A "traditional" catholic told me that the Baltimore Catechism differs from the Catechism of PJPII

[pnewton]

I think you are being over sensitive.

-Tim-

Cat’s post was measured and tactful. Some people have it in them to defend the weaker among us.

How can one say that another is being over sensitive, unless one is oversensitive to the other’s sensitivity?:whacky:

Diagram that thought grammatically. Use a cartoon as needed.

 

[ialsop]

Cat’s post was measured and tactful. Some people have it in them to defend the weaker among us.

How can one say that another is being over sensitive, unless one is oversensitive to the other’s sensitivity?:whacky:

Diagram that thought grammatically. Use a cartoon as needed.

Yes, but I mean I think it is OK if I as a teen would rather not use the Youcat! I personally want more answers! Is that not OK? Thats not “intellectual superiority over the weak” thats just looking for answers.

 

[commenter]

Religious education improves with improved knowledge on the part of the catechist. In the past, in order to teach catechism all that was necessary was to volunteer your time. That is no longer the case, at least in my current diocese.
Now before being allowed to teach, the catechist undergoes a criminal background check. Each prospective catechist is also required to attend Virtus training on recognizing a child predator. The diocese provides catechist training and the catechist is certified at different levels after taking the specific classes offered. These classes are generally offered on set evenings and Saturdays. Finally, before being certified at Level 1, the catechist is also recommended anonymously by at least two other members of the congregation who testify that he/she lives a Catholic lifestyle.
The Ignatius Catechism with its historical artwork helps students see the continuity of Catholic teaching. It is just one example of how catechisms have improved since the publication of the CCC. Since I am just returning from overseas, I don’t remember the name of the series that my parish used. I do know that the teacher’s manual linked each lesson to the CCC and relevant scripture passages.

I agree with this, and I keep my Virtus active. But sometimes “certification” gives a false sense of security. I know sisters and laity who do not faithfully pass on the Catholic Faith in their paid or volunteer positions in parochial schools and CCD. They were all certified and trained as catechists, they all could pass any criminal or “lifestyle” check. They simply don’t consistently believe the Catholic Faith, specifically anything to do with the Magisterium or supernatural Christianity.

They might agree with the Church when it coincides with their beliefs and priorities, but their beliefs and priorities are mostly shaped by the secular culture. These are nice people (the school principals worked far more hours than me, for far less money). I don’t doubt their own relationship with God. Outside the classroom they dissent from Catholic dogma. Inside the school or CCD they simply omit most of the dogmatic foundation, and everything about the Magisterium. Students hear some good ideas in Religion but they are the same good ideas they would also get in a public school Social Studies class and the daily newspaper, along with emphasis on “finding your OWN spirituality”. They never say “support legal abortion, gay marriage, and worshiping spirituality rather than God”; but they make that outcome more likely in their graduates.

So I’m all for training and screening, but don’t put excessive confidence in it.

 

[pnewton]

Yes, but I mean I think it is OK if I as a teen would rather not use the Youcat! I personally want more answers! Is that not OK? Thats not “intellectual superiority over the weak” thats just looking for answers.

Sure it is okay, just like it is also perfectly okay to use it. I use the CCC and the Compendium myself. I think the key is that we use what we find most helpful, but refrain from denigrating these other alternatives. Now understand, I think most all the comments here have been in line with courtesy and charity, so I do not want to come across as making generalities that I truly believe do not apply.

 

[Cat]

Yes, but I mean I think it is OK if I as a teen would rather not use the Youcat! I personally want more answers! Is that not OK? Thats not “intellectual superiority over the weak” thats just looking for answers.

I think it’s just fine that you prefer not to use the Youcat. When I was a teenager, I routinely read Shakespeare for fun.

It only becomes a problem when a teenager or adult thinks that ALL teenagers should abandon the YouCat and use only “higher” documents.

Since you enjoy a good discussion, think about these things:

I think the phrase “dumbed-down” is a troubling one. The facts are that the majority of people in the United States read at a sixth-grade reading level.

And I’m not talking about sixth-grade of 150 years ago, when children of that age were reading Chaucer and Shakespeare and Homer (that’s what having no TV or radio does to society!).

I’m talking about the sixth-graders of today, 2014, who find People Magazine a challenge.

So we are not “dumbling down” a piece of writing if we make it understandable for the average sixth-grader.

Instead, we are “smarting up” a piece of writing if we make it challenging for that sixth grader to understand.

I have written six novels for the “juvenile” target audience (three are published). The reading level of these novels is “eighth grade” Although many kids and adults enjoy my novels, the criticism that I receive most often is that “no kids talk like that.”

Well, that’s true in most American circles. My daughters grew up in skating rinks and private schools, and YES, kids DO “talk like that” in these venues. I chaperoned a group of teenagers from my daughters’ school to a Sondheim concert at Ravinia one year, and during the drive, they discussed the merits of Sondheim’s music compared to the music of other composers.

I was fascinated, and I kept thinking, “Most teenagers have no idea that Sondheim exists and what he has done, and these kids are discussing his merits as a composer, using the most technical of musical terminology. For that matter most teenagers wouldn’t be caught dead at a Ravinia concert!”

So yes, in the skating/private school world, kids DO talk like that, and I feel justified in exposing other kids to that world. That’s what novels do–they take us to places that we do not live in and introduce us to people that we do not associate with in our daily lives. I don’t want to read novels about me and my boring life!

One of the biggest problems in the Catholic Church today is “lack of catechesis.” I see it over and over again on these forums, and I hear about it in my real-life parish.

Think about it–many teens and ADULTS have no idea what the word “catechesis” means.

Some of you seem to think that the answer is exposing these people to “higher” literature and music.

I don’t understand your thinking. I’ve already pointed out that many people can’t even comprehend a newspaper. You think that handing them one of Pope Benedict XVI’s encyclicals is going to help catechize them?!

I don’t agree. I think we need to start way back at the basics. One of the things that made Evangelical Protestantism grow like weeds is the very simple, straightforward writing/teaching that was done in the 1960s and 1970s.

Dr. Bill Bright wrote a small little pamphlet called “The Four Spiritual Laws” that reduced Christian theology down to a few short paragraphs. It is still in use today. If you want to understand what Evangelical Protestants believe and teach, get hold of a copy.

I’ve seen the same kind of pamphlets written by Catholics, and I love them. I fear that many of you would turn up your noses, but I think you’re wrong. This is just what many Catholics need today–a starting point, something simple and basic that they can grab hold of.

Another piece of writing that came out of the Evangelical Protestant movement was John R.W. Stott’s masterpiece, Basic Christianity. This book is a classic, and again, if you want to understand Evangelical Protestantism, read it.

It’s not the same as C.S. Lewis’ Mere Christianity, which is a great apologetic work that all Christians, Catholic and Protestant, can embrace. Basic Christianity is just what the title says–an explanation of what we believe and what those beliefs should produce in our daily lives.

And I think that’s what’s missing from a lot of Catholic catechesis–the “application” of our theology. What does it actually MEAN in our lives on a day-to-day basis? What effect will it have on our choices of recreation, romance, professions, habits, money use, etc.?

The main reason why young people stop attending church is “lack of relevance.” We need to somehow communicate with them, at their level, why and how Christianity is “relevant.” Many of the intellectuals despise this line of thinking and insist that we need to bring people UP to the Church, not bring the Church DOWN to the people.

Well, whatever works. I suspect that both approaches should be used, and hence my comment to ialsop that it’s fine for them not to use YouCat. But it’s also fine for teenagers to use YouCat. There’s no shame in reading at your reading level.

 

[phil19034]

I think it’s just fine that you prefer not to use the Youcat. When I was a teenager, I routinely read Shakespeare for fun.

It only becomes a problem when a teenager or adult thinks that ALL teenagers should abandon the YouCat and use only “higher” documents.

Since you enjoy a good discussion, think about these things:

I think the phrase “dumbed-down” is a troubling one. The facts are that the majority of people in the United States read at a sixth-grade reading level.

And I’m not talking about sixth-grade of 150 years ago, when children of that age were reading Chaucer and Shakespeare and Homer (that’s what having no TV or radio does to society!).

I’m talking about the sixth-graders of today, 2014, who find People Magazine a challenge.

So we are not “dumbling down” a piece of writing if we make it understandable for the average sixth-grader.

Instead, we are “smarting up” a piece of writing if we make it challenging for that sixth grader to understand.

I have written six novels for the “juvenile” target audience (three are published). The reading level of these novels is “eighth grade” Although many kids and adults enjoy my novels, the criticism that I receive most often is that “no kids talk like that.”

Well, that’s true in most American circles. My daughters grew up in skating rinks and private schools, and YES, kids DO “talk like that” in these venues. I chaperoned a group of teenagers from my daughters’ school to a Sondheim concert at Ravinia one year, and during the drive, they discussed the merits of Sondheim’s music compared to the music of other composers.

I was fascinated, and I kept thinking, “Most teenagers have no idea that Sondheim exists and what he has done, and these kids are discussing his merits as a composer, using the most technical of musical terminology. For that matter most teenagers wouldn’t be caught dead at a Ravinia concert!”

So yes, in the skating/private school world, kids DO talk like that, and I feel justified in exposing other kids to that world. That’s what novels do–they take us to places that we do not live in and introduce us to people that we do not associate with in our daily lives. I don’t want to read novels about me and my boring life!

One of the biggest problems in the Catholic Church today is “lack of catechesis.” I see it over and over again on these forums, and I hear about it in my real-life parish.

Think about it–many teens and ADULTS have no idea what the word “catechesis” means.

Some of you seem to think that the answer is exposing these people to “higher” literature and music.

I don’t understand your thinking. I’ve already pointed out that many people can’t even comprehend a newspaper. You think that handing them one of Pope Benedict XVI’s encyclicals is going to help catechize them?!

I don’t agree. I think we need to start way back at the basics. One of the things that made Evangelical Protestantism grow like weeds is the very simple, straightforward writing/teaching that was done in the 1960s and 1970s.

Dr. Bill Bright wrote a small little pamphlet called “The Four Spiritual Laws” that reduced Christian theology down to a few short paragraphs. It is still in use today. If you want to understand what Evangelical Protestants believe and teach, get hold of a copy.

I’ve seen the same kind of pamphlets written by Catholics, and I love them. I fear that many of you would turn up your noses, but I think you’re wrong. This is just what many Catholics need today–a starting point, something simple and basic that they can grab hold of.

Another piece of writing that came out of the Evangelical Protestant movement was John R.W. Stott’s masterpiece, Basic Christianity. This book is a classic, and again, if you want to understand Evangelical Protestantism, read it.

It’s not the same as C.S. Lewis’ Mere Christianity, which is a great apologetic work that all Christians, Catholic and Protestant, can embrace. Basic Christianity is just what the title says–an explanation of what we believe and what those beliefs should produce in our daily lives.

And I think that’s what’s missing from a lot of Catholic catechesis–the “application” of our theology. What does it actually MEAN in our lives on a day-to-day basis? What effect will it have on our choices of recreation, romance, professions, habits, money use, etc.?

The main reason why young people stop attending church is “lack of relevance.” We need to somehow communicate with them, at their level, why and how Christianity is “relevant.” Many of the intellectuals despise this line of thinking and insist that we need to bring people UP to the Church, not bring the Church DOWN to the people.

Well, whatever works. I suspect that both approaches should be used, and hence my comment to ialsop that it’s fine for them not to use YouCat. But it’s also fine for teenagers to use YouCat. There’s no shame in reading at your reading level.

Cat - excellent post.

In all honestly, perhaps you should consider writing a catechesis book. I’ve been personally thinking about writing dealing with marriage, focused on middle school aged kids, teens, and young adults.

I think we several kinds of Catechesis programs, because we have people from all spectrums of life. One kind of approach doesn’t work. But no matter what we do, we need to get better at evangelizing… Catechesis doesn’t work if the person isn’t evangelized.

God Bless

 

[ProVobis]

Well if you had posted in latin you wouldn’t have these problems.

OTOH, starting with simple (even dumbed down “A = A”) statements then proceeding to questions stemming from those simple statements form a new level of expertise in that area. It’s a natural progression. Basically you start at a kindergarten level and work your way up to the adult level. Catechism IMO shouldn’t be read like a novel where everything is to be set at one reading level and then try to find where the ideal reading level is.

 

[TimothyH]

Politely pointing out that St. Francis wasn’t a monk is not arrogance. Several hundred thousand Franciscan men would be happy to point out that they are not monks but Friars.

Nobody is against making things understandable. Some learn visually. Others learn by doing. Not everyone learns well by studying books and being lectured. We are talking about correcting errors.

I would expect my daughter to speak up if her math teacher taught 2+2=5. I would not expect her to say, “He is doing the best he can.”

The fact is that the three different versions of the Baltimore Catechism were written primarily to teach children while the 1992 Catechism was written with Bishops as their primary audience. It is not arrogant to point that out to people who find the Baltimore Catechism useful.

-Tim-

 

[Cat]

Cat - excellent post.

In all honestly, perhaps you should consider writing a catechesis book. I’ve been personally thinking about writing dealing with marriage, focused on middle school aged kids, teens, and young adults.

I think we several kinds of Catechesis programs, because we have people from all spectrums of life. One kind of approach doesn’t work. But no matter what we do, we need to get better at evangelizing… Catechesis doesn’t work if the person isn’t evangelized.

God Bless

Heavens, no! Thanks for the suggestion, but I’m not qualified to write any kind of catechesis for Catholics.

However, I would be happy to help review it and make suggestions as to its relevance.

 

[ialsop]

Politely pointing out that St. Francis wasn’t a monk is not arrogance. Several hundred thousand Franciscan men would be happy to point out that they are not monks but Friars.

Nobody is against making things understandable. Some learn visually. Others learn by doing. Not everyone learns well by studying books and being lectured. We are talking about correcting errors.

I would expect my daughter to speak up if her math teacher taught 2+2=5. I would not expect her to say, “He is doing the best he can.”

The fact is that the three different versions of the Baltimore Catechism were written primarily to teach children while the 1992 Catechism was written with Bishops as their primary audience. It is not arrogant to point that out to people who find the Baltimore Catechism useful.

-Tim-

And saying simplification is the answer is like saying “well my math teacher says 2 plus 2 is 5, and the class is divided. What to do? Everybody is confused. WELL i guess the answer is to ignore it and go back to 1 plus 1, since we all agree on that…” See how un productive simplification to the extreme is in solving confusion? Confusion requires CORRECTION not SIMPLIFICATION.

 

[Cat]

Politely pointing out that St. Francis wasn’t a monk is not arrogance. Several hundred thousand Franciscan men would be happy to point out that they are not monks but Friars.

Nobody is against making things understandable. Some learn visually. Others learn by doing. Not everyone learns well by studying books and being lectured. We are talking about correcting errors.

I would expect my daughter to speak up if her math teacher taught 2+2=5. I would not expect her to say, “He is doing the best he can.”

The fact is that the three different versions of the Baltimore Catechism were written primarily to teach children while the 1992 Catechism was written with Bishops as their primary audience. It is not arrogant to point that out to people who find the Baltimore Catechism useful.

-Tim-

Big breath…

Yes, I know that there is a difference between a monk and a friar.

But…another big breath…I’m 57 years old, and to me, it sound just a little “smug” to point that out in a group of people who are not close friends to me.

Now if it was my Bible study group, or my work associates, or any group of people that I am fairly close to, who know me and love me, or at least like me…that would be different. They might chuckle at my desire to be “exact,” but they would understand and appreciate my contribution to the discussion.

But in a classroom setting, with a lot of other kids who don’t know the difference between a monk and friar, really, what difference does it make? (I’m actually curious–what difference DOES it make?)

It seems to me that your daughter managed only to alienate the teacher and the other students. Was it worth it? Perhaps it was to her. Hopefully she has other social support systems that validate her strengths and her admirable desire to teach the truth. But it’s really tough for a young girl to be alienated from her peers for the sake of words that mean nothing to most of us.

 

[clem456]

The Catholic Church should produce a catechism written in the fullest, most profound way possible. To do anything less is an injustice to the faithful.

If local pastors wish to make that teaching presentable with teaching documents for youth or other interests that emphasize different styles of presentation, great. A good teacher and pastor has an empathy with his/her flock. Lessons are given while keeping in mind the competence level and life experiences of the listener. Analogies that directly relate to an individual’s life are a great way to pass along hard to understand concepts.

The universal cathechism is clear and concise for just about any adult young or old, though the concepts can be difficult. The key for catechists is to read the teaching and accept it so that it becomes personal for them. In other words they come to know Christ as a person through the catechism. The words come to life in Christ and that life is passed on to the student.

 

[TimothyH]

Big breath…

Yes, I know that there is a difference between a monk and a friar.

But…another big breath…I’m 57 years old, and to me, it sound just a little “smug” to point that out in a group of people who are not close friends to me.

Now if it was my Bible study group, or my work associates, or any group of people that I am fairly close to, who know me and love me, or at least like me…that would be different. They might chuckle at my desire to be “exact,” but they would understand and appreciate my contribution to the discussion.

But in a classroom setting, with a lot of other kids who don’t know the difference between a monk and friar, really, what difference does it make? (I’m actually curious–what difference DOES it make?)

It seems to me that your daughter managed only to alienate the teacher and the other students. Was it worth it? Perhaps it was to her. Hopefully she has other social support systems that validate her strengths and her admirable desire to teach the truth. But it’s really tough for a young girl to be alienated from her peers for the sake of words that mean nothing to most of us.

We are pretty far off topic. PM sent.

-Tim-

 

[DebChris]

I agree with this, and I keep my Virtus active. But sometimes “certification” gives a false sense of security. I know sisters and laity who do not faithfully pass on the Catholic Faith in their paid or volunteer positions in parochial schools and CCD. They were all certified and trained as catechists, they all could pass any criminal or “lifestyle” check. They simply don’t consistently believe the Catholic Faith, specifically anything to do with the Magisterium or supernatural Christianity.

They might agree with the Church when it coincides with their beliefs and priorities, but their beliefs and priorities are mostly shaped by the secular culture. These are nice people (the school principals worked far more hours than me, for far less money). I don’t doubt their own relationship with God. Outside the classroom they dissent from Catholic dogma. Inside the school or CCD they simply omit most of the dogmatic foundation, and everything about the Magisterium. Students hear some good ideas in Religion but they are the same good ideas they would also get in a public school Social Studies class and the daily newspaper, along with emphasis on “finding your OWN spirituality”. They never say “support legal abortion, gay marriage, and worshiping spirituality rather than God”; but they make that outcome more likely in their graduates.

So I’m all for training and screening, but don’t put excessive confidence in it.

A person who does not live a Catholic lifestyle is not going to be anonymously recommended. I like how the pastor of one parish doubled the salary of every catechist each year. Of course double 0 still = 0. When I hear constant complaints about catechists, lectors, and those who distribute the Eucharist, I ask the person making the complaints if they have ever considered volunteering. Instead of simply questioning whether of not the Faith is being correctly being passed on, be one of those who volunteers to faithfully pass on the Faith.

At the elementary school level, most of the emphasis will be on prayer, on the Order of the Mass, and on the Sacraments. It is only when you get to the upper grade levels that there will be an emphasis on applying the spirituality taught to “the social issues of the day.” Then again, I know my parish and my diocese and how the bishop himself stands in front of abortion clinics and whole families take part in the Chain of Life. Religious Education is one day a week. The family is the primary educator of the child.

It is unfortunate that some families view Confirmation as graduation from religious education rather than completing the full initiation into the Church. Yes, I did have a pastor lament that once students were confirmed he never saw them again until their weddings. This is one of the issues that Pope Francis is addressing during this Year of the Family when many see the wedding as more important than the Sacrament of Matrimony, when they see the social aspects of Catholicism as more important than the Church’s teachings. A good catechist works against that. Rather than lament poor catechesis, work against it by being the one to turn the tide.

The Catholic Church should produce a catechism written in the fullest, most profound way possible. To do anything less is an injustice to the faithful.

If local pastors wish to make that teaching presentable with teaching documents for youth or other interests that emphasize different styles of presentation, great. A good teacher and pastor has an empathy with his/her flock. Lessons are given while keeping in mind the competence level and life experiences of the listener. Analogies that directly relate to an individual’s life are a great way to pass along hard to understand concepts.

The universal cathechism is clear and concise for just about any adult young or old, though the concepts can be difficult. The key for catechists is to read the teaching and accept it so that it becomes personal for them. In other words they come to know Christ as a person through the catechism. The words come to life in Christ and that life is passed on to the student.

Here is where I also agree with CAT. The Catholic Church and its teachings are not about reaching the most intellectual among us. Scripture itself tells us otherwise. I like to say the Catholic Faith is not that difficult to understand. After all what we believe is summarized in the Apostle’s Creed. However, we will never in our life time reach the depth of all the Church has to offer.
I like how the sisters I had talked about the mysteries of our Faith. There is much that we will never understand. That is okay. Enter into those mysteries. It is the catechist’s job to present the Faith in as “clear and concise” a manner as possible. The catechist is an evangelizer, with the job of passing the Faith from one generation to the next. It is not simply a matter of passing on facts, but of passing on the Love of Christ.
A teacher of any subject wants his/her student to learn more about that subject. If I have opened a student’s heart to want to learn more about Jesus Christ and what the Church teaches, than I have done my job. The only way I know that a student wants to learn is when they start asking questions about what has been presented, and when they start to explore on their own. That challenges me to learn more.
As you state, where catechism and other subjects differ, is that through the Catechism, the goal is for the students to “come to know Christ.”

 

[Sirious]

There is NO new theology.

Is it not true that the new church teaches that heretics, especially jews, can be saved without faith in Christ or membership in His Church? I say that is new theology, as it is a dogma that there is no salvation outside of the Catholic Church. Furthermore, the idea of anyone being saved without coming to Christ denies the words of Christ Himself. God love you.

 

[ProVobis]

from the Baltimore Catechism:

1. How can persons who are not members of the Catholic Church be saved?

Persons who are not members of the Catholic Church can be saved if, through no fault of their own, they do not know that the Catholic Church is the true Church, but they love God and try to do His will, for in this way they are connected with the Church by desire.

 

[MarkInOregon]

*QUOTE=edwest2;12439428]I was there in the 1960s. The Catechism had nothing to do with it. Whether it was the Baltimore Catechism or not. I went to Catholic school and we had Religion class. All of our questions were answered. The non-belief aspect of the 60s and 70s was solely the fault of dissidents inside and outside the Church. And all they wanted to promote was anarchy, “Don’t trust anyone over 30!” mom, dad, nuns, the Church. Live with your girlfriend and have sex with her, illegal drugs were cool, smoke a lot of dope, fornicate, and dress in full conformity to the standards of Hippies. You had to have the regulation length hair, the regulation clothes, and had to use Hippie-speak. And love porn. Because slavery to the flesh was what mostly mattered.

Those outside their tribe were squares and conformists, but they missed the fact that their tribe required a high degree of conformity. I heard “You Catholics think sex is dirty.” No. Most of us got married and had kids.*

Right on! It was a dissident spirit that ate away at the church during that time frame, demoralizing its confidence and bewildering the congregation. I was born in the 1960s, and when we switched to the more “modern” religious ed" materials in CCD, in the 70s, the information conveyed in CCD classes just wasn’t very clear. My dad would ask me what we’d learned in class and I had a really hard time telling him anything more than the barest of generalities. I just remember early in life learning about a faith and church that was worthwhile and confident and good, and by the time I was a teenager, so much of the confidence of church teaching and the beauty of churches had been taken away. It was like being born in a gorgeous, fine sturdy mansion and having it stripped down while still living in it.

I have a BIG JP II catechism on my shelf, along with my dictionary and thesaurus. I have referred to it often and it’s a wonderful resource.

That being said…

My husband and I decided to convert our family into the Catholic church last year. (He’s protestant and I’m a returned Cathollic.) I went to a catholic bookstore and bought a few versions of catechism manuals. Some were very positive and cheerful, but too simplistic. However, I ended up using the updated Baltimore Catechism, elementary and middle grade editions.

The choice had to do with our kids’ ages and our social climate. The Baltimore Catechism we found to be a bit more direct concerning the nature of SIN. We see too much characterization around us of sins committed as mere “mistakes made”, and we felt the Baltimore Catechism ably assisted us in teaching our children that sin is more than just a mistake, along with its resulting consequences.

It also does a very good job explaining the concept of original sin, the basis for the belief in purgatory and its purpose, explaining transubstantiation and even the modern-day-taboo subject of indulgences. (This was a subject glossed over with embarrassment when I was in school, and I understand it much better after using the BC to teach our kids.)

For a clear cut no frills refresher course in the basics of the Catholic faith, even an adult could benefit from the Baltimore Catechism.

Have you looked into the Faith and Life Series?

 

[MarkInOregon]

Well, everyone, I’ll step in it here, but honestly, I think that this thread in general demonstrates what I was talking about earlier–a sense of intellectual superiority over all those poor people who don’t have the brain chops.

We need intelligence in the Church, definitely, and we need to propagate the Truth, not myths and half-truths and inaccuracies. Kudos to those of you who want to set things straight and promote the highest levels of understanding.

But we also need tact.

I think that children should be taught that speaking up in a public setting is not always the most tactful and wisest way to handle teaching errors.

A better, “softer”, and often more effective approach is to ask to speak with the teacher at a time convenient for them (not right after class), and at that time, praise the teacher for the hard work of teaching the class, and gently give the teacher the correct information and give them the sources that prove it.

And then back away without expecting any kind of pat on the back.

This approach gives the teacher the opportunity to “save face” by presenting the corrected information to the class themselves. Sometimes kids, even intellectual kids, can’t see why it’s important for a teacher to be able to maintain authority in the classroom setting. Intellectuals tend to see only “the facts,” and forget about the human interest factors.

Yes, the best teachers do encourage their students to speak up, disagree, argue, debate, present sources that prove a different “fact,” etc.

But many of the teachers in religious settings, especially children’s and youth venues, are just volunteers, and they are doing the best they can! The children should be taught this, and they should be taught that respect for a teacher is important, and that they need to be careful to maintain order in the classroom.

Finally, I realize that there is a lot of teasing going on in this thread, but you know, it comes across as condescending. “I’m so cool that I can make jokes about Latin.” That’s fine if you’re with your fellow intellectuals. But this is a public forum, and I’m guessing that I’m not the only one who feels put off by some of the one-upping that’s going on here.

There are a lot of kids (and grownups) who find the YouCat and the comic book Bibles and other “simpleton” works helpful. I would like to encourage you all to stop looking down your noses at others who are not your intellectual equals.

Thank you Cat.

 

[DebChris]

from the Baltimore Catechism:

Yes, I learned about the Baptism of Desire in Grade 1, before Vatican II.

It is also true that Jesus said, “I am the Way, the Truth, and the Life. Nobody comes to the Father except through me. Nobody comes to me except the Father draw him.”
Is anything beyond the power of God? Who are we to say in what manner God will call a person to Himself? I have read and heard too many witness accounts in which God has done exactly that. In the meantime, it is our job as His instruments, to live an authentic Catholic Christian life, to preach the gospel “in season and out of season” with and without words.
I do know that those my parents sponsored into the Catholic Church entered not because of any words, but because of our family life. They entered from outside Christianity.

Doesn’t the Baltimore Catechism also teach that God is all powerful?

 

[ProVobis]

Doesn’t the Baltimore Catechism also teach that God is all powerful?

Sometimes it helps to go back to the basics.

sacred-texts.com/chr/balt/balt1.htm