its true character can be fully grasped" (p. 76)? And "We...admit that our vocation as teachers depends upon faith" (. 78) It is Durka coming so close to the truest spirituality, the Christian spirituality of the teacher that for me makes my experience of this book frustrating.
Tuesday, September 15, 2009
Durka pp. 39-48
First, I want to agree with the author about much of what is said in these pages. Second, I want to be critical of some points that she makes and others made partially.
1. At the end of p. 41 and on to p. 42, Durka writes, "If we can convey to our students some sense of the wonder of existence, we can evoke in them their own longing to give thanks for the gift of life." And she goes on to show that there are numerous "unconscious processes" at work in the human mind. I would add human heart and soul. This ties in to her prior description of the imaginative faculty of the person as crucial to teaching/learning. And she speaks of the need to create spiritual space. In making these observations, she is circumlocuting "religion."
The same mystical faculty which produces the universal human longing for religare is at work in the healthy classroom. The "style" (p. 40) which is hospitable, humble, open yet appropriately bounded--in order to encourage student flourishing--is simutaneously an attitude which "cooperates with grace," allowing for people to experience God.
2. The discussion of "style" is underdeveloped and a bit nebulous. The word connotes mere preference, something temporary, ephemeral, and hence the relative. And on p. 42 I was left hoping for much more in terms of "The mind is not the brain" and "Unconscious knowing." And again, on page 41 there is talk of "enhancement of life" which is all well and good, but in Catholic education we have the great freedom to engage a much much richer concept like "human flourishing in Christ." What we really need to be about is human flourishing in a sacramental sense. "For freedom Christ has set us free" writes Saint Paul in his letter to the church at Rome. Let us not be mired in the partial truths of secular humanism or Enlightenment.
The discussion on page 43 must and can only happen in terms of our knowledge of God. It does not. Durka writes about helping students "make sense of their lives" which requires us to "reinterpret and make sense of our own lives." But she does not say that our lives and our world only make sense at all once we have contemplated and experienced God! Let's not have some wily nily "oughts and shoulds" based on some false understanding of our selves and our destinies. No thank you to some vague notion of what is right and good. Truth, goodness, and beauty reach their completion in and through Christ.
I could not disagree more strongly with the quote from Ortega y Gasset and maybe would pick a semantic bone with D.H. Lawrence.
In the first case the quotation (p. 41) seems to advocate for a post-modern relativist understanding of truth: "reality [is] ...an infinite number of perspectives, all equally veracious and authentic." This is an untrue statement. And then, "The sole false perspective is that which claims to be the only one there is." Again this is assertion is dangerously close to attempting to invalidate the notion of universal truth.
In the second case, perhaps I am being a bit literalistic, but we most certainly can (and do) know that he claims cannot be known. Grace, Sacrament, prayer, vision, miracle, mystical union, these are all real ways of knowing God.
1. At the end of p. 41 and on to p. 42, Durka writes, "If we can convey to our students some sense of the wonder of existence, we can evoke in them their own longing to give thanks for the gift of life." And she goes on to show that there are numerous "unconscious processes" at work in the human mind. I would add human heart and soul. This ties in to her prior description of the imaginative faculty of the person as crucial to teaching/learning. And she speaks of the need to create spiritual space. In making these observations, she is circumlocuting "religion."
The same mystical faculty which produces the universal human longing for religare is at work in the healthy classroom. The "style" (p. 40) which is hospitable, humble, open yet appropriately bounded--in order to encourage student flourishing--is simutaneously an attitude which "cooperates with grace," allowing for people to experience God.
2. The discussion of "style" is underdeveloped and a bit nebulous. The word connotes mere preference, something temporary, ephemeral, and hence the relative. And on p. 42 I was left hoping for much more in terms of "The mind is not the brain" and "Unconscious knowing." And again, on page 41 there is talk of "enhancement of life" which is all well and good, but in Catholic education we have the great freedom to engage a much much richer concept like "human flourishing in Christ." What we really need to be about is human flourishing in a sacramental sense. "For freedom Christ has set us free" writes Saint Paul in his letter to the church at Rome. Let us not be mired in the partial truths of secular humanism or Enlightenment.
The discussion on page 43 must and can only happen in terms of our knowledge of God. It does not. Durka writes about helping students "make sense of their lives" which requires us to "reinterpret and make sense of our own lives." But she does not say that our lives and our world only make sense at all once we have contemplated and experienced God! Let's not have some wily nily "oughts and shoulds" based on some false understanding of our selves and our destinies. No thank you to some vague notion of what is right and good. Truth, goodness, and beauty reach their completion in and through Christ.
I could not disagree more strongly with the quote from Ortega y Gasset and maybe would pick a semantic bone with D.H. Lawrence.
In the first case the quotation (p. 41) seems to advocate for a post-modern relativist understanding of truth: "reality [is] ...an infinite number of perspectives, all equally veracious and authentic." This is an untrue statement. And then, "The sole false perspective is that which claims to be the only one there is." Again this is assertion is dangerously close to attempting to invalidate the notion of universal truth.
In the second case, perhaps I am being a bit literalistic, but we most certainly can (and do) know that he claims cannot be known. Grace, Sacrament, prayer, vision, miracle, mystical union, these are all real ways of knowing God.
Wednesday, September 9, 2009
Durka, pp. 26-38
I agree strongly with Durka's suggestion as to the power of Imagination and its centrality to our vocation, whether it be at the center of our dispositions, our daily demeanor, our planning; or the engine of the students' learning experience.
I would want to point out further that Imagination presumes humility and openness which also are, not coincidentally, necessary to receive God's grace. It strikes me that what Durka refers to as Imagination might also be a prime faculty through which we experience grace. "...imagination can bring severed parts together and create wholes." (Durka p. 31). "The role of the imagination...is to awaken" (Durka p. 33). These quotes point to the function of Imagination in transforming our unederstanding and experience of the world which in turn allows for God to break through. We must humble and open ourselves, our hearts, in order that we might be broken open and the heart might be lifted up, elevated to a mystical experience of the divine.
St. Gregory of Nyssa might have said, "...only wonder understands God!"
I would want to point out further that Imagination presumes humility and openness which also are, not coincidentally, necessary to receive God's grace. It strikes me that what Durka refers to as Imagination might also be a prime faculty through which we experience grace. "...imagination can bring severed parts together and create wholes." (Durka p. 31). "The role of the imagination...is to awaken" (Durka p. 33). These quotes point to the function of Imagination in transforming our unederstanding and experience of the world which in turn allows for God to break through. We must humble and open ourselves, our hearts, in order that we might be broken open and the heart might be lifted up, elevated to a mystical experience of the divine.
St. Gregory of Nyssa might have said, "...only wonder understands God!"
Durka, pp. 14-25
My initial feeling with Durka is that a somewhat unclear writing style presents a barrier to her audience. I often am left wondering exactly what point she is trying to make, having read a seemingly jumbled collection of ideas left underdeveloped and unexplored.
Nevertheless, she introduces three concepts which have great merit for enriching our understanding of our calling. Even more, these concepts seem themselves to be drawn from the body of our inherited Catholic wisdom. "Passion for the Possible," "Teaching by Design," and "Designing a Holy Work" could as easily be called "Hope (being one of the three theological virtures, and a favorite of St. Paul) in Teaching," and the last two as "Formation: A Christian Anthropology of Education." What I mean to point out is that Durka is making good points about an authentic approach to teaching, but that if we retrieve the explicitly Christian language we will have gone to a font much deeper, crisper and more refreshing than Whitman, Lao Tzu, or Yeats. The valuable concepts will have become sacred truths.
Nevertheless, she introduces three concepts which have great merit for enriching our understanding of our calling. Even more, these concepts seem themselves to be drawn from the body of our inherited Catholic wisdom. "Passion for the Possible," "Teaching by Design," and "Designing a Holy Work" could as easily be called "Hope (being one of the three theological virtures, and a favorite of St. Paul) in Teaching," and the last two as "Formation: A Christian Anthropology of Education." What I mean to point out is that Durka is making good points about an authentic approach to teaching, but that if we retrieve the explicitly Christian language we will have gone to a font much deeper, crisper and more refreshing than Whitman, Lao Tzu, or Yeats. The valuable concepts will have become sacred truths.
Tuesday, September 8, 2009
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)