Learn more about Pope Francis rather than criticize

[Lucky7]

Not picking on you (‘cos it;s not just you saying it), but I’m sick of hearing, time and time again how it’s all the priests’ fault.

No one has said it is ALL the priest’s fault. However, whether others think everyone should do more to refer to the Catechism, the Bible, CAF, attend classes, etc, most Catholics do not…most faithful Catholics who attend mass on a weekly basis do not.

Regardless, isn’t the Mass supposed to be the pinnacle of our week? If so, then not only should we be fed with the Eucharist, but we should be fed with the Word. If the priest’s homily is not a critical componenet of that, then I’m not sure why we have the priest speak at all.

The lackluster, “safe”, watered down homilies are just a part of a bigger, catechetical problem in our Church.

 

[simple_soul]

No one has said it is ALL the priest’s fault. However, whether others think everyone should do more to refer to the Catechism, the Bible, CAF, attend classes, etc, most Catholics do not…most faithful Catholics who attend mass on a weekly basis do not.

Regardless, isn’t the Mass supposed to be the pinnacle of our week? If so, then not only should we be fed with the Eucharist, but we should be fed with the Word. If the priest’s homily is not a critical componenet of that, then I’m not sure why we have the priest speak at all.

The lackluster, “safe”, watered down homilies are just a part of a bigger, catechetical problem in our Church.

I believe I have finally come to understand why I am having a hard time understanding where you and McCall are coming from. I have yet to experience a “safe” or “watered down homily.” I can honestly say I have always found any homily I have ever heard, that was in a language that I could understand. to be very nourishing for my heart, mind and soul. I am beginning to see how spoiled rotten I am to be around the churches and priests I am.

 

[JReducation]

To the first part, I don’t mean the Church should try to enforce it’s authority on people now. I mean the fact that there is a large population of Catholics with heterodox views (or who have left the Chruch) means that teaching has not been effective in recent times. We shouldn’t enforce orthodoxy now, we should have convinced them of orthodoxy when they were young and continued supporting their orthodoxy over the years.

This I truly agree with. In fact, I teach grades 5 and 6 CCD. Just this year I dropped the book that they gave me and picked up the bible, because my students do not understand the Eucharist, the resurrection, the assumption, the Immaculate Conception, the hypostatic union, should I go on?

We have horrible religious education material and we have very poorly formed religious educators.

To the second part, by nominally catholic I mean people who were born or raised in the Church that now hold heterodox views, dont attend mass, have left the Church etc. Doesn’t really matter what we call it, I’m saying there are (unfortunately) a great many of these people, and some of it might be due to failures in Church teaching methods.

As I said above, our religious education needs a face lift. I’m very fortunate to work for a bishop who is doing just that. He has the money and the human resources to do so. Not every bishop is that fortunate. We have a diocesan synod underway. As a matter-of-fact, I’m on the adult faith formation team. This team is responsible for forming those who will form others. However, let’s take a look at who’s on my team. Three of us have doctorates in theology. Two have Master’s in Divinity. Three have doctorates in Education. One has a Master’s in Ministry. Four come from different fields. Out of that crew, one is a priest, one is a deacon and I’m the token religious. How many bishops have access to laymen, priests and religious brothers with this level of education in ecclesiastical fields? Very few. Most are in concentrated geographical areas. It’s going to take time and resources to fix this mess.

Unfortunately, the biggest mistake that we ever made was to leave religious education in the hands of sisters who were not trained in theology, which was 99% of them. As people became more educated in other areas, they began to challenge the principles and concepts that they were receiving in religious education. The sisters did not have the tools to respond. People started to take the faith less seriously than say social sciences.

Wait. There’s such a thing as too short? http://www.thescuderia.net/forums/images/smilies/giveup.gif

Oh yesssss! That’s all I will say. Otherwise, I run the risk of being uncharitable.

And perhaps Pope Francis will be good at reaching out to these people, they seem to like him so far, and he has a lot of “moral authority” built up already. I’m hoping that as he teaches orthodoxy, maybe some of those people will start to listen

Pope Francis is well liked. I think the romance will wear off when he says no to women’s ordination, abortion, gay marriage, contraception, euthanasia, unrestrained capitalism, workaholism (I just made up that word ) and a few other isms.

He will also drive traditionalists away as he uses more and more Jesuit pedagogy, which is so not Thomistic.

Aren’t catechisms available where you live?

Not picking on you (‘cos it;s not just you saying it), but I’m sick of hearing, time and time again how it’s all the priests’ fault.

We live in a self help age. We live in a Youtube, age. We live in a google age. But we rely on the priest to give us everything we need to be Catholic in 10 minutes on a Sunday?

I teach my kids about sin, not the priest.
I teach them about prayer, about the sacraments, about the mass, about vocations, not the priest.

This is too is very important. We live in the information age. When people want to know something, they find it. We no longer have to go to the public library. I can read every book in the world from my desk. I can attend courses in my PJs and so forth. People do it when they’re interested. Also, many dioceses have tons of education opportunities.

I know that in our diocese we have scripture, adult religious ed, ministry programs for the laity, spirituality formation, Catholic social teaching workshops, liturgy workshops, retreats, congresses, convocations, you name it we have it. I always see the same faces.

I am the head of my household. I teach by example and by word - for good and bad because I am not perfect. But if my kids fall away from the Church I will not blame the or priest or the Church - only me.

Red is mine.

Forgive me for offering a fraternal correction. Once you have done your job as a parent, the choices that your adult children make are not your fault.

 

[JReducation]

No one has said it is ALL the priest’s fault. However, whether others think everyone should do more to refer to the Catechism, the Bible, CAF, attend classes, etc, most Catholics do not…most faithful Catholics who attend mass on a weekly basis do not.

Regardless, isn’t the Mass supposed to be the pinnacle of our week? If so, then not only should we be fed with the Eucharist, but we should be fed with the Word. If the priest’s homily is not a critical componenet of that, then I’m not sure why we have the priest speak at all.

The lackluster, “safe”, watered down homilies are just a part of a bigger, catechetical problem in our Church.

The homily is not supposed to be catechesis. This is contrary to the principles taught to us in homiletic. A homily and a catechesis are two different things. Heck, most deacons, priests and bihsops are not even trained in catechesis. It’s not a required area of study to become a priest. It’s a very specialized field of study for a very select group of students. Not everyone can enter these programs. It’s easier to get into a theology program than to get into a religious education program at the graduate level.

The homily is supposed be preaching. The content is going to be guided by the readings, the liturgical season, the audience, and even the formation of the priest or deacon if he belongs to a religious order. Take for example a homily on the same gospel delivered by a Jesuit, Dominican, Franciscan and a Diocesan priest. You’re going to get different perspectives on the same reading. Each of them has a different approach to the Gospel.

Someone I know recently asked me why the mass on EWTN and the mass at their parish was different. I was not sure what the person was talking about. After a few questions I understood that the mass was the same, but the focus of the homily was very different. I had to explain that the Franciscan always takes an incarnational approach to scripture and the Diocesan priest or deacon has more wiggle room. He’s not bound by the spirituality or the thinking of a founder.

 

[surritter]

Aren’t catechisms available where you live?

Not picking on you (‘cos it;s not just you saying it), but I’m sick of hearing, time and time again how it’s all the priests’ fault.

But in the very first part of my comment, the idea was that for most Catholics, they don’t bother with (or even know about!) the Catechism.

So I certainly don’t intend to blame priests – especially if they are merely following the directive to not catechize with a homily – but given the dire state of many people’s knowledge of the faith, do you really think it’s wise to avoid catechizing to those who need it, and just assume that they’re gonna go home and read a 600-page book on their own?

I agree that a father should educate his kids in the faith – and kudos to you for doing that. But for the adults in the congregation, the priest IS their father.

 

[JReducation]

But in the very first part of my comment, the idea was that for most Catholics, they don’t bother with (or even know about!) the Catechism.

So I certainly don’t intend to blame priests – especially if they are merely following the directive to not catechize with a homily – but given the dire state of many people’s knowledge of the faith, do you really think it’s wise to avoid catechizing to those who need it, and just assume that they’re gonna go home and read a 600-page book on their own?

I agree that a father should educate his kids in the faith – and kudos to you for doing that. But for the adults in the congregation, the priest IS their father.

The red is mine.

Don’t get me wrong. There is no law that says that a homily cannot teach. The homily is supposed to go where catechesis does not. Generally, catechesis goes beyond the Scriputures. There is not enough meditation on the Scriptures in catechesis. The homily should lead the congregation through a meditation on the Scripture of the day.

 

[McCall1981]

This I truly agree with. In fact, I teach grades 5 and 6 CCD. Just this year I dropped the book that they gave me and picked up the bible, because my students do not understand the Eucharist, the resurrection, the assumption, the Immaculate Conception, the hypostatic union, should I go on?

We have horrible religious education material and we have very poorly formed religious educators.

As I said above, our religious education needs a face lift. I’m very fortunate to work for a bishop who is doing just that. He has the money and the human resources to do so. Not every bishop is that fortunate. We have a diocesan synod underway. As a matter-of-fact, I’m on the adult faith formation team. This team is responsible for forming those who will form others. However, let’s take a look at who’s on my team. Three of us have doctorates in theology. Two have Master’s in Divinity. Three have doctorates in Education. One has a Master’s in Ministry. Four come from different fields. Out of that crew, one is a priest, one is a deacon and I’m the token religious. How many bishops have access to laymen, priests and religious brothers with this level of education in ecclesiastical fields? Very few. Most are in concentrated geographical areas. It’s going to take time and resources to fix this mess.

Unfortunately, the biggest mistake that we ever made was to leave religious education in the hands of sisters who were not trained in theology, which was 99% of them. As people became more educated in other areas, they began to challenge the principles and concepts that they were receiving in religious education. The sisters did not have the tools to respond. People started to take the faith less seriously than say social sciences.

Oh yesssss! That’s all I will say. Otherwise, I run the risk of being uncharitable.

Pope Francis is well liked. I think the romance will wear off when he says no to women’s ordination, abortion, gay marriage, contraception, euthanasia, unrestrained capitalism, workaholism (I just made up that word ) and a few other isms.

He will also drive traditionalists away as he uses more and more Jesuit pedagogy, which is so not Thomistic.

This is too is very important. We live in the information age. When people want to know something, they find it. We no longer have to go to the public library. I can read every book in the world from my desk. I can attend courses in my PJs and so forth. People do it when they’re interested. Also, many dioceses have tons of education opportunities.

I know that in our diocese we have scripture, adult religious ed, ministry programs for the laity, spirituality formation, Catholic social teaching workshops, liturgy workshops, retreats, congresses, convocations, you name it we have it. I always see the same faces.

Red is mine.

Forgive me for offering a fraternal correction. Once you have done your job as a parent, the choices that your adult children make are not your fault.

And of course, its very easy for me to sit behind my computer and criticise the teaching job other people do, while doing nothing myself to help the situation

To JReducation and others here who do teach our faith, thank you!

 

[Lucky7]

But in the very first part of my comment, the idea was that for most Catholics, they don’t bother with (or even know about!) the Catechism.

So I certainly don’t intend to blame priests – especially if they are merely following the directive to not catechize with a homily – but given the dire state of many people’s knowledge of the faith, do you really think it’s wise to avoid catechizing to those who need it, and just assume that they’re gonna go home and read a 600-page book on their own?

I agree that a father should educate his kids in the faith – and kudos to you for doing that. But for the adults in the congregation, the priest IS their father.

And I would “argue” that if the current Homilectic directives are not meeting the needs of today’s Catholics, then perhaps it wouldn’t hurt to change them. If the Church can change other things that are not doctrine, then why not this?

Or as a lay person am I stepping out of bounds to even suggest such a thing?

 

[Lucky7]

The homily is not supposed to be catechesis. This is contrary to the principles taught to us in homiletic. A homily and a catechesis are two different things. Heck, most deacons, priests and bihsops are not even trained in catechesis. It’s not a required area of study to become a priest.

The fact that priests are not also trained in/expected to transmit catechesis seems really strange to me. If the leaders of our Church are not trained to teach the flock, I’m really confused as to who is responsible for this. The Church actually expects the laity to be responsible for this? Once again, I’ll voice my concern over this. I do not think this is a good thing at all and perhaps this is part of the reason why catechesis has been in a shambles for decades now.

And if it matters I have been a religious education teacher (as well as my husband) before, so I do happen to have some experience in that.

 

[Lucky7]

The homily is supposed to go where catechesis does not.

Well, there ya go. Since catechesis is not…going…then the homily needs to pick up the slack (in addition to doing the other things it needs to do).

 

[Lucky7]

I believe I have finally come to understand why I am having a hard time understanding where you and McCall are coming from. I have yet to experience a “safe” or “watered down homily.” I can honestly say I have always found any homily I have ever heard, that was in a language that I could understand. to be very nourishing for my heart, mind and soul. I am beginning to see how spoiled rotten I am to be around the churches and priests I am.

I think it could also be differences in needs. For a long time, I was satisfied with what I heard, but in the past year or so I am seeing and hearing things differently. I am noticing comments that are heterodox/questionable, I am noticing vagueness, etc. I don’t think that the homilies have changed in the last year…I think I am more aware/paying closer attention.

 

[simple_soul]

I think it could also be differences in needs. For a long time, I was satisfied with what I heard, but in the past year or so I am seeing and hearing things differently. I am noticing comments that are heterodox/questionable, I am noticing vagueness, etc. I don’t think that the homilies have changed in the last year…I think I am more aware/paying closer attention.

Maybe. All I can say is that as my needs have changed and grown the homilies have seemingly been there for me to help sort through and come to understand things more deeply and also in some cases to reassure in a way that I am am on the right path with my understandings and they have also been there to help understand something I had been trying to understand more clearly with a little bit of reflection. And tweeking on my part. One thing I know I can honastly say is that the homilies I hear for the most part leave me hungry for wanting to hear more so in a way I believe they also kind of leave me hanging in a sence so that after I leave I am left with dwelling on them more and I find out I get more and more out of the homily the more I dwell or reflect on it and in that dwelling or reflecting I find myself looking into things or looking at thing in a little bit of a different perspective and i find myself growing spiriually from them. And on a final note they have made me realize how much of the faith I do not know and understand and how I know I would be benefit from a good chatachism and faith formation. Someday I hope and pray I find a way to get one. Hope that makes sense.

 

[simple_soul]

Maybe. All I can say is that as my needs have changed and grown the homilies have seemingly been there for me to help sort through and come to understand things more deeply and also in some cases to reassure in a way that I am am on the right path with my understandings and they have also been there to help understand something I had been trying to understand more clearly with a little bit of reflection. And tweeking on my part. One thing I know I can honastly say is that the homilies I hear for the most part leave me hungry for wanting to hear more so in a way I believe they also kind of leave me hanging in a sence so that after I leave I am left with dwelling on them more and I find out I get more and more out of the homily the more I dwell or reflect on it and in that dwelling or reflecting I find myself looking into things or looking at thing in a little bit of a different perspective and i find myself growing spiriually from them. And on a final note they have made me realize how much of the faith I do not know and understand and how I know I would be benefit from a good chatachism and faith formation. Someday I hope and pray I find a way to get one. Hope that makes sense.

In reflecting on this further… There has been times when a homily has “seemed”
flat or just really very uninspiring but I believe it had more to do with my spiritual well being than it had to do with it being a not so good homily. It is like I am either in a spiritual slump or just not ready to hear or digest what is being said in the homily. But I blame myself for that not the one giving the homily.

 

[McCall1981]

I think it could also be differences in needs.

I know that here youre referring to different needs the same person might have over time, but I think it also brings up a good point that in the listeners for any given homily there is going to be a VERY wide variety of experience and expectations. For every person that attends daily mass and weekly confession, there is going to someone who hasnt been to mass in 30 years and was dragged there by family. For every person there whos read Augustine, Aquinas, and John of the Cross, theres someone who doesnt know who Peter is. There could be another Catholic Priest, or a Muslim considering conversion.

But this one homily has to educate, inspire and fulfill all of them, which is a very difficult task.

 

[JReducation]

And I would “argue” that if the current Homilectic directives are not meeting the needs of today’s Catholics, then perhaps it wouldn’t hurt to change them. If the Church can change other things that are not doctrine, then why not this?

Or as a lay person am I stepping out of bounds to even suggest such a thing?

The fact that priests are not also trained in/expected to transmit catechesis seems really strange to me. If the leaders of our Church are not trained to teach the flock, I’m really confused as to who is responsible for this. The Church actually expects the laity to be responsible for this? Once again, I’ll voice my concern over this. I do not think this is a good thing at all and perhaps this is part of the reason why catechesis has been in a shambles for decades now.

And if it matters I have been a religious education teacher (as well as my husband) before, so I do happen to have some experience in that.

Well, there ya go. Since catechesis is not…going…then the homily needs to pick up the slack (in addition to doing the other things it needs to do).

Clerics have never been trained in catechesis. This has always been a specialized ministry. There are some religious congregations who make this their ministry. For the most part, this is a lay ministry.

The teaching role of the clergy is very different from catechesis. The teaching role of the clergy is rooted in the teaching role of the bishop. This means protecting the faith and clarifying when there is confusion.

The principles of homiletics cannot change, because they have been handed down to us from the Fathers of the Church. They are part of the living tradition of the Church. The Fathers did homilies at mass and many taught catechesis outside of mass.

 

[otjm]

Pope Francis is well liked. I think the romance will wear off when he says no to women’s ordination, abortion, gay marriage, contraception, euthanasia, unrestrained capitalism, workaholism (I just made up that word ) and a few other isms.

He will also drive traditionalists away as he uses more and more Jesuit pedagogy, which is so not Thomistic.

.

Well, he will find himself in good company!. Benedict 16 was an Augustinian, and John Paul 2 used humanism and phenomenology in Theology of the Body (which publicly drove neo scholastics to twitterpated paroxysoms of persnickety perseverations as it was not Thomistic, and thus must be heterodox).

(It must be Friday of a long week…)

 

[JReducation]

Well, he will find himself in good company!. Benedict 16 was an Augustinian, and John Paul 2 used humanism and phenomenology in Theology of the Body (which publicly drove neo scholastics to twitterpated paroxysoms of persnickety perseverations as it was not Thomistic, and thus must be heterodox).

(It must be Friday of a long week…)

Pope Benedict once said that he preferred Augustine and Bonaventure’s methods to those of Aquinas, not because there is anything wrong with Aquinas, but because Aquinas is so black and white that it is very easy for the person who is not trained in the theological tradition of the Church to reduce the Catholic faith to dogmatic statements and miss the transcendent. Augustine and Bonaventure certainly focus on the transcendent. They begin from the heart and take you to the head. Aquinas begins with contemplation and goes to the head. The problem is that average person who reads Aquinas does not take the time to do what Aquinas did, to contemplate. Instead he opens Aquinas as if he were a dictionary and spout of what he says, not understanding a) how he got there and b) that the Church does not espouse or endorse everything that Aquinas said. Just because Aquinas said it, does not mean that it’s the faith of the Church. One must be aware of what Aquinas was saying, what he was contemplating before he said it and what the Church has embraced from Aquinas and what she has not commented one way or the other.

Since this is a rather complex process for the man in the pew who does not have the time to go through all of these hoops, the latest popes have found it more beneficial to begin with Christian anthropology, Christian spirituality and Christology.

 

[Luigi_Daniele]

Wonder if we could do a “mini doctoral” thread here on the spirituality/approaches of the major Catholic families…

 

[vames]

Well, he will find himself in good company!. Benedict 16 was an Augustinian, and John Paul 2 used humanism and phenomenology in Theology of the Body (which publicly drove neo scholastics to twitterpated paroxysoms of persnickety perseverations as it was not Thomistic, and thus must be heterodox).

(It must be Friday of a long week…)

Indeed; I remember a discussion elsewhere on the net, where a poster made a list of criteria for a good pope, saying that an ideal successor of Benedict XVI should be, first and foremost, a Thomist able to restore the Scholastic theology to its former glory. The same poster said the ideal pope should believe that there are nine choirs of angels and that the procreation of children is the primary purpose of marriage.

 

[TimothyH]

Indeed; I remember a discussion elsewhere on the net, where a poster made a list of criteria for a good pope, saying that an ideal successor of Benedict XVI should be, first and foremost, a Thomist able to restore the Scholastic theology to its former glory. The same poster said the ideal pope should believe that there are nine choirs of angels and that the procreation of children is the primary purpose of marriage.

Ha…:yup:

I’d rather a Pope whe restores the pre-scholastic schools of theology based on prayerful meditation on the scriptures.

My daughter’s two year preparation for confirmation is a perfect example… plays and essays and classes and service projects, so much busy-ness, but not one iota of instruction on how to pray. I asked my pastor if, since she was educated by Dominicans, she could skip some of the didactic formation and go instead to a monastery for a few days for instruction from the monks on how to pray - no phone, no TV, no internet - just breathe, unwind and learn how to speak with God and how to be docile to the Holy Spirit which she was to recieve.

Communion with God has been reduced to reception of the Eucharist on Sundays. Understanding doctrine now equals knowledge of God. Obedience to canon law now equals trust. Breathtaking architecture and sublime liturgy has replaced mysticism.

Facts are easy nowadays. Knowledge is power but the guy sitting on a park bench looking at the clouds is “Wasting time.” I think we have lost sight of the transcendent.

-Tim-