The Consequences of 50 Years of Poor Catechesis: 2

Faith formation

classroom

Tackling the Catechesis Problem

At least one parish priest is aware of the Religious Ed problem. Monsignor Charles Pope, writing in the National Catholic Register, says we’ve made 4 big mistakes with Catechesis over the last 50 years:

  • Religious education was almost always conducted away from the home by professional religious educators, priests, sisters, and some lay teachers
  • The whole focus was to teach children the faith and the education of adults suffered and in many places were non-existent
  • The process was perfunctory – rote learning through the use of memorized questions and answers was the common method of educating youngsters
  • The premise was authority, not truth itself, but after the cultural revolution of the 60s 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

In a follow-up essay,he offered a solution for fixing these problems – a new model for the catechetical process where children and their parents both take part in the learning process. Adapting his model to a large parish may prove difficult, however, but it is at least encouraging to know someone is trying to implement some kind of fix.

More is Needed

Since CARA did not keep statistics prior to 1965, there’s no way of knowing when exactly the Catholic Ed dropout trend started. But it has been occurring for at least four generations now – first with the Baby Boomers (born 1946-1964), then with Generation X (born in the early1960s to the early 1980s), then the Millennials / Generation Y (born in the early 1980s to around 2000), and it is continuing with Generation Z (born in the late 1990s).

Monsignor Pope is right that Catechesis today should include parents. But it should really be expanded to include all those Catholics from the past three generations who were Catholic Ed dropouts.  The question is how best to accomplish such an imposing and difficult task.

Many dioceses are currently looking at how their marriage preparation programs are structured in response to the Synod on the Family and Pope Francis’ suggestions in Amoris Laetitia.  In revitalizing their Marriage prep programs dioceses should be aware that Marriage Prep programs can certainly become ‘adders’ for expanding Catechesis.  As Christian Meert, Director of the Office of Family Life for the Diocese of Colorado Springs, CO, said in an article in the National Catholic Register recently, many of today’s engaged couples do not understand the faith or the sacrament as couples generally did 40 or 50 years ago.  So a refresher course on the sacraments and Church Doctrine, especially on morality, and even spending some time on Apologetics, should definitely be part of any marriage prep program today.

But including more Catechesis in marriage prep will not reach the many Catholic teenagers, college students and already married (or, all too sadly, divorced) adults who are allowing their thoughts on religion and morality to be re-shaped by the media and today’s secular culture. As already mentioned a 12-year CCD program should be a basic requirement in every parish.

Four Suggestions

But how do we educate three different generations of Catholic adults about their Faith when the average Catholic today is mainly concerned about work, raising a family, making ends meet, maintaining their house, enjoying what free time they have, and putting enough money away for retirement so they don’t end up being homeless old people? Learning about Catholic Doctrine why we believe what we believe, and how we should integrate it into our daily lives is, sadly, just not a priority for too many average Catholics.  And tackling the lapsed Catholics, hogtying them and dragging them to classes is, unfortunately, not an option.

Perhaps if Church leaders in the U.S. put their heads together and decided to tackle this problem they could come up with a solution. Until that happens, however, here are some fairly basic things parish priests and devout Catholics should consider doing.

Number One

Some pastors and parishes throughout the country are trying hard to create a Catholic Faith Community in their parishes. Where there is a parochial school that’s part of the parish this is a little bit easier to accomplish, but the majority of parishes do not have this ‘added draw.’  So they hold fundraisers and festivals, and the various parish societies and the local K of C chapter hosts card parties, dinners, and pancake breakfasts, all in hopes of bringing the parish community together.

What parish priests and parish councils today seem to be forgetting is that there is strength in numbers. Instead of parishes working independently to create a stand-alone parish Catholic Faith Community, wherever possible parishes should consider working together, on a Vicariate, a Diocesan, or an Arch-Diocesan level.  The Catholic Church is, after all, the universal church.  It is worldwide; it is not just the local parish.

For instance, we are a nation of sports fanatics but most parishes do not have adequate land or facilities for even a small sports program. Vicariate-wide or Diocese-wide youth sports leagues, on the other hand, could be formed with help from the Catholic Youth Organization (CYO).  Even adult sports leagues could be formed.

Arch Bishops, Bishops, Pastors, and parish councils should also be tapping in to the expertise of local active and retired Catholics from all walks of life and asking them to get involved and volunteer some of their time and come up with ideas on how to create a Catholic Community within a Vicariate or an Arch Diocese. Business co-ops, farmers markets, flea markets, craft shows, and a directory of local Catholic-owned businesses – are just some ideas that could help in this effort.

But some outside the box thinking is needed to make sure all registered Catholic families within a Vicariate or an Arch Diocese are aware of activities that may be taking place.  Parish bulletins are just not going to reach every family in either the parish or the Vicariate when only 24% of them are attending mass each week.  And getting the 76% of Catholics who do not go to mass involved in the parish and then going to mass again and learning about their faith has to be the first priority.

Number Two

The Clergy, and specifically parish priests, need to recognize that those Catholics in the pews on Sunday are the devout Catholics – the 24 percent who actually go to mass each week.  Devout Catholics don’t need to hear ‘Kumbaya’ or ‘feel good’ sermons.

The Catholics in the pews need to hear sermons that reinforce and explain Catholic Doctrine and Catholic Social Teaching as it applies in today’s world so they can go out make good arguments for living a Catholic life to all the lapsed Catholics and cafeteria Catholics they know. Once all the lapsed and cafeteria Catholics in the country are brought back into the Church we can finally look to evangelizing on a wider scale.

Number Three

Catholic laypeople, especially those who are conservatives and TLM aficionados, need to speak up and get more involved in running the parishes they belong to – volunteer to serve on the parish council or take part in any parish ministries (like Faith Formation or whatever name their parish gives to Religious Education) where they can make a difference. They can even just take some time to talk to their parish priest and let him know they’d like to hear sermons more geared toward explaining doctrine and examining current social issues.

The new, modern, post-Vatican II Church has seen a tremendous fall off in both vocations and mass attendance. Clearly, the progressive plan for modernizing the Church has been a failure.  Traditional, devout Catholics need to take a page from the progressive playbook – they need to get involved in order to change things.

Number Four

Catholic clergy and laypeople alike need to wake up and realize that Christianity, in general, and Catholicism, in particular, are under attack by the secular progressives today. Big Government is the religion of the secular progressives.  Their goal is to replace Religion and Christian morality with a secular, government-imposed belief system.  To do this, they must do away with traditional beliefs on sexuality, marriage, and the family.

One way to combat this secular ideology is to throw the old adage ‘never discuss religion or politics at family gatherings’ right out the window. Religion and politics should be the number one topic at any family gathering these days.

Our primary goal with such conversation should be to convince any lapsed Catholic family members to get to Confession and start living their faith. To do so we may have to be prepared to re-educate them on why we believe what we believe first, and explain Natural Law and how Catholic Doctrine is based on both Faith and Reason.  We should be prepared to tear down emotional arguments and the moral relativism philosophy that the progressives preach today and counter their arguments with the Truth.

Contraception is a sin. Life begins at conception.  Abortion is murder.  Euthanasia is not mercy, it is murder.

We learned in high school Biology class that all behaviors are intrinsic or learned. Identical twin studies have confirmed that there is no ‘gay’ gene.  Homosexuality is a learned behavior that is intrinsically disordered.

We are born male or female. We don’t get a choice.  Marriage is between a man and woman.  Marriage is for life.

Many people do not like confrontation and choose to avoid arguments, especially when they may not be good debaters. But we may do well to remember Jesus’ own words (Mathew 10:34-37) – “Do not think I have come to send peace upon the earth; I have come to bring a sword, not peace.  For I have come to set a man at variance with his father, and a daughter with her mother, and a daughter-in-law with her mother-in-law; and a man’s enemies will be those of his own household.  He who loves father or mother more than me is not worthy of me, and he who loves son or daughter more than me is not worthy of me.”

Yes, priests should be pastoral, and yes, mercy and forgiveness are at the heart of our Catholic Faith. But this does not mean that we are allowed to turn our back on the Truth, even for a minute.

Share on facebook
Facebook
Share on google
Google+
Share on twitter
Twitter
Share on linkedin
LinkedIn
Share on pinterest
Pinterest

36 thoughts on “The Consequences of 50 Years of Poor Catechesis: 2”

  1. Pingback: Confirmation Part 3: It’s a Conundrum, But Not Really - Catholic Stand

  2. Pingback: The Curious Case of Fr. Edwin Dwyer is a Lesson for U.S. Catholics - Catholic Stand

  3. The faith starts at home. Creating Catholic families where the faith permeates who they are in ALL aspects. This is the goal and some RE program or even a good catholic school will not accomplish this task. We need to talk with families about BEING Catholic every day. This is the key in bringing up Catholic kids. The TV shows they watch and don’t. The music they listen and don’t. The look of their house – holy pictures and crucifixes. The Catholic devotions that they family does together. Just Eating dinner together is a start. Being Catholic in their words and actions. In every way possible. Starting at birth and not stopping. This is the key. Not some program at church or some homily at Mass.

  4. Big Government is the religion of the secular progressives. Their goal
    is to replace Religion and Christian morality with a secular,
    government-imposed belief system. To do this, they must do away with
    traditional beliefs on sexuality, marriage, and the family.
    –Gene Van Son

    Mr. Van Son, you left out replacing the Gospels with “Render the poor unto Caesar”.
    Most of my fellow Catholics, especially bishops, have a strong urge to appeal to Caesar for some handout or another.

    As the State grows, it crowds out or assimilates all else. Our bishops should be strong public voices to restrict the State to the few things for which it has any competence at all, law & order and national defense. Asking the State to do anything else is rendering unto Caesar that which is God’s.

  5. In reply to adam Aquinas (below):

    The article stated that “all behaviors are intrinsic or learned” not that ‘all behaviors are learned’ as you stated. Apparently you misread it.

    There is no such word as “monogygote.” Perhaps you meant ”monozygotic.”

    You also incorrectly state that twin studies “have yielded contradictory results.” Studies of identical twins have confirmed that same-sex attraction is not determined by heredity or other biological factors. A 2010 Swedish study found concordance rates of 18% for male identical twins and 22% for female identical twins. An American study found concordance rates of 31.6% for identical twins. Because there is not a 100% concordance among identical twins, genetic factors are not the cause of sexual orientation.

    Also, while an individual’s sexual identity or sexual orientation may not be binary, an individual’s biological sexuality is. Most research suggests that a person’s sexual orientation may be influenced by individual preference or choice. Contrary to the notion that most sexual minorities undergo a one-time discovery of their true identities, 50% of one study’s respondents had changed their identity label more than once since first relinquishing their hetero- sexual identity.

  6. I believe that your propositions to counteract the 50 year “failure of catechesis” is impoverished and would be never be successful. Didn’t work in the past and won’t in the future. Why you base your ideation upon false premises. You make many statements without corroboration and without attribution.

    While I am sure that your high school biology teacher could have said all behavior is learned; well, it’s not because science has clearly demonstrated that behavior is at times innate and genetically determined and at times learned. I am also sure that your biology teacher never spoke of climate change, evolution of the species and big bang theory and black holes. They didn’t know about that in those days. Our base of knowledge changes and evolves. Catechisis cannot be based upon false assumptions.

    You interest in gynecology is fascinating also. Homosexuality is not a choice. Twin studies with monogygote twins have yielded contradictory results and do not disprove not prove a genetic basis for homosexuality. Current research indicates that this propensity is a function of a combination of genetics, pre-birth hormonal influences, cellular receptors for hormones, mosaicism, environment, etc. There are 9 determinations of orientation. If homosexuality was “disordered” why would Pope Francis say clearly on the plane from Armenia, “I believe that the church not only should apologize to the person who is gay whom it has offended,” he added, “but has to apologize to the poor, to exploited women, to children exploited for labor; it has to ask forgiveness for having blessed many weapons.” If he considered homosexuality disordered why apologize. Because words and assumptions like “choice” lead to violence, not love.

    Sex is not binary, this has been proven over the past years. If sex were binary there would not be transgender people, hermaphrodites, cis gendered, asexual, bisexual, etc individuals. The overwhelming majority of self-identified Catholics agree that the above is very true.

    The majority of Catholics believe that the majority of Church beliefs on human sexuality especially on masturbation and contraception are arguably wrong. Science supports these rejections of traditional teaching. The world is not flat, we did evolve, and genesis is not literal nor is Leviticus. Remember when looking at contextual Biblical interpretation a test without a context is a pretext for having it say what you want. God created man and woman but in the 65,000 years of human normalcy the human genome has evolved and changed….that’s the mystery of God’s plan.

    So true catechesis involves teaching people to think, to question, to research, to examine …. to think and believe based upon discerning all sources of knowledge. Reversion will be the death knoll of Catholicism. I am willing to provide scientific reference for all my assertions and claims. More science than my high school biology teacher ever believed could exist.

    1. Adam, in the interest of space and time, I have two responses to what you have said.

      First, the current state of the science concludes that many human behaviors, inclinations and tendencies, perhaps even most human behaviors, inclinations and tendencies, likely have a biological component correlated with them. But they are not genetically “determined.”

      Our behaviors, inclinations and tendencies are influenced by a complex interaction between biology and environment. In this sense, for example, it is quite likely that eating disorders have some form of biological correlation, some biological component, for some individuals, that is heightened by environmental factors. It is quite likely that sexual addictions have some form of biological correlation, for some individuals, that is heightened by environmental factors. It is quite likely that drug addiction has some form of biological correlation, for some individuals, that is heightened by environmental factors. It is quite likely that some forms of violent behavior have some form of biological correlation, for some individuals, that is heightened by environmental factors. So it most likely is with homosexuality.

      Some people, usually a relatively small percentage of the population, exhibit these out-of-the-norm characteristics and behaviors. But the fact that some people are, in some sense of the phrase, “born this way,” does not provide a basis for condoning or justifying the underlying appropriateness or morality of that behavior or inclination. We are all born with disordered inclinations and tendencies that we are called to transcend. Each one of us. Whatever these disorders are, we are called through love to transcend them, whatever they might be. Our biology is not our destiny; God’s will is.

      Second, Jesus spoke, in Mark 7, about the things that defile a person. To defile is to make unclean or unholy. As Jesus said, it is not what goes into a person that makes him unholy, it is what comes out of a person, out of “the human heart.” Among those things that makes a person unholy is sexual immorality, in Greek, porneia – fornication, adultery, incest, homosexuality, lesbianism and bestiality. The Church has always taught, teaches, and will always teach, that sex is moral, even holy, between one man and one woman who are married to each other. All other sexual acts are immoral, they defile us, they make us unholy.

      One of the primary goals of the modern secular agenda, and in particular those in the Church who are influenced by it and advocate for it, is to normalize the sexual revolution with respect to the Church’s teaching. This will not happen.

  7. The author did not respond to any of the comments on his “part 1” article. So I’ll say it again. These articles are flawed in their interpretation of the “dropout” data which claims that since 1965, 70 to 75% fewer children attend either a Catholic high school or high school CCD, than attended Catholic elementary and/or CCD. But the data only starts in 1965. How do you know that it hasn’t ALWAYS been so? Don’t claim that there is a trend that started in 1965; you have no support for it.

    And why do most of the articles on this site (and others) egg on “especially those who are conservatives and TLM aficionados”? Personally I don’t know any “TLM aficionados” and while I used to consider myself conservative, I’m actually pretty middle-of-the-road when compared to the attitudes that I see online. “Middle-of-the-road” Catholics were once abundant, but nowadays it seems like everyone is asked to take sides in the phony “liberal vs. conservative” debate. I say phooey to that. Fortunately the average church-going Catholic doesn’t see this polarization, since it only seems to exist online and not in real life.

    1. Maybe you missed this . . . “Since CARA did not keep statistics prior to 1965, there’s no way of knowing when exactly the Catholic Ed dropout trend started. But it has been occurring for at least four generations now “

    2. Don’t be obtuse. We know exactly what the author’s point is. When he says “It may just be that poor Catechesis over the last 50 years is the
      reason why only 24% of adult Catholics go to mass on a weekly basis
      today” he is clearly saying that “the last 50 years” are the problem. And I’m saying there is no way to use this data as part of that claim. For all we know, the number of “drop outs” between elementary school and high school has ALWAYS been 70 to 75%. (personally, I don’t believe the number was that high in the 1960’s, and isn’t that high now. Except perhaps in those dioceses like mine where Confirmation is given way too early.)

    3. Don’t be snide. You are attributing a claim where none exists. “It may just be” sounds like conjecture; it does not sound like a claim.

      You state,” For all we know, the number of “drop outs” between elementary school and high school has ALWAYS been 70 to 75%.” If you are correct the ‘ongoing’ high dropout rate likely left a bunch of adult Catholics unable to deal with the sexual
      revolution of the 60’s, which also could have contributed to the drop off in
      mass attendance, so you are adding validity to the conjecture.

    4. Oh for crying out loud. There is no data pre-1965. Therefore, it is impossible to use it to compare “the last 50 years” to anything before. Is that really so hard to understand?

    5. Everyone ought to keep track of how many are born in the world every day who are not Catholics – if you start from Luther the numbers will make your head reel.

    6. It appears that you are missing the point. In 1965, per CARA’s data around 55% of Catholics were attending mass on a weekly basis. Now only 24% of Catholics are attending mass on a weekly basis. What caused the decline? This piece posits that poor Catechesis over the last 50 years “may be” a significant contributing factor. If the “poor Catechesis has been going on for longer than the last 50 years that would just add more weight to this conjecture. Do you understand the difference between a claim and conjecture?

      You also seem to think this essay is saying ‘the problem was Vatican II’ but I think you are misinterpreting. The statement, “The new, modern, post-Vatican II Church has seen a tremendous fall off in both vocations and mass attendance. Clearly, the progressive plan for modernizing the Church has been a failure” says that Vatican II did not fix the problem of declining mass attendance. It does not say that Vatican II is the cause of the problem.

    7. ” Clearly, the progressive plan for modernizing the Church has been a failure ”

      It is interesting that the author thinks 50 years is a really really really long time.
      Vatican II is a brilliant long term course correction that will take a century or more to bear results.

    8. You must know the author pretty well to be able to say what he is thinking. It will take a century — to see if Vatican II was “a brilliant long term correction” or if it was not. We are now half way to that century mark but it does not seem to have helped declining church attendance so far. Or maybe the problem is too many years of poor Catechesis as the author is positing, and the Vatican II, the Novus Ordo mass and having the priest face the congregation were superficial changes that did nothing to fix the real problem.

    9. The author’s bio and credentials tag him as someone too far to the right and it’s obvious he does not have unwavering trust in the Holy Spirit which opened the
      Council. Catechists are only as good as the doctrines they espouse and believe
      me the Catholic world has moved on from unedited first millennia theology – the real problem here. You should think about giving up the nicotine smiley face as
      it’s not compatible with JP’s TOB.

    10. You say, “it’s obvious he does not have unwavering trust in the Holy Spirit which opened the Council” but that is your opinion and something that you are
      surmising based on a pretty short bio. Maybe he does have unwavering faith in the Holy Spirit. Maybe he just does not have unwavering faith in mankind to heed the counsel of the Holy Spirit.

      You also say, “believe me the Catholic world has moved on from unedited first millennia theology – the real problem here.” Why should I or anyone believe you when there is nothing in the CCC that supports your statement. Catholic Doctrine (theology) has not changed.

    11. Do you really think the Holy Spirit relies on human heeding ? It is a wind that
      blows this way and that and none knows where it comes from or where it goes. No, he’s a doubting Thomas type, i think,.or he wouldn’t have written such a
      pessimistic outlook while casting aspersions on a defining moment in time.
      Re: paragraph two – I do not care what anyone thinks, it’s my true and honest
      opinion.

    12. You seem to be forgetting that God gave mankind the gift of free will. Simply put this means man is free to ignore the counsel of the Holy Spirit. The evil one also does his best to make sure that man turns away from God and the counsel of the Holy Spirit.

      Re: paragraph 2 – just because it is your true and honest opinion that does make it correct or right. It only makes it your opinion.

    13. from the Douay Catholic Encyclopedia ” One of the Gifts of the Holy Ghost that
      enables one to judge promptly and correctly what action is to be taken in a particular case; the gift of counsel enables one to decide by a sort of supernatural intuition the correct course of action.” In other words, you don’t “ignore” counsel
      you act on it.
      Re: paragraph 2 – Duh, that’s what i said.

    14. Your Catholic education seems to lacking. You do not seem to understand God’s gift of free will. Fee will means we have a choice. We can heed the advice of the Holy Spirit and choose to be good and or we can ignore that counsel and choose to be bad. If you are going to offer up opinions it would behoove your to proffer educated opinions.

    15. I heeded the advice of the Holy Spirit and responded “promptly and correctly” to the author’s blog on this page. Now go away, please.

    16. Again Gus, “50 years of poor catechesis” is a mantra that is just repeated over and over and over. (By people who feel the need to use the word “catechesis” when “Catholic education” would be a lot less pretentious, BTW.) As if repetition will turn it into fact. Well it’s not fact. Education didn’t suddenly turn sour in 1965, or any other year since then. My parents claim they got some really strange stuff taught to them in the 1940’s and 1950’s. You’ll find that the quality of education is good in some locations and some years, and poor in other locations and other years. But to generally say “50 years of poor education”. Nope. I don’t believe it.

    17. Larry, you are completely missing the point. Catechesis (which is very good word because it encompasses all the different kinds of religious education) is the issue being discussed. Whether it has been lacking for 50 years or for 100 years is not really relevant. CARA only has data going back to 1965 so no one can say with any
      certainty that this or that was happening prior to 1965. If however, poor Catechesis has been taking place for more than 50 years, that only lends weight to the conjecture. It is entirely plausible based on the supporting data from CARA, that poor Catechesis left millions of Catholics unable to contend with the sexual / counter revolution of the 60s and the secular progressive moral relativism garbage being preached today.

    18. “If however, poor Catechesis has been taking place for more than 50 years”

      And WHY do you say that? I don’t believe it. The articles are so logically screwed up that they don’t make the case for it either.

    19. Just because you don’t believe it does not mean it is not so. You think “the articles” are logically screwed up, but I think that a valid conjecture is being presented and
      logically argued. I guess we will just have to agree to disagree.

    20. “Just because you don’t believe it does not mean it is not so.”

      Again you’re being obtuse. The author’s goal in writing this article was to show the effects of his premise that there has been “50 years of poor catechesis”. The “consequences”. Heck, it’s the title of both articles.

      He threw out some data that shows nothing related to that premise (I’ve already stated what it _does_ show, so I won’t repeat myself).

      Maybe the author himself could respond. What was your point in writing these articles? Why do you insist (in the titles of the articles themselves) that the last 50 years of catechesis have been “poor”? What do you mean by “poor”? How do you know that catechesis prior to 1965 wasn’t equally “poor”? Your wife has been a “certified” catechist (whatever that means) for a long time – so how is she partly to blame for this? Why do “conservatives and TLM aficionados” need to play a special role? What in your mind is a “conservative”, for that matter? Please explain yourself.

    21. Larry, get a dictionary. That statement is not obtuse and neither was my earlier statement. Maybe the author is not replying to you because you’re dim witted – you can’t grasp the point of this article, even after I’ve already explained it to you, and now you admit that you don’t even know what a certified catechist is. Let me try one more time: this article is saying that it may be because of poor Catechesis that many Catholics have lost their faith because they have been unable to successfully counter or deal with the anti-Catholic, anti-Christian secular messaging that has been so prevalent since the 60s. He could only go back 50 years because CARA doesn’t have any date prior to this time. The loss of faith is indicated by the decline in weekly mass attendance.

      You have drawn an illogical conclusion as to what this article is saying based on the one statement that Vatican II did not effectively deal with loss of faith many Catholics have experienced. You are assuming the author is saying the problem was Vatican II. The author is positing the problem is poor Catechesis and Vatican II did not adequately address this problem. It could be that Vatican II was not even aware of the existence of the problem because no data existed prior to Vatican II. And by the way, to teach CCD in a parish Catechists must get certified by taking a diocese-approved certification program.

    22. OK, I guess that marks the end of the intelligent part of this discussion.

      If the author ever chooses to answer the question I asked, I would be glad to see the answers. But unfortunately that does not seem to happen very often on this site.

    23. You sound defensive. The author isn’t comparing “the last 50 years” of catechetical practices to anything pre-1965. I challenge you to prove me wrong, but beware, you’re not allowed any claims of the form “I know what the author is really thinking.”

      The author is pointing out that what has been the practice for the last 50 years isn’t working well. If you want to believe that the problem is connected or is not connected to Vatican II, fine. But the CARA data collected for five decades certainly shows that there’s been no improvement since VII either. And that is troubling–and should be especially troubling to anyone pleased by VII’s changes in Church disciplines–because VII was intended to, among other things, address perceived shortcomings in the totality of Catholic catechetical practice.

    24. Well Michya, I think the questions that I posed to the author (where is he, anyway?) are simple enough. I will repeat them:

      What was your point in writing these articles? Why do you insist (in
      the titles of the articles themselves) that the last 50 years of
      catechesis have been “poor”? What do you mean by “poor”? How do you
      know that catechesis prior to 1965 wasn’t equally “poor”? Your wife has
      been a “certified” catechist (whatever that means) for a long time – so
      how is she partly to blame for this? Why do “conservatives and TLM
      aficionados” need to play a special role? What in your mind is a
      “conservative”, for that matter? Please explain yourself.

    25. Don’t be obtuse. We know exactly what the author’s point is. … [H]e is clearly saying that “the last 50 years” are the problem.
      –Larry Bud

      Don’t be a mind reader. The author is clearly not saying what you claim.

    26. “50 years of poor catechesis”–only 50? Ha! I was alive 50 years ago and even then “rote learning through the use of memorized questions and answers” was long gone from religious instruction. I do remember lots of felt, though.

  8. ” To do this, they must do away with traditional beliefs on sexuality, marriage, and the family.”

    I think this happened at Woodstock.

Leave a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.