Intellectual training

I think that what really makes the difference between a layman who is seriously trying for sanctity and a wild fanatic is that the layman will know about himself, about the world, and about his faith as they objectively are, and will tailor what he does to a respect for reality in all of its complexity.

In the last analysis, fervor is fairly easy to drum up; orators create it for an hour or so, and retreats and cursillos sometimes have lasting effects on the emotional orientation of those who take part in them.

But fervor without knowledge is fire without a fireplace; it burns, but can burn down, and the heat dissipates into the air. It does some good, and is not to be sneered at; but stoves are better. The trouble is that knowledge is tedious to acquire, and the fervent, who want to get out and do something, can't be bothered with it.

But Christianity is essentially knowledge, not action; what you do is look on things differently; and so knowledge deserves first place in Christian lay training.

And if the layman is to acquire the objective knowledge of his faith and of the world which he needs to act intelligently, it follows that he will have to have a good deal of Theology and philosophy. Philosophy, while it is at it, will give him knowledge also of who and what he is, because one of the basic questions of philosophy is "What does it mean to be a human being?"

This should not be taken to imply, however, that the layman has to become a Theologian or a philosopher. In a sense, he is to Christian theorists what the engineer is to the scientist. We can see from the instruction of engineers that, though they do take some courses which are the same as courses training theoretical scientists, many of their courses are special, dealing with the applications much more than the theory. They have to know enough of the theory so that they can apply it; but they do not have to know all the ins and outs of it, only what it means.

Presumably, then, Theology courses for the layman would involve theory, but not the same approach to theory that would be taken for one who wanted to make Theology his career. For instance, in discussing the priesthood of the laity, the layman's instruction would go into the background of the question enough so that he knew what it meant, but not necessarily so much that he could give a thorough justification of the concept; and the course would orient itself toward the sense in which the layman shares the priestly function while being lay, and how this function is to reveal itself concretely in his lay life. You can't do this with a fuzzy-headed notion of what the priesthood of all believers is, or you get reading the Lessons at Mass as your sharing in this priesthood, instead of what it really entails.

But where do you find such courses? Ah, that is the question. Most of the training of Theologians, who would teach them, is in Theology as applied to the priestly life; and it is not surprising to find that teachers of Theology in our colleges are interested either in pure speculative Theology or in something like the social or economic (or sexual) doctrine of the Church, which is not what I am talking about at all.

Nevertheless, what I am talking about here is what ought to be, not where you can find it. Train some Theologians in the Theological implications of the every-day life of the layman, and then you will have teachers who can teach the courses laymen need.

The same sort of thing applies to philosophy. Discussing the question of immortality to see whether there is evidence for it is one thing; discussing what the evidence means about what our life hereafter must be like, and what that means for our life before hereafter, is something else again. For instance, if the reward for being "good" is becoming just what you chose to be and no more, then you had better choose here to be what you'd like to be, because God isn't going to give it to you otherwise, no matter how moral you've been. The layman needs philosophy, but not as a philosopher; he needs to know what philosophy implies about what he does in his lay life.

With that said, I would think that any serious training in these subjects would have to happen on the college level; and this sounds as if what I am saying is that we should rethink our offerings in philosophy and Theology in our Catholic colleges and universities.

But really, teaching what a person not particularly interested in sanctity needs to know not to make a mess of his life is different from what a potential lay saint needs to know. And colleges and universities cannot assume that everyone who comes into them is like a Thérèse of Lisieux, longing for sanctity and full of love of Jesus. Christianity is also for the mediocre, and to give such people the meat of saints is to make them choke. Ask them to take 30 semester-hours of philosophy and 30 of Theology and, even if you could make them do it, they'd resent it so much that they'd get nothing out of it.

Should there be, then, a special seminary for laymen? I think not. Most of a layman's life will be in the context of his career, and what he does as an accountant or an artist or a physicist will be just what any accountant or whatever does. Why create a whole school which would, for just a few people, duplicate the resources of a university?

No, what I think makes most sense is a special program within a college or university for those who want to make their lay lives into saintly lay lives, and who want to integrate Christianity into every phase of their lives in a very detailed and profound way.

What I would envision is a program which would need five years instead of four in order to acquire a Bachelor's degree in the major of the student's choice. Each semester, there would be a course in philosophy and one in Theology, dealing with some phase of life: the philosophy of nature, say, to see how we fit into the world, and during the same semester, the Theology of the material world, and how it is "groaning" for its redemption, as Paul says; the philosophy of human nature, to see what we are basically like, and in that semester the Theology of grace, to see how we are transformed; the philosophy of society, the social teaching of the Church--and so on. In ten semesters, you could touch on quite a few aspects of life, and the student presumably would also during the semester on nature studies, be studying his science requirements, and during the social-philosophy-social-Theology semester, would be taking his college's social science requirements also, so that he would see the same topic from many points of view. The object of the philosophy and Theology courses would be to help him see how Christianity can transform the particular aspect of his life that the semester deals with.

Meanwhile, there ought to be discussions among the members of this program about just how they see things fitting together, and how Christianity is to transform their attitude toward their major career choice; so in addition to the courses, I would envision seminars or talk-sessions once every couple of weeks, under the supervision of whoever is brave enough to undertake the management of such a program.