WOF 519: The Queen of the Sciences (8 of 12)

Summary

---

The Word on Fire Show – Catholic Faith and Culture

Episode: WOF 519: The Queen of the Sciences (8 of 12)

Air date: December 8, 2025
Host: Dr. Matthew Petrusek
Featured Guest: Bishop Robert Barron
Theme: Exploring St. John Henry Newman’s vision of theology as the "Queen of the Sciences" and the purpose of a truly liberal education within the university.

---

Episode Overview

In this episode, Bishop Barron continues his lecture series on St. John Henry Newman by focusing on theology’s central role in the university curriculum—arguing it belongs not just as one discipline among many, but as the organizing, foundational “Queen of the Sciences.” Barron then transitions to Newman’s prophetic defense of “useless” or liberal education, contending that true learning aims not at utility but at contemplation of what is good, true, and beautiful.

---

Key Discussion Points and Insights

1. Theology’s Place at the Heart of the University

• Historical Context:
  Newman saw his project as integrally connected to his Oxford background, a place where religion and academia found a fruitful partnership.
  “What role does religion play within the circle of university disciplines?” (02:00 – 02:10)
• Modern Crisis:
  Barron notes the modern drift to privatize religion and dismiss theology from academic respectability, often replaced by the primacy of the natural sciences.
• Theology as "Queen of the Sciences":
  • Rooted in the tradition of the Middle Ages, theology isn’t another subject but "the principle or organizing science." (02:55)
  • Newman’s argument: The central position cannot remain vacant; if theology is removed, another discipline (now, the natural sciences) fills the vacuum.
  • “Nature abhors a vacuum. You get theology out of that central organizing place, something else is going to move in...” (03:00 – 03:22)
  • Contemporary culture views "intellectual respectability" through a scientific lens, reducing all disciplines to their scientific explanations.
  • “You can't explain it scientifically, it's not real...No one averts to the fact that that's a huge assumption.” (03:20 – 03:30)

2. The Creative Arts and the Loss of Transcendence

• Subordination to Religion:
  Music, art, and architecture flourished under religious inspiration, drawing on a transcendent reference point—exemplified by Palestrina, Mozart, Michelangelo, Gothic cathedrals.
  • “When these disciplines were in right relation to religion, in other words, to a transcendent point of reference, they flourished.” (05:36 – 06:01)
• Modern Autonomy and Secularization:
  The “art for art’s sake” movement reflected not just artistic independence but a turning away from the transcendent.
  • “Music and art and architecture tended to become kind of strange and self-regarding and corrupt when they lost their transcendent point of reference.” (06:18 – 06:28)
• Charles Taylor’s "Buffered Self": Barron connects this to Taylor’s notion of the “buffered self,” cut off from the transcendent, creating ethical and existential issues.

3. The Sciences Overstepping Their Bounds

• Encroachment Examples:
  • The anatomist claiming to disprove the soul’s immortality by reducing consciousness to brain function.
  • The political economist pronouncing on ethics, exceeding his proper domain.
  • The historian demanding strictly rational proof for religious matters.
  • “The historian overstepping his proper limitations.” (08:22 – 08:25)
• Newman’s Sum:
  Only theology can properly unify and order the disciplines, as it uniquely addresses the ultimate ground of reality—Ipsum esse subsistens.

4. The Value of a Liberal (Useless) Education

• Prevailing Attitude vs. Newman’s Vision:
  • Today, education is often viewed in purely practical or utilitarian terms—job training, useful skills.
  • Newman, however, distinguishes “useful” from “useless,” defending the latter.
• Philosophy as the Most "Useless" and Best Subject:
  • “You are taking the most useless course in this seminary right now. And that means it is the best and most important course.” (10:09 – 10:17)
• Aristotelian Insight:
  • Useful pursuits are subordinate to an end outside themselves; "useless" (in the highest sense) are valuable in themselves (telos).
  • Examples: The comics and sports section of a newspaper serve no further purpose—they are simply good in themselves.
  • “What's useless...is what's valuable in itself.” (11:25 – 11:31)
  • Play—whether in sport or contemplation—is done for its own sake; it's the highest human activity.

5. Liberal Knowledge and Human Flourishing

• Resting in the Good, True, and Beautiful:
  • Education’s highest aim is contemplating what is good, true, and beautiful for its own sake—not for career advancement or utility.
  • “That alone is liberal knowledge, which stands on its own pretensions, which is independent of sequel, expects no compliment, refuses to be informed by any end...” (17:55 – 18:13, Newman quote)
• Health of the Mind Parallel:
  • Just as health is good in itself, so is the philosophical habit fostered by liberal education.
  • “The health of the mind is a liberal education, a mind that has the philosophical habit.” (18:45 – 19:00)
• Limitation of Liberal Education:
  • Newman distinguishes: Liberal education doesn’t directly make one virtuous or a Christian, but rather a "gentleman"—one of cultivation and intellectual health, not sanctity.
  • “Knowledge is one thing, virtue is another. Good sense is not conscience. Refinement is not humility. Liberal education makes not the Christian, not the Catholic, but the gentleman.” (19:40 – 19:54)

---

Notable Quotes & Memorable Moments

• On replacing theology:
  “Nature abhors a vacuum. You get theology out of that central organizing place, something else is going to move in.” – Bishop Barron (03:00)
• On scientism:
  “You can't explain it scientifically, it's not real. I mean, I hear that all the time. And no one averts to the fact that that's a huge assumption.” – Bishop Barron (03:20)
• On “useless” education:
  “You are taking the most useless course in this seminary right now… and that means it is the best and most important course.” – Bishop Barron (10:09 – 10:17)
• Newman on liberal knowledge:
  “That alone is liberal knowledge, which stands on its own pretensions, which is independent of sequel, expects no compliment, refuses to be informed by any end or absorbed into any art in order to present itself to our contemplation.” – John Henry Newman (17:55 – 18:13, as quoted by Barron)
• On limits of liberal education:
  “Liberal education makes not the Christian, not the Catholic, but the gentleman.” – John Henry Newman (19:50)
• Barron’s closing reflection:
  “The purpose… of university education… is to contemplate good and true and beautiful things for their own sake. This Newman calls the philosophical habit.” (13:40 – 13:56)

---

Key Timestamps

• [00:38–03:05] – Introduction to Newman’s theory of university and theology’s historic central role.
• [03:06–05:08] – The rise of scientism in academia; physical sciences take the helm.
• [05:08–07:30] – Artistic disciplines flourish or flounder based on their relationship to transcendence.
• [07:30–08:25] – Overreach of various disciplines when unanchored by theology.
• [09:07–12:15] – Practical vs. liberal education; the value of “useless” pursuits.
• [13:56–18:05] – Contemplation, play, and the point of university: savoring truth for its own sake.
• [18:05–19:36] – The health of the mind; liberal education forms not saints but cultivated people.
• [19:36–20:24] – Liberal education’s limits and Newman’s vision for Catholic university life.

---

Summary

Bishop Barron, guided by Newman, passionately argues that theology must reclaim its rightful place as the central, organizing discipline in the university. Without it, other sciences—chiefly the natural sciences—usurp the center, narrowing the academic vision and leading to cultural diminishment. The health of intellectual and artistic life is best preserved and nourished in relationship to transcendence.

Shifting to the university’s ultimate aim, Barron, echoing Newman and Aristotle, maintains that the highest education is “useless” in the best sense—pursued not for utility but to cultivate a contemplative, philosophical mind that seeks the good, true, and beautiful for their own sake. This, he concludes, is the real health and freedom of the human intellect.

Transcript

[A]

Welcome back to the Word on fire show. I'm Dr. Matthew Petrusyk, senior director of the Word on Fire Institute and the host of the Word on Fire Show. Thank you as always, for joining us. Friends, in honor of St. John Henry Newman's recently being named a Doctor of the Church, we're bringing you Bishop Barron's entire Word on Fire Institute lecture series on on John Henry Newman. Throughout these next several weeks, we'll dive deep into one of Bishop Barron's spiritual and intellectual heroes. As always, enjoy.

[B]

So we're continuing our study of the idea of university. Newman's great analysis of how to make a university both a university and Catholic. He's putting a great stress on his Oxford background. What he took in as a student and then a teacher as well at Oxford. The beauty of this intellectual city, the structure of it, he finds compelling. But he's trying to think now together the religious and the academic. What role does religion play within the circle of university disciplines? And we've seen a very interesting progression. Some have been urging, let's get theology out of the circle of university sciences. Religion's a private matter. It's a matter of subjective conviction. Newman's saying, first of all, no, if it's a universitas, it's about the universe of knowledge, of course it belongs. But then he's pressing it, it seems to me, not only does it belong around the table, it belongs in many ways at the center of things. Now, keep in mind, go back to the Middle Ages, theology was called the Regina Scientiarum. It was called the Queen of the Sciences. First of all, it was clearly a science. Read Thomas Aquinas on that. But more to it, it wasn't just one among many. It was the principle or organizing science. Seems to me John Henry Newman is picking up that great tradition in a way, he's pushing back against the opponents of theology. Not only do we belong here, we belong really in the center of things. Now, in this next discourse, he elaborates upon the point he made in the last one. Namely, nature abhors a vacuum. You get theology out of that central organizing place, something else is going to move in. It's never the case that we simply have, oh, a whole range of disciplines. No, no, there's always one kind of renient science. A lot of the postmodern philosophers talk about this idea of positioning, what positions, everything else. There's almost, even unconsciously, even implicitly, there's some organizing and central perspective. Now, does anybody doubt today that the sciences, the physical sciences, hold that position? You know, in my work in evangelization, I come across this constantly.

What does it mean to be intellectually respectable? What it means to be scientific?

What's the perspective from which everything else is viewed? The scientific perspective? What is the discipline which the other ones are reducible to? Well, the scientific. You can't explain it scientifically. It's not real. I mean, I hear that all the time. And no one averts to the fact that that's a huge assumption. They take it simply for granted. What's happened is theology having been kicked out, the physical sciences have moved into their place. Now, to anticipate Newman. There's nothing wrong with the physical sciences. We love them. They're great within their proper setting. But when they move into this central position, trouble occurs not just for the sciences, but for all the other disciplines. You know, those who are old enough, listen to me, will remember Carl Sagan's program cosmos from the 1970s. And I watched that as a kid. And it's wonderful, you know, a great kind of popularization of physics and cosmology and astronomy, et cetera. But at the very end of it, Sagan, who was something of a agnostic, kind of border on atheist. I remember he was sitting in some kind of, like, space vehicle, and they show him kind of looking out at the stars and the planets, and he delivers himself of this encomium to the sciences. Now, I get it, he loves the sciences. I do, too. But the encomium was so over the top. It was. There's nothing the sciences can't know. Whatever is worth knowing, the sciences can articulate it. Everything must come before the bar of science to be adjudicated. I mean, even as a kid, I realized how kind of breathtakingly arrogant that claim was. That's exactly what Newman was talking about in the mid 19th century. What happens when the place of theology is supplanted by some other discipline?

Here's a couple of examples I think are really interesting. Newman says music, art and architecture, when they were under the tutelage of religion, maybe this is too strong a way to put it, when they were in proper relation to religion.

Produced wonderful and beautiful things.

Now, he undoubtedly has in mind the great music of the church and the art that was sponsored by the church and the architecture inspired by the church. The great Romanesque churches, the Gothic churches, music, Palestrina and Mozart, the arts, Michelangelo, Caravaggio. When these disciplines were in right relation to religion, in other words, to a transcendent point of reference, they flourished. They expressed themselves most fully.

When, however, they were divorced from religion. And the great motto, you saw it a lot in the 19th century is Ars gratia artis art for art's sake. See, part of that was not just to affirm the independence of the artist, but it was the independence of the arts from a transcendent referent. Art for art's sake, Newman argues mid 19th century. And boy do I think he's been born out that music and art and architecture tended to become kind of strange and self regarding and corrupt when they lost their transcendent point of reference. Think here of Charles Taylor and his great work on modern secularism and the production of the buffered self. Right? That's the self that's buffered from any contact with the transcendent. What happens to us ethically, what happens to us artistically, what happens to us psychologically when we're buffered from any reference to the transcendent is trouble. Newman saw that mid 19th century, keeping the disciplines in connection with religion is good for them and it's good for religion. Here's some more examples he gives. Think of the anatomist who has claimed to disprove the immortality of the soul. Well, I can just explain all of consciousness through reference to brain function. And of course we hear that a lot today.

What's the problem is he's claiming too much for his restricted and limited discipline.

He's claiming to reduce all of the dimensions of consciousness to the physical. Or how about the political economist, Newman says, who is perfectly within his rights to talk about how wealth is generated, to talk about the relationship between a government and the economy, et cetera, but has gone way beyond his bounds when he presumes to pronounce on the ethical use of money. That's a much wider discipline that has to be called upon. Similar way when the historian pretends to be the final arbiter in matters religious. So if I can't prove that on strictly rational historical grounds, it didn't happen. No, that's the historian overstepping his proper limitations.

Newman's assumption throughout is the only proper center for the circle of university disciplines is theology. And again, it's not an arbitrary move here. It's precisely because theology speaks of that unique reality, Ipsum Essex, that impinges upon all things and grounds, all things. When that's kicked out trouble for both religion and for the other disciplines. Okay, now in discourse five, Newman is shifting to another theme, but one that I think is of super importance and very prominent in the discussions today about university education.

What's one thing now certainly In America, but I think even more broadly in the west, that's often taken for granted. That practical, pragmatic, useful instruction. That's what we should be involved in. Our schools should be helping our kids to move usefully and practically into the world. Newman is the great prophet of a liberal education. Now, what's he talking about? Let's make a distinction between the useful and the useless.

The latter is far more important than the former. You know, years ago, when I was at Mundelein Seminary teaching philosophy, I would teach philosophy to some of the introductory students.

I'd say to them, look, you are taking the most useless course in this seminary right now. And they would typically laugh. And then I would say, and that means it is the best and most important course.

I was relying here on the work of Aristotle.

What is useful, right, by definition, is what is subordinated to something outside of itself.

So fixing a car, for example, is a useful undertaking. If I can fix a car, then I can get the car to run. If the car runs, it'll take me places where I want to go. Once I get there.

Then I engage in something which is valuable in itself. I'm going to go to see my friends. I'm going to go to a baseball game. I'm going to go, whatever. But the fixing of the car is something useful. It's full of use. It's subordinate to an end beyond itself.

The useless. It's funny, isn't it, how in our ordinary parlance, useless is like. It's one of the worst things you can say, that person's useless. What a useless suggestion.

But think about it. What's useless without use.

Is what's valuable in itself.

You know, one of the most important parts of a newspaper, we probably instinctually say, well, you know, the business section and the section on politics, I suppose. You know, the front page and the business section. No, just the contrary. What's the most important part of the paper? The sports page and the comics. I'm not kidding, I'm not joking. See, business and politics and all that, finance, that's all useful information.

Making money is subordinate to ends that I seek for their own sake. How come you read the comics? Oh, because it's very useful. No, it's useless.

Because it's simply good in itself.

How come I read the sports page? How come I watch sports? Because I'm trying to get something out of it. I'm going to benefit from it. No, it's simply good to do it. You know, baseball was a game I knew the best as a kid. And I played the most, and I really came to love it. And when I go to a pro baseball game, I always keep score. You know, I get the scorecard and a little pencil. And if you know how to keep score, it's kind of a complicated process. You're keeping track of balls and strikes and stolen bases and hits and runs and everything else. And you're carefully notating as you go. Well, it really keeps your mind in the game and keeps you contemplating what's going on. Well, I remember one time I finished a game, I was with some friends, and I had this really detailed scorecard, all kinds of marks on it. But as I was going out the stadium, there was a garbage can. I just threw it away. And he said, what are you doing? You spent like three and a half hours keeping track of that game, and now you throw it away? I said, yeah, of course. Cause that's. I'm not doing it for some other purpose. I did it simply to help me contemplate the game. It was a useless exercise. The highest things are those that we seek for their own sake. Now, liberal knowledge, a liberal education. Liber liberalis in Latin means free. It means free. Free from what? Free from utility, Free from uselessness, from usefulness, Free from any practical implication.

Done for its own sake. Can you see? Now, look, the baseball connection is interesting because liberal knowledge is something like play. How come kids play? How come we adults play? Because it's good to play, period. That's why play is the highest thing we can do. It's funny to me how we knock that out of kids. Kids do it. They spontaneously know what's most important, namely play. But now we knock it out of them, convincing them. Oh, no, no. You got to get more serious. What meaning more practical. But see, again, analyze it. You're practical for the sake of something else. Right? Okay, so I get that. And then I guess I'll use that for something else again. But finally, you got to stop somewhere, and you stop at what is most useless. Things like philosophy and comics and baseball. So what's liberal education? What's the point of a university? Education is not to learn useful things. Now, maybe you do, and that's okay, but that's not the real point of it. The point is to contemplate good and true and beautiful things for their own sake. This Newman calls the philosophical habit. That's the purpose of university education. Here's. You know, Newman knew the classical world very well. So here's a first classical source, namely Cicero, who says it belongs to human nature. To desire the truth, to rejoice in its possession, and to be disgraced and chagrined in its absence. See, that's it. There's no further use. It's just that the truth is good to know. Here's something that always strikes me as interesting. You know when someone has died and we say, may he or she rest in peace, we know right away. We get kind of the image of someone lying in a hammock forever, but that's not the idea. Requiescat in pace. May he rest in peace. That means may he savor forever the good and true and beautiful that he now possesses. To rest is not to do nothing. To rest is to savor what is most good in itself. That's why we rest in a baseball game. That's why we rest as we play a sport. That's my experience playing golf. And I'm a lousy golfer, like most amateur golfers. But the thing about playing golf for me is it blocks everything else out of my mind. It becomes so kind of all consuming that I just. I rest in it. I enjoy it. That's the purpose, if you want, of university education. It's a liberal education. Here's a nice summary quote now from Newman. That alone is liberal knowledge, which stands on its own pretensions, which is independent of sequel, expects no compliment, refuses to be informed by any end or absorbed into any art in order to present itself to our contemplation. Lovely. There's Newman with his gorgeous English prose, summing up what I've been saying much more awkwardly. I love independent of sequel. See? Oh, what are you doing that for? There is no for, it's for itself. And the university is meant to inculcate this sort of philosophical or liberal habit. Here's again something from the rhetoric of Aristotle, who Newman knew very well. Aristotle says of possessions, those rather are useful, which bear fruit, those liberal, which tend to enjoyment. That's it.

So how come I'm studying classical Latin? How come I'm studying the philosophy of Thomas Aquinas? Because it's going to bear fruit in some practical achievement? No, because it's beautiful. It gives me enjoyment.

Here's his summary of a liberal education or a philosophical habit. This is Newman again. It's an acquired illumination, a habit, a personal possession, an inward endowment. That's why what the university achieves for the mind might be compared to what the hospital achieves for the body, namely a kind of health. You know what I'm saying? When you're healthy, that's just good in itself. Now, it can give rise to useful activity. But simply to be healthy is a good thing. We rest in that we enjoy good health. We say in a similar way, we rest in and enjoy the health of the mind. And the health of the mind is a. Liberal education is a mind that has the philosophical habit.

Here's a last observation now from Newman. Some people say, well, you know, this liberal education didn't seem to help some of the great figures in their time of struggle. It didn't help Socrates when he was being threatened by the Athenian democracy.

It doesn't help us ethically or morally. Here's Newman. Its direct business is not to steel the soul against temptation or to console it against in affliction. Knowledge is one thing, virtue is another. Good sense is not conscience. Refinement is not humility. Liberal education makes not the Christian, not the Catholic, but the gentleman. Now we'll come back to that. But it's a very interesting distinction. Newman wants this to be a Catholic university, but here he's talking about the university side of it. Liberal education is not meant to make me a saint. It's meant to make me someone who has health of mind. We'll pick it up next time.

[A]

Matthew Petrusyk here again. Thanks so much for joining us on the Word on Fire show. As always, if you'd like to learn more about how Word on Fire can help you grow closer to Christ and become a better evangelist with and for others, visit institute.wordpressfire.org that's institute.WordPress.org we'll see you next time. And God bless and protect you.