RESEARCH IN UNIVERSITYCHURCH AND NATION

JAMES S. RAUSCH

There is today, as in the past, a clear desire on the part of the university community to play an active and creative role in the life of the Christian community. A concerted effort in the light of Vatican II to restate the identity of the Catholic university culminated in the 1972 statement entitled, "The Catholic University in the Modern World."¹ Since that time, attention has been devoted to rendering that identity concrete. With this in view it may prove helpful to look back for a moment into the long experience of our predecessors in the faith to draw from them some insight concerning the crucial role of mankind's intellectual effort in God's loving providence. This should help in appreciating more fully the role of research in the Church.

THE HERITAGE

The Church Fathers: The Role of Intellectual Development in the Life of Faith

John Courtney Murr ay, in his Yale lectures on The Problem of God Yesterday and Today,² described masterfully the crucial juncture at which the Church made its irrevocable decision concerning the role of intellectual development in the life of faith. Fittingly, the decision was made in the Church's highest forum, at the Council of Nicaea, and in treating its greatest mystery, the Trinity. The situation was as follows. In the Scriptures and the expressions of the early Church, Christ had been referred to in relational and descriptive terms: he is Immanuel or God-with-us, he is Savior and he is Lord. It was the strongly stated position of Eusebius of Caesarea and his followers that nothing more than these biblical terms should be used.

Nonetheless, implicit in this description of Christ-in-relation-to-us was a definition of Christ-in-Himself and of the relation of the Son to the Father. Inevitably, once the logic of the issue and the dynamism of the human mind made explicit this ontological question, it had to be answered. What is more, it had to be answered in faith, for anything less would negate the life of faith from within. If Christ as Son were not God but man only, then we are not redeemed and our faith is in vain.

The Second and Third Century attempts to answer this question had been inadequate either because, as with Tertullian, they remained subject to the inherent limitations of biological and anthropomorphic metaphors or because, as with Origen, they simply adopted the Middle Platonist notion of emanation with its implication that the Son could be only a diminished likeness of the Father, a God of the second order. For his part, Arius did not hesitate to speak of Christ as the "perfect creature" who, at one time, was not.

In these circumstances it was clear to the Council Fathers at Nicaea that the understanding of the faith had to grow so that its sense would remain unchanged. Because they considered no longer adequate the expression "like (homoios) the Father," they took the divisive step of adding to the Creed an ontological term, "consubstantial (homoo usion) with the Father."³ In so doing they recognized that the answer in faith, as Courtney Murray puts it, "had to be given, not in the empirical categories of experience, the relational category of presence, or even, the dynamic categories of power and function but in the ontological category of substance, which is a category of being."⁴

Effectively, the Church had crossed the Rubicon. It would not, because it could not, be outside the development of the human intellect. On the contrary, the development of the capacity of the human mind to analyze and to question was recognized as integral to the progressive articulation of the meaning of the faith. In Courtney Murray's language, "By sanctioning the status of the ontological mentality in the field of faith, Nicaea also established the statute of the philosophical reason in the field of theology."⁵ This would appear repeatedly from Augustine's use of Platonism, through Thomas' use of Aristotelianism to Rahner's use of phenomenology.⁶ In a word, it made theology in the strict sense possible. What is more, it implied a charter for the role of the many specialized bodies of knowledge (e.g., the sciences, which would be developed in the future) and for the research work carried out in each.

The Church in America: The Universities

We, in this country, are heirs and participants in this rich tradition. In the last century and in the midst of a vast flood of Catholic immigrants the importance which the Church attached to intellectual growth was reflected in the founding and rapid expansion of the Catholic educational system. It was wisely appreciated then that a truly Christian understanding could not consist in a certain "amount" of religion externally juxtaposed to a developed pattern of secular disciplines. On the contrary, the growth in Christian awareness by the Church in this country was seen to require that theology, at its highest level of scholarship and research, be in contact with philosophy and vice versa. It was understood further that these two disciplines could not be carried forward without a close reciprocal relationship with research in the arts and in the physical, psychological and social sciences.

In a word, reflection on revelation, in order to be adequate at any time, requires the full panoply of methods developed thus far by the human mind for investigating the single areas of reality. The foundation by the American Bishops of The Catholic University of America one-hundred years ago, with its pattern of graduate departments in all areas of the arts and sciences, is testimony that this has been the fundamental conviction of the Church in the United States. It is a conviction that has been reexpressed continually in the early founding and impressive growth of other such institutions spanning the country from Washington, D.C. to the state of Washington.

What is more, this development could not have taken place without the active, dedicated and self-sacrificing support of the total Church in our country. The parish collections, the door-to-door drives, the extensive sacrifices by parents, the dedicated lives of the many lay and religious faculty members, and the benefactions, taken together, proclaim one abiding sensus fidelium, namely, that the work of Catholic scholars and universities are essential for providing the understanding we need of the meaning of our Christian life today.

We must never forget the deep dependence that exists between the urgency of this need for research and the provision of the facilities with which it is carried out. Indeed, this very urgency requires that we reassess the situation. Certainly, much has been done. By the turn of the century, one of three psychological laboratories in the United States was in operation at Catholic University. The writing of the original Catholic Encyclo pedia was a prodigious mobilization of Catholic scholarship throughout the world. Today, however, given the quandaries in the Church, the nation and the world, we must ask--as do those in other countries--if we have kept up with the problems generated by our new capabilities: are we doing enough and are we doing it well enough; are we directing our capabilities to the real needs and, if so, are we doing so in a manner that is destructive or creative?

In "taking stock" note must be made of the elements of diffidence and possibly even of suspicion which, at times, have been manifest between those doing research and all other levels of the Church. The papers (Drs. Bon neau and La drière identifying some of the bases for this phenomenon and suggest ways of overcoming it.

At this point, I will simply identify a few factors which generate this diffidence. On the one hand, it is important that in the work of the researcher, the realm of the imagination have full play. He or she must be free to formulate hypotheses and to test them according to the norms of truth appropriate to the specific discipline. This has led those in research, rightly, to guard jealously that freedom without which their work becomes impossible. On the other hand, it is necessary that researchers qualify the results of their work as hypothetical. This has not always been done with clarity, if at all; moreover, it must be remembered that the meaning of such a qualification is difficult to appreciate by those who have not themselves developed habits of research. Secondly, the researcher does not share with the bishops the immediacy of their pastoral role. As a result, it is often difficult for the researcher to understand the Bishops' intense concern regarding the effects of scholars' work upon those poorly prepared to interpret its implications.

In this combination of differentiated capabilities and concerns lie the seeds for misunderstanding and distrust which have disturbed what rightfully should be a fully positive relationship. Indeed, it seems to have been involved in the worldwide alienation of universities, both Catholic and secular, from the general population in the late sixties, and to have dissuaded some members of the Church from looking to the universities for the help they need. The resolution of this problem, as with all redemptive acts, must begin with a recognition of the roots of the problem and an acknowledgement of past failings. I sense a readiness to do this, and in fact, significant statements to this effect have been broadly reported.

It is not sufficient, however, to look backward. It appears to me more productive to attempt to move ahead with today's growing appreciation of the importance of research and to deepen and intensify this by considering its basis in the central truths of the faith, particularly as these have been illuminated by the emphasis of V atican II.

RESEARCH AS PARTICIPATION IN THE MYSTERIES OF THE FAITH

The Trinity and Creation

Going back again to the Council of Nicaea, we see that by stating the consubstantiality of the Son with the Father, that Council clarified more than the mode of the relationship of research to the life of the Church. By declaring that the Word, who proceeds from the Father, is no less than the infinite Truth that is God Himself, it identified the real foundation for scholarship and the basis for hope for its success. The fact that all has been created through the Word implies a basic homology between the universe and the Divine Word. If, then, in creation the human intellect is divided from the world and the mind distinct from the body, the Christian knows that they are not alien. Neither he nor his universe is merely opaque. Rather, to the full extent of their reality both are intelligible and open to successful investigation by the mind. In this light, research can be seen to play a unique healing function in a divided world.

A related factor and one greatly stressed in Vatican II is that of participation through which each created reality reflects the power of God's creative life. This theme of participation has rich implications. It extends beyond the relation of bishops to the Pope, and includes all members of the Church. That each person (and each social unit) reflects in his or her actions the creative activity of the Creator evokes on the part of each an attitude of activity and responsibility. No university, no researcher is simply an agent of a Bishop, any more than any Bishop is simply an agent of the Pope. Each has their identity and each is called upon to exercise it creatively and in their own right.

The Incarnation

Basically we must remember that the Incarnation shows the way in which this activity of man is incorporated into the work of Christ. His Body is continued in those who have been incorporated into Him by baptism. His members share in His mission.⁷

All things--matter and spirit, creation and Creator--are united in Christ as the supreme affirmation of reality. This implies a radical relatedness of the many branches of knowledge from physics through theology. Each science studies intensively a dimension of nature or of man and, as it develops, progressively reflects an aspect of God's creative action. In various interdisciplinary combinations, as with philosophy and theology, they can reflect the transforming character of the Incarnation. Step by step--in a progressive and often elusive manner and through the joint resolution of particular problems--a clarification of the image of Christ can gradually take place.

The Redemption

Christ has come also as Redeemer: to a world which sin has often deformed, Christ comes as healing light. To scholars whose work has been impeded by division between Churches, by rivalries between institutions, and by alienation between and within professional groups, Christ comes as reconciling truth. To researchers whose efforts have been marred by purposes too isolated or selfish, Christ comes as a light that is life. Despite the many factors which divide and obscure, the message of redemption and reconciliation provides grounds for hope that research can lead to understanding and that this can unite and heal.

Redemption, achieved once and for all in the Paschal mystery, must be renewed and implemented throughout history. In our vocation, the development of interdisciplinary and inter-university research capabilities is an important contribution to the realization of Redemption and Reconciliation in the world today.

A RESEARCH AGENDA

Given these ample implications for research, the Second Vatican Council, through its document on "The Church in the Modern World" (Gaudium et Spes), drafted the agenda for a massive and continuing program of research. It requires the highest capabilities of the human mind, because it would search out the profound mystery of God Himself. It involves all of man's arts and sciences, for it concerns the understanding and realization of the divine purpose in all things. It should be a creative response to the full range of human needs, because it should be part of the continually unfolding pattern of God's creative power at work.

The needs of the Church for research are multiple and far reaching. Indeed, they can never be stated once and for all, for they evolve with the flow of history. Statements of specific research needs, therefore, are indicative rather than exhaustive. I cite only by way of example certain issues on which research is necessary. They illustrate both the extent of the research needs and the breadth of the implied invitation to all parts of the scholarly community.

The Nature of the Church

Just as the providential development of understanding made it possible for the Church, at the time of Nicaea, to ask new questions and thereby to grow in its understanding of the mystery of the Trinity, it is possible and even necessary today to face new questions which arise concerning the nature of the Church and her sacramental life. For example, the Church has long been called--and is--the Bo dy of Christ; this was beautifully expressed in Scripture in terms of the vine and its branches. But the Church also has been called--and is--a society; hence, the evolution of social theory raises new questions and opens some new possibilities for articulating the meaning of the initial scriptural metaphors.

Social theory has evolved through systems analysis and hermeneutics. These make it possible increasingly to restate the metaphors in which the nature of the Church was first expressed. Indeed, it would seem essential to do so, for social upheavals indicate that people increasingly understand their life in society in new and, as yet, unassimilated manners. If the Church is to be able to give its answer in faith to the questions of Christian self-identity troubling her members, a cooperative research effort will be needed.

Finally, as the Church is a sacrament and her sacraments are signs, it becomes important to draw upon contemporary theories of hermeneutics in order to understand and express in more contemporary terms her nature, her sacramental life and the way this can be shared by her members. Again, as in the days of Nicaea, this does not imply substituting philosophy for faith. It is the necessary condition, however, for finding the response in faith to the questions that face the Church at this stage of our cultural development. Without such answers, the Christian's understanding of his or her life in Christ can hardly avoid being restricted to the current level of social awareness articulated in terms of restrictively human norms and limitations.

The Miss ion of the Church

Other examples come to mine related to carrying out the internal mission of the Church to its members. Developmental psychology seeks to understand better the levels of cognitive growth and the development of the child's capacity for moral judgments. Both have immediate and important implications for learning theory and for the mission of the Church to teach the Good News. To identify these implications for moral education, family life and sacramental practice requires combinations of research capabilities from, e.g., psycho logy, education and religious studies. The intent of such work certainly would not be to substitute a particular ethical or psychological theory for the Gospel message. It should contribute, however, to understanding better the way in which a child who is baptized in Christ can grow in his or her awareness of the implications of their new Life.

Combinations of theologians, sociologists, lawyers and economists are needed to identify the conditions of the modern family, as well, and to determine which factors promote and which destroy the life which the Church communicates.

Christian Witness in the World

The mission of the Church, however, goes far beyond the life of those who, through baptism, have been incorporated into Christ. It extends to witnessing to the world the transforming message of the One Who came to redeem all men. The Church is called to witness to the meaning of Christ's salvific sacrifice throughout the entire catalogue of issues, ranging from the beginnings and dignity of human life, through man's use of his resources and sharing these equitably for the needs of all, to the excruciating questions of death for, or, in, peace with one's fellow men and with God. As St. Augustine well understood when he wrote his City of God, the answers to these questions, though given in principle, must be worked out in the ongoing historical process. Research, by means of increasingly sophisticated scientific methods, must investigate, analyze and interpret this reality. Indeed, the major constitutive element in any cultural stage is precisely this analysis and interpretation which we call re search.

It is upon this understanding, moreover, that the future is built. If we are called to the loving contemplation of Truth Itself, the present mode of this vocation is to transform our fractured world in order to restore, in the words of Pope John XXIII, the visage of Christ in all things. This can be done only by research that is adequate for achieving real understanding of the present situation and comparing this to the Christian ideal. The purpose of such a comparison cannot be to condemn the present or to construct fictitious utopias. Rather, the purpose of research must be to gain direction, to determine the limitations which circumstances impose upon the range of available options, to select what is truly desirable, and to work effectively and progressively toward that goal.

STRUCTURES FOR RESEARCH

The Universities

In this work one of the calculations to be made concerns the availability of resources. Perhaps the most central factor in such a calculation is the research capability of the Catholic universities. Certainly, it would be quite unrealistic to think of these universities carrying out by themselves all the work that is needed. In fact, effective research can be carried out only within the national and international professional community. It would be equally unrealistic, however, to believe that the interpretation of the past and present, or the discernment of future options needed for a Christian understanding will arise by accident from some sort of general research pool. No large organization in the world today subsists on the hope that others will do for it the work required in order to understand its own distinctive identity. Certainly, the Church cannot do so. That is why it must turn to its universities.

They face a range of options. At one extreme is that of leaving professors and graduate students in isolation to make uncoordinated decisions concerning their research projects. Other options provide some degree of coordination for their work and of the supporting work of other scholars. Progress must lie in this latter course.

What is required of individual researchers is simply, but essentially, that in the midst of the welter of concerns which flow from their instructional mandate, they give due importance to the research needs to which they can respond. Ultimately the selection of topics for research must be made by the individual faculty members themselves but they need to make these decisions with awareness of the nature of scientific research as a service to the community and the extent to which people depend upon their research for the quality of their life.

The task of the university is to help to identify: what is desirable and feasible within the area of research; what type of resources are needed; what is available in personnel and equipment; how these can be brought together; what structures will make it possible to work on these questions with the needed continuity; what will bring research to fruition; and how to provide for its communication to other scholars and to the university's various constituencies.

The NCCB/USCC

The research needs of the National Conference of Catholic Bishops (NCCB) and the United States Catholic Conference (USCC) are great indeed. Above, I mentioned that these fall on three levels; here, I would like to speak in operational terms.

The Conference is essentially a coordinating unit of the episcopacy and of many areas of the life of the Church, from education to ecumenical affairs: from justice and peace to minority concerns; from ministry to liturgy and all avenues of pastoral concern. It is the task of the conference staff to explore policy options and make recommendations, to assist in drafting statements and pastoral letters, and to represent the Church to the national Government and other bodies regarding issues which notably affect, not only the life of the Church members, but the lives of all men in this nation and in the world. It is neither possible nor desirable for the small staff of the Conference to attempt to carry out the intensive research required for this work. The mission of Christ will not be adequately served unless some way is developed for the Conference to draw upon the scholarly community with its diverse and expert capabilities for needed research.

The NCCB USCC, for its part, must follow the state of various issues as these arise in its work, to formulate the related research questions and communicate these to the scholarly community as an invitation for its contribution. Conversely, the scholarly community must be able to bring to the attention of the appropriate unit in NCCB/USCC issues and information which it wishes to suggest for attention in policy making.

This scholars' work can be fruitful only to the degree that the universities provide a point of contact which has the needed information and structure. It is needed, and it will be welcomed.

1. NCEA, College Newsletter XXX (n. 3, 1973), 1-10.

2. (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1969).

3. H. Denziger, Enchiridion Symbolorum (Romae: Herder, 1958).

4. Murray, p. 45.

5. Ibid., p. 52.

6. I do not consider the project of Saint Augustine in his City of God to be other than an extended statement of the meaning of the terms "Pantokrator" used in the early Credo and of "Monarchy" used by Dionysius of Rome in the middle of the third century. They expressed the power of the one supreme Lord as generously creative and provident whose active power rules all things, physical and human. Augustine was able to articulate this more amply by means of the understanding achieved in the philosophies available by his time. With their help he was able to elaborate at length the meaning of the faith for the development of human society in history with its inherent struggle faithfully to realize its life in the image of God.

Nor are the great works of Thomas and Scotus other than further elaborations which became possible as responses to the more detailed and coordinated questioning which the introduction of Aristotelian thought made possible. They were Saints and doctors in no divided or separated sense; theirs was a learned holiness. Precisely as such they have provided the light which has aided many to understand better the meaning of their life in God.

7. John 1:4-9.