Jubilee of Catechists

The Jubilee of Catechists is to be marked during the days 26th-28th September 2025. The Institution of new catechists is due to take place during Mass celebrated by the Holy Father on Sunday 28th September 2025. 

In the Motu Proprio Antiquum Ministerium , Pope Francis established the lay ministry of catechist for the universal Church. 

The role played by catechists is one specific form of service among others within the Christian community. Catechists are called first to be expert in the pastoral service of transmitting the faith as it develops through its different stages from the initial proclamation of the kerygma to the instruction that presents our new life in Christ and prepares for the sacraments of Christian initiation, and then to the ongoing formation that can allow each person to give an accounting of the hope within them (cf. 1 Pet 3:15). At the same time, every catechist must be a witness to the faith, a teacher and mystagogue, a companion and pedagogue, who teaches for the Church. Only through prayer, study, and direct participation in the life of the community can they grow in this identity and the integrity and responsibility that it entails (cf. Pontifical Council for the Promotion of the New Evangelization, Directory for Catechesis, 113). ...

Referring more specifically to the stable ministry envisioned by the Motu Proprio, Pope Francis continued: 

This ministry has a definite vocational aspect, as evidenced by the Rite of Institution, and consequently calls for due discernment on the part of the Bishop. It is in fact a stable form of service rendered to the local Church in accordance with pastoral needs identified by the local Ordinary, yet one carried out as a work of the laity, as demanded by the very nature of the ministry. It is fitting that those called to the instituted ministry of Catechist be men and women of deep faith and human maturity, active participants in the life of the Christian community, capable of welcoming others, being generous and living a life of fraternal communion. They should also receive suitable biblical, theological, pastoral and pedagogical formation to be competent communicators of the truth of the faith and they should have some prior experience of catechesis (cf. SECOND VATICAN ECUMENICAL COUNCIL, Decree on the Pastoral Office of Bishops in the Church Christus Dominus, 14; CIC can. 231 §1; CCEO can. 409 §1). It is essential that they be faithful co-workers with priests and deacons, prepared to exercise their ministry wherever it may prove necessary, and motivated by true apostolic enthusiasm. 

 In most parishes in Britain, catechists are likely to be involved in particular programmes - preparing children for First Communion or Confirmation, or preparing adults to be received into the Church at Easter - so they may not experience the full range of the catechetical role outlined in the first paragraph above. It is unlikely that they will be familiar with the Directory for Catechesis, to which Pope Francis referred, and they may not have a good knowledge of the Catechism of the Catholic Church. The focus of catechetical activity only on these specific moments also has, in my view, a weakness of its own making. If the parish is a locus in which to experience the universal call to holiness, it is also a locus in which there is a need to experience a specificity in how that universal call is lived out by the individual Catholic. In other words, it needs to be a locus to experience a specific charism, and it is this need that is missed out by a catechetical strategy that focuses only on three specific moments. A formation within a specific charism is also needed, which is why I sometimes think that the formational structures of a new movement such as the age based groups of the Focolare can form a model for parish catechesis, into which the specific moments of First Communion and Confirmation can fit. 

The situation of catechists in less developed nations can be very different. At the Third International Congress on Catechesis, held at the Vatican in September 2022, the Bishop of Lolo in the Democratic Republic of Congo presented the work of the Mobokoli Catechetical Formation Centre. In a one year programme, the centre trains married couples to then return to their parishes as catechists. A combination of religious and practical training enables couples to proclaim the Gospel and promote an integral human development:

The spouses are formed in basic theology, spirituality, sacred scripture, catechetics, and pedagogy.  They are also schooled in matters of agriculture, animal husbandry in both theoretically and practically, cultivating model rice and manioc corn fields, practicing various methods of raising poultry, sheep and goats, etc.   Spouses are formed in basic language skills (reading/writing), sewing, life education, catechesis of children, young girls and women.

Catechists might make their own the words of the Jubilee Prayer:

May the grace of the Jubilee reawaken in us, Pilgrims of Hope, a yearning for the treasures of heaven. May that same grace spread the joy and peace of our Redeemer throughout the earth. 

"Who are catechists?"

Who are catechists? They are people who keep the memory of God alive; they keep it alive in themselves and they are able to revive it in others.

Once again, reading Pope Francis I feel I could be reading Pope Benedict XVI: Pope Francis' homily at the Mass for Catechists.

What is the Catechism itself, if not the memory of God, the memory of his works in history and his drawing near to us in Christ present in his word, in the sacraments, in his Church, in his love? Dear catechists, I ask you: Are we in fact the memory of God? Are we really like sentinels who awaken in others the memory of God which warms the heart?

UPDATE: And in the text of Pope Francis meeting with catechists, in Rome for the Year of Faith pilgrimage, two days earlier:

The heart of a catechist always beats with this systolic and diastolic movement: union with Christ – encounter with others. Both of these: I am one with Jesus and I go forth to encounter others. If one of these movements is missing, the heart no longer beats, it can no longer live. The heart of the catechist receives the gift of the kerygma, and in turn offers it to others as a gift.

Is that all there is ..?

The best version I can find during a quick Youtube search is this one by Bette Midler: Is that all there is? Listen to if first before reading on ....

What we do in this Sacrament of Anointing is not to explain or domesticate or sacralise suffering but something different and something much more creative and worthwhile. We, in our fragility, as Church, stand with you in your fragility.

"We in our fragility stand with you in your fragility". Is that really all there is to the Sacrament of the Anointing of the Sick? I strongly suspect that, after finishing, the good Father and his confreres proceeded to anoint everyone present, regardless of whether or not they came within the purview of those considered by Canon Law (and also the Catechism of the Catholic Church) to be those on whom the Sacrament is to be conferred (cc.1004 ff). Correct me via the comments if I am wrong in this, but it would certainly be consistent with the sentiment expressed in the quotation above.

That the good Father was preaching to a diocesan pilgrimage in Lourdes just makes it all the more incomprehensible: Living With Our Limitations. It is certainly a nicely crafted piece of rhetoric but, despite its very convincing nature, it leaves an unease, not least because if fails to offer any recognisable catechesis on the nature of the Sacrament of the Anointing of the Sick. It is, frankly, drivel from that point of view.

Despite its insistent citation of St Paul, you aren't quite convinced that you are really hearing St Paul's understanding of the meaning of suffering - you know, the passage where he talks about making up in his own body on behalf of the Church what is lacking in the suffering of Christ. And I don't think it would take any of us long to find a passage where St Paul challenges us to overcome the weakness and fragility of sin. In talking about being "by the grace of God what I am", St Paul is actually referring to his standing as an apostle of Christ, granted he says of himself that he is the "least of the apostles" .... and I can't make out how that matches up to what Father seems to be wanting St Paul to say in the context of his homily. The Biblical appearance of Father's words doesn't seem to be matched by the Biblical reality.

There is no doubt for all in the Church an experience of a "catechetical moment" and a "pastoral moment" with regard to life changing events. There is a "catechetical moment" with regard to suffering and pain which best comes before one is called to live out that teaching in experience. Once that becomes the experience of life and of the Christian mystery, then it has become the "pastoral moment". In that sense, and only in that sense, is Father right to suggest that it is not for the cleric in their fitness and health to preach the meaning of suffering to the one who suffers but for the sick person to live out for themselves in life what they already know in idea. It is, however, of the "pastoral moment" that the cleric should encourage the sick person to consciously live the meaning of their suffering, and that inevitably recalls, or for those lacking in Christian formation creates for a first time, the "catechetical moment". Lourdes seems to me to offer a unique context in which the "catechetical moment" and "pastoral moment" can be lived together, precisely because the teaching to the individual sick person is mediated through the group of sick persons. Father seems to me to have gravely abdicated his catechetical responsibility at a potentially valuable time. The Church's teaching on the meaning of suffering is not "cheap explanation" and surely the Christian mystery has lifted once and for all the inexplicability of suffering and pain.

And what to make of Father's rather patronising account of "fairy godmothers"? Is he decrying the possibilities of grace and, yes, of miracle and indeed doing so within minutes walking time from an office that has studied carefully over 60 instances of miracle? It would certainly be quite wrong to raise expectations unrealistically, but that is quite possible without being so cynical in one's imagery.

Why do I expostulate at such length and with such vitriol on the subject of the Sacrament of the Anointing of the Sick? Because, if that really were all there is .... why would I want to bother with it?

I am desperately hoping that, when I reach the point in life where I am in need of the Sacrament,  the almost total indifference to the real meaning of the Sacrament expressed in the "much more creative and worthwile ..... We in our fragility stand with you in your fragility" (and the widespread practice of conferring the Sacrament on all present) will not leave me with a subjective experience of little or no value. Yes, I know that what counts is the objective content of the Sacrament, but it is easier if one has some confidence in the subjective understanding and practice of the Sacrament, too. I have an awful feeling that in the alarm of the circumstance of serious illness I will need that subjective experience rather more than perhaps I should.

[If you want to find what the Sacrament is really about, try the Catechism of the Catholic Church nn.1499ff, summarised at nn.1526-1532.]

Far be it from me ....

... to differ from the Holy Father and the Synod of Bishops, but a thought has occurred to me since posting on the homily at the Mass celebrated to close the Synod. and on the Propositions of the Synod.

In his homily, Pope Benedict referred to the need for appropriate catechesis to accompany preparation for the sacraments of initiation - Baptism, Confirmation and the Holy Eucharist.

It has been reaffirmed that appropriate catechesis must accompany preparation for Baptism, Confirmation and Eucharist.

And among the propositions that the Synod presented to the Pope, Proposition 38 refers to the need for a suitable mystagogical approach to the sacraments of initiation:

Therefore we propose that the traditional process of Christian initiation, that has often become simply a proximate preparation for the sacraments, be everywhere considered in a catechumenal prospective, giving more relevance to permanent mystagogy, and thus becoming true initiation to Christian life through the sacraments. (cf. General Directory of Catechesis, 91)

According to the General Directory for Catechesis, the terms "catechesis" and " mystagogy" have a very well defined meaning, and are distinct from an idea of "primary proclamation". Paragraph 61, for example, says:

61. Primary proclamation is addressed to non-believers and those living in religious indifference. Its functions are to proclaim the Gospel and to call to conversion. Catechesis, "distinct from the primary proclamation of the Gospel", promotes and matures initial conversion, educates the convert in the faith and incorporates him into the Christian community. The relationship between these two forms of the ministry of the word is, therefore, a relationship of complementary distinction. Primary proclamation, which every Christian is called to perform, is part of that "Go" which Jesus imposes on his disciples: it implies, therefore, a going-out, a haste, a message. Catechesis, however, starts with the condition indicated by Jesus himself: "whosoever believes", whosoever converts, whosoever decides. Both activities are essential and mutually complementary: go and welcome, proclaim and educate, call and incorporate.

A distinction is also drawn between "initiatory catechesis" and a catechesis at the service of an ongoing faith formation (cf nn.67-70).

There strikes me as being a particular situation for a new evangelisation with regard to the relationship of "primary proclamation" and "initiatory catechesis". Precisely where the situation of a first evangelisation might expect a "primary proclamation" to have prepared the way for the more systematic nature of "catechesis" in the strict sense, the "primary proclamation" to Christians in those regions in need of a new evangelisation has not done so.

It seems to me part of the particularity of the situation of the new evangelisation that preparation for the sacraments of initiation should therefore be associated with a renewal of "primary proclamation", of initial conversion to Christ, and not just with a renewal of catechesis strictly so-called.

Year of Faith (5): the idea of a "journey of faith"

To describe catechetical programmes, and particularly those associated with the Rite of Christian Inititaion of Adults, as a "journey of faith" has become a common place in some parishes. Different people are seen as being "at different stages or places in their journey of faith". This idea has come to be associated with a reduction in the emphasis placed on doctrinal teaching as part of the catechetical process. Instead of being a person who "hands on" or "hands over" the content of the faith, the catechist is seen as someone who "accompanies others on their journey of faith". From the point of view of doctrine, an unfortunate aspect of this idea is that not accepting certain teachings of the Church can be seen as just being at a "different point in the journey of faith" rather than as being a call to conversion to deeper faith.

There is, of course, an authentic sense to the idea of a "journey of faith", when the word "faith" is taken to refer to the act of the individual who believes and not to the content of what is believed. Then, the journey of faith is one of deepening one's knowledge and love for the Person who is the content of what is believed. The journey is one in the act of believing, not, in the first instance, a journey in or of doctrine itself (though the journey is nourished by doctrinal teaching).

It is in this latter sense that Pope Benedict XVI refers to rediscovering the journey of faith in Porta Fidei nn.1-2(the emphasis added in bold is mine):

The “door of faith” (Acts 14:27) is always open for us, ushering us into the life of communion with God and offering entry into his Church. It is possible to cross that threshold when the word of God is proclaimed and the heart allows itself to be shaped by transforming grace. To enter through that door is to set out on a journey that lasts a lifetime. It begins with baptism (cf. Rom 6:4), through which we can address God as Father, and it ends with the passage through death to eternal life, fruit of the resurrection of the Lord Jesus, whose will it was, by the gift of the Holy Spirit, to draw those who believe in him into his own glory (cf. Jn 17:22). ....  

Ever since the start of my ministry as Successor of Peter, I have spoken of the need to rediscover the journey of faith so as to shed ever clearer light on the joy and renewed enthusiasm of the encounter with Christ. During the homily at the Mass marking the inauguration of my pontificate I said: “The Church as a whole and all her Pastors, like Christ, must set out to lead people out of the desert, towards the place of life, towards friendship with the Son of God, towards the One who gives us life, and life in abundance.”

Liturgy and the Analogy of Scripture

I would be surprised if it is only "recent work" that has brought the Biblical echoes of our Latin liturgical texts to light (my reading of Louis Bouyer alone suggests otherwise), though it might well only be recently that it has become a common awareness among those active in liturgical debate; and it is not so much a "new version" of the Missal as a new English translation that is due for publication and implementation. But with those caveats, this letter in The Tablet this week coincides very well with the quotation from n.52 of Verbum Domini (pdf has numbering, on-line version not), Pope Benedict's apostolic exhortation on Scripture, that follows it:

In the 1960's and early 1970's , when the current translation of the Roman Missal was being produced, it was widely believed among scholars that the language of the Bible had hardly influenced the prayer of the Roman Rite.... Recent work has shown that our Latin liturgical texts are permeated through and through by Biblical echoes, many of which are too subtle to have caught the attention of translators in a hurry. A principal aim of liturgical translation now must be to catch these echoes and pass them on to the People of God. That in itself is enough reason to make a new version of the Missal desirable.

Every liturgical action is by its very nature steeped in sacred Scripture. In the words of the Constitution Sacrosanctum Concilium, “ sacred Scripture is of the greatest importance in the celebration of the liturgy. From it are taken the readings, which are explained in the homily and the psalms that are sung. From Scripture the petitions, prayers and liturgical hymns receive their inspiration and substance. From Scripture the liturgical  actions and signs draw their meaning ”.

The passage from Verbum Domini that first caught my attention, though, was that n.7, entitled "The analogy of the word of God". This passage describes the different ways in which we speak of the "word of God":

The Synod Fathers pointed out that human language operates analogically in speaking of the word of God.

I think we can extend this idea of analogy to the realm of catechesis, and in particular, catechesis in preparation for receiving the Sacrament of the Eucharist for the first time. Such catechesis should have as its purpose and vehicle an education about and for the celebration of the Eucharistic liturgy. But if our catechetical methodology is going to be based on an idea of analogy - that is, of using the language and experience that young people already have as the starting point to introduce a language and experience of the Liturgical celebration - it is important that the analogy used is the correct analogy.

I am not convinced that the analogy used in much of our First Holy Communion catechesis is actually the right one. Does the analogy of "belonging to my family" really communicate the full idea of Baptism, whose relevance to a First Communion programme is its being the first step of Christian initiation that reaches its fulfilment in Eucharistic Communion? Does "saying thank you to others" really express the idea of the Eucharist as "thanksgiving" in its fullest sense of praise and blessing offered to God? And, perhaps most fundamentally, does the idea of Communion as a "special meal", even if qualified by that term "sacred", really capture the idea of Communion as the "heavenly banquet"?

I would suggest, in the light of the two citations above, that our First Communion catechesis needs to replace the "analogy of every day life" with what might be termed an "analogy of Sacred Scripture". This is not quite the same idea as the "analogy of the word of God" as treated in n.7 of Verbum Domini, but it is suggested or indicated by it and is related to it. This analogy would give young people an account of the Liturgy in terms of the relevant passages of Sacred Scripture from which its texts are drawn, and so communicate a true idea of the Liturgy. It would be the correct analogy to use, rather than a misleading one.

Ages

An informal suggestion has been made, on the grounds I think that children are gaining intellectual maturity at a younger age than in the past, that they should be able to receive Holy Communion for the first time before the currently typical age of seven years.

My own diocese has a "new policy" with regard to the Sacrament of Confirmation. I haven't been able to check this on the diocesan website, and nothing seems to have been done to communicate it to the ordinary faithful. The recent change of practice in two nearby parishes has been to move the age at which the Sacrament is conferred from 14+ to 16+ (ie second year in the 6th Form). I assume therefore that the new policy involves raising the age of Confirmation in this way. There is also a greater emphasis on the young people who wish to be confirmed expressing their own interest in receiving the Sacrament, rather than being encouraged to receive it by parents or receiving it just as a matter of course.

Is it in accordance with the nature of the Sacrament to lower the usual age for receiving Holy Communion for the first time?  The expected conditions are that the person receiving the Sacrament has reached the "age of reason" (ie that they are able to understand Who it is they receive in Holy Communion), that they have been suitably prepared and that they are not impeded from receiving the Sacrament due to grave sin (first reception of the Sacrament of Penance before first Holy Communion contributes to this last). As a Sacrament of Initiation, anyone who is suitably disposed (ie who shows a basic level of good will and understanding) should be able to receive the Sacrament; a sense of life commitment, though hoped for, is not a necessary condition for the Sacrament. It might well be the case that a lower age meets these conditions.

But would it make sense to raise the age of Confirmation at the same time? Again, as a Sacrament of Initiation, Confirmation should not have a sense of life commitment set as a condition for conferring the Sacrament. It might be hoped for, but should not be defined as a necessity; a basic level of good will and understanding should, in my view, suffice. Much of the justification of a raised age for the Sacrament of Confirmation is that young people often lapse after receiving the Sacrament, that asking of them a greater commitment and offering the Sacrament at a later time, will mean that those receiving the Sacrament are less likely to lapse since they will have a greater commitment to what they are doing.

I have three comments on this idea of raising the age of Confirmation. The first is that, to be consistent, the same logic could apply to first reception of Holy Communion, and perhaps should do so with a much greater seriousness given the nature of the Sacrament as the Body and Blood of the Lord. The second comment is that, in the theological understanding of the order of the Sacraments of Initiation, the reception of Holy Communion is the completion of the three Sacraments; and so Confirmation should come before first Holy Communion (cf the practice of Salford Diocese, introduced a good number of years ago now). Thirdly, the range of vocational commitments in the life of the Church (religious life, marriage, priesthood, consecrations and promises in lay movements) are all presented as the living out in a particular way of the consecration received in Baptism and Confirmation. In other words, while some seriousness in trying to live the Christian life may be appropriate as part of the goodwill towards the Sacrament, "commitment" per se is not an expectation ahead of receiving the Sacrament of Confirmation.

So, if the age for receiving first Holy Communion is going to be lowered, and one can see the case for that,  I would be in favour of lowering the age for Confirmation as well. The problem of young people leaving the practice of their faith is not one caused by the age of Confirmation; it is caused by weak catechesis and spiritual formation. If you want to keep young people practising, it is those weaknesses that need to be addressed. Tinkering with the age of Confirmation is not going to solve the problem of lapsation.

Communion under both kinds and EMHC (3): the ordinary parishioner

By way of an introduction. Libera me, citing Leutgeb, just wonders:

.... Catholicism does not rest with these people (the Tina Beatties of the world), but with the old ladies who go to Mass every day and for all I know probably have done all their lives, and I entirely agree with her : it’s not the thinkers, ultimately, who make the Church (although they may unmake it); but the honest, simple, faithful people of God.

An interesting aspect of Cardinal Newman's famous university sermon on the development of Christian doctrine is how it presents the relationship between the idea that is Christian revelation and the articulation of that revelation in specific propositions of Christian doctrine.

10. Theological dogmas are propositions expressive of the judgments which the mind forms, or the impressions which it receives, of Revealed Truth. Revelation sets before it certain supernatural facts and actions, beings and principles; these make a certain impression or image upon it; and this impression spontaneously, or even necessarily, becomes the subject of reflection on the part of the mind itself, which proceeds to investigate it, and to draw it forth in successive and distinct sentences. ....

11. Now, here I observe, first of all, that, naturally as the inward idea of divine truth, such as has been described, passes into explicit form by the activity of our reflective powers, still such an actual delineation is not essential to its genuineness and perfection. A peasant may have such a true impression, yet be unable to give any intelligible account of it, as will easily be understood.

In thinking about questions like those of the two previous posts in this series (here and here), I expect that most ordinary parishioners do not actually think about them at all, and certainly not in the detail considered in my earlier posts. Following Newman and Libera me, this does not mean that those ordinary parishioners do not have a true impression of the realities of revelation concerned. Indeed, it is often possible to seriously underestimate how strong, perceptive and faithful is the adhesion of the ordinary parishioner to their Catholic faith. One can also point out that many parish priests are "ordinary" parish priests in the same sense. I am not arguing that the ordinary parishioner should become an academic theologian.
 
Not thinking about things can be a strength; but it also masks a weakness. It leads to a practice of just "going along" with things. The ordinary parish priest is "going along" with what he thinks is the thing to do - taking a lead, perhaps, from those of his colleagues who are a bit more vociferous, from "the experts" or from the Catholic media; and the lay faithful then find themselves "going along" with the same things, on the basis of "what Father says". It is a kind of clericalism.
 
So most lay people probably go along with Communion under both kinds with little or no appreciation of its meaning.
 
And most lay people probably go along with lay ministers of Holy Communion thinking that it is all about lay involvement in the life of the Church.
 
In this context, I think it is vital to get the "sign value" of things right. The ordinary parishioner, who quite rightly thinks about things a little less than the likes of me, lives their faith through the visible signs in which it is expressed and so it is important that those signs are true, so that, in turn, what they live is also true.

At a first level, this means obedience to the legislative provisions made for the Liturgy, provisions which, by and large, seek to ensure that the "sign value" of different things is accurately presented to the faithful. At a second level, it means catechesis about the meanings of the different signs involved because the better the lay faithful know these signs the more truly they will be able to live them. The obedience to the rubrics needs to be an intelligent obedience, an informed obedience.

Of course this all begins with the clergy, who might themselves need to think a bit more about what they are doing ....

Pastoral Letter on the Four Last Things

Just to cheer you up for the beginning of Lent, here is the pastoral letter of Bishop Thomas McMahon of Brentwood Diocese, read in parishes on the First Sunday of Lent. It has some considerable catechetical meat for you to chew over!

Preparing for First Holy Communion

I recently came across - and not by any means for the first time - an approach to first communion catechesis focussed on the Eucharist as a "special meal". Now, I can see how the idea of analogy (both in its theological/philosophical sense and in its pedagogical sense) can justify the approach described below, in which we move from our every day understanding of meals towards an understanding of the Eucharist as "heavenly banquet". Except that you will notice in the presentation below - quoted verbatim - the analogy isn't actually followed through to anywhere near that level. To follow it through would also need an implementation of that aspect of the philosophical/theological idea of analogy that expresses the difference from the analogue to the reality. It could be done, if one wanted, but I think experience of the practice of this style of catechesis is that it isn't.

MEALS ~ EUCHARIST
This second topic Meals is the centre and heart of the R.E. programme, Here I Am. Your child(ren) will begin to recognise how meals are a special way of sharing life together. That will help them understand how the Mass is Jesus’ special meal which is shared by the parish family. In the Eucharist, (a word that means thanksgiving and is another way of speaking about the Mass), Jesus shared his life and love with us. He is the bread of our life.


Help at home

When you are at Mass ask your child(ren) if they notice the signs that they are at a very special meal, e.g. table, candles, etc. Help them to pay special attention to the Consecration at Mass and encourage them to say a special thank you prayer for the gift of Jesus whom they receive at Mass, e.g. Jesus I love you and thank you very much for giving me yourself in Holy Communion

In this context, I was very interested in this post at In hoc signo vinces. I have for some time thought that there is another reason for the inadequacy of this "special meal" approach to catechesis on the Eucharist. When one reads books like Louis Bouyer's Eucharist or the same authors Life and Liturgy, which study the historical origins of the Church's liturgy in the different rites of the Church, it becomes apparent that the structure of the Eucharistic Liturgy - the prayers, use of Scripture, etc - can be traced back to the liturgy of the Jewish synagogue and temple, and to the texts of both Old and New Testaments. Even the notion of the "assembly" as the gathering of the people to worship God, and just possibly open to analogy of the "special meal", has its comparators in several Old Testament accounts of the calling together of the Jewish people to hear the word of God spoken to them and then to respond in offering sacrifice. These accounts, as presented in Life and Liturgy, really do not bear the interpretation that would be given to them in the "special meal" approach.  

The implication of all this for catechesis is that the analogical approach that is going to be taken needs to be true to the Scriptural/Judaic origins of the form of the Eucharistic Liturgy. The "special meal" is, in this context, a totally incorrect analogy to use; it is not an analogy that is actually true to the original, to the sources of the Eucharistic liturgy; it is not an analogy that actually works.

This is why the following part of the post at In hoc signo vinces particularly caught my attention:

Sir Mark (as he now is) goes through the bible taking themes relevant to the Mass (sacrfice, covenant, salvation, expiation, incarnation) and expounding on them in an intelligent way. After each of our sessions, it's quite clear the lad gets it and can ask and answer questions about it with ease.

 
This approach seems to me to offer a much more appropriate catecehetical approach, an approach that is more genuinely analogical.
 
[Amette Ley also has an interesting approach to seeing the Eucharist as meal - it is food for the life of grace in our souls - as part of an "On the Spot" article in the July-September 2009 issue of The Sower.]

Redefining the Family

I wasn't there, but I was told about a priest who today tried to be so inclusive in his definition of what constitutes a family that even single people, living on their own without any children, counted as families. While single people can form part of the network of an "extended family", to consider them in themselves, as a family unit is a nonsense. It is first of all a complete contradiction of the ordinary meaning of the word "family"; and, in the second place, a single person who has given any thought to their vocation in the Church, will not see themselves in any way as having the same vocation/office in the Church as someone who is married. I, for one, have no difficulty as being "left out" from family definitions; I consider myself to have a completely different mission in the Church and in the world, and almost resent the idea that that mission will in some way be "forced" into being that of a family.

The first problem with the approach of this priest (and I suspect that it is not unique to him) is that it confuses totally what I would term the "catechetical moment" and the "pastoral moment" with regard to family life in a parish. Today's Feast of the Holy Family clearly provides an opportunity for a "catechetical moment" - an opportunity for a systematic presentation of Catholic teaching about marriage and the family life that follows on from marriage (but see below). This moment calls for clear and unambivalent teaching, presented gently but nevertheless clearly. Family should be defined in relation to marriage, and the openness to life that is part of the married vocation. Within a wider and more every day usage of the word "family" it is possible to acknowledge the situation of those who have children without being married, or who have children from earlier, broken relationships. But, within the "catechetical moment", the relative imperfection of these situations compared to a married family life can be spoken about without any attitude of condemnation. The "pastoral moment" belongs at another time, in responding to the needs of individual parishioners and their situations.

The second problem is one of public debate and policy making. The approach of including every type of household within the definition of "family" undermines any possibility of a consistent response from the Church to those who would re-define the family to include same-sex and co-habiting couples, without any reference to marriage as a constituting element of the family.

Somewhat as an afterthought, and observations to the contrary welcome in the comments box: but is the Feast of the Holy Family a feast that really provides opportunity for a full catechesis on marriage and family life? Seeing the Holy Family as a kind of "model" of what families today can be like has some merit; but, from a theological point of view, it does not seem catechetically strong to me, not perhaps reaching beyond the pious (not that that is in itself bad). In the homily I heard at Mass today, it was suggested that this "first" Holy Family should be seen in the context of a "second" Holy Family - that of Jesus on the Cross, Mary and St John at the foot of the Cross.  The richly ecclesial interpretation of the mutual entrusting of Mary and John by Jesus at this moment gives access to an understanding of the Holy Family in the framework of the ecclesial understanding normally associated with the understanding of the sacramental nature of marriage.

[For an account of the pastoral possibilites of this feast, see Holy Family, the Octave of Christmas, at the Communio blog.]

Religious Education in Catholic Schools: catechesis or evangelisation?

We can ask a question about the purpose of Catholic schools; and then, as a kind of sub-set to that general question, we can ask a question about the purpose of religious education in Catholic schools. And, if we answer to this second question that the purpose of religious education is catechesis we do not necessarily mean by that the same thing as if we were to answer instead that it is evangelisation. Which can be quite bemusing!

Before going further, it should be pointed out that when the Church talks about evangelisation, it uses terms in a carefully defined way. At least that is the case in its most careful expressions of that teaching, Pope Paul VI's Evangelii Nuntiandi and the General Directory for Catechesis, though in general discussion the word "evangelisation" is frequently used without differentiating it into its different elements. In the teaching of the Church, the word "evangelisation" is used to refer to the whole complex of activity of spreading the Gospel and enabling people to grow in their knowledge and love of God. "Presence in charity" refers to the witness of Christian living in the world, perhaps through charitable activity or professional engagement and presence. "Primary proclamation" refers to an explicit announcement of the Gospel aimed at leading its hearers to conversion of heart towards belief in Jesus Christ. "Catechesis" refers to the process of systematic teaching of the content and practice of the faith, particularly in preparation for the reception of the sacraments of initiation, but generally aimed at enabling the person who has undergone a first conversion to Christ to grow in their knowledge and communion with him. And finally there is ongoing formation in the life of the Church, which might be related to spiritual growth.

All the different elements inter-relate, and in a particular situation, they do not necessarily follow on one after the other as just described. In the Catholic Church, a need is sometimes identified for an increase in attention to "primary proclamation", focussing on the core of Christian faith - God's saving love for us shown in the Paschal Mystery of his death and resurrection. "Catechesis", at which we probably do better, is not able to achieve its fruit if it is not preceded by a living conversion towards Christ. The reality is that both need to be present in the activity of the Church, and they both grow off each other.

As far as religious education in schools is concerned - where does it fit among these different elements of evangelisation? According to Religious Education: Curriculum Directory for Catholic Schools, published by the Bishops' Conference of England and Wales and applicable to the Catholic schools in those countries:

"In the living and sharing of faith, evangelisation [ie "primary proclamation"], catechesis and religious education are always intertwined. While awareness of the distinctiveness of each makes our witness to the Gospel more effective, the relationship between them should never be lost ...

For those already engaged in the journey of faith religious education will be catechesis, and for some children and young people religious education will be evangelisation [ie "primary proclamation"], the first opportunity to hear the good news of the Gospel."

In May 2009, the Congregation for Catholic Education wrote a circular letter to presidents of Episcopal Conferences on religious education in schools. This letter has been forwarded to headteachers of Catholic schools in this country as the new academic year begins. The letter addresses a number of issues relating to religious education in the world today, but includes a paragraph about the nature of religious education in relation to evangelisation:

Religious education in schools fits into the evangelising mission of the Church. It is different from, and complementary to, parish catechesis and other activities such as family Christian education or initiatives of ongoing formation of the faithful. Apart from the different settings in which these are imparted, the aims that they pursue are also different: catechesis aims at fostering personal adherence to Christ and the development of Christian life in its different aspects (cf. Congregation for the Clergy, General Directory for Catechesis [DGC], 15 August 1997, nn. 80-87), whereas religious education in schools gives the pupils knowledge about Christianity’s identity and Christian life. Moreover, Pope Benedict XVI, speaking to religion teachers, pointed out the need “to enlarge the area of our rationality, to reopen it to the larger questions of the truth and the good, to link theology, philosophy and science between them in full respect for the methods proper to them and for their reciprocal autonomy, but also in the awareness of the intrinsic unity that holds them together. The religious dimension is in fact intrinsic to culture. It contributes to the overall formation of the person and makes it possible to transform knowledge into wisdom of life.” Catholic religious education contributes to that goal, in which “school and society are enriched with true laboratories of culture and humanity in which, by deciphering the significant contribution of Christianity, the person is equipped to discover goodness and to grow in responsibility, to seek comparisons and to refine his or her critical sense, to draw from the gifts of the past to understand the present better and to be able to plan wisely for the future” (Address to the Catholic religion teachers, 25 April 2009).

The specific nature of this education does not cause it to fall short of its proper nature as a school discipline. On the contrary, maintaining this status is a condition of its effectiveness: “It is necessary, therefore, that religious instruction in schools appear as a scholastic discipline with the same systematic demands and the same rigour as other disciplines. It must present the Christian message and the Christian event with the same seriousness and the same depth with which other disciplines present their knowledge. It should not be an accessory alongside of these disciplines, but rather it should engage in a necessary inter-disciplinary dialogue” (DGC 73). ...

- Religious education is different from, and complementary to, catechesis, as it is school education that does not require the assent of faith, but conveys knowledge on the identity of Christianity and Christian life. Moreover, it enriches the Church and humanity with areas for growth, of both culture and humanity.

According to this view, religious education is seen as an evangelising of the culture represented by the different academic disciplines of the school; its role is that of establishing a unifying synthesis in and of the different academic disciplines. In this view, religious education contributes something to and enters into dialogue with every other curriculum area. This is not to deny the place of "presence in charity", "primary proclamation" and "catechesis" in the life of a Catholic school seen as a whole - that might well be present through the liturgical life and practical charitable action of the school - but it does offer a different view of the part to be played by religious education itself.

I do find that these two different ways of understanding the role of religious education in a Catholic school prompt a challenging reflection on what exactly the RE department is about in a Catholic school. If the first view is to be held, it will not do for an RE department to deny that it has a role in "primary proclamation" and "catechesis" and leave that to families and parishes - it should instead take a careful look at whether or not its examination curricula at KS4 and KS5 deliver on that role (they almost certainly do not). If the second view is held, then the RE department needs to achieve a breadth of vision and inter-disciplinary knowledge to be able to contribute to evangelising a culture both in terms of curriculum content and in terms of the formation that that curriculum content communicates to its students. In either case, the outcome should be pupils who know the Catholic faith and are able to defend it in the contemporary world - and who practice it!

Promoting vocations and religious practice

I found this post at Young Fogeys interesting.

It has some echoes of an article in the April-June 2009 issue of The Sower. The article is by Amette Ley, and is entitled "God's Pedagogy and the call to obedience". It is one of Amette's "On the Spot" articles which seeks to suggest responses to difficult questions or situations which might arise in the work of the catechesis.

In this article, Amette draws on the idea of a "divine pedagogy", that is found in the General Directory for Catechesis, and examines the idea of response to God's revelation (obedience) in that context. Amette looks at the idea of our response to God in revelation: knowledge and freedom (Adam and Eve's fall), effort is needed (Noah has to undertake the task of building the Ark), renunciation (Abram must undergo a journey), courage (Moses confrontation with Pharaoh), abandonment of our own plans (David does not build a house for the Ark, instead accepting God's promise of a household/dynasty of his own) ... all leading up to Christ as the example par excellence of response to the mission received from the Father (obedience even unto death).

There are then similar stages that we go through - or need to go through - in our own development of a response to God's call to us: the transition from going to Mass without protest, to realising that we will have to make some effort to get there, to taking a full responsibility of our own for going to Mass. The same applies to other areas of Christian living.

What Amette points out, though, and this is where there is an echo to the article at Young Fogeys, is that this is something about which we need to talk to our children and young people. We need to be explicit about it, and not just assume that it will happen by accident. If they do not know and understand the process of growth in faith that is represented here - and is exemplified in the way in which God has dealt with his people down the ages - they are not going to live it. They will simply rebel through lack of knowledge.

Or, in teacher-speak, it is about assessment for learning: the student needs to know where they are at now, and then what they have to do to improve and progress to the next stage in their learning.

And the connection to vocations awareness is pretty clear.

UK National Marriage Week (6)

UK National Marriage Week is now over, but I would like to add at least one more instalment to my earlier posts: UK National Marriage Week, 2, 3, 4, and 5. This, again, looks at one of the talks from the Sixth World Meeting of Families that took place in Mexico City in January 2009.

Michael Waldstein gave an overview of the situation of the family as educator in human and Christian values, from the point of view of the United States and Canada. One of the interesting things about this short talk is what it suggests about the relationship between parents and schools in the education of their children. Most parents have a strong reliance on schools for the education of their children; this can be expressed in a language of "delegation" of responsibility for education from the parents to the school. But if, as Michael Waldstein suggests, quoting Pope John Paul II's Familiaris Consortio:

The right and duty of parents to give education is
[1-] essential since it is connected with the transmission of human life;
[2-] it is original and primary with regard to the educational role of others, on account of the uniqueness of the loving relationship between parents and children;
[3-] and it is irreplaceable and inalienable, and therefore incapable of being entirely delegated to others or usurped by others" (John Paul II, Familiaris consortio, 36).

then that "delegation" can never be absolute or complete. Indeed, it should not be a "delegation" at all, but a collaboration with the staff of the school.

In the context of the United Kingdom, the relationship between the school and family is probably nearest to this collaboration during the primary years; in the secondary years, due to the increased specialism of the subjects taught and the size of many schools, the sense of collaboration is rather less. What can parents do to make sure they do not give up what is their inalienable role in educating their children?

1. Find out, and understand as far as you can, what your children are studying in each of their subjects. This then becomes shared territory with your children.
2. Find out, and understand as far as you can, what your children are studying in Religious Education and in any programmes of personal and social education. Find out what texts they are studying in English, what plays or activities they are undertaking in drama, what work they are studying and producing in Art, what works they are studying and producing in music. These subjects, more than any others, will be forming the culture and values of the children.
3. Find out, properly, what is being taught in Sex and Relationships Education.

Another interesting point made in Michael Waldstein's talk is that, during holiday times, it is not unusual for parents and children to quite genuinely not know what to do together. This arises partly as a result of parents being at a distance from what their children are doing at school during term time; and partly as a result of the pressure of situations where both parents are working, and so have little time to spend with their children in the evenings and at weekends. To avoid this "generation gap", parents need to be able to spend more time with their children.

Something I only realised after my parents had died was that, at no time during my life, was there a time when I was uncomfortable being with them or uncomfortable about them being with me. Looking back, I feel that this began when I was very young and used to be taken out on Sunday morning walks (quite long, as I realised after a nostalgia trip to places we used to live) by Dad; it continued when Dad used to come and watch me playing home rugby fixtures at school; and when I regularly visited both my parents in their last years. And, because it started when I was young, when it came to teenage years, it simply never occurred to me that things were done any other way. Not going to Mass on Sunday never arose as a possibility! [Don't worry, I had then, and still have, a strongly independent streak - from my Mother's side of the family.]

In the last paragraph of his talk, Michael Waldstein refers to home schooling:

In describing the situation of the United States and Canada, however, I must also point to a more radical way in which parents are becoming involved in the education of their children, namely, homeschooling. According to recent credible estimates, there are about two million families in the United States that educate their children at home. My wife and I have eight children. We have been and are educating them from first grade all the way up to the end of high school. Four of them have already entered universities. The main reason why we began home schooling was the report we heard from close friends about the effect of home schooling on their family. The children, they said, became more friends with each other, because they shared the same experience of schooling in the home. The parents also became more friends with their children, because they shared more of their life. Like many other homeschoolers, we have seen that the global youth culture is not an irresistible force. It is possible to pass on our own Christian culture. The generation gap is not inevitable.

Families that are not able to home school can learn something from the home schooling experience. It is necessary - and possible - to build for your family its own culture. This culture does not have to be the same as the prevailing, highly secularised culture of the world around us; it can be different.

Now all of this is about how something mentioned in a more theoretical way in one of my earlier posts is put into practice in daily family life. It is all about trying to share a genuinely common life, firstly between husband and wife, and then with the children of a family.

UK National Marriage Week (5)

As National Marriage Week comes to an end, I thought to mention the Sixth World Meeting of Families that took place in Mexico in January. In my previous posts I have presented four key features of marriage: it takes place between a man and a woman, it is permanent, it is open to life and it is at the service of the communion of the couple who are married. The nature of marriage as a covenant between a man and a woman that is an image of the relationship between God and creation (when marriage is seen as a "natural institution") and between Christ and the Church (when marriage is seen as a Sacrament) - this nature of marriage as a covenant runs through all four aspects.

A very interesting address was given to the World Meeting by Fr Raniero Cantalamessa. His address had the title "Family Relationships and Values according to the Bible". The full text can be found at the ZENIT website, and I do recommend a reading of the full text for the variety of its insights. I offer some passages and comments here.

My first passages, taken from two different parts of Fr Cantalamessa's talk and therefore connected in a way perhaps not originally intended, offer an interesting insight into the life of a single person as much as a married person. I have added emphasis to try and indicate how I think these passages refer to the life of single people - the "first step" and "includes right from the beginning" - suggest that there is something here that is appropriate to all people, whether married or not, that single life has its sense of being nuptial through the distinctiveness of relationship to the opposite sex (the experience of boyfriend/girlfriend).

Opening oneself to the opposite sex is the first step toward opening oneself to others, our neighbors, and to the Other with a capital O, which is God. Marriage is born under the sign of humility; it is the recognition of dependence and therefore of one's condition of being a creature. Falling in love with a woman or a man is the completion of the most radical act of humility. It is becoming a beggar and telling the other person, "I'm not enough for myself, I need your being." If, as Schleiermacher said, the essence of religion is the "sense of dependence" ("Abhaengigheitsgefuehl") on God, then human sexuality is the first school of religion....

John Paul II, in a Wednesday catechesis said:"The human body, with its sex, and its masculinity and femininity seen in the very mystery of creation, is not only a source of fruitfulness and procreation, as in the whole natural order. It includes right from the beginning the nuptial attribute, that is, the capacity of expressing love, that love in which the person becomes a gift and -- by means of this gift -- fulfills the meaning of his being and existence."

I found this next passage interesting because of the way in which it indicates that marriage seen as an image of the relationship between God and his chosen people is strongly rooted in the Old Testament.

The prophets played an important role by shedding light on God's initial plan for marriage, especially Hosea, Isaiah and Jeremiah. They posited the union of man and woman as a symbol of the covenant between God and his people. As a result of this, they once again shed light on the values of mutual love, fidelity and indissolubility that characterize God's love for Israel. All the phases and sufferings of spousal love are described and used in this regard: the beauty of love in the early stage of courtship (cf. Jeremiah 2:2), the fullness of joy on the wedding day (cf. Isaiah 62:5), the drama of separation (cf. Hosea 2:4) and finally the rebirth, full of hope, of the old bond (cf. Hosea 2:16, Isaiah 54:8)....

We have to read the Song of Songs in the light of this prophetic tradition. This represents a rebirth of the vision of marriage as eros, as attraction of the man to the woman (in this case, also of the woman to the man); it presents the oldest account of creation.

On the other hand, certain modern exegesis is mistaken when it tries to interpret the Song of Songs exclusively in terms of human love between a man and a woman. The author of Songs writes from within the religious history of his people, where human love was assumed by the prophets to be a metaphor for the covenant between God and his people. Hosea turned his own marital situation into a metaphor for the relations between God and Israel. How could we imagine that the author of Songs would leave all of that behind? The mystical interpretation of Songs, beloved in the tradition of Israel and the Church, is not a later imposition, but rather it is in some way implicit in the text. Far from detracting from human love, it confers upon it new beauty and splendor.

In discussing the account in the Synoptic Gospels of Jesus answer to the question about divorce, Fr Cantalamessa comments:

...I want to emphasize the "implicit sacramental foundation of marriage" present in Jesus' response. The words "What God has joined" say that marriage is not a purely secular reality, fruit of human will; there is a sacred aspect to marriage that is rooted in divine will. The elevation of marriage to a "sacrament" therefore is not based solely on the weak argument of Jesus' presence at the wedding of Cana, nor in the text of Ephesians 5 alone. In a certain way it begins with the earthly Jesus and is part of his leading all things to the beginning. John Paul II is also right when he defines marriage as the "oldest sacrament."

This does, of course, have an interesting implication for the distinction that can be made between marriage as a "natural institution" and marriage as a "sacrament". It suggests that this distinction is, at best, of limited validity. The natural is ordered towards the sacramental, and the sacramental has grown from seeds present in the natural.

Fr Cantalamessa suggests that it is a mistake to concentrate efforts on behalf of marriage only on efforts to resist or overturn laws that are to the detriment of marriage. He suggests a greater commitment to witnessing, in concrete examples of married life, to the truth contained in Catholic teaching about marriage. Fr Cantalamessa presents this as the approach of dialogue with the world that can be seen in the teaching of the Second Vatican Council. Here is one example of how Fr Cantalamessa approaches this:

Applying this method of dialogue means trying to see if even behind the most radical attacks there is a positive request that we should welcome....

In his encyclical "Deus Caritas Est," Pope Benedict XVI has gone even farther, writing deep and new things with regards to eros in marriage and in the very relationship between God and man. "This close relationship between eros and marriage that the Bible presents has practically no parallel in literature outside itself."

The unusually positive reaction to this papal encyclical shows to what degree a peaceful presentation of the Christian truth is more productive than rebutting the error of others, even though we should find room for this as well, at the proper time and place. We are far from agreeing with the consequences that some today draw from this premise: for example, that any type of eros is enough to constitute a marriage, even that between persons of the same sex; but this rejection gains greater strength and credibility if it is connected to the recognition of the underlying goodness of the request and as well with a healthy self criticism....

Fr Cantalamessa does not lack robustness in his analysis of the ideological challenges to marriage:

Among the representatives of the so-called gender revolution, this idea has led to crazy proposals, such as that of abolishing the distinction between sexes and substituting it with the more elastic and subjective distinction of genders" (masculine, feminine, variable) or that of freeing women from the slavery of maternity, providing other means, invented by man, for the production of children. (It is not clear who would continue to have interest or desire at this point in having children.)

It is precisely through choosing to dialogue and engage in self criticism that we have the right to denounce these projects as "inhuman," in other words, contrary to not only God's will, but also to the good of humanity.

Christians' task of rediscovering and fully living the biblical ideal of marriage and family is no less important than defending it. In this way it can be proposed again to the world with facts, more so than with words.

UK National Marriage Week (4)

Parts one, two and three of this series have already been posted.

What is love?

The formulation of Humane Vitae insists that it is not permissible to break the connection between "the unitive meaning and the procreative meaning which are both contained in the conjugal act" (n.12). And in another classical formulation, the Compendium of the Catechism of the Catholic Church talks of marriage as of its very nature "ordered to the communion and good of the couple and to the generation and education of children" (n.338). In this way, the sexual act expresses a double meaning that is true for the whole of a married relationship, and not just for its bodily, sexual aspect.

The phrase "good of the couple" indicates that, through their shared married life, a husband and wife will come more and more to fulfil their natures as persons called to love and the specific vocation they have received to life with this particular spouse. They should "grow" as persons. This vocation is one to communion with God, and so one should expect religion to be a part of the common life of a couple, and growth in the practice of religion to be part of the "good of the couple" that is a purpose of marriage. In a marriage, this becomes a common endeavour between two people, rather than one that is undertaken by an individual person.

This growth is linked to the communion between the husband and wife. They are called to a life lived in common, a shared life. This should not be a life in which each spouse does just their "own thing" while happening to live in the same house as the other spouse; it should be a genuinely shared life. It involves a style of poverty in the sense that what was previously owned or undertaken "just for myself" can now only be undertaken for the community of the marriage, "for us". I might still earn the same salary and have the same job, but that salary and the work undertaken to earn it, are no longer just mine, they belong to the community of the marriage. Common life means doing things together - meals, chores, prayer.

I happen not to find the language of "mutual self-giving", usually used in the context of the unitive meaning of sexual intercourse, a language to which I can relate very well.[OK, being single might have something to do with that!] But, used with a wider reference to the whole communion of the marriage, it can express something of what each spouse needs to try for during each day. They give what would otherwise be their own to the common life of the marriage.

Where the openess to life that was the subject of the third post in this series is excluded, then the ability of the two spouses to undertake this mutual self-giving cannot help but be affected.

None of this is easy, and I expect that we can all think of marriages we know where the life of communion is not lived to this high expectation. There are spouses, though, who are trying their best, and hoping to get nearer to the communion of life that marriage is really about, even though they slip up. In the "catechetical moment" we owe it to them to talk about our high expectations, with all due charity, so that they can keep in sight what the aim is. We also owe it to young people who will in the future get married.

UPDATE (Thursday 12th February)
The February issue of New City dropped through the letter box this morning. One of the articles is entitled "The Root of Our Lives", and the introduction to it says: "Family life is beautiful, but as any married couple will tell you, it is not without its difficulties".

Once, when the children were growing up, the Schwingers drove to the seaside on holiday. They had found a reasonably priced cottage through some friends. Soon after they arrived, however, the family started arguing. The children wanted to buy all sorts of things which were not within their means. The parents suddenly remembered the words of the Gospel "Seek first the kingdom of Heaven ... and all these things will be given to you", which meant keeping the peace, being patient with one another, nor responding to unkind behaviour and above all including the children in sharing the responsibility.

"We put all our holiday money into a basket", Hans recalls, "and together we decided how we would spend it". The basket was accessible to everyone and everyone developed a sense of responsibility for the money. The children even shared in planning the meals, cooking and cleaning. "And harmony was maintained long after the holiday had ended".

I think the basket, containing all the money, and everyone's having a shared access to the basket, is a nice parable for marriage as a sharing of a common life.

UK National Marriage Week (3)

The first and second posts in this series are here and here. This series of posts is an attempt to recognise that National Marriage Week provides an opportunity for a "catechetical moment" with regard to the Catholic Church's teaching on marriage.

Marriage is open to the gift of life

According to Catholic teaching, sexual intercourse is only exercised morally between a man and a woman who are married. Outside of marriage, the virtue of chastity is equivalent to an expectation of celibacy or virginity. This allows for the married couple the possibility of having children, and then the responsibility of educating and caring for them.

This possibility is part of the purpose of marriage, and is a part of what is expressed in the vows that a man and woman make to each other in getting married. A circumstance where the openess to the possibility of life is deliberately and decisively excluded from the start is sufficient to make the marital covenant invalid.

In order to successfully live out this teaching, married people, and those preparing for marriage, need to recognise two things:

1. Sexual intercourse is not intended to be a form of recreation, a way of achieving enjoyment in the same way that playing sport or going out for a day is a form of recreation. It is something with a serious meaning and intent.

2. Within a married relationship, the aspect of sexual intercourse needs to be "integrated" and lived, not just as a separate end of its own, but as a part of a whole inter-personal relationship. The bodily aspect of intercourse itself needs to be lived as an expression of relationship that is essentially a relationship of persons, in which the body plays its part but is not the "whole". This allows for moments when the bodily aspect might defer to the more strictly "personal" in the relationship, as well as for moments where the bodily aspect might rightly play a full part.

These two points might be termed "living chastely within marriage", and they have a practical demand of exercising self-control which applies to both the husband and the wife.

The idea of openess to life is expressed in Catholic teaching that the use of artificial means of birth control is not morally permissible. Contraception is a denial of this idea of an openess to life that is expressed in sexual intercourse. However, if we recognise that an integrated married life has its moments where the "personal" takes a kind of precedence over (but does not deny) the "bodily", and its moments where the "bodily" takes a kind of precedence over (but does not deny) the "personal", then this teaching becomes quite reasonable.

To go back again to my talk to parents of children preparing for First Holy Communion, the following passage and testimony appear relevant to a reflection on openess to life.

...be explicit about putting Jesus at the centre at key moments of your family life. This comes first between the parents. When you encounter difficulties or important decisions it means sitting down and, together, placing Jesus at the centre of that situation and referring your choices to him. The following testimony is from the diary of the parents of a girl called Emmy Maria, who died from a severe kidney problem when just three months old.

“It was quite extraordinary what such a small child could feel and notice, and how we could tell what she felt…..The last few days our child was given to live among us were hard for the human heart to bear, yet extremely great and powerful, filled with promise because of the nearness of Christ.

“It was remarkable that each time we interceded for Emmy Maria and gathered ourselves inwardly, the powers of death withdrew and she revived. Whereas before she lay there apathetic and unresponsive, with half-open eyes, shallow breath, and a very weak pulse, she would suddenly open her eyes, look at us, cry, and drink, moving her hands and turning her head when she was gently touched: she would come back to consciousness. Sometimes such a transformation came within seconds.

“There was a special atmosphere of love in her room. It went out from her and filled the whole house, and united us in special love to each other….” [From the diary of Emmy Maria’s parents, quoted in Johann Christoph Arnold A Little Child Shall Lead Them p.53-54.]

This testimony reminds us that, as well as having a natural implication, openess to life also involves a supernatural dimension, an openess to the possibilities of grace.

PS. I think I had better take back my promise of shorter posts as the week progresses ....

UK National Marriage Week (2)

Continuing the series of posts (first post here) to represent a contribution to a "catechetical moment", I would like to make some remarks about the permanence of marriage.

Marriage is permanent, for life

The Catholic Church teaches that the covenant of marriage establishes a permanent and exclusive bond between the man and the woman. What does this mean?

In the first place, the consent that the couple give when they make their vows of marriage is what brings the bond into being. It establishes a covenant, a binding promise between husband and wife. The promise cannot be a real promise if the people involved do not make the promise of their own choice, in freedom and without being forced into it. It cannot be a promise if the two people do not understand what it is that they are promising to each other. This is why the Church expects couples to follow a course of preparation for marriage - so that they can understand what the promise is that they are entering into, and so that they can make that promise with full knowledge and in full freedom.

The covenant is permanent, and binds the couple together for life. This can be understood when we remember that the relationship of husband and wife in marriage is an image (in a strong sense) of the relationship between God and creation, and, more so, of the relationship between Jesus Christ and the Church. God never gives up on his love for the human race, and never gives up on his love for the Church. And, similarly, even though the Church is made up of people who sin, in the totality of her holiness represented by the figure of the Virgin Mary, she remains totally faithful to the Lord. The image of these relationships in marriage is also unbreakable.

This does not mean that the Catholic Church insists that a couple continue to stay together when such a life becomes impossible. That a couple might have to separate due to all too human difficulties that might arise is recognised by the Church. Also recognised is that, in such a separation, it might be necessary to use provisions of the civil law to assure the material well being of the parties, and, perhaps of the children. But the Church would still consider the couple to be married in an objective sense, and does not permit a Catholic partner to marry again.

In these circumstances, not re-marrying can be witness to the unity and permanence of the original marriage.

Forgiveness in marriage

"Staying" married is not always an easy task, and one of the areas that might need a couple to "work on it" is that of forgiveness. When I gave the talk I referred to in my first post in this series, I included a testimony about forgiveness between a married couple. In preparing that talk, a high proportion of the marriage testimonies that I read were ones involving forgiveness.

Veronique and Jean-Claude have been married for 20 years. At the moment when they decide to participate in a pilgrimage to Lourdes, their relationship is in trouble. Jean-Claude has already found a flat to buy for himself.

“I hadn’t been going to Church for 15 years, except for funerals and marriages. Before leaving for Lourdes, I had made it clear to Veronique, my wife, that she shouldn’t get her hopes up and that I would come home just as I had left. When I got to Lourdes, despite my state of mind, I was surprised by the joy that was in the air. That did not stop me from reacting angrily and violently to the teachings that I heard on the message of Lourdes. It offended me to hear: ‘ Penance, penance, penance.’ The last day, after a celebration, my wife wanted to go to pray one last time at the Grotto. I jumped at her: ‘Listen, I’ve had enough of prayers. We’re going home’. She replied: ‘Jean-Claude, for once, do this for me. Let’s go one last time to the Grotto before leaving.’

Whether I wanted to or not, I accepted. In front of the Grotto, I stayed toward the back. And then, I tried to pray. During the whole pilgrimage, I never really had succeeded. And then, all of a sudden a great light illuminated my heart. It did not take place on a visual or an intellectual level, but well and beautiful right in my heart. When we came back from the Grotto, I took Veronique’s hand saying that I felt something had changed inside me. My mistakes and my faults became apparent. It is from that moment that we began working on reconciliation, between us of course, but first with God. And since then, everything has changed in our life as a couple thanks to the Sacrament of Reconciliation.” [A radio interview, quoted in Lourdes Magazine February 1999, page50.]

What I find most moving in this testimony are the words of Veronique - "for once, do this for me" - and the reaction of Jean-Claude - "Whether I wanted to or not, I accepted". These two phrases seem to me to be the point around which this whole testimony turns.

UK National Marriage Week

Today sees the start of a National Marriage Week here in the UK. This is not a specifically Catholic, or indeed, a specifically religious event, as can be seen from this link. It is, however, supported by a number of Christian organisations. Catholic dioceses in England and Wales have taken the opportunity to arrange a number of events during the week, some of which are listed at the end of this news release on the Bishops Conference website.

Elsewhere, and in different contexts, I have commented on the distinction between a "catechetical moment" and a "pastoral moment" in the life and mission of the Church. National Marriage Week seems to offer a good opportunity for a "catechetical moment", where the teaching of the Church about marriage could be presented positively. I will try to offer some short posts on this during the week.

Marriage can only be between a man and a woman

This is something that the Church would argue from the point of view of marriage as a "natural institution" in human society. The Church believes that this is the case even for those who marry having no Christian faith, whose marriages reflect their communion simply as male and female human persons.

This might appear as if the Church is wanting to impose its teaching on marriage even on those who do not share it. However, the Church's view is that marriage as a permanent relationship between a man and a woman is something that is for the common good of the whole of society, so she argues that it should have a kind of "preferred" or supported place in the legislative and/or social structures of society. One of the duties of government with regard to the common good is that of acting for the common good of marriage.

From the point of view of Christian faith, marriage is seen as a Sacrament, a visible sign of inward grace and, I would argue, office in the Church. It is a sign of God's love for the world, which is nuptial or married in nature. It is a sign of the relationship between Jesus Christ (the Bridegroom) and the Church (the Bride). The husband represents Christ and the wife represents the Church, whose figure is the person of the Virgin Mary. That marriage is a covenant between a man and a woman, therefore, has a meaning not just for marriage seen at an ordinary human level. It has a meaning for our whole understanding of marriage and of the Church at a theological, doctrinal and spiritual level.

Testimonies

Some time ago now, I was asked to give a talk to the parents of children preparing to receive Holy Communion for the first time. This is part of what I said, trying to reflect on how a married couple might live out the sacramental aspect of their vocation, something that I suspect is not often addressed:

Adrienne von Speyr reflects on Jesus words from the cross - “Woman, behold your son…Son, behold your mother” - in this way. She sees John, the disciple who Jesus especially loved, as representing Jesus’ love given to the Church. She sees Mary as representing the Church who receives that love. The words of the Lord are therefore a nuptial blessing, establishing from the Cross the irrevocable relationship between Christ and the Church that is at the centre of St Paul’s teaching about marriage:

“If an ordinary bridal couple were to stand beneath the Cross and the Lord were to give them the nuptial blessing from the Cross, that particular couple would be exalted above all other couples in an almost unimaginable way. Once and for all in the whole history of the world they would be the couple who had enjoyed the grace of the Lord’s blessing. There is such a couple, but they are both virgins; they inhabit a place beyond individual sacramental marriage, where the Church (both bridal and virgin) is, at her core, the suffering Bride of Calvary. This couple is created by the Lord’s word from the Cross. In some way they thus become an original couple like Adam and Eve. In them, human relationships are refashioned by the dying Son.” [Adrienne von Speyr, The Cross: Word and Sacrament p.31, cf pp.29-35]

Igino Giordani, writing about his own family, says:

“If the family became aware of its sacrament and developed it….that is, if in addition to carrying out its functions in regard to birth, work, illness and care, entertainment and anxieties, it fulfilled also its sacramental role as the organ for transmitting divine life, in addition to physical life, and as copy of the household of Nazareth, so that the Father was Christ and the Mother the Church and the child was Christ-Church; if it were in the world as the representative of the Eternal, as the Church giving Christ to men and making of its fellowship a participation in the Trinitarian fellowship of God in heaven, realizing unity in trinity (father, mother, child = a single heart and a single soul), then its course on earth would be a repetition of Calvary, that is, it would bring forth redemption and resurrection” [Igino Giordani, quoted in Edwin Robertson The Fire of Love. A Life of Igino Giordani p.216]

PS: Don't worry - the posts will get shorter as the week progresses!

Do "traditional" Catholics pick and mix?

... but over different things than "liberal" Catholics? The thought is prompted by my reading of Pope Benedict XVI's Message for the World Day of Peace 2009. The full text of the message can be found at ZENIT and on the Vatican website.

In the second section of the message Pope Benedict addresses "Poverty and moral implications", and highlights five particular aspects of poverty that have moral dimensions. These are, in this order: the tying of aid programmes to population control measures, in a way that does not respect the rights of parents; responses to pandemic diseases that reflect anti-life policies and lack the teaching of a proper sexual ethic; child poverty, brought about by failing to support and protect mothers and families through health care and social programmes; the diversion of large sums of money into the arms trade; and the current food crisis which is leading to increasing food prices that affect more than anyone those who are already poor.

It is important to recognise that different people and movements in the Church have different parts to play in the functioning of the "one body". This means that some organisations and individuals will specialise in, say, what are usually identified as "pro-life" activities while others specialise in activities that might usually be identified as "social aid" or "advocacy on behalf of the poor". The fact that a person is active in one area and not in another is not of itself an indication that they are "picking and choosing" which areas of Catholic belief they will put in to practice. What should be common across the different areas of activity is an ecclesial dimension, that is, an attitude of faithfulness to the teaching of the Church that, while it might focus on a particular area for activity as a charism or vocation received, is nevertheless open to the whole. And, in line with this, every area of activity should retain a Christological and Trinitarian inspiration and, indeed, a Eucharistic dimension.

The question for "traditional" Catholics, though, is the following. As you read the list of five points from Pope Benedict's message, do you readily accept some of them (opposition to population control tied to aid, the support of sexual morality as a response to AIDS) but turn away from others (opposition to the arms trade)? Is there a temptation to opt for the politically conservative and turn away from the politically progressive?

The teaching of Pope Benedict in his addresses, messages and homilies - the "ordinary magisterium" of Pope Benedict XVI - really brings this question to prominence. It is indeed clearly signalled in his first encyclical, Deus Caritas Est with its two parts, the first focussed on Christ and the second focussed on the practice of charity.

Pope Benedict is the Pope of Summorum Pontificum, which has established the previous form of the celebration of Mass as an "extraordinary form" alongside the "ordinary form". He is also the Pope who has spoken repeatedly of the way in which we should value the created world around us. Catholics shouldn't really cheer for one without taking on board the other.