Why don't we use the Baltimore Catechism anymore?

[clem456]

We are not called by Christ to live in fear, guilt and regret or place these onerous burdens on others. The whole point of Christianity is that **Christ frees us from sin **and the spiritual death that results from it. **Christ liberates humanity from sin **, it’s punishment, and it’s joy-killing effects. Christ has paid the price for our sin. Trust is required of us, our cooperation. This is basic Christian doctrine.

The Gospel is by defnintion: -the - Good - News-. People should look at Catholics and see something they want. They should see in us the Fruits of the Holy Spirit: Love, Joy, Peace, etc…People don’t desire hell, guilt, and fear, and their God-given reason tells them that you and I don’t determine who receives hell, guilt, and fear, God takes care of judgement, not us. We are responsible for presenting a true picture of the Gospel. It is not our option to present a distorted picture of the Gospel that drives people to seek the truth outside the Church. The passages I see quoted above are teaching moments. Christ (who is God after all and is qualified to talk about who might be going to hell) gives us these admonitions to purify us, to bring us to peace with Him, not to frighten us into submission.

 

[Brooklyn]

We are not called by Christ to live in fear, guilt and regret or place these onerous burdens on others. The whole point of Christianity is that **Christ frees us from sin **and the spiritual death that results from it. **Christ liberates humanity from sin **, it’s punishment, and it’s joy-killing effects. Christ has paid the price for our sin. Trust is required of us, our cooperation. This is basic Christian doctrine.

The Gospel is by defnintion: -the - Good - News-. People should look at Catholics and see something they want. They should see in us the Fruits of the Holy Spirit: Love, Joy, Peace, etc…People don’t desire hell, guilt, and fear, and their God-given reason tells them that you and I don’t determine who receives hell, guilt, and fear, God takes care of judgement, not us. We are responsible for presenting a true picture of the Gospel. It is not our option to present a distorted picture of the Gospel that drives people to seek the truth outside the Church. The passages I see quoted above are teaching moments. Christ (who is God after all and is qualified to talk about who might be going to hell) gives us these admonitions to purify us, to bring us to peace with Him, not to frighten us into submission.

I find it interesting that whenever people express opinions such as this, it is always just their own opinions and statements and never anything from the saints or church authority to back up their opinions. I guess if we accept this we can just throw out everything we have heard and taught for the last 2000 years.

 

[buzzoff1031]

It seems, as I’ve stated in an earlier post, that this thread has become an argument of either/or, when it really should be both/and. We need to know wbout hell and that it’s horrible and that we can go there if we don’t live according to Christ’s commands. We also need to l know about how much God loves us and desires for each one of us to spend eternity with Him. There is a middle path to walk…

 

[Seeker1961]

It seems, as I’ve stated in an earlier post, that this thread has become an argument of either/or, when it really should be both/and. We need to know wbout hell and that it’s horrible and that we can go there if we don’t live according to Christ’s commands. We also need to l know about how much God loves us and desires for each one of us to spend eternity with Him. There is a middle path to walk…

 

[edwest2]

Why can’t it be simply accepted that our current way of doing things (do we even have a way of doing things?) is not working? We can either continue to loll around with this “God loves us, it’s okay” rhetoric, or we can buck up and do something about it. The latter seems, at least to me, to be much more effective, Christian, and truly expressive of God’s love, as opposed to some silly warm feeling, than what we’re doing now.

I am sorry to say it, but in my opinion it is simply amateurish to expect average laypeople to sit down and read encyclical letters and Apostolic Constitutions. It is not going to happen. Let’s get our heads out of the clouds, make a set of nationally approved, concise but engaging catechisms drawing on the CCC for content and the BC for style, one for children, one for teens and one for adults; and make every single parish use them as a basic tool for catechesis. Make them attractive within reason and sell them as cheaply as possible.

Close to the end of a catechetical program, start to offer an “extension” course for those who desire to take it, something that offers a more in depth approach to things. It might be small, but hey, I can’t think of a time in Church history when something similar might not have been.

Additionally, use the church building as a catechism in stone. This terrible nonsense of building expensive parish churches as sparsely as possible–even when a parish has a decent budget!–is simply ridiculous and quite suspect from my point of view. Statues, stained glass, paintings, inlaid floors, etc. Expensive? Yes. Worth it? From a catechetical point of view, it is indispensable. Can every parish do it? Yes, either at once or, as is quite the traditional practice and which is quite convenient, have a perpetually designed church in which it is ornamented over time. Even if it turns out a little kitschy, who cares? It’s the product of the people, let them feel proud of it. If it is clear that it will help the spiritual life of the parish, let them have another statue, another devotional altar, even if there are lots of other ones.

To continue from above, allow and heavily encourage minority groups in parishes to once again have things like ethnically meaningful devotional spaces and side altars dedicated to saints and things. Our Lady of La Vang, for example.

Mainstream Catholicism has lost its cultic, cultural element in America for the most part. This must be fostered once again, even for your “culture-less white people,” as I like to refer to myself. We suburbanite, run-of-the-mill whites, especially in America, often like to think that we have no culture, because in all honesty, we don’t. We have to regain something of that. It can’t be done too quickly, it can’t be done artificially, but it must be done.

This post is a little choppy, sorry. I see everything as essentially interconnected, with the cultic element of the faith being what binds everything together.

Try to have a little hope. There are a lot of good apologetics books being published all the time.

We DID have a Christian culture in America at one time because the media was Christian friendly. I remember reading beautiful editorials about Christmas in the newspaper. If the Pope visited the United States, it was on the cover of Look or Life magazine.

As time passed, our culture was forcibly taken away from us. The beautiful Nativity in front of the local City Hall that was there year after year? No one was forced to look at it, pray by it or leave money in it, but one day, the ACLU woke up and said THAT’S UNCONSTITUTIONAL !!!. Cities were sued by the ACLU. That’s why, one year, the Nativity was set on land near the City Hall that had a sign that read it was leased by a private group, OR, the ACLU could make a deal with you. If you agreed to turn Jesus into another Christmas ornament and surround Him with plastic reindeer and Santa Claus and candy canes and DECHRISTIANIZE the whole thing, then that was OK by them. And they didn’t have to pay ANY court costs ever.

Then the ACLU woke up one day and discovered there were RELIGIOUS MONUMENTS in PUBLIC BUILDINGS !!! What? They just put themselves there? No, they had been there for a while. But now, they were UNCONSTITUTIONAL !!! I remember watching a priest lying prostrate across the stone steps of a public building as a religious monument was being taken out.

In a nearby community, stores would have speakers set up outside that would play Christian Christmas music during the season, but someone complained and an ordinance was passed that said, it’s OK to play the music but NOT THE WORDS.

How about the ACLU lawsuit against a memorial cross erected in 1934 to honor World War One veterans?

libertyinstitute.org/news/settlement-takes-veterans-closer-restoration-mojave-desert-cross/

Wake up people.

nytimes.com/2012/03/04/nyregion/cardinal-timothy-m-dolan-urges-catholics-to-become-more-politically-active.html

Peace,
Ed

 

[Brooklyn]

It seems, as I’ve stated in an earlier post, that this thread has become an argument of either/or, when it really should be both/and. We need to know wbout hell and that it’s horrible and that we can go there if we don’t live according to Christ’s commands. We also need to l know about how much God loves us and desires for each one of us to spend eternity with Him. There is a middle path to walk…

You are absolutely right. But my point is how do we motivate people to obey our Lord and the teachings of the Church? Many people here are saying that we must be motivated by love of God, and that guilt or “bad feelings” will only drive people away. But is someone who is basically living a life apart from God and the Church going to be motivated to change by just telling them that God loves them? Or is it important that they see they are sinners in need of a Saviour, and that unless they repent of their sins, they will go to hell. That is a fact and our Lord warned us of this many times while he was on earth. Luke 13:3 - “Unless you repent, you will all likewise perish.” A healthy fear of eternity in hell can be a great motivator, and the great saints have preached this down through the ages.

 

[CesarAugustus]

Gulting?

That didn’t happened so much in the country I live on (at least not compared to what I read from USA). And see, we have rampant liberalism, heterodoxy, 6th Commandment issues, etc.

Also, YoungTradCath and edwest2 have very good points!

Blessings!

 

[edwest2]

And by the way, this has nothing to do with being white and suburban. I grew up in Detroit in the 1960s when my neighborhood was just as beautiful as any suburban neighborhood at the time. People cut their grass with push lawnmowers that required occasional sharpening and a little oil. Parents loved their kids and were attentive to them and we showed our affection to each other. Moms and dads hugged their kids. If we were sitting in the living room watching TV during summer vacation, mom would walk in, tell us to turn off the TV and go outside to get some fresh air, have some fun with the neighbor kids or go to the local school field and ride the swings or play some baseball. Each mom would take turns and gather up the local kids and go with with them to the play field and watch them.

Living out our Christian education by being good neighbors, responsible adults, being kind and courteous to each other and especially adults, was the norm. Even as a kid, I could tell the adults around me were working at self-control, and many were great examples to me. No, it was not perfect. We had a few bad apples, a few obvious alcoholics, and some ‘bad kids’ who we were taught to avoid. We were to be polite to them but not associate with them. It was simple logic: If they stole a bike and you were with them, and didn’t even know the bike they had was stolen, the police might think you were involved.

Sure, we had crime. But I thought about God every day. Stores were closed on Sundays. And it was common for me to tell my friends, “I’ll see you later, after Church.” God was integrated into our lives.

No, not everybody went to the same Church we did but most of us shared the exact same values, and, as a kid, when my parents took us to other cities and other neighborhoods, we found people were living the same way.

Modesty.
Politeness.
Controlling your tongue, which we are strongly warned about in the Bible.
Don’t lie.
Don’t steal.
Don’t gossip about anybody, which was logical since if you didn’t know the whole story then you shouldn’t make up any.
Honor your mother and father

Yes, we knew about the poor, we knew about broken homes, and we knew about troubled kids. But we were also told that the Church was working hard to help all those people. In the early 1960s, we had a visitor at our home. We didn’t know why she was there, but my mother set up a folding bed in the living room for her. When I asked my mom what happened, she told me, “She’s having trouble at home.” I believe my mom took her to the parish priest the next day. She was very nice and very sweet.

We loved our priests and nuns and the few lay teachers we had. We had a religion class that explained our faith to us. I still have one of my textbooks from religion class, titled “To Live Is Christ” (copyright 1966).

There was no less need for Confession then, but the media gradually turned its spotlight from good young and old people acting right to people doing wrong. Yes, we will always have people who do right and people who choose to do wrong, but we are now living in a 24/7 media environment that is predominantly focusing on the bad, the sick, the twisted and abnormal.

Learn to read good Catholic publications. Subscribe to them.

ncregister.com/

osv.com/

And the Catholic newspaper for your state:

themichigancatholic.org/

And avoid the National Catholic Reporter.

I am convinced Catholics who are mostly exposed to the darkness will have a dim view of the future of Catholicism and an incorrect view of how alive the Church is, as well as the role we can play in passing on the knowledge of what the Church, members of the Church leadership, like Archbishops, and the laity are doing for the benefit of the faith right now.

Peace,
Ed

 

[OraLabora]

It seems, as I’ve stated in an earlier post, that this thread has become an argument of either/or, when it really should be both/and. We need to know wbout hell and that it’s horrible and that we can go there if we don’t live according to Christ’s commands. We also need to l know about how much God loves us and desires for each one of us to spend eternity with Him. There is a middle path to walk…

Yes indeed. I often wonder though why we present hell as something in the future. Some of us who have been through the dark night have had a foretaste of hell and the separation from God right here on Earth. I think that having say a former addict witness about what hell really is like-and trust me they know-would be far more effective than a fire-and-brimstone sermon.

Because just like eternal life and it’s joys can begin at least in part down here, hell can be tasted in full down here too. There is no better teacher than someone who has been there.

I have seen fit wealthy people turn their own lives into hell, and on the flip side we have a severely handicapped oblate whose material life is so severely restricted, on the surface we think he has a terrible quality of life yet he radiates such joy at being alive and at an oblates retreat I just know he has tasted the beatitudes; he loves abundantly and is abundantly loved in return by his caregivers.

Both he, and a reformed addict, have something to teach us about hell and the beatitudes.

As an aside, the handicapped fellow would also have a lot to teach those who would judge what is an acceptable quality of life; he could turn the secular euthanasia debate on its head.

 

[Cider]

It was used at the parish I attended RCIA at

 

[clem456]

Yes indeed. I often wonder though why we present hell as something in the future. Some of us who have been through the dark night have had a foretaste of hell and the separation from God right here on Earth. I think that having say a former addict witness about what hell really is like-and trust me they know-would be far more effective than a fire-and-brimstone sermon.

Unfotunately I have expertise in the area you are referring to. Just as we can have a foretaste of heaven in this life, so to hell. I won’t bore anyone with the details.

Paradoxically, preaching hell fire complicates the problem for one who is living hell. I was raised Catholic, in a very orthodox, conservative way. I knew all about hell and punishment and modesty and self control. Did that knowlege lead me to continuing conversion? Hardly, I knew there was damnation, and I set about proving it.

The deceiver tempts us to choose evil, then tells us we are evil and not worthy of redemption. He likes to remind us there’s a hell and we deserve it, just in case we get the crazy idea that we are somehow redeemable. It’s a vicious circle. Inordinate shame and guilt are huge huge contributors to addiction, and evil iin general. The only way out of the abyss is surrender to Christ’s offer of redemption, His offer of a more excellent way. Catholics need to present Christ truthfully. People need to know about the fulfillment and joy and peace that is possible by denying one’s self. For me, denying myself incuded letting go of the belief that I could not measure up to the God I knew, and deserved a life of punishment. Scaring people and shaming them are the tools of evil.

Every Catholic should read St Faustina’s diary. While it contains some visions of hell, the overwhelming message is of God’s mercy, His desire for reconciliation, His desire for us to leave sin and damnation behind… In some of the more relevant passages, Christ rebukes the sinner for focusing on and worrying about sin and not trusting in God’s mercy.

Who are we to contradict Jesus Christ and his Good News?

 

[OraLabora]

Unfotunately I have expertise in the area you are referring to. Just as we can have a foretaste of heaven in this life, so to hell. I won’t bore anyone with the details.

Paradoxically, preaching hell fire complicates the problem for one who is living hell. I was raised Catholic, in a very orthodox, conservative way. I knew all about hell and punishment and modesty and self control. Did that knowlege lead me to continuing conversion? Hardly, I knew there was damnation, and I set about proving it.

The deceiver tempts us to choose evil, then tells us we are evil and not worthy of redemption. He likes to remind us there’s a hell and we deserve it, just in case we get the crazy idea that we are somehow redeemable. It’s a vicious circle. Inordinate shame and guilt are huge huge contributors to addiction, and evil iin general. The only way out of the abyss is surrender to Christ’s offer of redemption, His offer of a more excellent way. Catholics need to present Christ truthfully. People need to know about the fulfillment and joy and peace that is possible by denying one’s self. For me, denying myself incuded letting go of the belief that I could not measure up to the God I knew, and deserved a life of punishment. Scaring people and shaming them are the tools of evil.

Every Catholic should read St Faustina’s diary. While it contains some visions of hell, the overwhelming message is of God’s mercy, His desire for reconciliation, His desire for us to leave sin and damnation behind… In some of the more relevant passages, Christ rebukes the sinner for focusing on and worrying about sin and not trusting in God’s mercy.

Who are we to contradict Jesus Christ and his Good News?

This. I have been exactly where you were, I’ll also spare everyone the details.

All that this hell-talk did was lead me to the sin of despair. I was convinced I was bad, others convinced me I was bad, and there was no other choice than the hot place.

In all that I missed the message of conversion. Thanks for witnessing. More people need to hear it.

 

[TrueLight]

This. I have been exactly where you were, I’ll also spare everyone the details.

All that this hell-talk did was lead me to the sin of despair. I was convinced I was bad, others convinced me I was bad, and there was no other choice than the hot place.

In all that I missed the message of conversion. Thanks for witnessing. More people need to hear it.

I wonder if some folks are just prone to despair. That might just be a question of proper catechesis (God loves us in spite of our sinful nature, but we are to try our best) as opposed to an indication that we should revamp the way we teach folks about Catholicism.

 

[OraLabora]

I wonder if some folks are just prone to despair. That might just be a question of proper catechesis (God loves us in spite of our sinful nature, but we are to try our best) as opposed to an indication that we should revamp the way we teach folks about Catholicism.

I think it’s pretty endemic given the right circumstances. Just about every monk has an issue with acedia (apathy) at some point and that’s intimately tied into despair.

I really think it has to do with where you are in your faith walk and is part of the maturing process that sees one flip from being a “sin-oriented” Catholic to a conversion-oriented Catholic.

I firmly believe that if one stays in sin-oriented, and I think we all more or less start in that mode, if we are brutally honest with ourselves we will eventually hit our wall where we realize that just “following the commandments” is superficial at best and doesn’t address the core wounds that bring us down and cause us to to real harm.

Most of those wounds are things we inherit through our upbringing. We all have them if we do an honest examination of self. I think that’s where the problem exists for some to get out of sin-oriented mode (for want of a better term). Few are really really keen on going into one’s heart and coming face to face with the fact the problem that a lifetime of ego-building has tried to mask. I think that’s really where St. Benedict’s 12 degrees of humility come in. It is a profoundly humbling experience

I know this notion will sound heretical but I think we also need to revisit the concept of “mortal” sin. Not that it doesn’t exist, but how we think of it. I’m beginning to think that the only true mortal sin is refusing to examine one’s heart deeply as I mentioned above, the failure to sit before God and say “I am a broken person, I now entrust myself to you, as is, where is”. The trap there, is that people who are in fact in the sin-focus mode and have “perfect” behaviour may in fact be the ones mortally sinning, whereas the broken down addict who says “have mercy on me God, a lowly sinner”, isn’t. Isn’t that what the parable of the Pharisee and the Publican is all about?

Alas I speak from the heart based on real-life experience, like Clem.

 

[clem456]

I wonder if some folks are just prone to despair. That might just be a question of proper catechesis (God loves us in spite of our sinful nature, but we are to try our best) as opposed to an indication that we should revamp the way we teach folks about Catholicism.

We are getting off topic here but…
I don’t think a person is born with a prediposition for it. Despair has to be worked at and nourished just like the virtue of hope. If people could realize how good God is, how rewarding it is to be chaste and temperate and obedient, they would not choose hell. One thing depair needs to flourish though, is the belief that God cannot possibly be that good.

We are not defined as people by the possibility of damnation, but by redemption. That is who we are, We no longer live under the curse. That is what our catechesis needs to tell people.

 

[OraLabora]

We are getting off topic here but…
I don’t think a person is born with a prediposition for it. Despair has to be worked at and nourished just like the virtue of hope. If people could realize how good God is, how rewarding it is to be chaste and temperate and obedient, they would not choose hell. One thing depair needs to flourish though, is the belief that God cannot possibly be that good.

We are not defined as people by the possibility of damnation, but by redemption. That is who we are, We no longer live under the curse. That is what our catechesis needs to tell people.

I would add that being chaste, temperate and obedient are not only rewarding, they are liberating.

But inner conversion is the only way to get there. You can’t skip steps if it’s to be lasting.

 

[James224]

Not sure if this is the right place for this question so moderator please move if so warranted.

Why did schools stop using the Baltimore Catechism? My school was very traditional and we used it well into the 1970’s even though others in the diocese were changing to other religion texts. Our Pastor felt “if it ain’t broke, don’t fix it” so he just let it remain. It wasn’t until he left that the school changed texts, and I was in HS.

I know that my religious education was FAR superior to that of my friends in other schools and others my age. I also feel it was superior to what the children are getting now.

I think you’re right. I grew up on the Baltimore Cathechism and had to memorize every word all the way through grade school. We had to recite the answers precisely in front of the priest before we received each of the sacraments and you better not mess up! lol
I was in grade school from 1961 to 1969.

 

[Seeker1961]

I think you’re right. I grew up on the Baltimore Cathechism and had to memorize every word all the way through grade school. We had to recite the answers precisely in front of the priest before we received each of the sacraments and you better not mess up! lol
I was in grade school from 1961 to 1969.

And I bet you can still remember it too…

 

[James224]

And I bet you can still remember it too…

LOL Yes, some of it. I recently bought a set of them and reconized many of the questions and answers. I taught 9th grade CCD for 7 years and would draw from it. I also discovered online 2 other interesting books i used. One is online written by Fr Francis Spirago about 100 years ago. Some of it is dated but gives examples of each section of the Baltimore Catechism. It’s to explain by example to children. Here’s the website:
books.google.com/books?id=AuwPAAAAYAAJ&dq=spirago+Catechism&printsec=frontcover&source=bl&ots=kX0hXDwC3l&sig=LJ6WFmjTS5XJCsNOHK9-Z6MoCHs&hl=en&sa=X&oi=book_result&resnum=1&ct=result#v=onepage&q=spirago%20Catechism&f=false

The other book was written in the 1940’s by Fr G.H. Guyot entitled, “Scriptural References for the Baltimore Cathechism”. It gives scriptural references for each question.

 

[Ridgerunner]

Some historical writer, not sure who, opined that, as compared to Renaissance people, for example, moderns neither sin well nor repent well.

If one reads histories of the Renaissance period, one can see that. People most assuredly sinned with gusto. But they also repented with gusto. It’s breathtaking to read about some of their sinning, but it’s also astonishing to read about the piety of some of those very people, and virtue so heroic we rarely witness its like today.

One sometimes is inclined to consider Jesus’ words “…be you warm or be you cold, but if you are lukewarm I will spit you out of my mouth” Chesterton, I think it was, said “The Catholic Church is for saints and sinners. For the merely respectable, the Anglican Church will do.”

Can one truly “sin well” or “repent well” if one knows little of either? I have raised five children and now have grandchildren in school. I have been almost uniformly disappointed at the religious instruction precisely because it doesn’t draw clear distinctions. It doesn’t really quite instruct. It’s vague and fluffy about things that ought to be crystal clear.

What, after all, is “sinning well”. Personally, I think it’s acknowledging it. We are so subjective and relativist today that we don’t like acknowledging the evil we do. We make excuses for it and try to find some priest or nun or politician who will help us in doing that. Why not just own up to it? If I’m using artificial birth control, I might as well simply admit that I’m sinning. Maybe I’m not going to repent today, but I have no moral business making excuses for it. Maybe I’ll try to repent in some way; at least try. But outright denial is, in my mind, the deceit of the tempter.

Maybe I’ll take something from another wrongfully. I ought to simply admit that I’m stealing, period. No “it’s a class thing” or “he didn’t come by it honestly” or “I deserve it”. No, if I’m stealing, I’m stealing. Maybe what I need to do is resolve not to steal again, to make recompense and confess. If I do that, I have “sinned well” and “repented well”.

We now have “Catholics for a Free Choice” and “LCWR” and “nuns on the bus” and all sorts of horrible organizations founded on temporizing with evil. Did I cooperate in an abortion? Well, if I did, I did. No excuses. No sociological nonsense about how I aided the woman in “getting on with her life” or “preventing illegitimacy” or “doing the kind thing”. I killed. I just plain killed. My better course is to confess it, to resolve never to do it again and to carry that memory of guilt as a reminder to be a better man; perhaps to help preserve life or to make a woman realize that pregnancy is not the end of her life. If I do that, I have “sinned well” and “repented well”.

The sting of conscience is a grace, not a curse. We need it.

I believe the Baltimore Catechism stood for clarity. It stood for knowing, not lying to oneself. It taught us to seek mercy. Ste Therese of Lisieux recognized that not a single one of us merits heaven. Every one of us has hell coming. We do. What’s the cure for that? Throwing oneself on God’s mercy, that’s what, and the first step is owning up to what we did; accepting the truth.

She had an interesting take on our judgments. She said that at the point of death we are presented with every sin we ever committed in its full horror and with total clarity. It’s terrible to see it. Jesus then offers us his love and his forgiveness, but we can’t accept it if we won’t admit how dependent we are on it. We either accept his love and forgiveness and join with him, or we spit at Him because He has wounded our pride; our self-justification, wrap ourselves in a cocoon of our own self-worship and hate Him for all eternity.

Perhaps the nuns of yore did not sufficiently emphasize that love and that mercy. But it’s not the fault of the Catechism itself if they did not. It’s in there. If our teachers did not explore and emphasize it sufficiently, they did us, and the Catechism itself, a disservice.

But the “fix” for the failings is not self-deception.