Community in Mission

In Friday’s post, we reflected on some of the historical problems related to catechesis and how they have negatively impacted us in the aftermath of the cultural revolution that swept through beginning in the late 1960s. Even prior to that time, some of the strategies and pedagogical philosophies common were problematic in that they tended to remove catechesis entirely from the home, and also focused almost exclusively on the education of children. This left adults (including parents) little opportunity to deepen their own understanding and move to a more mature experience of the faith.

In this second part I present a model for parishes that includes the parents—indeed the whole family—in the catechetical process. I do not propose here an entire curriculum or program. Rather, I suggest a general model that can be adapted as necessary. My proposal is not original and has been presented by others in various forms, generally termed “whole-family catechesis.” I have applied this model in two parishes where I have pastored. In terms of content, the curriculum emphasizes a “back-to-basics” approach that focuses on the fundamental kerygma and its message of sin, redemption, and grace.

Perhaps it is best to begin with a story to serve as background.

About eight years ago, when I was speaking to sixth-grade Sunday school students, I mentioned Adam and Eve. Within a few minutes, it became evident that they didn’t really know who Adam and Eve were. One of the students was able to say that he thought they were “in the Bible or something,” but couldn’t provide any details.

It became clear to me in that moment that we could no longer do “business as usual” when it came to catechesis. Luckily, my Director of Religious Education (DRE) had similar concerns and did not resist my insistence we had to try something new, something radically different.

That “something new” was really “something old” and amounted to a back-to-basics approach that taught of sin, redemption, and grace—in that order.

Clearly, if God’s people have lost touch with the awful disaster of Original Sin and of all our personal sins, then the gift of redemption and the glory of grace are underappreciated—even dismissed—as being of no value. Further, how can people experience Jesus as their Savior if they don’t even think that they need to be saved?

So we have to go back to basics and tell the “old, old stories” again: the stories of mankind, lost in sin, living in the dark shadows of death, and ensnared in the mystery iniquity. Yes, it was time to re-read the Genesis account of Original Sin and all the old stories.

In order to avoid the pitfalls discussed in the first part of this article, we chose in my parishes to structure the Sunday school curriculum around the whole family. Sunday school would include the parents as well as the children and any other adults who wished to come. Frankly, the main goal was to teach the parents, who should be the chief educators of their children in the ways of faith. To that end, I drew from a number of home-school curricula such as the “Seton Program,” since they already have a curriculum and resources in place to assist parents.

At the heart of our “whole-family catechesis” approach is a structure in which every grade level is studying the same subject, reading the same Bible stories, and following the same curriculum. While the kids are in Sunday school class, I am out in the cafeteria teaching the same material to the parents.

I teach the parents both method and material. For source material I use the old classic, My Catholic Faith, which provides a great summary and curriculum of the faith in a kind of flyer format that is both handy and properly detailed. I give the teachers of the children the Religion 5 for Young Catholics book (Seton Press), in order to help them review the material for each class and make it relevant to younger children. I also teach and review the curriculum with the Sunday school teachers before the beginning of each segment of study, so that they will know what and how I will be teaching the parents.

Each Sunday all the families gather in the school cafeteria for prayer. The children then go to their classrooms while I remain with the parents and other adults in the cafeteria. Once again, at every level (including the adult level), the same subject matter is taught. The only brief exception to this is that the second-grade students spend time after January focusing on preparation for First Confession and First Holy Communion.

In each session we not only cover the subject for that day (e.g., the Sacraments or the Ten Commandments) but we also read a Bible story. One of the great losses in modern times is the loss of storytelling—and the Bible has great stories!

Frankly, standing instruction # 1 for parents is READ THE BIBLE TO YOUR CHILDREN—every day if possible! And I model that with the parents. In each class we spend the first 20 minutes or so reading a Bible story, usually from the Catholic Children’s Bible, which does a good job presenting the whole Bible in story form. Then, having read a story (e.g., the Tower of Babel, or David’s Battle with Goliath), we discuss its teaching and I link it to the catechetical material we are covering in the curriculum.

In modeling this, I hope to show the parents how they can do the same with their children at home. Bible stories are memorable and they teach fundamental truths in ways that reach deeper than merely the intellect. They touch the heart and draw the children into the world and mind of God.

Bible stories don’t just teach, they imbue. To imbue means “to inspire or permeate with a feeling or quality; to saturate, suffuse, or steep one in what is taught or presented.”

Thus Bible stories are essential if we want to communicate the culture and world of the Bible to our children and help them to make sense of our glorious faith.

In terms of an overall curriculum, our back-to-basics approach is broken into three main sections. The sections are based on the words of an old hymn that says,

“I once was lost in sin, but Jesus took me in, and then a little light from heaven filled my soul!”

Part 1 (Sept. to Jan.) – Sin – “I once was lost in sin” – We start with the story of Original Sin and read the early chapters that show how God made all things to be very good. But through Original Sin and all the other sins committed and described in the early chapters of Genesis, both creation and man were devastated. Sin and our conniving with the devil are responsible for most of the suffering in the world. Through Bible stories and about forty pages of the My Catholic Faith catechism, we learn of sin’s devastating effects. We distinguish between Original Sin, actual sin, mortal sin, venial sin, the seven deadly sins, and so forth. In so doing, we paint of picture of how we are lost in sin. But we always begin with a review of the story of Original Sin.

In some years we then go on to review the Ten Commandments. In other years we use notes from the My Catholic Faith material that explain specific sins (e.g., Original, personal, actual, mortal, and venial).

Part 2 (pre-Lent through early Easter) – Redemption – “but Jesus took me in” – Having welcomed Jesus as savior of the world at Christmas, we now look to the paschal mystery, wherein Jesus undertakes to save us from our wretched condition. Here, too, we read Bible stories and connect to the elements of Jesus’ ministry to heal, drive out demons, and ultimately ascend the hill of Calvary to engage Satan in battle, suffer, die, rise, and ascend for us. The goal here is to instill a sense of gratitude rather than just to provide information. We strive to “remember,” that is, to have so present in our mind and heart what Jesus has done for us that we are grateful and different because of it. In this module, depending on the year, we study the Sacraments, the public ministry of Jesus, and/or the four pillars of the Christian life (Scripture, active Church life, Sacraments, and prayer) from Acts 2:42 (They devoted themselves to the apostles’ teaching and to fellowship, to the breaking of bread, and to prayer). And thus we meditate on how the Lord Jesus takes us in and ministers to us.

Part 3 (early Easter through Pentecost) – Grace – “And then a little light from heaven filled my soul!” – In saving us, Jesus gives us a new mind and heart, a whole new life. The graces of the Christian life are explored: faith, hope, charity, patience, joy, chastity, forgiveness, mercy, and so many other virtues and gifts. We reflect on the whole new life that Jesus has given us and encourage testimony about the transformation brought about by God’s grace working through Scripture, Sacraments, fellowship, and prayer. If anyone is in Christ, he is a new creation.

It’s a back-to-basics approach, rooted in the basic kerygma. It is meant to draw people into the great drama of life: sin, redemption, and grace.

Its strength is that the entire family is asked to participate. As noted, the real goal is to equip parents to teach their children further at home. In this way the parish acts as a partner rather than seeking to replace the parents in teaching the faith to the children. As pastor I have an obligation to present the truth faith to all. This includes equipping parishioners to hand on the faith and to reach a full, adult (mature) faith. Having every age group present for Sunday school is the fundamental way I seek to accomplish this.

The drawback to this approach is clear: the program is very pastor-driven and pastor-centric. While my director of religious education is very much on board and supportive, who is to say that the next pastor will be willing or able to do the work each year of assembling a curriculum and teaching in the program each Sunday? Further, I have a parish whose size and Mass schedule permit this sort of Sunday morning approach. Not every parish has a sufficient gap between Masses to enable the pastor to be present and teach at that time or to that extent.

Thus this basic model needs to be adapted in different settings based on time and skill sets.

Also, I am unaware of a “spiral curriculum” that currently exists to meet our needs. Thus I have needed to assemble it and find resources working with my DRE.

A “spiral curriculum” refers to one that has all grades studying the same material and centers on the three themes of sin, redemption, and grace in a repeating three-year cycle.

1. 1. Three-year cycle for sin:
      1. the story of Original Sin and its aftermath,
      2. the Ten Commandments,
      3. and the species of sin.
   2. Three-year cycle for redemption:
      1. the paschal mystery,
      2. liturgy and sacraments,
      3. the ministry and miracles of Jesus.
   3. Three-year cycle for grace:
      1. the gifts of the Holy Spirit,
      2. the fruits of the Holy Spirit,
      3. the species of grace (sanctifying, actual, personal, the charisms, and so forth).

Perhaps another pastor would structure the program differently. But this is my approach and I have tried to teach it to other pastors and DREs. Many have been receptive and have adapted elements of it for their own use.

The key is that the whole family is educated and that parents and other adults must be assisted in their teaching of children.

So, back to basics! No more handing over catechesis to a “professional class.” Religious education must also take place in the home. Parents, are you reading Bible stories to your children? How are you growing in your own faith? And don’t be anxious. The basic curriculum is not that hard. It’s easily memorized in the words of an old song:

I once was lost in Sin

But Jesus took me in.

And then a little light from heaven filled my soul!

Sin, redemption, and grace. Keep it simple; don’t complicate it. The details may vary each year after the mastery of the basic elements.

Don’t wait for your parish to get on board. If you’re not already a homeschooler, get a children’s Bible and start reading the Genesis stories to your children (and to yourself)!

Here’s a kind of jazzed-up version of the hymn I referred to above. It looks as if it was filmed in the 1970s, so take that into consideration.

In the Gospel this Sunday, the Lord gives four important principles for a disciple. He also teaches on the concept of being worthy of Him. We tend think of being worthy as acting in a way that meets a certain standard, but the Greek word for “worthy” involves more than merely external behavior, important though that is. To be worthy of the Lord is to ascribe worth and give proper weight to who He is and what He teaches. Let’s take a look.

I.  The priority of a disciple – The text says that Jesus said to His apostles, “Whoever loves father or mother more than me is not worthy of me, and whoever loves son or daughter more than me is not worthy of me; and whoever does not take up his cross and follow after me is not worthy of me.”

The Lord could not be clearer: we are to love Him more than we love anyone or anything else. There is to be no person or thing in our life that has greater importance than the Lord. So fundamental is the priority of our love and obedience to Him that it eclipses even the most fundamental relationships in our family. Our love and honor for our parents is very important; it is mandated by the Fourth Commandment: Honor your Father and your Mother. And yet, even it cannot overrule the most fundamental of all the commandments, the First Commandment: I am the Lord your God, You shall have no other gods before me.

Therefore, even the love and respect owed to parents and the love that parents should have for their children cannot be preferred to the love and obedience we owe to God. If a son or daughter, even while still a minor, were to hear a parent instructing him or her to disregard a clear teaching or commandment of God, the child would have to respond, “Sorry, Mom, Dad, but I love God more. I cannot obey you in this matter.”

The same is true for any other relationship. If a spouse, a sibling, a boss, or a government official were to try to compel us to act contrary to God’s truth and commands, the answer must always be the same: “I’m sorry but I cannot comply; I love God more. Even if I suffer at your hands as a result, I cannot and will not comply.”

The love of Jesus, who is Lord, supersedes every other love, respect, or honor due to others, be they persons, philosophies, nations, or political parties.

Truth be told, many Christians manifest greater allegiance to political parties, careers, and the opinions of men in general than to the Lord and His Church. Many prefer worldly thinking to what the Lord teaches. Many cave in and compromise to what others demand of them in order to ingratiate themselves to others, to gain access, or simply to preserve a false peace. Silencing the Gospel is never a recipe for true or lasting peace.

II.  The Profundity of a Disciple – Jesus speaks strongly and says that such people as this are not “worthy” of me. As noted above, we tend to measure worthiness externally, by whether we live up to expectations of us. While this is proper, it overshadows the more internal dimensions that are the deeper part of being worthy.

The Greek word translated here as “worthy” is axios, and which is related to weights and scales. Most literally the word means “drawing down the scale,” and thus implies weighing as much or more than something else.

Internally, the concept of being worthy of the Lord here is that we assign a greater weightiness in our life to Him than to the passing treasures and trinkets of the world. We are to ascribe greater “worth” or “worthiness” to Him than to anything or anyone else. We take the Lord seriously. His teaching is to weigh on us and to carry a weight in our life. This internal disposition of being worthy of God produces the external behaviors that are worthy of Him.

The Lord paints a kind of picture for us to show that if we love anyone or anything more than we love him, the scales are tipped wrongly; we are not ascribing enough weight or worth to Jesus and are thus living in an unworthy way.

As we “size things up” in life and weigh the true importance of things, remember this: No person, no political party, no boss, no person at all who seeks our money, time, loyalty, or acquiescence ever died for us. None of them can ever save us, for none of them is God. If we esteem anyone or anything more than we do Him, then we are weighting His Blood and His saving love too lightly.

III. The passion of a disciple – The text says, … and whoever does not take up his cross and follow after me is not worthy of me. Whoever finds his life will lose it, and whoever loses his life for my sake will find it.

Every disciple must be willing to take up his cross; if he does so, there is ample reward. The Lord originally offered us paradise, but Adam and Eve wanted a better deal. Welcome to that better deal: Paradise Lost. In Paradise Lost, suffering is a reality. But suffering, by God’s gracious mercy, is also redemptive. The Lord teaches us that we must join our cross to His. Taking up the cross is a way of “losing” our life in the sense that it often diminishes our enjoyment of this earthly existence. But in dying to self and to this world, we find our true life: God and the things He offers!

It is interesting to note that we are often willing to take up crosses for worldly gain. We work hard for a paycheck or to earn a college degree. Why not then for the Lord? An old song says, “No cross, no crown.” The Lord asks of us no less than what the world demands for its trinkets. The Lord teaches that rewards far greater than worldly trinkets come with the cross He instructs us to take up. The Lord’s insistence on the need for the cross is not unreasonable, yet many of us bristle. Although we will gladly spend several years and a lot of money in order to obtain a college diploma, going to Church on Sundays or giving up some of our favorite sins is viewed as unreasonable, or just too much trouble.

In effect, the Lord demands that we take him seriously, that we give weight to His words and to His promise. If we dismiss His words lightly then we are not worthy of Him, if we do not give proper weight to His words then we do not take Him seriously. This is a bad idea because He who mercifully summons us now to His truth will one day be our judge.

Be worthy of the Lord. Give sufficient weight to what He says. Respect and obedience are the proper virtues for a disciple who accords worth (weight) to the Lord’s teaching and acts in such a manner.

IV.  The prize of a disciple – The text says, Whoever receives a prophet because he is a prophet will receive a prophet’s reward, and whoever receives a righteous man because he is a righteous man will receive a righteous man’s reward. And whoever gives only a cup of cold water to one of these little ones to drink because the little one is a disciple—amen, I say to you, he will surely not lose his reward.

The Lord promises reward if we get our priorities and passions right, if we welcome His word and give weight to what He says and who He is!

Even now, we can enjoy the fruits of God’s Word as we listen to His prophets and see our life change. In welcoming the Word in my life, I have seen many positive changes. I am less anxious, more patient, and more loving than before. I have greater wisdom. I have seen sins and sinful attitudes reduced and graces come alive. Word and sacrament have had their effect; accepting the prophecy of the Church has given me a prophet’s reward. How about you?

Further, the Lord says that He will reward every work of mercy by us, which is in effect a small share in the cross. We pray that God will forget our sins, but it is said that God will never forget the good things we have done and will never be outdone in generosity.

The Lord does not demand the cross without pointing to its reward. The cross ushers in the crown. Do you believe this? Do you take the Lord seriously? Do you give weight to and count as worthy the Word that He speaks to you?

One of the great struggles in the Church today is effectively catechizing God’s people. In a world so full of error, distortion, and half-truths, this has never been more necessary.

I was asked recently to present my thoughts on this topic at a conference with Master Catechists. I did so from the perspective not only of a pastor but also of one who grew up at the end of the era of the “old Church” and through the cultural revolution of late 1960s. Today’s post is the first part of my presentation at the conference; I’ll be posting the remainder over the next several days.

Many approaches and experiments in catechesis have been tried over the past several decades and, frankly, all have ultimately failed. Though we need to try something new, that something new is really something old. We must go back to basics and tell the old stories again, within the family environment rather than just at the parish level.

In this first part of this article I’d like to reflect on four failed models of the past. I do not refer to specific programs, but more to some of the educational philosophies that underlie our practices then and now.

I. The professional class – At some point, especially in the immigrant years of Catholicism in this country, the task of catechesis shifted from the family and the culture experience of the home to a kind of “professional” class of teachers, largely priests and religious sisters.

In this system, religious education was almost always conducted away from the home. It took place in Catholic schools, which were being built in huge numbers in those years and staffed by ample numbers of religious nuns and brothers. In a largely Protestant culture, which also dominated in the public schools, the building of Catholic schools was considered a high priority for Catholics. Parents were strongly encouraged to enroll their children in Catholic schools.

Catholic schools and C.C.D. (Confraternity of Christian Doctrine) programs were remarkably effective, well-staffed, and well-attended in the immigrant years of the first half of the 20^th century and well into the 1970s.

Religious education and upbringing became a task largely conducted away from the home. Children either attended Catholic school, or if that was not possible, went to C.C.D. classes (established to educate children who attended secular schools). The point was that the education of children in the faith was entrusted to professional religious educators, priests, sisters, and some lay teachers.

Surely there were many reasons that this scenario came to be. Industrialization, urbanization, and poverty often put great strains on immigrant families. Educational levels in general among largely poor Catholics were low and to some extent it made sense to entrust the critical task of religious education to the Church. But the effect was the marginalization of parents as the primary religious educators of their children.

And this would have lasting effects when the system of priests and religious collapsed in the 1970s. Religious sisters and priests, once a numerous and effective army of teachers, diminished and largely disappeared almost overnight. Despite this, parents were still kept on the periphery. But, frankly, how could catechesis have been redirected back to the home at that time? For at least three generations, Catholics had been led to relegate religious formation to the parish rather than the home. Attitudes change slowly and there was also little catechetical experience to rely on within the family.

In reaction to this, many well-meaning but at-first-untrained laity stepped into the gap to prop up the parish-based system. Despite the revolution of the late 1960s and the exodus of religious, parish-based religious instruction continued as usual.

Add to this problem the fact that “professional class” of religious leaders and teachers in the 1960s and later came to be infested by dissenters. Poorly trained adults were at first little equipped to resist those dissenters and were easily led astray.

So the first problem is that it is never good when parents and other adults are told to consign the religious education of their children to others. It tends to remove faith from the home and allows a class of dissenters too much access and influence. As we shall see, this left many chronological adults with a faith that was little more than elementary.

II. The priority was on children – In all the immigrant years and into the 1960s, the whole focus and priority was to teach children the faith. So critical was the Catholic education of children considered to be, that bishops often instructed pastors of new parishes to build the school first (holding Mass in the hall) and build the church later.

With the education of children in the faith such a priority, the education of adults suffered and in many places was non-existent. Certainly there was little attempt to teach parents to hand on the faith. Why should there be when the parish was handling the teaching of the children?

But something sets up when the faith is taught only to children and not “translated” to an adult audience. Children are great at learning the basics, but they are not always able to “connect the dots” or to discern the deeper meaning and relevance of what is taught. That sort of process requires ongoing formation as people progress through the various stages of life. Most parishes were so focused on the elementary education of children that few resources were left to devote to the ongoing formation of adults through the various stages of their lives.

Even if adults had some access to the “nuts and bolts” of elementary doctrine from their childhood instruction, there was little capacity for most to build upon this foundation and apply the faith to the increasingly complex moral issues of the modern world.

Frankly, most parents were poorly equipped to be spiritual leaders in the home (and their children did not look to them for instruction in the faith). Neither were they equipped to be spiritual leaders in the community or to apply their faith to the temporal order or within the community. Some of this explains why, despite so many Catholics in this land, we have so little influence within the temporal order, the political realm, and so forth. Many Catholics make little or no connection between their faith and how they vote or how they think about any number of worldly topics or matters. Quite frankly, most were not taught to do so. Faith was something discussed “down at the parish” by priests, nuns, and catechists. At home and out in the world, the laity had not been encouraged to say or do much other than to engage in a few pious practices (e.g., saying the rosary, not eating meat on Fridays, and attending Mass on a few holy days here and there).

Living or discussing the faith outside the parish was minimal. And inside the parish, the faith was taught almost exclusively to children. Add to this the tendency, even the demand, for short sermons and Masses, and adults were left largely on the margins of educational outreach.

This child-centered focus of Catholic education was not only unhealthy but practically guaranteed that Catholics would be (and still are) sitting ducks when error and demanded compromise came knocking at ever increasing levels as the culture melted down.

III. The process was perfunctory – Rote learning through the use of memorized questions and answers was the common method of educating youngsters in the first half of the 20^th century. Two factors influenced this: the focus on children and the size of parishes.

As we have seen, with the focus of religious education almost entirely on children, there developed an educational model that best fit children. The “rote learning” of the Baltimore Catechism was good in itself. It presented the basics of the faith well in a concise question and answer format. As a rule, children are much better at memorization than are adults. Further, it is appropriate to provide them with basic principles as a foundation on which to build.

But therein lies the weakness as well. If all that is done is to memorize pithy questions and answers, much is left undone. For example, what do the answers mean at a deeper level? What are the consequences for our spiritual, moral, social, and emotional lives? It is true that “God is everywhere,” but what are the implications of that? Jesus is the Second Person of the Blessed Trinity, who became flesh and dwelt among us. But more deeply, who is Jesus Christ and what does it mean to call him Lord and God, yet also our brother? How do we experience Him? The rote method of memorizing questions and answers can supply substance but is there time for adequate reflection? Usually there was not.

And that leads to the second factor that influenced this quick, rote method: huge parishes. Many of the parishes of the immigrant period and up to the middle of the 20^th century were huge. Some of the ethnic parishes of Chicago had as many as 20,000 members. Some of the parishes took up an entire city block, with the parish and school buildings along with convents and rectories (housing armies of priests and religious). Many parishes had gymnasiums, credit unions, and social halls as well. Imagine the Mass schedules and confessions in parishes of this size! Many parishes had as many as 15 Masses on Sunday in the upper and lower churches and sometimes in the school hall—all celebrated before noon. Confessions were heard for as long as six hours on Saturdays with as many as six priests in the boxes. Parochial schools sometimes had double shifts in order to accommodate the large number of students, and there were as many as 60 children per classroom.

It’s an amazing picture, but it also shows how and why a “quick and basic” approach to just about everything took hold. These parishes were too easily like factories, quickly churning out product. Masses were usually low Masses, and the confessions were often hurried. Religious instruction had to be quick and focused. There is little time to go deeper in such a “factory system,” in which quantity too easily eclipses quality.

In reaction to this atmosphere, the Baltimore Catechism was pure genius. It captured a lot of content and memorably set it before students. But the questions posed in the catechism weren’t always the questions that the world was increasingly asking, as a cultural storm brewed heading toward the 1960s.

The depth of knowledge needed to apply the faith to changing and complex situations was not the strong point of the rote system. Add to this the fact that the home was seldom a place for further discussion of the faith and you get a generation or two that is schooled in the basics but has no model to apply them to daily life. Such models are best seen in family settings.

IV. The premise was authority, not truth itself – Before the cultural revolution that threw out (among other things) respect for authority, an argument made from a position of authority carried a certain amount of weight. One might be exhorted to go to Mass, or to believe a certain doctrine because “the Church said so.” Such exhortations were common because they worked.

But after the revolution, not only did the argument from authority carry little weight, it was often an additional reason not to accept something as true, even a reason to scorn it all the more. The argument from authority certainly has a place, but its effectiveness varies a lot from person to person and from culture to culture. Some believers are more prone than others to accept the simple weight of authority. Others seek evidence and demand more reasons.

In the end, the argument from authority has a flawed premise. Something is not true because the Church teaches it; rather, the Church teaches it because it is true. Authority is helpful because issues can be complex and disparate, and authorities or experts can present them coherently. But at the end of the day, something is true of itself, not merely because an authority says so. While the Church is an important vehicle for truth, the truth is from God, and the Church believes, teaches, and proposes something for belief because God has revealed it through the Scriptures, the Book of Creation, and Sacred Tradition.

Pedagogically, this argument from authority, which carried a lot of weight and was a common Catholic appeal, had the drawback of encouraging acceptance of a declaration without going deeper through questions such as these: Why is this so? How is this related to this other teaching that seems to say something different? Are there distinctions to be made and if so what are they? How do we know this is revealed by God and not mere human doctrine? These questions need not be asked in an impudent or contrary way; they are the stuff of rational inquiry, of faith seeking understanding. In the “because the Church says so” mode, one risks accepting a teaching and suffering the same fate as the seed that falls on rocky ground and withers for lack of root, or the seed that falls on the path and is taken away by the the birds of the air, or the seed that falls among thorns and is choked off.

And this is precisely what happened when the revolution hit. The beautiful, docile (docile meaning teachable, not gullible) faith of many Catholics lacked the depth necessary to endure the tsunami that came in successive waves. Thus the generations raised on rote, authority-based systems in which both the questions and the answers were supplied could not withstand the questions raised by a post-revolutionary world. Parents, especially, were ill-equipped to set up a wall of truth for their children, since catechesis had not been their bailiwick for generations and the catechesis they did have was rooted in the child-centered systems of Catholic parishes and schools.

Sadly, as we know, a lot of these structures remain in place today. Family-based catechesis is still rare; whatever religious education does occur is still mostly consigned to schools and parishes rather than taking place in the home. Opportunities for adult education have increased, but most parishes are still heavily focused on catechizing children (not a bad thing) and provide limited opportunities for adults. Further, there is almost no effort made to help parents to be better catechizers of their children at home.

So although the “old days” at least had good content, we know that by the 1970s the content had become quite poor—even in some cases erroneous and heretical.

As a way forward, we need both good content and better support structures. I’ll continue with more on this in Monday’s post.

Memories