Franciscan at Home

Is “discipleship” just another trendy Catholic catchphrase? Although there’s a lot more emphasis on discipleship today, some parish leaders admit not having a clear understanding of what exactly discipleship is and how this theme can impact catechetical ministry. Some even wonder if it’s just a passing trend. As one parish leader recently said to me, “Discipleship?…Oh, this is just another Catholic buzz word that happens to be in vogue now…It will fade away in a few years….I’m just going to keep doing what I’ve been doing.” Part of the problem might be the lack of a consistent vision being casted for discipleship. Individual parishes, apostolates, or diocesan leaders each often come up with their own views on discipleship. But given the importance of this theme, imagine if we were all on the same page in offering a picture of discipleship that was truly shaped by God’s Word. What if we were to offer parish leaders a more consistent and more robust picture of discipleship—one grounded in Jesus’ public ministry and rooted in the Church’s teachings on catechesis? As we’ll see, this exciting biblical vision for discipleship would equip pastoral workers with a powerful framework for evangelization and deepening people’s relationship with Christ. Discipleship: Its Biblical Meaning In the first-century Jewish world of Jesus, being a disciple was all about one key word: imitation. When a disciple followed a rabbi, the goal wasn’t merely to master the rabbi’s teachings but also to imitate the way he lived: the way he prayed, studied, taught, served the poor, and lived out his relationship with God day-to-day. Jesus himself said when a disciple is fully trained, he “becomes like his teacher” (Lk 6:40). And when St. Paul formed disciples of his own, he exhorted them not just to remember his teachings, but also to follow his way of living: “Be imitators of me as I am of Christ” (1 Cor 11:1). Though the word disciple (mathetes) means “learner,” biblical discipleship was very different from modern classroom learning. On a college campus, a professor might give lectures to students in a large hall; the students take notes, and they’re examined on the material later in the semester. But there’s usually not an ongoing personal relationship and sharing of life between professor and student in the university setting today.

“It would make no difference to my faith,” someone once assured me, “if they found the bones of Jesus.” He spoke only of his faith not being shaken and did not claim anything about the faith of others. About the same time, I received the results of a questionnaire on the resurrection presented to several hundred college students. Almost 90% agreed that they could not believe in the risen Jesus unless his tomb was found empty. They accepted the underlying argument of the graffito one sees on walls in the springtime: “There will be no Easter this year. They have found the body.”

What is the historical evidence that underpins accepting the empty tomb? And how does the empty tomb center Christian faith in Jesus risen from the dead?

Evidence of the Resurrection
The New Testament offers at least three strands of evidence that support the historicity of the empty tomb story: the testimony of Mark 16 (followed by Matthew 28 and Luke 24) that three women discovered Jesus’ tomb to be open and empty on the first Easter Sunday; the probably independent witness of John 20 that Mary Magdalene made that discovery (immediately confirmed by Peter and “the beloved disciple”); and the implications of Paul’s teaching in 1 Corinthians 15.

Pope Francis is fond of describing the Lord as One who goes before us in our apostolic mission. No matter where it is that catechists are called to serve, no matter the challenges and the adversity, we can take heart (as well as courage) that the Lord has preceded us into this place, that he is in charge, that we are not alone.

Registration is now open for Franciscan University of Steubenville's Summer Conferences for Adults. Call 740-283-6315; email [email protected] or visit the Steubenville Conferences' website.

This is a paid advertisement in the January-March 2018 issue. Advertisements should not be viewed as endorsements from the publisher. To order from Ignatius Press, call 1-800-651-1531 or go to their website.

One of the most interesting elements of guidance given by the Church in the General Directory for Catechesis (GDC) is the pedagogical principle of “Fidelity to God and Fidelity to Man.”[1] What is unique about this and also essential for any catechist is the fact that this principle should guide both content and methodology. In fact, St. John Paul II wrote that catechesis must refer to “a law that is fundamental for the whole of the Church’s life: the law of fidelity to God and fidelity to man in a single loving attitude.”[2] As catechists, we must have this “single loving attitude.” We can find inspiration in this from the world of iconography. Many times in the writing of icons, the iconographer will draw the face of the saint with one eye slightly turned upward to God and one eye focused straight ahead. As catechists, like the saints we try to emulate, we look both upward and outward in a two-fold fidelity. The balance that a catechist must obtain is not between two conflicting motivations. If we look at the hypostatic union, we see that Christ’s divinity does not destroy his humanity nor does his humanity take anything away from his divinity. The two exist united yet distinct. Similarly, catechists must constantly be aware of those who are before them and the mystery they proclaim. We do not catechize in a vacuum but in a specific time, place, and to a particular people. It is the responsibility of catechists to be “heralds of the Gospel who are experts in humanity, who know the depths of the heart of many today, who share in his hopes and joys, his worries and his sadness, and at the same time are contemplatives, in love with God.”[3] This principle protects and directs the catechist in many ways. The GDC states, “The principle of ‘fidelity to God and fidelity to man’ leads to an avoidance of any opposition or artificial separation or presumed neutrality between method and content. It affirms, rather, their necessary correlation and interaction.”[4] In recent catechetical history, the relationship between content and method has been frequently discussed. Many catechetical textbooks are judged by these two standards and rightly so; but a textbook is not the most important aspect of catechesis.[5] The person of the catechist is that advocate on the part of God to explain and apply what God has revealed and an advocate on the part of the person to help him respond to what he has revealed. In order to better understand our role as catechists, let’s explore each side of the principle of fidelity to God and fidelity to man.

After a few minutes’ conversation on my doorstep, a Mormon missionary asked if I was, by chance, a “born-again Christian?” “Well,” I replied, “I’m a born-again Catholic.” This idea of being “born again” made me reflect on the challenge of awakening cultural Catholics to the radical implications of the Sacrament of Baptism. Living in County Kerry—the tourist magnet of Ireland—I’ve seen the trouble American visitors take to research their family tree and locate their Irish roots. They trawl through parish registers to find out about the births, marriages, and deaths of their ancestors. (“Who are your people?” is a familiar question in this part of the country.) Perhaps we can help cradle Catholics to develop the same kind of curiosity about their spiritual roots; to find out what difference it makes, in practice, to bear their surname, not just of O’Donnell, O’Sullivan, or O’Shea but “of Christ.”[1] Pope Francis, in one of his Wednesday catecheses, asked a set of questions that could form part of a parish or family catechesis on baptismal identity. “Is Baptism, for me, a fact of the past, relegated to a date…or is it a living reality, that pertains to my present, to every moment?” “Do you feel strong with the strength that Christ gave you by his death and his Resurrection? Or do you feel low, without strength?” “Baptism gives strength and it gives light. Do you feel enlightened, with that light that comes from Christ? Are you a man or woman of light? Or are you a dark person, without the light of Jesus?” (November 13, 2013) I would like to illustrate five points, based on this catechesis, which could help Catholic families to awaken to their baptismal identity and activate its power.

The doctrine of original sin is an essential component of the Christian faith. If catechists don’t explain well the nature, effect, and consequences of original sin, they will find it very difficult not only to address the major moral issues of our day, but also to effectively communicate the Gospel. Without original sin, the Gospel message loses much of its power and purpose. To fully appreciate the “good news” of the Christ’s redemption, we first must grapple with the “bad news” of our fallen condition. Why do we need a redeemer and savior? Are people not essentially good? Are they not able to live a good moral life regardless of their religious beliefs? In reply to those questions, our faith teaches that something in our human nature is inherently wounded and in need of healing. The Church affirms that original sin is “an essential truth of the faith,” and so “we cannot tamper with the revelation of original sin without undermining the mystery of Christ.”[i] Original Sin in Genesis To understand original sin, we must turn to the first chapters of the Bible. We read in Genesis 2 that God created Adam, placed him in the Garden of Eden, then created Eve out of his side. The Catechism tells us that God created the first couple in a state of “original holiness and justice.”[ii] Original holiness means that our first parents shared in God’s divine life and were free from suffering and death—a state symbolized by their free access to the Tree of Life. Original justice means that Adam and Eve possessed an inner harmony within themselves, with each other, and with all of creation.[iii] They were at peace with themselves and with the world. This state of friendship with God, however, depended on their submission to him and respect of his moral norms.[iv] The limit to man’s freedom is represented by the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, strictly prohibited to Adam and Eve under penalty of death: “you shall not eat, for in the day that you eat of it you shall surely die” (Gen 2:17). Unfortunately, this original state of holiness and justice did not last long. Genesis 3 describes the well-known story of the fall: A mysterious talking serpent urges Eve to eat of the fruit from the tree of knowledge, which appears to be “good for food”, “a delight to the eyes”, and “desirable to make one wise.” She yields to the temptation and persuades Adam to do the same in defiance of God’s command. As soon as they eat the fruit, the two realize that they are naked. Ashamed, they cover themselves with fig leaves; they also become afraid of God and attempt to hide from him. The consequences of the infraction are dire: God curses the serpent, imposes labor pains on the woman and inflicts hard toil on the man for his subsistence, along with the prospect of returning to the ground from which he was taken. Adam and Eve are banned from Eden and from the Tree of Life; suffering and death enter human history.[v] This narrative raises two initial questions. First, what is modern man to make of it? Doesn’t it display the characteristics of a myth or pious legend rather than history? The Church teaches that even though the account of the fall uses figurative language, it affirms a primeval event that truly “took place at the beginning of the history of man,” so that “the whole of human history is marked by the original fault freely committed by our first parents.”[vi] Second, does the story really teach the Christian doctrine of original sin? Genesis 3 says nothing about a fallen angel called Satan, about Adam losing gifts of divine sonship and sanctifying grace, or about him transmitting a fallen nature to all his descendants. Religious Jews, in fact, interpret the fall of Adam and Eve differently: while they obviously agree that Adam and Eve sinned, they don’t accept the idea that Adam passed on a wounded human nature to the entire human race.[vii] While it is true that Genesis 3 does not explicitly teach the doctrine of Original Sin, the story does provide the “raw materials” of the doctrine that will gradually develop in Sacred Scripture and Christian Tradition.

People may be communicating at an unprecedented rate today with social media, but are these interactions satisfying? People may have hundreds of friends on Facebook, but recent research shows that 25% of Americans say they don’t have anyone they can talk to about their personal troubles. The truth is that while online social networks are exploding, we are growing increasingly socially isolated.
Yet we all need connection. It’s how we were created. It’s in our wiring. At our core, we were created with a God-shaped vacuum that cries out to be filled with our Creator. And most of us need a human hand to reach out to us with the love of God to help us to understand who our Creator is and why he is worth everything.

I can remember the day I decided I was going to leave the Catholic Church as if it were yesterday. I had had it. I was mad and disillusioned. I felt judged and devalued. One foot was out the door. What I didn’t know at the time was that what I was experiencing wasn’t a true or good representation of the Church. However, my experience was all I had on which to base my judgments.

Take yourself back to a similar day. Maybe you weren’t getting ready to leave the Church. Maybe you had just had it with God. Too many prayers had been unanswered. Too many questions remained unanswered. Your life (at least your spiritual life) wasn’t working for you, and God didn’t seem to be doing much about it. Maybe there was a disconnect between church on Sunday and the rest of your life. Maybe it was a slow fade, and one day your life got filled up with other things; and if God had ever played a part in it all, there just wasn’t room for him anymore.

Can you remember what those days felt like before your faith really came alive? Can you remember feeling empty and unsettled inside? Did you find yourself filling up your life with all sorts of things, but nothing totally satisfied? Did you have fears of the future? Did you long for something more?

Our faith should come with a warning label, shouldn’t it? C.S. Lewis once quipped: “I didn’t go to religion to make me happy. I always knew a bottle of port would do that. If you want a religion to make you feel really comfortable, I certainly don’t recommend Christianity.”[1] Lewis knew the dangers of Christianity. He knew it wasn’t easy, and we all know it too. We all have times when our faith is hard. Things are dark. Hope seems elusive. The future seems bleak. God seems distant. This is just life in its ebbs and flows. It has its euphoric highs and devastating lows. So maybe it’s not warnings we need but reassurances. Warnings won’t make the hard times avoidable. Warnings won’t save us when turmoil drags us down, but reassurances might. If there’s one question that holds people back from believing in the loving God that we worship it looks like this: “If God is so good, then why is there so much suffering in this world?” Of course the question takes many forms, but at its core is the apparent irreconcilability of the notion of a good and loving God with a fallen and often disappointing world. This question isn’t unique to unbelievers. It is common to all of us. But for us who call ourselves believers, this question is especially poignant. The God who should love me seems distant from me. What are we to make of this? The Catechism addresses the problem of suffering straight on: “If God the Father almighty, the Creator of the ordered and good world, cares for all his creatures, why does evil exist? To this question, as pressing as it is unavoidable and as painful as it is mysterious, no quick answer will suffice. Only Christian faith as a whole constitutes the answer to this question” (CCC 309). Evil (often experienced as pain and suffering) is acknowledged. But what is also acknowledged is that there is an answer. Not a quick answer, but a mysterious answer. Catechism 309 concludes with the assurance: “There is not a single aspect of the Christian message that is not in part an answer to the question of evil.” We can have confidence that our faith contains answers to the mystery of suffering. Easy answers? No. Reassurances? You bet!