Sermon on the Mount -Carl Bloch 1890
It is an amazing thing to contemplate that we who might call ourselves “catechists” are successors in a long line of teachers going back to the Apostles. One of the greatest Catholic teachers of all time, St. Paul, was catechized by Christ Himself over three years. St. Paul said in 1 Corinthians 15:3, “for I delivered to you as of first importance what I also received.” What St. Paul received from Christ he passed onto us, and as such, every Catholic teacher is called to do the same. All great teachers over the centuries, particularly the Church Doctors, would implore us to do this: to pass onto others what has been faithfully passed onto us. This is a very challenging call for all of us today. We are faced with unique catechetical difficulties in these tumultuous times.
Teaching is a noble calling
First of all we ought to recover the fact that the vocation to teach is a high and demanding calling. St. James warns us in 3:1, “let not many of you become teachers, my brethren, for you know that we who teach shall be judged with greater strictness.” It is a little disconcerting to know that we who dare to teach will be held to higher account for our work. This is a reminder of our call to faithful vigilance but it also arms us with a truth that can help lead us to Christian perfection, for to be diligent in our own formation not only prepares us for heaven but to faithfully carry out the great commission as we catechize our communities.
As we set out to impart the universal truths of the Faith, especially to children, the gravity of our calling is given full expression in Mathew 18:6 when Christ Himself warns us that “whoever causes one of these little ones who believe in me to sin, it would be better for him to have a great millstone fastened round his neck and to be drowned in the depth of the sea.” In these times when we catechists can be given questionable techniques and materials, it is vital that we cultivate a proper discernment to find and use sources unwaveringly faithful to the Magisterium of Holy Mother Church. We are encouraged to be extra diligent to ensure that no souls are led astray.
The Dangers presented by the pull of the world
The Temptation of Christ on the Mountain- Duccio Di Buoninsegna 1308
These are perilous times for the “teacher” partly because in this spiritually and intellectually perplexing age the world puts a very high emphasis on radical individuality, self-reference and originality. There is nothing inherently wrong with individuality and originality when the intellect and will are ordered to Christ, but when ordered to the values of the world they can be problematic. Although we strive to maintain fidelity to sound Catholic teaching, the ways of the world have had a way of slithering into our programs. While we ask our students to “put on the mind of Christ,” the world is asking those same students to “put on the mind of the world!” It is a struggle to go against the prevailing pedagogies of the day as we ask our students not to think in concert with the world, but to think correctly and to see things as they are. It is an ironic truth that those who think with the mind of the world end in becoming, not individual, but an indistinguishable member of modern society, while those who “put on the mind of Christ” become truly who they are meant to become and are as diverse, original and individual as is possible, just like the saints.
The world would lead our children to the wide and easy path that leads to perdition and our struggle is to put the world in a proper perspective as we try to lead our children to the narrow path of salvation. It is difficult to deny that the last 50 years of catechesis in the United States has been problematic, other than small pockets of solid fidelity to the Magisterium and Tradition. For some time it seems the whole world has been drawn into the modern errors of thinking and teaching. Christ said we will “know them by their fruits” and the fruits of catechesis in the last several decades has been scant. Yet as can be witnessed on these pages, there is growing movement of faithful and diligent catechists who are taking the arduous labor in the vineyard of the Lord seriously. As we continue to recognize the pull of the world and to opt instead for the pull of the Lord, we can expect an increasingly abundant harvest in proportion to our faithful efforts augmented by God’s plentiful graces.
Where do we go from here?
The confusion today being sown by those “prowling around the world seeking the ruination of souls” has been prolific. Sometimes it is helpful to step outside of an age to see more clearly what is problematic about it. Every age has its problems and difficulties, but different ages have different problems and to see one age through the eyes of another age can be very helpful. In my next post I will introduce you to a Church Doctor who has the potential to put things in a proper perspective. If we accept his teachings, he may be able to elucidate our current disorders of pedagogical misperception. There is much valuable insight to be gained by the Church Doctors of old when it comes to the labor in the vineyard of our Lord. Next we will learn that there is but one true teacher, the real sower in the vineyard and He is the Christ.
If you make a purchase via a link on this site, we may receive a small commission. There will be no added cost to you. Thank you!
Sophia….I posted some lesson plans there.
My wife just got back from the Sophia Institute in New Hampshire where she is doing lesson plans too- we are all in the same boat.
Hi Steven, The Catholic-atheist discussion site, Strange Notions has posted your article entitled “The Grammar of Existence” here. You might be interested in joining the combox conversation, as some authors do there. (SN is run by Catholic convert Brandon Vogt under the aegis of Robert Barron’s Word On Fire.)
Hi Geena Safire! What a gracious invitation, thank you so much! Also, thank you so very much for reading all my articles, posting links to them and having all your friends comment on them, I really enjoyed all comments. I can appreciate your criticisms and if you or anyone else would like to have a conversation with me, just let me know and I would be happy to clarify the many ideas that cause confusion. Great work! I hope to hear from you soon! Your Catholic friend, Steven Jonathan
Saludos, Esteban. ¡Qué graciosa respuesta! Espero que te has divertido de Atlanta. Me encanta cuando los cornejos están en flor. ¿Cuántas carreteras son ahora llamado “Durazno”? Tu amiga ateo, Geena.
https://www.tshirthell.com/shirts/products/a1204/a1204.gif?v11301bss2
Yes Geena, this was my first spring in Georgia and when the dogwoods bloomed that was an amazing moment- I remember it vividly, as if it just happened, but ever since there seems to be an increasing bloom of green everywhere, it is spectacular when compared to the desert from whence I migrated. As for “peach” I was told 256 streets- if you Atlanta, you know how confusing the streets can be.
But surely, you must have more pressing concerns that these? SJ
P.S. That picture is worth a thousand words, thanks for posting it!
My pressing concern when I wrote that reply was to start our dialogue on a note of pleasant, shared interests rather than to focus on topics where we likely disagree, which are likely to make up the main topic of our discussions. Atlanta is beautiful, especially in its flora, and wanted to use a noncontroversial opening gambit. (I was also more subtly referring to the fact of my having read several of your articles, thus knowing you had moved, while choosing to refer to a non-controversial topic contained therein.)
I used that adorable insect with the goal of expressing at the outset that, although we have disagreements regarding faith and ethics, I wish for our dialogue to not be antagonistic. More subtly, I intended to convey, by the use of humor regarding “praying,” to express my view that the external display of one’s life stance is not as important as one’s ethics and how these affect one’s choices and behavior more generally.
Yo hablé en español para expresar que, como tú, aunque no sea latina, me importa la gente hispana en los eeuu suficientemente para aprender bien el idioma, porque creo que es otra interés que tenemos en común.
“A beginning is a very delicate time.” Princess Irulan, Dune
Excellent, I am looking forward to having a lengthy conversation with you and your friends, I would really like that, but it may not be possible. I have a ground rule, and that is a respect for persons, while all ideas and assertions are fair game for insult and dissection personal attacks make dialogue impossible. The only repercussion for not following it is I will not continue. You have already attributed many things to me that are untrue and that is ok to an extent, but if you put a word like “darky” in my mouth that crosses the line- if you think I have a racist assertion that is fine, and we can talk about that all day, but to call me a racist based on your misunderstanding of my words may be an impasse, same goes for homophobia, and misogyny. I am not a racist, or a homophobe or a misogynist, it would be improper to call me one, but it would be great to discuss the statements that led you to believe that without the ad-hominem attacks. If you and your friends could agree to that one ground rule we are good to proceed after you make your ground rules clear.
As utterly charming as your opening remarks are, and as adorable as that picture is, I suffer no delusions about your intentions here, it is clear that you intend to “prey” while I intend to “pray.” That doesn’t concern me. If you know anything about me you know that I lived for decades as a secular humanist, an atheist and a liberal- I have been broken already, I have been broken by Christ. I have been broken by the Creator of the Cosmos. Any attempts to “break” me are welcome if they are accompanied by good will and respect. I hold out hope that this can be productive,
I am grateful that we share a love and compassion for other cultures and evidently a love of languages, your Spanish is beautiful. It is a good way to start, let’s see where this goes.
Oh my! (sigh) That’s quite a bit. I’ll try to respond succinctly as I can on each topic.
I am of the same opinion, except that I think personal attacks make dialogue difficult rather than impossible.
That’s usually the way things work in forums including combox discussions, right? Although web site owners also wield a ban hammer and the moderation tool.
(For others who might be viewing this discussion, Steven is referring to this comment in which I disparaged his wholesale disparagement of feminism, egalitarianism, and multiculturalism in one of his essays. I also made several other comments on Steven’s writing, all of which you can see here which is a commentary page on Steven’s article called “The Grammar of Existence.”)
I’ll grant that the word “darkies” was inappropriate in that comment, since you were taking down multiculturalism and not people of color per se. In addition, your decades of work as a teacher for the poorest and most disadvantaged of our country, with a largely Hispanic and African-American student population ought to make clear that ‘racist’ would be one of the least appropriate terms to describe you. I’m sorry. I will be interested in your replies, if any, to my other comments.
That said, I would also like to note that I was not “putting the word in your mouth.” I provided a quotation of your own words and a link to your article. Then I provided a polemical and sarcastic characterization of those words. (This doesn’t change what I wrote above.)
First, a bit of history: As you may or may not have noticed, there are two web sites in play. Strange Notions is Brandon Vogt’s page. That is where your article was posted. Vogt is a Catholic and views the site as, expressly, a Catholic-atheist dialogue site and, more subtly, as an evangelization tool.
Over time, Vogt has banned at least 30 atheists (that we know of). An especially large batch was banned in January 2014, in response to which Andrew G. made available his Outshine-the-Sun Blogspot site available for those of us who wished to continue commenting on articles posted at SN, which we playfully refer to as Estranged Notions. Some of the atheists who comment at EN are not banned and continue to comment at SN as well.
Although I am banned at SN, I invited you to Strange Notions in part because that is where your article was posted and in part because Vogt is constantly frustrated that he has not attracted a significant number of committed Catholic commenters and in part because I thought you would feel more welcome there than at EN, at least to start. As far as I am concerned, you are also quite welcome to comment at EN, as is anyone with a Disqus account. Thus endeth the history lesson.
Now, resuming our regularly scheduled programming: I understand that you will likely end a particular discussion and may stop commenting at the site if you experience what you consider personal attacks. You can review my comment history to see how I have interacted with others and decide whether you might find dialogue with me to be likely to be fruitful for you. I will not, however, submit to being required to follow a rule as a precondition of your deigning to converse with me.
Andrew G. is the EN site owner and he is an active moderator if and when needed. New commenters are on moderation for a short while. The commenting policy is posted, I believe. As far as the other commenters, I think you’ll have to take them as you find them.
I actually kind of have to say here that perhaps you harbor at least a misunderstanding. For example, I invited you to Strange Notions, where I do not even comment. What would that foretell?
(For others following this discussion, it seems Steven is referring to this comment I made at EN in which I let folks know that I had found Steven’s Disqus moniker. Therein, I said “If y’all are interested, I could give him an explicit invitation to here. … After all, we have broken our last few theists and, more recently, our deist, and this is generally best as an intermural sport.”)
I used the word ‘broke’ as a kind of an inside joke with several spokes. First, we at EN are aware of several Catholics who actually lost their faith because of commenting at or even just lurking at SN. (We are aware of none who have gone the other way, but obviously we wouldn’t.) Second, a person who comments at both EN and SN recently said he had given up on being a deist due to the conversations over time. These relate to the term ‘break’ in the sense of changing their mind. Third, we have had, over time, some theists who have commented for a longer or shorter time at EN, and then have stopped commenting. We do have a broad range of impressive brain cells at EN, experts in physics, neuroscience, philosophy, religion, psychology, biology, etc., so few apologetics are not aptly replied to. Fourth, we have the (I think unfortunate) tendency to pile on when a new theist begins to comment. These relate to the term ‘break’ in the sense that these theists have stopped posting at EN, that is, in the sense that we sadly broke our toys and therefore can no longer play with them.
tl,dr: ‘Broke’ was a joke. It is not my goal nor EN’s goal to “prey” on you. Our goal is to talk with you about topics of interest we share.
So feel free to comment at SN or EN or both. ¡Qué te diviertas!
I took you just as you meant and explained things, thank you for the courtesy and thorough explanations. I am truly ready when you are. SJ
So how would you like to proceed? You have seen the page at EN for your article at SN.
You can just hop in and introduce yourself at that page and ask for questions about your article. Or you can reply to comments that are already there, although they weren’t written as comments to you. Or you can introduce yourself at the EN Introductions page. Or you can make a post about anything at the current EN open thread. Or maybe you have some other idea…
“it is clear that you intend to “prey” while I intend to “pray.””
You talk about respecting persons, and then you clearly impugn Geena’s motives. That is not a good start.