April 13-19, 2008 Issue |
Posted 4/8/08 at 2:10 PM
Ever since Allan Bloom penned his best-seller, The Closing
of the American Mind, the word has been out that many academics who pride
themselves on being “open-minded” are really “closed-minded,” since their minds
are closed to truth.
The incident in January of this year at Rome’s La Sapienza
University when Pope Benedict XVI’s visit to that school was canceled,
allegedly because he is not sufficiently open-minded toward science, is an
example of this peculiar phenomenon writ large and played out on a world-wide
stage.
As soon as the letter of the 67 La Sapienza University
academics who opposed the Pope’s visit was made public, a counter-letter was
composed entitled “An Appeal for Reason and Freedom in the University”.
The irony here is that academics were criticizing their
fellow academics who thought the Pope was closed-minded for being themselves
closed-minded, while praising the Holy Father for being open.
Before long, 650 signatories, all teachers and researchers,
mostly in scientific fields, supported the counter-letter (the “Appeal”).
Anyone who wants to add his name to the document can do so by going to
appellouniversita.net.
Those who sign the document agree with its content which
states, in part, that “it is disgraceful that at a university, the designated
place for the free exchange of ideas, a small minority of faculty and students
should have succeeded in preventing the Pope from honoring an invitation to
take part in the inauguration of the academic year and expressing his thought.
This act plumbs the depths of ideological intolerance and is one of the
blackest pages in the history of freedom of expression in our university and in
civilized society.”
These are indeed strong words. They offer a clear challenge
to those who claim to be open, to practice what they preach or risk being
publicly chastised for their pretenses. The 67 had not anticipated the kind of
drama they had invited upon themselves. In truth, they underestimated the
openness of their colleagues.
After reading the address that Pope Benedict was not allowed
to deliver, Marco Bersanelli, who teaches astrophysics at the University of
Milan, had this to say: “If you read the speech penned by Benedict XVI, you at
once note the disproportion between the rigid and ideological attitude of the
67 signatories and the elevated concept of reason expressed by the Pope, the
defender of freedom.”
In an article called, “From La Sapienza to Reason,” Stefano
Filippi avers that “universities are rife with closed minds and intolerance”
(Traces, Vol 10, No. 2, 2008, p. 24).
One wonders if the media will give as much exposure to the
support of the Pope as it gave for his protestors. Nevertheless, much of the
academic world in Italy was shaken by what transpired at La Sapienza.
As a result, the Pope’s undelivered text received more
attention than it would have if La Sapienza had been more receptive to it.
For example, at Universitá Cattolica in Milan, the Pope’s
speech was read in the Great Hall to 700 willing listeners — faculty members,
students and staff. Public meetings spread to various universities across Italy
to discuss the text of the “appeal” and the content of Benedict’s discourse.
One of the signers of the “appeal” is Gianpaolo Bellini,
professor of nuclear physics at the University of Milan and one of the most
highly respected physicists in the international scientific community.
He was somewhat puzzled by the reaction of the 67,
especially from the physicists who are, in his words, “usually a more
open-minded bunch than scientists in other fields.” However, Bellini did point
to the pervasive relativism that pervades culture, an ideology insisting that
there is no clear distinction between truth and falsity.
But, as he went on to explain, “science is based essentially
on a representation of reality that has to be true.” If we remove this
distinction, he continued, “science no longer exists.”
In other words, relativism is the death of science.
It is indeed a curious thing that there are scientists who
are oblivious to the realistic premise that serves as the basis for science.
Benedict was merely affirming what science needs in order to flourish — a
respect for truth.
Yet, he also wanted scientists to remember that truth alone,
without a sense of what is good, is not sufficient.
As the Pope states, “The purpose of knowing the truth is to
know the good. This is also the meaning of the Socratic inquiry: What is the
good that makes us true?”
The Pope’s protesters, though quite indirectly, greatly
enlarged his stage, thereby giving more exposure, attention and ultimately
credence to the content of his address.
They also, by virtue of their strong opposition, occasioned
a show of massive support for the Holy Father.
Four days after the publication of the speech, 200,000 people
gathered in St. Peter’s Square, in solidarity with the Pope, to recite the
Angelus with him. At the same time, an additional 10,000 people joined him,
through a special television hook-up, from Milan’s Cathedral Square.
It is not unreasonable to suggest, given the events that
transpired subsequent to the “Letter of the 67,” that God, not the disgruntled
protesters, is in charge.
Donald DeMarco is
adjunct professor at
Holy Apostles College and Seminary in Cromwell, Connecticut.
Advertisement
Advertisement
Make a Donation now!
Insightful. Informative. Uncompromisingly faithful. The National Catholic Register is more than a newspaper. It’s a cause. Your support for the Register funds important journalism that helps to build a Culture of Life in our nation, and throughout the world. Help us promote the Church’s New Evangelization by donating to the National Catholic Register right now.
.
