Franciscan at Home

The catechist’s chief task is to teach the true, good, and beautiful, focusing on illuminating the splendor of the deposit of faith. There are moments, however, when the topic that needs to be taught is a truth knowable for the most part by reason in addition to being knowable fully by faith. At this current moment in history, a primary truth at stake is the sexual difference of man and woman. The topic presses itself from all sides. Full-scale rejections of the reality of man and woman or distorted, reductive proposals abound. Yet, as in all eras of Church history, when a truth is being called into question, the Church responds by means of an even deeper contemplation and joyful proclamation of the unchanging truth, now fleshly enlightened.

The Church’s current response to confusion regarding man and woman is being fueled by positive developments in theological anthropology that have occurred during the past century. At their core is the articulation of the nature of man and woman via the notion of complementarity. This notion has emerged as the primary way of describing the reciprocal relationship between man and woman and the ordering of both to an interpersonal communion of love. Pope St. John Paul II is the most prominent contemporary promoter, with “reciprocal complementarity” being his preferred way of describing man and woman.[1] Given the necessity for catechetical initiatives to include the teaching of God’s plan for man and woman, it behooves one to ask the crucial question: What does it mean to say that man and woman are reciprocally complementary? With John Paul II as our guide, we will outline key principles of sexual complementarity that teachers of the faith must know in order to effectively catechize and evangelize our modern world. In short, man and woman, who are equal yet significantly different, are complementary because they are made for each other and for the fruitful expansion of love.[2] We will conclude by indicating a few points regarding man–woman complementarity and the new evangelization.

The Common Humanity and Equal Dignity of Man and Woman

The first and foundational principle of the complementarity of man and woman is their fundamental equality. Both are fully human persons; each one is an “I,” a someone not something, created in the image and likeness of God (Gn 1:26–27), willed for his or her own sake, created for eternal communion with God. Man and woman have the same rational human nature, involving an intellect and will, with all the concomitant essential properties that pertain to this nature (a soul as substantial form in hylomorphic unity with the material body). John Paul II affirms: “Woman complements man, just as man complements woman: men and women are complementary. Womanhood expresses the ‘human’ as much as manhood does, but in a different and complementary way.”[3]

Complementarity in general presupposes equality. For example, two nations’ economies can be complementary because both are nations, or two musical instruments can play together complementarily because both are musical instruments. This is even more true with human sexual complementarity: there can only be a mutual correspondence between man and woman if both are equally human persons. This is eloquently expressed in the biblical imagery of God forming Eve from the side of Adam—from his very substance—attesting to their primordial unity, equality, and intrinsic ordering to each other (see Gn 2:21–23).

The Church recognizes that every parish community includes members with disabilities and earnestly desires their active participation. . . . Catholic adults and children with disabilities, and their families, earnestly desire full and meaningful participation in the sacramental life of the Church.[1]

The parish is where the local Church lives as family, called together by the Lord, amidst all the peace, goodness, beauty, joys, struggles, and sufferings of this world.[2] People with impairments belong in our families and parishes,[3] and the US bishops in their teaching about disciples with impairments and their families, highlight the essential role of the parish, the local and visible expression of the Eucharistic community.[4] This invitation to think not only about individuals but about the whole parish family is instructive and offers an opportunity to reimagine aspects of catechesis.

Turning to the Directory for Catechesis, we similarly find an exposition of multiple facets of the parish and sacramental life, including emphases on: staying close to families of people with impairments, solidarity, inclusion, shared ministry, and a recognition that people with impairments are not passive but active members of the parish.[5] I suggest that the Directory also encourages us to consider that the above characteristics are to be grounded in a fraternal and deeply personal love embodied in close Christian community—not just on Sundays but on each day of the week and not only in parish buildings but wherever Christians gather. We might consider what such love in the parish could look like through four interrelated perspectives on the ordinary, conversion, friendship, and new life.

The Ordinary

While it may sound odd to phrase it this way, the parish is to be for us an ordinary environment—that is, a normative expression of our shared life as Church.[6] And in that sense, to the degree that human impairment is part of this world, we lose out on some of the richness of this ordinary life when those with impairments and their families are separated physically or socially from the parish, perhaps in subtle or unrecognized ways[7] (such as not being made welcome at Mass or at parish events or being left out of parish planning), and pushed behind forbidding walls of strangeness, to adapt a phrase from Miguel Romero.[8] In contrast, a family unity among Catholics with and without impairments, lived out in the Church and the parish, should be a quite ordinary and usual exercise of faith that simultaneously provides a profoundly attractive witness to fellow Christians and to the world.[9]

Such unity is a striking illustration of Pope Leo XIV’s motto: “In the One, we are one.” Working together as a parish family to overcome some of the social barriers and negative stereotypes surrounding impairment and impaired people is a beautiful mission consistent with the Gospel and the witness of the apostolic Church. The communal tasks of discovering and embracing each other’s gifts no matter how out of sight, of listening closely for new voices of peace no matter how muted, and of dismantling social walls no matter how high can help a parish to flourish as a community of love (1 Cor 12:4–11).

Imagine a parish breakfast at which it goes without saying that some enjoying the food and company need help with eating or with having a conversation. Picture a gift bearer at Sunday Mass whose speech is to some extent inarticulate as a result of a traumatic brain injury, or an altar server or lector who is a regular at the Sunday Mass but sometimes takes him- or herself off the schedule due to the cyclical nature of a psychiatric disorder, or a faith formation team with a catechetical leader who uses a wheelchair.[10] All this and more should be ordinary for the parish.

“Enabling families to take up their role as active agents of the family apostolate calls for ‘an effort at evangelization and catechesis inside the family.’” The greatest challenge in this situation is for couples, mothers and fathers, active participants in catechesis, to overcome the mentality of delegation that is so common, according to which that faith is set aside for specialists in religious education. This mentality is, at times, fostered by communities that struggle to organize family centered catechesis which starts from the families themselves.

—Directory for Catechesis, no. 124[1]

Parents. We rely on them to register their kids in our programs, to attend mandatory meetings, and to complete everything needed for sacramental prep. But fundamentally, we don’t trust them. Oh, we trust some of them. For the most part, though, we assume they aren’t reinforcing the faith at home—and have no interest in doing so. After all, they don’t even bring their kids to Mass most of the time. But what if the way we structure our programs encourages the very behaviors we don’t like?

Our policies and procedures, our attitudes and approaches reveal that we don’t really believe parents can be the primary educators of their own children. Regardless of what the Church actually teaches about parents and the domestic church, we pastors, directors of religious education, and catechists all fail to trust. If we even allow at-home formation, frequently we don’t allow it in a sacrament year. When it really matters, we don’t have faith that parents can do it right.

The Roots of Distrust and the Desire for Control

The reasons for our distrust of parents are many. How do we know that they covered everything they were supposed to cover? How do we know that they taught doctrine clearly and accurately? How do we know that the child received authentic faith from their parents, who aren’t well formed?

It comes down to control, but we often forget how little control we have over what happens in the classrooms on our campus. Even a well-formed catechist with an excellent lesson plan and exciting manipulatives can fail to pass along the faith to every child in the room. How do we ever know everything was covered in a meaningful way for every child? The truth is, we don’t. If that’s the case on our campuses, then why are we so suspect of it happening in our families’ homes? If we ultimately rely on grace to operate in one place, why not in the other as well?

Youth Ministry begins with ministering to young people. Though this statement appears self-evident from the title, it can be easy to forget this simple truth. As youth ministers, our time is often divided between writing lesson plans, answering emails from parents, developing programs and Bible studies, ordering pizza, and a host of other logistical and administrative tasks. But youth ministry is first and foremost about discipling young people—accompanying them on their journey toward Christ. In order to do this, we need to minister to their needs.

There is an old adage that goes, “teens don’t care how much you know until they know how much you care.” If we want to lead young people closer to Jesus, we need to begin by being attentive to their corporal and spiritual needs and ministering in those areas. In this article we’ll be focusing specifically on young people’s need for community, including practical steps we can take as youth ministers in ministering to this need.

Why Young People Need Community

In 2023, The US Surgeon General’s office released a public advisory titled Our Epidemic of Loneliness and Isolation. This eye-opening report documented some concerning trends in our country. As a whole, we are spending far less time socially connected to others in a meaningful way. Participation in community organizations has gone down drastically, with many young people opting for gathering virtually rather than in person. Unfortunately, these lower-quality interactions simply cannot meet young people’s need for meaningful connections with others. Social media, despite its name, can negatively impact young people socially and lead to greater feelings of isolation.[1]

Social media isn’t the only factor contributing to this; overscheduling extracurricular activities, smaller families, the pandemic, and a host of other sociological factors certainly play a role. As people who minister to young people, the question we have to ask ourselves is: what are we doing about this problem? The reality is that we are one of the first lines of defense against the loneliness epidemic. As Catholics, we believe that the human person was made for community with God and with other people. We know we cannot do it alone. Our youth groups and parishes can be a place where young people can experience authentic community, a taste of heaven on earth.

When my wife and I were younger, we would occasionally talk about Family Missions Company. We were fascinated by their model of sending young families to underserved parts of the globe to spread the message of Christ. It is something that we both would have loved to do. However, we also both agreed that it was not where we were being called at that time in our life. Instead, I served as a religion teacher at a Catholic high school near my hometown. Soon, we began to joke that it was pretty much the same thing as Family Missions—we were doing hard work to spread the Gospel to people who seemed to not have heard it before, and we were doing it for pay that really wasn’t sustainable!

Of course, as the years have gone by, I certainly acknowledge that the work done in mission fields around the world is very different than teaching in an American Catholic school. But I have also realized that the analogy holds up well in many ways. The work of Catholic education is hard. Many of the students and parents in Catholic schools really are not open to hearing the Gospel. The pay is less than the “market average” when compared to public schools. Clearly, the idea that Catholic schools are like missionary work is not completely unfounded. Now, as a Catholic school principal for over 15 years, I see more clearly that Catholic education is mission work, and, in some particular ways, I have begun to approach it as such.

In the first paragraph of the first document of the Second Vatican Council we find a summary of the Council Fathers’ goals for their work: “This sacred Council has several aims in view: it desires to impart an ever increasing vigor to the Christian life of the faithful; to adapt more suitably to the needs of our own times those institutions which are subject to change; to foster whatever can promote union among all who believe in Christ; to strengthen whatever can help to call the whole of mankind into the household of the Church. The Council therefore sees particularly cogent reasons for undertaking the reform and promotion of the liturgy.”[1]

As many have noted, these aims have as their clear goal the renewal of the Church and its human structures for the sake of evangelization, both for those already in the family of God and for those not yet part of that family. In keeping with the remarks by which Pope St. John XXIII opened the Council, its goal and purpose was to make the Gospel of Jesus Christ more readily knowable and known by and to the men and women of our age.[2] One might fairly describe the intent of the Council as catechetical and evangelical. That is, it sought to do what it could to enliven the efforts of Catholics to deepen their own faith in the Triune God and to draw others to the same God.

Unfortunately, that intention did not bear its hoped-for fruit, at least initially. As many have also noted, in the initial postconciliar years and decades, the intended fruition of the Council Fathers’ desires not only did not come to pass, but just the opposite occurred, such that, some 20 years after the close of the Council, then-Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger remarked that “the catastrophic failure of modern catechesis is all too obvious.”[3]

Why and how did this failure in catechetical and evangelical renewal occur immediately following the Council? Many have offered answers to this question from numerous perspectives. A recent and compelling answer is found in Brad Bursa’s Because He Has Spoken to Us: Structures of Proclamation from Rahner to Ratzinger. Bursa not only traces the theological origins and development of the postconciliar catechetical collapse to the attempted catechetical implementation of the theology of Karl Rahner, but he also proposes a way forward by pointing to the Trinitarian Christology of Joseph Ratzinger/Pope Benedict XVI.

To view a full resolution of this artwork on a smartboard, click here.

The renowned italian painter Caravaggio (1571–1610) was active in Rome for most of his artistic career. He was widely known for his dramatic use of lighting, a technique that had a profound influence on the Baroque period of art history. He was a master of chiaroscuro, the use of strong contrasts between light and dark. He used this technique to create a sense of depth and realism that made his paintings deeply moving.

The dramatic intensity of Caravaggio’s work mirrored the intensity of his personal life. We know about much of Caravaggio’s life through the extensive police records that documented his disorderly conduct. He was notorious for his brawling and arguments with not only his peers but also those in authority. His volatile temper culminated in the murder of Ranuccio Tomassoni over a bet on a game of tennis. Caravaggio knew very well the effects and darkness of sin. He was a man who struggled between darkness and light in his personal life. We see that same tension vividly portrayed in his paintings.

One of Caravaggio’s most striking works, The Incredulity of Saint Thomas (1602), visually captures the Gospel of John’s account of Thomas’s doubt and growth in faith. According to the Gospel of John, Thomas was not present when Jesus first appeared to the other disciples after the Resurrection. Unwilling to believe their testimony, Thomas declared, “Unless I see the mark of the nails in his hands and put my finger into the nail marks and put my hand into his side, I will not believe” (Jn 20:25). Caravaggio captures the transformative moment of Thomas encountering the risen Christ.

If you talk to an array of Catholics, you’ll likely hear differing experiences when it comes to memorization and their life of faith. Some are haunted by memories of being forced (and failing) to properly recite memorized facts about the faith in front of classmates and then being shamed for it. On the opposite pendulum swing, some were never tasked with memorizing anything about the faith. The truth of Catholicism, then, became like the seed sown on a rocky path, easily plucked away without deep roots.

What, then, is an approach to memorization in catechesis that is more closely aligned with the movement of the Holy Spirit in our times? The Church offers us the third way of meaningful memorization.

Memorization Cannot Be Severed from Catechesis

Pope St. John Paul II reaffirmed that “the blossoms, if we may call them that, of faith and piety do not grow in the desert places of a memory-less catechesis. What is essential is that texts that are memorized must at the same time be taken in and gradually understood in depth, in order to become a source of Christian life on the personal level and on the community level.”[1] As Catholics, we must memorize the truths of the faith. Memorization is essential to the fullness of life in Christ because in committing to memory his words and teachings, our whole person is formed more and more into his likeness. This is a lifelong process, which is why John Paul II reiterated that what we memorize must be understood ever more deeply.

When it comes to the catechesis of children, a worthy place to begin their life of memorization is in Sacred Scripture.

Anyone paying attention to recent trends within catechetical programming is sure to have noticed that video-based resources are becoming more and more prevalent. This is true for both adult and youth catechesis. Video resources are now nearly as ubiquitous as textbooks. In many cases, textbooks even function as a supplement to videos, which constitute the greater part of the lesson. Now, more than ever, it is necessary to make a clear-eyed assessment of video presentations as a catechetical methodology.

Videos certainly have a number of advantages. The use of new media in catechesis runs lockstep with Pope John Paul II’s call for a new evangelization. Through digital media, students are able to learn from some of the greatest catechists and evangelists this new century has produced. Video-based programs are often more affordable than traditional textbook series—a major relief to a cash-strapped parish program. Furthermore, with the advent of streaming, catechesis is no longer confined to the traditional classroom. Students can now access catechetical materials from home and alongside their families. Finally, many of these programs are both thoroughly orthodox and incredibly well-produced. It is now possible to have a program that is on the “cutting edge” methodologically without being enslaved to passing fancies of theological speculation.

On the other hand, videos also have their drawbacks. Linda Stone, a former consultant for tech giants Apple and Microsoft, coined the phrase “continuous partial attention” to describe how many of us go about our day-to-day lives.[1] Our attention is constantly divided between many different, simultaneous objects: we watch the news while checking our email, making breakfast, and talking on the phone. Without a doubt, video media, especially with the rise of short-form content, has exacerbated this condition. Catechists should carefully consider whether it is wise to adopt a form of content that is nearly synonymous with distraction. Additionally, there is a temptation to let the personalities on screen replace the personality of the catechist. A catechist cannot be reduced to someone merely pressing play on a video; they must be an active agent and a witness to their students.

Many catechists yearn for a specific, detailed order, or pre-set curriculum of OCIA teachings, but the universal Church is unlikely to ever mandate one beyond that which exists in a general form in the Creed itself.[1] While it is true that “authentic catechesis is always an orderly and systematic initiation into the revelation that God has given of himself in Christ Jesus,”[2] the General Directory for Catechesis (GDC) states:

Indeed, “it can happen that in the present situation of catechesis reasons of method or pedagogy may suggest that the communication of the riches of the content of catechesis should be organized in one way rather than another.”[3] It is possible to begin with God so as to arrive at Christ, and vice versa. Equally, it is possible to start with man and come to God, and conversely. The selection of a particular order for presenting the message is conditioned by circumstances, and by the faith level of those to be catechized. (GDC 118)

It cannot be emphasized too strongly that the means of determining the order of catechesis for a given set of participants must take into account liturgical, catechetical, and pastoral considerations at a given parish in a given year, as is laid out below. Taking all of the above into account, this article presents three methods that, when considered together, enable a catechist or OCIA director to order teachings in a way that serves the content of the faith.