Gravissimum educationis vita hominis
A Thomistic Framework for Character Education in Catholic Schools
-
October 2, 2024“The things that we love tell us what we are.”
Thomas Aquinas
IntroductionAn attempt to write another essay on Thomas Aquinas may seem absurd to some. As if one can add anything “new” to the voluminous works already written about this great saint. The prolific English journalist, G.K. Chesterton, who himself wrote a collection of over thirty-five volumes, consisting of various novels, essays, poems, plays, short stories, and newspaper columns, saw this challenge of adding to the corpus of Aquinas literature; nevertheless, he took up the pen and wrote, arguably, one of the greatest biographies on Thomas Aquinas of all time. I, too, see this challenge. And by no means pretend to add anything new in writing this essay. In fact, my intent is not biographical at all, but much more specific and practical, focusing on Aquinas on virtue. The goal of this essay, therefore, is to set forth a Thomistic framework for character education in Catholic schools. The Jubilee Center for Character & Virtues (2017) wrote its own framework for character education in schools. Building off this framework, Devanny (n.d.), conducted research across several dioceses across England and Wales, writing about how character education can be taught and understood in Catholic schools. The purpose of this essay will be merely to paint in the details of character education in Catholic schools using Thomas Aquinas as the paintbrush. Thomistic underpinnings will be presented (i.e., his understanding of the nature of man, virtue, and the good life) and a slightly revised framework (from above) will be built.
Aquinas: The Early Years
Thomas Aquinas was born in Southern Italy, in 1225, the youngest son of a large noble family (McInerny, 1982). According to McInerny (1982), the family had predestined hopes that Thomas would one day become abbot of the great Benedictine monastery in Monte Cassino. However, due to a civil war that caused monks to flee the monastery, Thomas was taken to the University of Naples where he would continue his studies. As fate would have it, during his time in Naples, Thomas would make the acquaintance of members of the Dominican order. Intrigued by their emphasis on poverty, obedience, and the intellectual life, Thomas would become a Dominican (1243 or 1244). Displeased with this decision, Thomas’s family snatched him away from a band of travelling brothers and kept him in their family castle, as legend has it, for up to a year, after which he would be released to rejoin the Dominicans. Thomas would study from 1248 to 1252, in Cologne, under Albert the Great. From 1252 to 1259, Thomas would study at the University of Paris where he was granted his licentia docendi (1256) and would receive his Master of Theology (1257). Thomas began his teaching career at Paris by commenting on scripture and the Sentences by Peter Lombard. He would also, later, hold one of two chairs of theology at the university, with intermittent stays in Italy.
Aquinas and Aristotle
It was at the University of Paris where Thomas’s thoughts on Aristotle began to mature. By this time, Aristotle had become well known by the Christian world and was met with mixed emotions (Copleston, 1991). According to Copleston (1991), there were those theologians who thought Aristotle dangerous and seductive on several fronts. For one, Aristotle thought the world eternal, not created, nor dependent, on God. Moreover, Aristotle seemed to clash with the Christian doctrine of supernatural religion and man’s eternal destiny. For Aristotle, God was little more than the prime mover or uncaused cause, unconcerned with man, his faith, or desire for heaven. Aquinas, on the other hand, “baptized” Aristotle, adopting from him what he thought to be true and diverging from him on the rest. For example, while Aristotle was concerned with what and how things are, Aquinas was more concerned with why things exist at all. In the end, it is fair to say that despite having different worldviews (or metaphysics), Aquinas made wide use of Aristotelian philosophy, especially in his Summa Theologica (Arthur, 2021). As Arthur (2021) states, the dominant voice in Thomas’s Summa is clearly Aristotle, who is referenced over 3,000 times. Thomas’s development of his view on the nature of man, virtue ethics, and the good life (human flourishing) would be virtually non-existent if not for the influence of Aristotle.
Aquinas on the Nature of Man
To develop a Thomistic framework for Catholic schools on character education, it is important to have a proper understanding of the nature of man, as delineated by a Christian anthropology. According to Brugger (2009), the Christian concept of the human “person” can be structured around eight anthropological domains (five philosophical and three theological): a) bodily; b) rational; c) volitional; d) relational; e) substantially one; f) created in the image of God; g) fallen because of sin; and h) redeemed by God in Christ. The first four philosophical domains relate to the ontological nature, or qualities, of man. They exist in the natural order of things whereby an understanding of man, in this sense, is necessary for human fulfillment of flourishing across, what one may say, a horizontal plane (towards neighbor). Whereas the final three theological domains constitute transcendent Christian realities, made known by Christian revelation, that add a fuller “ontological, existential, and teleological” understanding of man (Brugger, 2009). One might say an understanding of these domains is necessary for human flourishing across a vertical plane (towards God). Thomas paid special attention to build the theological domains (of Christian revelation) on the philosophical domains (of Aristotle) to have the fullest understanding of the nature of man.
To begin, a Christian anthropology of human person states that man was created, in the image and likeness of God, male and female, as embodied souls. In other words, when the body was created, the soul was formed, simultaneously, as its animating principle; it was not pre-existent, free-floating “somewhere” in some special realm of souls. Of the soul’s higher faculties is its rationality (or reason), i.e., its ability to think about outside reality, form abstract concepts, draw true conclusions, and its volitionality (or will), i.e., its ability to develop sound judgements derived from concrete situations and make choices (Brugger, 2009). According to Brugger (2009), the mind, although intimately connected with the body, is not a material organ; rather, the intellect is an immaterial substance that has the capacity for free self-direction. This volitionality of man is not to be taken lightly. Each choice we make, whether good or bad, has a bearing on the formation of our character and eternal souls. As C.S. Lewis so aptly put it, in Mere Christianity (1960), each choice we make turns us into either a “heavenly” or “hellish” creature, brings us closer to our fellow neighbor and God, or carries us away. Thus, our choices not only have temporal, but eternal consequences; and they are always relational. However, making the right choices is not always easy, especially due to man’s fallen nature because of sin.
Moreover, for the Christian, sin and death are not the end. Human nature has been redeemed by Christ. As St. Paul tells us in Scripture, “For you have died, and your life is hidden with Christ in God” (Col. 3:3, RSV). And yet, despite being saved, man remains weakened by sin (concupiscence). Nevertheless, God’s grace has the power, continually, to restore man to Himself. It is supernatural and can accomplish more than what human nature can achieve on its own (Arthur, 2021). According to Thomas, in his Summa Theologica (1948), grace builds on, and perfects, man’s natural desire for the good. Aquinas shows us that man’s desire for God rests in the consciousness of each person and cannot be filled with any good except by a generous gift of God’s grace (Pinckaers, 2001). “Our hearts are restless until they rest in you, O Lord” (Augustine, 2006). And so, while nature prepares the soul for truth and goodness, grace enables man for life in God. Therefore, A Thomistic framework for character education in Catholic schools perfectly unites man’s nature (Aristotelian philosophy) with supernatural grace (theology), preparing him for a life of virtue. Nevertheless, as Arthur (2021) explains, man can never have a “preconceived blueprint” of the life of virtue as the life of virtue is a lifelong and arduous adventure – a journey that is never completed, at least not in this life.Aquinas on Virtue
In Thomas’s Summa Theologica (1948), he offers the following definition of virtue: “Virtue, as Augustine said, is a good quality of the mind, by which we live rightly, and which no one uses badly, which God alone works in a human being” (I.II 55.4). According to Austin (2017), Thomas uses this definition of virtue because it extends to the natural virtues (e.g., prudence, justice, temperance, and fortitude) and supernatural virtues (e.g., faith, hope, and love). Moreover, as Aquinas notes, competing definitions of virtue (e.g., Aristotle) express only some of the causes, whereas his definition offers an account covering all the causes (formal, material, final, and efficient). In Aristotle’s Physics (1941), he gives us the following definition of the four causes. Formal cause is “the form or the archetype, i.e., the statement of the essence.” Material cause is “that out which a thing comes to be and persists.” For example, the bronze of a statue. Final cause is “that for the sake of which a thing is done.” Health, for example, is the final cause of walking about. And efficient cause is “the primary source of the change or coming to rest.” A father is the efficient cause of a child (Book II.III 20-35). Aquinas analyzes his definition of virtue in terms of the four causes. A virtue is a good quality (formal cause) of the mind (material cause) by which we live rightly, and no one can use badly (final cause) which God works in us (efficient cause) (Austin, 2017).
As Aquinas relates, a more fitting word than “quality” is “habit.” According to Aquinas (1948), a habit is a stable disposition that focuses human capacities to operate, for good or bad, in a specific (nature-directed) way (Austin, 2017). “A good habit is said to be one that disposes to an act fitting to the nature of the agent, whereas a bad habit is said to be one that disposes to an act not fitting to nature” (I.II 54.3c). Thus, a virtue is a good habit (formal cause) in so much as man acts according to his or her rational nature, is directed towards the good, while participating in the redemptive power of Christ (as describe above). The material cause (of the mind) is another way of speaking about the virtues, and where they reside in the mind as subjects (e.g., the cardinal virtues, such as prudence in the practical intellect, justice in the will, etc.) (Austin, 2017). Whereas the efficient cause distinguishes virtues achieved by habit (e.g., cardinal virtues) from those infused by God (theological virtues). Lastly, for Aquinas, virtues that dispose man to the good life, both here on Earth via human flourishing, and in the next life (beatitude), are distinguished by means of final cause (Austin, 2017). These Thomistic, causal distinctions enable a fuller understanding of the nature of virtue. And can provide Catholic schools with a common language when speaking about character education.
Moreover, Thomas’s understanding of the cardinal and theological virtues provide man with moral responses to the challenges he or she faces in achieving human flourishing and beatitude. Thus, it is important to have a firm grasp of these virtues when building a framework for character education in Catholic schools. Thomas considers man’s capacity to encounter a specific situation, deliberate, and decide on the correct course of action one of the main components of prudence (Pieper, 1980). Prudence comes from the Latin prudentia or the Greek phronesis (which means perfected practical reason). According to Thomas, prudence opens the door to the rest of the cardinal virtues, such as justice, fortitude, and temperance (Pieper, 1980). Justice is “a habit (habitus), whereby a man renders to each one his due with constant and perpetual will” (Pieper, 1980, p. 44). Fortitude is a virtue that presupposes serious challenge, and being ready to fall in battle, acts for the sake of the good. And temperance implies man’s capacity to look to him or herself to be “unified and whole.” Moreover, for Thomas, the theological virtues of faith, hope, and love can be summarized as follows: faith refers to belief in what cannot be seen; hope is the certitude of faith grounded in God’s “mercy and omnipotence”; and love presumes one who is loved – a total giving of self, or unification, of lover and beloved (Pieper, 1986).Aquinas and the Good LifeAs discussed above, Aquinas’s particular part of moral theology is centered on the seven principal virtues (cardinal and theological); whereas the more general part of his moral theology rests on the question of human happiness (Pinckaers, 2001). In other words: what will bring about human happiness? The answer to this question resides in the simple phrase: “the good life.” In what, then, does the good life consist of? Thomas explains that the good life depends on who we are (Jensen, 2013). That is, the good life consists in fulfilling who we were made to be. This brings us back to the first part of the essay on the nature of man. For Thomas, if man is to live the good life, and be truly happy, then he or she is to live according to reason and will, in pursuit of the true and good, and in loving relationship with one another (Jensen, 2013). According to Jensen (2013), however, this is only natural happiness (as articulated by Aristotle). For Thomas, true happiness resides in God. This is what Aquinas calls beatitude. One may question, then, if true happiness is even possible in this life? Or is man destined for earthly frustration in this life and only happiness in the next? In answer to this question, Thomas grants “participated happiness” in this life. It may not be “fullness of happiness” as achieved in heaven, but nonetheless, it still is happiness in so much as man participates in God, by knowing and loving Him (Jensen, 2013).
This idea of the good life, or happiness, is quite different from what one may find in non-Christian or non-Catholic schools. In such schools, happiness cannot be found in grades, going to college, getting a good job, in wealth, in knowledge, or in any created reality. As mentioned above, happiness can only be found in the knowledge of, and loving friendship of, God (Pinckaers, 2001). This friendship, in turn, naturally leads one to a life lived of virtue. As Benedict XVI states, “God wants your friendship. And once you enter friendship with God, everything in your life begins to change. As you come to know him better, you find…you are attracted to the practice of virtue” (Benedict XVI, 2010). At the same time, the more one practices virtue, the more one is led closer to God. It is clear, then, that a reciprocal relationship exists between the practice of virtue and friendship with God, and both are necessary ingredients for human happiness. As Thomas explains, this natural desire for virtue (truth and goodness) and God, has been placed in our hearts by God Himself. This theme of man’s natural desire to be with God, perfected and elevated by grace, is central to the whole of Thomas’s thought. Thomas shows how this desire for God resides within the consciousness of man, is at the root of the moral life and human happiness and cannot be filled with any good except by God and in contemplation of His goodness (Pinckaers, 2001).
As Josef Pieper (1979) makes clear in his book Happiness and Contemplation, “man’s ultimate happiness consists in contemplation” (p. 13). For Thomas, contemplation is more than an act of “intellectualism” to be found in the philosophers or in philosophizing. It is an act of knowing, but it is an act of knowing inspired by love. According to Pieper (1979), contemplation consists of three characteristics. The first is what Pieper calls man’s “silent perception of reality” (p. 73), the second is “a form of knowing arrived at not by thinking, but by seeing, intuition” (p. 74), and the last is man’s “amazement” (p. 75), i.e., man’s longing or yearning for the other. That inspiring source of contemplation, for Aquinas, is God. This is quite different from other religions, namely eastern (e.g., Buddhism), in which man seeks enlightenment (or nirvana) by losing himself in acts of contemplation. For the Christian, man’s inward turn via contemplation is always a search for another person, for God. So, in “losing himself,” man finds himself in God. Not simply in knowing Him, as one would know the content of a subject learned in school, but by “seeing” Him, beholding Him. As already discussed, for Aquinas, this ultimate beatitude can only be found in heaven when man will see God face-to-face; however, man, on earth, can get a taste, or a foreshadowing, of this eternal bliss via acts of contemplation here and now. Such has been the example of some of the great saints of the Catholic Church (St. Theresa of Avila, St. John of the Cross, etc.).
A Thomistic Framework on Character Education OutlinedThomistic Underpinnings
Having discussed Thomas’s understanding of the nature of man, virtue, and the good life (or happiness), a proper conceptual foundation can be now laid to build a framework for character education in Catholic schools. This can be likened to a foundation that is laid before a house if built. Without a solid foundation, the framing, in fact, the entire house is unlikely to stand. In review of these underpinnings, for Aquinas, the nature of man includes a Christian anthropology defined by the following eight domains (philosophical and theological): a) bodily; b) rational; c) volitional; d) relational; e) substantially one; f) created in the image of God; g) fallen because of sin; and h) redeemed by God in Christ. Moreover, Thomas defines virtue as “a good quality of the mind, by which we live rightly, and which no one uses badly, which God alone works in a human being” (I.II 55.4). In other words, virtue is an act of the mind that disposes us to the good, consisting of both natural (cardinal) virtues acquired by habit and supernatural (theological) virtues infused in us by God. Lastly, the good life, or happiness, consists in the contemplation of God (beatitude), both here on earth and in heaven. Based on this Thomistic understanding, I would like to put forth the following framework (see Appendix) for a Catholic school approach to character education: Built on the above-mentioned Thomistic underpinnings, or understandings, Catholic schools should seek to grow students’ character by fostering an authentic encounter with Christ through the pursuit of excellence, or virtue, in all things. And in doing so, students and society will flourish.
Encounter with Christ
In Catholic schools, the sacramental life needs to be more present. The Catechism of the Catholic Church (1994) defines sacrament as an “efficacious sign of grace, instituted by Christ and entrusted to the Church, by which divine life is dispensed to us” (CCC 1131). They are channels of grace by which the very life of God is revealed to us. The Catholic Church recognizes seven sacraments: 1) Baptism; 2) Eucharist; 3) Reconciliation; 4) Confirmation; 5) Marriage; 6) Holy Orders; and 7) Anointing of the Sick. In many Catholic schools, the Eucharist and Reconciliation are celebrated infrequently. The Eucharist, which is believed by Catholics to be the body and blood of Christ, must become the focal point of any Catholic school. This means the celebration of daily Mass, if possible, and frequent adoration. It is through this encounter with Christ in the Eucharist that students become most fully what they were created to be (nature) and given the opportunity to draw close to the source and summit of their life (and, thus, attain true and everlasting happiness). Frequent Reconciliation is needed, as well, as students are prone to sin and often fall in their journey of virtue and need to be restored to Christ. The encounter with Christ must also happen in loving relationship with one another (as students) and with their teachers.
Pursuit of Excellence
Students must also pursue excellence in all things. This means in their studies (intellectual virtues), moral life (cardinal virtues), faith life (theological virtues), and in all that they do (performance virtues). These virtues should be implicitly and explicitly taught and encouraged. For younger students, direct instruction can happen during homilies at Mass, or built-in time for assemblies. For older students, implicit instruction can happen via teacher encouragement of students (whether in their schoolwork or daily interactions with each other). Theological virtues can certainly be taught explicitly in theology class. Performance virtues can be taught, for example, on the football field. Virtue language must become embedded in the way teachers interact with students. Not in a way that trivializes the importance of virtue, but in a way that makes students aware of instances of virtue. Whenever possible, modeling the virtues is the most powerful tool for teaching them, as students learn best via imitation. The mimetic desire for virtue and holiness must be something that students see in their teachers too. Otherwise, all virtue language becomes empty. Given students’ frequent encounter with Christ in the sacraments of the Eucharist (Mass and adoration) and Reconciliation, the teaching and modeling of virtues by the teachers, it is the hope that students, themselves, will seek virtue and pursue excellence in all things.
Flourishing Student and Society
The goal of Catholic schools and Catholic education is for its students and society to flourish. As stated in the Declaration on Christian Education (1965), “True education is directed towards the formation of the human person in view of his final end and the good of that society to which he belongs” (para. 1). That said, student and societal flourishing will happen naturally if Thomistic understandings are used to build character education programs focused on the encounter of Christ and pursuit of excellence in all things. Each flourishing student will look different from the other, much like each declared saint of the Catholic Church looked different (lived out the Gospel in their own unique way, e.g., Thomas Aquinas and Francis of Assisi). However, each flourishing student will bear the marks of Christ. If Catholic schools are to fulfill their mission, then they will produce “other Christs,” i.e., students who go out into the world to live lives in witness to the Gospel. Yet, this activity is never an individual activity alone. It is always meant towards growing the common good of society. In turn, “the common good is always oriented towards the progress of persons” (Catechism, 1994, para. 1912). Thus, both are dependent on each other. And Christ is the foundation of all.
ConclusionIn conclusion, Thomas Aquinas presents us with a complete understanding of morality. Built on Aristotle’s view of man, understanding of virtue, and human happiness, and adding to it with the help of Christian revelation, Thomas is the ideal figure around which Catholic schools ought to develop a clear framework for character education. As set forth, this framework should include frequent opportunities for students to encounter Christ in the sacraments of the Eucharist and Reconciliation and pursue the virtues (cardinal and theological) in their studies, school, and faith life. By doing so, both students and society will flourish. Many Catholic schools are already doing this. Many more would benefit from turning to the Angelic Doctor and adopting this approach.
References
Augustine, S. (2006). F.J. Sheed (trans.), Confessions. Indianapolis, IN: Hackett Publishing Company, Inc.
Aquinas, T. (1948). Fathers of English Dominican Province (trans.), Summa Theologica. New York, NY: Benziger
Bros.
Aristotle, (1941). Richard McKeon (ed.), The Basic Works of Aristotle (Physics). New York, NY: Random House.
Arthur, J. (2021). A Christian Education in the Virtues: Character Formation and Human Flourishing. New York, NY
Routledge.
Austin, N. (2017). Aquinas on Virtue: A Causal Reader. Washington, DC: Georgetown University Press.
Benedict XVI. (2010). Pope Benedict’s Address to Pupils, [Online]. Available at:
Brugger, E.C. (2009) Psychology and Christian Anthropology, Edification: Journal of the Society of Christian
Psychology, 3: 1, 5-18.
Catechism of the Catholic Church. (1994). London: Geoffrey Chapman.
Copleston, F.C. (1991). Aquinas: An Introduction to the Life and Work of the Great Medieval Thinker. New York, NY:
Penguin Books.
Devanney, C. (n.d.) Catholic Character Education: Growing in the Virtues and Celebrating Human Flourishing in Catholic
Schools, [Online]. Available at:
Jubilee Center for Character and Virtue. (2017). A Framework for Character Education in Schools, [Online].
Available at: http://jubileecentre.ac.uk/userfiles/jubileecentre/pdf/charactereducation/Framework%20for%20Character%20Education.pdf
Lewis, C.S. (1960). Mere Christianity. New York, NY: Collier.
McInerny, R. (1982). St. Thomas Aquinas. Boston, MA: University of Notre Dame Press.
Pieper, J. (1986). Faith, Hope, Love. San Francisco, CA: Ignatius Press.
Pieper, J. (1970). Happiness & Contemplation. South Bend, IN: St. Augustine Press.
Pieper, J. (1980). The Four Cardinal Virtues. San Francisco, CA: Ignatius Press.
Pinckaers, S. (2001). Morality: The Catholic View. South Bend, IN: St. Augustine Press.
The Holy Bible: Revised Standard Version, Catholic Edition. (1965). San Francisco, CA: Ignatius Press.
Vatican. (1965). The Declaration on Christian Education, [Online]. Available at:
