Teacher difficulty

  • Thread starter Thread starter religionteacher123
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
If this can be of help, the Church’s views on homosexual relations, same-sex “marriage” and abortion can actually be explained on scientific/biological grounds.

Marriage for instance, is built around the physiological union of a man and a woman. The marital act is the only physiological process that requires two persons to accomplish. There is simply no same-sex analogue. Even in a sterile marriage, a man and woman are undertaking a natural physiological process regardless of whether a material defect does not allow the production of offspring. It is the attempt, not the result, that makes the act natural, as not all acts of intercourse lead to insemination.

The Church’s view on homosexual acts can be explained in a similar manner and through Nature Law.

For abortion, a fetus contains all the attributes of a unique human being from a few moments after conception. Any other transition point from “blob of tissue” to human being is purely a human construct. As far as God and biology are concerned, a unique human life starts at conception. It has nothing to do whether the zygote is sentient or not. It has to do with DNA.

Lastly, for the complete sexual licence that exists today, Humanae Vitae can be taken, even if one doesn’t agree with it, as prophecy.

In fact in all of the above views, the Church can be seen as prophetic. Even well before we knew enough about genetics, DNA, and what happens in utero, the Church was defending human life from conception onwards.

As for women as priests, tell the kids that the priest, at the altar, acts in persona Christi. Ask them if it would make sense to cast, say, Angelina Jolie in the role of Winston Churchill in a movie.

So my view is to turn it into a teaching moment. But don’t hammer your pupils with it. Instead, offer the counter point of view, and ask them to think about it, and if they don’t agree, to counter it with equally cogent arguments. If they give you superficial, or emotional arguments, help them pick their views apart and show them where they are incomplete or wrong.

The best teachers I remember are the ones who got us to think. Ask questions. For instance, on abortion, ask them when they think a human life starts. Then ask them when the zygote obtains the full DNA of a human being. Show them where they are being arbitrary and why, and why an abortion is, effectively, a homicide regardless of the stage at which it is performed.
 
Last edited:
However, science won’t cover all the doubts- I believe the OP mentioned the question of ‘wopriests’ and married priests.
 
I teach science at a catholic school. Today at morning communion, this came up in the epistle reading

Though I thought I had toiled in vain,
and for nothing, uselessly, spent my strength,
Yet my reward is with the LORD, my recompense is with my God.

Is 49:1-6

Very fitting to this thread. Do your best!
 
Last edited:
Married priests already exist, and it would be an internal disciplinary matter to widen its application. For instance the Holy Father could allow parochial vicars but not curates or bishops, to be ordained with similar rules as already apply to permanent deacons (my speculation, not something that I know to be in the cards).

For woman priests, yes to some extent science can be used to point out very real differences between men and women, and mother and father, in spite of what current popular thinking would have us believe. A man can’t give birth or nurse a child for instance. So it’s easy to argue that there are intrinsic differences. Then use my example of casting a woman into the role of a historical character who is very clearly not not a woman, such as Winston Churchill. Ask them whether a woman, even if she “played” the role of Winston Churchill perfectly, would be missing an intrinsic quality of capital importance to fully portray Sir Winston.

Then ask whether a woman would be an appropriate choice to play the role of Jesus Christ in a movie. If they say, “umm, I guess not…”, then explain that at the altar, the priest stands in for Jesus Christ and acts in persona Christi and is in fact assuming the role of Christ in offering His unique sacrifice.

They may not initially agree, and that’s OK. The idea is to get them thinking.
 
AlNg said:
40.png
Xanthippe_Voorhees:
The teachers have to be strong and knowledgeable. They have not time to wallow in self-pity
Click to expand...
This is not fair to the secondary school religion teacher. Students are bombarded with negative comments about the church from the internet and other sources. It is not the same world it was 100 years ago. And in addition to the internet, there are various changes that have come about since Vatican II which can be disorienting. If you know so much about how to teach religion to secondary school students, why don’t you try it yourself?
Click to expand...
Oh good grief. Yes, it is different, but the difference isn’t bad. Teaching to people who have no objection and are willing sponges is hardly teaching. They will fall away soon because their foundation is based on what they were told, not what mattered to them. The best religion teacher I ever had was a deacon who pitched the goofy books we were given and brought in his years of deacon materials.

We were a roundtable of debate and questions. We looked up and researched we asked and figured it out. Most of all our opinions were respected. When I do teach-- though it’s typically one on one with my friend’s children-- this is how I teach.

Next door they had the hippy-dippy class that was all snuggles and giggles. They were told what they needed to know. The teacher was often overwhelmed and shut down any discussion that he couldn’t deal with. IMO they would of been better off with no teacher at all.

A decade and a half later no one in the other class is a practicing Catholic and a majority of those in my class are.
 
To be fair, people can only teach what they know with the resources at hand. Things are much better now. Even the Sisters at my old school when I was a kid were light on theology.
It’s the way it was. Now, with books being cheaper, internet resources for free, and STRUCTURED catechesis in parishes, it’s getting much better. But their parents are still stuck in past. Not surprisingly.

The sincerity and enthusiasm of a Religion teacher is what causes the whole family to become engaged. Generally, when a teacher is passionate about their subject, the parents fall right into line with support and participation.

We can’t afford to give up on the teens. They only know what they have been fed.
Feed them well.

(PS) I like your posts Max! :hugs:
 
Last edited:
Amen to your last point. As a 17 year old, that’s completely on-point.

And thank you! As I say, ‘A blind squirrel finds an acorn every once and awhile.’ 🙃🙃🙃🙃
 
Tulitas said:
To be fair, people can only teach what they know with the resources at hand. Things are much better now. Even the Sisters at my old school when I was a kid were light on theology.
Click to expand...
Oh yes! And many real catechesis programs like Lifeteen set about to thoroughly educate CORE (adult) leaders. In fact, if you’re not willing to educate yourself as an adult, you’re not permitted to work with the teens. In the very least you need to know where to look.

Teens have more information, but so do adults. Heck, I can’t imagine how great my aforementioned Confirmation class experience would have been if we had had the internet. We were using the deacon’s books becuase they were the best we had…and they were 5-20 years old. How great would it have been if we could tap into the Vatican site or ETWN!
 
My experience is that teens say outrageous things to see if you have an ANSWER that is compelling. They WANT to know. They WANT to have faith…but they don’t want a “because that’s just the say to is, or that’s what the church says about it” reply. Teens are much more outspoken than they used to be when I was young, and they will challenge anybody. If a teacher knows their stuff, presents it well, and allows them to voice their struggles with faith, they will be on board for life.
We must love them, feed, them, and tell the truth consistently, with no compromise. They will respect the catechist for it. Teens are so lost right now. They have been lied to and left to their own devices for too long in our culture. They have a big hole in their heart, and only Christ can fill it. It’s a beautiful thing to be the catalyst for that.
 
Last edited:
I will say it again.
Nothing I do as a teacher will ever be as powerful as parents practicing the faith and nurturing it in the home.

The parents of my Confirmation kids don’t want to learn, and they don’t want their kids to either.
They don’t like our new 2-year program. They put faith formation on the back burner because of sports or dance or any number of other things that are more important.

I wish that my experience was that of @Tulitas, and that an engaging teacher got parents engaged. Not in my diocese. The parents have more excuses than the kids and see the Sacraments as boxes to check off.

I don’t know what the answer is, but berating a poor soul who is trying his best to do a thankless job is the epitome of un-Christian behavior, and part of the image problem the Church has.
 
Going off of that…both going to and teaching at teen and college retreats there is a noticeable pattern. It doesn’t matter how great the speaker was…dosn’t matter if you have Scott Hahn, bring out Priest Nobody or better yet Sister Nobody and you’ll get the most pressing questions, typically about sex, masturbation and sexual issues.
 
Last edited:
Well then we might as well discount foster parents, mentors and anyone else besides our own nuclear families.

😮

Teachers make a difference. Ask anyone in a terrible school.
It’s not the curriculum that is lacking…even in school where parents are druggies, the kids can thrive if just one teacher gives a flip about them.

Of course we need parents on board for support. But even if they won’t bother to take their kids to Mass, we can plant the kernel of truth.

God bless you, and thanks for your passionate response.
 
CilladeRoma said:
I will say it again.
Nothing I do as a teacher will ever be as powerful as parents practicing the faith and nurturing it in the home.

The parents of my Confirmation kids don’t want to learn, and they don’t want their kids to either.
They don’t like our new 2-year program. They put faith formation on the back burner because of sports or dance or any number of other things that are more important.

I wish that my experience was that of @Tulitas, and that an engaging teacher got parents engaged. Not in my diocese. The parents have more excuses than the kids and see the Sacraments as boxes to check off.

I don’t know what the answer is, but berating a poor soul who is trying his best to do a thankless job is the epitome of un-Christian behavior, and part of the image problem the Church has.
Click to expand...
A religion teacher needs to be prepared to do the work and ask and answer the questions needed. That’s the issue.

A teacher who’s going to feel overwhelmed answering the questions of the day is probably worse than having no teacher at all.

It would be great if families taught their children. That is really what is needed, but in lieu of that if you’re going to put yourself in a position you need to be prepared for what that position entails.
 
WOW, lots of love in this thread.

@religionteacher123 I am sorry that you have been judged so harshly.
Feel free to PM me if you want to vent more. I know how discouraging it can be, and sometimes we all just need to vent. Unfortunately, you came to the wrong place. ☹️
 
Remind the students that this is what Christians believed for many centuries and it is only over the past 60 years or so that people in the West have diverted away from the truth. We are witness to the truth and stand by it. Remind them we cannot put conditions on God.
 
Just a great answer. I absolutely agree with the last paragraph, especially. It is true regardless of whether the kids have faith formation once a week, or if they attend a private Catholic school full time. The parents must step up.
 
Tulitas said:
Well then we might as well discount foster parents, mentors and anyone else besides our own nuclear families.
Click to expand...
That is NOT what I said!
And I am surprised that you would even imply that is what I meant.

If parents (or whomever the child lives with) don’t see a need for religion in their lives, nothing I will do will help to change that for the kid.

Judging by the attitudes on this thread, I now know what catechist burn-out is so high.
 
See a Pew poll from 2009 (rev. in 2011) that surveys various religions and the reasons people leave them, and where they go:

www.pewforum.org

Faith in Flux

Revised February 2011* Americans change religious affiliation early and often. In total, about half of American adults have changed religious affiliation
www.pewforum.org www.pewforum.org

What struck me the most in the Pew poll was on pp. 21-22: of those who were previously Catholic but are now unaffiliated, 68% attended religious classes as a child; 32% belonged to religious youth groups as a teen; and 20% attended a Catholic high school. The numbers for those former Catholics who became Protestants are similar: 68% (same), 29% (3% lower); and 16% (4% lower).

My own conclusion is that most Catholics have a child-like understanding of religion in general and Catholicism in particular. You can see that in this forum all the time. So when they reach their late teens, they begin to ask questions (How can Jesus be both man and God? How can there be one God but three persons in God?) and their “religious education” is totally inadequate to answer them. So they stop going to church or join a Protestant church which is only too happy to provide answers. Or they go to the local Imam and become Muslim.

My other conclusion is that Catholic “religious education” is too based on emotion–I attended a series of RCIA classes as an observer, and the presenters (most of whom were former Evangelicals), were constantly bursting into tears. Meanwhile, if a potential convert asked a totally predictable question, such as “Why do Catholics believe in Purgatory?” they were baffled and fumbled around for an answer. And some of the presenters had been doing this for 20+ years… There are perfectly logical reasons Catholics believe what they do, based in history and scripture. But these reasons seem to be sadly lacking in current religious education.

So I would welcome their questions. I would meet them head on. I would explain that most of these “modern” ideas aren’t modern at all–the ancient Greeks thought homosexuality was just great. I would explain that priests were originally allowed to marry, but by the 11th c. this became a problem, and the Church revised the rules. I would explain the problems that arose that caused the Church to favor unmarried priests. Abortion: look at the science…when does the fertilized egg produce a separate DNA? Explain the different approaches different religions take to abortion. Explain why the Catholic approach is more scientific. Euthanasia: Examine the issues that have arisen in the European countries that have approved it. Etc. etc. etc.

Avoiding their questions simply makes them think there are no answers, or that the Catholic Chruch is based on some arbitrary authoritarian rules. There are answers–perfectly logical ones. Explain them.
 
Last edited:
Whoa! I thought this was a discussion.
Sorry to have upset you.
I only know what works for me.
I’ll be going now.
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top