Recently the director of the Alpha group in our parish suggested to me that we combine RCIA with Alpha during the time period before Christmas this coming year. Alpha is a movement dedicated to proclaiming the message of Jesus to people who have little or no connection to Jesus or to a faith community in their lives. Alpha has its origins in an evangelical offshoot of the Anglican Church and many Catholic communities (including our parish) have enthusiastically embraced the program. The Alpha program consists of a series of evenings where the group gathers for a meal followed by a video on the topic for the evening followed again by group discussion. The speaker on the videos is Nicky Gumbel who is a particularly effective presenter. The topics generally offer a "generic" and personalized version of what it means to be a Christian. I participated in Alpha a few years ago and found the message to be powerfully presented and the format of the evening to be enjoyable.
So, why not combine the RCIA group with Alpha? On the surface there are some good reasons why this would be a good idea. First of all we know that the first phase of RCIA is at least partly dedicated to evangelization (a first proclamation of the Gospel). So, this seems like a good fit with Alpha. Secondly, from a practical point of view, combining the groups (in our parish both groups have even been meeting on the same evening) would be an efficient use of staff and volunteer time.
But, of course, there are reasons why this is not a good idea. Most seriously, the Alpha talks do not give anything like a complete "picture" of what it means to be a Catholic Christian. Alpha pays little attention to sacraments specifically mentioning only Baptism and Eucharist. Alpha also pays little attention to what it means to be part of the Church. Finally, Alpha omits mention of anything that is distinctively Catholic (which is natural since its approach tries to be non - denominational). So, considering these shortcomings, Alpha does not seem to be an effective use of the limited amount of time available to the period of inquiry in the RCIA.
Next, the needs of the participants in RCIA in our parish during the period of inquiry generally have been more complicated than what is provided by Alpha. If all of our RCIA participants were coming from a basically "unchurched" and uncatechized background Alpha might be an effective way of providing this initial catechesis. The fact is however, that in my experience participants in our RCIA groups have tended to be mainly made up first of all of people who are married to a Catholic and who have been attending our Church. A second group has been people who have been active members of other Christian churches and who are seeking to join the Catholic church. Another group has been Catholics who have been baptized but who have not completed their sacraments of initiation. One of the things that this kind of group needs (particularly those people who have been catechized in another Christian church) in the period of inquiry in RCIA is an exposure to some of the distinctive feature of Catholicism. This gives them an opportunity to deal with any "issues" that they may have with the Church before proceeding to the next period of RCIA following the Rite of Acceptance and Welcome.
I am aware that our RCIA should ideally take up more time than it currently does. Right now, our plan is to begin in mid September and wrap up around the time of Pentecost. If we moved to a time period of one year or longer for RCIA we might then have time, for example, to use Alpha as part of the period of inquiry for those who might benefit and then begin the formal period of RCIA after Christmas with the Rite of Acceptance coming just before Easter. This would provide much more time for a greater variety of experiences. During the coming year I hope that we can explore how to make this change to our RCIA program.
Showing posts with label religious education. Show all posts
Showing posts with label religious education. Show all posts
Wednesday, July 30, 2008
Sunday, June 17, 2007
Catholic Schools
I recently had the opportunity to attend the 50th year class reunion of St. Joseph High School in Grande Prairie where I live. I attended as a representative of the Catholic Education Foundation and gave a short speech about the work of the Foundation. The reunion was actually an impressive event. About 60 people attended some coming from far away. That so many people attended was impressive because fifty years ago it was common for people to only attend school to grade nine and so graduation classes were quite small. I should point out that besides the actual 50 year class (1957) there were also graduates from 1956, 58,59, and 1960.
From this group two things stood out for me. One was their memories of how much had changed in Grande Prairie since then. They talked of St. Joes as being basically a three room school (nothing like the new St Joes they toured during their weekend). They remembered Grande Prairie becoming a city, beginning to have paved streets (only some!), and getting actual sidewalks. The second thing that stood out for me about this group was the genuine affection and sense of familiarity that they still had for each other. Some of them, of course, being local remained in contact since their high school days but others who came from other areas seemed to readily fit right in with the crowd again. This reminded me of a speech that a dear friend used to give to graduating classes over 20 years ago and more. He used to speak of the "ghost of St. Joes" and of being in the building at night after everyone had left and hearing (remembering) the laughter and the tears and the learning and the prayers of groups that had passed through the building. His point was of course that a school is more than a building or a particular course of study. School is also those other things that happen like the friendships and the laughter and the mistakes and the sorrows. All of these, as much as a program of study, contribute to forming the students in a particular school. To me (an outsider to this group even though I taught at St Joes for almost 30 years and taught some of the children of this group) it was obvious that St Joes had been a good place for these students and had left them with many happy memories.
This brings me to a problem that I have encountered and that I worry about as I try to represent the Education Foundation. The problem is exemplified by the attitude of the lady who was cutting my hair a week or so ago. She was complaining about taxes ( and I was encouraging her), but then she added an objection to paying the education portion of the property tax since she had no children in the school system. In more general terms the problem is that now people tend to see schools as a place where they can acquire a specific set of skills to prepare them for the job market and nothing more. Obviously in this scheme, funding for schools should primarily be the concern of the student and the businesses that benefit from the skills acquired from the student. In this scheme what is there to motivate a bunch of people 50 years removed from their own school experience to consider supporting Catholic Education through the work of the Foundation?
The basic answer to this problem comes from looking at our attitudes towards the future. In our contemporary culture we are told to focus mainly on our own self-interest. Carried to an extreme (like it can be now) this leads people to ignore everything but the immediate future. This might be a problem that environmentalists face with regard to global warming. People might think, "if the effects of global warming are only going to be profoundly felt 20 or more years from now, why should I worry about it." Such an attitude also leads people to divorce themselves from the concerns of an enterprise like education which clearly is concerned (when it is doing its job) with the long-term future of society. In the "school as market" model of education if a student acquires a set of job skills but then does not acquire skills about citizenship then it seems to me that the future of the society is put in doubt. Education has to form students who can be the citizens that will continue to build the kind of society we want. This need to care for the future is even more obvious in Catholic Education where we are clear that our purpose is not just about providing students with job skills but is especially about forming students in the Catholic faith so that they can play their part in the building of the Kingdom of God. So as a citizen of a democracy and as a Catholic I can say that supporting education is something that everyone can and should do regardless of who they are or how old they are.
From this group two things stood out for me. One was their memories of how much had changed in Grande Prairie since then. They talked of St. Joes as being basically a three room school (nothing like the new St Joes they toured during their weekend). They remembered Grande Prairie becoming a city, beginning to have paved streets (only some!), and getting actual sidewalks. The second thing that stood out for me about this group was the genuine affection and sense of familiarity that they still had for each other. Some of them, of course, being local remained in contact since their high school days but others who came from other areas seemed to readily fit right in with the crowd again. This reminded me of a speech that a dear friend used to give to graduating classes over 20 years ago and more. He used to speak of the "ghost of St. Joes" and of being in the building at night after everyone had left and hearing (remembering) the laughter and the tears and the learning and the prayers of groups that had passed through the building. His point was of course that a school is more than a building or a particular course of study. School is also those other things that happen like the friendships and the laughter and the mistakes and the sorrows. All of these, as much as a program of study, contribute to forming the students in a particular school. To me (an outsider to this group even though I taught at St Joes for almost 30 years and taught some of the children of this group) it was obvious that St Joes had been a good place for these students and had left them with many happy memories.
This brings me to a problem that I have encountered and that I worry about as I try to represent the Education Foundation. The problem is exemplified by the attitude of the lady who was cutting my hair a week or so ago. She was complaining about taxes ( and I was encouraging her), but then she added an objection to paying the education portion of the property tax since she had no children in the school system. In more general terms the problem is that now people tend to see schools as a place where they can acquire a specific set of skills to prepare them for the job market and nothing more. Obviously in this scheme, funding for schools should primarily be the concern of the student and the businesses that benefit from the skills acquired from the student. In this scheme what is there to motivate a bunch of people 50 years removed from their own school experience to consider supporting Catholic Education through the work of the Foundation?
The basic answer to this problem comes from looking at our attitudes towards the future. In our contemporary culture we are told to focus mainly on our own self-interest. Carried to an extreme (like it can be now) this leads people to ignore everything but the immediate future. This might be a problem that environmentalists face with regard to global warming. People might think, "if the effects of global warming are only going to be profoundly felt 20 or more years from now, why should I worry about it." Such an attitude also leads people to divorce themselves from the concerns of an enterprise like education which clearly is concerned (when it is doing its job) with the long-term future of society. In the "school as market" model of education if a student acquires a set of job skills but then does not acquire skills about citizenship then it seems to me that the future of the society is put in doubt. Education has to form students who can be the citizens that will continue to build the kind of society we want. This need to care for the future is even more obvious in Catholic Education where we are clear that our purpose is not just about providing students with job skills but is especially about forming students in the Catholic faith so that they can play their part in the building of the Kingdom of God. So as a citizen of a democracy and as a Catholic I can say that supporting education is something that everyone can and should do regardless of who they are or how old they are.
Sunday, May 6, 2007
RCIA sessions
As we get toward the end of another year of RCIA it seems appropriate to reflect on what has happened in the past and also to reflect on what the sources have to tell us about what we are doing. As I read blogs on the topic of the RCIA (about 400 postings in a typical week according to Google) I notice a variety of opinions about what form RCIA sessions ought to take. Some critics of the RCIA complain that sessions consist only in participants talking about their feelings and consequently that these types of sessions are a waste of time. Others place strong emphasis on the knowledge content of the sessions. These people seem happy with a traditional question and answer catechism format for RCIA sessions. Each of these visions of catechesis are partly correct but incomplete in some way.
Jane Regan writing in Toward an Adult Church[i] gives a thoughtful summary of the various roles of catechesis. First of all catechesis informs. That is it presents the information needed to be an active member of the church. Secondly, catechesis forms. That is it introduces people to the way of life of the community of believers. Thirdly, catechesis transforms. That is, it provides people with a call to conversion. Regan maintains that effective catechesis needs to attend to all three of these dimensions and that, for example, a catechetical program that focused purely on informing its students would not necessarily produce desirable long term results.
Linda Vogel in Teaching and Learning in Communities of Faith[ii] gives us additional insight into what form adult religious education sessions (like RCIA) ought to take. She writes that the people who come to us have a great want and need.
· They have experienced some kind of disruption in their lives that needs attention.
· They need to reflect on their own experiences. (Their own journey or their own story.)
· They bring with them a new readiness to hear the words of the Christian story.
· They bring new eyes for seeing the connections between their stories and the story of the Christian community. (They are ready to see how they fit into the Church).
· They bring a readiness to celebrate all this through remembering and ritual. (This is an interesting observation in light of the fact that Vogel is a professor in an Evangelical college and was not writing about the RCIA at the time.)
· They bring a readiness to act on their new experiences and understandings.
Finally, Margaret Brillinger writing in Adult Religious Education[iii] gives us five basic principles of adult learning.
· Since adult learners are more in control of their own learning than children the role of the adult educator is more of a coach, supporter or facilitator and less of a knower or imparter of information. This for me is always a temptation. When time is short it is very easy for me to lapse into the lecture or even (heaven forbid) the preaching mode of subject delivery.
· Adults bring with them a variety of experiences and insecurities. They need to be treated with respect and to be able to collaborate with each other in the project of learning.
· Adults learn best when they have some input (or stake in) into the planning of a learning session. They need to have a sense of responsibility for what, why and how they learn.
· Adults need to be able to make a connection between their own experiences and what is being presented in the learning session.
· All people (including adults) have a variety of learning styles. Learning is enhanced by a variety of activities and structures that appeal to a range of learning styles.
So, what does this tell us about the general “shape” of an ideal RCIA session? First of all, it indicates that lecture is not an ideal format for an RCIA session. Secondly, I should point out that the specific focus of a session is going to differ depending on what stage of the RCIA we are in (sessions at the inquiry phase have a different focus than later sessions in the journey). I should also point out that some authors like Thomas Morris[iv]strongly suggest that lectionary catechesis is the ideal for RCIA. I would only point out that such a method makes huge demands regarding preparation of sessions on an RCIA team that is largely made up of volunteers.
Finally, it seems to me that generally a session should begin with prayer. Next, a topic should be introduced in such a way as to invite the participation of the group as well as an encounter with the teachings of the Church regarding this topic. Next should follow activities that engage the participants in some way. I think that it is important here that the conversations that take place here do not just focus on the feelings of the participants. These are important but the story of the Christian community has to be included in the conversation as well. Then should follow some kind of wrap-up where participants review what has been experienced as well as the teaching of Scripture and of the Church. Lastly, each session should conclude with a prayer.
This general picture of an RCIA session has some important implications. For me, the most important one is that of time. If we are to provide a fairly comprehensive catechesis (as the Rite requires) and if we are to follow a general format like that suggested above time appears to be at a premium. How many minutes are needed for an effective topic session? How do we get all of the needed topics into the limited number of evenings available? Additionally the catechist needs time to prepare for these sessions. I think that the most important skill for these sessions is the skill of preparing and asking appropriate questions. The leader can not simply direct the sessions (remember adults learn best when they are in charge of their own learning) but needs to anticipate the directions that the group might go in their discussions. The role of the lectionary is also important. We have been devoting the first quarter of our sessions to the lectionary. If we put more emphasis on dismissal catechesis would that be a sufficient emphasis on the lectionary? Lastly comes the question of print resources for RCIA sessions. There are many available. In our Parish we currently use the package prepared by Liguori publications. We use the handouts mainly for the participants to read following the evening session. Is there a better way to use these resources? Do participants actually read them? Is there a better set of resources that we could use?
[i] Regan, Jane E. Toward an Adult Church: A Vision of Faith Formation, Loyola Press, 2002.
[ii] Vogel, Linda J. Teaching and Learning in Communities of Faith, Jossey Bass, 1991.
[iii] Brillinger, Margaret Fisher. Adult Learning in a Religious Context. Adult Religious Education: A Journey of Faith Development, Gillen and Taylor ed. Paulist Press, 1995.
[iv] Morris, Thomas H. The RCIA: Transforming the Church, Paulist Press, 1997.
Jane Regan writing in Toward an Adult Church[i] gives a thoughtful summary of the various roles of catechesis. First of all catechesis informs. That is it presents the information needed to be an active member of the church. Secondly, catechesis forms. That is it introduces people to the way of life of the community of believers. Thirdly, catechesis transforms. That is, it provides people with a call to conversion. Regan maintains that effective catechesis needs to attend to all three of these dimensions and that, for example, a catechetical program that focused purely on informing its students would not necessarily produce desirable long term results.
Linda Vogel in Teaching and Learning in Communities of Faith[ii] gives us additional insight into what form adult religious education sessions (like RCIA) ought to take. She writes that the people who come to us have a great want and need.
· They have experienced some kind of disruption in their lives that needs attention.
· They need to reflect on their own experiences. (Their own journey or their own story.)
· They bring with them a new readiness to hear the words of the Christian story.
· They bring new eyes for seeing the connections between their stories and the story of the Christian community. (They are ready to see how they fit into the Church).
· They bring a readiness to celebrate all this through remembering and ritual. (This is an interesting observation in light of the fact that Vogel is a professor in an Evangelical college and was not writing about the RCIA at the time.)
· They bring a readiness to act on their new experiences and understandings.
Finally, Margaret Brillinger writing in Adult Religious Education[iii] gives us five basic principles of adult learning.
· Since adult learners are more in control of their own learning than children the role of the adult educator is more of a coach, supporter or facilitator and less of a knower or imparter of information. This for me is always a temptation. When time is short it is very easy for me to lapse into the lecture or even (heaven forbid) the preaching mode of subject delivery.
· Adults bring with them a variety of experiences and insecurities. They need to be treated with respect and to be able to collaborate with each other in the project of learning.
· Adults learn best when they have some input (or stake in) into the planning of a learning session. They need to have a sense of responsibility for what, why and how they learn.
· Adults need to be able to make a connection between their own experiences and what is being presented in the learning session.
· All people (including adults) have a variety of learning styles. Learning is enhanced by a variety of activities and structures that appeal to a range of learning styles.
So, what does this tell us about the general “shape” of an ideal RCIA session? First of all, it indicates that lecture is not an ideal format for an RCIA session. Secondly, I should point out that the specific focus of a session is going to differ depending on what stage of the RCIA we are in (sessions at the inquiry phase have a different focus than later sessions in the journey). I should also point out that some authors like Thomas Morris[iv]strongly suggest that lectionary catechesis is the ideal for RCIA. I would only point out that such a method makes huge demands regarding preparation of sessions on an RCIA team that is largely made up of volunteers.
Finally, it seems to me that generally a session should begin with prayer. Next, a topic should be introduced in such a way as to invite the participation of the group as well as an encounter with the teachings of the Church regarding this topic. Next should follow activities that engage the participants in some way. I think that it is important here that the conversations that take place here do not just focus on the feelings of the participants. These are important but the story of the Christian community has to be included in the conversation as well. Then should follow some kind of wrap-up where participants review what has been experienced as well as the teaching of Scripture and of the Church. Lastly, each session should conclude with a prayer.
This general picture of an RCIA session has some important implications. For me, the most important one is that of time. If we are to provide a fairly comprehensive catechesis (as the Rite requires) and if we are to follow a general format like that suggested above time appears to be at a premium. How many minutes are needed for an effective topic session? How do we get all of the needed topics into the limited number of evenings available? Additionally the catechist needs time to prepare for these sessions. I think that the most important skill for these sessions is the skill of preparing and asking appropriate questions. The leader can not simply direct the sessions (remember adults learn best when they are in charge of their own learning) but needs to anticipate the directions that the group might go in their discussions. The role of the lectionary is also important. We have been devoting the first quarter of our sessions to the lectionary. If we put more emphasis on dismissal catechesis would that be a sufficient emphasis on the lectionary? Lastly comes the question of print resources for RCIA sessions. There are many available. In our Parish we currently use the package prepared by Liguori publications. We use the handouts mainly for the participants to read following the evening session. Is there a better way to use these resources? Do participants actually read them? Is there a better set of resources that we could use?
[i] Regan, Jane E. Toward an Adult Church: A Vision of Faith Formation, Loyola Press, 2002.
[ii] Vogel, Linda J. Teaching and Learning in Communities of Faith, Jossey Bass, 1991.
[iii] Brillinger, Margaret Fisher. Adult Learning in a Religious Context. Adult Religious Education: A Journey of Faith Development, Gillen and Taylor ed. Paulist Press, 1995.
[iv] Morris, Thomas H. The RCIA: Transforming the Church, Paulist Press, 1997.
Saturday, April 28, 2007
Sacramental Catechesis
Confirmation denied
A local paper in the USA tells the story of an adult who was apparently told, just before the ceremony, by her Bishop that she could not receive the sacrament of Confirmation until she had been properly catechized:
Belleville Bishop Edward K. Braxton set off a flurry of e-mail messages among priests and diocesan insiders when he told a 20-year-old Catholic woman she had not studied enough to allow him to confer the sacrament of confirmation.
The ensuing controversy regarding the woman's unsuccessful attempt on April 10 to be confirmed at St. Michael's Church in Paderborn raised questions about Braxton's ministerial style among some Catholics, criticism that was offset by a statement from the diocesan chancellor's office citing community praise for the bishop's interaction with parishioners.
The controversy also resulted in a statement from Braxton to St. Michael's pastor, the Rev. James Voelker, and by inference to all diocesan pastors, that they need to ensure that those who seek confirmation, whether adults or young people, should first receive the necessary educational and spiritual preparation.
According to the Catholic Encyclopedia, confirmation is "a sacrament in which the Holy Ghost is given to those already baptized in order to make them strong and perfect Christians and soldiers of Christ." It is usually conferred at ages 12-13 by a bishop.
Nicole Schilling, of New Athens, where she attends church at a different parish, and nine of her relatives heard the bishop's decision moments before the ceremony and angrily left the event, said Voelker. Schilling, an employee of King's House in Belleville, a religious retreat run by the Oblates of Mary Immaculate, did not bring a required baptismal certificate and was not known to the pastor of her home parish, Braxton said in a statement.
Schilling declined to comment.
Braxton told the woman she would need at least 10, one-hour education sessions and "some time for prayer and reflection," Voelker said.
"He has no capability of seeing anything other than his own views," Voelker said of Braxton.
While a diocesan spokesman said the bishop does not publicly discuss his private messages to priests, Braxton, in a written response to questions from the News-Democrat, stated, "The case in question involves a candidate who was presented to me moments before the celebration of the sacrament with no catechesis (religious instruction) of any kind, stating that she had been told, quite incorrectly, that as an adult she needed no preparation. ... This is simply not true and contrary to everything the Church intends in the sacraments."
Voelker said he was confident of the woman's sincerity. He said she had completed some earlier reading about Catholicism and he thought that was enough for confirmation.
"How many of us perform marriages when we know that people have very little understanding of the sacrament and all they really want is a nice setting? Do we stop doing them?" Voelker asked.
Much has already been written in the blogs about this story. First of all, it is true that baptized Catholics have a right to the sacraments of the Church. It is also true that in times past the Church taught that sacraments were effective means of grace in and of themselves (irrespective of the merits of the minister or the recipient of the sacrament). It is also true that since in the eastern Churches confirmation is given to infants – obviously without prior catechesis. I confess I was upset some years ago when the chaplain at the home where my mother lived informed me that she could no longer receive the Eucharist since her dementia seemed to have deprived her of an understanding of what the Eucharist was. My feeling was that she should continue to receive the Eucharist as long as this could be done without risk of some kind of desecration of the Host.
However, it is also true that the Church has an obligation to provide catechesis, including sacramental catechesis, as a way of inviting adult Catholics to continue their growth in faith. The General Directory for Catechesis (175) identifies the following general tasks of adult catechesis:
– to promote formation and development of life in the Risen Christ by adequate means: pedagogy of the sacraments, retreats, spiritual direction. . .
– to educate toward a correct evaluation of the socio-cultural changes of our societies in the light of faith: thus the Christian community is assisted in discerning true values in our civilization, as well as its dangers, and in adopting appropriate attitudes;
– to clarify current religious and moral questions, that is, those questions which are encountered by the men and women of our time: for example, public and private morality with regard to social questions and the education of future generations;
– to clarify the relationship between temporal actions and ecclesial action, by demonstrating mutual distinctions and implications and thus due interaction; to this end, the social doctrine of the Church is an integral part of adult catechesis;
– to develop the rational foundations of the faith: that the right understanding of the faith and of the truths to be believed are in conformity with the demands of reason and the Gospel is always relevant; it is therefore necessary to promote effectively the pastoral aim of Christian thought and culture: this helps to overcome certain forms of fundamentalism as well as subjective and arbitrary interpretations;
– to encourage adults to assume responsibility for the Church's mission and to be able to give Christian witness in society:
The adult is assisted to discover, evaluate and activate what he has received by nature and grace, both in the Christian community and by living in human society; in this way, he will be able to overcome the dangers of standardization and of anonymity which are particularly dominant in some societies of today and which lead to loss of identity and lack of appreciation for the resources and qualities of the individual.
So, it seems to me that catechesis, particularly sacramental catechesis, is important to the Church and should be important in the faith life of the people. The GDC also tells us that because adults are the most able to give full assent to faith the catechesis of adults as in the RCIA should provide the template for all forms of catechesis. It seems to me therefore in our news story above, that despite the fact that sacraments like confirmation might be administered without prior catechesis there is a strong case to be made that such catechesis is needed most of the time. So I think that the Bishop in this case was correct in what he did although he may have handled the matter more diplomatically. It seems to me that the issue here is more between the Bishop and the Pastor than anything else.
Should previously baptized Christians always go through RCIA when preparing for reception into the Church? As I have said above I think the answer is mostly yes. Generally the people I have encountered in my time as catechist in RCIA have not had a good knowledge of Christianity. There have been some notable exceptions to this but even here we have to be careful. I have read for example in some blog comments complaints by some who considered themselves well advanced in their faith and knowledge who felt indignant at being “lumped” together with uncatechized people in RCIA. While it is true that some people who come from other Christian faiths might have a strong knowledge of Christianity it seems to me that such comments demonstrate a lack of formation in the notion of Church. The Church is always composed of a variety of faith experience and backgrounds. One of the things that RCIA can do, if we do it well, is to give participants an experience of formation in community. As someone once pointed out: Catechesis seeks to provide not only information (religious literacy), but also formation, and transformation (ongoing conversion).
A local paper in the USA tells the story of an adult who was apparently told, just before the ceremony, by her Bishop that she could not receive the sacrament of Confirmation until she had been properly catechized:
Belleville Bishop Edward K. Braxton set off a flurry of e-mail messages among priests and diocesan insiders when he told a 20-year-old Catholic woman she had not studied enough to allow him to confer the sacrament of confirmation.
The ensuing controversy regarding the woman's unsuccessful attempt on April 10 to be confirmed at St. Michael's Church in Paderborn raised questions about Braxton's ministerial style among some Catholics, criticism that was offset by a statement from the diocesan chancellor's office citing community praise for the bishop's interaction with parishioners.
The controversy also resulted in a statement from Braxton to St. Michael's pastor, the Rev. James Voelker, and by inference to all diocesan pastors, that they need to ensure that those who seek confirmation, whether adults or young people, should first receive the necessary educational and spiritual preparation.
According to the Catholic Encyclopedia, confirmation is "a sacrament in which the Holy Ghost is given to those already baptized in order to make them strong and perfect Christians and soldiers of Christ." It is usually conferred at ages 12-13 by a bishop.
Nicole Schilling, of New Athens, where she attends church at a different parish, and nine of her relatives heard the bishop's decision moments before the ceremony and angrily left the event, said Voelker. Schilling, an employee of King's House in Belleville, a religious retreat run by the Oblates of Mary Immaculate, did not bring a required baptismal certificate and was not known to the pastor of her home parish, Braxton said in a statement.
Schilling declined to comment.
Braxton told the woman she would need at least 10, one-hour education sessions and "some time for prayer and reflection," Voelker said.
"He has no capability of seeing anything other than his own views," Voelker said of Braxton.
While a diocesan spokesman said the bishop does not publicly discuss his private messages to priests, Braxton, in a written response to questions from the News-Democrat, stated, "The case in question involves a candidate who was presented to me moments before the celebration of the sacrament with no catechesis (religious instruction) of any kind, stating that she had been told, quite incorrectly, that as an adult she needed no preparation. ... This is simply not true and contrary to everything the Church intends in the sacraments."
Voelker said he was confident of the woman's sincerity. He said she had completed some earlier reading about Catholicism and he thought that was enough for confirmation.
"How many of us perform marriages when we know that people have very little understanding of the sacrament and all they really want is a nice setting? Do we stop doing them?" Voelker asked.
Much has already been written in the blogs about this story. First of all, it is true that baptized Catholics have a right to the sacraments of the Church. It is also true that in times past the Church taught that sacraments were effective means of grace in and of themselves (irrespective of the merits of the minister or the recipient of the sacrament). It is also true that since in the eastern Churches confirmation is given to infants – obviously without prior catechesis. I confess I was upset some years ago when the chaplain at the home where my mother lived informed me that she could no longer receive the Eucharist since her dementia seemed to have deprived her of an understanding of what the Eucharist was. My feeling was that she should continue to receive the Eucharist as long as this could be done without risk of some kind of desecration of the Host.
However, it is also true that the Church has an obligation to provide catechesis, including sacramental catechesis, as a way of inviting adult Catholics to continue their growth in faith. The General Directory for Catechesis (175) identifies the following general tasks of adult catechesis:
– to promote formation and development of life in the Risen Christ by adequate means: pedagogy of the sacraments, retreats, spiritual direction. . .
– to educate toward a correct evaluation of the socio-cultural changes of our societies in the light of faith: thus the Christian community is assisted in discerning true values in our civilization, as well as its dangers, and in adopting appropriate attitudes;
– to clarify current religious and moral questions, that is, those questions which are encountered by the men and women of our time: for example, public and private morality with regard to social questions and the education of future generations;
– to clarify the relationship between temporal actions and ecclesial action, by demonstrating mutual distinctions and implications and thus due interaction; to this end, the social doctrine of the Church is an integral part of adult catechesis;
– to develop the rational foundations of the faith: that the right understanding of the faith and of the truths to be believed are in conformity with the demands of reason and the Gospel is always relevant; it is therefore necessary to promote effectively the pastoral aim of Christian thought and culture: this helps to overcome certain forms of fundamentalism as well as subjective and arbitrary interpretations;
– to encourage adults to assume responsibility for the Church's mission and to be able to give Christian witness in society:
The adult is assisted to discover, evaluate and activate what he has received by nature and grace, both in the Christian community and by living in human society; in this way, he will be able to overcome the dangers of standardization and of anonymity which are particularly dominant in some societies of today and which lead to loss of identity and lack of appreciation for the resources and qualities of the individual.
So, it seems to me that catechesis, particularly sacramental catechesis, is important to the Church and should be important in the faith life of the people. The GDC also tells us that because adults are the most able to give full assent to faith the catechesis of adults as in the RCIA should provide the template for all forms of catechesis. It seems to me therefore in our news story above, that despite the fact that sacraments like confirmation might be administered without prior catechesis there is a strong case to be made that such catechesis is needed most of the time. So I think that the Bishop in this case was correct in what he did although he may have handled the matter more diplomatically. It seems to me that the issue here is more between the Bishop and the Pastor than anything else.
Should previously baptized Christians always go through RCIA when preparing for reception into the Church? As I have said above I think the answer is mostly yes. Generally the people I have encountered in my time as catechist in RCIA have not had a good knowledge of Christianity. There have been some notable exceptions to this but even here we have to be careful. I have read for example in some blog comments complaints by some who considered themselves well advanced in their faith and knowledge who felt indignant at being “lumped” together with uncatechized people in RCIA. While it is true that some people who come from other Christian faiths might have a strong knowledge of Christianity it seems to me that such comments demonstrate a lack of formation in the notion of Church. The Church is always composed of a variety of faith experience and backgrounds. One of the things that RCIA can do, if we do it well, is to give participants an experience of formation in community. As someone once pointed out: Catechesis seeks to provide not only information (religious literacy), but also formation, and transformation (ongoing conversion).
Saturday, March 24, 2007
Candidates and Catechumens in the RCIA
I have read a number of blogs and articles about RCIA that cast a lot of doubt regarding the structure of the program and its value. Most recently a blogger implied that candidates deserved individual treatment regarding their initiation into the Church and should not be forced to associate with the unbaptized and the uncatechized. Regarding this I would like to offer a few observations of my own.
First of all; the RCIA is not a theology course. It is an experience that involves awareness of Catholic teachings but it also involves a degree of formation in Catholicism as well as providing for prayerful discernment regarding the call to Baptism or to full membership in the Catholic Church. This means that RCIA sessions should not be "just" about theology or "just" about the religious feelings and experiences of the group. All participants need to be exposed to enough of the Catholic vision of faith in order that they can draw from these riches on their own faith journey. They also need to be able to understand how their own faith journey relates to the story of the entire Church. So, I cringe when I read about catechists dealing with Aquinas and the Summa just as much as I cringe when I read that many groups learn nothing at all about Catholic doctrine.
Regarding the catechized and the uncatechized; I have certainly been part of groups where a candidate had a wealth of knowledge about Christianity (especially about scripture). Despite this most of the people (including sponsors) that I have met during my years of participation in RCIA groups have been seriously lacking in knowledge of their faith. My own hope when I encounter one of these well catechized candidates is not that they proceed to full membership in the Church ahead of the rest of the group (as was suggested by the blogger I mentioned earlier). What I would hope to happen is that these people are able to use their gifts and their knowledge to enhance the growth and the experience of other members of the group. Remember, that is what the Church is all about.
I also accept that there needs to be a process of discernment for people making such a momentous decision regarding their faith. Discernment, despite the impatience of the candidate or the catechumen takes time. In our parish a few years back one candidate who did not have the time or the patience for RCIA was given private instruction and baptized in a short period of time. A year later in a different diocese this same individual had already left the Church and was heavily involved in some new-age group. In our Parish people are normally in RCIA for about one year. In many ways, this is not enough time to do all that is asked of us yet it does provide some time for the element of discernment that is proper to religious initiation.
First of all; the RCIA is not a theology course. It is an experience that involves awareness of Catholic teachings but it also involves a degree of formation in Catholicism as well as providing for prayerful discernment regarding the call to Baptism or to full membership in the Catholic Church. This means that RCIA sessions should not be "just" about theology or "just" about the religious feelings and experiences of the group. All participants need to be exposed to enough of the Catholic vision of faith in order that they can draw from these riches on their own faith journey. They also need to be able to understand how their own faith journey relates to the story of the entire Church. So, I cringe when I read about catechists dealing with Aquinas and the Summa just as much as I cringe when I read that many groups learn nothing at all about Catholic doctrine.
Regarding the catechized and the uncatechized; I have certainly been part of groups where a candidate had a wealth of knowledge about Christianity (especially about scripture). Despite this most of the people (including sponsors) that I have met during my years of participation in RCIA groups have been seriously lacking in knowledge of their faith. My own hope when I encounter one of these well catechized candidates is not that they proceed to full membership in the Church ahead of the rest of the group (as was suggested by the blogger I mentioned earlier). What I would hope to happen is that these people are able to use their gifts and their knowledge to enhance the growth and the experience of other members of the group. Remember, that is what the Church is all about.
I also accept that there needs to be a process of discernment for people making such a momentous decision regarding their faith. Discernment, despite the impatience of the candidate or the catechumen takes time. In our parish a few years back one candidate who did not have the time or the patience for RCIA was given private instruction and baptized in a short period of time. A year later in a different diocese this same individual had already left the Church and was heavily involved in some new-age group. In our Parish people are normally in RCIA for about one year. In many ways, this is not enough time to do all that is asked of us yet it does provide some time for the element of discernment that is proper to religious initiation.
Saturday, March 3, 2007
The Tomb of Jesus
The finding of Christ’s tomb
This past week or so has been filled with stories about the possible finding of a so far unknown tomb complete with the remains of Jesus and other members of his family. The stories were to generate publicity for a documentary set to air on the Discovery channel in the U.S. and on Vision TV in Canada this weekend. Naturally, a book is set to appear this spring (likely before Easter?) The basic content of the stories so far seems to be that:
In 1980 a tomb was excavated in a district of Jerusalem. Inside this tomb the excavators found ten ossuaries (bone boxes made of stone) which included some skeletal remains. The ossuaries were inscribed with names that were common at the time such as Joseph, Jesus, Mary, and Judah. At the time little was made of this discovery.
About fifteen years ago the BBC made a film suggesting that this might be the tomb of Jesus. The suggestion seems to have been laughed away by all. Now drawing on the fame of the Da Vinci Code and using the prestige of DNA evidence these film makers put forward the theory that the remains found are in all probability those of Jesus of Nazareth, his parents, his wife Mary Magdalene, and his child, Judah. The film will apparently try to make a case based on statistics to establish this probability. The DNA likely could only show that one set of remains was not related to the others (its unlikely that the filmmakers sent to heaven for a control DNA sample).
What to make of all this? Well, first of all the early Church was quite clear about the tomb - it was empty. St. Paul in the first letter to the Corinthians is also quite explicit: "If there is no resurrection from the dead, Christ himself cannot have been raised, and if Christ has not been raised then our preaching has been useless and your believing it is useless..." (1Cor: 15:14). Secondly, the fact that other people at that time were named Jesus, Mary, and Joseph is not surprising. For example, one article that I have seen suggests that about twenty percent of the female population at that time was named Mary. Jesus was not the most common male name but it was still relatively common (sixth most common according to the article). So, for example, my neighbors are named Frank, Ken (his son), and Marj. If twenty years from now (never mind two thousand years) I go to a cemetery in another town far from here and find a family plot with just those markers, (mentioned above) it is extremely unlikely that I am viewing the graves of my former neighbors. So, I am not going to lose sleep about this so-called "earth shattering" discovery. In fact, it seems like "deja moo" to me (I’ve heard this bull before). I suspect that visions of the fortune made by the Da Vinci Code dance before the eyes of the film makers and obscure any honest search for truth.
It seems to be that plain greed as the motivation for projects such as this is the most likely explanation for their existence. Another explanation seems to be (in my opinion) an almost antirational quality of modern culture that makes people ready to believe in cover-ups and in bizarre alternative explanations for events. One of the first examples that I can recall came with the book, Chariots of the Gods, which theorized that intervention by space travelers was the most likely explanation for the achievements of ancient civilizations. That book was popular and spawned a whole industry of people providing alternative explanations for things. Finally, I think that some people who are nominal Christians are ready to accept stories that cast doubt on traditional teachings of the Church because they are more comfortable with picking their own beliefs rather than accepting the beliefs handed down by the Church.
Update: I watched most of the documentary last night on Vision TV. It was fairly boring. You have to accept a series of highly dubious conjectures about the identity of the individuals in the tomb and then the triumphant conclusion of the film becomes, "Then if all this is true, statistics suggest that this must be the tomb of Jesus. Of course if each of the individual conjectures is false, then the final conclusion is very false.
This past week or so has been filled with stories about the possible finding of a so far unknown tomb complete with the remains of Jesus and other members of his family. The stories were to generate publicity for a documentary set to air on the Discovery channel in the U.S. and on Vision TV in Canada this weekend. Naturally, a book is set to appear this spring (likely before Easter?) The basic content of the stories so far seems to be that:
In 1980 a tomb was excavated in a district of Jerusalem. Inside this tomb the excavators found ten ossuaries (bone boxes made of stone) which included some skeletal remains. The ossuaries were inscribed with names that were common at the time such as Joseph, Jesus, Mary, and Judah. At the time little was made of this discovery.
About fifteen years ago the BBC made a film suggesting that this might be the tomb of Jesus. The suggestion seems to have been laughed away by all. Now drawing on the fame of the Da Vinci Code and using the prestige of DNA evidence these film makers put forward the theory that the remains found are in all probability those of Jesus of Nazareth, his parents, his wife Mary Magdalene, and his child, Judah. The film will apparently try to make a case based on statistics to establish this probability. The DNA likely could only show that one set of remains was not related to the others (its unlikely that the filmmakers sent to heaven for a control DNA sample).
What to make of all this? Well, first of all the early Church was quite clear about the tomb - it was empty. St. Paul in the first letter to the Corinthians is also quite explicit: "If there is no resurrection from the dead, Christ himself cannot have been raised, and if Christ has not been raised then our preaching has been useless and your believing it is useless..." (1Cor: 15:14). Secondly, the fact that other people at that time were named Jesus, Mary, and Joseph is not surprising. For example, one article that I have seen suggests that about twenty percent of the female population at that time was named Mary. Jesus was not the most common male name but it was still relatively common (sixth most common according to the article). So, for example, my neighbors are named Frank, Ken (his son), and Marj. If twenty years from now (never mind two thousand years) I go to a cemetery in another town far from here and find a family plot with just those markers, (mentioned above) it is extremely unlikely that I am viewing the graves of my former neighbors. So, I am not going to lose sleep about this so-called "earth shattering" discovery. In fact, it seems like "deja moo" to me (I’ve heard this bull before). I suspect that visions of the fortune made by the Da Vinci Code dance before the eyes of the film makers and obscure any honest search for truth.
It seems to be that plain greed as the motivation for projects such as this is the most likely explanation for their existence. Another explanation seems to be (in my opinion) an almost antirational quality of modern culture that makes people ready to believe in cover-ups and in bizarre alternative explanations for events. One of the first examples that I can recall came with the book, Chariots of the Gods, which theorized that intervention by space travelers was the most likely explanation for the achievements of ancient civilizations. That book was popular and spawned a whole industry of people providing alternative explanations for things. Finally, I think that some people who are nominal Christians are ready to accept stories that cast doubt on traditional teachings of the Church because they are more comfortable with picking their own beliefs rather than accepting the beliefs handed down by the Church.
Update: I watched most of the documentary last night on Vision TV. It was fairly boring. You have to accept a series of highly dubious conjectures about the identity of the individuals in the tomb and then the triumphant conclusion of the film becomes, "Then if all this is true, statistics suggest that this must be the tomb of Jesus. Of course if each of the individual conjectures is false, then the final conclusion is very false.
Wednesday, February 7, 2007
Liturgical Translations
First of all here is some background. We are told that a new translation from Latin into English of the Mass is coming soon. Latin, of course is the official language of the Latin rite of the Catholic Church. This means that the official version of all documents and prayers is the Latin version. When it was decided that the Mass was to be celebrated in the language of the people committees were set up to translate the various parts of the Mass from Latin into English. In the early 1970’s the translation that we are now familiar with has been used while the translation committee (known as ICEL) worked on an improved version. While the committee was working the Vatican made a number of pronouncements mainly to the effect that the main mandate of the committee was to produce a translation that was more faithful to the official Latin text than the current version is. Just one example of this is found in the dialogue between the priest and the congregation that leads to the Preface. The initial greeting and response in Latin is: “Dominus Vobiscum” with the congregation responding, “Et cum Spiritu tuo.” Everyone accepts the greeting of the priest as “The Lord be with you.” The ICEL translation of the response however is: “And also with you.” This translation ignores the Spiritu (Spirit) part of the response in Latin. “And with your Spirit”, is a response that is faithful to the Latin text and is used in the French, Spanish, and Italian translations.
Now the on-line edition of the Tablet magazine for the week of Feb. 5, 2007 has an article by US Bishop Donald Trautman regarding this issue. In the article Trautman, a liturgist by training, laments the new direction that is being taken in producing this translation. Trautman recognizes that our God is both transcendent and immanent and that good liturgy should recognize both aspects of God. He contends, however, that in the new translation there is an excessive emphasis on the transcendent nature of God. He also spends some time on the “pro vobis et pro multis” translation controversy where he argues that the new translation of pro multis as “for many” instead of “for all” is simply bad theology. This is in spite of the reality that the literal translation of “pro multis” is simply “for many” or possibly “for the many.”
This controversy seems to have its origins, as Trautman points out, in two different points of emphasis regarding the Eucharist. Some people feel that the Eucharistic liturgy should emphasize the reality of the heavenly liturgy, the sense of participation in a sacred event, and the transcendent nature of God. Generally these people, if they are old enough, remember the nature of the Latin Mass in the 1960’s and wish for a liturgy with more Latin and more Gregorian Chant. They loudly criticize the current liturgy and argue that the “folksy” feel of the current liturgy has been the cause of the decrease in attendance at Mass over the past 30 years or so. On the other hand people who emphasize the Eucharist as having the nature of a community banquet would prefer the liturgy to use the common language of the people, use contemporary music, and generally be more “easy going” than formal. These people would prefer a guitar to a pipe organ for liturgical music and want to emphasize the immanence of God in their liturgy.
As with many questions in Catholicism the correct answer here is not either transcendence or immanence but rather a balance of both as Trautman does actually point out. For the “conservatives” here I would like to point out that going back to a Latin liturgy is not likely going to restore the “good old days” of the 1950’s Catholic church (if those days were indeed good). It is true that the changes to the liturgy that came after Vatican II came before the long decline in attendance at Sunday Mass but the first thing did not necessarily cause the other. Many other things changed in modern culture during the same time period and they also had an impact on people’s attitudes about religion.
At the same time I have hopes for the new translation. I think that a more elegant language in the liturgy will have a positive effect. I think that we have been missing the old sense of encountering something sacred in the liturgy of the Eucharist and I hope that we can find a “ritual” language that does not sound like the English of the old King James Bible. I hope that this can be accomplished with little confusion and that the changes will bring us a more prayerful atmosphere in our liturgies.
Now the on-line edition of the Tablet magazine for the week of Feb. 5, 2007 has an article by US Bishop Donald Trautman regarding this issue. In the article Trautman, a liturgist by training, laments the new direction that is being taken in producing this translation. Trautman recognizes that our God is both transcendent and immanent and that good liturgy should recognize both aspects of God. He contends, however, that in the new translation there is an excessive emphasis on the transcendent nature of God. He also spends some time on the “pro vobis et pro multis” translation controversy where he argues that the new translation of pro multis as “for many” instead of “for all” is simply bad theology. This is in spite of the reality that the literal translation of “pro multis” is simply “for many” or possibly “for the many.”
This controversy seems to have its origins, as Trautman points out, in two different points of emphasis regarding the Eucharist. Some people feel that the Eucharistic liturgy should emphasize the reality of the heavenly liturgy, the sense of participation in a sacred event, and the transcendent nature of God. Generally these people, if they are old enough, remember the nature of the Latin Mass in the 1960’s and wish for a liturgy with more Latin and more Gregorian Chant. They loudly criticize the current liturgy and argue that the “folksy” feel of the current liturgy has been the cause of the decrease in attendance at Mass over the past 30 years or so. On the other hand people who emphasize the Eucharist as having the nature of a community banquet would prefer the liturgy to use the common language of the people, use contemporary music, and generally be more “easy going” than formal. These people would prefer a guitar to a pipe organ for liturgical music and want to emphasize the immanence of God in their liturgy.
As with many questions in Catholicism the correct answer here is not either transcendence or immanence but rather a balance of both as Trautman does actually point out. For the “conservatives” here I would like to point out that going back to a Latin liturgy is not likely going to restore the “good old days” of the 1950’s Catholic church (if those days were indeed good). It is true that the changes to the liturgy that came after Vatican II came before the long decline in attendance at Sunday Mass but the first thing did not necessarily cause the other. Many other things changed in modern culture during the same time period and they also had an impact on people’s attitudes about religion.
At the same time I have hopes for the new translation. I think that a more elegant language in the liturgy will have a positive effect. I think that we have been missing the old sense of encountering something sacred in the liturgy of the Eucharist and I hope that we can find a “ritual” language that does not sound like the English of the old King James Bible. I hope that this can be accomplished with little confusion and that the changes will bring us a more prayerful atmosphere in our liturgies.
Thursday, January 4, 2007
Religious Education
Someone asked me a while back what advice I would give to someone just starting out as a religious education teacher (something I tried to do at the high school level for about 30 years and am still trying to do at the parish level. Anyway, I wrote:
Try to remember first of all that you are only one part of the catechetical enterprise of the Church. Remember also that being comfortable with your own faith and knowing the content of that faith is important. Who you are and what you believe is an important part of the message you will deliver. Also, It is important to remember that you represent the Church. As such you have a duty to faithfully transmit the authentic teachings of that Church. Finally,it probably does not seem like you have the time, but prayer and reflection are important things to do in your situation.
You could of course talk about things like lesson plans, materials, and essential skills but the quote nicely summarizes how I feel about being a catechist right now.
Try to remember first of all that you are only one part of the catechetical enterprise of the Church. Remember also that being comfortable with your own faith and knowing the content of that faith is important. Who you are and what you believe is an important part of the message you will deliver. Also, It is important to remember that you represent the Church. As such you have a duty to faithfully transmit the authentic teachings of that Church. Finally,it probably does not seem like you have the time, but prayer and reflection are important things to do in your situation.
You could of course talk about things like lesson plans, materials, and essential skills but the quote nicely summarizes how I feel about being a catechist right now.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)