Posted on 10/23/2015 11:48:42 AM PDT by NYer
When it comes to teenagers, you expect a certain amount of eye rolling and apathy, but put those same kids in a faith formation class for an hour and fifteen minutes at the end of a long school day and right at the dinner hour and you’ll see a level of teenage disinterest that could make you wither on the spot. That’s what my husband and I faced when we stood before the 21 high school sophomores we teach at our upstate New York parish.
The scene was nothing new and nothing unexpected. We taught most of the same kids last year since they’re in a two-year program that will culminate in confirmation this spring. However, I’m willing to wager that their apathy isn’t necessarily related to a surge of teenage surliness but rather to a lack of foundational catechesis, and I say that while having taught many of these kids in fourth and fifth grade. I have used every trick in the book—from group activities to stump-the-teacher sessions to outright bribery through baked ziti and brownies—to get these kids to hear me when I talk about the Mass, about the Gospel, about our beautiful Catholic teachings and traditions. Yet every year, when they reluctantly return to class, I find I’m grateful if even half of them remember the Our Father.
When I look out at these kids—regardless of age, regardless of whether they’ve gone to Catholic or public elementary school—I assume I am seeing 75 percent as future ex-Catholics.
The blame falls squarely in the lap of the Church, which has, for decades, let the parents of these children go spiritually hungry, through misguided catechesis in their youth and preaching that failed to challenge and engage them as adults. As Pope Francis told priests at ordination this year: “May your homilies not be boring; may your homilies touch the heart of the people because they come from your heart …”
Some might say that even with unchallenging preaching the Holy Eucharist should be enough to draw people in, but how can that be if people have no grasp of the power and wonder of the Sacrament because no one has taught them—not in a classroom and not from the pulpit?
People are hungry, yes, but before they can run to Jesus in the Eucharist, they must walk into a parish on any given Sunday and hear the words that feed their flagging spirits and find fellowship that reminds them they are not alone. As a speaker and retreat leader I can tell you, from both personal experience and from encounters with other Catholics around the country that neither of those things exist in abundance in US parishes. Some communities are getting it right, but these lucky few are the sad exceptions, not the happy norm.
And so people go elsewhere. Perhaps to the nondenominational church up the street where the preaching is riveting and relevant and the community is fully engaged and made up predominantly of former Catholics. They don’t have Eucharist, but people are feeling fed, and returning, week after week. When you sit in Mass this Sunday, try to experience it as a newcomer, and ask yourself: If this was your first and only experience of Catholicism, would you ever return?
Back when I wrote my Complete Idiot’s Guide to the Catholic Catechism, I heard the same refrain time and again from adult Catholics disconnected from the faith: “Why didn’t I learn any of this when I was growing up?” Many of them were raised, as I was, in what I call the “Era of the Collage,” with lots of cutting and pasting of happy Jesus, but little basic information about the things that sustain you for a lifetime, the beauty of a living, breathing faith. I credit my mother with bridging the wide chasm that grew between my official religious education and my actual faith, and that’s why I know we first and foremost need our families to turn our Church around.
Catechesis must begin by drawing families in, by making them feel welcome, by giving them something more than registration deadlines and weekly envelopes. Only when they feel as though they belong in this Church—to this Church—will they be open to retracing the spiritual steps of their childhood and embracing the path of faith as an adult. When they do that, they will bring their children with them, and faith formation will no longer be seen as a ticket that must be stamped in order to receive a sacrament and then “graduate” from religion, but rather as a first step on a lifelong journey.
Of course teens will be teens, and they will still roll their eyes and answer questions with stony silence, but beneath that will be a foundation of real faith, and the powerful, life-giving knowledge that they are loved beyond measure by a God who created them, and saved them, and waits for them.
I believe the kids sitting in our class acting like they couldn’t care less about religion desperately want and need a God like that, as do their parents. Unless we find a way to make God real and relevant to their lives, he will always remain an abstract idea to be sat through, rather than engaged, which is a loss not just for them but for all of us.
” I am glad “
What did you hear different than you hear from a Post V2 clergy that you didn’t like?
I disagree. All priests came from families, they know what kids are like, they visit families, they teach kids. Some have more gifts than others but they know what kids are like. The primary teachers of children are their parents, they must be truly Catholic to create true Catholics. If the parents care about the kids’ immortal souls...
Be honest I have CCD on Sunday morning before Children mass at 9:30am then I go inside the church
“What is taught, the time of day or night, whether or not food is served, matters little IF the faith is not practiced in the home.”
True, but for those MANY kids who — THROUGH NO FAULT OF THEIR OWN — are growing up in homes where the faith is not practiced, the church should be offering the strongest educational program to help supply this deficiency, and not just act as if they’re lost and nothing can be done. And sensible times for the classes, along with well-thought-out pedagogical methods, and strong substance (it should go without saying) is essential -— but SORELY MISSING from the FRUSTRATINGLY INSIPID educational programs of so many Catholic parishes.
You can tut-tut about their parents till the cows come home, but that doesn’t help the kids. The Catholics could learn a lot from some of the evangelical mega-churches with their energetic programs to engage and teach kids. You may not like the doctrine, but they run circles around the typical Catholic parish in the way they teach it.
You might well be incorrect there, I see this stuff close up.
Same here.
Sure, in an ideal world - or back in the 50s - you could leave it up to the parents. But not today.
You think the communists left it up to the parents to teach communism? To the contrary, they taught the kids DESPITE what the parents were saying at home.
The churches should be making the kids ambassadors for Christ to their own families — and not relying on lukewarm parents to propagate the faith, or consigning kids to secularism if they’re unfortunate enough to have lukewarm parents.
A lot of the evangelical churches get it - and focus their evangelism on young people. In contrast, too many the Catholics are confused and complacent.
Same here at my parish.
What sort of program do you envision fits that model? How do you communicate its value and importance to the family, responsible for transporting their kids to the locale or do you address it strictly to the youth?
And sensible times for the classes, along with well-thought-out pedagogical methods, and strong substance (it should go without saying) is essential
What constitutes a sensible time? What if it is convenient for the youth but not for the person responsible for transporting him/her? Here again, i revert back to when I was asked to set up a Religious Education program for our small parish. I contacted the school district for their calendar and worked the program around holidays and school breaks where I rightly anticipated the family would plan a vacation.
The Catholics could learn a lot from some of the evangelical mega-churches with their energetic programs to engage and teach kids.
Would be interested in learning more about how the program is developed, the materials taught and how these are used to engage the kids. Since the non-denominational churches do not have Sacraments, I imagine their focus is strictly scriptural .. or is it?
What if it is convenient for the youth but not for the person responsible for transporting him/orning her?
If it’s a churchgoing family - Sunday ought to be convenient for everybody. I can’t understand why that’s not as obvious to Catholics as it clearly is to evangelicals and protestants who traditionally hold Church School on the Day of the Resurrection. The idea of Wed night or Thurs night after school — the norm in most Catholic parishes I’m familiar with — guarantees that the seats are filled with tired and distracted kids. The author of the article started out with that commonsense observation.
As for programming, I really would suggest you check out one of the mega churches near you. We have one grandchild who attended a Sunday School where the classes were expertly planned to incorporate play, music, movement, and lessons (reinforced through drama). She’s teaching us about the Bible, she learned so much.
And as for some kind of distinction between scriptural and sacramental lessons, I don’t see that. The sacraments are scriptural, are they not? And pedagogy - the science of teaching - is applicable to all subject matter.
You are telling my story. Our 9th grade CCD book was called "Serendipity", they may as well have called it Que sera sera. We were teens that wanted meat and potatoes and we got pabulum. The proof is in the number of ex-Catholics we see on these threads trying to tell us that Catholics worship Mary, the Eucharist is a symbol etc....
The Eucharist is the central tenet of the Gospel.
I see a lot of the same; Filipinos seem to be the only adults taking young children to Mass. I take my children directly there from CCD, and rarely see any of their non-Filipino classmates.
What can the Church expect (in terms of treating failure to attend Mass as a sin) when the Church itself rarely criticizes sodomy or the adultery of divorced/remarried Catholics?
In my experience, priestly celibacy has absolutely nothing to do with it.
Back in the day (pre-VII), many, and in some places, most Catholic children attended Catholic schools, and therefore received religious instruction during the school day.
Those that did not attend Catholic schools (like me), were released from public school early on Wednesdays. We walked a couple of blocks over to the church and had CCD class then. We were home within a 1/2 hour of our regular time.
Back then, we were taught EXCLUSIVELY by nuns. I NEVER had a lay CCD teacher. Never.
But after VII, by the mid-1970s, that changed. Many nuns left their orders, or they got so old that they retired from teaching. That meant that laymen had to pick up the slack. Well...laymen have to WORK during the day, so they began to have CCD classes after school.
THAT’S why they do it at night.
Having said that, I am not a fan of waiting until high school to receive the sacrament of Confirmation. MANY Catholic children never get confirmed because of this delay. Once that happens, precious few ever return to be instructed and to receive the sacrament. That means they will not be allowed to marry in the Church, and THAT means that in all likelihood, their children will not be raised in the faith. IMO, delaying Confirmation until after high school begins is a bad, BAD idea all around.
(I was Confirmed at age 11, BTW. My children received the sacrament at age 12.)
Regards,
Knowing what kids are like and being raised as a kid in a family is WAY different than actually raising kids.
Additionally, in the very Scripture that the Catholic church claims it wrote, the requirement for office of an elder or church leader, was being a married man with a successfully raised family.
The Catholic church isn’t even following the teachings from the book they claim to have given the world.
I guess St Paul did not know what he was talking about. As I said, I see this stuff close up. I am sure that my opinion has a strong foundation. Of course, I am only close to excellent priests.
Yeah, right.
I guess the Holy Spirit didn’t know what He was about either when He inspired Scripture.
It’s a good thing the Catholic church came along and set things straight, eh?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.