Baby Boomers-Why So Poorly Catechized?

[KCT]

Kids in my grade school were encouraged by the nuns to make visits to the church for a few prayers during recess, and children did just that. ] quote

And hopefully it meant something. But I suspect more people than you realize did it out of habit more than conviction. There is no way to know, of course.

I’m going by my own experiences and those of folks close to me. We/ they new facts, but moving from head to heart didn’t always happen.

I also think our language/ terminology is important. Receiving Christ in the Eucharist is about the most personal relationship we can have with Him. But if I asked my 84 yr old mom, a life long Catholic and daily Mass goer, if she had a personal relationship with God, I don’t think I’d get a resounding “yes!”.

 

[commenter]

JimG;12871804:

Kids in my grade school were encouraged by the nuns to make visits to the church for a few prayers during recess, and children did just that. ] quote

And hopefully it meant something. But I suspect more people than you realize did it out of habit more than conviction. There is no way to know, of course.

I’m going by my own experiences and those of folks close to me. We/ they new facts, but moving from head to heart didn’t always happen.

I also think our language/ terminology is important. Receiving Christ in the Eucharist is about the most personal relationship we can have with Him. But if I asked my 84 yr old mom, a life long Catholic and daily Mass goer, if she had a personal relationship with God, I don’t think I’d get a resounding “yes!”.

Perhaps your mother has the reality, much more important than having the right terminology!

Habits are powerful, both good and bad. Grace builds on nature. You might say a couple that kisses each other every morning is just doing it “out of habit”. Does that make it bad?
People ridiculed the habit of blessing oneself with holy water at church, as if only “spontaneous” is holy, for married couples or church visits.

I agree we need to go beyond the basics. That doesn’t mean the basics are unimportant. The Science student needs to go beyond the basic facts; but she still needs to learn those basic facts. Religion too. The 1970s created almost a mist, where supposedly vagueness and ignorance about God was equated to “a personal relationship”. We are gradually coming out of that mist now, the younger priests and sisters are much more committed to doctrine - as well as “personal relationship with Christ”.

 

[Corki]

Forgive me if this is out of line or in the wrong place. I’m genuinely curious since I keep hearing this.

So, my parents-in-law are baby boomers, born in the the '50s. Since I began learning about the Church they have argued tooth and nail about even simple doctrine and theology. I don’t debate, that’s just not in my nature. They have said some of the most outlandish stuff. So over the last few years, I’ve read hear and other places, in books, and heard from others at my parish and other parishes, that this generation are very badly catechized.

What happened? Granted, there may not be a magical answer to my question. My sponsor may, in fact, have some insight as well (she’s an amazing, academic, awesome lady… but extremely busy).

Just curious. Part of me probably just wants to know what the break down was to maybe not do or say something to contribute to that anger/hurt that they have toward the Church and also, as the “next generation,” to add to that. “Those who do not know the past,” so to speak.

Thanks!

There were several things that coincided.

First, Vatican II called for a reworking of catechetical texts. In many places, including most of the US, this resulted in a discarding of the old texts - the Baltimore Catechism. That wouldn’t have been bad in itself, but there was nothing to fill the gap. The CCC that we use now didn’t come out until 1992. In those intervening decades, the books and materials used by Catholic schools and religious education programs were a complete hodge podge. The basic framework that the USCCB uses to evaluate texts didn’t exist so there was no consistency or even basic curriculum standards. Even within a given series of books there was not always a logical sequence from grade to grade.

Second, our parents were brought up in an environment where **their **parents entrusted a lot of their religious education to the schools. But the schools, even Catholic schools, were moving toward a “religion begins at home” philosophy. But not only didn’t they provide support for parents to do this, they didn’t even tell them what they were supposed to do. Parents who grew up with religion being taught by the priests and nuns didn’t feel qualified to take on the teaching role themselves. We are still seeing this with some of our immigrant parishioners. They don’t quite understand that there is no religious education at school since in their native country, public schools also cover religion. And they are not quite sure what they are supposed to do to make up the difference.

Third, Catholic schools became optional. It used to be that Catholic parents were expected to send their kids to the parish school unless there was some dire circumstance. When that obligation was lifted, the CCD programs weren’t prepared to become the primary educator of so many children.

Fourth, many of the practices that created a culture of Catholicism were discarded or de-emphasized. Abstinence on Fridays, head coverings in Chuch, May crowning ceremonies, children’s processions, etc. These were all practices that taught the faith without the books, so to speak, and nothing took their place in the community.

Fifth, the post-WWII years brought unprecedented mobility to families. It was much more common to live far away from relatives who might have reinforced religious education and practices.

And lastly, the lessening of the restrictions on mixed marriages led to many more families where the Catholic parent did not have the confidence (backed up by the Church) to insist on the Catholic upbringing of the children.

It was a perfect storm.

 

[ProVobis]

First, Vatican II called for a reworking of catechetical texts. In many places, including most of the US, this resulted in a discarding of the old texts - the Baltimore Catechism. That wouldn’t have been bad in itself, but there was nothing to fill the gap. The CCC that we use now didn’t come out until 1992. In those intervening decades, the books and materials used by Catholic schools and religious education programs were a complete hodge podge.

You nailed it. Exactly.

 

[TK421]

Americans and European Catholicism is going to have a unique blend of problems compared to the problems Latin American or Asian Catholics have. As far as the US goes in the 20th century, Catholics were a more recent addition to the country. They were more European-esque, traditionally voted democrats, and pushed for social reforms to try to sculpt the US into the image of Europe. To a great extent, this wasn’t at all a bad thing, except around the 1960s they never really learned when to stop. They continued pushing and advocating for reform after reform, even once these continued changes became deleterious to the Church’s teachings and mission. The Vatican II - in the spirit of the hippy age - was misinterpreted to be something that it wasn’t.

This is why - in spite of all the problems in the current generation that surpass the immorality of the baby boomers - younger priests are more orthodox than their predecessors. They know the score, they know what they’re up against, and they don’t have naïve misunderstandings about what Church they belong to. The 1960s was perhaps a little too optimistic, and it led to bad theology.

 

[kkollwitz]

Credible, accessible evangelizing witness by the catechist will outweigh any program or data. If a given catechist bears personal life-changing testimony to what Jesus has done in his life, that will inspirit any curriculum.

 

[jeannetherese]

There were several things that coincided.

First, Vatican II called for a reworking of catechetical texts. In many places, including most of the US, this resulted in a discarding of the old texts - the Baltimore Catechism. That wouldn’t have been bad in itself, but there was nothing to fill the gap. The CCC that we use now didn’t come out until 1992. In those intervening decades, the books and materials used by Catholic schools and religious education programs were a complete hodge podge. The basic framework that the USCCB uses to evaluate texts didn’t exist so there was no consistency or even basic curriculum standards. Even within a given series of books there was not always a logical sequence from grade to grade.

Second, our parents were brought up in an environment where **their **parents entrusted a lot of their religious education to the schools. But the schools, even Catholic schools, were moving toward a “religion begins at home” philosophy. But not only didn’t they provide support for parents to do this, they didn’t even tell them what they were supposed to do. Parents who grew up with religion being taught by the priests and nuns didn’t feel qualified to take on the teaching role themselves. We are still seeing this with some of our immigrant parishioners. They don’t quite understand that there is no religious education at school since in their native country, public schools also cover religion. And they are not quite sure what they are supposed to do to make up the difference.

Third, Catholic schools became optional. It used to be that Catholic parents were expected to send their kids to the parish school unless there was some dire circumstance. When that obligation was lifted, the CCD programs weren’t prepared to become the primary educator of so many children.

Fourth, many of the practices that created a culture of Catholicism were discarded or de-emphasized. Abstinence on Fridays, head coverings in Chuch, May crowning ceremonies, children’s processions, etc. These were all practices that taught the faith without the books, so to speak, and nothing took their place in the community.

Fifth, the post-WWII years brought unprecedented mobility to families. It was much more common to live far away from relatives who might have reinforced religious education and practices.

And lastly, the lessening of the restrictions on mixed marriages led to many more families where the Catholic parent did not have the confidence (backed up by the Church) to insist on the Catholic upbringing of the children.

It was a perfect storm.

This. :sad_yes:

 

[commenter]

Credible, accessible evangelizing witness by the catechist will outweigh any program or data. If a given catechist bears personal life-changing testimony to what Jesus has done in his life, that will inspirit any curriculum.

I agree with you 2/3 of the way. But I have known priests, sisters, laity who themselves were solid Catholics, but the doctrine didn’t get passed on. Nowadays teens and young adults are exposed to so much misinformation they need more data than in 1960. I grew up in the era when Christian values, the Natural Law, and much Catholic-informed culture was imparted via TV, public schools and extended families. Sometimes religious educators could simply build on the data kids already got from outside.

Today it’s a different world. Kids and young adults are not only lacking in data, they don’t know what they don’t know. So I agree with you, but all the good example and personal witness in the world doesn’t replace the actual doctrinal content of the Faith.

 

[kkollwitz]

Yes- it does not replace the actual doctrinal content of the Faith.

 

[CarmelJerome]

There are innumerable causes that fed into the perfect storm. But they would’ve been insufficient if television had not replaced parents, teachers, and the Church as the primary educator. The catechesis of the infotainment industry is disseminated in a haphazard m amnesty new which undermines the very awareness that truth builds on truth, that certain things follow from other things. This was a problem already for Chesterton, who said he had to teach his opponents how to reason before he could argue with them.
Old catcher iCal methods were simply no good in this climate, and the new ones were idiotic and controlled by people who took it for granted that the Council had changed all the teaching because they never read any of the documents, but rather the proclamations of the dissident magisterium which had been active in disseminating what Benedict calls ‘the Council of the Press’ from the outset.
The new evangelization is necessary to reintroduce the truths of the gospel the way the earliest Church did.

 

[ProVobis]

Today it’s a different world. Kids and young adults are not only lacking in data, they don’t know what they don’t know. So I agree with you, but all the good example and personal witness in the world doesn’t replace the actual doctrinal content of the Faith.

Yes, it is a different world in that most, if not all, of the doctrinal material, such as the dogmatic decrees and doctrines of Trent, are now available online in their original language. Also the Trent Catechism, a sort of behind-the-back look of the Baltimore Catechism. The Vatican has released a bunch of earlier documents in text and PDF formats. All we need are interested people to look and examine some of them and make up the lost time after Vatican 2, especially in the 60’s, spent on dismantling the old Mass and razing the churches of communion rails, statues, confessionals, etc.

 

[commenter]

Yes- it does not replace the actual doctrinal content of the Faith.

Personal witness, the example of the teacher’s life, and perhaps testimony about their own faith journey does not replace the actual doctrinal content of the Faith, but makes it more likely that content will be absorbed and lived by those who hear it - children and adults.

 

[Mummsie]

Personal witness, the example of the teacher’s life, and perhaps testimony about their own faith journey does not replace the actual doctrinal content of the Faith, but makes it more likely that content will be absorbed and lived by those who hear it - children and adults.

 

[DakiniArtist]

Thanks to everyone so far. Getting so much from the discussion.

 

[bibcat]

World War II was the most necessary war ever fought against some of the most inhumane enemies in history. Does anyone know how many Allied ships were struck and sunk or put out of commission by Japanese pilots diving their aircraft directly into them? How many German V-1 cruise missiles got through or V-2 rockets that could not be shot down? My Dad was in Europe for the whole war. He and some others had a fresh start in America but he and his vet friends rarely talked about what they saw or what they went through. He was part of the Depression era, along with my Mom. “Normalcy” meant no one shooting at you or dropping bombs on your head.

Having families and raising children correctly led to a mostly pious and well-catechized group of misnamed Baby Boomers. I am one of them. God was important every single day. He was not just in Church. I lived with God every day and we lived out our faith every day. The reverence that existed. The Feast Days. The Holy Days. The Stations of the Cross. Easter Mass at dawn. Jesus said to do what He told us to do and we did it, for the most part. Not out of social obligation but out of the growing understanding as we went through Confirmation and became young adults, that we would be held account for our actions by God, just as were held account by our actions by our parents.

Ed

Meh. US involvement in World War 2 happened because of our officious involvement in the affairs of the Old World that began after 1898, when we acquired what was left of Spain’s empire in the Caribbean and the Pacific, combined with a dishonest Woodrow Wilson’s desire to get the United States involved in the “Great War” despite protestations otherwise. So, the Central Powers were defeated, and what took their place? Fascism and Communism. That’s what WWI made the world safe for. Fast forward 20 or so years. You have another President (FDR) who desires the US be involved in another Old World conflict, despite the sentiments of the American people, who are dead set against it. Nazi Germany, with its short-legged air force and small navy, was not a serious threat against the United States–and by the time the Pearl Harbor attacks happened, was in headlong retreat from the “gates of Moscow.” War with Japan happened because the US was determined to protect its interests in the West Pacific–which just happened to collide with Japan’s interests.

 

[edwest2]

Meh. US involvement in World War 2 happened because of our officious involvement in the affairs of the Old World that began after 1898, when we acquired what was left of Spain’s empire in the Caribbean and the Pacific, combined with a dishonest Woodrow Wilson’s desire to get the United States involved in the “Great War” despite protestations otherwise. So, the Central Powers were defeated, and what took their place? Fascism and Communism. That’s what WWI made the world safe for. Fast forward 20 or so years. You have another President (FDR) who desires the US be involved in another Old World conflict, despite the sentiments of the American people, who are dead set against it. Nazi Germany, with its short-legged air force and small navy, was not a serious threat against the United States–and by the time the Pearl Harbor attacks happened, was in headlong retreat from the “gates of Moscow.” War with Japan happened because the US was determined to protect its interests in the West Pacific–which just happened to collide with Japan’s interests.

I must disagree. FDR told the American people that 'we would not get involved in European affairs." But plans for the B-17 bomber were ready long before then. If we didn’t help England, then what? The Germans could have put more forces into the Eastern Front.

Ed