Wednesday 25 February 2015

An Experience of a Course for Catechists

Last year I pointed out to Andrew that a local parish was offering a catechists course which was open to anyone, suggesting that he attend as he helps out a lot with our R.C.I.A. programme (which is heavily Catechism-based) and may learn new ways to put things across, some wider perspectives and some formation techniques. Being an unofficial course there was no appraisal, exam or accreditation, but I expected him to gain a lot from it. Just recently, I was told Andrew was a ‘distracting influence’ at the course.

Knowing Andrew to be viewed by many as very likeable I asked him about the comment, and I think the reality is that he simply asked a lot of awkward questions. He had been shocked to hear (whether he interpreted them correctly or not) such things as “Anabaptists were persecuted and punished with excommunication because at that time to disagree with the Church was heresy, but it’s OK to disagree with the Church today”. They were also told, “We are to confess areas of our life, not kinds of sins and their number” and “Baptism is the beginning of a journey; it doesn’t completely take away original sin otherwise we wouldn’t sin again” (both statements contrary to formal teaching). 

In the interests of fairness I pointed out to Andrew that the leader/s may have been asking catechists to edge people away from confessing venial sins in kind and number; that when speaking of Baptism he/she may have been referring to concupiscence (that consequence of original sin which is not eradicated by baptism), and since baptism is seen as the first of the sacraments of Initiation, is able to be seen as the start of a journey. While Andrew does not deny that this may well have been their intended thrust, he did not feel this was the case -especialy since he had expected the course to actually refer to the Catechism (understandably so, if it is catechists they are hoping to form).

I am of the opinion then that Andrew was in fact, ‘actively engaged’ in the course (and, it seems, simply questioning some dubious ideas which were actually being proposed in seminaries of the 70’s -a major factor in the Bishops at the 1985 Extraordinary Synod calling for a post-Vatican II Catechism). If people were unhappy with Andrew referring to the Catechism, maybe they found the Catechism unacceptable? Though unofficial and carrying no appraisal, exam or accreditation, the experience of attending the course was worthwhile in that it allowed Andrew to hear what he does not hear in the parish. I think many of us heard the same kind of things in the seminaries even of the 80’s and 90’s, but we had the time and depth of study to filter out the theories from authentic Teaching, which the laity do not (and the teaching has to be in there in the first place!) Many orthodox priests will remember how common it was to be labelled troublesome, closed (or even clericalistic).

The liberal crowd are, in my experience, good-hearted people committed to a Church of Nice “for the affirmation of the folk”. That being so, I can even ignore comments made in my presence such as “I worry about these young priests who have no personal relationship with Jesus but are obsessed with Latin and lace”): they are not said with malice. It is simply that Liberals cannot take being questioned, and can become rather judgemental and oppressive in the way they handle their questioners and their questions. 

All in all it seems sad but true to say that faithful lay Catholics on parish courses are experiencing in a small way what orthodox seminarians experienced in a big way a couple of decades ago. I thought when the Catechism was published the Church had left all those nonsense theories behind (I hesitate to call them ‘theology’), but it seems not. Perhaps many leaders have not read it or if they have, choose to ignore it in favour of their preferred theories -which most laity do not recognise as heterodox because they have been hearing them since the 1970’s from the pulpits.

12 comments:

  1. I hope that course wasn't being delivered by clergy! "Nonsense theories" is a very nice way of putting it. This exiled Yorkshireman would be tempted to use more earthy terms.

    Good to see you back posting again, Fr.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Thank you for commenting.
      I think the organisers wanted to display diversity as they invited speakers from the the presbyterate, Diaconnate, Religious Life and Lay state to give the talks.
      I used the term 'nonsense theories' because I was seeking to be polite while demonstrating that they are indeed talking nonsense!
      God Bless

      Delete
  2. This post is an absolute beauty! What you say about liberals and their Vatican II 'theology' is so true. Just read what is currently doing the rounds on various blogs. They are hyper-sensitive to any scrutiny and criticism of their ideas/opinions and actions, especially the ones detached from the Church's doctrines as it is outlined in the Catechism of the Catholic Church.
    The other reason why I love this post, is because you have touched on an issue very close to my heart and which I revel in. For many years now I have been educating myself about the doctrinal structure of the CCC and its relationship to the Catechetical Directory. Many Catechists in the Church in Australia have had no formal education, training and formation in both of these fundamental Catechetical documents. There is hardly a Catholic college, seminary or university that offers a course. This is a major part of the reason why schools, parishes and dioceses are in a mess. They are doctrinal free zones. One only needs to look at what went on at the recent Synod on the Family.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Thank you, Greg.
      It is not simply in Australia that catechists have no real formation for their work. They do have the opportunity for a lot of formation (even the LIMEX theology degree promoted by the Diocese), but it is not so much the amount of formation that is lacking; it is its content, judging from from what I heard from Andrew. The simply truth is that those in leadership positions are no longer defending and explaining revelation but consistently abandoning it in by seeking to adapt it to follow what they perceive to be the 'wisdom' of the world (isn't that the essence of Modernism?)
      God Bless.

      Delete
  3. Thank you, Fr, for this very pertinent item. It's hardly surprising to learn that this sort of nonsense is still being peddled. All credit to Andrew for taking the stance he did.

    For sound catechetical teaching, of which assessment and a final with certificate for the successful are integral components, you might want to look at the Certificate in catechesis offered by Maryvale Institute here in Birmingham.

    Tom

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Thank you Tom.
      Andrew did sign on for this course but was unable to complete it due to family circumstances. I hear though, that Maryvale is not quite as reliable as it once was? Probably still far, far better than the Limex course judging by some of the ideas I have heard from those who have taken the course.
      God Bless

      Delete
  4. You are right again Fr Gary, and their so-called 'wisdom' is damaging the Church's faith and thwarting her all important evangelizing mission. Rarely do these leaders use the CCC to defend Church teaching, refute error and correct disaffected Catholics. They prefer their own pastoral 'wisdom'. Archbishop Cordileone is putting on a master class on episcopal leadership in the U S A, by simply reiterating what the CCC enunciates. The point about content is also a good one. This is precisely why catechesis in schools and sacramental programmes have been a disaster. They teach a Creedless Catholism and a contentless catechesis. These people need to be taught to appreciate the critical connections between doctrine and catechesis - how our teaching of the faith must draw not only on the content of the CCC, but also on its logic from the Biblical and doctrinal sources of the faith. Catholics in general need to be taught the significance of the organizational structure of the content of the CCC. There is a great deal we could learn from the CCC if we are humble and willing enough.

    ReplyDelete
  5. Thank you, Fr, for speaking the truth. The evil coming out of Church bodies right down to parish level is shocking beyond words. My heart bleeds for the souls being led away from the truth of Our Lord and His Holy Commandments to ever greater evil and chaos. God bless you.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Thank you, Lynda.
      I think Andrew's experience is more disturbing to me in that there was no real challenge of those leading the course by participants. It reminds me of seminary where so many just nodded their heads and wrote down whatever the proffs came out with. I may have done hat too, since we enter education in our professions expecting to be taught sound basics; trusting our professors to give us those basics. Only my reading of F J Sheed and Ott before seminary prevented me from taking on board all that was given to us when i got into seminary formation. Mind you, i wish it was as easy to acquire the virtues as it is to acquire knowledge/information!
      God Bless.

      Delete
  6. I have for some time now wondered if the quality of RE in the last decade has improved. I am thinking of RE for children prior to their first sacraments.

    Now I appreciate that this is not the same thing. Nevertheless it leaves me feeling very unsettled.

    Whatever the intention, what Andrew was "taught", as reported here , was , objectively speaking, heretical.

    If I heard anyone coming out with this in any setting in my parish I would go for them in no uncertain terms!

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Thank you, Jacobi.
      Education in the Faith (and solid liturgy) are core to the re-evanglesiation of Catholics and from thence, others. Sadly, parishes that took up the offer to have participants attend this course are unlikely to see the problem... I hope you DO have someone in the parish who attended it that you can 'dialogue' with, but it was a very locally-based so that may be unlikely.
      God Bless.

      Delete

Please comment using a pseudonym, not as 'anonymous'.
If you challenge the Magisterium, please do so respectfully.
We reserve the right to delete from comments any inflammatory remarks.
If we do not reply to your comment it is through lack of time rather than interest.