The Catechism Gap: Symptoms (Episode Three)

Introduction We return to “In Anticipation of the Catechism of the Catholic Church: The Perspective of One Raised Between the Catechisms,” which I wrote in 1993 and which was originally published in the Summer 1994 edition of The Living Light: An Interdisciplinary Review of Catholic Religious Education, Catechesis, and Pastoral Ministry an “official publication of the Department of Education of the United States Catholic Conference.” It was later republished in abbreviated form as “Raised Between the Catechisms” in Catholic Digest, September 1994. It appears here, with the permission of the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops (USCCB), in three parts (episodes one, three, and four; episode two is a digression), in the form in which it was submitted for publication in 1993 with some minor editing. SYMPTOMS OF A DEFICIENT CATECHESIS In reflecting upon my experience of being catechized between the catechisms, I sorted out what I believe can be some symptoms of a deficient catechesis. We might keep these in mind as we plan the implementation of the Catechism of the Catholic Church. Whence came the Church’s authority, how was it exercised, and what made it valid? Assumption What often strikes me about many Catholics who had a pre-Vatican II religious education is their assumption that we Vatican II Catholics were taught what they learned in their religious education, even if they are not aware of this assumption. For example, in the context of a recent meeting I was attending, a priest said to a young catechist, “You remember the Baltimore Catechism?” Of course, the young man knew nothing about it. I had to point out that not only had he never seen it, but that I, ten years his senior, had never seen it. Another less obvious example of catechetical assumption manifested itself in the late 1970’s religious education and still affects religious education today. Instead of a systematic study of religion, we students were invited to engage in discussions, projects, or games presumably designed to help us examine how Catholic teaching applied in everyday life. It was obvious that our teachers presumed knowledge of Catholic teaching, that they had learned at school and religious education, that we had not learned. Like our parents, they used terms and phrases from their religious-education background that were supposed to mean something to us, but these meant nothing. They assumed a religious-education background similar to their own, but ours had been so different. Sure, discussing and reasoning out the proper behavior in a limited number of situations could be useful, but we were already capable of reasoning and arriving at conclusions before we entered the classroom. What we were not capable of doing was applying teaching we did not know. And we did not necessarily know Church teaching on given issues and the profundity of reasoning behind it. That is why we attended religious education. The educational approach described above was why we left disappointed. Furthermore, there seemed to be a reluctance on the part of many religious-education representatives to talk much about Church teaching and the reasoning behind it. It was as if they were afraid that we might not like it. Or perhaps, in the catechetical climate of the time, they were less sure of things about which they had been very sure in the past. Whatever the case, we usually skirted around the material instead of going through it, which was a very frustrating experience for those of us who wanted to learn. Moreover, what was not addressed at all was how the Catholic Church taught what it did and why that was relevant. We young Catholics could see that our Protestant friends were taught many of the same general moral principles that we were. We were able to reason to the same moral conclusions that the Catholic Church taught on specific issues. But how did the Church teach what it taught, and what made the fact that the Catholic Church taught it relevant? How did the Church teach and why did its teachings matter? The question ultimately came down to one of authority. Whence came the Church’s authority, how was it exercised, and what made it valid? That assumption precluded a thorough examination of one of the major elements that sets apart the Catholic Church from Protestant denominations: the Magisterium instituted by Christ, documented in Sacred Scripture (e.g. Mt 16: 13-19, 18:18) and handed on through Tradition and Apostolic Succession. My impression is that Church authority and its provenance, however simply understood, were so ingrained in the generations that preceded ours that they assumed an appreciation for that authority that they themselves had learned. That assumption precluded a thorough examination of one of the major elements that sets apart the Catholic Church from Protestant denominations: the Magisterium instituted by Christ, documented in Sacred Scripture (e.g. Mt 16: 13-19, 18:18) and handed on through Tradition and Apostolic Succession. That preclusion simultaneously precluded an examination of the Church’s provenance, sacraments, history, and teachings, relevant in a way that it would only be relevant to the Church that bases its authority on its institution by Christ and its apostolic succession and professes the sanctification of history in the mystery of the Incarnation. How can young people understand or appreciate the authority of the Magisterium if they are not taught about its provenance and validity? And if they do no understand or appreciate that authority, why should they take its teachings seriously? If they first understand the grounds for the authority of the Magisterium, they might give greater credence and respect to its teachings, even unto delving deeper into consideration of the teachings, whether they agree with them or not. This Substack is reader-supported. To receive new posts and support my work, consider becoming a free or paid subscriber. Condescension If assumption is one repercussive symptom of a deficient catechesis, then condescension is another. Condescension of this kind is more often found in small pockets within that ethereal world of academia, but in rare instances, can seep into the catechetical program through an individual influenced by it in his or her training. In avoiding this symptom, catechetical leaders must guard against the temptation to create or maintain their own necessity by keeping people ignorant in a subtle, self-perpetuating condescension that underestimates people’s ability to learn. Though we must respect the varied levels at which individuals will join the discussion, we must reject the notion that somehow the average person cannot grasp what the catechetical director or the liturgist or the priest has grasped. Otherwise, the catechetical director might bend to the temptation to leave out the substance in religious education and substitute “fluff,” thereby devaluing the Gospel and perpetuating the ignorance that makes his knowledge and thus himself special and necessary. Ignorance breeds dependence, and in the milieu of dependent ignorance a certain mystique may surround the catechetical director, but at what cost? The cost is personal stagnation for the catechetical director and a diminished capacity to progress in their own faith for a congregation ill-informed about what their Church is and what and how it teaches. Ignorance stands in the way of the full consensual participation of individuals in the Body of Christ. Relevant to this point, I was once remarking on the need for a more substantial religious education for the Catholic in the pew, and a friend responded, “Not everyone can have an M.A. in theology.” My reaction is that they should not need one. Catholics should not need a master’s degree to know what their Church is, whence comes its authority, what it teaches and how it does so, what its history, its Scriptures, its Tradition, and its sacraments are, and how they might be better … Get full access to P. A. Ritzer at paritzer.substack.com/subscribe