Gay Catholic asks for help.

[ConstantineTG]

Up until recently I have lived a normal everyday life, centered around college work, my night job and my Catholic faith. It was everything I wanted it to be- It was all going to plan, a structured, respectable and Catholic life. I attended Mass every week, said my prayers daily, went to confession monthly and campaigned for Catholic social issues.

However, some time ago I became friends with a guy who was gay but still practices his faith in the best way that he can, we shared many common interests and it was just one of those friendships between two guys that every man has. Yet, after some time I realized that I actually had feelings for him in a more intimate way, this came as a shock as I had never had homosexual feelings before, I resisted the feelings for some time, I even stopped seeing him but because we work together it was impossible to avoid him completely. I really struggled with these feelings and it seemed that despite how often I knelt crying my eyes out and begging God to take these feelings away my prayers were not answered. I quickly sank into depression and I took to drink as a way of dealing with my pain. I wasn’t an alcoholic but I was binge drinking every weekend. One night, we were at a party together and well, I got quite drunk, I went outside for a cigarette and he followed me. He told me that he had feelings for me and that he knew that I had feelings for him, he kissed me. I knew right then that this wasn’t some kind of phase or confusion, I had always felt like this but had never realized it. I realized that I love him.

As great as that feeling was the despair returned quickly as I knew straight away that if I followed my heart I would never again be able to play the role that I have played. I have worked tirelessly for my faith all my life, I love my Church and I try to be loyal to it but I cannot ignore him either. He and I are now seeing each other, but I now know that I will now be committing mortal sin, that I will never enjoy the Eucharist again or be able to pray in the same way, that I can never attend Confession again or enjoy the peace that comes from being Catholic all because of the way that I was born. I now have to choose between the man I love and the faith I hold so dear. I do not want to give up either, I cannot believe that God created me like this and has given me such capability to love but demands that I don’t love, that if I act in the way He created me then I cannot be part of his communion, that I cannot receive the same help from the sacraments as His other children, such a God would be by His very nature an unjust God. I now am left agonizing over what to do, broken hearted for my faith. I want to ask you all, whoever you are, Can anybody give me advice and above all their prayers.

You can still love one another as brothers. Monks live in communities of people of the same gender, I don’t see why you can’t do that. Love doesn’t mean you have to have sex. If there is mutual respect and true love, I don’t see why it can’t work. You can help each other bear this burden through life, without pretending that you are married or trying to have sex with one another. It doesn’t have to go there. I don’t see why people think love has to always equate with marriage and sex. I love my kids, I love my parents, I love my siblings, I have friends from both genders and I love them. I don’t want to marry them or have sex with them.

It is a burden, we all have burdens, though they may not look like one another. If this is truly love, then it should help guide you both towards Christ. There is no reason for you not to have a relationship, but be as brothers and as friends.

 

[StJudeprayforme]

And I will renew my call, whenever I see it challenged, to conform to the Church’s thinkning regarding sexuality, personhood, marriage, and the family, as our Baptismal vows and our Confirmation assent requires each of us to do. It requires us to oppose the secular “church” which opposes our Faith.

The ones applying inappropriate and misleading adjectives, and a false contemporary psychology, are those in the “gay community.” Have a nice day.

And thank you, Dakota.

The Church has no teaching regarding how languages evolve to convey concepts. It isn’t within her competence. She teaches infallibly on matters of faith or morals. How individuals express things such as “I am sexually attracted to the same sex” is up to them and she has no real authority on the matter in the vernacular. She can request there to be a standard theological way to refer to the subject, and she has done so by giving a definition for what she means when she says “homosexuality” and “homosexual persons” in the Catechism. This does not mean that Catholics need to use the language of the Catechism in their everyday usage, and even if it did, a good number of people here wouldn’t be using it either because they think “SSA” is the official way to refer to homosexuality (it isn’t.)

I affirm all that the Church has to say on these issues as well. I am simply pointing out how demeaning the self-appointed language police can be on this issue, both on this forum and in every day conversations, when they think they are conveying Church teaching, but instead all they are doing is promoting a neologism started by the Canadian bishops in the 1990s. It isn’t helpful, and the issue that it seeks to address is a non-issue for most homosexual people, since they don’t define themselves by their sexual orientation anyway.

 

[Guilou67]

Up until recently I have lived a normal everyday life, centered around college work, my night job and my Catholic faith. It was everything I wanted it to be- It was all going to plan, a structured, respectable and Catholic life. I attended Mass every week, said my prayers daily, went to confession monthly and campaigned for Catholic social issues.

However, some time ago I became friends with a guy who was gay but still practices his faith in the best way that he can, we shared many common interests and it was just one of those friendships between two guys that every man has. Yet, after some time I realized that I actually had feelings for him in a more intimate way, this came as a shock as I had never had homosexual feelings before, I resisted the feelings for some time, I even stopped seeing him but because we work together it was impossible to avoid him completely. I really struggled with these feelings and it seemed that despite how often I knelt crying my eyes out and begging God to take these feelings away my prayers were not answered. I quickly sank into depression and I took to drink as a way of dealing with my pain. I wasn’t an alcoholic but I was binge drinking every weekend. One night, we were at a party together and well, I got quite drunk, I went outside for a cigarette and he followed me. He told me that he had feelings for me and that he knew that I had feelings for him, he kissed me. I knew right then that this wasn’t some kind of phase or confusion, I had always felt like this but had never realized it. I realized that I love him.

As great as that feeling was the despair returned quickly as I knew straight away that if I followed my heart I would never again be able to play the role that I have played. I have worked tirelessly for my faith all my life, I love my Church and I try to be loyal to it but I cannot ignore him either. He and I are now seeing each other, but I now know that I will now be committing mortal sin, that I will never enjoy the Eucharist again or be able to pray in the same way, that I can never attend Confession again or enjoy the peace that comes from being Catholic all because of the way that I was born. I now have to choose between the man I love and the faith I hold so dear. I do not want to give up either, I cannot believe that God created me like this and has given me such capability to love but demands that I don’t love, that if I act in the way He created me then I cannot be part of his communion, that I cannot receive the same help from the sacraments as His other children, such a God would be by His very nature an unjust God. I now am left agonizing over what to do, broken hearted for my faith. I want to ask you all, whoever you are, Can anybody give me advice and above all their prayers.

No brother, It is not choosing between the man and the faith, it’s CHOOSEN between that man and GOD. We all have a Cross to bear. This one is yours. Jesus never said it would be easy ( do not forget the narrow path). Why do you think you where born like that. Nothing happen until you met him. Satan could have just put him in your way just to derail you from Jesus’s path. It is our responsibility to always look at the sacrifice Jesus made by dying on the cross for us. and " Unjust God" is way to big a word to say, as you know GOD IN LOVE , THRUTH, AND JUST.

 

[Elizabeth502]

The Church has no teaching regarding how languages evolve to convey concepts. It isn’t within her competence. She teaches infallibly on matters of faith or morals.

Part of that faith, and morals, is the language the Church uses to convey that, because meaning is imbedded in language. There is simply no ambiguity about that. Philosophically and theologically, the Church is consistent. She does not accommodate her language to accord with the general public. And that will never happen. She may understand pastoral needs differently, in an evolving way, but never the theology.

Outside of the Church’s language – borrowing other language, other paradigms, other systems --the theology is not coherent. The Church strives for coherence and depends on language to assure that coherence. However that language is understood outside the Church is neither here nor there. The Church understands the language she speaks and communicates the same language to the faithful, who are also commissioned to understand and convey the language accurately. Which is what I do and will continue to do.

Systematic Theology is dependent on a particular language to express that theology.

 

[Baelor]

Part of that faith, and morals, is the language the Church uses to convey that, because meaning is imbedded in language.

But that meaning is mutable so long as a language is in use. This is precisely one of the reasons that the Church uses Latin – it is a dead language and thus particular theological meanings are fossilized, or only mutable by the body that unquestionably controls the language – the Church.

The Church understands the language she speaks and communicates the same language to the faithful, who are also commissioned to understand and convey the language accurately. Which is what I do and will continue to do.

Systematic Theology is dependent on a particular language to express that theology.

And yet we are not restricted to the Church terminology.

 

[Ruthie_again]

I’m sad to see that this thread, started by a homosexual who needs help, has descended into the usual infighting and uncharitableness.

I am consoled whenever I read this, written by blessed John Henry Cardinal Newman:

God has created me to do Him some definite service; He has committed some work to me which He has not committed to another. …

Therefore I will trust Him. Whatever, wherever I am, I can never be thrown away. If I am in sickness, my sickness may serve Him; in perplexity, my perplexity may serve Him; if I am in sorrow, my sorrow may serve Him. My sickness, or perplexity, or sorrow may be necessary causes of some great end, which is quite beyond us. He does nothing in vain; He may prolong my life, He may shorten it; He knows what He is about. He may take away my friends, He may throw me among strangers, He may make me feel desolate, make my spirits sink, hide the future from me—still He knows what He is about.

I need to apply this to everyone, not just myself.

And I don’t want to keep being useful as a bad example. So:

Eternal Father, I offer You the Body and Blood, Soul and Divinity of Your dearly beloved Son, Our Lord Jesus Christ, in atonement for our sins and those of the whole world. For the sake of His sorrowful Passion, have mercy on us and on the whole world.

In need of mercy and confession,

 

[Dakota_Roberts]

And I will renew my call, whenever I see it challenged, to conform to the Church’s thinkning regarding sexuality, personhood, marriage, and the family, as our Baptismal vows and our Confirmation assent requires each of us to do. It requires us to oppose the secular “church” which opposes our Faith.

The ones applying inappropriate and misleading adjectives, and a false contemporary psychology, are those in the “gay community.” Have a nice day.

And thank you, Dakota.

What did you think of the article?

I don’t understand what you mean by “gay psyche” as I’ve never heard it in real life and a Google search shows little information.

Part of that faith, and morals, is the language the Church uses to convey that, because meaning is imbedded in language. There is simply no ambiguity about that. Philosophically and theologically, the Church is consistent. She does not accommodate her language to accord with the general public. And that will never happen. She may understand pastoral needs differently, in an evolving way, but never the theology.

Outside of the Church’s language – borrowing other language, other paradigms, other systems --the theology is not coherent. The Church strives for coherence and depends on language to assure that coherence. However that language is understood outside the Church is neither here nor there. The Church understands the language she speaks and communicates the same language to the faithful, who are also commissioned to understand and convey the language accurately. Which is what I do and will continue to do.

Systematic Theology is dependent on a particular language to express that theology.

That is one of the reasons the Church (continues) to use Latin, it isn’t going to change and thus is perfect for official versions.

 

[StJudeprayforme]

Part of that faith, and morals, is the language the Church uses to convey that, because meaning is imbedded in language. There is simply no ambiguity about that. Philosophically and theologically, the Church is consistent. She does not accommodate her language to accord with the general public. And that will never happen. She may understand pastoral needs differently, in an evolving way, but never the theology.

Language expresses concepts. As already pointed out, the Church uses Latin as the official language because it is dead and cannot evolve. Modern languages evolve to make things easier to express. Dakota has already showed how the word “gay” developed in an earlier post.

Outside of the Church’s language – borrowing other language, other paradigms, other systems --the theology is not coherent. The Church strives for coherence and depends on language to assure that coherence. However that language is understood outside the Church is neither here nor there. The Church understands the language she speaks and communicates the same language to the faithful, who are also commissioned to understand and convey the language accurately. Which is what I do and will continue to do.

The Church has looked quite favourably towards phenomenology, which is a relatively new philosophical school. Read more into St. Edith Stein and Bl. John Paul II if you do not believe me. John Paul II’s “personalistic principle” is almost identical in the way it is phrased to Immanuel Kant’s Second Formulation of the Categorical Imperative. The Church is able to adapt to various ways of expressing ideas.

Systematic Theology is dependent on a particular language to express that theology.

Two things:

1. The language that many people here and in real life use in an attempt to convey what the Church teaches on homosexuality is NOT the language the Church herself uses. She uses the term “homosexual person” and “homosexuality.” You will find no mention of “same-sex attraction” in the Catechism or other statements from the Holy See on this matter. The Holy See uses the phrase homosexual persons in its theological documents written after Cardinal Ratzinger’s 1986 letter that first raised the concerns about reductionism. Ratzinger himself uses the phrase the two paragraph following his raising the concern. If the use of the phrase were a problem for him, I doubt he would have used it in the same document expressing the concerns.
2. Gay is a colloquial term, and for obvious reasons is not used in theological documents. It doesn’t make it bad when used on internet forums or when talking with someone who is not a trained theologian.

 

[InSearchofGrace]

Language expresses concepts. As already pointed out, the Church uses Latin as the official language because it is dead and cannot evolve. Modern languages evolve to make things easier to express. Dakota has already showed how the word “gay” developed in an earlier post.

The Church has looked quite favourably towards phenomenology, which is a relatively new philosophical school. Read more into St. Edith Stein and Bl. John Paul II if you do not believe me. John Paul II’s “personalistic principle” is almost identical in the way it is phrased to Immanuel Kant’s Second Formulation of the Categorical Imperative. The Church is able to adapt to various ways of expressing ideas.

Two things:

1. The language that many people here and in real life use in an attempt to convey what the Church teaches on homosexuality is NOT the language the Church herself uses. She uses the term “homosexual person” and “homosexuality.” You will find no mention of “same-sex attraction” in the Catechism or other statements from the Holy See on this matter. The Holy See uses the phrase homosexual persons in its theological documents written after Cardinal Ratzinger’s 1986 letter that first raised the concerns about reductionism. Ratzinger himself uses the phrase the two paragraph following his raising the concern. If the use of the phrase were a problem for him, I doubt he would have used it in the same document expressing the concerns.
2. Gay is a colloquial term, and for obvious reasons is not used in theological documents. It doesn’t make it bad when used on internet forums or when talking with someone who is not a trained theologian.

 

[CopticChristian]

mugginsjr
Trial Membership

I simply don’t know how to respond to this once again while maintaining some sort of charitable sense.

If you know not do not.

Please refrain from insulting me. And it’s important for you to know that libel is still on the books in this country.

Let me help you…

There are several ways a person must go about proving that libel has taken place. For example, in the United States, first, the person must prove that the statement was false. Second, the person must prove that the statement caused harm. Third, the person must prove that the statement was made without adequate research into the truthfulness of the statement.

Prove that what I posted is false.
Prove that what I posted caused harm.
Prove that what I posted was done without adequate research…then

Go to the lawfirm of DeweyCheatum&How…you can PM me for their point of contact and tell them this…

Coptic Christian on an internet anonymous forum caused Mugginsjr harm as a result of an anonymouse posting…do we have a case?

Let me know.

Sir I know absolutely nothing about this organization other than they purport to help Catholics who are gay.

Well, then, in consideration that you admit lack of knowledge in your opening statement as to your ability to respond there is hope. You can ruminate, meditate, reflect on how you might acquire said knowledge and consider reading what was posted that is contrary to what you believe to be helpful for a start.

But your posts and links here show not one example of what they have done to establish your claim that they are harmful to anyone seeking their help.

Never start a sentence with “but”, it is either a preposition or conjunction…

I know absolutely nothing about this organization other than they purport to help Catholics who are gay but your posts and links here show not one example…

would be better understood and you could use however, although, inspite of, etc…this would help understanding…

If Christian charity is not enough to stop your incredibly insulting tones and slander, then I assume their lawsuit against you would.

In Charity I offer you another suggestion, do not start a sentence with “if”…it is difficult to assess intent, tone, and now you suggest Slander??

“Defamation” is the general term used internationally, and is used in this article where it is not necessary to distinguish between “slander” and “libel”. Libel and slander both require publication.[7] The fundamental distinction between libel and slander lies solely in the form in which the defamatory matter is published. If the offending material is published in some fleeting form, as by spoken words or sounds, sign language, gestures and the like, then this is slander.

Here, again, I refer you to the well known law firm DeweyCheatum&How…I am sure that your case for libel and slander will be understood and received well…let me know…

In the meantime…the

Catholic Association for Lesbian and Gay Ministries…’

Should be avoided by Faithful Catholics as it is seen as controversial and potentially not espousing Church teaching…there are better organizations that do adhere to Church teachings…

 

[Rau]

Don’t all sinners have experience in ‘changing their ways’. And for help in that we have the saints to look to for inspiration and Christ to call upon with prayer.

Yes, I think that’s a fair observation. But I think we don’t all face challenges of equal difficulty. Fortunately, God will take that into account.

 

[Rau]

Just so you understand, this is a common sentiment that emanates from Empiricism. Only those that have experienced can render an understanding of what it is that they experienced and are the only useful aids to understanding of that experience. …

…So, really what you are saying is that any immorality can only be dealt with by those that have experience that immorality and all other outside guidance is of no use thus rendering all priests impotent unless they have experienced and professed all manner of sin…

What I am saying is what I wrote; not your approximation of it. I don’t subscribe to empiricism. Many good people have a degree of understanding of the OP’s situation and challenge, and can render assistance. But a lack of experience brings with it limitations.

 

[Rau]

…Yet there is no agreement that sexual attraction is “innate.” …

I agree that there is not 100% agreement - not sure what % it would be. If not innate, what are the other possibilities?

 

[mugginsjr]

Is this your dogma? It certainly is not from the Church founded by Christ.

I think no, is probably the answer you are looking for but I’m guessing because we are talking apples and oranges here, I think. I was speaking of faith, specifically mine. Dogma is part of a church’s structure, a set of core beliefs which are pretty much a requirement of becoming a member of that church. I suppose my views are beyond marginally different because I tend to separate those two things: church and faith, that is. But as a human I must expect that somewhere are others who realize the difference also.

First, isn’t this a conversation for another thread? This one is concerning someone asking for help on another issue. I feel bad hijacking it to talk about matters that don’t have anything to do with his query. Though only here for a short while I find there is mostly only nit picking going on here and very little concern for the OP.

But as long as we are here: I am a member of the Catholic Church, which means that I accept and believe our deepest held beliefs, which can basically be found in the Creed. Those are dogma, central core beliefs of a human institution whose purpose is to help souls build their faith. Christ’s Church is universal faith. It’s possible that you and I view these things differently. Faith is what I’m talking about. I view faith as my personal relationship with God. And in that sense, yes, love, patience, modesty, forgiveness, understanding, wisdom, and counsel are all central parts of that relationship.

Generally speaking though, I do not carry traditional beliefs in Church structure into my personal faith. I do not believe that one must proclaim the name Jesus, nor even ever have heard His name during his/her lifetime in order to be saved and stand next to Christ in Heaven on Judgement Day. That thought alone would have most off-shoot Christians in a tizzy. But the truth is that allegation is like a smack to my face, because the Christ that I know, the most completely-loving, most thoughtful, most selfless individual who ever lived would NEVER be so vein as to command anyone to bow down to Him, nor would He permit anyone else to command that in His stead. And in fact you will find that nowhere in written word, in any books included in the Bible or beyond, is any reference by Jesus even hinting at a command for anyone to praise or adore Him.

And understand that notion is completely different than believing He is the Son of God, which is what we Catholics believe. That is Dogma. What I’m saying is that believing Christ is the Son of God is not necessary for one to reach salvation, only to become a member of the Catholic Church. There’s a difference there, Fix. Being a member of any church will get no one to Heaven. But living the life God wants us to live will. When I read the Bible, when I read about His life and Message, that is what I see.

Christ was asked once by a passerby what the man could do in order to reach salvation. Christ replied simply “Love the Lord God, your Father, with all of your heart, mind, and soul. And love one another. Do these things and you will reach the kingdom of Heaven.”

Not “believe in Me” or “Praise Me.”

It’s possible that the Bible could exist of this single sentiment alone, in my opinion. But it’s nice to have the rest of it because every word of it points directly to this. Our only real job in life is to determine what “love” is. I don’t think that it is blindly telling another that his or her faith is misguided. In fact I’m certain of it because Christ very explicitly told His Apostles not to do that.

Everyone is offered their own measure of faith, friend. I don’t know what yours is, and I’m pretty sure you don’t know what mine is. And I hope that I’m not being too forward by this suggestion, but I honestly think your own faith may prosper from a specific venture into the Catechism. Buried within our Catechism is the notion that a man might attain salvation without ever saying or hearing the words “Jesus Christ,” nor ever knowing of His great sacrifice. You see, THAT was His Sacrifice, that all men - ALL MEN - might receive salvation and forgiveness of sin. In no way was it connected to the persons knowledge of Christ and certainly not connected to praising Him. And YES! The Catholic Church, wrapped in all of it’s knowledge and Tradition, big T’s and little t’s, believes exactly that. My suggestion would simply be for you to begin that venture to find that specific paragraph. If you are given that measure, Fix, then I suspect you will find many other things along that journey.

 

[Edward_H]

The Church has no teaching regarding how languages evolve to convey concepts. It isn’t within her competence. She teaches infallibly on matters of faith or morals. How individuals express things such as “I am sexually attracted to the same sex” is up to them and she has no real authority on the matter in the vernacular. She can request there to be a standard theological way to refer to the subject, and she has done so by giving a definition for what she means when she says “homosexuality” and “homosexual persons” in the Catechism. This does not mean that Catholics need to use the language of the Catechism in their everyday usage, and even if it did, a good number of people here wouldn’t be using it either because they think “SSA” is the official way to refer to homosexuality (it isn’t.)

I affirm all that the Church has to say on these issues as well. I am simply pointing out how demeaning the self-appointed language police can be on this issue, both on this forum and in every day conversations, when they think they are conveying Church teaching, but instead all they are doing is promoting a neologism started by the Canadian bishops in the 1990s. It isn’t helpful, and the issue that it seeks to address is a non-issue for most homosexual people, since they don’t define themselves by their sexual orientation anyway.

You might want to moderate your point a bit on how the Church teaches.

Why do you think Church documents are written in Latin? Why is the official language of the Mass in Latin?

Because it’s a dead language. That may seem a weakness to “enlightened minds”, but it means our key documents, thoughts, laws, liturgy are NOT susceptible to language drift.

 

[mugginsjr]

If you know not do not.

Your mannerisms seem filled with some sort of hatred. I feel sorry for you and will pray that whatever this is be lifted from you.

Moderator, can you please let me know how to block this persons posts from my view?

 

[Edward_H]

Your mannerisms seem filled with some sort of hatred. I feel sorry for you and will pray that whatever this is be lifted from you.

Moderator, can you please let me know how to block this persons posts from my view?

Stop. You conclude too much from such little exposure. Leave Coptic alone, and calm down. Playing amateur lawyer isn’t a way to engage.

And shorten your rambling overlong discursive dissertations. Stay on topic. Make a few clear points, without all the accompanying internal dialog.

 

[StJudeprayforme]

You might want to moderate your point a bit on how the Church teaches.

Why do you think Church documents are written in Latin? Why is the official language of the Mass in Latin?

Because it’s a dead language. That may seem a weakness to “enlightened minds”, but it means our key documents, thoughts, laws, liturgy are NOT susceptible to language drift.

I understand this. I think I acknowledge the use of Latin for these exact purposes in another post farther down. I was speaking specifically about how modern languages adapt and the usage of “gay” and “homosexual” in the context of the English language, so this doesn’t really change the point I was making in the post you were replying to: The Church has no authority to say what colloquialisms are or aren’t allowed in the English vernacular. It isn’t within her competence to do so.

What matters is how these words are used and the ideas they express, which she is competent to teach on. She can say that it is wrong to reduce people to their sexual orientation. That is all she can say. People have to form their own consciences as to whether their using the word “gay” or “homosexual” reduces an individual’s personhood to his or her sexual orientation. For most people I have met, it isn’t used in this way, and thus is acceptable. If someone uses these words in such a way it is a problem with their usage of them, not with the words themselves.

 

[Edward_H]

I understand this. I think I acknowledge the use of Latin for these exact purposes in another post farther down. I was speaking specifically about how modern languages adapt and the usage of “gay” and “homosexual” in the context of the English language, so this doesn’t really change the point I was making in the post you were replying to: The Church has no authority to say what colloquialisms are or aren’t allowed in the English vernacular. It isn’t within her competence to do so.

What matters is how these words are used and the ideas they express, which she is competent to teach on. She can say that it is wrong to reduce people to their sexual orientation. That is all she can say. People have to form their own consciences as to whether their using the word “gay” or “homosexual” reduces an individual’s personhood to his or her sexual orientation. For most people I have met, it isn’t used in this way, and thus is acceptable. If someone uses these words in such a way it is a problem with their usage of them, not with the words themselves.

Yes, good points. Agree.

 

[Elizabeth502]

That may seem a weakness to “enlightened minds”, but it means our key documents, thoughts, laws, liturgy are NOT susceptible to language drift.

And part of that lack of drift is built into the coherent integration of the Church’s theology. It is not subject to “but…I don’t believe THAT about THAT; I’ll just choose to believe this other part.” It is a working whole, which makes sense in context, within the terms as they are defined by the Church, not the outside world. Meaning is communicated through language.

And as I have said often on CAF, the real fundamental deficit in modern catechesis is that rarely are modern laypeople exposed to the philosophy which undergirds the theology. It’s very important to understand how both work together. The theology assumes an understanding of the philosophical terms, and argument (apologetics) is a function of the philosophical and theological terms working together, not apart. Those are the minds which are enlightened.