The Catechism

Hello William,

Thanks for the invitation to visit your blog, but I'd rather not spread my work to more venues. (Maybe you could consider condensing your writings a bit, and post them here.)

Thomas

Thomas, I appreciate the suggestion to condense my response to you and put it on the NCR cafe blog.

I actually have already done that. The new thread that I began about the catechism is a condensed version of my longer statement my blog. Since I see today that you've responded to the condensed statement on the NCR cafe, you have actually read the substance of my reply to you--and I appreciate your response.

William D. Lindsey

We used the Baltimore catechism through most of my elementary grades. But in 8th grade we used another and it was wonderful. It had questions like (A) what do you say if a spirit appears to you? and (B) what do you do if a dog asks to be baptized? In addition it had analysis questions that read like law texts (C) If Johnny wants to go see a condemned picture and he lies and asks a stranger for money to go home on the bus, what sins has he committed? If anyone recognizes these questions, would you tell me the name of the book? I'd love to find it.
ANSWERS (A) Say:In the name of God speak. If it is a bad spirit, it will flee. If it is a good spirit, you are bound to listen. (B) Take him to the priest. If the dog has enough awareness to ask for the sacrament, you must let the priest discern the response. Do not ignore the dog or attempt to deal with it yourself. (C0 Potentially sins against the fourth, fifth, eighth and ninth commandments.

I was not putting down the baltimore catechism, just trying to poke fun at jstab. As for my mobiles that everyone seems interested in, there was no doctrine that went behind it. It was all fluff. I wish a catechist would have tried to spark discussions about our faith instead of just making us read the textbook that was lacking in doctrine.

I think the difficulty for people who've been on here for a long time, mavfan46, no offense, is the picture of a small boy hating to make mobiles poking fun at someone who is a priest, who's studied theology QUITE a lot more! I'm not even a convicted supporter of the clerical state, but it's just too odd a mental picture not to say something when jstab doesn't!

My guess is that as a thirty-year old man with a neo-trad perspective, you are just convinced that catechists who made much of relationships, tolerance, non-judgmentalism, and forgiveness were just too squishy in their approach with kids, who (as we all know) need to memorize catechisms. Now it may be that the catechetical emphasis on Jesus and the meaning of the New Testament should not be the primary focus, or should have been more strongly constructed around teachings at different levels in some different ways--that would take a long conversation in which some real study on education should come to play. I don't think you're there, although you seem to have enough experience where you should be able to address catechesis more thoroughly. I think you should also consider that you simply seem stuck somehow in your own past in the church, and the answer does not lie in constricting people to texts that meet your needs. As has been pointed out at times on here, it's hard for people to assess others who are further on, and a priest with years of theology is not likely to need or want to sit around reading a catechism, at least not for his own spiritual growth and development.

Again I have studied theology for around 13 years now, and I go back to the Catechism frequently. As for me being stuck in the church's past, you seem to be the one who is stuck. the future of the church is a young vibrant church embracing its teachings. I watch videos of speakers at CTA conferences Woman Priest ordinations and I am struck by how all those people are stuck in their own experiences of how they think the Church should be. The Catechism is new compared to the age of the Church. How can you same I am somehow tied to the past when I embrace the things the Church gives to help us live out our faith better.

I also embrace the 'things the church gives us to help us live out our faith better.' We perhaps just have a different emphasis on which things we need at different times in our lives. Perhaps there are issues of difference that have to do with age, maturity, education, experience, gender?

I have no problem with people relying on a catechism if that's what they need or where they are at. I have a problem with the idea that I have to rely on exactly the same things the church offers as guides that you do in order to live out my faith better.

The church does recognize that people do not come in standard issue.

Since the Church is the guardian of the deposit of faith, anything in the Catechism would not contradict the Bible. That would be theology 101 Jstab might be familiar with that teaching as he learned his theology when people still thought, before the catechism of the council of trent published in 1566

Oh mavfan, you are sooo wrong!

The catechisms are full of contradictions.

For example the catechism that forbids the wearing of crystals as demonic
But approves the wearing of saint christopher medals as a sign of devotion

The catechisms also say that capital punishment is appropriate in some cases

They also say that killing others is acceptable in some cases

I found these just picking up the book and letting it fall open
I wonder what else I would find if I chose to waste my time actually looking
for contradictions.

I could do like thomas and quote the chapter and verse, but again, why waste my time? I have better things to do with my time, like fishing and kayaking.

col55 -

I responded to your list of grievances with the Catechism on the other Catechism thread - please refer to it.

BUT - the word "crystal" or "crystals" is not even IN the Catechism. I did a word search - the word is not there. What "catechism" did you "let open before you" to find these distortions you accuse the Catechism as teaching?

Again, you ought to actually read the Catechism of the Catholic Church, 1997 edition - the definitive and universal catechism in the light of Vatican II.

So where does the buck stop. What should we use as the ultimate guide of faith?

Let God speak to you.

Jesus?

mavfan46, are you saying that I should throw out my book Theology for Beginners by F.J. Sheed?

Are you saying that as one is taught Catechism in grade school, one should stay there and not read anything but the Catechism?

Are you saying that anyone who does any reading beyond the Catechism is too "liberal"?

Are you saying that the deposit of faith is only deposited on the Church and those who have written the Catechism?

If that is what you are saying, and it most certainly seems implied by your comment, then your God is very small indeed and you have put Him in a box and claim to have all the answers with no chance for expanding your view.

I love F.J. Sheed.

I have a degree in theology and use the catechism daily. You can delve deeper into it. That would be like saying I already know the story of Adam and Eve and I have no need to read it again.

As for the liberal comment. I think we need to use the catechism. the catechism is by far the greatest commentary on scripture that we have. The catechism also cites many wonderful documents (Dei Verbum, Gaudium et Espes, Trent, Humanae Vitae) by all means read them.

And yes tghe Church is the guardian of the deposit of faith.

I tried to expand my view in high school and almost lost my soul. I love my faith and know that Jesus left us the Church to be with us till his return.

Other people have expanded their view by education and not lost their souls at all; in fact, for some, it has helped save their souls. Your personal experience is your personal experience. But it is not meant to be the controlling factor over others' experience, and if that is the basis of your teaching of others, then you need to really look at that issue.

The Church is NOT where you are on this issue, mavfan. If you'd like some quotes on that, it can be arranged.

was that before the current catechism was published or before the catechism of the council of trent?

Before the current one was published. After VII I believe they did away with it, in an effort to encourage thinking and to put an end to defensive theology as a reaction to protestant thought. I don't know why they brought it back. I guess they were afraid people would start to think again and search for answers using primary sources and reading the thoughts of some theologians. It definitely was a movement backwards.

Actually they never got rid of the catechism. After the Council of Trent a catechism was issued about 30 years later. The Church moves slow. It was no different with this present catechism. Vatican II happened and about 30 years later we get a new catechism. No one did away with anything.

A humble suggestion: read it. It presents the essentials of the Faith in an adult way, offering the authentic teachings of the Church to the adult mind, and adult reasonings. The Catechism can enable actual understanding of the Faith, for the adult who will engage it with faith, and prayer.

(Good) theology is well characterized as "faith seeking understanding." Some modern (professional, academic) theologians of recent memory seem to place themselves and their speculations above the Magisterium - and they call this speculation "thinking". Their premises should be the faith of the Church: this is where they should begin. The best theologians humbly submit their work to the judgment of the Church - and the Catechism is just that: the judgment of the Church.

Thomas

I don't think you know what theology is. The "speculation" of one age has historically become the doctrine of the next. And so it goes...

Hello Marie,

John Paul II wrote this in describing the Catechism:
....................
The Catechism of the Catholic Church, which I approved 25 June last and the publication of which I today order by virtue of my Apostolic Authority, is a statement of the Church’s faith and of catholic doctrine, attested to or illumined by Sacred Scripture, the Apostolic Tradition and the Church’s Magisterium. I declare it to be a sure norm for teaching the faith and thus a valid and legitimate instrument for ecclesial communion. May it serve the renewal to which the Holy Spirit ceaselessly calls the Church of God, the Body of Christ, on her pilgrimage to the undiminished light of the Kingdom!

The approval and publication of the Catechism of the Catholic Church represent a service which the Successor of Peter wishes to offer to the Holy Catholic Church, to all the particular Churches in peace and communion with the Apostolic See: the service, that is, of supporting and confirming the faith of all the Lord Jesus’ disciples (cf. Lk 22:32) as well as of strengthening the bonds of unity in the same apostolic faith. Therefore, I ask all the Church’s Pastors and the Christian faithful to receive this catechism in a spirit of communion and to use it assiduously in fulfilling their mission of proclaiming the faith and calling people to the Gospel life. This catechism is given to them that it may be a sure and authentic reference text for teaching catholic doctrine and particularly for preparing local catechisms. It is also offered to all the faithful who wish to deepen their knowledge of the unfathomable riches of salvation (cf. Eph 3:8). It is meant to support ecumenical efforts that are moved by the holy desire for the unity of all Christians, showing carefully the content and wondrous harmony of the catholic faith. The Catechism of the Catholic Church, lastly, is offered to every individual who asks us to give an account of the hope that is in us (cf. I Pt 3:15) and who wants to know what the Catholic Church believes.
(1992, JPII)
.........................

Thomas

So, you agree that it's the best the Catholic Church can do.

The compendium is much better suited to be a text book, but the Catechism should be a required reference, along with the Bible. As far as college theology, it the CCC is a good book for an Intro to Catholicism course, not exclusively, of course, but even as a primary text.

++++++
Randu in Google's Lively

here today,

I agree with all your comments here. I find the Compendium excellent in adult faith formation, and with the RCIA.

A dear priest I used to work with, in encouraging adults to keep growing in the faith, used to speak to them holding a Bible in one hand and the Catechism in the other hand - a visual of the balance a Catholic needs, to grow in truth.

Thomas

I guess I'd probably go for a Bible in one hand and the writings of saints in the other, myself, if only allowed two hands. One hand would be pretty weighted though, come to think of all the saints' writings I treasure...

why would it be bad to use a source book as a text book. I went to a Catholic College and my foundations of Catholicism Class textbook was the Catechism. I learned to use the book, how to find everything that was in it, and plus since I already owned one I did not have to spend the extra money on a new textbook, so i guess I also saved a tree.

It can be a 're-source' or reference book, but it is not a source book by definition. Higher education should be drawing increasingly from sources, not re-sources. Just part of the turf. High school is usually the cut-off for that changeover, although colleges sometimes hang on for awhile. Universities usually don't, and students should expect and want to do their own original reading and thinking. Again, just part of the turf. The hierarchy of education.

I have been involved with RCIA, Adult ed., youth ministry, hispanic ministry, and currently young adult ministry. I consider it a must to teach my people how to utilize the catechism. So if they have questions about the faith they can look it up.

That fits in generally well enough with the general hierarchy of education, except that you do have to know your audience. My very bright and educated parents (and others of those of the "greatest generation") actually sought more than what you are offering for adult education, however. Back then, in the old nineteen forties and fifties and such, adult education moved into theology, church history, and such...Catechisms were developed primarily for children, the less or uneducated and mission work.

The Church doesn't say it teaches fear to its people; perhaps it does, but it says the opposite. We should not try to limit the study of the faith to that which assures no questioning. That is cultish. CAtholics should be looking up anything they want where they think they'll enrich their answers. Faith does not need to fear education.

Good point AnnieO. I would think that the Catechism is more like the "Coles Notes" of the faith. I remember older members of my family telling me that the scripures were discouraged as 'sources'. Personally I didn't get exposed to scripture until university. Scriptures, writings of the fathers, papal documents are the more substantial sources along with meditation. The 'Coles Notes' source approach is for those who don't want to do the serious work of study, research, quest and quest-ion. As a "re-source", but not a source, as a skeleton, but not the soul as you refer to Annie, of course.

I'm beginning to think your mobiles were not good enough to pass on to your children...:-)

how long does yarn tied to a hanger last anyway?

Hello mavfan,

Those fluff-and-balloons catechists have not died out yet - and many have attained very influential positions of leadership. Their ideas, weak and harmful as they are, continue to affect the Church.

The Catechism is great - I agree. Now we can point to it and say, "but that is not what the Church teaches! THIS is what the Church teaches!" Even so, they hold on, change the rhetoric a bit, and continue the agenda.

Thomas

"THIS is what the Church teaches", Thomas shouts triumphantly to mavfan in disdainful rebuttal to those "fluff-and-baloons catechists". But Christ "teaches": "If I have the gift of prophesy, understanding all the mysteries there are, and knowing everything...but without love, then I am nothing at all...it will do me no good whatever"(Corinthians I,13).

And the agenda is what?

Who are those "fluff and balloons catechist" that you are talking about Thomas? Seems you could you use a dose of humility that is clearly missing from your post. And then you go on to say "have not died out yet." Do you hate your elders? Weren't you taught to respect elders? Would you propose euthanasia? Who are these catechists that you refer to whom you have decided "their ideas, weak and harmful."? Harmful to whom?

Pointing to the Catechism and saying "but that is not what the Church teaches" while ignoring what Jesus has taught in the Gospels is an agenda for a Church to be full of air heads mouthing off quotes from the Catechism who can not think and whose faith is planted in sand that will wash away in the first storm. That's not teaching about faith in Jesus Christ; that is watered down unthinking indoctrination into an institution's fallible dogma.

Butterfly,

If you want a list of "fluff-and-balloon" catechists, do a google search of "paradigm shift in catechesis" and read some of the hits. They often refer to the great lights of the movement away from the substantial tradition to be handed down, generation to generation -- and toward the "continuing revelation" of the merely experiential and subjective.

Experience is good and important! And the personal subject must be respected! BUT so ALSO must there be CONTENT to catechesis. "Faith-sharing" presumes that there is a CONTENT, a FAITH that is believed - a personal Faith coherent with the Faith of the Catholic Church which is to be shared.

Many of the proponents of this "paradigm shift" in catechesis seem to have a revulsion for the CONTENT, the substance of THE FAITH and the sacred tradition of the Church, and instead they identify "catechesis" with immersion in a local "faith community", having as content whatever the local community believes and disbelieves, doubts and discards, thinks or wishes. These proponents reject all "teaching", and replace it with "facilitating" their "faith sharing". The result has little or nothing to do with traditional catechesis, or the traditional Faith of the Church.

And the bottom line result is a congregation of Catholics who do not know the faith, who cannot evangelize or defend the Faith, and whose children are easy prey to deceivers, to sects and cults, and to simply leaving a church that has little to nothing to offer them.

And speaking of "elders" - I've entered that neighborhood personally, my dear sister!

Thomas

ah, an elder! so perhaps you won't have so much time to work through things that are posed on here after all. In fact, you are perhaps in a rush to say what you need or want to say. I'll try to keep that in mind.

I think what you don't accept is that there are other philosophies besides the scholastic--or whatever you would like to name the backbone philosophy of the church--that can underlie the "rationale" of faith. That seems to be the dividing point often on here, not just the personal or the experiential. Usually, the "paradigm shift" refers to differences more in the underlying philosophical thought.