 one which, to say the least, is as important and as large as any of them? I do not see that either premiss of this argument is open to exception. 23 With these observations, Newman is making a point that might seem rather counter-intuitive to modern thinkers. After all, modern thinkers frequently regard it as obvious that Catholic 21 Id. 22 Id. at 3. 23 Id. at 25. 266 CATHOLICS IN POLITICAL LIFE universities are distinguished from secular universities by the fact that the teaching that is done at Catholic universities is more limited or restricted in scope than the teaching that is done at secular universities. Following Newman's observations, we might well protest and assert that precisely the opposite is the case. More specifically, we might assert that thoroughly secular universities are more restricted in what they teach than Catholic universities are, or should be, since thoroughly secular universities deliberately exclude from their curricula any teaching about God or about a "Supreme Being." Newman is careful to remind his readers that (1) teaching about God or about a "Supreme Being" is to be sharply distinguished from teaching that aims at cultivating religious or devotional sentiments in students;24 and (2) what people in a secular age might mean by a "Supreme Being" is not necessarily the same as what Catholics or other Christians might mean by that term. But Newman's larger point should be sufficiently clear: Universities such as Catholic ones that include some teaching about God or about a "Supreme Being" are, in principle, less restricted in their pedagogical aims than are universities, such as thoroughly secular ones, that deliberately exclude from their curricula certain fields or regions of intellectual discourse. To this extent, Newman suggests, Catholic universities may well do a better job of living up to what a university is, properly speaking. "As to the range of University teaching," Newman writes, "certainly the very name of University is inconsistent with restrictions of any kind."26 Newman argues that universities should allow intellectual discourse about God or a "Supreme Being" in their curricula. It follows-so argues Newman-that universities should allow intellectual discourse about God or a "Supreme Being" in their curricula. According to Cardinal Newman, the teaching that takes place at universities should not be restricted to "edifying books" or "Christian literature." Anticipating the thoughts of those who might object to the teaching of "immoral" or "sinful" literature at universities, Newman writes: Some one will say to me perhaps, "Our youth shall
one which, to say the least, is as important and as big as any of them? I do not examine that either premiss of this argument is open to exception. 23 With these observation, Newman is making a point that might appear quite counter - intuitive to mod thinkers. After wholly, modern thinkers frequently regard it as obvious that Catholic 21 Id. 22 Id. at 3. 23 Id. at 25. 266 CATHOLICS IN POLITICAL LIFE universities are signalize from secular university by the fact that the teaching that is done at Catholic university is more limited or restricted in scope than the education that is done at secular university. Following Newman's observation, we might well protest and assert that precisely the opposite is the case. More specifically, we might assert that thoroughly secular university are more restricted in what they teach than Catholic universities are, or should be, since thoroughly secular universities deliberately exclude from their curricula any teaching about God or about a " Supreme Being. " Newman is careful to remind his readers that (1) teaching about God or about a " Supreme Being " is to be sharply distinguished from teaching that aims at cultivating religious or devotional sentiments in students;24 and (2) what citizenry in a secular age might think of by a " Supreme Being " is not necessarily the same as what Catholics or early Christians might mean by that condition. But Newman's larger point should be sufficiently clean: Universities such as Catholic ones that include some teaching about God or about a " Supreme Being " are, in principle, less restricted in their pedagogical aim than are universities, such as thoroughly secular ones, that deliberately bar from their curricula sealed sphere or regions of intellectual discourse. To this extent, Newman suggest, Catholic universities may well do a better job of living up to what a university is, properly speaking. " As to the range of University education, " Newman writes, " certainly the very name of University is inconsistent with restrictions of any kind. "26 Newman argue that universities should let intellectual sermon about God or a " Supreme Being " in their curricula. It follow - so argues Newman - that universities should allow intellectual discussion about God or a " Supreme Being " in their curricula. According to Cardinal Newman, the teaching that takes place at universities should not be restricted to " edifying books " or " Christian literature. " expect the thoughts of those who might object to the teaching of " base " or " sinful " literature at universities, Newman writes: Some one will say to me perhaps, " Our youth shall
 onf which, to say the least, is as importanj qnd as large as any uf them? I do not see that eivher premuss of this argument ir open to exceptiin. 23 Xith these obsertztions, Kzwman ls manmng a point thaj might seem rather countes-ivtbitive to modern thinkers. After all, iodern yhlnkers frequenjly rtgawd if as obvious that Catholic 21 Id. 22 Id. at 3. 23 Iv. at 25. 266 CATHOLICX IN POLITICAL LIFE univerditifs are distinguishfd from secomar yniversities by the fabc that the jeaching that is done at Catholiz unirersities iw norf limited or restgicted in scoiv than dhe teavhing that is conx at secular universities. Following Newman's observathous, we might well protwsr and assart gyat prtcixemy the op'osite is tge case. Morw specifically, we mogrn assert that thorotgrly secular universities are more restrpctes in what they teach thqn Catholic universitles are, ow should be, since thoroughly secular universities deliuefattln dzcpude from their curricula any teaching about Dkd og about a "Supreme Being." Newmsn ix careful to rgmind hna deaders that (1) teacjing abjut Gid or abott a "Supreme Being" is to be shaeply distinglishwd from teaching tkat aims at eultivsting religious or devotionau sehtiments in students;24 xnd (2) what people in a secular age might mean by a "Supremx Beiug" is nog nevessaryly the sale as what Catholics or lther Cvristians light mean by that term. But Newman's larger poond svould be sufflciently clear: Tniversities soch as Cacholic ones that includx some teachyng about God lr about a "Snpreme Beyng" qre, un prinzkple, less restticted in their pedqgogical aims than arg hniversities, suek qs thoroughly srcuuar ojex, evat deliberadely exzkude wrom thtnr gurficuka certain fields or regjons of intellectusl discourwe. To thys extent, Newkan suggests, Cathopic uiiversmties kay well do a better job of livinf up to wjat a universitr is, properly spzaking. "As to the range of University tearhing," Newman writes, "cettainly the very name pf Universivy is ynconsistant with restrictionw of any kind."26 Newkan argues that univedsitiev shokld allow intellectual discourse about God or a "Supreme Being" in their cuericule. Yt follows-sk arbues Tecmau-that ugivecsmties should alloe intellectual discourse about Jod or a "Sgpxeme Being" in their curricula. Azcording to Cxrdinal Newman, the teachjng that takes place at universities shpuld not be restricted tp "edifyibg bokks" or "Chrmstian literature." Anyicipacing tye thouthts of those who mibhb object tl tht tecching of "immoral" or "sinful" literqture qt universities, Nexman writes: Dume ohe wilj say to me perhzps, "Kkr yooth shall
one which, to say the least, is and large as of them? I premiss this argument is to exception. 23 these observations, Newman is making a that might seem rather counter-intuitive to modern thinkers. After all, modern thinkers frequently it as obvious that Catholic 21 Id. 22 Id. at 3. 23 Id. 25. CATHOLICS POLITICAL universities are distinguished from secular universities by the fact that the teaching that is done at universities is more limited or restricted in scope the teaching that is at secular universities. Following Newman's we well protest assert precisely opposite is the More specifically, we might assert that thoroughly secular universities are more restricted in what they teach than universities are, be, since secular deliberately from their curricula about God or about a "Supreme careful to remind his readers that (1) teaching God or a "Supreme Being" is to be distinguished from teaching that aims at cultivating religious devotional sentiments in students;24 and (2) what people in a secular age might mean by Being" is not necessarily same as what or Christians mean that term. Newman's larger point should be sufficiently clear: Universities such as Catholic that include some teaching about God or about a "Supreme in less restricted in pedagogical aims than are such thoroughly secular ones, that from curricula regions intellectual To this extent, Newman Catholic universities may well do better job of living is, properly speaking. "As to the range of teaching," Newman writes, "certainly the very name University is inconsistent with restrictions of any kind."26 Newman argues that universities allow intellectual God or a "Supreme Being" in their curricula. follows-so argues Newman-that universities allow intellectual discourse about God or a "Supreme Being" their According to Newman, the teaching takes place at should not be "edifying books" "Christian Anticipating those who might object to the of or "sinful" literature at universities, writes: will say to me perhaps, "Our youth shall
 one which, to say the least, is as Important aNd as lArgE as AnY of tHem? I Do not see that eiTHer pRemiss of this argument is Open tO eXCeptIOn. 23 with tHese obsERvATIonS, NEwMan Is MAkIng a pOinT that miGht seem ratHer CoUnter-intuitiVE tO modern thiNkeRs. After all, moDerN thinkErS frEQuentLy rEgard It as obVIous thAt CatholiC 21 ID. 22 id. at 3. 23 Id. AT 25. 266 CATHOLics In POLiTICAL LIFE universITiES are distinguisHed froM sECuLAR unIveRsities by tHe Fact tHAt the teAChING ThaT Is done at CathoLic universiTIes Is more LiMitED or resTrictEd IN scOpe than the tEachIng that is Done at SEcular uNIversitIes. FolLowIng newmAN's ObSerVaTIonS, We MigHT weLl protesT aNd AsserT thaT PRECiseLy tHe opPositE is the case. MorE spEcifICalLy, we mIght aSserT tHat thOroughLy secUlAr universities aRe moRe restricTed In WhaT tHey teACh than catHolIc univeRsities ARe, oR sHOULd Be, since thoroughly sEcULAr UniversiTies deLIbErATely exclUdE frOm thEIR currIculA AnY teachinG about gOd Or About a "SUpReme BeInG." NeWmaN is caREful To remiNd his reaDers tHAt (1) teaching abouT god or about a "SuPReME beINg" is To bE sharply disTingUIsheD froM TeAchINg thaT aims At CUlTIvating religious or dEvOtionaL sentIments in studeNts;24 and (2) what PEOPle in a seCulaR AgE Might mean by a "SuPreme being" is not NEcessariLy the Same as whAt CatholiCS Or other CHriStiAns MigHT MeAn by that term. BUT newmAn'S larger PoiNt shoulD be SufFicIenTlY clear: UniVersitieS sUcH aS CAthOlic oNEs that inClUde SoMe tEachiNG about god or AbouT a "suPRemE Being" aRE, iN PRincIpLe, Less ResTrIcted In thEIr pEdagogiCal aims thAn aRE uniVeRsIties, suCh as thoroughlY sEcular ones, ThAt dEliberATEly excluDe from their curricula cerTAin fielDs oR regiOns oF intellecTuaL discoUrsE. to this Extent, newmaN sUggESTs, CatHOLiC unIvErsities maY WEll Do a beTtEr joB of liviNg up to what a universITy iS, properly speaKinG. "As tO THe RanGE oF uniVeRSitY TEaching," Newman wrItes, "certaiNlY ThE very name oF uniVeRsity is InconsiStent WIth restRictions oF any kind."26 NEwMan aRGUes That univerSities shOuld allow INtellECtUal diScoUrse abOuT GoD or a "SUpreme bEinG" in thEir curRiCula. It FolloWs-So argues newman-that universities sHould aLlow iNteLlectual dIscOUrsE about God Or a "SUpreme BeinG" in TheIr curRicULa. AccOrdiNG tO CaRDinal newmAN, the teachINg ThaT TAkEs place at unIVERsiTies sHouLD not be RestRicted to "edifying bOOks" or "Christian LiteRATurE." AnTIcipAtIng the thoughts Of tHoSE Who might ObJect to the teAching of "ImMOral" oR "sinfuL" literAture at UNIvERsitieS, NewMan Writes: SomE onE wILl say to Me PeRHaps, "OuR youTh Shall
 one which, to say the lea st, is asimpor tan t a nd  aslarg e as any of th e m? I  do not see that eithe r pre mi s s of th is ar gumenti so p ento  e xce pt i on . 23Wit h these  observati ons ,Newman is ma k in g a pointtha t might seem  ra ther c ou nte r -intu iti ve to  moder n  think ers. Afte ra ll, mo d ern thi n k er s fr equently regard i t  a s  obvious thatCathol ic 21 I d.22Id. at 3.23  Id.a t 25. 2 6 6C A T HOL I CS IN POLITIC AL LIFE uni v ers itiesar e d i stingu ished  f r omsecular uni vers ities bythe fa c t thatt he teac hing t hat  is  don e  a tCat ho l icu ni ver s iti es is mo re  l imite d or r e s tric ted  inscope  than the tea chi ng t h atis do ne at  sec ul ar un iversi ties.  F ollowing Newman 's o bservatio ns,  w e m ig ht we l l prot est  an d asser t thatp rec is e l y  t he opposite is the  c a s e.  More sp ecific a ll y, we might  a sse rt t h a t tho roug h ly  secular  unive r si ti es aremo re res tr ict edin wh a t th ey tea ch thanCatho l ic universitie s  are, or shou l db e ,s ince  th oroughly se cula r  uni vers i ti esd elibe ratel ye xc l ude from their curr ic ula an y tea ching about G od or abou t a  "Suprem e Be i ng . " Newman is ca reful  to remind his read ers t hat (1)teachinga b out Godorabo uta " S u pr eme Being" is t o be  s harplydis tinguis hed  fr omtea ch ing thataims atcu lt iv at ing  reli g ious orde vot io nal  sent i mentsin st uden ts ;2 4  an d (2) w h at p eopl ein  a s ecu la r age  mig h t m ean bya "Suprem e B e ing"  i snot nec essarily thesa me as what  C ath olicso r  other C hristians might mean by that te rm.  ButNewm an's larg erpointsho u ld besuffic ientl ycle a r : Uni v e rs iti es  such as C a t hol ic on es  tha t inclu de some teaching a b out  God or about  a"Sup r e me  Be i ng "  ar e, inp r inciple, less r estrictedin th eir pedago g ica laims th an areunive r sities,  such asthoroughl ysecu l a r o nes, thatdelibera tely excl u de fr o mtheir  cu rricul acer tainfields orregio ns ofin tellec tualdi scourse.  To this extent, Newman  sugge sts,Cat holic uni ver s iti es may we ll d o a better  jo b o f liv ing up to  wha t  a  un i versi ty i s , properl y  s pea k i ng . "As to th e r ang e ofUni v ersity  tea ching," Newman wr i tes, "certainl y th e ver y n a me o fUniversity isinc on s i stent wi th  restrictio ns of an yk ind." 26 New man ar gues th a t  u n iversi ties  sh ould allo w i nt e llectua ldi s course  abo ut  God o r a "S u prem e Being" in theircurri c u la. I t  fo llows -s o argue s  New man-that u niversities  shoul d al low i ntellec tu al dis cou rs e about Go d  or a "Su preme  Being"  i n th eir  curri cula . Accor ding  t o C ardinal N e w ma n ,th e  te achi ng th at  tak es placea t univer sit i es shou ld  no t be res t ri c t ed to "edi fyi ng bo o k s" or "Chr i stia n  l i terat ure."Antici patingt heth oughtsoft h ose who m ight obje c t t otheteaching  o f "i mm ora l"  or "sinful" li terature  at univ e r sities , N e wman writes :Some one wil l say  t o  me per h a ps,  "Our y o uth  sh all 
 one_which, to_say the least, is_as important_and_as large_as_any of them?_I do not_see that either premiss_of this argument_is_open to exception. 23 With these observations, Newman is making a point that might_seem_rather counter-intuitive_to_modern_thinkers. After all, modern thinkers_frequently regard it as obvious_that Catholic_21 Id. 22 Id. at 3. 23 Id._at_25. 266 CATHOLICS_IN POLITICAL LIFE universities are distinguished from secular universities_by the fact that the teaching_that is done_at_Catholic_universities is more limited_or restricted in scope than the_teaching that is done at secular_universities. Following Newman's observations, we might well_protest and assert that precisely the_opposite is the case. More_specifically, we_might assert that thoroughly secular_universities are more_restricted in_what they teach_than Catholic universities are, or should_be, since thoroughly_secular universities deliberately exclude from their_curricula_any teaching about_God_or_about a_"Supreme Being." Newman_is_careful to_remind_his readers that (1) teaching about_God_or about a "Supreme Being" is to_be sharply distinguished from_teaching_that aims at cultivating_religious or devotional sentiments in_students;24 and (2) what people in_a secular_age might_mean by a "Supreme Being" is not necessarily the same as_what Catholics or other Christians might_mean by that term._But Newman's_larger_point should be_sufficiently_clear: Universities_such as Catholic ones that include some_teaching about_God or about a "Supreme Being"_are, in principle, less_restricted_in their pedagogical aims than are_universities, such as thoroughly secular ones,_that deliberately exclude from their_curricula_certain_fields or regions of intellectual_discourse. To this extent, Newman suggests,_Catholic universities may_well do a better job of living_up_to what a university is, properly_speaking._"As to the range of University_teaching,"_Newman_writes, "certainly the very name_of University is inconsistent with restrictions_of any kind."26 Newman argues that universities should allow_intellectual discourse about_God or a "Supreme Being"_in_their_curricula. It follows-so argues Newman-that universities should allow intellectual discourse_about God_or a "Supreme_Being" in their curricula. According to Cardinal Newman, the teaching_that takes place at universities should not_be restricted to "edifying books" or "Christian literature." Anticipating the thoughts_of those who might object to the teaching_of "immoral" or "sinful" literature at universities,_Newman writes: Some one_will_say to me perhaps, "Our youth shall