Never mind! As modern liturgies go it was "all-right" - in the sense that (by modern norms) there were no obvious "abuses" - not that I tried to check for any! I was trying very hard to pay as little attention as possible to what Mgr Harvey was getting up to, so as to mind my blood pressure. Oh, sorry, I'm wrong. I'd forgotten that changing texts from the published norm still counts as an abuse. I can't be certain (because I wasn't following what Mgr Harvey was saying in a missal) but I'm pretty sure that he deviated significantly [in favour of "political correctness"] from the official text of the eucharistic preface. Of course, there was nothing "any good" about the liturgy either. It was conducted in an off-hand, slovenly and casual manner. Every attempt was made to emphasize aspects - such as the offertory and peace - that are (at best) of secondary importance and to de-emphasize the central act of Eucharistic Offering.
Enough! My business today is not to critique Mgr Harvey's liturgical ineptitude, but to discuss Catholic catechesis. Hence, on to his sermon.
It is precisely because of this kind of uncatholic catechesis and eucharistic praxis that I systematically absent myself from my own parish. As far as I can perceive reality, what goes on there is an entirely different religion - in spirit and in practice - from that which I profess and which is presented and practised at Farnborough Abbey.
I should first tell you a bit about Amanda, James and his older brother, Stuart. Amanda has a deep faith and a heart of gold, but is not well versed in theology and is pretty much a "Vatican II Catholic". Both of her sons are/were students at St John Fisher School, Surrey; one of the best non-fee-paying Catholic schools in the country; where the conservative "Faith Movement" started and has a continuing influence. Both Stuart and James attended many meetings of the "Faith Movement", have been to many years of "Religious Education" classes, and have attended Church in a "vibrant" Roman Catholic parish: "St William of York" where they must have heard about 300-800 sermons. They have been brought up in a loving Catholic family and have been encouraged to develop a personal faith at home.
Stuart is a deeply spiritual young man. He is pretty committed to God and Jesus and the Catholic Religion. However, when I started to get to know him properly - about a year ago - it rapidly became clear that he knew almost nothing about Catholicism, or the Church or about being a Catholic - except in the most superficial terms. He was sure that he wanted to be a Catholic, but he had very little idea as to what he was supposed to believe about anything or how he was supposed to live his life - apart from generally "being nice". He had no real experience of studying the Bible and his idea of personal prayer was at the level of "lists of petitions", like the bidding prayers of the Novus Ordo Mass. The only adequate phrase to describe his state of theological, spiritual and ethical formation (and this is no reflection on Stuart as a person, who I have come to love and respect!) was "Pig Ignorance".Back to Monday and to James.It is apparent that contemporary Catholic catechesis has entirely failed him. This is in spite of the fact that he is keen to understand and finds no difficulty in following my explanations of Catholic belief and practice, based on systematic philosophy, orthodox theology and reference to Scripture. Under my occasional and irregular mentoring, he has come on leaps and bounds in his understanding of the Catholic Faith; but he still has a very long way to go - as do we all, of course!
This is a terrible indictment of contemporary Catholic catechesis. If it was going to "succeed" with any-one, it should have done so with Stuart, but it hasn't. It hasn't even succeeded in making him the kind of "Catholic" that - I expect - the people delivering the catechesis would have liked him to become. Stuart has a spiritual affinity for traditional worship, even though - until I could expose him to it - he had never known anything other than trendy, progressivist, happy-clappy, "Catholicism".
James is a very private person. He is a deep, clear and incisive thinker. He is - rightly - suspicious of any and all people that he perceives to be trying to influence him. It takes a good deal of effort - backed by a degree of integrity - to win his trust and friendship. He is, in my view, even more intelligent than Stuart; having a command of English far beyond the norm for his age. When I first started to get to know him properly - about six months ago - he had just decided to give up on Catholicism. When I asked him why, he produced the following deeply troubling syllogism:
Over the next few months I sought to win James's trust and friendship in various ways, without the help of his parents, and eventually did so. This process resulted in yesterday's meeting.
I asked him about his experience of "Religious Education" at his "good Catholic school". He replied that it was simply "worthless".
This did not surprise me, given the many long conversations I had had with his elder - and more "spiritual" - brother.
When I probed further, he explained that it was all about "What the adherents of various religions typically believed regarding 'issues'" and was focussed on "facts" rather than understanding. He explained that there was an opportunity for the students to say what they each "believed" too - but there was never any presentation of why some belief might be thought to be true, nor any systematic explanation or defence of the Catholic Faith.
When asked to name the sacraments, he listed the seven specified by Trent - but under their modern names. When asked to give an account of what he's been taught [not what he himself believed] about:
What I write here is intended as a critique of "the modern Roman Catholic Church" as an organisation; not Amanda, not any member(s) of her family! None of what I write about here is their fault. It is the responsibility of the leadership of "the modern Roman Catholic Church". Amanda (and other parents) should never have been placed in the exposed position that I have described. Parents cannot be expected - as a generality - to be evangelists, apologists or theologians. They require and should be able to expect support from professionals who have the appropriate charisms and training. They were "set up to fail" by the Church leadership who have withdrawn this support from them. I don't blame Amanda - or other parents - for this one bit!I then spent a good deal of time explaining to James the first things about the Gospel and about Jesus' promise of "Eternal Life" and the "Resurrection" - all of which seemed to be pretty new to him. I tried to convince him that his syllogism failed because:Amanda's only "fault" was to trust the Catholic Church's present leadership and to be suspicious of me: an out-of-work meddlesome acquaintance, with no relevant qualifications and who is in serious dispute with the Catholic Church's present leadership on a wide range of important issues and, indeed, ipretty much its entire "orientation".
Some kind of fault! Who could blame her for this? I certainly don't!
that those in charge of Catholic catechesis have allowed the situation to develop that deep thinking, spiritually minded, intelligent young people can emerge from what should have been a process of philosophical, theological and spiritual formation with no idea whatsoever of what the Gospel of Jesus is or of the history of the Church or of the content of Her Dogmatic teaching or of the relevance of it to their daily lives.
that these people will take no responsibility for the abject failure of their project to make the Church "relevant to the Modern World".
that they will not reverse the "modernization" of the Church that has destroyed Her soul and rationale.
that there is no opportunity for me to address this situation in the way that I know that I both want to and am able to do, simply because I am "too traditionalist" in my views.