RCIA and North American Forum for the Catechumenate

  • Thread starter Thread starter puzzleannie
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
P

puzzleannie

Guest
This is for those with responsibility for implementing and catechising for RCIA in your parish. Have you attended any of the training programs offered by the North American Forum for the Catechumenate. As far as I can tell, they have a lock on training catechists and directors of RCIA, and have had a great deal to do with determining how the RCIA has been implemented in the first 30 years of its restoration.

They suggest Beginnings & Beyond (week-long) or Beginnnings Plus (weekend) for those new to the RCIA, and the courses depend entirely on the Ritual Book for RCIA, they teach from the rites themselves. They also have other workshops for special situations-Spanish, rural parish, children etc.

What is your opinion of the courses?
What is your opinion of the NAFC, its leadership, its presenters?
What do you know of the history of the NAFC and they way RCIA has been implemented (or not) in the US?

Our diocese is hosting a Beginnings Plus institute in the Spring and I would be interested in informed opinions about it.
 
I have been involved in RCIA since its very inception. I attended the very first training program in Colorado with the so-called “A Team” (most of whom are now dead). I’ve also gone to later training from the Forum.

In general, what they do is good and consistent with the goals and guidelines for the implementation of the RCIA. There have been some more liberal movements within the Forum, but this has been pretty much scaled back of late.

As with most training, and in fact most such organizations, you need to take what they offer with a grain of salt and, remember, your mileage may vary.

Deacon Ed
 
40.png
puzzleannie:
This is for those with responsibility for implementing and catechising for RCIA in your parish. Have you attended any of the training programs offered by the North American Forum for the Catechumenate. As far as I can tell, they have a lock on training catechists and directors of RCIA, and have had a great deal to do with determining how the RCIA has been implemented in the first 30 years of its restoration.

They suggest Beginnings & Beyond (week-long) or Beginnnings Plus (weekend) for those new to the RCIA, and the courses depend entirely on the Ritual Book for RCIA, they teach from the rites themselves. They also have other workshops for special situations-Spanish, rural parish, children etc.

What is your opinion of the courses?
What is your opinion of the NAFC, its leadership, its presenters?
What do you know of the history of the NAFC and they way RCIA has been implemented (or not) in the US?

Our diocese is hosting a Beginnings Plus institute in the Spring and I would be interested in informed opinions about it.
Click to expand...
I have been a member of the NAFC for 5+ years. Beginnings and Beyond is the good starter program. Next would be Concerning the Baptized, and then Mystagogy. I have been to three sessions and two Workshops. Because of the cost I then developed my own four one-day training workshops for training RCIA team members. Then an additional one for Sponsors. But if you can afford it go to their sessions. They are well presented for the most part. There were a few things I had concerns with especially the “liberties” taken in the liturgies at the conferences. I really don’t think that the NAFC has had that much impact on the RCIA in the last 30 years or we would not be in such a disarray at this time. In NA the RCIA is implemented in every which way, but loose and in some places it pretty loose too!
 
Last summer I attended a “Beginnings and Beyond” put on by the Forum. I cannot recommend it. They did a good job explaining the Rite & getting us into the statutes & how they can be implemented… HOWEVER…

Liturgically it was abysmal. I (a woman) was asked the first night to “preside at a liturgy.” When I realized it was leading a prayer service I agreed, but the orans posture that was suggested to me, I did not use. Unusually, there were, I believe, about a half dozen priests in attendance (their nametags were by first name only & we were told not to address them as Father.) I would have preferred a Mass, but was told we wouldn’t have Mass until the last day so we would all hunger for Eucharist & experience a little of what the catechumens might feel.

The Mass on the last day was to be an experience similar to Easter Vigil. There were many liturgical abuses, the worst of which was that we were all chanting with music parts of the Eucharistic Prayer when cued by the priest & choir. The priest stood back away from the altar during the Consecration & we were all gathered around. Therefore, the words, “Take and eat…” were said with no one physically close to the elements. The bread that was used was homemade and very crumbly. It was broken up into chunks onto glass plates & lay people (mostly women, I believe) were the ministers of this Holy Communion, even with several priests attending. I stood & bawled as chunks of the crumbly Body of Christ were dropped on the floor & people were walking across them.

Please don’t accuse me for not protesting right at that moment. I was really in a sort of state of shock & was just trying to process the whole thing & stop bawling so hard. I chose to make my views strongly known later to those in charge. Later, after everyone had left, I lamely picked up & ate pieces of the Eucharist that remained on the floor.

At first, I tried not to presume that all the blame belonged to Forum. I left the week assuming that the priest in charge was one that was doing his own thing & was perhaps not in sync with the Forum itself. When I returned home, however, I researched his name & he is on the board of directors! This is obviously liturgy as the Forum would dream it to be, but not as it is intended! When I read Redemtionis Sacramentum many of its strongest words seemed aimed, in my opinion, to this exact way of celebrating the Mass… The Forum’s way.

My biggest complaint to the directors is that Forum has two agendas & they should stop mixing them. The agenda of teaching us the document RCIA was laudable (for the most part.) Their underlying agenda is Church reform (I have many other examples that I believe support this.) Many good people attended without being aware of the second agenda & they were badly deceived. I told the directors that if they are set on reforming the Church, at least be honest about it: hold a set of workshops on Church reform, but keep it out of their attempt to teach about the RCIA. That way good intentioned people can get the important information they need while others can gather at another time & place to gripe & fantasize (or whatever it is Church reformers do.)

One other thing… Attending this workshop enlists a person as a member of the Forum, & I had to ask to have my name removed from membership… they therefore can claim a large number by enrollment in the workshops alone.

BEWARE OF THE NORTH AMERICAN FORUM FOR THE CATECHUMENATE! Even if it is “cleaning up its act,” my experience with some of their prominent presenters points to a dangerous core.
 
I’ve attended several North American Forum classes and feel they are not Orthodox. I asked one instructor her opinion of the outrageous incident of President Clinton receiving Holy Communion and she said that in the political light it was the right thing to do. I asked a Priest who was part of the team how he felt about the Tabernacles being moved out of the sanctuary to a small room or a side table and he said that the main focus was on getting people to worship together and that the placement of the tabernacle should be a personal worship area. Needless to say I was very dissatisfied with the personal involved in teaching. It’s the watered down Catholicism which is hurting the Catholics. 😦
 
I have attended Beginnings and Beyond and the one for Children’s Catechumenate, one in N Texas and one in Kansas City KS, in both the liturgical segments were properly done, in fact their attention to the rites and rubrics impressed me. Even though some of the presenters, by their resumes and books they have written, dwell in the more liberal realms of the Church, the content of what they presented was compatible with orthodox Catholic doctrine, if not always complete. The more illuminating part of both weekends was interaction with other catechists & DREs and hearing from them what works, what doesn’t, and the appalling fact that most of those teaching Catholic doctrine do not accept it or believe it themselves.
 
I have attended two NAF conferences. I did find them to be unorthodox. The priest was pitching liberation theology, and I do fear that an underlying goal of the NAF is to bring people into the Church who don’t really agree with Her teachings. Why? To ultimately reform or change the Church into what they feel it should be. I would really like other people’s (name removed by moderator)ut because I’m trying to convince my DRE and pastor that the NAF is not a wise body to advice from. Feedback would be appreciated.
 
The North American Forum is perfectly orthodox.

I’m curious what you’re claiming liberation theology to be? Is it because you’ve never heard of Catholic social teaching? Have you been brain-washed by Glen Beck who knows nothing of the 100 + year tradition of this excellent resource and guide and who really doesn’t even understand the debate about liberation theology?

If so, of course you would be led to believe the NAF is unorthodox.
 
No, I don’t like Glen Beck and I don’t drink his tea. I have a great respect for Pope Leo XII and his encyclical ]Rerum Novarum*. One of the priests at one of the NAF conferences that I attended gave an hour long presentation on Christian justice. The virtue is Christian Charity. Pope John Paul II was highly critical of liberation theology in the Catholic Church. So, it is not outrageous to point out liberation theology, JPII did.

My biggest problem with NAF is that they don’t know what to do with the baptized, which is 70-90% of who come through RCIA. A big NAF take home message is that the baptized don’t really need much formalized catechesis. If they wish to join the Church, then they should be permitted, without extensive catechesis. If new members are not taught orthodoxy, then the numbers of confused, unothodox Catholics will increase in number. Good catechesis is good for everyone.*
 
Arrowsmith1994 said:
My biggest problem with NAF is that they don’t know what to do with the baptized, which is 70-90% of who come through RCIA. A big NAF take home message is that the baptized don’t really need much formalized catechesis. If they wish to join the Church, then they should be permitted, without extensive catechesis. If new members are not taught orthodoxy, then the numbers of confused, unothodox Catholics will increase in number. Good catechesis is good for everyone.
Click to expand...
FORUM does know what to do with the baptized. They have an entire weekend conference dedicated to it ( I attended it). The thing they do stress is not to treat them the same way you would someone who is unbaptized. They stress recognizing the dignity of their baptism. They do believe catechesis is important for the baptized, but that it should be tailored to the needs of each individual. I had a baptized Lutheran in our process who could probably begin teaching CCD the day she came to us. She was married to a Catholic and was brining up the children Catholic. We brought her into the church after 6 weeks. We have had others who needed to attend much longer. The thing FORUM stresses is that RCIA, especially for the baptized, is not one size fits all.
 
I don’t know if it’s simply a matter of being taught orthodoxy. Orthodoxy is based on historical responses to various questions raised over the centuries. There is tremendous wisdom embedded in such responses, but it assumes people are even aware of the questions and issues as they emerged historically. One can’t force people to be aware of these questions…People can be introduced to them perhaps even in the RCIA although that’s not necessarily the best forum for such reflection. People come to them in their own way.

An even greater problem in the U.S., Canada and Europe is secularism. It’s our culture for better or worse. In the church liberals tend to embrace it uncritically while conservatives run in fear or dismiss it as the root of all evil. Both positions have some merit but both positions have blind spots which unfortunately persons in both camps are not willing to acknowledge.

The best work out on this topic is: “Secularity and the Gospels: Being Missionaries for Our Children” ed. and author Ronald Rolheiser. It’s based on a series of conferences sponsored by Rolheiser’s community between 2002 and 2005. The conference involves conversations with some leading figures in missiology, spirituality and Catholic action. By far it is the most thoughtful book I’ve seen and most hopeful in getting beyond the liberal-conservative division in the church. Rolheiser wrote the first four chapters as means of summary and direction. The remainder of the book contains chapters based on papers given by the participants.

If you’re really interested :)in evangelization it’s an excellent resource.
 
I know some people who attended a recent workshop of theirs and it was quite problematic on many fronts. The liturgical experimentation was abhorent. For example, they celebrated the liturgy of the Easter Vigil for the Solemnity of the Assumption (I’m still trying to figure out how that one worked :confused: ).

There seemed to be a great emphasis on the experiential. There is some merit to giving some attention to the experience of the RCIA/conversion process, but not to the exclusion of anything else.

The people I know who attended had no prior experience with the NAF and were going into it with good expectations. They were decidedly underwhelmed.
 
If you were attending a workshop it would seem the purpose of celebrating the Easter liturgy would be to model how it can be done.

If liturgy is not connected to human experience what’s the purpose? Liturgy as an act of worship is intended to transform the participants. If not - go back to Latin which few understand and see how many more people are encouraged to remain detached, indifferent and alienated. Worship doesn’t leave us unmoved.

Every great liturgist would make the same claim. It’s scriptural and it’s traditional (provided tradition is properly understood). Think for example of Jesus’ proclamation in the synagogue in Nazareth…People became upset - they experienced something very, very different from what they normally expected. Or think of Augustine moved by St. Ambrose’s preaching. There are many other examples.

Liturgy is powerful simply because it contains the potential to transform and re-direct people’s lives.
 
tpw said:
If you were attending a workshop it would seem the purpose of celebrating the Easter liturgy would be to model how it can be done.
Click to expand...
I understand the rationale, but one can’t do a “trial run” of the Solemnity of Solemnities simply for the purpose of demonstration.

Further, the “modeling” of the various liturgies involved half of them being led by sisters and laywomen.
 
I am trying to be sympathetic to your aesthetic and spiritual concerns re: the Easter Vigil. Yet if people can’t see how the Easter Vigil can be conducted how will people prepare? Often people have very little experience of good liturgy - anywhere. A conference like this is an invaluable place to demonstrate what’s possible.

It’s like telling seminiarians that they shouldn’t do practice liturgies. It takes a long time and a special gift to preside well at liturgy. It’s not simply a matter of following rules, but learning how to be present before the assembly. Rules alone don’t make liturgy good (and here I don’t mean simply ignoring liturgical rubrics) There has to be something profoundly personal about it.

The same thing holds true for organizing the beautiful Easter vigil liturgy. It’s not done without good, solid, liturgical training and practice.

I was on a parish liturgy committee for a number of years. We went to workshops, studied the liturgical rubrics and then planned. But we always evaluated ourselves afterwards.

That’s the value of the NAFC - they are a very, helpful aid to teaching how to prepare and organize parish liturgies.
 
tpw said:
I am trying to be sympathetic to your aesthetic and spiritual concerns re: the Easter Vigil. Yet if people can’t see how the Easter Vigil can be conducted how will people prepare? Often people have very little experience of good liturgy - anywhere. A conference like this is an invaluable place to demonstrate what’s possible.

It’s like telling seminiarians that they shouldn’t do practice liturgies. It takes a long time and a special gift to preside well at liturgy. It’s not simply a matter of following rules, but learning how to be present before the assembly. Rules alone don’t make liturgy good (and here I don’t mean simply ignoring liturgical rubrics) There has to be something profoundly personal about it.

The same thing holds true for organizing the beautiful Easter vigil liturgy. It’s not done without good, solid, liturgical training and practice.

I was on a parish liturgy committee for a number of years. We went to workshops, studied the liturgical rubrics and then planned. But we always evaluated ourselves afterwards.

That’s the value of the NAFC - they are a very, helpful aid to teaching how to prepare and organize parish liturgies.
Click to expand...
I think that’s part of the larger problem. They really are intentionally trying to demonstrate what is possible, but it is neither good nor solid. It includes non-clergy led liturgies and non-clergy given homilies. It gets people wondering: “Why can’t women be priests? They do such a much better job than any male priest I’ve ever seen…”

When what one is demonstrating is not in line with the rubrics, then it does the attendees a great disservice. It leads them to believe that what NAFC believes is “possible” is within the realm of possibility, when much of it simply is not.

I guess we’ll just have to agree to disagree on this one, though.
 
Joe_5859 said:
I know some people who attended a recent workshop of theirs and it was quite problematic on many fronts. The liturgical experimentation was abhorent. For example, they celebrated the liturgy of the Easter Vigil for the Solemnity of the Assumption (I’m still trying to figure out how that one worked :confused: ).

d.
Click to expand...
during the forum workshop or institute please be clear they do not do “mock” rites and liturgies. They do walk participants through the rites but what is actually celebrated is what is appropriate for the group at hand, not for the unbaptized. They do not celebrate a full Easter Vigil, they celebrate the Mass of the day, so I assume this particular workshop ended on the feast of the Assumption. The do in the course of these liturgies show where and how the various rites would fit in a regular parish.

Whether or not there are liturgical abuses depends on who is presenting the workshop, where and the priest in charge as much as it does on the forum. It is not their policy for instance to use homebaked bread, although some teams try it. The pastor where the liturgies will be celebrated has the responsibility to vet the music and other practices. Having been now to several forum institutes in several dioceses I have seen the same range of orthodox to wacky you would see in travelling through the country on any given Sunday. The institute held at our parish was orthodox in presentation and in liturgy because our pastor made sure of it (he is the one who first brought RCIA to this diocese way back when) and the team members had no plans to do anything otherwise.

My experience of NAFC has expanded since I first posted this old, now resurrected thread, and I assume since such questions are still being asked about the forum mods have allowed it to continue.

NAFC filled a void no “conservative” body was prepared to address, RCIA and if some more “liberal” thinkers were in charge in the early days, more shame to the “orthodox” who did not step forward and provide proper training. Most of those who started the forum are retired, there are more teams and like much of the church they are coming back toward center, and some have always been orthodox.

The “competition” ACM which arose out of the Steubenville catechetical program has been available for less than 10 years, their trainings are diocesan-wide (or parish wide for those that can afford it) rather than structured so individuals from around a wide area can attend. Any diocese considering a training now has this excellent, solid, orthodox program that was not available 10 yrs ago, or even when I first asked my question. ACM is the gold standard also for RCIA catechetical resources, blows anything else on the market out of the water, and are accessible in a form and at a cost most parishes can handle, and work out cheaper in the long run than purchased books or packets because everything is reproducible. Too bad it took so long and the “conservative” element in the Church allowed the NAFC to dominate the implementation of RCIA for over 25 years.
 
When I first posted on this thread I purposefully did not mention the Association for Catechetical Ministries, but now that the ACM has been mentioned I will comment. The ACM seems to be the natural correction to the NAF. On the whole, the ACM’s model represents a more “orthodox” approach to both the liturgical and catechetical aspects of RCIA. The implementation of RCIA is not easy or simple, but the ACM provides an authentic, orthodox guide to how it can be done, and I encourage all catechists to review their website and materials. I don’t believe that both the NAF and the ACM will be able to coexist. Eventually the USCCB will decide which group is more authentic in its presentation of RCIA; I believe I know which group will be granted the authority to continue.
 
Both are needed. They serve as correctives for each other.

Dogmatic statements which people are unable to identify with become forms of empty piety. Experiential reflections without wisdom lack roots.
 
Thanks for the clarification, Annie. So NAFC would be more along the lines of a LifeTeen type of thing which can be good or bad depending upon who is in charge. It’s good to know that my friend’s experience is not necessarily universal.

I completely missed the fact that this thread started back in 2004. Normally I check for that. :o
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top