Is "poor catechesis" a good explanatory tool?

[Vic_Taltrees_UK]

No the “poor catechesis” accusation is a poor one to use. A person can know Catholic teachings, inform their conscience of teaching and of the whys. But still may not believe it. At some point faith must kick in even for the most devout, faithful Catholic. Including faith in Catholic interpretation. …

Rather than “faith” what you may mean may be “belief”.

While there are many cases when a person has indeed been able to find out true Catholic teachings, there are also some when they haven’t, including when true teachings are contradicted in the pulpit, however subtly (e.g by putting a bit too much stress on “brownie points” and “looking good” and “not letting the side down” rather than just plain teaching the faithful to implore God’s help).

In any case since there is a relational element to Christ’s call, if fellow parishioners however nominally “orthodox” can’t cooperate to bring out the gifts in their fellow Catholic and he drops out out of discouragement, maybe it’s because they weren’t well enough catechised in doing so.

Alleging that this “explanation” - the topic proposed by the OP - and which I interpret as exactly that, “explanation” and nothing less than that - is 100% simplistic cop-out as some seem to say is itself simplistic.

 

[PumpkinCookie]

Did you know how to defend the Catholic faith when you were Catholic? Could you explain and give some scripture evidence for any of the Sacraments especially baptism? Do you know scripture well enough today to defend your Noahide faith? If so then show me.

I learned various arguments and tactics to present Catholic ideas in the best possible light, but obviously I didn’t and still do not accept those ideas as true based on any arguments or evidence with which I am familiar. I can make arguments from scripture regarding the sacraments, but that doesn’t mean I accept that the scripture itself is the word of God, or that the arguments are 100% successful.

This is important: I am not here to evangelize. I absolutely do not care to argue in favor of my current beliefs. I think my beliefs are true of course, but that doesn’t mean that I need to force them on others or insist that others think the way I do…or else. In fact, I’m not even particularly motivated to share my own beliefs even with people who ask. Here is a brief summary:

I believe in one God.
I have a strong hunch that the Jews are the most knowledgeable about this God, so I listen to what their tradition has to say.

 

[PumpkinCookie]

Poor catechesis isn’t an accusation against the person poorly catechised!

It’s an accusation against the persons poorly catechising!

And the circumstance of this accusation of mine is not specifically that someone committed the naff act of leaving the Catholic Church or has a naff stance on contraception. It is just as much about the stayers and the “orthodox”.

The rot in the Church got worse about 100 years ago. (In fact it has always been present like Della points out. For example Berulleanism started about 1600.) The world copied it, more and more, in the late 1950s.

Explanatory tool = tool for explanation. Not: tool to be used against those who are already the victims as you have identified.

Also, poor catechesis means poor in quality more than quantity. Thank you for your history in post 21. No-one cared enough where you were at to show Jesus cares where you are at. This isn’t lovey-dovey. It factors in the grot. The cartoons didn’t show it.

There are however cases where people were hardened and the catechesis though not perfect was enough to show them it wasn’t for them.

Then there are cases where it was enough but they are so impervious they pretend (and kid themselves) that it is for them though they are living a lie - sadly some in the hierarchies.

Catechesis is supposed to be life long.

So many permutations.

I’m an American so I have to look up the British slang you’re using. Naff, I like that. Although in an American accent it sounds quite grating. I imagine “Naff” rhymes with “daft” right? In “American” it would more likely have a elongated short “a” and rhyme with the way we say “bath” or the “a” in how we say “fast.” EW.

I am researching Pierre de Berulle. Maybe it is no coincidence that the French became so violently anti-religious. Maybe it was a reaction against “Berulleanism.” I wonder if, like you say, this ideology spread throughout the Catholic world and is now causing a violent rejection in our time. Granted, not physically violent, but intellectually and spiritually violent.

Thanks for bringing this thread up again, it’s a useful discussion to be had I think.

 

[Peter_J]

Is it just me, or do the criticisms here apply equally to, e.g. an Evangelical who looks at Catholic ex-evangelicals and says “Well they must have been poorly catechized” (or “He was never really one of us” or whatever)?

 

[Della]

Is it just me, or do the criticisms here apply equally to, e.g. an Evangelical who looks at Catholic ex-evangelicals and says “Well they must have been poorly catechized” (or “He was never really one of us” or whatever)?

Yes, indeed, and worse. Some feel their former Evangelicals were “lured” into the Church by it’s “smells and bells”, IOW, by a romantic feeling. There is that element in the Catholic faith, although less so these days.

Each side is convinced of its own theological world view, so it can be hard for anyone on either side to understand how someone could possibly “flip” so radically to another one.

Being poorly catechized can be a factor in anyone’s change of mind, but it’s only one of many, many factors that can come into play. To say that being poorly catechized alone must be the sole reason goes too far, IMO. But, it can play a role, otherwise we would not be discussing the issue.

 

[Della]

I learned various arguments and tactics to present Catholic ideas in the best possible light, but obviously I didn’t and still do not accept those ideas as true based on any arguments or evidence with which I am familiar. I can make arguments from scripture regarding the sacraments, but that doesn’t mean I accept that the scripture itself is the word of God, or that the arguments are 100% successful.

This is important: I am not here to evangelize. I absolutely do not care to argue in favor of my current beliefs. I think my beliefs are true of course, but that doesn’t mean that I need to force them on others or insist that others think the way I do…or else. In fact, I’m not even particularly motivated to share my own beliefs even with people who ask. Here is a brief summary:

I believe in one God.
I have a strong hunch that the Jews are the most knowledgeable about this God, so I listen to what their tradition has to say.

Indeed, we Catholics know, or ought to know, that God chose Abraham’s descendants, that he spoke to them through their patriarchs and prophets. We simply believe that Yeshua the Christ was their final prophet being that he was God’s final word to his people. We believe that he refounded Israel on his Apostles and brought about a new covenant for both Jews and Gentiles. Catholicism doesn’t negate Judaism, we see it as the completion of it, and the extension of it in Christ’s Church, and in the sacraments (which replace the offerings of blood–especially in the Eucharist) that Christ established in his Church.

 

[Padres1969]

Indeed, we Catholics know, or ought to know, that God chose Abraham’s descendants, that he spoke to them through their patriarchs and prophets. We simply believe that Yeshua the Christ was their final prophet being that he was God’s final word to his people. We believe that he refounded Israel on his Apostles and brought about a new covenant for both Jews and Gentiles. Catholicism doesn’t negate Judaism, we see it as the completion of it, and the extension of it in Christ’s Church, and in the sacraments (which replace the offerings of blood–especially in the Eucharist) that Christ established in his Church.

I think Catholics, and indeed most of those that would call themselves Christian, believe a bit more than this regarding Yeshua the Christ. He was no mere prophet.

 

[jmcrae]

I think Catholics, and indeed most of those that would call themselves Christian, believe a bit more than this regarding Yeshua the Christ. He was no mere prophet.

Of course not, and Della is well aware of that. She is actually modeling good catechesis here, by building on what the student already knows, without flying out above his ability to comprehend.

 

[Peter_J]

Indeed, we Catholics know, or ought to know, that God chose Abraham’s descendants, that he spoke to them through their patriarchs and prophets. We simply believe that Yeshua the Christ was their final prophet being that he was God’s final word to his people. We believe that he refounded Israel on his Apostles and brought about a new covenant for both Jews and Gentiles. Catholicism doesn’t negate Judaism, we see it as the completion of it, and the extension of it in Christ’s Church, and in the sacraments (which replace the offerings of blood–especially in the Eucharist) that Christ established in his Church.

I realize two others have already referenced this post, but I have to ask: you don’t really mean that, do you? I don’t want to be closed-minded, but this seems to me like a statement about Islam but with Jesus put it in place of Mohammed.

 

[Della]

I realize two others have already referenced this post, but I have to ask: you don’t really mean that, do you? I don’t want to be closed-minded, but this seems to me like a statement about Islam but with Jesus put it in place of Mohammed.

Jesus is God’s final Word to his people, Israel. Did not St. John say that “In the beginning was the word and the word was with God and the word was God?” Of course, he’s more than a prophet, but he was that–in his case he not only spoke God’s word, he was God’s Word.

If one wants to relate Jesus’ main mission–which was to his own people first, to why we believe him to be more, we first have to understand this basic fact about him. I was merely building on what PumpkinCookie already understands/believes. Apologetics starts with what a person knows/accepts and goes from there.

 

[Padres1969]

Of course not, and Della is well aware of that. She is actually modeling good catechesis here, by building on what the student already knows, without flying out above his ability to comprehend.

Ah I see. Good thinking actually.

 

[Peter_J]

Jesus is God’s final Word to his people, Israel. Did not St. John say that “In the beginning was the word and the word was with God and the word was God?” Of course, he’s more than a prophet, but he was that–in his case he not only spoke God’s word, he was God’s Word.

You’re right, I posted too hastily. I should’ve said, you don’t mean that “We simply believe that Yeshua the Christ was their final prophet being that he was God’s final word to his people” describes the difference between Judaism and Christianity, do you?

 

[Della]

You’re right, I posted too hastily. I should’ve said, you don’t mean that “We simply believe that Yeshua the Christ was their final prophet being that he was God’s final word to his people” describes the difference between Judaism and Christianity, do you?

Well, it does. Those Jews who deny that he is their final prophet, their Messiah, certainly aren’t Christian because of it. It is the central difference. I guess I don’t understand your objection to this definition.

 

[guanophore]

Thank you all for the responses. I thought this thread had been deleted since I rarely check anything outside of the philosophy forum. I originally posted it there, but it was moved here unbeknownst to me.

Use the “profile” link above and choose “subscribed threads” from the menu. When you start or post on a thread you are automatically subscribed to it. It is the easiest way to find all the threads on which you have posted.

I hate to give away my age, but let’s just say I didn’t exist before Vatican 2, and the Catholic education I received (formally) was laughable. From a very early age a trust was broken. I didn’t believe my teachers had any idea of what they were talking about because we would do nothing but watch silly cartoons and color pictures of multi-racial children giggling with Jesus. I would ask simple questions and get silly nonsense answers. Lots of guitar strumming, lots of imagining I’m cuddling with Jesus, etc. I’m sure others have had similar experiences. I wonder if this broken trust is the real problem at the root of “poor catechesis.”

Yes, a lot of this suffered the same and worse.

Later, I used to read the newer (1993) Catechism every night before bed and every morning upon waking up (along with the New American Bible). I did that for about 3 years. I’ve also spent considerable time with Aquinas, Trent, Augustine, Ligouri, Francis de Sales, Teresa of Avila, Thomas Kempis, Newman, Anselm, Basil, and many others. I believe I have a solid “DIY” amateur Catholic education. Of course, it has been conducted entirely according to my own biases and interests. It is also far from comprehensive or balanced.

And in all this marvellous research, you are still trying to throw out the lame excuse that the faith is defined by the opinions of the poorly catechized?

Still, though, how much should I have to know in order to believe? For me, the more I studied and meditated upon what I was reading, the less I believed.

Jesus talked about this. When one does not have a teachable heart, it becomes hardened.

I sometimes wonder if an “ignorance is bliss” attitude is prevalent among contemporary Catholics, and I wonder if it is the right attitude.

There is a horrifying degree of ignorance, no doubt. The problem is that you have gone too far in our study to ever go back to ignorance. You cannot be bliss, because you must grapple with that which you know. Had you never read or studied, maybe, but no longer.

Ignorance cannot be used as an excuse for the catechized, however poorly it has been done. We take on an obligation in Confirmation to study and live our faith. At that point, it can no longer be blamed on others.

Not anyone on this forum, obviously!! However, the average church goer (in my experience) seems reluctant to study too hard or look too deep.

Sadly.

Maybe this apprehension is the real problem, or maybe it has kept “butts in seats” for lack of a more elegant expression? I’m all questions and no answers.

It is really irrelevant. You are only responsible for your own butt, and those that God has entrusted to your care. You must grapple with your own apprehension, or fail in the task.

 

[rcwitness]

James 4

“Whoever knows what is right to do and fails to do it, for him it is sin.”