B
bobzills
Guest
The rate of increase in officially granted Catholic marriage annulments is **one thousand times **greater than the rate of increase in divorces in the USA over the period from 1930 to 1990…
- Status
S
Sure
Guest
The answer is BAD catechesis at EVERY level. Bad education in Catholic schools, bad education in CCD, bad education in the seminaries. This bad education has been rampant since the 50’s. Sure, there were isolated pockets of good schools, but not many! Thankfully, there are many good schools and seminaries getting better!
B
bobzills
Guest
Why has this bad catechesis been so pronounced since Vatican II?
B
buffalo
Guest
http://dads.org/images/curve_l.gif Keeping Your Teens Catholic - Part II - The Captivating Power of the Eucharist
…*The Eucharist is Catholic “super-glue,” binding believers to the Church for a lifetime. To keep your teens Catholic, instill in them a love for Jesus in the Eucharist. And since you can’t give what you haven’t got, fall in love with our Eucharistic Lord yourself.
…*The Eucharist is Catholic “super-glue,” binding believers to the Church for a lifetime. To keep your teens Catholic, instill in them a love for Jesus in the Eucharist. And since you can’t give what you haven’t got, fall in love with our Eucharistic Lord yourself.
L
lukewarm
Guest
I stopped attending Church because I just got very discouraged by the priesthood scandal, the general malaise of everyone at my Church, and overall lack of spirituality and fellowship amongst the Catholic Church. To me it was nothing more than a pointless ritual that I got nothing out of, and since I was borred to tears I’m sure God got nothing out of me being there. Frankly the Catholic Church just became imposible to truly believe 100% for me, so I kinda just felt like I was faking it, and I didn’t want to be a phoney anymore.
I know for many of you the Church is very relevant, but for the vast majority of Catholics out there it couldn’t be more out of touch and irrelevant.
Just one guys opinion.
I know for many of you the Church is very relevant, but for the vast majority of Catholics out there it couldn’t be more out of touch and irrelevant.
Just one guys opinion.
S
scylla
Guest
Because people misrepresented Vatican II as something that actually changed the Churches teaching instead of focusing on how to better present the faith, which is pretty much what Vatican II did.
It focused on how to evangelize, open up and present the faith effectively.
Vatican II was an excuse and many used it, they still do today. Just go to an RCIA class taught by those who want women priests and you will hear Vatican II given as a reason for change in the Church.
They took that and threw out the truth and watered it down instead of presenting it faithfully. Many people have not read the documents of Vatican II so many people just kinda make up what it said, instead of using Vatican II properly.
God Bless
Scylla
S
scylla
Guest
Because people misrepresented Vatican II as something that actually changed the Churches teaching instead of focusing on how to better present the faith, which is pretty much what Vatican II did.
It focused on how to evangelize, open up and present the faith effectively.
Vatican II was an excuse and many used it, they still do today. Just go to an RCIA class taught by those who want women priests and you will hear Vatican II given as a reason for change in the Church.
They took that and threw out the truth and watered it down instead of presenting it faithfully. Many people have not read the documents of Vatican II so many people just kinda make up what it said, instead of using Vatican II properly.
God Bless
Scylla
O
otjm
Guest
Marriage annulments should be the topic of another thread. Canon law changed; the presumption that because there were only 21 annulments in a given year that means that all the other marriages are good is false logic; the law simply did not provide for a means of judging them. And none of this has to do with Vatican 2; it has to do with the change in Canon law that was some 15 or 20 years later.
O
otjm
Guest
Again, take it to another thread. There are answers as to why but they are off topic.
O
otjm
Guest
Actually, I thin that the baltimore Catechism was in use through vatican 2; it was after that period when new catechisms came out.
But I do agree that poor or non-existent catechesis has a lot to do with loss of membership.
O
otjm
Guest
After Vatican 2, there was a strong movement to re-look at catechesis. In part, it was most likely triggered by the emphasis that Vatican 2 put on Scripture, and making Scripture more widely known and understood among the laity.
That, in turn, put the Baltimore catechism under the spotlight. It was rote learning - memorization - and one of the things that was acknowledged at the time was that it had a tendency towards memorized answers to specific questions, but was very weak on faith formation. In short, an agnostic of an atheist could give a correct answer; it was head knowledge but too often not very capable of translation into how we live our daily lives.
An example - the civil rights movement got moving in the 1950s and early 1960s; the Baltimore Catechism did not provide a basis for determining what response one should have to, say, some children being refused admittance to a school based on the color of their skin. Nor did it give much of an answer to issues such as the Cambodian Invasion in 1970.
There was an over-reaction to the Catechism and to rote learning; essentially they through out the baby with the bath water. The went to an experiential approach which had little or no doctrinal information or foundation given. The net result is that kids learned a bit about Jesus’ Ressurection - they cut out butterflies; but had no clue what that meant to their faith; they got involved with the poor, but no connection to a real solid moral base.
An honest appraisal is that the Baltimore Catechism is not bad - it is quite good at teaching doctrine; but it is sorely lacking in faith building and needs more.
Instead, we got less.
And before everyone goes off half cocked about “liberal” bishops, I don’t think it was anywhere near the issue of whether they were liberal or not; it was simply a massive failure of leadership and common sense. Some were liberal. Others were beat down in terrms of what leadership meant as the old model had been tossed out (it was a bit along the lines of “Because I am the bishop and I said so” coupled with the laity being given the model of “pray, pay and obey”) and no new model had taken its place; some were simply mislead; some were not bright enough to figure out where this was going; some were not able to keep up with the amount of change the Church seemed to be going through.
Bishops did not write the new catechisms, and often they didn’t even directly approve of them; it was done in the chanceries. Granted they were resposnible for what went on, but so were they responsible for the sexual abuse by priests of which they often didn’t even have any information on - they were in the dark.
O
otjm
Guest
And sadly, you have had a great deal of company. I don’t know your age, but this often starts in the teen years, and often goes on until one starts a family (and that is no guarantee of a return).
A lot of it seems to get down to a lack of challenge at the gut level - too many people are never really confronted with the question Christ asks; “Who do you say I am?”. Too often faith is a bunch of information that simply doesn’t connect with where we live.
O
otjm
Guest
How sadly true.
S
Sure
Guest
Well, lots of things have been bad since the mid-60’s.
Let’s see, all those people getting divorced in the 1970’s would have been catechized when? In the 1950’s. All the hippies when did they get their Catholic school education? Mostly BEFORE Vatican II. The wacky pastors who put people with guitars on the altar and decided to wear felt chasubles with peace symbols, when did they go to the seminary? In the 1950’s.
What happened? Societal upheaval, free-love, contraception, divorce, etc…They all left their mark on Catholics and non-catholics.
S
Steve40
Guest
Faith is a gift. When we reject God we don’t get the gift. Personally I think the lack of attendance is due to silent acceptance of contraception from the pulpit and with so called Catholic homes.
C
chicago
Guest
It should be noted that this wasn’t just in the Church, but secular society, also. These were the popular concepts in educational approach at the time. So the Catholic schools just got caught up in the same thing as their teachers were reared in the same environment as everyone elses.
O
otjm
Guest
One only has to recall the Esalen Institute started in the early '60s; a heady brew of eccentrics, artists and psuedo psychologists including such luminaries as Timothy Leary and the mantra of Turn On, Tune In and Drop Out. The whole world seemed to be running daft. Things were so far beyond out of control that there seemed no adequate words to describe the condition of society.
S
seek
Guest
Could the lack of attendance be US.?
I mean nowhere in this discussion is there
mention of our responsibility.
Do we carry out into the world such a burning
love for Christ, that people we come in contact
with just have to get what we have?
How can I act so I maybe such an intensely
brilliant reflection of Christ that others just have
to know my “secret”. It’s a tough world to be a
a Catholic in, but we don’t have to hide in
catacombs, or burned alive or tore up by wild
beasts. I don’t think folks will come back
because of Priests and Bishops.They’ll come
back because of US.
I mean nowhere in this discussion is there
mention of our responsibility.
Do we carry out into the world such a burning
love for Christ, that people we come in contact
with just have to get what we have?
How can I act so I maybe such an intensely
brilliant reflection of Christ that others just have
to know my “secret”. It’s a tough world to be a
a Catholic in, but we don’t have to hide in
catacombs, or burned alive or tore up by wild
beasts. I don’t think folks will come back
because of Priests and Bishops.They’ll come
back because of US.
T
THurifer2
Guest
Not vatican II but the “spirit” of Vatican II was and continues to be very very destructive… The reaction to the TRUTH of Humanae Vitae was the straw that broke the Camels Back for the dissenters who continue to attempt to Remake the Church in their own image. Which reinforces my opinion that Satan is very busy…But of course Pope Paul VI has already told us that Satans smoke has entered the church.
S
Sarabande
Guest
Yes… I’m not disputing that. I’m only saying that it has to do with many changes and beliefs in the society of the time… not just one event that occurred. But we’re getting off topic here. This is not about annulments.
What we are seeing happening in the Church is from many different factors - within and outside of the Church. Vatican II can’t just be the sole reason for the decline of Church attendance. Sure, there were many things that went wrong with VII because of the way it was implemented and how people took advantage of some ambiguous statements. As I believe I mentioned before, my generation has suffered from it. But it is simplifying it too much to say that Church attendance and all things gone wrong in the Church is the direct result of Vatican II. I feel like I’m repeating myself, so to save the rest of the readers from boring redundancy, I will end here. Have a lovely evening!
(Sorry I’m a little slap-happy - been singing for four hours and got sopping wet from the storm today.)- Status