Why study Greek and Latin? Why a classical education?

The reason why St. Thomas or St. Augustine or St. Ignatius studied Latin and Greek was because they had a very different idea of language and its importance than people do today. In those days, a small number of students went to school and it was for an elite linguistic/philosophical/theological education that would serve them well in occuying the "learned professions". Today, ALL kids go to school, and most for no reason at all except that (a) it is required by law (for no real reason, of course) and (b) necessary for college admission (which is just assumed to be necessary for something).

The LIBERAL arts were historically studied by students who weren't concerned with making money. Such students were normally those who (a) belonged to wealthy families and didn't need to make money or (b) would one day take upon themselves the vow of poverty as religious and never work for money. No one was sitting around in the schools asking, "Is this going to help me get a job?" Of course, not, these are LIBERAL arts--the arts studied and used of those free from toil. ...[T]he classical liberal arts are not intended to make people wealthy if money is the chosen form of wealth. Kids who are destined to be "wage-earners" should be learning whatever the economy says needs to be learned.

When I talk about "wage-earners" I am referring to people who are simply doing something for a paycheck. That "something" is usually nothing they are happy about, interested in, etc.. They are living just to earn a wage. That, in the ancient world, was the life of a slave and not a free man...it is living to serve the happiness and increase the wealth of someone else for one's own basic needs. It is a life directed by the will of another, who is not even necessarily a good man or woman. It is a life where one's livelihood is in the hands of others and all he can do is hope they want him around. He can be replaced by 1,000 men and works for no lasting end.

Most people end up in that state because they WEREN'T properly prepared for adulthood, not because God willed it and forced them into it. It has nothing to do with farming or living in a suburb. It has to do with living for something greater than all the non-Christians around us are living for. Will we not differ from them in anything more than bumper stickers and Sunday activities? Is the Christian life really so near to the pagan life that a Christian and pagan man can spend the bulk of their days pursuing the same things?

I'm not interested in that sort of education and no one seeking such an education should pretend to have any interest in "classical" education....[I]f you know at age 5, 7, 8 or 12 that your son is destined to become one of 500 employees chained inside a cubicle under fluorescent lights, selling who-knows-what product to who-knows-who for a paycheck, then what's the point, really, of giving any attention to education beyond English and Arithmetic? This is the kind of argument made by modern schools that argue that kids shouldn't even learn to do Math any more, just use calculators. I mean, really, why bother with any learning at all if it's not necessary for that paycheck?

I just don't believe we are right in having such a dark and pessimistic view of kids. We're so impatient, and we spend time predicting the kids' futures based on their interests, attitudes and habits when they're hardly old enough to begin their studies and then, after we've removed them from all courses in life that would have enriched and edified them, we complain when they're shallow-minded and easily influenced by the world. Christian parents are raising kids with a fear of doing anything different, but then upset when their kids end up the same. I just don't get it.

THE PROBLEM IS THAT WE, IN DIRECTING OUR CHILDREN'S EDUCATION, SET THE LIMIT FOR WHAT OPTIONS WILL BE OPEN TO THEM IN THEIR ADULT LIFE.

I'll repeat that because it's the most important point I'll make:

THE PROBLEM IS THAT WE, IN DIRECTING OUR CHILDREN'S EDUCATION, SET THE LIMIT FOR WHAT OPTIONS WILL BE OPEN TO THEM IN THEIR ADULT LIFE.

If my son, for who knows what reason, would want to one day go find a job working in an office somewhere for as paycheck, he'd be able to with a classical liberal arts education. It would be a terrible waste, but the door would be open to him. He could do just about anything--from manage a farm to enter a monastery to pursue a medical degree. He's educated for life with a classical liberal arts education and is a "citizen of the world" (civis mundi) as Socrates said. If, on the other hand, I give him a bare-bones K-12 education, many doors are shut above him and those doors that are open to him are open to everyone else in his generation. Ultimately, he'll be competing with sinners for work and he'll be at a disadvantage. Can't work Sundays. Need time for family life. Have to support a family. Sinners may not have any such limitations...they can work 24/7, don't need to support anyone else, can travel anywhere and can even accept a lower wage. A future father is at a disadvantage in that job market and that's why Christian men should be discouraged from such a course. It isn't favorable for them.

Personally, I cannot understand why a boy with the prospect of spending his life toiling for a paycheck would not be intensely interested in religious life. Consider the freedom, the simplicity, the love and fellowship of the community, etc.. I can see a young man with a clear occupation provided for him, a successful and enjoyable family business, for example, choosing to remain in the world, start a family, live a balanced life of work, prayer and service, etc.. But a young man with no real plan, no clear vision for how he'll make it in business or trade choosing that instead of such a sure and stable path of life serving the Church without distraction? I don't understand it. Outside of America, this is just not how religious vocations are thought of. It is an American problem that religious life is seen to be a last-option ugly girl to be kept on hold just in case all the pretty girls turn our boys down. Other cultures consider religious life an honor for their families and one of the best ways of fulfilling the commandment to "honor your mother and father". Catholic schools that teach the boys the happiness of religious life, not surprisingly, produce many religious young men.

The question is not what the young boy thinks about the priesthood or religious life, or the learned professions.... He is supposed to be under the discipline and instruction of wiser and holier parents who are persuading him to pursue the best and happiest courses.

[I]t's the Church's mission--AS A WHOLE--to renew the world and that takes place at many different levels. We need to have a holistic understanding of the Church and her mission, not a silly evangelical "witness to your neighbor" idea that puts all kinds of fruitless pressure on people to neglect their daily responsibilities for some hope of converting random people. Does Hollywood gain its influence like that? Did Hitler gain his influence like that? No, they understand that society follows its leaders and the work of leaders trickles down from the highest places into the living rooms of every family by many different means.

St. Paul taught us how to understand the Church and its mission in 1 Corinthians 12:

"God indeed hath set some in the church; first apostles, secondly prophets, thirdly doctors; after that miracles; then the graces of healing, helps, governments, kinds of tongues, interpretations of speeches. Are all apostles? Are all prophets? Are all teachers? Are all workers of miracles? Have all the grace of healing? Do all speak with tongues? Do all interpret? But be zealous for the better gifts."

Therefore, the Church has many different "members" all of which perform a function within the "body of Christ" that is saving the world. The problem I have is that today, where all Christians are receiving a common education, who will the teachers be? When we look back through history, we see great doctors of the Church--St. Augustine, St. Thomas, St. Bonaventure, etc. We cannot imagine a Catholic Church without them. Doesn't anyone notice that nearly all of the doctors of the Church have something in common?

Personally, I think the whole "we need to be witnesses" hoopla that fills Christian circles has not been reflected on very much. It's lazy thinking that imagines that people need to be "reached" at the workplace. Can't they be left alone to WORK in the workplace? Do they producers of immoral music, pornography, heresies, etc., need to "reach" people at work? No, they primarily do their work in out-of-work social circles, schools and institutions that dominate people's lives. The Church is supposed to be one such dominating influence, but that dominance is weakening because it can't impact the higher levels of society for lack of wise, skilled manpower. Sure there are lots of faithful Catholic laypeople out there, complaining about bad Church music, bad Catholic colleges, bad Catholic schools, diminishing vocations, cloudy teaching, etc.. Well, why the heck do these problems exist? Because no one is committing themselves to raising children with mind prepared to do the work at the highest levels...to run universities, renew the priesthood, clarify Church teaching, transform monasteries, reform Church music, start new (and better) schools, etc.. Look, we've got lots of good Catholic accountants, carpenters, parish priests and housewives...but that's not where the problems are in our society. They're at the top and no one is "reaching" the sources of culture and ideas and social life that flow through the entire society. that is what is fundamentally different between modern Christianity and medieval Christianity. In medieval Christianity, the king of France was counseled by St. Thomas Aquinas and the entire nation was "reached" by true Christianity. Who reached more people, one wise man educated in the classical liberal arts or 10,000 Catholic laypeople in American cities? What we ignore is the fact that every society is dominated by certain philosophical ideas that fill that society like the air and influence everything. Fixing the philosophy fixes the society over time. Leaving the philosophy untouched or in the hands of others and working like crazy to fix all the effects of that philosophy is foolishness, not evangelism. Christianity was an obscure religion, hiding in caves and private meetings until...the Roman emperor converted. Then, almost overnight...the world was "reached", rather OVERTAKEN by Christianity. We've surrendered all of those victories in the past 200 years by allowing ourselves to be convinced that Christianity belongs back in the caves and private meeting rooms where it came from.

Jesus said, "Strike the shepherd and the sheep will be scattered." He taught that "No man can enter into the house of a strong man and rob him of his goods, unless he first bind the strong man, and then he shall plunder his house." David killed Goliath, and the Philistines were easily slaughtered.

Can't we see the problem? The leaders of the wicked movements and institutions sit in our society in ivory towers far from reach while silly Christians argue in the streets about things with people who are themselves controlled by others. Why then are we not training children to strike at the leaders of sinful society and bind the strong men in secular spheres? We're too busy engaging in fruitless works that the enemies of the Church don't fear because they know it's all bark and no bite.

Therefore, I don't believe this pressure to "REACH" others is a wise pressure, especially when young children have the opportunity to pursue the kind of learning that can equip them to get their hands at the springs from which all of the evils in our society flow and fix them there. That is the goal of the classical liberal arts.

[A]t the bare bones level, we must love God and our neighbor enter the kingdom of heaven. The ability to read Latin poetry, translate the Greek New Testament, use a potty, brush one's teeth, make bread, wash clothes, shovel snow, drive a car, write a check, mail a letter, deliver a baby and just about every other ability we can think of are not essential for eternal life.

Unfortunately, just as Jesus became a man and lived an ordinary human life, our salvation is worked in space and time. To perform the works of mercy, we must HAVE the things the needy NEED:

To feed the hungry, we must have food.
To give drink to the thirsty, we must have drink.
To clothe the naked, we must have clothing.
To harbour the harbourless, we must have shelter.
To visit the sick, we must have health.
To ransom the captive, we must be free.
To bury the dead, we must have land, money, etc.


To instruct the ignorant, we must have knowledge.
To counsel the doubtful, we must have counsel.
To admonish sinners, we must model piety.
To bear wrongs patiently, we must have pure hearts.
To forgive offences willingly, we must be merciful.
To comfort the afflicted, we must have that which comforts.
To pray for the living and the dead, we must be righteous.


Now, any idle religious person could talk about being "spiritual", "saved", etc.., but real religion is as much a material thing as a spiritual thing...that's the whole point of the incarnation. God became a man to save the world and called us to follow His example, not pretend we are angels who hover above the earth. When I consider what it means to "work out one's salvation", I don't believe that, as a layman, it means spending more and more time in prayer and contemplation. St. James directly contradicted that notion of religion.

"What shall it profit, my brethren, if a man say he hath faith, but hath not works? Shall faith be able to save him? And if a brother or sister be naked and want daily food: And one of you say to them: Go in peace, be ye warmed and filled; yet give them not those things that are necessary for the body, what shall it profit?"

Therefore, I don't want to talk religion without hands and feet. I want to feed the hungry and therefore I work that I may have something to share. I'm going to need to go out and sacrifice my comfort to compete in the world to earn or work the ground to produce the food that the hungry need. We don't walk into a grocery store with a "I'm a Catholic" button and get free food for the poor handed to us. We have to work for it and that brings us to the real world. A 30 year old man with a general education earning $35,000 a year in a cubicle, struggling to pay his family's rent isn't the kind of person feeding the poor in the world or doing most of the mercy work. The people doing the work of mercy in the world are primarily religious and secondarily the righteous wealthy who aren't killig themselves to earn their wealth. You'll notice that these are the same people who historically were most concerned with the classical liberal arts. As one who works directly with the Missionaries of the Poor, I can assure you that, when all is said and done the majority of the work of the MOP is done by a small group of wealthy benefactors who write the checks for the supplies needed and an army of religious who administer them on the ground. There is a lot of volunteer work, but they administer the supplies being donated by the benefactors, using buildings and equipment the benefactors have provided. Volunteers with good intentions don't put clothe naked children or harbor homeless elderly people. For example, the Holy Innocents Center opening in Jamaica, which will harbor 200 mothers and babies is being built in a building bought by one American man. The beautiful Chapel on Mt Tabor, where dozens of ignorant mountain children are instructed, was paid for by a single benefactor. We can't ignore the reality that, while all of the small gifts given help greatly, the works of mercy depend on the generosity of the righteous wealthy. Therefore, the idea that if we just spent more time hugging eachother and singing hymns rather than studying Grammar and learning philosophy we would do more spiritual good is simply lacking evidence. Go ask the missionaries what kind of people are on their calling list when they need help. It's not the laid-back Christians spending time sitting having "family-time", but movers and shakers who work that they may share and can balance BOTH the ability to generate income with the ability to live a holy life. ....The poor are not fed by grovelling wage-earners but by people who can keep their heads up and their eyes open while conducting their affairs in the world. That work takes great wisdom, cunning and self-motivation, which come not from English book reports and Math workbooks, but from the study of philosophy.

~Taken from comments by Wm Michael on the CLAA Forum, nothing was added, though it is slightly edited and rearranged.