Diocesan Office teaching bad theology

[Joe_5859]

Not that I feel excluded, but some women (apparently some who are involved in the diocesan level class in question) take issue with the word “sons” because they feel it refers only to male offspring. (Verses daughters for female offspring.) Just as some take issue with the word “mankind” or “men” to refer to the human race because they don’t understand English well enough to know those words can refer to the whole human race and not just the males. Same with the pro-nouns “he” “him” and “his” which stood in for a male *or *were used when the sex was unknown. Now we write the awkward he/she and all the other variations to avoid offending anyone. As a result, we take perfectly beautiful songs and hymns and alter the language, leaving us with less poetic sounding language that offends many of us who thought the original words more beautiful, (but no one seems to worry about offending us with awkward sounding lyrics.) I’m off on a tangent but I recognize many changes made to original lyrics in hymnals to remove what a few people consider “sexist” language–that most of us simply recognize as English. Forgive me–I wrote the word “hymnal”-- I must have meant hymnal/hernal.

Ah. I was interpreting the comments to mean that the person feared excluding people who were not descendants of Adam (as though not all people are descended from Adam). It seems more likely that the exclusion to person feared was over the word “sons” rather than “Adam”. My bad.

 

[yablabo]

Hi,

I am completing my diocesan-level classes to become a certified catechist. The following are two paragraphs from the most recent course I took. This came right from the diocesan office of education:

"Ask yourself are the words theologically sound? Consider these two familiar lines: ‘Sing Praise to our Creator, O sons of Adam’s race. God’s Children by adoption, Baptized into His Grace.’ In these two short lines we encounter at least two problems. The theology does seem bad. We are made in God’s image, not adopted. The adoption line almost implies that we were in existence before God, then He found us and made us His own.

The second error apparent with these words is that they are exclusive. As a liturgist, do you mean to exclude anyone who is not a son of Adam? The universality of the call of Christ does not allow for exclusion. If you do not take the words seriously, how can you expect anyone else to take them seriously?"

The song is not bad theology. Here’s what the Catechism of the Catholic Church says in CCC #1:

“God, infinitely perfect and blessed in himself, in a plan of sheer goodness freely created man to make him share in his own blessed life. For this reason, at every time and in every place, God draws close to man. He calls man to seek him, to know him, to love him with all his strength. He calls together all men, scattered and divided by sin, into the unity of his family, the Church. To accomplish this, when the fullness of time had come, God sent his Son as Redeemer and Savior. In his Son and through him, he invites men to become, in the Holy Spirit, his adopted children and thus heirs of his blessed life.”

If we become his adopted children through the Holy Spirit, then we cannot be his children before Baptism. Jesus seems to make this clear in John 8:39-44:

39 They answered and said to him, “Our father is Abraham.” Jesus said to them, “If you were Abraham’s children, you would be doing the works of Abraham.
40 But now you are trying to kill me, a man who has told you the truth that I heard from God; Abraham did not do this.
41 You are doing the works of your father!” (So) they said to him, “We are not illegitimate. We have one Father, God.”
42 Jesus said to them, "If God were your Father, you would love me, for I came from God and am here; I did not come on my own, but he sent me.
43 Why do you not understand what I am saying? Because you cannot bear to hear my word.
44 You belong to your father the devil and you willingly carry out your father’s desires. He was a murderer from the beginning and does not stand in truth, because there is no truth in him. When he tells a lie, he speaks in character, because he is a liar and the father of lies.

When such fundamental questions are being taught incorrectly, what follows has a very good chance of being incorrect also. My question is one I can’t find answered anywhere. What is the correct way to approach your diocesan office about their teaching bad theology?

John
Erie, PA.

It’s best to be VERY careful in this case. You should address what your purpose here is…what are you trying to achieve…and does it fit with what is taught by the Church.

Saying that your diocesan office is teaching bad doctrine…is like saying that your bishop is teaching error, which may not go over very well.

Also…review whether you are duty-bound to say anything in this case…and if not…for what purpose will you speak? A spiritual work of mercy? Fraternal correction? To protect those under your care?

You are not obligated to perform spiritual works of mercy…and fraternal correction will fail if all of the qualifications are not met. You are obligated to protect those in your care, but, of course, as you see fit in your prudential judgment.

It seems highly improbable that the diocesan office is ignorant of what they are teaching their future catechists and people only do what is evil for one of three reasons: they either don’t know it’s evil, don’t believe it’s evil or don’t care it’s evil… If the diocesan office (giving them the benefit of the doubt) knows very well what is being taught the catechists, then that leaves that they either do not believe or do not care.

If they do not believe or do not care, there may be nothing you can say to them to show them their error, since the First Vatican Council teaches that you cannot argue a person to the faith (under the canons on Faith #5, and Faith and Reason #1).

– Nicole