Catholic Teachers' Conference

This post links to RAnn's Sunday Snippets

Loaves and Fishes excerpt from one of my sessions from last March. This sketch goes with the content:

There Is No Substitute

This post links to RAnn's Sunday Snippets and Convert Journal

good guess, but wrong

wrong again- sorry

still wrong

that's it

Among all the Christian churches, the Catholic Church has the most to gain from a Bible-literate membership, given that the Bible is a Catholic book.  Yet the Catholic Church must have the most Bible-illiterate flock on the planet. Of course the Church is well-aware: at least since Vatican 2, she has been exhorting a billion or so of her sheep to just pick it up and read the thing:

"The sacred synod also earnestly and especially urges all the Christian faithful, especially Religious, to learn by frequent reading of the Catechism the "excellent knowledge of Jesus Christ" (Phil. 3:8). "For ignorance of the Catechism is ignorance of Christ."

Just kidding. Here ya go: "The sacred synod also earnestly and especially urges all the Christian faithful, especially Religious, to learn by frequent reading of the divine Scriptures the "excellent knowledge of Jesus Christ" (Phil. 3:8). "For ignorance of the Scriptures is ignorance of Christ." [St. Jerome] Therefore, they should gladly put themselves in touch with the sacred text itself, whether it be through the liturgy, rich in the divine word, or through devotional reading, or through instructions suitable for the purpose and other aids which, in our time, with approval and active support of the shepherds of the Church, are commendably spread everywhere." [Dei Verbum, 1965]

Umm...yes! We should all "gladly" do as the Church asks. But as Pork said, "Askin' ain't gettin'," and who knows that better than the Catholic Church? Regardless, being a catechist I focus on the "instruction" bit of that long last sentence.
 
Catechetical Sunday is coming up in September along with the start of most RCIA programs. In response, I've been looking at catechetical/ RCIA stuff such as this; and this; and this; and these. And once again I draw this conclusion:   

Institutional Catechesis continues to make inadequate use of the Bible.

By that I mean the Catholic catechetical system has had 48 years since Dei Verbum to raise its Scriptural game to an appropriate level; and is still nowhere near doing so. And what level would be appropriate? Well, maybe the level of our fellow Christians (and especially the Fundiegelicals who comprise the majority of Christians where I live), who were making maximum pedagogical use of Scripture long before there was a Vatican 2. Around here (and I assume elsewhere) Catholics of all ages are way behind their Christian peers in following the recommendation of the Catholic Church "to learn by frequent reading of the divine Scriptures the "excellent knowledge of Jesus Christ." That would be a good joke if it were funny. And BTW, hearing the divine Scriptures read aloud at Sunday Mass ain't the same as "frequent reading of the divine Scriptures." 

Now as to catechetical materials, I speak only of my own experience. Most of my religious instruction was via the Baltimore Catechism (B.C.). It was an excellent system to keep one Catholic in a culture that was already Catholic. It worked just fine in the South Louisiana of my childhood; it was a disaster in Upstate South Carolina. Either way, rote-memorization catechesis was an outmoded and soon-to-be obsolete method of faith-formation. I know some Catholics are fond of the B.C., and suggest it should be tried again. My opinion is that catechesis must be more about thinking, and less about memorizing: the B.C. is DOA in the 21st century. And in that respect I like the catechetical series my parish uses, Faith and Life by Ignatius Press. It expects the 6th-graders to think, and it's way Bible. Yet at the same time, it ain't Bible-enough. I expect a child who goes through the whole K-8 series will come out with a comprehensive grasp of Catholicism; but only a fragmented and separate grasp of the Bible. It's still the old problem: the Faith (and the Catechism) is here, and the Bible is over there. That's wrong: Faith and Scripture are part of a single entity, the way a man and wife form a marriage, fused and complementary in all respects. Jesus is the Word made Flesh; the Bible is the Word Written Down. That's how catechesis should be understood, but that's not how it is understood. Part of the problem is that the old Baltimore Catechism has been replaced by the CCC, which instead of supporting the Bible, shunts the Bible to the side as the B.C. used to. In other words, the Bible currently serves as a resource to add depth to the CCC and the textbook, but it should be the other way around. When the Baltimore Catechism was rightfully retired, there was the chance to pick up the Bible; but the new Catechism has been picked up instead. That's a mistake. The Catholic's primary faith book is the Bible: not the Catechism, and not a textbook. The CCC and textbooks are the handmaids of Scripture; the framework of catechesis, and what happens in the Catholic classroom should reflect that. Catechetically, the Bible should come first, supported by the CCC and the textbook. Put another way, catechesis needs a new paradigm.

Catholic theologian and author R.R. Reno recently wrote, "...we...should do more to create a platform for the reconstruction of a biblically-informed culture..." Indeed we should: Reno anticipates the benefits of the New Evangelization.  But if Catholics going through the Church's educational systems can't explain their faith and morals scripturally to their friends and neighbors, Reno can fuhgeddaboudit.

f u cn rd ths...

This post links to RAnn's Sunday Snippets 

Originally posted at New Evangelizers, but it applies to you lot as well.

...then you should be catechizing in a classroom. I already know you are a self-selected follower of New Evangelizers. Therefore I also know:

A. You take evangelizing seriously.

B. You can read.

I have to digress already. About 30 years ago I worked in a small Southern mill town. Once during lunch I overheard a remark about a candidate in the mayoral election: "So Jones is running, eh? I already got his campaign slogan: "Vote for Jones: He Can Read." I love that: it was actually a riff on another saying, "A Methodist is a Baptist who can read." I don't remember if Jones was a Methodist or not. Regardless, it's still true: if you can read, and take evangelizing seriously, you should try being a catechist.

But Christian, there are already enough catechists; my parish doesn't need any more.

Maybe. But many (if not most) catechists are parents of children in the program. When a child ages out, so does the parent. And they do the job out of duty more than vocation; and because the DRE asked them; and because three people quit last year; and....get it?

Yes, but I don't think I'm called to be a catechist.

Yes, but you don't know unless you try.

But no-one has asked me.

I'm asking you right now.

But you aren't the parish DRE or the pastor.

Well, God is asking you through me instead of going through the usual channels.

But I'm not prepared. I don't know how to teach.

Then volunteer to be a helper. Even illiterate Cossacks can be helpers. But being the evangel-serious reader that you are, after one year of helping you will be itching to run your own class the next year.

I don't really know my faith well enough to teach it to anyone.

You probably do, but just haven't been in the right situation. Besides, the Holy Spirit will support you. And teaching something is the best way to know it.

I'm already volunteering at my parish.

Me, too. I do stuff with the Knights of Columbus. But catechizing is essential. Serving the parish breakfast, as much I like doing it, is not. And many people can do that as well as me, if not better. Not everyone is called to be a catechist. Maybe you are.

I’m not hearing that call.

Giving it a try may open your ears. It opened mine.

Our Religious Ed program seems too fluffy. It doesn't suit me.

All the more reason for an evangel-type like you to get in the classroom. As long as you cover the material, you can be as un-fluffy as you like. Catechists have a lot of discretion as to how they teach.

The parents of the kids won't help with anything, they just drop them off and pick them up.

That's enough; the rest will be up to you. You'll focus on the kids in front of you, not their parents.

And they don't take the kids to Mass or teach them anything at home. The parents don't know or practice their faith.

That’s just another reason for the kids to spend time with a motivated Catholic such as you. Don't blame the kids for their parents. And don't blame the parents too much; they were probably badly catechized when they were kids.

Teaching catechism isn’t the same thing as evangelizing.

It is the same thing if you decide that’s how it’s going to be.

I'm more interested in evangelizing adults out in the world, not kids in a classroom setting.

You can still do that. But dozens of adults don't reliably show up in a classroom 30 times a year to be evangelized. Ya can't beat that gold-plated opportunity. And I used to teach Adult Ed and RCIA before I was Shanghai'd against my will into teaching kids. Turns out dealing with kids is better: it's like pouring water on a sponge. Besides, you're also evangelizing the adults they'll become. You don’t just change the present, you change the future. So there.

Well, if you didn't want to be a catechist you were no different from me.

That's right. That's my point- I wouldn't give it a try until I was asked; and only by giving it a try did I discover that I liked it. But remember- I'm asking you not because you're a warm body. I'm asking you because you are already interested in evangelizing.

nd bcs u cn rd.

Hindsight Provided by Jesus

This post links to RAnn's Sunday Snippets

In Wednesday Night Sunday School we cover this bit of 1 Kings 19:

Elijah set out and came upon Elisha, son of Shaphat,
as he was plowing with twelve yoke of oxen;
he was following the twelfth.
Elijah went over to him and threw his cloak over him.

As I read, the kids explain the significance of 12 oxen:

 "Why 12 oxen? 'Cause there are 12 tribes! Yes. Why 12 tribes? 'Cause he had 12 sons! Who? Joseph! No, Joseph's daddy...he grabbed his brother's heel...Jacob! Yes, whose name was changed to...he wrestled all night with the angel...Israel! Yes, so the twelve- Israel! Yes, ya too fast!"

We go on to discuss the significance of Elisha allowing Elijah to put his cloak over Elisha's shoulders, which a boy and I act out with my suit jacket. And we finish with these lines:

Elisha left the oxen, ran after Elijah, and said,
“Please, let me kiss my father and mother goodbye,
and I will follow you.”
Elijah answered, “Go back!
Have I done anything to you?”
Elisha left him, and taking the yoke of oxen, slaughtered them;
he used the plowing equipment for fuel to boil their flesh,
and gave it to his people to eat.
Then Elisha left and followed Elijah as his attendant.

*************************************************

That vignette was the O.T. reading for the Mass on June 30. It was appropriately paired with this Gospel reading from Luke 9:

And to [someone] he said, “Follow me.”
But he replied, “Lord, let me go first and bury my father.”
But he answered him, “Let the dead bury their dead.
But you, go and proclaim the kingdom of God.”
And another said, “I will follow you, Lord,
but first let me say farewell to my family at home.”
To him Jesus said, “No one who sets a hand to the plow
and looks to what was left behind is fit for the kingdom of God.” 

Since we have the benefit of a complete Bible, OT and NT, it's easy for the Church to pair stories like this so we can see the connection. But at the moment that Jesus had this conversation, would anyone have realized Jesus was riffing on Elijah? Let me guess: probably not, excepting any 'well-versed' scribe or Pharisee within earshot. So my next guess is that's why Jesus mentioned a plow: to help the average illiterate listener link this teaching moment to Elisha's discipleship; and to see that Jesus set a higher standard than Elijah.

I don't have time in the catechetical year to cover that NT story. But if I did, I expect the kids would nail the plow reference with no trouble because it had been vividly portrayed earlier; and via the usual Q&A process, figure out what Jesus was driving at.

Catechetical points:

1. When the NT alludes to the OT, make sure the kids get the connection.

2. Put the kids into the live context of a story, and remind them if necessary that most people at any given moment had no idea how something would turn out.

Pitchers 17: Man, the View is Tremendous

This post links to RAnn's Sunday Snippets

This is some refinement I'll be working into my Genesis chapters 1 and 2 classes this Fall.

When we cover the 6 Days of Creation I incrementally draw this graph on the whiteboard:

It's how I show that as Creation progresses, the things created are more like God. Once this graph is done, we move on to Eve, marriage, and God's command to be fruitful and multiply. That completes our look at Chapters 1 and 2. We then look at sin in chapter 3. But this year, I'm going to draw a bit more to make a bridge between the bliss of Chapter 2 and the Fall in Chapter 3.

I usually stop the graph at Adam as shown. But this year, when God makes Eve, I'll erase Adam's head, and draw both Adam and Eve standing next to each other with some space between them. Then when we get to God's commandment to be fruitful and multiply, I'll draw in some kids, and the top of the graph will look like this:

[In class I'll still have the animals & stuff on the slope.]

Then I envision this sort of discussion:

"So y'all tell me about the humans on this graph. Well, they're happy in Eden I guess. Yes, but I mean tell me about them on the graph. They're the highest! Yes! Which means? They're the best! Yes! Now watch this...[I draw]...now tell me about them.

They're on a mountain! Yes, and how do they see all the other plants and animals? They look down. Yes. And how might that make them feel? Umm...important? Yes, and....like they are the boss? Yes, and...they can do what they want. Yes, maybe so. But what if they look up? They see God. Yes, and how do they feel then? Like God is important. Yes. Now if you see the Moon from the ground, but later you see it from the top of a mountain, are you closer to the Moon while you're on the mountain? Yes. Does the Moon look any bigger? I don't think so. Right; only a tiny, tiny bit that makes no difference. You may as well be at the bottom. But tell me about when you look down from the mountain. You see everything! Yes, it makes a big difference when you look down. Now tell me about looking up to someone. Like my parents? Yes. Well? They take care of us. Yes. And how about looking down on someone, y'all ever done that? Nobody? Well I have, and it's probably my worst habit. That reminds me, let's jump ahead to one of Jesus' parables. See if y'all can tell it.

“Two people went up to the temple area to pray; one was a Pharisee and the other was a tax collector." The Pharisee was bad! Like how? He thought he was better than everybody else. And was he? No. Right: "O God, I thank you that I am not like the rest of humanity—greedy, dishonest, adulterous—or even like this tax collector. I fast twice a week, and I pay tithes on my whole income." And the tax collector? He was sorry to God. Yes: "...the tax collector stood off at a distance and would not even raise his eyes to heaven but beat his breast and prayed, O God, be merciful to me, a sinner." Which man did Jesus prefer: the proud man or the humble one? The humble one. Why? Well, he was sorry for his sins? Yes, that's a good answer.  And the proud Pharisee— how about his sins? He didn't think he had any. But did he? Yes. Right. We know for sure one sin he had, tell me when you know: "I am not like the rest of humanity—greedy, dishonest, adulterous—or even like this tax collector." He was looking down on the tax collector! Yes, and putting himself up high, like he was God's buddy.

So are you most likely to feel humble- or proud- when you look down on someone? Proud. Yes, and if you look up to someone? Humble. Yes, good.

Now we're about to start on Chapter 3 in Genesis, the business with the snake. Y'all be ready to explain what pride and humility have to do with Adam and Eve's sin, and our sins, too— there's more to it than just eating an apple."

***************************************************************************

A few catechetical points:

1. There's a whole lot of catechesis in the concept of relative height, some of which will be covered later in the year.

2. Notice that after I read the parable's introduction, I don't read any further without giving the kids a chance to tell what comes next. It's very effective for a child to first say in her own words what comes next; then for me to read the passage the child anticipated; then ask any follow up questions on that bit; then ask them to say what happens next, and so on. This follows a couple of my class guidelines: never provide information one of the kids can provide; let the kids contribute as much as they can.

3. Drawings can be more than illustrations: they should also be teaching tools. 

Cri de Coeur

This post links to RAnn's Sunday Snippets

a catechist catechizing in a classroom

Last week at one of my favorite catechetical blogs, an article from 2011 was re-posted.  In it, the blogger posed this critical question:

 Are we focused on training catechists or forming catechists?

I offered my big fat opinion:

"Two years later and still an interesting topic. You know what, I can't think of any workshop I've attended that formed any faith. Not that faith was never spoken of, but not in a way that left any catechist knowing more than when she walked in. And I recall only one breakout session that really covered training. It was by an experienced middle-school teacher who was loaded with practical advice on how to run a class. She had an hour, could've filled two hours easy. She was great. She walked the walk.

Generally catechist workshop speakers tend to affirm and encourage, which is ok if you need affirming or encouraging. Others may present a lot of data, but don't show how they or anyone has already used it to be better catechists. In either case, faith formation or training, over a decade I see a real disconnect between the content of workshops, and catechists getting the faith, knowledge, and skills to be good catechists.

On the other hand, as an architect I attend seminars whose speakers offer concrete, specific information and techniques for problem-solving in the construction business, based on their own experience. Typically I come away from them worn out from trying to absorb all the useful info they imparted.

I'd like to see the same thing in the catechetical world. To that end, these are some topics off the top of my head I'd like to see being covered at workshops at a serious adult level:

How I make a lesson plan.

How I run my classroom.

How I cover the Sacraments in general to K-3 kids.

How I teach Baptism to middle-schoolers.

How I prepare 7th-graders for Confirmation.

How I use the CCC as a resource.

How I help youthgroup teens grow in faith.

How I teach the Beatitudes.

How I help first-graders come to know Jesus.

Notice that these are all first-person topics. No-one would speak if they lacked personal success at these tasks; would be speaking from personal experience; and would offer real-world examples from their own classrooms. And because each speaker is giving her personal experience of success, it invites people in the audience to offer alternatives based on their own teaching experience. Finally, each topic may impart both faith-formation and training at the same time.

**********************************************

Thinking about the parlous state of catechesis some more, I do remember Joe Paprocki did a workshop based on his book A Well-Built Faith. It was part formation, part training. I thought it was useful.  I've also attended non-catechetical presentations and lectures by local priests such as Fr. Jay Scott Newman, Fr. Dwight Longenecker, Fr. Michael Cassabon, and Fr. Chris Smith; authors Gerry Matatics, Mark Shea, George Weigel, Scott Hahn, and Pat Madrid; Msgr. Bruce Harbert of ICEL; and Fr. Dennis McManus, whose totally dynamite seminar on the New Translation may have been the most absorbing 3 hours of my life.

This points to much of my catechetical complaining: all those presentations were pitched at generally-interested Catholics, not catechists. Yet their content was much more useful to me as a catechist than what I hear at catechist-specific events. None of them were invited to exhort, affirm, or encourage the audience. They were invited to teach, to form faith; which they all did. Any catechist would have found their lectures to be terrific faith formation opportunities. So as far as catechists' faith formation goes, why do we get cups of milk when run-of-the-mill Catholics get platters of red meat? Of course guys like Mark Shea are stars; but the choice shouldn't be between Mark Shea and pablum.

I already said I favor having can-do catechists and religion teachers from K-to-Youthgroup give how-to sessions for catechist training. Maybe for faith formation, catechists would hear from sisters who teach religion; RCIA lecturers; priests, deacons, seminarians and their professors; street evangelizers; and laypeople who run Bible studies or small groups.

So I complain, gripe, whine, bitch, mule and pule. Because I'm almost 56 years old, and I've been hearing about bad catechesis all my life; and from what I continue to hear, it's still bad. And it's about 3 minutes 'til midnight.

Art by Mark A. Hicks

Greenville-Ephrathah 15: Ordination

 Li'l 'Phrathah

Congratulations to Son-of-Ephrathah Father James Renaurd West, who was ordained yesterday in the Cathedral Church of the Holy City.