Lay Theologians: What do you think?

[Michael_Saint]

Hi All,

I want to first of all ask traditionalists what they think about this. Why? Because I think I will get the answer that lines up closest with the truth. I will also be asking an apologist, probably, and/or putting it on another forum (where there will be a lot of NO posters).

Here is my background: I just completed a Masters in Theology. My plan is to teach theology at a Catholic university or college, and as I teach, probably pursue a doctorate on the side, as I think the university which hired me would require it.

However, here is where my conscience begins to bother me: until very recently, all theologians were either priests or religious. The idea of a “lay theologian” is new. I was in seminary for a while, and part of me believes that if I am meant to be a theologian, this also means I am called to be a priest as well.

My questions are:

1. Why was it the general practice or even the rule that only priests and religious could be theologians, and not lay people? What was the rationale behind the restriction?
2. What do you think of the idea of allowing lay people to become theologians? Please do not get sidetracked into how so many lay theologians are dissenters, etc. Instead, just stick with the idea of allowing lay people to be theologians rather than just priests. Maybe think of it this way: “If the whole Church and every Catholic (including every theologian) saw the light and became traditionalists tomorrow, would you be in favour of having some lay theologians among the priest-theologians?”

Thank you, All! I look forward to your replies . . .

 

[Ave_Maria_1]

I am also studying for my Master’s in Moral Theology. I also hope to teach but only on the smaller local level. I wish to know my faith as well as I can to pass it along. I am no dissenter!

Also looking at the concentration in bio-ethics. We need souls who do in fact know their theology in many areas. There are excellent lay theologians. Germain Grisez comes to mind and some of the fine lay apologists are very good theologians.

Theologians got a bad name in the 70s and 80s when they promoted a modernist agenda but those days are passing. Now we need those who know their faith to teach and defend it in many arenas.

 

[Michael_Saint]

Hi Ave! Thanks for posting. I pray your studies go well and become a great blessing to you and others.

I did know about Grisez, and Von Hildebrand is another (though he would be considered more a “philosopher” - and yet I would “lump” him in with the theologians). But what do you make of the history, ie. that lay people were practically excluded from being theologians. I believe that is what happened to Abelard - he was a brilliant theologian, but he could not marry Heloise because ordination was required of theology profs.

 

[Mrs_Sally]

I don’t think there is anything wrong with lay theologians. There have been some in the past–remember lay is opposite of clergy and not opposite of religious–so brothers in religious life are in fact lay people. I believe there have also been secular (non religious) and lay (non clerical) theologians in the past.

What makes it rare is simply the fact that theology is a very specific, narrow science that requires a great deal of study and training. That level of education is expensive and so simply not availale to many people. And its not an occupation that would be attractive to very many people who also need to support themselves and their families.

That said, while I don’t think there is anything wrong with a lay person becoming a theologian, I do think we need to arm ourselves against the sort of ‘armchair’ theology practiced by some. For example, as much as I gain from Scott Hahn’s writings, he’s not at the level I think we should expect from theologians (certainly he’s nowhere near the amazing mind of our Holy Father!)

Perhaps we need some new definitions and descriptions so that those with a mind gifted for such things who do not also have a calling to religious or clerical life can find a home for themselves within the church.

 

[peary]

Hi All,

I want to first of all ask traditionalists what they think about this. Why? Because I think I will get the answer that lines up closest with the truth. I will also be asking an apologist, probably, and/or putting it on another forum (where there will be a lot of NO posters).

Here is my background: I just completed a Masters in Theology. My plan is to teach theology at a Catholic university or college, and as I teach, probably pursue a doctorate on the side, as I think the university which hired me would require it.

However, here is where my conscience begins to bother me: until very recently, all theologians were either priests or religious. The idea of a “lay theologian” is new. I was in seminary for a while, and part of me believes that if I am meant to be a theologian, this also means I am called to be a priest as well.

My questions are:

1. Why was it the general practice or even the rule that only priests and religious could be theologians, and not lay people? What was the rationale behind the restriction?
2. What do you think of the idea of allowing lay people to become theologians? Please do not get sidetracked into how so many lay theologians are dissenters, etc. Instead, just stick with the idea of allowing lay people to be theologians rather than just priests. Maybe think of it this way: “If the whole Church and every Catholic (including every theologian) saw the light and became traditionalists tomorrow, would you be in favour of having some lay theologians among the priest-theologians?”

Thank you, All! I look forward to your replies . . .

That is really a foreign observation to me. When I was attending a liberal arts college back in the early 1970s, the theology department consisted of one priest, and three lay theologians - one Russian orthodox, one Episcopal, and a catholic woman. I honestlyl don’t know where you got your perception from…and the college, by the way, was Catholic.

 

[Michael_Saint]

That is really a foreign observation to me. When I was attending a liberal arts college back in the early 1970s, the theology department consisted of one priest, and three lay theologians - one Russian orthodox, one Episcopal, and a catholic woman. I honestlyl don’t know where you got your perception from…and the college, by the way, was Catholic.

The perception (actually the fact) came from Church history - Abelard was not allowed to become professor of theology because he refused to be ordained. He did not want to be ordained because he wanted to marry Heloise. This remained the practice for years - if a lay person received a masters degree in theology, he could not use it unless he agreed to ordination, and thus celibacy.

Also, it would not surprise me that in the 1970s the faculty would consist of the people you mentioned. The Church in the 1970s was very liberal. I bet 20 years earlier the whole theology faculty were priests and religious.

 

[EasterJoy]

Ordination hardly guarantees orthodoxy, does it? We cannot simply see that a priest has written a piece and automatically know it to be correct. In the meantime, there are too few priests to accomplish all of the work priests used to do alone, unless laity help to do it…and it could be argued that with the rise of Protestantism and other religions, there is more apologetics to do than ever before! The only place that a layperson may not preach is at Mass. That leaves an awful lot of preaching to be done that is open to laypeople.

Finally, laypeople have their theologies, and always have. The only question is how much the theologies will be educated or uneducated. Since the laity are going to go around trading their opinions about the nature of God, and since most interactions with non-Catholics will be between laypersons, surely it is right to have some of them actually know what they are talking about.

 

[peary]

Ordination hardly guarantees orthodoxy, does it? We cannot simply see that a priest has written a piece and automatically know it to be correct. In the meantime, there are too few priests to accomplish all of the work priests used to do alone, unless laity help to do it…and it could be argued that with the rise of Protestantism and other religions, there is more apologetics to do than ever before! The only place that a layperson may not preach is at Mass. That leaves an awful lot of preaching to be done that is open to laypeople.

Finally, laypeople have their theologies, and always have. The only question is how much the theologies will be educated or uneducated. Since the laity are going to go around trading their opinions about the nature of God, and since most interactions with non-Catholics will be between laypersons, surely it is right to have some of them actually know what they are talking about.

Rule of thumb: if the theology agrees with the tenents of the Church, then it is a valid and acceptable theology. If it disagrees with the teachings of the Church or dismisses them altogether, then it is an unacceptable theology.

 

[Ave_Maria_1]

Dear Michael,

Since the Vatican Council, we all know that the role of the laity has expanded. Not that it ever should try to encapsule the role of the religious and clergy but that there are legitimate places where a lay person can, in fact, have a good role in the spread of the faith.

I know there are “Catholic” institutions that are not following the tenents of the faith nor take the mandatum. And they put forth folks who can claim their masters and so on and so spread the errors they have learned. And we know, sadly, that many in teaching positions have adopted corrupt ideologies.

These are some reasons why we need true and well educated lay people to take up the banner of the faith. I chose a distance learning program at a highly reputable and faithful College and Seminary so that I will not dispense erroronous theology. When I teach, I wish to only relay the beautiful truths of the faith so that souls will be drawn closer to God and fall ever more deeply in love with Him. I wish for others to lvoe the Church and all she teaches for here we have the fullness of faith.

The dissenting religious have done incredible damage and because so much corruption has entered in, their numbers have severely declined. This is one area where a trained lay person can be of service for God and souls.

 

[Michael_Saint]

Ordination hardly guarantees orthodoxy, does it? We cannot simply see that a priest has written a piece and automatically know it to be correct. In the meantime, there are too few priests to accomplish all of the work priests used to do alone, unless laity help to do it…and it could be argued that with the rise of Protestantism and other religions, there is more apologetics to do than ever before! The only place that a layperson may not preach is at Mass. That leaves an awful lot of preaching to be done that is open to laypeople.

Finally, laypeople have their theologies, and always have. The only question is how much the theologies will be educated or uneducated. Since the laity are going to go around trading their opinions about the nature of God, and since most interactions with non-Catholics will be between laypersons, surely it is right to have some of them actually know what they are talking about.

Thank you for your post. It takes more than orthodoxy to make one a good theologian. And lay people do not need degrees in theology to discuss the faith with non-believers (that would be impractical).

Regarding too few priests, my concern is this: does the fact that there are too few priests presuppose that many of us are not answering the call, and thus if I am called to be a theologian that this might mean I am called to be a priest as well? We tend to make discernment too much about feelings and desires nowadays - when often vocational discernment involves a great deal of common sense and rational deliberation.

Just as an aside - I have been a bit surprised (though I am not saying this is a bad thing) considering you are traditionalists. Thank you for responding to my call for the traditionalist opinion on this - but I was expecting some different answers.

 

[ChurchTorch]

Hi All,

I want to first of all ask traditionalists what they think about this. Why? Because I think I will get the answer that lines up closest with the truth. I will also be asking an apologist, probably, and/or putting it on another forum (where there will be a lot of NO posters).

Here is my background: I just completed a Masters in Theology. My plan is to teach theology at a Catholic university or college, and as I teach, probably pursue a doctorate on the side, as I think the university which hired me would require it.

However, here is where my conscience begins to bother me: until very recently, all theologians were either priests or religious. The idea of a “lay theologian” is new. I was in seminary for a while, and part of me believes that if I am meant to be a theologian, this also means I am called to be a priest as well.

My questions are:

1. Why was it the general practice or even the rule that only priests and religious could be theologians, and not lay people? What was the rationale behind the restriction?
2. What do you think of the idea of allowing lay people to become theologians? Please do not get sidetracked into how so many lay theologians are dissenters, etc. Instead, just stick with the idea of allowing lay people to be theologians rather than just priests. Maybe think of it this way: “If the whole Church and every Catholic (including every theologian) saw the light and became traditionalists tomorrow, would you be in favour of having some lay theologians among the priest-theologians?”

Thank you, All! I look forward to your replies . . .

What the heck is a “NO posters”?

Are you trying to be offensive?

 

[mick321]

What the heck is a “NO posters”?

Are you trying to be offensive?

That would be you.

Certainly, you’re not offended.

 

[gmcbroom]

Rule of thumb: if the theology agrees with the tenents of the Church, then it is a valid and acceptable theology. If it disagrees with the teachings of the Church or dismisses them altogether, then it is an unacceptable theology.

Wouldn’t that just make it an opinion? An expensive opinion sure. But, an opinion none the less.

 

[Michael_Saint]

What the heck is a “NO posters”?

Are you trying to be offensive?

Not trying to be. I usually attend the Novus Ordo. I am speaking “trad-speak”. They know what I mean by this - I wrote this for clarity.

I apologize if I used a derogatory term - I did not intend it to be such.

 

[Just_Lurking]

Do you have an ecclesiastical masters (e.g., S.T.L.) or a secular masters (e.g., M.A.) in theology?

 

[Michael_Saint]

Do you have an ecclesiastical masters (e.g., S.T.L.) or a secular masters (e.g., M.A.) in theology?

MA from Steubenville.

 

[Just_Lurking]

MA from Steubenville.

My understanding is that a secular masters degree in theology provides no official Catholic Church teaching credentials. That is, you could publish a book on Catholic theology containing the worst heresies imaginable, and the Vatican wouldn’t care any more about it than they care about what Jack Chick puts in his anti-Catholic comics. In traditional terms, my understanding is that possessing a secular masters degree in theology doesn’t make you a part of what Aquinas called the “magisterium cathedrae magistralis.” Thus, I can’t see any traditional objection to what you have accomplished so far.

 

[Michael_Saint]

My understanding is that a secular masters degree in theology provides no official Catholic Church teaching credentials. That is, you could publish a book on Catholic theology containing the worst heresies imaginable, and the Vatican wouldn’t care any more about it than they care about what Jack Chick puts in his anti-Catholic comics. In traditional terms, my understanding is that possessing a secular masters degree in theology doesn’t make you a part of what Aquinas called the “magisterium cathedrae magistralis.” Thus, I can’t see any traditional objection to what you have accomplished so far.

Dr. Scott Hahn has a civil Masters and a civil Doctorate. Dr. Welch who taught me grad classes when I was at Kenrick Seminary in St. Louis also has a civil Doctorate.

No lay person has “official” Catholic Church teaching credentials - that belongs solely to the Magisterium.

No Catholic can publish a book with the worst heresies imaginable without it being of concern to the Vatican. Dozens of books that ended up on the Index of Forbidden Books were not written by doctors of theology. Mary Valtorta’s Poem of the Man God, for instance.

Where are you getting “your understanding”? And what do you mean by “secular”. There are two systems: “civil” and “ecclesiastical”. Do you mean “civil” when you say “secular”?

With all due respect, if you do not know what you are talking about, please do not post. If you want to tear me down a notch or two for whatever reason (hostility towards post-Vatican II Church, envy, etc.), please refrain from posting any more on this thread.

 

[Just_Lurking]

No lay person has “official” Catholic Church teaching credentials - that belongs solely to the Magisterium.

Hans Kung was (and still is, for that matter) a Catholic priest, but not a bishop, so he was never a part of the Catholic Church’s magisterium. However, the Congregation of the Doctrine of the Faith took away his teaching credentials in 1979 for his rejection of papal infallibility.

Dr. Scott Hahn has a civil Masters and a civil Doctorate.

Dr. Hahn doesn’t have, and never had, the official Catholic Church teaching credentials that were removed from Hans Kung by the Vatican. The technical Latin term for those credentials is “missio canonica”.

Thus, the Vatican couldn’t remove Dr. Hahn’s teaching credentials for any reason, because he doesn’t have any in the first place. This is the only point I was trying to make.

No Catholic can publish a book with the worst heresies imaginable without it being of concern to the Vatican. Dozens of books that ended up on the Index of Forbidden Books were not written by doctors of theology. Mary Valtorta’s Poem of the Man God, for instance.

In that sentence, I was talking about the present day, where there is no Index of Forbidden Books.

Where are you getting “your understanding”? And what do you mean by “secular”. There are two systems: “civil” and “ecclesiastical”. Do you mean “civil” when you say “secular”?

Many places, e.g., John Paul II’s Sapientia Christiana. By “secular”, I mean not operating under the direct authority and supervision of the Vatican.

With all due respect, if you do not know what you are talking about, please do not post. If you want to tear me down a notch or two for whatever reason (hostility towards post-Vatican II Church, envy, etc.), please refrain from posting any more on this thread.

I apologize for any offense. I’m just trying to understand what traditional prohibition you are worried about breaking. There was never a time in the Catholic Church when the laity were prohibited from studying theology, or reading the Bible for that matter.

As I was trying to say, but perhaps didn’t very well, you don’t have to worry about going against the traditional prohibition against the laity having a “missio canonica”, because you, like Dr. Hahn, don’t have one.

 

[Michael_Saint]

I apologize for any offense. I’m just trying to understand what traditional prohibition you are worried about breaking. There was never a time in the Catholic Church when the laity were prohibited from studying theology, or reading the Bible for that matter.

As I was trying to say, but perhaps didn’t very well, you don’t have to worry about going against the traditional prohibition against the laity having a “missio canonica”, because you, like Dr. Hahn, don’t have one.

Just Lurking, thank you for the clarificaion(s). I see the distinction you are trying to draw, and I do appreciate your opinion - especially because I think you are a traditionalist (correct me if I am wrong).

How do you personally feel about lay people teaching theology at the post-secondary level? How do you feel about lay people receiving a “mission canonica”? I do know lay people were allowed at least by 1910 (according to the Catholic Encyclopedia). Would you be fine if the time came where most theological faculties consisted of lay people rather than religious or priests? If so, or if not, why?