How Low Can You Go?

Sunday

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 was suggested that we should "pray with Jesus" - not "to Jesus", but "with Jesus".
• Now, this is not an absolutely wrong idea; but in the way it was put across it definitely gave the impression that:
• "Jesus is a human being just like us" and
• "Jesus has a relationship with God just like ours".
• These two propositions are - of course - heretical.
• I am not aware of anywhere in the New Testament where it is suggested that Christians do did or should "pray with Jesus".
• When He gave us his model prayer, He said "when you pray" not "when we pray".
• In the Garden of Gethsemane He said "Sit here, while I go yonder and pray."
• The "consecrated elements" were referred to as the "bread and wine of life".
• No where in scripture (still less, Catholic/Orthodox Tradition) are the contents of the consecrated chalice referred to as "the wine of life".
• The consecrated bread is only so referred to because Jesus called Himself [not the eucharistic bread after consecration] "The Bread of Life".
• It was stated that in our Eucharistic practice we discover God in each other, just like we discover God in our secular dealings.
• No clear distinction was made between Christian fellowship and worldly society.
• No mention was made of either the Sacramental or the Sacrificial nature of the Eucharist.
• No mention was made of the fact that in the Eucharist we meet God objectively and transcendentally; in a way that is of an entirely different order than we encounter God in our day-to-day affairs.
• What was said could best be understood in terms of "the sign of peace" being the essential part and focus and summit of the Mass.
• It was stated that in our practice of the Eucharist we should not reflect on God's glory or on the gift that is received or anything of this kind, but rather - as soon as communion has been received - we should hurry out of the church to get involved, once more, in the troubles of the world; just as the two disciples hurried from Emmaus back to Jerusalem.
• It was suggested that the fact the the Mass does not terminate with the communion of the laity - and with them exiting the church immediately after receiving communion was a bad thing and a defect in the present celebration of the Mass.
• Now - rightly or wrongly, I believe that in point of fact, the ancient practice was to terminate the Eucharist with the communion of the faithful, with no concluding blessing or prayers of any kind; but this does not mean that the laity scarpered as soon as they had received communion!
• Apart from anything else, it is highly plausible that they spent a good deal of time in conversation and general friendly interaction!

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.

Monday

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".

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:

• Major Premise:  The true religion [if there was such a thing] would make people happy.
• Minor Premise:  Catholicism doesn't make people happy.
• Conclusion:        Hence Catholicism is a false religion.

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:

• "The Trinity", he produced a clear and unambiguous classical Sabellian account of the matter.
• This certainly did not surprise me, as I've heard the same thing from a number of Catholic and Protestant pulpits over the last few years.
• "The Incarnation", he disclaimed any ability to do so whatsoever.
• "The Eucharist", he gave a Zwinglian account in terms of a communal meal at which people receive some "blessed bread and wine" and think about and remember Jesus.
• This is, of course, exactly the kind of belief that would have been inculcated by the sermon I heard on Monday.
• "Purgatory", he gave a pretty good - but naive - account, missing out any notion of "punishment".
• "Infallibility", he said that he'd never even heard of it!

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!

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!

• He had no real idea of what the Catholic Faith is, even though he'd supposedly been subject to systematic "indoctrination" for ten years or more!
• The same went for most people who were supposed to be "Catholics" - including many of the Church's leaders.
• Hence, the fact that what "passes for Catholicism" regularly doesn't make people happy doesn't mean that "real Catholicism" is a false religion.

It only means that the sociological entity "the contemporary Roman Catholic Church" is a very, very poor implementation of "the Ideal Holy, Orthodox, Apostolic and Evangelical Catholic Church of Christ".

It makes me angry

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.

It makes me angry

that these people will take no responsibility for the abject failure of their project to make the Church "relevant to the Modern World".

It makes me angry

that they will not reverse the "modernization" of the Church that has destroyed Her soul and rationale.

It makes me angry

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.

From three correspondemts:

"Your papers on Catholic teaching have been quite interesting. I wish you had taught my RCIA class. Our director of religious education decided to present catholic teaching on a level suitable for twelve year-olds. She was concerned that the people in the class would become confused or bored with a more advanced presentation of the faith. I have been in church since I was a toddler so her presentations had only a little new information for me." [August 2002]

"I had long ago visited [your web site], but this time I came to it with a new insight and a new perspective. Although I am quiet new to the Church, many of the reasons I came to the Catholic Church to start with aren't evident or present anymore. I originally was drawn to the Catholic faith through the catechism and then through much reading (although I think I could have saved much time by reading your site first). The tradition and liturgy spoke to me in a way that no other faith had up to that point.

I started RCIA over two years ago with the inquiry phase, but it became very clear that I already knew more about the church and the faith than many of my well intentioned members of the RCIA team. This only strengthened my resolve to join the Catholic Faith. I then moved into the next phase right before Easter. My first celebration of Easter in the Catholic Church was a very moving and spiritual one. Never before had I experienced the true meaning of Easter as I did then.

Soon though, certain things began to bother me. I noticed that very few people would genuflect when coming in for Mass, or would bow to the alter when they passed it. I knew this was a tradition and one that showed great respect to the holiness of the place. I asked the members of the RCIA team and their response was "We used to genuflect when the host was kept at the front of the church, but since we now keep it in a room off to the side we no longer feel it necessary." I understood but their reply only troubled me more. I asked that while would explain the lack of people genuflecting, but what about them not bowing to the alter? "Oh, the priest does that for us." and that troubled me even more. These are just a few of the examples of what I've experienced since I started on the second part of my journey. There are more, but from reading your site I'm sure you know already what I've been feeling." [November 2002]

"I can think of at least three seperate occasions when I have tried to convert to Roman Catholicism. I've attended RCIA in a couple of typical parishes and really just found them wanting. Most people seem to have been there just out of convenience for reasons of getting married, etc. I haven't met anyone who comes to the Church from the perspective of having not found Truth in other churches and out of a deep hunger for the Sacraments. My most recent experience in an RC parish found catechists who were spewing theology that was far more liberal than the most liberal protestants I have know." [September 2008]

A study by the University of Madrid professor Pedro Gonzalez has revealed that the percentage of young people aged 15-24 who call themselves Catholic dropped from 77 to 49 percent during the last decade and that almost half of them say religion classes were practically useless. According to the study, the drop is the result of the Church’s positions on issues such as homosexual “marriage,” abortion or euthanasia, which are positions considered “unpopular” by young people. Likewise, 79% think the Church is too rich and 82% think the Church’s teachings on sexual matters are outdated. However, half of all young people say the Church helps the poor and needy through institutions such as Caritas. Regarding religion classes, almost half of all young people said they were completely useless. Thirty six percent thought they were somewhat or very helpful, while 10% said they did not take the classes.