Franciscan at Home

William Newton helps catechists to think about the categories that need to be used in order to present the Church’s understanding of homosexuality and same sex unions.

In passing on the faith, or in helping people deepen their understanding of it, the Church’s vision of human sexuality must obviously be addressed. Such catechesis aims first of all at extolling the blessings of sexuality, especially in its relation to marriage, but should, the Church tells us, ‘provide a good context within which to deal with the question of homosexuality.’

Aside from the understandable fear of touching upon this issue, given the charged atmosphere that surrounds it at present, there is also the difficulty that the arguments involved have a certain complexity. Here, I will attempt to unpack some of the Church’s argumentation in such a way to make them clear and, I hope, communicable. The key to this, it seems to me, is to have clarity about a set of three distinctions. Once these are understood, the compelling logic of the Church’s position comes to light. The three distinctions are: the distinction between act, inclination, and person; between tolerance and promotion; and between private and common good.

G.K. Chesterton once said, ‘Individualism kills individuality.’[i] With this paradoxical statement he addresses an issue that is as relevant today as it was in 1928. Part of the air of contemporary culture which we breathe on a daily basis is a radical individualism. Catechetically speaking, it is an element of the soil into which we are attempting to plant the seed of the Word of God.

Venerable John Paul II defines radical individualism in the following way:

‘Individualism presupposes a use of freedom in which the subject does what he wants, in which he himself is the one to “establish the truth” of whatever he finds pleasing or useful. He does not tolerate the fact that someone else “wants” or demands something from him in the name of an objective truth. He does not want to “give” to another on the basis of truth; he does not want to become a “sincere gift.” Individualism thus remains egocentric and selfish.’[ii]

How then might we address this in our catechetical work?

The topic of testing children before reception of First Communion has been a topic of discussion among catechists for some time. I believe that a well-written test is beneficial for several reasons.

Our pastors are required by canon law to ‘exercise vigilance so that children who have not attained the use of reason or whom he judges are not sufficiently disposed do not approach Holy Communion’.[v] We, as catechetical leaders, work for and under the direction of our pastor.[vi] We therefore need to exercise vigilance so that children who have not attained the use of reason or whom we judge are not sufficiently disposed do not receive Holy Communion or other sacraments until the criteria is reached.

How can we know that children are ready to receive the Eucharist and the other sacraments if we do not test them?

The Church, in her teaching documents, places significant emphasis on the lifelong nature of catechesis. Catechesis accompanies each person from the cradle to the grave. It is pertinent to note that this dedicated accompaniment of every man and woman is envisaged by the Church to be a kind of journey in reverse, a journey from the grave to the cradle.

Martha Drennan discusses how the parish can support the life-long process of growing in the knowledge of the faith, a process which starts in the family.
I was born into a Catholic family that would never miss Mass, made many sacrifices in their middle class life to send three girls to Catholic school, and could not imagine not being Catholic. With Dad serving as an Army officer, we moved to widely different areas of the country and experienced three different diocesan school systems.

As a product of all this cradle Catholic upbringing, I found myself to be 31 years old, a nominal Catholic who would not miss Mass, who wanted to go to heaven, but who did not know how to avoid hell. I had been left behind in my understanding of my Faith and how to live it as a disciple of Jesus Christ.

This was the beginning of my adult conversion experience. I was now going to begin the journey of catching up on my faith as an adult and how to live it as an adult. I was afraid and knew I needed God more in my life. That was all the Holy Spirit needed to take me on a whirlwind adventure.

On January 24, 2010, Pope Benedict XVI announced the theme for the 44th World Communications Day: ‘The Priest and Pastoral Ministry in a Digital World: New Media at the Service of the Word.’ The Holy Father summarizes this theme in these words:

‘It focuses attention on the important and sensitive pastoral area of digital communications, in which priests can discover new possibilities for carrying out their ministry to and for the Word of God. Church communities have always used the modern media for fostering communication, engagement with society, and, increasingly, for encouraging dialogue at a wider level. Yet the recent, explosive growth and greater social impact of these media make them all the more important for a fruitful priestly ministry.’[i]

The message can be summarized in the following bullet points:

* Priests have the primary duty of proclaiming Jesus and communicating his saving grace by means of the sacraments.

* Priests must learn and employ the new communications technologies (e.g., images, videos, animated features, blogs, websites) so that they may be put in the service of the Word.

* Priests should be known more for their priestly heart, their closeness to Christ, than for their media savvy.

* The priest can make God concretely present in today’s world, thus demonstrating the relevance of religion through competence in current digital technology.

* The priest’s presence in the world of digital communications brings him into contact with those who do not believe, which brings about many opportunities for evangelization.
* The priest’s ultimate fruitfulness comes from Christ himself, thus the need for a fruitful, ongoing life of prayer and charity.

This being the Year for Priests, Pope Benedict’s aim is appropriately on target. I believe that the Holy Father’s encouraging suggestions can be easily translated to the office of the lay catechist, whose task ‘is basically that of communicating God's word.’[ii]

In 2004 the Pontifical Council for Culture published, Where is Your God? Responding to the Challenge of Unbelief and Religious Indifference Today. This document deals primarily with unbelief and religious indifference which have secularism as their cause, and a new subjective, emotive religiosity as its consequence. In this article we will explore the problem of this new emotive religiosity and its manifestation in the New Age.

Even though we are surrounded by a culture of unbelief and religious indifference, there is what seems to be a contradictory consequence, namely ‘the rise of a new religiosity’ (Introduction, §2). This is because man is in his very nature a religious being oriented toward God. All people have some sense of the supernatural, how it becomes manifest in their lives is a completely different story. For some, it is not much manifest at all. For others, their sense of the supernatural finds an outlet in such things as astrology, tarot cards, palm reading, and all sorts of New Age type of involvement. It is a fact that involvement in the New Age, ‘by its nature contributes to religious confusion’ (I.2.5).

‘People are searching once again for spirituality…in a whole variety of ways…’ (Towards a Pastoral Approach to Culture, 24). Frequently, however, there is often not a return to traditional religious practices, there ‘…is a search for new ways of living and expressing the religious dimension inherent in paganism’ (Introduction, §2). The Council identifies certain characteristics of the new religiosity of which the catechist must be aware.

First, ‘this ‘spiritual awakening’ is marked by a complete refusal to belong, and the search for an experience which is entirely individual, autonomous and guided by one’s own subjectivity. This instinctive religiosity is more emotive than doctrinal’ (Introduction, §2). There is the mentality of ‘religion yes, God no’ or even ‘religiosity yes, God no,’ at least not a personal God.

In this article Stratford Caldecott explores the faith by which we enter the twelve-gated City of Revelation, the faith that is the beginning of that Light by which we will see what the City contains, and above all the Lamb enthroned at its centre.

The first official summary (or ‘symbol,’ as it was called) of the Christian faith was a simple affirmation: Jesus is Lord. We find this in the Gospels and the Letters of Saint Paul. What we know as the Apostles’ Creed is a slightly later summary, enabling Christians to affirm not only their faith in Christ, but some of the main implications of that faith. Most Christians are also familiar with the so-called Creed of Nicaea, which is later and more elaborate still, being designed to refute the various christological heresies (i.e. mistakes about the nature of Christ) that had arisen in the early centuries of faith.

A Creed is more than a summary of faith, of what is to be believed. Like Scripture, it has a liturgical character. To recite it in the context of the liturgy is a ritual action, a celebration that aligns us with its divine source, making us receptive to grace. As Martin Mosebach puts it, the Creed ‘considered as a liturgical prayer, is not a collection of dogmas that were defined at various councils (and some of which were imposed by main force) but a means whereby the individual plunges once again into the purifying freshness of baptism, the presence of the communion of saints, the Church-creating power of the Holy Trinity.’[i]

In this issue, On the Spot looks at the misunderstandings, which often arise concerning the Sacrament of Ordination, and offers suggestions to enrich our catechesis.

‘Today the word “ordination” is reserved for the sacramental act which integrates a man into the order of bishops, presbyters, or deacons, and goes beyond a simple election, designation, delegation, or institution by the community, for it confers a gift of the Holy Spirit that permits the exercise of a “sacred power”...which can come only from Christ himself through his Church.’ (CCC 1538)

Two frequently heard groups of comments, which arise from two different age ranges, can summarise what would appear to be common misunderstandings about the priesthood, its nature and function.

‘What does Father do all day? Isn’t it boring spending all the time praying and reading the Bible? Does he have another job for weekdays?’
‘Well, the priesthood is dying out. The Church is beginning to see that lay people can do everything a priest does. The Holy Spirit is changing things so we don't need priests; hence hardly any priests being ordained now.’

In 2004 the Pontifical Council for Culture published, Where is Your God? Responding to the Challenge of Unbelief and Religious Indifference Today. This document deals primarily with unbelief and religious indifference which have secularism as their cause, and a new subjective, emotive religiosity as its consequence. In this article we will explore the problem of unbelief and religious indifference. In following issue of The Sower we will deal with this new emotive religiosity.

The phenomenon of unbelief in current culture is different than the militant atheism, and atheistic regimes, of the past. It is different in the sense that ‘often one becomes a non-believer not through choice at the end of a long inner struggle, but it just happens de facto, because “that’s what everybody else does” ’ (Where is Your God? I.1).

The Council identifies different causes of this new kind of unbelief and religious indifference.

The first cause mentioned is the rise of scientism, with its ‘vision of the world without any reference to God…’ (I.2.1). Notice, however, that the document does not say that the problem is the rise of science, but scientism.

A second cause is connected with the atheism of the past. The atheistic regimes have fallen, but ‘the underlying anthropological model has not disappeared, indeed it has become stronger taking on the philosophy inherited from the enlightenment’.