In the last post, I intended to give an overview of the major courses and thinkers that influenced me during my undergraduate studies, but I only got as far as my first theology class and the Prophet Jeremiah. This time, I will try to stick to the plan: outline the main courses and thinkers I found most interesting and influential.
Firstly, I took a course in Ancient and Medieval Philosophy. It was a very easy course and gave a "nutshell" presentation of the major players in those time periods, but that overview was helpful and introduced me to the topics of metaphysics (philosophy of being) and epistemology (philosophy of knowledge), which still fascinate me today. I had already taken a course on logic and another on argumentation and debate, which I liked, but now those skills were being applied to other philosophical questions.
Later on, I took a course specifically on epistemology, called "The Nature of Truth and Its Acquisition." The professor was eccentric, but extremely bright, and he really stretched my mind to the brink. I still go back and try to go over some of that material and find it both daunting and enthralling at the same time. The main text for the course was Rahner's--ironically, failed--philosophy dissertation turned book: Spirit in the World. It was his attempt to re-establish thomistic epistemology connected to metaphysics in reaction to modern and contemporary challenges to it, especially Kant and transcendentalism as well as German Idealism among others. It is an extremely complex book of substantial length that is literally based on only one article of one question in the Summa about whether the mind can know anything without first turning to the "phantasms" (mental images based upon concrete sense input, to but it more plainly). I will write more about Rahner later. While I think he went off base at times, I think he is--generally speaking--overly criticized and very misunderstood. I mostly blame his self-described "followers" ("Rahnerians"), who grossly misused his name for their own, very un-Rahner-esque purposes. (He also held some questionable company at times, but then again, so did Jesus.)
Many of my favorite courses were taught by Dr. Williams, who is to this day one of the best professors I ever had in any of my many courses undergrad or graduate. His lectures taught me so much in such an easy-to-follow and well-organized way that I lament the attacks on lecture-based courses in recent years. He always allowed discussion and questions, but his own outlines and presentations were invaluable. I think the loss of truly well-conducted lectures is one of the greatest maladies of new pedagogical fads. Lectures are too often frowned upon but the methods they are replaced with are often much less effective, in my own experience at least.
One of my absolute favorites was Dr. Williams's course on Christology and Soteriology (the Natures and Person of Christ and theology of salvation). I still occasionally go back and re-read my notes from that course as a refresher, especially if I am teaching Christology. I learned about the early Christological heresies and the Ecumenical Councils that dealt with them. I learned that I had been wrong in my thinking about the relation between Jesus's divinity and humanity (I was unwittingly an Apollinarian), and I relished learning about the correct understanding! It made so much sense. I also learned about high vs low Christology, Christology from Above vs Christology from Below (which is NOT the same as high vs low, as many mistakenly think), and various attempts to explain the redemptive value of Christ's Incarnation and Death, especially St. Athanasius and St. Anselm. A couple of short but very good articles by Karl Rahner were also discussed in this class. They were so memorable that I still remember the main themes some 18 or so years later. They were Rahner's attempt to explain how two necessary and important Dogmas can be held together: 1) God desires the salvation of all and 2) no one is saved apart from Christ, whom many never knew. He is very insistent on the fact that only the grace of Christ saves, but he also believes that no human being lacked the possibility of being saved, even those who never explicitly knew of Jesus. I think his exposition is genius and quite frankly unduly criticized and mis-represented constantly by accusations he has actually explicitly denied and refuted. But I digress. The main point: the Christology/Soteriology course was amazing and very formative for me.
Dr. William's course on "God and Money" was also really good! I can't remember now if it was the one and only course on Catholic Social Teaching or if I took two and they've just combined in my memory. But either way, his presentations were outstanding. This was aided by the fact that he actually has two doctorates (both from Boston College), one in political science and the other in theology. It was there that I first encountered the work of Pope Leo XIII, Rerum Novarum (of new things), written in the late 1800's in response to new forms of government and economic systems. We also read other encyclicals that came from future popes who drew upon and extended the teaching. I absolutely loved it! Later on I taught a course on Catholic Social Teaching using much of the same material.
I took a course on ecclesiology (theology of the Church). It studies the origin, nature, mission, and structure of the Church. It was an important class insofar as it first introduced me to what would later become my main "speciality" in theology during my S.T.L. work. My S.T.L. Thesis ("The Petrine Ministry within a Eucharistic Ecclesiology according to John Zizioulas and Joseph Ratzinger") and two of my published articles (in Communio and Nova et Vetera) are works in the area of ecclesiology. Sad to say, I don't remember much about what I learned in that course versus later on. But ecclesiology has remained my top sub-specialty within theology.
Similarly, I took a course on "Theology and Science" that was of special interest to me, given my scientific background. That was with Sr. Jane Russell, who also directed my Bachelor's Thesis mentioned in an earlier post: "The Theological/Moral Implications of Genetic Research." There were some really important themes and authors mentioned in the class. Foremost among them is John Polkinghorne, who once held a chair in mathematical physics at Cambridge and later became an anglican cleric and world-renowned theologian, who has written a ton on theology and science.
Other interesting classes included a great books course that introduced me to the thought of literary figures such as Rousseau, Sir Francis Bacon, St. Thomas Moore, and Mary Shelley. (By the way, Frankenstein, as my brother Anthony and I like to discuss at length, is actually a brilliant sociological and philosophical commentary as much as a horror book. But that's for another discussion.)
As an undergrad, I also took a Course on Judaism taught by a Jewish Rabbi (of the reformed tradition). That was a very important course for me, and I think that a course on "the Jewish Roots of Catholicism" should be mandatory for every Catholic theologian and cleric. As I write this post, I can literally see the book we used, Settings of Silver, within arms reach of me on my bookshelf. Lately, I have wanted to go back and read that book cover to cover to improve my understanding of Judaism and thus my own theological ancestry.
Speaking of theological ancestry, I took a course or two on the Church Fathers (patristics) as well. Patristics is still one aspect of theology that is not emphasized enough in coursework (despite Vatican II explicitly calling for it, by the way)! Reading the works of St. Ignatius of Antioch, St. Clement of Rome, St. Polycarp, St. Irenaeus, and the like should be compulsory reading for any Christian. How these very early bishops and theologians (some of them knew at least one Apostle!) explain, defend, and suffer for the faith is extremely important for us even today. They lived and worked in a very hostile and pagan culture that literally sought to kill them--sometimes successfully. How to remain orthodox in our beliefs in the face of a world that wants to destroy us precisely for our orthodoxy is a lesson we need.. It is also a call to remember that--unlike here in the States--there are still numerous Christians around the world being persecuted, imprisoned, and executed for the faith. They--like the early Fathers--would be horrified at how we, in our comfort, can become complacent and sometimes even complicit in watering down and contradicting the truth for the sake of social and political expediency. They serve as a good examination of conscience for our age.
If you like these blog posts, please consider supporting me by the link below: