Between Confucianism and Christianity: Epistemological and Syncretic Challenges in Constructing a Chinese Catholic Educational Discourse

Abstract

The relationship between Confucianism and Catholicism in contemporary Chinese Catholic educational settings is marked not only by significant cultural and philosophical differences, but also by profound analogies that open promising avenues for dialogue and mutual enrichment. Drawing on dialogical-interpretive methodology grounded in hermeneutic philosophy, the study explores core ontological and pedagogical concepts in both traditions. Confucianism conceives education as the ethical cultivation of virtue in alignment with cosmic and relational harmony, while Catholic pedagogy emphasizes the integral formation of the person in freedom, responsibility, and relationship with a personal God. Despite theological differences, both systems prioritize moral development, teacher exemplarity, and holistic human growth. The analysis proposes a critical pathway for creative inculturation, whereby Confucian relational ethics, contemplative practices, and communal sensibilities enrich Catholic educational practice without compromising doctrinal integrity. Such engagement contributes to the construction of a spiritually grounded, interculturally aware pedagogy responsive to pluralistic religious contexts.

1. Introduction

As a vital carrier of ethical values and normative systems, religion plays a dual role—both shaping social order and deeply informing personal identity. In the context of contemporary globalization, large-scale population movements have significantly complicated the cultural composition and religious ecology within nation-states. The increasingly prominent religious plurality poses a challenge to traditional models of social integration (Walton and Mahadev 2019). However, in intercultural contexts, the encounter between different religious and cultural traditions, while potentially giving rise to cognitive tensions and cultural conflicts, also contains possibilities for dialogue, complementarity, and co-creation.

Such tensions and dialogues are evident across many parts of the world, but they are particularly pronounced in China. Since the advent of modern China, Catholicism and Protestantism entered alongside the unequal treaties, with certain missionary activities entangled with colonial powers. This association triggered public resistance, frequent “missionary incidents” (jiaoan 教案), and, during the Cultural Revolution, led to their weakening, suppression, and, in some cases, near-eradication. However, since 1979, the country has undergone a widespread religious revival (H. H. Lai 2003). Religions and local traditions, especially Confucianism, have been increasingly instrumentalized as part of a state-led “civilizing mission” aimed at cultivating patriotic citizens, reinforcing moral norms, and projecting soft power globally (Goossaert and Palmer 2011). Within this intricate interplay of religion, culture, and national ideology, China emerges as a unique site for the collision, fusion, and reinterpretation of diverse spiritual and philosophical traditions, offering a valuable vantage point from which to re-examine religious plurality and intercultural educational dialogue.

While some elements of Christian engagement with Chinese culture are shared across denominational lines, this study deliberately focuses on the Catholic tradition (Chu and Mariani 2020). The Catholic Church, as the most historically structured and institutionally consolidated Christian presence in the Chinese Mainland and Hong Kong, has cultivated sustained theological and cultural dialogue with Chinese tradition. Its hierarchical organization and the Vatican’s diplomatic role grant it distinctive political and cultural significance, particularly in relation to state-led processes of “Sinicization” and debates over religious autonomy (Zhao 2018). Concentrating on Catholicism allows for an interdisciplinary approach—integrating history, theology, sociology, and political studies—while drawing upon a rich repertoire of inculturation practices and conceptual tools relevant to Chinese contexts.

Importantly, no monolithic “Contemporary Chinese Catholic Educational Discourse” exists, due to the political and cultural divergences between the Chinese Mainland, Hong Kong, and Taiwan. In the Chinese Mainland, the state’s emphasis on Sinicization requires that religious activities be guided by political principles, as reflected in recent normative developments such as the Patriotic Education Law (National People’s Congress 2023). Within this framework, the Catholic Patriotic Association has intensified patriotic education among clergy and laity (S. Li 2024; Catholic Patriotic Association and Bishops’ Conference of Shaanxi Province 2024; Chinese Catholic “One Association and One Conference” 2023). Under the principle of separating religion from education, religious institutes do not fall within the national education system, and qualifications obtained through religious education are recognized only within religious communities. In religious institutes, curricula are divided into specialized and general courses. General courses shall cover ideological and political theory and Chinese culture and society, with the aim of strengthening knowledge of traditional culture, socialist values, legal norms, and the national language (National Religious Affairs Administration 2021). In Hong Kong, by contrast, a more pluralist political environment enables Catholicism and Chinese culture to interact in a dynamic of mutual adaptation, producing scholarly works that critically engage Confucianism from a Catholic perspective (Lam 2019; Yuen 2014). Taiwan offers yet another model, where Catholicism has been inculturated into Chinese culture through symbols, architecture, and devotion, most notably to Our Lady of China, and through the Catholic contribution to education and social services, in dialogue with Buddhism and Taoism (Batairwa Kubuya 2020).

In all these contexts, Confucianism has been officially or informally integrated into educational discourse as part of the “excellent traditional culture,” serving as a moral and cultural reference for personal virtue and collective ethics. It is not merely a backdrop, but an active resource for religious educators seeking locally resonant pedagogy. Among the many global traditions of religious education, Catholic pedagogy, by virtue of its philosophical depth and global institutional presence, emerges as a particularly significant counterpart to Confucianism. The two traditions reveal both divergences and potential complementarity in moral cultivation, teacher–student dynamics, and educational aims, making them especially relevant for comparative education research.

Historically, the interaction between Confucianism and Catholicism dates back to the late Ming dynasty, when Matteo Ricci adopted the posture of a Confucian scholar to facilitate cultural and theological negotiation. This continued into the Republican period, when Neo-Confucian thinkers engaged Christian theology in their efforts to modernize Confucianism (Bresciani 2001). In the present era, the state-led push for “Developing Catholicism in the Chinese context” has again brought the two traditions into structured interaction, while Catholic scholars in Hong Kong and Taiwan have explored their philosophical intersections in educational settings.

Contemporary scholarship on the Confucian–Christian encounter falls broadly into three categories: ethical comparisons (P.-c. Lai 2016; Rauhut 2020; Tian 2022), historical studies of Ming–Qing converts (Standaert 1988; Leung 1990; Xiao 2021; Ding 2019), and pedagogical analyses. At the level of theory, existing studies compare ultimate aims, teaching methods, and the teacher–student relationship, noting both convergence, such as dialogic teaching (Tan 2021b) and real-life exemplars (Kwa 2008), and divergence, particularly in eschatological orientation. In practice, integrating Confucian values like filial piety into Catholic curricula, alongside case-based pedagogy and reflective writing, has been shown to enhance intercultural ethical understanding (Westbrook 2012), with further innovation seen in mindfulness-based teaching (Tan 2021a) and initiatives like Encountering Dignity (Moore and Kim 2018).

In summary, although research has examined Confucian and Catholic education from ethical, historical, and practical angles, there remains a lack of a structural comparative framework grounded in core philosophical questions. No integrated educational model has yet been proposed that could serve curriculum design and teaching activities in a coherent way, making it difficult to translate such insights into practical approaches, particularly in the diverse realities of Chinese Catholic education. This paper addresses that gap by asking: How do Confucianism and Catholicism, respectively, understand the nature of the human being and the methodology of education? How can these traditions be brought into constructive dialogue, and what pathways might lead toward a contextually grounded Chinese Catholic educational discourse?

2. Research Design and Methodology

This article adopts a dialogical-interpretive approach grounded in hermeneutic philosophy (Ricoeur 2007), with specific attention to the epistemic value of intercultural co-authorship. The collaboration between a Chinese Confucian scholar and a Catholic European pedagogue is not merely a matter of biographical detail; rather, it constitutes a central methodological asset. The epistemic positionality of both authors is explicitly acknowledged and theorized as a source of interpretive richness, in line with contemporary perspectives in critical hermeneutics (Kögler 1999, 2007) and dialogical theory (Bakhtin 1981).

Building on Hans-Georg Gadamer’s ([1960] 1975) concept of the “fusion of horizons” (Horizontverschmelzung), we view the encounter between Confucian and Catholic worldviews not as a confrontation of opposites, but as a potentially generative interplay in which differences in value orientation, ethical focus, and educational aims are brought into conversation. This dynamic process of mutual interpretation unfolds according to a hermeneutic circle that moves continuously between part and whole, text and context, individual perspective and shared meaning. In this light, the act of reading and interpreting educational texts and traditions becomes an opportunity for intercultural co-construction of meaning.

The use of dialogical co-authorship in this context echoes the interpretive model proposed by Jackson (2011), who advocates for dialogical engagement in religious education as a means to foster understanding across difference. Our work similarly resists homogenization or simplification of cultural voices. Instead, we embrace the tensions and resonances that emerge from our respective backgrounds, allowing them to inform not only our interpretations, but also our research questions, analytical priorities, and narrative choices.

Kögler (1999) emphasizes that interpretation is never disembodied: it always reflects the interpreter’s historically situated perspective, which must be rendered visible rather than neutralized. Accordingly, our positionalities, as an insider to Confucian tradition and an insider to Catholic thought, are not treated as biases to be eliminated, but as dialogical resources that enrich the interpretive process.

The dialogic method adopted here is thus simultaneously epistemological and ethical. It reflects a commitment to critical openness, to what Bakhtin (1981) calls “answerability” in the presence of the other’s voice. Rather than seeking consensus or synthesis, we aim to make space for multiple layers of meaning to coexist in tension and dialogue.

3. Educable Beings: The Ontological Conceptions of the Educational Subject in Confucianism and Catholicism

The construction of an educational philosophy often begins with an understanding of human nature (Carr 1985). Theories of human nature not only lay the philosophical foundation for educational aims and methods, but also directly determine how education conceives the possibility of individuals “becoming better human beings.” At the heart of this lies a fundamental ontological question: Is the human being oriented toward goodness, or inherently fallen?

3.1. The Tendency Toward Goodness and the Possibility of Moral Cultivation: The Confucian Ontology of the Human

Confucian educational thought is rooted in the philosophical premise of the inherent goodness of human nature (xing shan 性善). Confucius’s statement, “By nature, men are nearly alike; by practice, they get to be wide apart.” (Analects 17.2), affirms a shared human foundation while highlighting the profound influence of acquired habits. This dual perspective provides the basic framework for the later development of Confucian educational theory. “The ability possessed by men without having been acquired by learning is intuitive ability, and the knowledge possessed by them without the exercise of thought is their intuitive knowledge” (Mencius 7b.15), thus revealing the inborn quality of moral capacity in humans. Mencius elaborates on this by asserting, “The tendency of man’s nature to good is like the tendency of water to flow downwards. There are none but have this tendency to good, just as all water flows downwards.” (Mencius 6a.2). This metaphor illustrates not only that goodness is intrinsic to human existence but also that evil is derivative, like water flowing upward only under external force, evil arises from environmental distortions of an inherently good nature.

By the Song and Ming dynasties, this doctrine was metaphysically reconstructed. Zhu Xi’s distinction between the “nature of Heaven’s decree” (tian ming zhi xing 天命之性) and the “nature of physical endowment” (qi zhi zhi xing 气质之性) upheld Mencius’s doctrine while explaining the origin of moral failings through individual endowment. Wang Yangming’s proposition that “innate knowledge is the principle of Heaven” (liangzhi ji tianli 良知即天理) further elevated the moral nature to a cosmological unity between Heaven and humanity.

Based on the philosophy of human nature rooted in the theory of inherent goodness of human nature, the Confucian view of education fundamentally affirms the possibility of moral transformation through teaching. It develops its teleology of education around two complementary dimensions: recovering one’s nature and fulfilling one’s nature.

The notion of recovering one’s nature refers to the return to inherent goodness through educational practice. Its possibility is grounded in the a priori assumption that “All men have a mind which cannot bear to see the sufferings of others.” (Mencius 2a6). On this level, the task of education is to awaken the obscured moral consciousness, enabling individuals to internally and consciously realize and manifest the goodness of their original nature. As Mencius says, it is about “seeking for the lost heart” (Mencius 6a11). The essence of education, therefore, lies not in the forced imposition of external norms, but in the inner activation of one’s moral potential.

However, recovering one’s nature is not the endpoint of education. In order for the initial moral sprouts to be expanded and sustained, thus forming a stable and enduring virtuous character, it is necessary to enter the process of fulfilling one’s nature. This involves cultivating virtue and completing one’s moral personality on the foundation of recovered goodness, through ritual and music education and environmental influence. At this stage, emphasis is placed not only on the individual’s internal cultivation but also on the transformative power of external institutions and cultural settings, helping to actualize latent moral potential into socially normative behavior. From the elementary stage of childhood education, where one learns proper manners in daily conduct, such as sprinkling and sweeping the ground, answering and replying, advancing and receding (Analects 19.12), to the advanced stage of Daxue (The Great Learning 大学), which focuses on investigating things, completing knowledge, making thoughts sincere, rectifying heart, cultivating the person, regulating the family, governing the state properly, and bringing peace and happiness to the whole kingdom (Classic of Rites 39.2), the Confucian educational system embodies the fundamental logic of originating in nature and being completed through teaching. Education guides innate goodness to externalize into steady virtue, graceful conduct, and social responsibility. This ultimately leads to the ideal of integrating humaneness with ritual, and achieving a harmonious personality that both cultivates the self and brings peace to others. The Confucian notion of “men learned with a view to their own improvement” (Analects 14.24) thus becomes the value core of its educational philosophy. Its aim is not utilitarian gain, but the perfection of one’s moral life and the ultimate realization of the ideal moral personality. Learning, therefore, is not merely the accumulation of knowledge or the enhancement of skills, but a life process of awakening one’s true heart, expanding innate goodness, and achieving moral self-completion (Huang 2016).

Confucian education is not a utilitarian form of technical training, but rather a life practice concerned with the awakening of the true heart and the cultivation of virtue. The theory of the innate goodness of human nature not only affirms the possibility of moral transformation through education, since all people possess an initial inclination toward goodness and the potential to be taught, but also powerfully highlights its necessity: these moral sprouts are easily obscured by acquired habits, and innate potential requires the guidance of education to be fully developed into virtue. Education thus becomes a practical bridge to the path of the sages, and the essential means by which individuals realize moral self-awareness and attain their ideal moral character.

3.2. The Dignity of the Person and the Call to Freedom: The Christian Ontology of the Human

From the first pages of the Bible’s first book, we read that man and woman were created in the image and likeness of God (Gen 1:26–27). And while that same passage also speaks of a moral fall (the “original sin,” Gen 3:1–7), both the Old and New Testaments are filled with affirmations that highlight the value and dignity of the human being (cf. Ps 8:4–5; Isa 43:4; 1 Cor 3:16; Matt 10:31). It is important to keep in mind that God knows every person even in the womb (Jer 1:5), and calls each one by name (Isa 43:1), even more so does Jesus, the “Good Shepherd,” who calls each of His sheep by name (John 10:3). Not only is the human being, in general, a creature of great worth, but each human person is also important to God (Vorster 2012), who loves each one and desires that all be saved (1 Tim 2:3–4).

A separate in-depth analysis is warranted for the concept of the person, which took shape within the context of Christian philosophical and theological debate (Sokolowski 2006; Lingua 2022). However, our focus here lies in its anthropological and pedagogical implications. The definition of “person,” which Boethius identifies as rationalis naturae individua substantia—that is, an individual substance of a rational nature—applies to human beings, angels, and God alike. According to (Aquinas 1265–1274), the concept of personhood implies a high degree of dignity: “Persona significat id quod est perfectissimum in tota natura, scilicet subsistens in rationali natura. Unde etiam hoc nomen persona videtur esse nomen dignitatis”.1

This implies that the human person, according to the reflections of the Doctors of the Church, such as Thomas Aquinas, holds a uniquely special ontological status (Udoh 2022), as they occupy the horizon and boundary between corporeal substances and spiritual substances (such as angels and God). Owing to this distinctive ontological configuration, the human person is an educable being, meaning that they begin to exist (from the moment of conception or birth) as a human person, endowed with full ontological dignity, yet they are not immediately capable of fully acting as a person. Rather, they must develop, often over many years, the complete faculties of intellect and will. In Christian anthropology, the human person’s educability is intrinsically linked to the unique manner in which they actualize the act of being.

The affirmation of the inherent dignity of every human person serves as the foundational basis for human rights, as clearly stated in the Preamble to the United Nations’ Universal Declaration of Human Rights. Among these rights is the right to education, which is emphatically upheld by the Church’s Magisterium throughout its most authoritative documents. A particularly explicit statement can be found in the conciliar declaration Gravissimum Educationis, which not only affirms the universal right to education but also specifies the nature of the education to which each human person is entitled:

All men of every race, condition and age, since they enjoy the dignity of a human being, have an inalienable right to an education that is in keeping with their ultimate goal, their ability, their sex, and the culture and tradition of their country, and also in harmony with their fraternal association with other peoples in the fostering of true unity and peace on earth. For a true education aims at the formation of the human person in the pursuit of his ultimate end and of the good of the societies of which, as man, he is a member, and in whose obligations, as an adult, he will share.

(Vatican Council II 1965a, no. 1)

Pedagogical personalism is arguably the school of thought that most effectively expresses the Christian sensibility in the field of education (Skotnicki 2020). However, based on the biblical and theological foundations previously discussed, it would also be possible to construct alternative conceptual frameworks, such as the ecumenical approach (Oeldemann 2023). In this context, though, we have chosen to focus on the personalist perspective, as it allows for a particularly meaningful engagement with Confucianism. The main consequence of conceiving the human being as a person is that he or she can never be treated as a “something,” but always as a “someone,” endowed with individuality and inherent dignity. The educational relationship must, therefore, be shaped accordingly.

The aim of education is to guide the human person toward becoming fully capable of acting according to who they truly are—that is, to lead every child and adolescent toward the ability to act rightly, with freedom and responsibility. This educational goal stems directly from the Christian understanding of the human person, as previously outlined, and is in full harmony with the core demands of Christian life. For Christianity, each person is called by God to respond freely to His loving plan and to enter into a relationship of friendship with Him. Such a friendship can only be realized in freedom. Likewise, moral living requires rightly ordered freedom, enabling one to act according to conscience. Within the Christian tradition, there is a profound connection between a moral life in accordance with God’s law and the possibility of a genuine friendship with Him.

Cultivating what the Church’s Magisterium identifies as the “inner sanctuary” of conscience is the central task of Christian education:

In the depths of his conscience, man detects a law which he does not impose upon himself, but which holds him to obedience. Always summoning him to love good and avoid evil, the voice of conscience when necessary speaks to his heart: do this, shun that. For man has in his heart a law written by God; to obey it is the very dignity of man; according to it he will be judged. Conscience is the most secret core and sanctuary of a man. There he is alone with God, Whose voice echoes in his depths. In a wonderful manner conscience reveals that law which is fulfilled by love of God and neighbor.

(Vatican Council II 1965b, no. 16)

4. The Path of Cultivation: Methodological Foundations of Educational Practice in Confucianism and Catholicism

The legitimacy of teacherly authority is a central, inescapable question in educational philosophy. In both Confucian and Christian educational traditions, the teacher is entrusted with the dual role of guiding students in knowledge and in moral development. However, the philosophical foundations of this authority are partly similar, partly different: Confucianism grounds it in human relational ethics and cosmic order (tian dao 天道), while Christianity takes into account both the human reasons that stem from the metaphysical identity of the person and the reasons rooted in divine revelation.

4.1. Teaching Rooted in Virtuous Authority: A Confucian Approach

In the Confucian tradition, the authority of the teacher is rooted in the cosmological and moral vision of the unity between Heaven and humanity (tian ren he yi 天人合一). Confucianism views Heaven not only as the metaphysical origin of the cosmos and the source of natural order, but also as the ultimate foundation of moral principles. The cultivation of the self is thus understood as a process of aligning with, and approaching, the Way of Heaven. Accordingly, a teacher’s authority does not derive from institutional mandates, but from an inner legitimacy grounded in moral cultivation. As “If one is upright in oneself, others will follow without being commanded; if not, even with commands they will not obey” (Analects 13.6) states, true moral influence arises from the teacher’s personal virtue; only by being rooted in virtue can education attain its proper function.

The statement “What Heaven has conferred is called The Nature; an accordance with this nature is called The Path of duty; the regulation of this path is called Instruction” (Classic of Rites 28.1) further underscores that the role of the teacher is not limited to the transmission of knowledge. Rather, teachers are expected to cultivate their own moral character and, through personal example, guide students in understanding and practicing the Way (dao 道), thereby advancing moral development and achieving true transformation. Within this framework, respecting teachers is not only essential for maintaining the order of education but also serves as a foundation for the transmission of the moral tradition (daotong 道统). The intrinsic link between reverence for teachers and reverence for the Way is highlighted in the note that “In pursuing the course of learning, the difficulty is in securing the proper reverence for the master. When that is done, the course (which he inculcates) is regarded with honour. When that is done, the people know how to respect learning.” (Classic of Rites 16.12). This suggests that the teacher’s authority is rooted not merely in personal virtue or social status, but in their role as bearers and transmitters of the Way itself. Respecting teachers, therefore, ultimately reflects an acknowledgment and reverence for the moral Way. Furthermore, Confucian texts place teachers among the most fundamental pillars of ethical and political order. For instance, Xunzi notes that “the three foundations of ritual are Heaven and Earth, the ancestors, and the rulers and teachers” (Xunzi 19.5). By situating teachers alongside cosmic and ancestral forces, the tradition emphasizes their indispensable role in upholding social harmony and cultivating moral life.

However, the Confucian understanding of teacherly authority is neither static nor monolithic; rather, it embodies a dynamic and dialectical tension. Although the authority of the teacher is supported by the moral legitimacy of the Way, its actual unfolding in the teaching process is characterized by mutual engagement and subject-to-subject interaction. “A student is not necessarily inferior to his teacher, nor does a teacher necessarily be more virtuous and talented than his student. The real fact is that one might have learned the doctrine earlier than the other, or might be a master in his own special field” (是故弟子不必不如师，师不必贤于弟子，闻道有先后，术业有专攻，如是而已) (Han 1991) highlights that the teacher-student relationship is not one of absolute hierarchy, but one of reciprocal inspiration and shared growth. Teachers guide and enlighten learners, but students, through their studies, may advance even further. The saying that “indigo is extracted from the blue plant, but it is bluer than the plant itself; ice is made from water, but it is colder than water” (Xunzi 1.1) suggests that although students receive instruction from their teachers, they may eventually surpass them. Such transcendence does not undermine the authority of the teacher; on the contrary, it represents the highest realization of the teacher’s transformative influence, a continuation and elevation of the teacher’s virtue in the life of another.

Regarding teaching methods, Confucian teaching is not merely about the transmission of knowledge; more fundamentally, it is a process in which the teacher, grounded in virtue, guides students toward an embodied understanding of the Way. It is precisely because a teacher’s authority stems from the accomplishment of personal virtue that the teacher must lead by personal example, a point Confucius particularly emphasized. He used the metaphor of Heaven to illustrate that true teaching, like the workings of nature, should exert a silent and pervasive influence on the human heart.

The Master said, “I would prefer not speaking.” Zi Gong said, “If you, Master, do not speak, what shall we, your disciples, have to record?” The Master said, “Does Heaven speak? The four seasons pursue their courses, and all things are continually being produced, but does Heaven say anything?”

(Analects 17.19)

From a Confucian perspective, the foundation of teaching lies first and foremost in virtue. When a teacher’s conduct is upright, moral transformation follows naturally. Furthermore, effective teaching requires discernment of each student’s unique character and moral potential, and thus the practice of teaching in accordance with individual aptitude. This is evident in how Confucius gave opposing answers to the same question.

Zi Lu asked whether he should immediately carry into practice what he heard. The Master said, “There are your father and elder brothers to be consulted—why should you act on that principle of immediately carrying into practice what you hear?” Ran You asked the same, whether he should immediately carry into practice what he heard, and the Master answered, “Immediately carry into practice what you hear.” Gong Xi Hua said, “You asked whether he should carry immediately into practice what he heard, and you said, ‘There are your father and elder brothers to be consulted.’ Qiu asked whether he should immediately carry into practice what he heard, and you said, ‘Carry it immediately into practice.’ I, Chi, am perplexed, and venture to ask you for an explanation.” The Master said, “Qiu is retiring and slow; therefore I urged him forward. You has more than his own share of energy; therefore I kept him back.”

(Analects 11.22)

Zhang Zai later echoed this insight, remarking, “The most difficult thing in teaching is to fully understand a person’s capacities; only then can one avoid leading them astray” (Zhang Zai’s Collected Works 6.206). Moreover, Confucian pedagogy advocates inductive and heuristic teaching, opposing mechanical transmission and passive reception. It emphasizes a balance between learning, reflection, and action. Confucius’ dictum, “I do not open up the truth to one who is not eager to get knowledge, nor help out any one who is not anxious to explain himself” (Analects 7.8), emphasizes the importance of timely guidance—teachers should offer instruction precisely when students are on the verge of understanding but have not yet fully grasped the idea. In Confucian pedagogy, leading by example and verbal instruction work in tandem, allowing moral cultivation to emerge naturally. In terms of the teacher-student dynamic, Confucianism promotes mutual growth through teaching and learning (jiaoxue xiangzhang 教学相长). As the Record on the subject of education notes, “when he learns, one knows his own deficiencies; when he teaches, he knows the difficulties of learning.” (Classic of Rites 16.3). This reflects the belief that teachers themselves grow through the act of teaching.

Moreover, Confucianism advocates heuristic and inductive teaching, opposing mechanical indoctrination and passive reception, and emphasizes a balanced integration of learning, reflection, and practice. Confucius famously stated, “I do not open up the truth to one who is not eager to get knowledge, nor help out any one who is not anxious to explain himself. When I have presented one corner of a subject to any one, and he cannot from it learn the other three, I do not repeat my lesson.” (Analects 7.8), underscoring that a teacher should offer timely guidance precisely when a student is inwardly striving for understanding but has not yet grasped it. He also warned, “Learning without thought is labor lost; thought without learning is perilous” (Analects 2.15), highlighting the interdependence of study and reflection. Mencius took this further, cautioning that “To believe in all the Books indiscriminately is worse than having no Books at all” (Mencius 7B49), urging scholars to maintain critical awareness and avoid blind reverence for the classics. Wang Yangming later asserted that true moral insight must be “trained and polished in the actual affairs of life” (Instructions for Practical Living 12.4), arguing that only through concrete engagement with the world can one embody innate moral knowledge and bring education to full fruition. Together, these views reveal that the realization of education depends not only on verbal instruction and moral modeling, but also on the learner’s active, embodied practice.

4.2. An Integral Methodological Personalism: The Catholic Perspective

Christian education, from a personalist perspective, aims at the integral formation of the human person in all dimensions. This has very profound implications also at the level of educational strategies and methods, which is why we can speak of an integral methodological personalism (Maritain 1943). While moral education and the cultivation of conscience lie at its center, equal importance is given to the intellectual, emotional, and even physical aspects of development, since the human being is composed of both soul and body. The education of the intellect is not limited to performance and skills; rather, it must form minds that are critically oriented and genuinely open to the pursuit of truth and wisdom.

When it comes to the education of the will, beyond developing responsible freedom in light of the moral law, it is essential, within the Christian worldview, to clearly affirm the ultimate goal of human life: to love God above all things and one’s neighbor as oneself, in order to partake eternally in God’s love in Heaven. In this sense, the entire earthly life may be seen as a pilgrimage toward the heavenly homeland, during which each person must be supported in discovering their path, discerning their vocation, and developing their unique talents. The idea, pedagogically powerful, of discovering, developing, and making use of one’s talents finds its roots in the well-known Gospel parable (Mt 25:14–30), in which Jesus exhorts his listeners not to hide or leave their talents unused, but rather to invest them for the sake of spiritual growth. The Christian educator is particularly attentive to recognizing and valuing the uniqueness of each individual, believing that God has a specific plan for each one. For this reason, a key component of Christian education is to help each person build their own life project (Pérez Guerrero and Ahedo Ruiz 2020).

To educate is to exercise authority, but educational authority in the Christian sense has very specific characteristics. It must always respect others’ freedom, since the development of authentic freedom remains the primary goal of education. It is also an authority rooted in love, not only because all Christians, including educators, are called to fulfill the commandment of love (“love your neighbor as yourself”), but also because the educator genuinely seeks the good of the persons entrusted to them, desiring their full development as human beings (Määttä and Uusiautti 2012).

This educational authority must always be accompanied by a credible witness of life. No one can ask others to believe what they themselves do not believe, or to do what they are unwilling to do. Jesus Himself strongly criticizes the hypocrisy of the Pharisees who “say but do not do” (Matt 23:3), and calls His disciples to be the salt of the earth and the light of the world (cf. Matt 5:13–16), but this requires that the salt not lose its flavor.

In addition to freedom, conscience, and personal development, hope emerges as the vital soul of education. As Pope Benedict XVI eloquently stated in his Letter to the Faithful of the Diocese and City of Rome on the Urgent Task of Educating Young People:

The soul of education, as of the whole of life, can only be a dependable hope. Today, our hope is threatened on many sides and we even risk becoming, like the ancient pagans, people “having no hope and without God in the world”, as the Apostle Paul wrote to the Christians of Ephesus (Eph 2: 12). What may be the deepest difficulty for a true educational endeavour consists precisely in this: the fact that at the root of the crisis of education lies a crisis of trust in life.

(Benedict XVI 2008)

Benedict emphasizes that in order to educate responsibly, one must cultivate a belief in the future, anchored in hope, a hope grounded in the personal encounter with God. This hope is never solitary, but extends outward, inviting us to “educate one another in truth and in love”. This theological insight resonates with contemporary pedagogical research. For example, Shade (2001), in Studies in Philosophy and Education, positions hope as a pragmatic disposition that empowers learners to resist despair and actively engage with their environments through goal-setting and community solidarity. In light of these reflections, Christian education can be enriched by integrating hope as a formative principle, not simply as optimism, but as a responsible, future-oriented virtue that sustains the educational process and anchors personal growth in transcendent meaning. After all, the educator sets the goal of their action within the contingent future of free individuals, who will be able to make their own choices even regarding what they have been taught. All of this entails a hope grounded in deep roots.

5. From Comparison to Syncretism: Constructing a Cross-Cultural Integration Pathway Between Confucian and Christian Educational Thought

5.1. Bridging Traditions: A Cross-Cultural Comparison of Confucian and Catholic Pedagogies

Both Confucianism and Catholicism offer a deeply ethical and humanizing vision of education, rooted in an understanding of authority as a service to and a responsibility for others. However, the two traditions diverge significantly in their ultimate foundation and teleological orientation. Confucianism presents a harmonious perspective on education, viewing it as the ethical refinement of the human being within the cosmos and society. Although it does not refer to a personal God, it recognizes an ethical-cosmic transcendence, toward which education directs the human being through a process of harmonization with the natural and moral order (Tu 1993). Catholicism, on the other hand, understands education as both the full realization of the human person and a spiritual journey toward God, undertaken in freedom and hope.

In both Confucianism and Catholicism, education is based on an ontological conception of the human being as educable, open to moral transformation and integral development. Nevertheless, the two traditions develop this idea from profoundly different anthropological and cosmological perspectives, resulting in educational practices that are only partially overlapping.

In classical Confucianism, the ontology of the human being is marked by a strong anthropological optimism. Human nature is considered intrinsically good, as famously stated by Mencius and exemplified in his theory of the “four beginnings”: compassion, shame, respect, and a sense of right and wrong. These are regarded as the pre-reflective roots of the cardinal virtues (prudence, temperance, fortitude, and justice) (Liu 2006). In this framework, education does not impose an external moral order but rather guides the unfolding of a potential already inscribed in the student’s inner nature. Even in the Neo-Confucian reinterpretations, such as the distinction between “Heavenly nature” and “qi-based nature” in Zhu Xi, or the identification of innate knowledge with li in Wang Yangming, the fundamental assumption remains the same: the human being is naturally ordered toward the good, and education is the process of harmonization with the moral-cosmic order (Yao 2001).

Catholicism, while affirming the original dignity of the human person created imago Dei, also takes into account the presence of original sin and its consequences for human nature, including the “wounds” that must be addressed in the educational process. The human being, endowed with rationality and freedom, is called to responsibility, but is also in need of redemption. Christian pedagogy, in this light, is conceived as an accompaniment of the person toward self-realization in openness to grace. It aims to overcome the wound of sin through the formation of conscience, the exercise of freedom, and responsiveness to God’s personal call. The human being is not good per se in the Confucian sense, but possesses absolute value by virtue of being relationally connected to God, who loves and calls each person by name (John Paul II 1979). The experience of sin becomes part of a relational dynamic that links human beings to God, and finds its healing in the salvific mission of Jesus Christ, who died and rose again to restore humanity.

Despite these foundational divergences, both traditions prioritize moral and spiritual growth as the core of education. In Confucianism, the teacher is not legitimized by external authority, but by de (德 his moral virtue) and by the coherence and exemplarity of his behavior, which serves as a silent and performative guide. In Catholicism as well, the educator is credible insofar as he or she is a witness: one cannot teach what one does not live. Yet Christian authority is strongly relational and personalistic: the educator is never a mere transmitter of values or norms, but someone on a journey, who walks in friendship with God and leads others toward freedom in truth, motivated by charity and invoking divine grace (Sacred Congregation for Catholic Education 1977).

On a methodological level, both traditions exhibit a surprising convergence in their rejection of mechanistic approaches and their emphasis on dialogical and personalized practices. Confucian pedagogy values inductive reasoning, intuition, the adaptation of method to the character of the student, and the complementarity between study and reflection (J. Li 2016). Catholic education, for its part, promotes the integral development of the person in all dimensions—intellectual, moral, emotional, and spiritual—with particular attention to the discovery of one’s vocation and the realization of personal gifts. Both reject a conformist pedagogy: to educate is not to standardize, but to help something emerge, in a process that is both ethical and ontological.

In summary, while Confucianism grounds educability in the natural goodness of the human being and in alignment with the cosmic order, Catholicism founds it on the dignity of the person as created and redeemed, called to holiness through a path of freedom and responsibility. Two distinct visions, yet deeply convergent in their ultimate intent: to make the human being more truly human, according to the high measure of his or her moral vocation.

5.2. Toward a Creative Syncretism: Enriching Catholic Pedagogy Through Confucian Spirituality

In light of the convergences and divergences explored thus far, one can envisage a harmoniously integrated form of pedagogy drawing on both Confucian and Catholic traditions, particularly within the Chinese catholic educational context. This is not a reductive syncretism that risks flattening differences or compromising the integrity of either tradition. Rather, it is a proposal for a fruitful inculturation, where compatible elements of Confucian wisdom enrich the understanding and practice of Catholic education.

A theological foundation for such openness emerges from the post-Conciliar magisterium on interreligious dialogue. The Declaration Nostra Aetate affirms that “the Catholic Church rejects nothing that is true and holy in other religions” (Vatican Council II 1965b, n. 2). Even more explicitly, Redemptoris Missio asserts that encountering other religions can help Christians “purify” their religious expressions and rediscover the deeper dimensions of their faith through comparative engagement (John Paul II 1990, n. 56; Pope and Nicolaides 2021). This opens a space for a transformative dialogue capable of generating new educational insight (Vilà et al. 2020).

Within this framework, certain Confucian components appear especially congenial to Catholic vision and, therefore, amenable to integration. First among these is the relational ethics inherent in Confucianism, based on interdependence within the community and reciprocal responsibility. Manifest in filial piety and social solidarity, this relational model resonates with the Christian anthropology of the person as a being-in-relationship, called to communion in freedom and love. The biblical centrality of family is implicit from the Ten Commandments, including mandates concerning adultery, coveting one’s neighbor’s wife, and the injunction to honor one’s parents (Exod. 20:1–17).

Similarly, the Confucian notion of education as moral formation through the example of the teacher, ritual practice, and inward cultivation (self-cultivation), finds a parallel in Christian pedagogy. The Confucian ideal of the junzi (君子, the virtuous person) evokes the evangelical model of the credible witness, one who not only imparts norms, but also lives a truth oriented toward the good (Jeffrey 2015). In Christianity, this ideal finds its fullest expression in Christ the Teacher, whose authority is inseparable from charity and self-giving, as evidenced in His critique of hypocritical religious leaders, who “say and do not do” (Mt 23:3). According to Yuen (2014) we can note “Both Confucius and Jesus taught their students or followers according to their particular circumstances and personalities, to help students develop their personalities and potentials according to their gifts and stage of development. Jesus is well-known for employing real-life contexts and elements of his environment in his parables for teaching. Confucius (and Mencius) also referred to actual events or circumstances, and taught according to the personalities and qualities of students and interlocutors” (p. 35). Authentic teacher–student relationships are grounded in sustained whole-person contact, free from purely utilitarian aims such as grades, credentials, or fame. In-class dialogue is valued above correct answers, and informal interactions, like sharing meals, traveling, or working together, serve as powerful ‘living examples’ that deepen natural solidarity and cultivate care for others (Shim 2006). There are also strong correlations between the rich and multivalent concept of the Confucian cardinal virtue of ren (仁 humanity), that contains meanings of specific virtues such as love, benevolence, reciprocity, and working toward the good of a society, with many Christian social virtues, such as justice and solidarity. “the virtue of solidarity is closely linked with justice as it teaches us to think beyond our own individual good to the common good. Solidarity makes justice both intelligible and imperative because it recognizes that human life is shared life. It fosters us into persons who are willing to take care of the needs of others, particularly the poor and vulnerables” (ivi, p. 36).

Crucially, there is a promising integration with interior spiritual formation. Confucian practices of silent reflection, listening, and self-cultivation can help revitalize interiority in Christian formation, often neglected in favor of purely intellectual or normative models. Emerging studies on mindfulness, viewed both as psychological practice and as a meditative discipline (Brown et al. 2007), draw effective parallels between Confucian contemplative traditions and Christian contemplative practices. In a Chinese Catholic educational context, Confucian emphases on gradual growth, harmony, and relationality may dialogue constructively with deep spiritual and meditative traditions within Catholicism. Catholic tradition offers centuries of slow, relational spiritual paths where interiority, attentive listening, and personal transformation are central, such as Lectio divina, which invites deep engagement with Scripture in a slow, transformative process (Dalton et al. 2021), and Ignatian Spiritual Exercises, a highly relational and reflective form of spiritual education (Marek and Walulik 2022). Further meditative avenues, such as Carmelite mysticism (Hardy 2013) and Eastern Christian hesychastic spirituality, cultivate inner freedom through love and union with God. These paths, though expressed in different languages and styles, can supply spiritual-pedagogical models sensitive to Eastern spiritual sensibilities without compromising the centrality of Christ. Far from threatening the radicalness of the Gospel, such elements may predispose the human heart toward encounter with Mystery, functioning as semina Verbi in long-standing theological tradition.

More broadly, it is essential to maintain a critical balance. Confucian anthropological optimism, holding that human beings are by nature ordered to the good, must be held alongside the Christian perspective, which acknowledges both the original goodness of creation and the wound of sin requiring redemption. Christian education must go beyond virtue cultivation to openness to grace, as a transformative power that transcends human capacities.

Likewise, although Confucian notions of Tian and Dao articulate an ethical-cosmic transcendence, one must not overlook the radical difference from the Christian revelation of a personal God revealed in history and communicated in love. An authentic Confucian-Catholic dialogue requires mutual recognition of difference, not assimilation.

In sum, the Catholic tradition, especially in its Chinese expression, stands to gain substantially from engagement with Confucianism, provided that such engagement proceeds in a spirit of discernment, openness, and fidelity. Confucian pedagogy may help Christians rediscover the moral-relational heart of education, value authority as virtuous service, and promote a culture of harmony that coheres with evangelic justice and mercy. In that sense, intercultural dialogue is not a marginal option; it is a privileged path toward making the Christian message incarnate, meaningful, and transformative, even in its educational dimension.

6. Conclusions

In conclusion, the comparative exploration of Confucian and Catholic pedagogical models, conducted here with a specific focus on the Chinese context, has demonstrated how these two traditions, despite differing theological and anthropological foundations, share a profound commitment to the holistic formation of the human person. Core values such as moral exemplarity, relational ethics, personal cultivation, and spiritual interiority offer fertile ground for meaningful dialogue.

Yet this is not a matter of superficial harmonization or syncretistic dilution. Rather, it calls for a discerning and critical process of inculturation, wherein compatible elements of Confucian wisdom may genuinely enrich Catholic educational practice, particularly in informal or non-formal contexts across East Asia. The Confucian emphasis on familial relationships, communal harmony, and gradual moral development can invite Catholic educators to rediscover dimensions sometimes neglected in favor of overly normative or intellectualized models. Simultaneously, the Christian understanding of personal transcendence, rooted in the self-revealing love of a personal God, offers Confucian ethics a new theological horizon and anthropological depth. Catholic thought, with its emphasis on human dignity and openness to grace, can complement Confucian educational traditions by bringing into dialogue dimensions less central in classical frameworks, such as individual freedom and transcendence. In this way, the encounter between the two traditions is not a matter of compensation but of complementarity, revealing a dialogue that is genuinely reciprocal and mutually enriching.

If nurtured in mutual respect and theological clarity, such an encounter has the potential to shape an intercultural pedagogy of dialogue, one that forms individuals not only in virtue and relational responsibility but also in openness to grace and spiritual transformation. In this perspective, intercultural dialogue is not a mere accessory to Christian education but a privileged path to make the Gospel both incarnate and transformative, particularly in diverse cultural settings.

Moreover, this integrative vision aligns with broader post-conciliar theological frameworks, which emphasize both the universality of truth and the pedagogical value of encounter. As affirmed in Redemptoris Missio (56), the meeting with other religious traditions may purify and deepen Christian self-understanding and foster more authentic expressions of faith. Within educational frameworks, especially informal and non-formal, this dialogical dynamic can inspire innovative approaches that are faithful to the Gospel while rooted in local cultural narratives.

Ultimately, the Catholic tradition, especially if it continues to take root in Chinese soil, stands to benefit from this fruitful engagement with Confucian thought, provided that the encounter remains grounded in discernment, theological integrity, and spiritual openness. Far from threatening the radical novelty of the Christian message, Confucian categories may function as seeds of the Word (semina Verbi)—cultural and spiritual intuitions that prepare the human heart for an encounter with the Mystery. Such seeds, when engaged through educational praxis, can bear fruit in the form of new pedagogical paths that are both contextually meaningful and theologically rich. Future research may further explore how this encounter can inform religious formation, intercultural dialogue, and spiritual education in non-formal settings across global contexts.

True educational equality does not lie in dissolving all forms of authority, but in transforming authority into a medium for growth—one that is open to dialogue, subject to scrutiny, and ultimately capable of being transcended. This is the modern expression of the Confucian idea “mutual growth through teaching and learning”, and it echoes the Christian affirmation that “the truth will set you free”.