Why does the Catholic Church seem so fractured?

[Digitonomy]

One thing I would suggest is to be cautious in what you imbibe from Catholic Answers Forums. Most of us here are already pretty knowledgeable about the faith, and so we are going to focus on where we disagree, what our pet peeves are, and who is making news by making statements or actions that are a bit controversial.

In other words, CAF is a great source for facts, opinions, and all sorts of details on most aspects of Catholicism. But it’s not necessarily a representative or balanced perspective to guide a newbie like yourself.

So use it for the great tool that it is, but also follow the example of some solid Catholics you encounter in the real world who are living their faith but not as caught up in the sometimes petty political tiffs you read about here and at different heirarchical levels of the Church.

 

[unstoppable_II]

…

The task of “Office” given to Peter, and the task of “Love” given to John balance each other out.

Just exactly where is the average Catholic supposed to find that out?

 

[commenter]

Just exactly where is the average Catholic supposed to find that out?

This was a response by a poster to some theories about the Church, presented by various theologians. Keep in mind those are just guesses, working hypotheses about how different elements such as institutional, charismatic, teaching, etc might interact. These ideas were developed in the mid 20th century. Other working hypotheses were developed earlier. Different ones will emerge in years to come. They reflect the time and culture in which they were or will be written. Von Balthasar and Rahner I think would see things a little differently if they were writing today. We can be grateful for their insights, as well as a theologian named Ratzinger.

The “average Catholic” should be aware the Church is constantly reexamining itself. The theories are helpful, but far less important than the permanent doctrines of the Faith, which can be found in the Catechism of the Catholic Church. The Catechism incorporates some of the theories about the Church from the past. It excludes 99% of various theories from the past. So, the Catechism should be the foundation through which the average Catholic can reliably look at the Church, evaluating the new ideas that come up. It should be the foundation of any RCIA program, too.

 

[unstoppable_II]

…The “average Catholic” should be aware the Church is constantly reexamining itself.

This is dangerous, as it possibly opens the door to heresy.

The theories are helpful, …

How? Isn’t there enough to study as it is without introducing some unproven, unapproved theories?

 

[pianistclare]

I honestly feel that most all of the questions that people ask can be thoroughly answered by reading the Catechism, and if seeking more clarification, can be answered by asking your priest, Deacon, DRE, or Lay Ecclesial Minister to provide further instruction, sources, books, solid material to read.
People want to know where they can “find” knowledge.
It can be found within the Church. Prayerful participation in the life of the Church is where people can encounter holy priests, great confessors, good catechetical instructors and knowledgeable people in general along with the many documents that the Church give us.
Now, thanks to the internet, we can read major theologians/documents, the GIRM, the Vatican Library etc. online for free.

 

[ForeverJoy]

I have been reading your many replies, and I appreciate the time you have taken to help me think this through. My RCIA instructors have been very helpful, patient and kind, but sometimes there isn’t time to ask questions like the one I posed above, which is outside the “scheduled” curriculum. And sometimes I can’t put a voice to my questions until late at night after the house is asleep and I have time to be in my own head with out interruption. lol!!

I’ve really enjoyed my RCIA classes, and they gave us the Catechism and the book “This is Our Faith” to read, plus lots of other handouts during the year. I have also picked up other books on my own, like “A Biblical Walk Through the Mass,” “The Protestants Dilemma,” and “Waking Up Catholic.” I think that I agree with a previous poster that said CAF can sometimes muddy the waters for a newbie like me. I’m a researcher at heart, and tend to Google the heck out of stuff, and follow rabbit trails. But I think that has led me into grey areas that caused confusion, especially with regards to the Church.

The Church I have learned about in RCIA is the one I have fallen in love with, and the one I hope to help my son grow to love too. I still struggle with a few things, but after 45 years of being a Protestant, it’s not surprising.

May I ask one other question? Was there a period of time when teaching the basic core beliefs was not quite as…robust or thorough is it is now?

My DH is a cradle Catholic, attended Catholic school through middle grades, was an altar boy through high school, and his parents are very active Catholics, but he had never heard of the Catechism until I started taking RCIA classes. We also met a woman at church who just moved here from CA, who is also a cradle Catholic and attended Catholic schools and she didn’t know about it either. And finally, I have a friend in England who, like my DH and friend above, had a Catholic background and education with a similar story, who also said she never learned about Jesus except after she left the Church. I would say these three people are of similar age, so they would have grown up in Church within about 10ish years of each other. It seems like somehow they all missed the basics that I’ve been learning in RCIA classes. It’s a head-scratching coincidence to me.

Thanks for your patience with all my newbie questions! :hug3:

 

[pianistclare]

I have been reading your many replies, and I appreciate the time you have taken to help me think this through. My RCIA instructors have been very helpful, patient and kind, but sometimes there isn’t time to ask questions like the one I posed above, which is outside the “scheduled” curriculum. And sometimes I can’t put a voice to my questions until late at night after the house is asleep and I have time to be in my own head with out interruption. lol!!

I’ve really enjoyed my RCIA classes, and they gave us the Catechism and the book “This is Our Faith” to read, plus lots of other handouts during the year. I have also picked up other books on my own, like “A Biblical Walk Through the Mass,” “The Protestants Dilemma,” and “Waking Up Catholic.” I think that I agree with a previous poster that said CAF can sometimes muddy the waters for a newbie like me. I’m a researcher at heart, and tend to Google the heck out of stuff, and follow rabbit trails. But I think that has led me into grey areas that caused confusion, especially with regards to the Church.

The Church I have learned about in RCIA is the one I have fallen in love with, and the one I hope to help my son grow to love too. I still struggle with a few things, but after 45 years of being a Protestant, it’s not surprising.

May I ask one other question? Was there a period of time when teaching the basic core beliefs was not quite as…robust or thorough is it is now?

My DH is a cradle Catholic, attended Catholic school through middle grades, was an altar boy through high school, and his parents are very active Catholics, but he had never heard of the Catechism until I started taking RCIA classes. We also met a woman at church who just moved here from CA, who is also a cradle Catholic and attended Catholic schools and she didn’t know about it either. And finally, I have a friend in England who, like my DH and friend above, had a Catholic background and education with a similar story, who also said she never learned about Jesus except after she left the Church. I would say these three people are of similar age, so they would have grown up in Church within about 10ish years of each other. It seems like somehow they all missed the basics that I’ve been learning in RCIA classes. It’s a head-scratching coincidence to me.

Thanks for your patience with all my newbie questions! :hug3:

The U.S. has placed a huge emphasis on catechesis. You can’t keep people engaged in their faith without a solid foundation. I too, went to Catholic schools. but the instruction was fairly tame, by today’s standards. Of course, you have to remember the times. My parents didn’t know anyone who was divorced, no one shacked up before marriage, there were not many of the social ills that plague the world today. It was easy to focus on the beauty of the Mass and Marian devotions and call it a day.
Today however, kids and adults have a “prove it to me” attitude than can only be addressed with solid, strong teaching. And, they are bombarded with the secular and worldly view/opinions of “morality”. Thankfully the Church has realized this, and with the internet access to theological documents, the GUIRM, the Vatican library, EWTN, and good seminaries the faithful really benefits.
My hubs grew up in Ireland. He says all the time that he wishes that they had the programs that are available to kids today when he was growing up. Not that he didn’t receive good training, but he would have fewer questions, and a clearer understanding of what we do and why we do it.
We are living in a time of readily available information. It’s a wonderful thing.
Again, welcome home!

 

[commenter]

May I ask one other question? Was there a period of time when teaching the basic core beliefs was not quite as…robust or thorough is it is now?
:hug3:

The answer is complicated and varies a lot from place to place. Prior to 1960 teaching of doctrinal content was more far “robust” than it is now, not only in catechetics but in preaching, where “sermons” often explained doctrinal content and directly applied it to moral situations in the parishioners’ lives. This was true of the Catholic Press too. Starting in the late 60s, people started claiming “if you accept Vatican II, then you have to accept what I am presenting to you here”, even when they pushed an agenda not consistent with V II. Each year they cut more doctrinal content out of the religion textbooks, and “Religious Ed” and its publishers became almost a church within the Church, semi independent from the Church at all levels. Some dioceses and religious orders fought the trend, affirming Doctrine, but others went along with it, and eliminated any references to Dogmas, Absolutes of right and wrong, or true or false. Sermons were turned into Bible studies.

There were exceptions, religion teachers who sneaked doctrinal content in, filling in what the textbook omitted. In some places, like Africa and Eastern Europe, doctrinal content remained solid, and vocations bloomed. The situation began improving in the 1980s under St JP II. But we still have a long way to go. Many teachers and parents grew up without the doctrinal content. The Catechism is a huge help, being so accessible. It isn’ t just one more voice among many, it is the standard by which the others should be measured. Many people, especially over a certain age, in diocesan education departments and some religious orders, are still deemphasizing doctrine, in the name of subjective experience, political reform, or whatever the secular media are pushing at the moment. But the younger Catholic lay educators, and especially the younger sisters, are far more likely to affirm doctrinal content.

 

[christofirst]

Also remember, the Catechism we keep referring to now was only published in 1994, twenty years ago, but not around when I went to Catholic school. In my parent’s era, up through the 1950s, they used the Baltimore Catechism, which was a question and answer format that was often memorized. After the Second Vatican Council, when I went to school, the religion classes seemed to become more heart-based instead of head-based, if that makes sense. We talked a lot about feelings and Christian ethics, not so much about doctrine. Now, since the coming of the Catechism of the Catholic Church, we have a powerful reference tool, although some who came up in the late 60s and early 70s, like me, sometimes still seem nostalgic for the heart-based way (and sometimes these nostalgic folks are still teaching this way).

 

[commenter]

Also remember, the Catechism we keep referring to now was only published in 1994, twenty years ago, but not around when I went to Catholic school. In my parent’s era, up through the 1950s, they used the Baltimore Catechism, which was a question and answer format that was often memorized. After the Second Vatican Council, when I went to school, the religion classes seemed to become more heart-based instead of head-based, if that makes sense. We talked a lot about feelings and Christian ethics, not so much about doctrine. Now, since the coming of the Catechism of the Catholic Church, we have a powerful reference tool, although some who came up in the late 60s and early 70s, like me, sometimes still seem nostalgic for the heart-based way (and sometimes these nostalgic folks are still teaching this way).

I agree with you part way. My era was “head based”. But I would refer to the 1965 - 1985 or so, not as heart based but gut based. The era right before V II was not only intellectual, but also deeply devotional. A lot of that “heart-based” sense of devotion, and humility, was never passed on to kids who came after us. I have younger relatives who have hardly any understanding of what “Adoration” means.

The problem with my era was that with 50 kids in a classroom, there was hardly any way to teach but to memorize. Ideally it would have been better to personalize the content, maybe in small groups. OK, this is the Truth. But what does it mean to me, in my life?
In the Post Vatican II years, sometimes that was done well. But sometimes it became kids and adults deciding “this doctrine feels right to me, so I consider it ‘true’. That doctrine doesn’t feel right to me, so for me it’s not true.” When I taught religion to teens, at first I thought they must have the knowledge, they just put into different language. But I finally decided, they never got the knowledge, at all, that they should have got in grade school. Enormous amounts of doctrinal content, reaffirmed at Vatican II, just got cut out of the curriculum. It had not been communicated in a more personal or heart felt way. They would have been better off with memorized head knowledge, than no knowledge.

When I went to school, the education specifically prepared us to hold onto the Truth, no matter what the secular culture taught. The kids that came later were, and are, glued to the secular culture, of “what’s trending now”.

OK, enough of the cranky old guy reminiscing. In my diocese most Catholic high schools are very liberal; they happen to employ some devout teachers, but make no effort to recruit such. They gladly surrendered to Common Core.

We started this year a **new **Catholic high school; the diocese rents us space, gives us no support of any kind. Our kids attend Mass daily, all our faculty take an oath of fidelity to the Magisterium. Everyone takes Latin and Philosophy, Critical Thinking, Debate, not “what’s trending now”. It’s a classical curriculum, no Common Core. At our fundraiser next month, we will have a symbol of “Common Core” on a wall. Buy a ticket, and you can throw a tomato at it.

But don’t stop sticking up for the 70s. Don’t even get me started about the music!

 

[christofirst]

I agree with you part way. My era was “head based”. But I would refer to the 1965 - 1985 or so, not as heart based but gut based. The era right before V II was not only intellectual, but also deeply devotional. A lot of that “heart-based” sense of devotion, and humility, was never passed on to kids who came after us. I have younger relatives who have hardly any understanding of what “Adoration” means.

The problem with my era was that with 50 kids in a classroom, there was hardly any way to teach but to memorize. Ideally it would have been better to personalize the content, maybe in small groups. OK, this is the Truth. But what does it mean to me, in my life?
In the Post Vatican II years, sometimes that was done well. But sometimes it became kids and adults deciding “this doctrine feels right to me, so I consider it ‘true’. That doctrine doesn’t feel right to me, so for me it’s not true.” When I taught religion to teens, at first I thought they must have the knowledge, they just put into different language. But I finally decided, they never got the knowledge, at all, that they should have got in grade school. Enormous amounts of doctrinal content, reaffirmed at Vatican II, just got cut out of the curriculum. It had not been communicated in a more personal or heart felt way. They would have been better off with memorized head knowledge, than no knowledge.

When I went to school, the education specifically prepared us to hold onto the Truth, no matter what the secular culture taught. The kids that came later were, and are, glued to the secular culture, of “what’s trending now”.

OK, enough of the cranky old guy reminiscing. In my diocese most Catholic high schools are very liberal; they happen to employ some devout teachers, but make no effort to recruit such. They gladly surrendered to Common Core.

We started this year a **new **Catholic high school; the diocese rents us space, gives us no support of any kind. Our kids attend Mass daily, all our faculty take an oath of fidelity to the Magisterium. Everyone takes Latin and Philosophy, Critical Thinking, Debate, not “what’s trending now”. It’s a classical curriculum, no Common Core. At our fundraiser next month, we will have a symbol of “Common Core” on a wall. Buy a ticket, and you can throw a tomato at it.

But don’t stop sticking up for the 70s. Don’t even get me started about the music!

You make good points. I am well aware of both the benefits and the shortcomings of the religious education I received in the 1970s. When I mentioned those who are nostalgic for this way, I wasn’t referring to myself, only that I was taught this way. I was thinking more of the DREs who are still around from that era who continue to think a person can somehow put the faith into practice without actually learning the fundamentals of the faith. That may be an over-exaggeration, but I know I could have used a better faith foundation before we started talking ethics and feelings.

Thanks for reminding me about the awesome liturgical music from those days . I think I’ll bust out my old guitar now and strum a few bars of Pass My Love Around, followed by, Shout Out Your Joy, Pass It On, It’s A Brand New Day, and Get Together (Yes, we used to sing that old song by the Youngbloods at Mass ).

 

[commenter]

You make good points. I am well aware of both the benefits and the shortcomings of the religious education I received in the 1970s. When I mentioned those who are nostalgic for this way, I wasn’t referring to myself, only that I was taught this way. I was thinking more of the DREs who are still around from that era who continue to think a person can somehow put the faith into practice without actually learning the fundamentals of the faith. That may be an over-exaggeration, but I know I could have used a better faith foundation before we started talking ethics and feelings.

Thanks for reminding me about the awesome liturgical music from those days . I think I’ll bust out my old guitar now and strum a few bars of Pass My Love Around, followed by, Shout Out Your Joy, Pass It On, It’s A Brand New Day, and Get Together (Yes, we used to sing that old song by the Youngbloods at Mass ).

My fav was Ray Repp, “Here we are…Altogether as we sing our song…Joyfully”!
But there were some good things from that era too. And a couple things from the 50s better to be left there.
That’s what I love about our Church, we have many decades and centuries of experience to draw from. What works. What doesn’t work. I feel bad about the non denominational churches springing up like crocuses in my city. They brag that they can start from scratch, not “bound” by tradition.

 

[Memaw]

I have been reading your many replies, and I appreciate the time you have taken to help me think this through. My RCIA instructors have been very helpful, patient and kind, but sometimes there isn’t time to ask questions like the one I posed above, which is outside the “scheduled” curriculum. And sometimes I can’t put a voice to my questions until late at night after the house is asleep and I have time to be in my own head with out interruption. lol!!

I’ve really enjoyed my RCIA classes, and they gave us the Catechism and the book “This is Our Faith” to read, plus lots of other handouts during the year. I have also picked up other books on my own, like “A Biblical Walk Through the Mass,” “The Protestants Dilemma,” and “Waking Up Catholic.” I think that I agree with a previous poster that said CAF can sometimes muddy the waters for a newbie like me. I’m a researcher at heart, and tend to Google the heck out of stuff, and follow rabbit trails. But I think that has led me into grey areas that caused confusion, especially with regards to the Church.

The Church I have learned about in RCIA is the one I have fallen in love with, and the one I hope to help my son grow to love too. I still struggle with a few things, but after 45 years of being a Protestant, it’s not surprising.

May I ask one other question? Was there a period of time when teaching the basic core beliefs was not quite as…robust or thorough is it is now?

My DH is a cradle Catholic, attended Catholic school through middle grades, was an altar boy through high school, and his parents are very active Catholics, but he had never heard of the Catechism until I started taking RCIA classes. We also met a woman at church who just moved here from CA, who is also a cradle Catholic and attended Catholic schools and she didn’t know about it either. And finally, I have a friend in England who, like my DH and friend above, had a Catholic background and education with a similar story, who also said she never learned about Jesus except after she left the Church. I would say these three people are of similar age, so they would have grown up in Church within about 10ish years of each other. It seems like somehow they all missed the basics that I’ve been learning in RCIA classes. It’s a head-scratching coincidence to me.

Thanks for your patience with all my newbie questions! :hug3:

Sorry to say there may be many Catholics that are in that situation. Either they weren’t taught properly or they didn’t learn properly. I have always thought that every adult Catholic should take a class of instructions. I have met several cradle Catholics that went all thru Catholic schooling and knew less about the Catholic Faith than my dear Mother taught me on the farm, many miles away from a Catholic Church. Over the years I have taken many such classes. mostly done by priests in the “good ole days.” (Usually with someone I was helping) . And I have learned much each time. I have been a sponsor a few times for RCIA also. The doors just keep opening. As for the Catechism of the Catholic Church, I can’t imagine how anyone missed knowing of it. It has had much publicity over the years and even many non-Catholics have heard of it. And for the Lady that ‘never learned of Jesus’, did she ever attend Holy Mass during that time??? We also have an obligation to learn “on our own” as adults. We don’t have to stay ignorant of our Holy Faith. There are so many wonderful books to read and Catholic Answers has a great resource for us. EWTN Catholic Cable Network is another. My future daughter-in-law was taking instructions and she brought her best friend into the Church even before she became a Catholic. After class, she would call her up and tell her everything Fr. taught her. That friend teaches in a Catholic High School and has raised a fine family. Both had families that strongly disagreed with what they were doing but that didn’t stop them. It was wonderful watching my daughter-in-law grow over the years. She has even taught CCD. Life is amazing and joyful when working with Our Lord. Prayers and God Bless, Memaw

 

[Tigg]

Because there are wolves in sheep’s clothing.

Best answer!

 

[Wampa]

OP, welcome to the Church! I don’t have a lot to add to the already good answers provided here. Just two thoughts:

1. I went through RCIA 10 years ago and I’m still figuring out exactly how all the pieces fit together. Your question is a good one and clarity will come with time and experience with different facets of the Church.
2. I just read an excellent description of the “fractured” nature of at least one part of the Church, which I would call the orthodox part. The author does a nice job of summing up the different camps and the role each group plays in the orthodox Catholic world. He impressively comes up with a positive synthesis of all three. You might find it illuminating.

Catholic Answers, Michael Voris, The Remnant: “Take the best and leave the rest”

 

[808Catholic]

Sorry to say there may be many Catholics that are in that situation. Either they weren’t taught properly or they didn’t learn properly. I have always thought that every adult Catholic should take a class of instructions. I have met several cradle Catholics that went all thru Catholic schooling and knew less about the Catholic Faith than my dear Mother taught me on the farm, many miles away from a Catholic Church. Over the years I have taken many such classes. mostly done by priests in the “good ole days.” (Usually with someone I was helping) . And I have learned much each time. I have been a sponsor a few times for RCIA also. The doors just keep opening. As for the Catechism of the Catholic Church, I can’t imagine how anyone missed knowing of it. It has had much publicity over the years and even many non-Catholics have heard of it. And for the Lady that ‘never learned of Jesus’, did she ever attend Holy Mass during that time??? We also have an obligation to learn “on our own” as adults. We don’t have to stay ignorant of our Holy Faith. There are so many wonderful books to read and Catholic Answers has a great resource for us. EWTN Catholic Cable Network is another. My future daughter-in-law was taking instructions and she brought her best friend into the Church even before she became a Catholic. After class, she would call her up and tell her everything Fr. taught her. That friend teaches in a Catholic High School and has raised a fine family. Both had families that strongly disagreed with what they were doing but that didn’t stop them. It was wonderful watching my daughter-in-law grow over the years. She has even taught CCD. Life is amazing and joyful when working with Our Lord. Prayers and God Bless, Memaw

As you say, sometimes the best way to learn is by teaching. Volunteering at the parish for one (or more) of their ministries is a great way to put into action what we learn as Catholics. We learn, we act, we mentor. God Bless you.

 

[nishkalank]

The church was established by Jesus. Jesus was betrayed by one of his own disciples.the teachings of Jesus is immutable and eternal and none has authority to change them. However during the course of 2000 years there has never been any erosion in the core of all teachings. As the administration is done byPope and the bishops,who are mortals and there may be differences in their opinions ,but it will not affect the unity or strength of the Church. In the modern times many challenges in the form of demands for change in moral perceptions come up, but the Church is always studying them and guiding the Church firmly upholding the truths taught by Jesus and traditions. There will always be some section that cause divisive trend, but we have to pray for the wisdom from the Holy Spirit.

Nishkalank