Improperly Catechised

[ProVobis]

Good point. The quality of the homework can be a problem. “Make a Rosary Book… color it neatly with crayons…”

Now don’t knock crayons. It’s those lousy calculators which caused everyone to lose their mathematical senses.

 

[Cristiano]

Or doing homework of any kind on the weekend condemned. I couldn’t believe parents were actually pushing this condemnation of too much homework. What, just give them all A’s for showing up in class once in a while?

I am one of those parents that complains about too much homework. Often the problem is that homework is not assigned in a consistent manner and it goes from overload to almost nothing. What really bother my family is that often Saturday is not enough to complete all the high school assignments and the child has to work on Sunday. The Sunday schedule starts at 5:45am and the whole morning is devoted to Church activities, the afternoon should be for a day of rest but often for my son is homework time.

I think that a lot of homework is just a waste of time because the students do not profit from it. It simply follows the Pareto rule where 80% of the work is done in 20% of the time. I think that a lot of good students get stressed burned out from too much homework while others are completely neglected. My opinion is not that we should worry about the B students that are not A students but we should worry about students that are not even at the D level. When I was young we never had so much homework and I still managed to get a very good education.

BTW My other per peeve is that because of too much homework from school the parish discourages the catechists to give simply assignments to the students that come to Sunday school.

 

[vsedriver]

Maybe blame instead the five- or seven-hundred-year gap between Church ideology and the realities of life in this century. I think you’d be closer in your assumption.

BTW, I’m not a “cafeteria Catholic” by any means, but my mind and vision are certainly more open than the general vision here on CAF.
.

interesting POV. Why remain in a Church that so clearly has feet of clay when there is a smorgasborg of ‘churches’ who are so in the realities of life in this century?

I also believe we were poorly taught. Once you read and study on the reasons behind the Church’s rites, dogma, and doctrines you soon see much clearer what it is to be Catholic. But this needs to be taught early and often.

 

[jmcrae]

Well, we got gold stars next to our names for memorizing a few lines of catechism. Wasn’t that cool enough?

Hey, when I was eight years old, we got bookmarks for memorizing Scripture verses, and special pins for perfect attendance. If we collected the whole set of bookmarks by the end of the term, we would win a Bible of our very own. I still have my bookmarks, my Bible, and my attendance pins.

 

[Seamus_L]

Now, to an interesting question. Has anyone ever heard the term “needs to be re-catechised” because they were judged by someone to be too rigid in there Catholic beliefs ?

 

[jmcrae]

When I was young we never had so much homework and I still managed to get a very good education.

Same here. I didn’t get that heavy of a load of homework until I was in College. When I was a kid, I had lots of time to hang out with my friends, go to the library, ride my bike, and be with my family, and I still got good grades in school.

 

[ConstantineTG]

Now, to an interesting question. Has anyone ever heard the term “needs to be re-catechised” because they were judged by someone to be too rigid in there Catholic beliefs ?

Haven’t heard the term but I agree with it. The extreme goes both ways. There is such a thing as fundamentalism and the source is people who are so deep and feverent in the faith but at the same time has the wrong understanding of what they know. Knowledge is only one aspect of catechesis, another is understanding. If you know everything but not fully understand it, its as dangerous as one who makes stuff up as they go along.

 

[ProVobis]

I am one of those parents that complains about too much homework. Often the problem is that homework is not assigned in a consistent manner and it goes from overload to almost nothing.

It looks like I’ve been overridden here. In the universities credit hours are assigned on the amount of work one is expected to perform OUTSIDE classes. If I’m taking a 5-hr calculus course, I’m expected to perform 10 hours of study of the text, notes, and research, though my actual class time may be only taking exams or notes of material that may not even be in the texts.

Are teachers supposed to be reading and solving problems for the students these days? Can learning be done only in the classroom, if that much? If parents know better than the teachers, then perhaps they should consider homeschooling in my opinion.

 

[ProVobis]

I am one of those parents that complains about too much homework. Often the problem is that homework is not assigned in a consistent manner and it goes from overload to almost nothing.

It looks like I’ve been overridden here. In the universities credit hours are assigned on the amount of work one is expected to perform OUTSIDE classes. If I’m taking a 5-hr calculus course, I’m expected to perform 10 hours of study of the text, notes, and research, though my actual class time may be only taking exams or notes of material that may not even be in the texts.

Are teachers supposed to be reading and solving problems for the students these days? Can learning be done only in the classroom, if that much? If parents know better than the teachers and the homework they’re assigned, then perhaps they should consider homeschooling in my opinion.

 

[Cristiano]

Now, to an interesting question. Has anyone ever heard the term “needs to be re-catechised” because they were judged by someone to be too rigid in there Catholic beliefs ?

I have been a Catholic-nazi and a Taliban for sticking to the teachings of the Church.

I doubt that anyone would want me to be re-catechized, but de-catechized yes!

 

[jmcrae]

It looks like I’ve been overridden here. In the universities credit hours are assigned on the amount of work one is expected to perform OUTSIDE classes. If I’m taking a 5-hr calculus course, I’m expected to perform 10 hours of study of the text, notes, and research, though my actual class time may be only taking exams or notes of material that may not even be in the texts.

University students are adults out living on their own and preparing for the working world, though - not kids living in families. A 15 year old kid does not need to be spending his entire weekend doing homework and missing out on his family life - which by the way is actually quite a bit more than ten hours a week, especially when you add in the 3-4 hours of homework every weeknight.

Are teachers supposed to be reading and solving problems for the students these days?

Who is suggesting that they should?

Can learning be done only in the classroom, if that much?

Well, I’m thinking that would be a good place for it to start. Homework shouldn’t be a remedy for the fact that they are messing around all day with all these community building activities and self-esteem activities, and wasting class time.

 

[ProVobis]

Now, to an interesting question. Has anyone ever heard the term “needs to be re-catechised” because they were judged by someone to be too rigid in there Catholic beliefs ?

I was basically told that in my senior year Apologetics class (1965) which I almost flunked. Yet some Catholic college was offered me a scholarship to attend there. Go figure.

I turned it down by the way. The University of Illinois had better physics and Latin programs.

 

[ProVobis]

Now, to an interesting question. Has anyone ever heard the term “needs to be re-catechised” because they were judged by someone to be too rigid in there Catholic beliefs ?

I was basically told that in my Catholic H.S. senior year Apologetics class (1965) which I almost flunked. Yet some Catholic college was offering me a scholarship to attend there. Go figure.

I turned it down by the way. The University of Illinois had better physics and Latin programs.

 

[Seamus_L]

I know what you mean Christiano. It always comes from the “Church no longer teaches that” crowd.

 

[James224]

It’s a term I hear occasionally and I was wondering if it’s use is valid. Do we have alot of Catholics who were improperly catechised, or is it more of a case of large numbers who just choose to reject Catholic teachings. If you believe it’s the former, in what ways do you see people being improperly catechised ?

I was brought up and learned the faith in Catholic School beginning in 1961 and was taught the Baltimore Catechism. This was the best. In 1970, the Bishops changed the whole CCD system and it’s been downhill since. I was a CCD teacher for 7 years in this new system and I didn’t use the books much because we had only an hour per week to teach the faith and, if you used the books they gave us, you wouldn’t teach very much doctrine. I don’t think the books we used were incorrect but the method was not good. To teach one simple doctrine you had to include all the children in some activity and, out of that, they would learn the teaching. It takes too long to teach something by this method. All you have to do is look at the Baltimore Catechism and you see the Scholastic Method with a question followed by the answer. When I was in school we had to memorize these bullet points. We did discuss them but you get the teaching immediately. What’s funny to me is that I’ve seen the old mainline protestant denominations’ catechism’s and they were very similiar to the Baltimore Catechism! I don’t know if they abandoned theirs but they probably did with the excitement of updating everything like we did.

 

[Jehoshua]

There’s also another way of looking at this, although not a popular view on this very conservative Forum.

Instead of using the “poorly catechized” catch-all phrase, maybe consider that many people (actually, far more than consider themselves “traditional” or "orthodox (little o) Catholics) actually WERE “properly catechized” in the immediate pre- and post-Vatican II era, which stresses love for God and others and service to one another versus the post-reformation (until Vat II) stance which emphasized the primacy of rules, law and obedience to law under fear of hell.

I was reared in the late 1940;s, early 1950’s, which you here would have to admit guaranteed “proper catechization” according to your standards. However – the change in theological emphasis post VII taught me that as I am adult in all other areas of my life, so too can I act as an adult in my spiritual life. I can seek to know the Church’s position and teaching on various issues, but I’ve also been given intelligence, a conscience and the God-given freedom to use my conscience in the manner in which I conform to those laws.

I, and the millions like me whom you probably label (and libel) as “cafeteria Catholics” – or not even Catholics at all – live in the 21st century, not the 15th. Our eyes have been opened by the movement of the Spirit and a return to Gospel values – unlike the organizational Church which is mired in its monarchical model and quest for power and the expression of that power through ultra-authoritarianism. This happened during JPII’s papal reign and continues today through the reactionary conservatism. We see a completely different (official) Church than you do, and it’s not a pretty picture, nor does it remotely resemble Jesus’ Suffering Servant.

If that Roman model suits most of you, as it certainly appears to, I say, enjoy this cyclical wave you’re riding. Every long-lived institution moves between conservatism and liberalism, and the latter is certainly on the rise as long as conservative Popes continue to appoint their conservative buddies as Cardinals and Bishops, since they are the only decision-making body.

It sounds very condescending to me to assume that contemporary Catholics don’t live to your religious standards because we “weren’t taught correctly.” While that may be true in a small part, it’s certainly not true for every person who lives his/her Catholic faith according to the theological emphasis used in post-VII teaching. It’s ridiculous and false to blame every perceived wrong present in the Church now to inferior teaching and learning. Maybe blame instead the five- or seven-hundred-year gap between Church ideology and the realities of life in this century. I think you’d be closer in your assumption.

BTW, I’m not a “cafeteria Catholic” by any means, but my mind and vision are certainly more open than the general vision here on CAF.

.

Lets go through through your statement bit by bit shall we.

Your first assertion that

*Instead of using the “poorly catechized” catch-all phrase, maybe consider that many people (actually, far more than consider themselves “traditional” or "orthodox (little o) Catholics) actually WERE “properly catechized” *

is logically flawed because catechism as the teaching of doctrine and the christian faith by definition implies the impartation of the teachings of the Church. Thus one who holds a divergent belief can not have been properly catechised because by diverging from the teaching they are professing something never held in the Church’s doctrine to begin with. Proper catechesis requires teaching of the teachings, vague discussions of “morals” and “love” are no substitute.

your second assertion states that there was a change in theological emphasis, this is incorrect as the teaching is, was and will be unchangeable. Christ is the same yesterday, today and forever, the truth does not change because of some passing ideological fashion, and it definitely won;t change because a particular person happens to have an issue with humility and the truth. The same goes for your assertion regarding chronological separation of the 15th and 21st centuries. Im afraid just because you live in one of these eras doesn;t make that century it intrinsically better, I would even say that its worse, and as previously stated, God doesn;t change his mind just because of the passing errors of the day or on the basis of the ignorant desires of human sinfulness.

your attitude suggests to my opinion (although since i don;t know you in person i will and can not say whether it is fact) an example of the primordial sin of pride. An “its all about me” attitude that is definitely in contrast to the “suffering servant” you speak of. When people in such an attitude come across something that disagrees with them or challenges their opinions, they simply reject that opinion and say its wrong, and make everything revolve on their opinions and their wants, instead of the genuine needs of others, the wisdom of the past and the unchangeable will of God and instead make their desires the basis of their thought becoming merely automatonic slaves to ephemeral wordly desires and temptations.

I sincerely hope you are not one of these people. However in diverging from the teachings of the Church I can confidently make the assertion that you are a cafateria catholic in that you reject teachings that disagree with you.

 

[Cristiano]

Lets go through through your statement bit by bit shall we.

Your first assertion that

*Instead of using the “poorly catechized” catch-all phrase, maybe consider that many people (actually, far more than consider themselves “traditional” or "orthodox (little o) Catholics) actually WERE “properly catechized” *

is logically flawed because catechism as the teaching of doctrine and the christian faith by definition implies the impartation of the teachings of the Church. Thus one who holds a divergent belief can not have been properly catechised because by diverging from the teaching they are professing something never held in the Church’s doctrine to begin with. Proper catechesis requires teaching of the teachings, vague discussions of “morals” and “love” are no substitute…

Are you saying that properly catechized people loose their free will? Only through loss of free will you can ensure that properly catechized people will accept all the teachings of the Church. There are millions of people in this country that have been properly instructed on financial basics but they still get in debt because they feel good in spending money that they do not have. Knowledge and reason do not ensure compliance.

…your second assertion states that there was a change in theological emphasis, this is incorrect as the teaching is, was and will be unchangeable. Christ is the same yesterday, today and forever, the truth does not change because of some passing ideological fashion, and it definitely won;t change because a particular person happens to have an issue with humility and the truth. The same goes for your assertion regarding chronological separation of the 15th and 21st centuries. Im afraid just because you live in one of these eras doesn;t make that century it intrinsically better, I would even say that its worse, and as previously stated, God doesn;t change his mind just because of the passing errors of the day or on the basis of the ignorant desires of human sinfulness…

I think that you are quite confused between the concept of theological emphasis and teaching of the Church. Just look at the Latin Catholics and Eastern Catholics. In this case the theological emphasis can be quite different but the acceptance and love for the teachings of the Church is the same. Theology is not a teaching, it could go against the teaching and that would be heretical thinking.

…your attitude suggests to my opinion (although since i don;t know you in person i will and can not say whether it is fact) an example of the primordial sin of pride. An “its all about me” attitude that is definitely in contrast to the “suffering servant” you speak of. When people in such an attitude come across something that disagrees with them or challenges their opinions, they simply reject that opinion and say its wrong, and make everything revolve on their opinions and their wants, instead of the genuine needs of others, the wisdom of the past and the unchangeable will of God and instead make their desires the basis of their thought becoming merely automatonic slaves to ephemeral wordly desires and temptations…

Your feelings are your feelings but when you tell a person that is sinful because of pride you insult them. You could prove them wrong in their thinking with a logical argumentation but I do not see that happening. Hiding behind the words “in my opinion” after calling someone prideful does not make things better.

 

[Loboto-Me]

there is a third option
there are many people who were offered excellent catechesis in Catholic school or parish programs but did not pay attention or respond to the gift, or simply did not want to learn.

Sadly I was one of these. I honestly can’t recall what was taught me in the 60’s and 70’s while at my religion classes (Catholic School) I always had a relationship with God from as far back as I remember, but sitting in class, my mind wandered to who knows where.

Thank God He never gave up on me like I did on Him

 

[jmcrae]

Are you saying that properly catechized people loose their free will?

Actually, it is only by means of proper catechesis that a person can gain the kind of control over his will that ensures he has any freedom, at all.

It is in knowing the Church’s teachings that we finally have the solid ground from which to launch ourselves safely into controlled flight, and have the equipment available to us to actually achieve what we have set out to do, to become “the best version of ourselves”.

 

[Cristiano]

Actually, it is only by means of proper catechesis that a person can gain the kind of control over his will that ensures he has any freedom, at all.

It is in knowing the Church’s teachings that we finally have the solid ground from which to launch ourselves safely into controlled flight, and have the equipment available to us to actually achieve what we have set out to do, to become “the best version of ourselves”.

I agree with you on this. I was simply saying that we are not saved by catechism but by grace. In the way it is presented in the post you could argue that with proper catechism you earn salvation. Once catechized always saved!