|
"THE TRENDS AND CHALLENGES IN CATECHESIS"
Most Rev. Leonardo Z. Legaspi,
O.P., D.D.
The invitation to speak to you in this Second National
Catechetical Consultation, "Starting Afresh from
Christ: Catechesis for the Third Millennium" has
given me great pleasure. I take it as a very positive
sign of both the continuity and the creativity of ECCCE,
so urgently called for in the catechetical ministry
in the Philippines. As you well know, both PCP II and
the National Pastoral Consultation ten years later gave
top priority to Catechesis or "Integral Faith Formation."
So there is no lack of official pronouncements supporting
the prime importance of catechesis and Catholic education.
But we all are likewise almost painfully aware of the
breadth and extent of the challenges in the Philippine
catechetical ministry. From the perspective of any ordinary
means of critical evaluation and reckoning, the challenges
to an effective catechesis throughout the length and
breadth of the Catholic Church in our country- our regions,
archdioceses, dioceses, parishes, Catholic institutions
etc- are overwhelming. The simple contrast between the
huge fields, ripe for the harvest, compared to the scarce
number of laborers, presents a daunting challenge for
any serious critical catechetical planning.
The proposed objectives of this Conference were briefly
described as: "to evaluate the ECCCE Priorities
2000-2003, and to plan for ECCCE's programs and projects
for the next three years." The specific on-going
catechetical projects and programs, and those that will
be discussed and planned in this-consultation, involve
many and diverse causal factors, operating at different
levels, in various specific regions of our country,
and open to critical evaluation from distinct perspectives.
No one approach, nor anyone individual catechetical
expert's vision, can qualify to cover all these elements
adequately. That is why planning consultations like
this, with free, open dialogue and sharing, are so important.
For my part, then, I conceive my contribution to be
focused primarily on the broader aspects and more universal
challenges that our catechetical ministry has faced
and must face in the years to come. A good part of my
sharing draws on the recent past experience of ECCCE
which hopefully may contribute toward the desired continuity
of ECCCE's work, as well as act as a spring-board for
the needed fresh new initiatives. The final section
of my remarks will sketch some priorities and \ hopes
for possible hew projects that can respond directly
and fruitfully to the new situations and challenges
of our catechetical ministry.
Sources for the Conference
To structure my remarks I have chosen one practical,
and one more theoretical pattern. The practical norm,
[1] are the concrete realities of the Catechism of the
Catholic Church [CCC], the General Directory for Catechesis
[GDC], our own national catechism, Catechism for Filipino
Catholics (CFC), and the almost completed three year
revision of our National Catechetical Directory [NCDP].
[2] Together these works offer a concrete ground for
pursuing the renewed catechesis that PCP II has called
for. They provide one concrete picture of the present
actual state of catechesis in the Philippines, beyond
what any more theoretical description might have to
offer.
A second source is the FABC document entitled "Asia:
A Call for Renewed Catechesis 2000 and Beyond.”
[3] Representatives from twelve Asian countries met
and produced a document which covered five objectives:
1) to sketch the situation of catechesis in Asia relative
to both civic and ecclesial realities; 2) to offer their
vision and response to the noted new challenges; 3)
to provide guidelines for revising catechetical ministry;
by 4) proposing guidelines for drawing up or revising
their national catechetical directories, and 5) sketching
several lines of action toward catechetical renewal.
Much in these objectives correspond to the purposes
of this consultation, and thus it is relatively easy
to select those aspects of the document which are most
relevant to our catechetical situation in the Philippines,
now and for the foreseeable future.
My presentation begins with an introduction sketching
briefly first some major elements of growth and change
in catechesis and religious education over the past
few years, and second the new context in which we are
all immersed -- using the general term globalization
to summarize the context that must be faced in all our
present efforts in "Starting Afresh from Christ,"
in creating an effective "Catechesis for the 3rd
millennium."
Introduction
The general post-Vatican II background that grounds
the current trends in our catechesis is important for
understanding "where we are at" today in catechesis
and religious education. With. a certain over-simplification,
this background can be sketched in terms of a few key
changes in catechetical focus and underlying vision
and mind-set.
Traditionally, catechesis has been centered on Church
teaching, enshrined in the Creeds, the Commandments
and the Sacraments. Vatican II modified this by insisting
on the central place of Sacred Scripture in all forms
of ministry of the Word. Happily, this has led to change
a basically a-historical, static notion of Christian
truths and principles to the recognition of the historical
nature of the Gospel, and of Christian faith itself
as an on-going process. This in turn led to change the
traditional question-answer catechisms which stressed
memorization of correct formulas, to a more "problematic
approach" which moved away from "prepared"
question-answers to the real questions of the learners.
Memorized formulas gave way to many new teaching methods
stressing the experiential dimension of the Faith.
These pragmatic changes manifested a deeper attitudinal
change from a primarily defensive apologetic mind-set
to Vatican II’s "open the windows" to
let the Spirit of ecumenism and inter-religious dialogue
blow through. Catechesis and religious education which
had been carried out in great part by religious, now
were viewed as the mission of the whole Church, all
the baptized. Vatican II stressed the role of the laity
and sparked many new innovative lay ministries in the
Church.
Such is a brief outline of some of the more significant
catechetical changes that took place during the historical
background against which the newer catechetical shifts
today have to be understood. But this presumes some
rough idea of the new forces at work in our present
radically new context in which we are all immersed.
Perhaps the easiest way of offering a summary picture
of this new context is by running through the over-riding
effects, both societal and ecclesial, of what is loosely
termed "globalization" [4] Some of the major
effects in civil society include: 1) its the powerful
impact on local economies, 2) the poor being "left
behind," 3) the unrestricted media invasion, 4)
the weakening of traditional Asian cultural values,
and 5) resulting confusion and frustration of the youth,
caught in contradictory value systems, 6) the continuing
degradation of women and children, with 7) a certain
culture of death, and finally 8) the arms race, now
among the poorer nations, but hiding under the mantle
of national security.
These civic consequences are paralleled by comparable
ecclesial realities: 1) the laity's newly recognized
hunger for God and thirst for mature spirituality; 2)
the need and demand for a more participatory (versus
a c1ericalized) Church, 3) greater inter-religious collaboration,
yet without falling into the dead-end of fundamentalism.
In regard to specifically catechetical realities, there
are: 1) the present stress on the communitarian dimension
of faith-education, focused on the family and BEC's;
2) the renewed emphasis on prioritizing formation of
catechists; 3) the production of basic local catechetical
materials, and 4) the developing dialogue with other
cultures and religions. [5]
What is most noteworthy about all these general consequences
of globalization is the obvious predominance of the
role played by the social sciences and communications
media. This is the over-riding context in which communicating
the Good News of Jesus Christ takes place today. Nothing
is so emphasized or "taken-for-granted" as
the "contextual" dimension of all efforts
at communicating the Gospel message.
The danger, of course, is that in seeking to make the
"Good News" so relevant to the concrete, individual,
specific context and daily life form, catechists/religion
teachers may be so caught up in the "in thing"
of the moment as to mistake it for "reality"
pure and simple. But the Gospel, of course, is also
real and operative. It defies any attempted evaluation
in terms merely of popularity, or of comparisons with
science and technology or electronic mass media. The
Gospel message of our Lord Jesus Christ, which brings
a unique dimension and depth to all contexts, is THE
reality for all catechesis. [6]
Catechetical Planning
I now take up the main body of my presentation. It
begins by an exposition of three major changes in catechetical
planning that have surfaced in the past three years.
The first concerns the change from a basically school/student
centered catechesis to a life-long process of adult
education in the faith, emphasizing family and community-based
catechesis. The second is the change within catechesis
from stressing the informational, doctrinal dimension
to a more experiential and contextualized formation
of "living the Faith." Finally, the third
is turning the primary catechetical focus from an apologetic
centered on the individual believers' and their commitment
to their Church to the new call for openness to ecumenical
and inter-religious dialogue. Each of these changes
has involved numerous subproblems, some of which are
as significant as the major reality at issue.
I. Catechetical Locus: From School / Student-centered
to Life-long Faith Formation
The limitations of a uniquely school-based catechesis
have, in recent years, become ever more painfully apparent.
But a major new reason has surfaced for this change,
a reason perhaps not as yet too apparent with us. The
new factor is the radical change that has taken place
in recent times about how people "learn,"
prepare for, and grow into their work, professional
careers and chosen vocations. Up until fairly recently,
most people learned a trade or were educated in a particular
profession within the first 25 odd years of life, and
then embarking on a life-long job or career. But this
common pattern has been radically altered in recent
years. Today the vast majority of the work force, professional
as well as many nonprofessionals, have to "keep
learning" just to be able to survive in their work.
Moreover they are more than likely to actually change
careers a number of times during their productive years,
entering into new fields of work by taking up special
studies designed precisely for those planning such change-of
careers. [7]
Given this new context, it is easier to understand
why "instruction in the Faith" cannot be focused
almost exclusively to school age youth, but must be
redesigned as part of a lifelong process of education
in the Faith, like this new lifelong process of "making
a living." In this new vision of the catechetical
ministry, the specific stages of Faith of those being
catechized will become a major factor in designing a
catechesis directly responding to their predominant
stage of faith.-- for example, stages designated as
imitative, personalized, communitarian, or missionary
Faith. This, of course, will offer greatly increased
opportunities for relating the exposition of the faith
directly with life -- to the actual distinct historical
stages we all go through as we grow up and mature in
our Faith life.
But this move away from the almost exclusive emphasis
on school catechesis is far more demanding than most
have realized up to now. It really demands something
equivalent to a "revolution" in: 1) imaging
the catechetical ministry as a whole, and hence 2) what
is needed for an adequate program for catechist formation,
and most importantly, 3) in assigning the available
catechetical personnel and the limited financial resources.
In brief the change will require a comprehensive rethinking
of ways in which we have been carrying on catechesis
and religious education -- ways in which we actually
learn, teach, preach, believe, pray, today. It's reasonable
to judge that no single generation will be able to accomplish
it. But this judgment itself represents a step forward
over two different attempts in years past to carry out
this shift from youth to adult catechesis, but which
unfortunately failed for lack of realistic planning
as to what was actually required to achieve the change.
Prudential Balance
Nevertheless this realistic appraisal alerts us to
the need for a prudential balance in implementing this
change over the time it will involve. There's a common
temptation to misinterpret this change as a loss of
faith in the unique importance of education for catechesis.
But move from an over-emphasis on school/student catechesis
surely does not mean abandoning education, nor indeed
"schools." Today education is more important
then ever, and despite the many new avenues to education,
schools will remain the ordinary means for most to "re-tool"
themselves and keep abreast in their profession. In
catechesis, authentic education in the Faith cannot
be reduced to helping people simply to make a living,
or to feel good about themselves. Rather catechesis
must bring them into direct contact with the priceless
heritage of Sacred Scripture, the Church’s tradition,
and her Magisterium – each “missioning”
all the faithful to proclaim Christ to others.
Let us ask ourselves when and where do ordinary Catholic
Filipinos learn how to read Scripture? Where, and to
what extent, are they made aware of "the priceless
heritage" of our Catholic tradition? Or how are
they supposed to bring the resources of this tradition
to bear on the issues of the day? Clearly Catholic schools
and universities constitute one of the most effective
means for supplying these basic needs in forming mature
Filipino Catholics. Therefore, the Catholic school,
as distinct from family, parish, retreat house, will
continue to play a major role in the "lifelong
process of education in the Faith." In addition,
this recognition of the continued significant catechetical
role of schools is important to avoid the trap of falling
into an overly devotionalistic and pietistic Christian
formation, which often leaves well-intentioned adult
Catholics unprepared to defend their Catholic Faith,
and to commit themselves to the social concerns for
justice and help for the poor that are an intrinsic
dimension of authentic Faith.
A second reason for the need of prudential balance
relates to practical pastoral value of much of the official
Church catechetical publications. In responding to immediate
needs and desires of catechetical formators and individual
catechists, there arises the temptation to say some
little thing about literally everything. This tends
to reduce these texts to a series of generalities and
"overstatements" that often do not offer sufficient
explanation in detail nor needed nuances. I8] What are
most helpful are practical steps toward developing the
skills needed in actually implementing the proposed
catechetical principles. Show "how to make them
work" in practice. [9]
II. Catechetical Focus: From Doctrinal
Information to Contextualized Experience
For many years now there has been a wide consensus
that an experiential, contextualized catechesis is an
absolute priority. Such was the case in Biblical times,
but impelled by our radically changing times, this principle
had to be "rediscovered." We have graduated
from the era of catechisms which present "universal
pure doctrine" completely separated from any specific
human experience or context.
One cause for this change is the world-wide phenomenon
of a new search for the divine, for God meaningful for
today, a God that "makes a difference in people's
daily lives." This search is recognized by all
despite -or perhaps because of- the concomitant ever
growing secular materialism and consumerism. This new
hunger for God and for a renewed spirituality is experienced
surprisingly in many who are caught up in the secularism
of the times. Yet they also give unmistakable witness
to an intense, relentless quest for the divine, for
an intimate experience of God.
But perhaps a more decisive factor in this new heightened
pursuit of mystery and the sacred are the tremendous
advances in communications which have drastically revised
our old conceptions of "doctrine" and of "experience."
We have just begun to experience the profound changes
which this new breakthrough in communications will have
on our Liturgy, and our whole manner of conceiving and
using "symbol" and "story."
As in the first change from school / student to life-long
faith formation, this new stress on the experiential
and contextual aspects demands responsible, balanced
implementation. Otherwise it can easily lead to new
forms of relativism. Care must be taken to bring out
the sound, solid essentials of the faith, that avoids
this trap of relativism, or any exaggerated trendy or
individualistic approach to the Faith.
Equal care needs to be taken to relate local catechesis
and religious education to the broader, more universal
expositions emanating from the Vatican. Any form of
myopic provincialism that tries to limit authentic Catholic
Faith to its local practice is harmful and impedes Filipinos'
authentic maturing in the Catholic Faith. Today's legitimate
pluralism gives the lie to such mistaken ideological
trends.
The major implications involved in this change are
the new emphases in the study and use of Sacred Scripture,
Church doctrinal teaching, and human experience, as
specific to catechesis and religious education carried
on in an contextualized experiential manner.
More Holistic Study and Use of Scripture
There is a growing search for a more holistic approach
to the study and use of Sacred Scripture in catechesis.
[10] For the past half century, the over-riding concern
of the historical, critical method for the "literal
sense" defined uniquely in terms of the original
author and context, ruled the Catholic approach to Scripture.
This dominant approach, characterized by its almost
compl.ete reliance on the historical critical method
alone, is now seriously questioned. A more inclusive,
holistic approach, especially for catechesis and religious
education, is coming into vogue. The historical-critical
method certainly remains a major source of Biblical
learning, but the unique stress on the "literal
sense" defined in terms of the original author
and context, has been substantially modified by the
insistence on the new context and consequent present
meaning of the text. This broader "literal sense"
is in part due to the renewed interest in the Scriptural
"spiritual senses" of Catholic tradition.
The newer approach' can be outlined in four comparisons.
First, from an academic focus primarily on much information
on Scripture's historical past, divorced from current
faith life, to the new emphasis on Scripture as the
living Word of God, written from Faith, about Faith,
toward nourishing the life of Faith today. [11] This,
of course, responds directly to the catechetical goal
of bringing the catechized to truly "hear the Gospe1."
Second, from a predominantly secular critical study
of Scripture, which minimizes its religious content,
the new approach studies Scripture with a pneumatic
exegesis sensitive to the spiritual senses of Scripture,
as the powerful Word of God, the rule of Faith, which
instructs and grounds the critical study. The broader
"literal sense" carries an excess of meaning
(the "fuller" [sensus plenior]) through, for
example, canonical hermeneutics, which studies the meaning
of a particular book in relation to other books of the
Bible; [12] or some form of reader-response in which
the original text is read within the new context and
environment of today's reader. These approaches have
revealed significant inadequacies of the historical
literary approach alone.[13] Third, from studying much
historical factual information about Scripture through
the commentaries of individual experts, with little
unity and less pastoral effectivity, the new stress,
brought out, for example, in "performative exegesis”
is on the essential ecclesial dimension of the Scripture,
with its formative goal of conversion. [14] This strongly
supports the insistence on both the nature and function
of Scripture as the actual channel of God's Self-revelation
NOW.
Fourth, from the growing recognition that the present
hermeneutical pluralism will never create any broad
consensus on both meaning and truth of Scripture, the
new approach views Scripture as sacramental, as a work
of art (not scientific history). [15] Its basic purpose
is the spiritual transformation of the hearers/readers,
through the use of symbol and ritual, and calling forth
a response involving the whole person-- mind, will,
imagination and emotions.
The importance for catechesis of this more holistic
approach to Scripture cannot be overemphasized. This
new stress implies a relatively radical change in forming
catechists and religion teachers in the skill of accurate
and fruitful Scriptural interpretation. The new criteria
for such interpretation, that is, for the proper use
of Scripture in catechesis and religious education,
rests on a deeper appreciation for Scripture as the
living Word of God, and its sacramental nature. Given
the depth and extent of this new study and use of Scripture,
it is reasonable to assume that it will take decades
for this new use to spread out and "take root”
in a sound, accurate way among ordinary catechists and
religion educators.
An unforeseen consequence of this more holistic approach
is to relativize the charge by the Scripture “experts”
of the older approach, of "proof texting”
in the catechisms (CCC and CFC) - i.e. using Scripture
texts detached from their historical critical meaning,
merely to "prove" some Church doctrine or
moral position. From the newer, more holistic approach
to Scripture, this charge is now recognized as more
revelatory of the significantly different perspective
of these Scripture "experts” on the nature
and function of the Bible compared to more holistic
approach of catechists and religious educators. Their
charge as a reprimand against catechists for mishandling
Scriptural texts has been significantly defused. Rather
it now serves to "wake up" catechetical leaders
and religious educators to the serious inadequacies
of a purely technical, academic, historical-critical
study of Scripture, for grounding an effective and fruitful
use of the living Word of God in catechizing. [16]
But again, prudential balance is needed. The historical
critical method is still basic for any adequate Scripture
study. These new approaches merely aim at a fuller,
more holistic study and use of Scripture. But they can
be abused like any other positive advance. For example,
after high accurate praise of this new appreciation
for God's living Word, the FABC document rightly stresses
the need for the catechist to internalize these insights
and live them out, so their God-experience and Christ-experience
can be shared. Yet this is followed immediately by reducing
catechists to mere "facilitators," "making
things easier," thus undermining the high spiritual
ideal just presented.
A more serious misuse of these new approaches to Scripture
would be to turn their insistence of Scripture as the
living Word of God into some alleged guaranteed means
for an "out-of-this world God-experience."
Such an attempt to use God's Self revelation as a self-serving
gimmick for achieving some other-worldly psychological
"high" can be interpreted as a thinly veiled
"original sin" all over again - "you
will be like gods" (Gen.3:5)
Doctrine for "Living the Faith"
Perhaps of equal importance with these new approaches
to Sacred Scripture for the change to a more experiential
and contextual catechesis is the parallel new approach
to teaching Catholic doctrine, particularly the dogmas
so favored by traditional catechesis.[17] If there is
anything that needs to be radically improved in our
ordinary catechesis, it surely is the teaching of Church
doctrines. Despite the NCDP's firm insistence that Catholic
doctrines are "salvific -- truths that save, inspire,
uplift, guide, offer help and consolation" (NCDP
179) -- it must be admitted that such an impression
of the value of Church doctrine is rarely if ever communicated
effectively.
There are a number of causes for this ineffective teaching
of doctrine. The most obvious reason, especially as
encountered in Catholic schools, is the dominant manner
of constantly "imposing" doctrine as something
that has to be learned, but never questioned nor related
in any real manner to daily life-experience. Memorizing
doctrinal formulas surely is NOT an effective way of
handing on Catholic truths. Dogmas are often taught
as "mysteries" which cannot be understood
by our limited human minds. For example, the Blessed
Trinity has commonly been presented as such for many
generations, and therefore the truth of the Triune God
became almost completely irrelevant to Christian Faith
and spiritual life.
Underlying all these causes for the ineffective teaching
of doctrine is simply the fact that doctrines are not
taught in a way that brings out their sharp relevance
to the daily life of faith. When a particular catechesis
is criticized as "too doctrinal," it usually
means that the doctrines are simply communicated poorly.
It really is not a question of doctrine being unimportant,
unneeded, expendable, but rather of not being taught
as truths that liberate, save, inspire, uplift, etc
in daily life. Instead of grounding a personal, heart-felt
commitment to Christ, Catholic doctrine is often caricatured
as opposing such personal loving faith. [18]
. The over-riding implication of this change in the
manner of teaching doctrine is the need for improved
catechist formation. There is no substitute for a sound
grasp of the essentials of Catholic doctrine, understood
NOT as memorized formulas, but as sharing in the Truth
of Christ our Lord -- a sharing that is vitally operative
in our daily living. This change to a more experiential,
contextual doctrinal catechesis demands intelligible
ways of expressing the basic truths of the faith. For
example, in teaching "who is Jesus," simply
repeating the formula of one person two natures to today's
Catholics is not too helpful. We do not understand either
person or nature in the sense of the dogma of the Council
of Cha1cedon in 451. Therefore, a serious creative effort
is needed to communicate the unique identify of Jesus
in more 21st century language. One simple way of beginning
is by simply sticking to the Gospels and the testimony
of the great Saints of Catholic tradition.
Another example is creation. If taught simply and imaginatively,
creation can be an inspiring doctrine, attractive to
young and old alike. But this presumes the catechist/religion
teacher understands the difference between a modern
science approach to HOW the material world got to be
as it is today, and a religious approach seeking the
ultimate meaning of the existence of all reality - WHY
there is anything at all. A positive appreciation of
God's creative presence in and among us NOW is needed.
The catechist must feel at home with the Genesis account,
and how it has NOT lost any of its truth even in face
of modern science.
A deeper implication concerns the function of truth
in communicating the Good News of salvation. No one
can develop an authentic relation to Jesus Christ, or
actually "hear" the Gospel of Life, based
on false doctrines, prejudice, error, misunderstanding,
or illusions. It was surely not by chance that Jesus
identified himself as the Way, the Truth and the Life
(Jn.14:6)-- truth that will set us free (Jn.8:32). Yet
the mere intellectual acceptance of Christ's truth is
not sufficient. The change to an experiential contextualized
catechesis insists that doctrine must be directly related
to our concrete, historical experience, calling for
a personal Faith commitment to Jesus Christ as our Lord
and Savior. Even eternal truths such as the Blessed
Trinity have to be given "a local habitation and
a name" -- otherwise they fail to nourish the concrete
experience of Faith and drift away in irrelevant abstractions.
In this change toward teaching doctrine in a new way,
two major aims of religious education are involved.
First, the critical function of an religious education
in helping the faithful toward an accurate understanding
of Christian truth. Secondly, is its formative function
in which the "hearers of the Word" are formed
into likeness to Christ in his Paschal Mystery, through
the power of the Holy Spirit. In this case, teaching
doctrine means helping to form proper Christian attitudes,
opinions, ideals, etc. [19]
The difficulty comes in the proper balancing of these
critical and formative functions. Both are needed for
sound religious education. But taken separately, the
critical often leads to an overly academic, abstract
exposition of the faith, while the formative function
alone can lead to preaching sentimental pietistic fundamentalism.
One major reason for this difficulty of balancing the
two functions, especially in Catholic schools, is the
fact that the hopes and expectations of parents, of
professional religious educators, of school administrators,
and, of course, of the students themselves -- are not
only varied and different, but often even clash head
on. [20] It's clear that much more is at stake than
simply a new effort toward a more relevant and effective
communication of the faith. This difficulty of deeply
differing entrenched opinions only manifests ever more
clearly the vital importance and urgent need for a new
way of teaching doctrine, especially in this new age
of a pluralism. [21]
Fuller Human Experience
Similar moves towards revising the actual use of the
third basic catechetical source--human experience --
could be sketched.[22] Much credit must go to the social
sciences (and natural sciences) for developing a radically
new understanding of the human person, of our communities,
of the economic, social, political and cultural forces
which shape us as individuals and as members of society.
This has revolutionized the "human experience"
that is most immediately experienced and constantly
communicated through the channels of today's mass media.
We select only the role of emotions in our faith life
as an example of this new concern for, and appreciation
of human experience for catechesis.[23] From a predominantly
negative evaluation of emotions in faith life, religious
educators have now come to acknowledge their prime importance
in living the faith. Catechesis and religious education
have to be grounded in, draw on, and be in constant
contact with, people's ordinary, emotion laden experience.
Teaching the Christian vision and the mission -- the
journey and the goal of life in Christ, --must be done
with symbols/ stories, and images that are truly inspirational
and meaningful to the heart as much as to the mind.
Two sources of such symbols, stories and images suggest
themselves immediately: the Bible, which is the best
single book on human experience, and typical Filipino
experience. Creative use of both can help the catechized,
young and old, make the necessary "journey"
of recognizing and exercising Gospel truths, value,
and ideals in their Filipino cultural attitudes, ways
of thinking, acting, prioritizing, etc.
. One main difficulty has been the problem of reaching
the Faith level - not reducing faith-experience merely
to ways of acting as studied by social science analysis,
or merely to pious devotionalism. In practice, it is
often difficult to avoid trivializing the Faith when
seeking "relevance" and the experiential quality
of faith.
A second problem that has caused considerable anguish
and pain for many engaged in religious education is
identifying "human experience" with some one-sided
ideological interpretation. Basic and essential characteristics
of authentic religious education such as inculturation,
or the social apostolate, can become problematic when
carried to an exaggerated or even abusive degree that
impedes the very objectives being pursued.
III. Catechetical Aim: From Individual-Sect to Community
Interreligious Dialogue
The final change is the shift from a sharp focus on
the individual believers and specific sectarian basis,
to a much more open, pluralistic attitude and relationship
of the whole religious community with other religious
communities and faiths. Such a change involves not only
the much emphasized theme of inculturation, [24] and
of today's factual pluralism, but especially in our
Asian context, of inter-religious dialogue. [25]
The change, in its basic essence, constitutes perhaps
the most profound change of all, even though, beyond
the on-going dialogue with our Moslem brethren and various
Protestant Churches, it may have less immediate impact
on Philippine catechesis and Catholic religious education
than the first two. The challenge for this openness
opens up new territory through which we must advance
with courage and faith, into ways and means unfamiliar
to most of us thus far, trusting in the guidance of
the Father's and the Risen Christ's Holy Spirit to whom
we "stretch out our hands" and allow Him to
"lead us where we would not want to go" (Jn.21
:18).
Looking to the Future
The final section of my presentation looks ahead and
offers some suggestions for planning programs and projects
for the next three years and beyond -- an effective
catechesis for the Third Millennium. The changes and
shifts just described at length form the necessary basis
for the core of these suggestions, so this concluding
section is not just an added "final word,"
but rests squarely in the preceding exposition.
Various Starting Points
But what can help us plot ECCCE's catechetical course
in the years to come? How can we come to discern in
this consultation what are the real top priorities?
How can we arrive at the most efficacious means and
strategies that can bring about and achieve the selected
goals? There are a number of carefully reflected plans
of how to proceed in responding to the challenge of
catechetical planning. We shall suggest a few, but develop
only one in detail.
Some have focused on the "new evangelization"
and its implications for catechesis and religious education.[26]
They stress the need for reading the "signs of
the times," in terms of two dialogues -- of life
and of action - which appear in catechesis as a dialogue
of religious ideas (theological exchange) and of spiritualities
(spiritual experience). They emphasize both the missio
Dei - the mission of God and education as Proclamation,
as Inculturation, as Pastoral ministry for Human Development
--Liberation from, for and to.
Others select a basic problem besetting all the nations
in this third millennium, for example, the universal
theological problem of suffering and evil. They insist
on the overriding need for a radical reinterpretation
of God's omnipotence and kingdom as playing a decisive
role in helping people to find meaning in suffering
and to persevere in confronting evil.[27]
Still others prioritize a basic means such as the liturgy
for bringing Christ to the people, but as carefully
analyzed in terms of continuity and discontinuity with
the today's secular, pluralistic world.[28] In this
post-modern context, much of the Christian narrative
and the theological dimensions of the sacraments seem
to have disappeared. Often it seems only the anthropological
dimension of ritual is still functioning, separated
from the Christian rituals' theological dimensions of
encountering the God of Jesus Christ. The result of
this analysis is to suggest that we must put the specific
particularity of the Christian Faith at the forefront
of sacramental catechesis, not merely as an "application"
of general human ritual. It is not as humans beings
that we are Christian, but as Christians that we are
human beings, irreducibly so determined by our own Christian
narrativity (as others are human by their irreducible
particularity.) [29]
For Christians, sacraments draw their deepest significance
not from the general human ritual structures but because
they speak of the God revealed in the Christian narrative.
Re-contextualization is needed that analyzes the context
in terms of plurality rather than just secularization,
and particularity instead of general human structures.
This changes the common method or correlation by focusing
on the Christian specificity of the Christian sacramental
praxis, yet precisely as a result of interdisciplinary
and interreligious dialogue.
Proposed Ground for Catechetical Planning
My own modest proposal for a basic ground for new catechetical
planning arises from the conviction that the primary
concern of catechesis is how to integrate Christ and
his saving message with daily life in today's complex
context.[30] This was the starting point of the original
NCDP (1985), but now we are in a new world of contextualized
experience marked by a religious pluralism that challenges
catechesis to ground the faithful in the Catholic tradition,
giving them a "sense of belonging," yet at
the same time open them to appreciate other spiritual
traditions and peoples of faith.
Moreover this basic problem is experienced within our
own catechetical efforts to work toward integrating
the Christian Good News with daily life today. We suffer
from sharp differences in both the conceptualizing,
planning and actual catechizing stages, how best to
integrate the Gospel message itself and current social
science data in the context of today's communications
media.[31] Thus this particular difficulty flowing from
the conscientious efforts to respond to the general
challenge of integrating Gospel message with daily life
has to be addressed if there is to be any real progress
in the lasting effectivity and fruitfulness of our new
catechetical programs and projects.
From this basis, then, my modest suggestion for planning
for the future is to call attention to what is variously
termed today "Practical Theology," or "Practicing
Theology." It consists in a radically revised view
of the very nature of the theological enterprise itse1f.
Flowing from the faith vision and Biblical narrative,
practical theology insists that all theological disciplines
must aim at active engagement and transformative action.[32]
Practical theology thus proposes a model of religious
reflection that draws both teachers/catechists and learners/catechized
alike, into attentive listening, dialogue, and active
participation in education and the whole of life.[33]
"Practical theology" is proposed as a potential
significant factor in planning for "Starting Afresh
from Christ" precisely because of its development
of the catechetical importance of Christian "practices."
Such practices can be defined as "things Christian
people do together overtime to. address fundamental
human needs in the light of and in response to God's
active presence for the life of the world in Jesus Christ."[34]
The basis for proposing practical theology and its focus
on "Christian practices" for catechetical
planning is this: what unifies theology as a coherent
enterprise of inquiry and dialogue [and source of authentic
catechesis] is the work of the Holy Spirit in the practices
of the Church.. It is the concrete context of ecclesial
practice that constitutes the framework of the reflection
within which agreements and disagreements over various
methodological strategies and philosophical gambits
and ethical projects are contained.[35]
Advantages Offered by Practical Theology's Focus on
Practices
There are many advantages for planning new catechetical
programs and projects grounded on a practical theology"
that focuses on Christian practices. The first is there
is no gap between theory and practice. Practices are
meaningful clusters of human activity, combining both
thinking and acting. They are social, belonging to people
across generations, rooted in the past but constantly
adopting to changing cultural contexts. They express
the wisdom of daily life and activity, not that of academic
theologians. No one can ask: "but what does this
have to do with real life? This is based directly on
the more holistic study and use of Scripture that we
have already described.[36]
A second advantage is that by focusing on Christian
practices, two common "reductions" are avoided.
By focusing on "practices," there is no chance
of reducing theology or catechesis to an abstract, theoretical
study, unrelated to daily life. As "Christian"
they reject reducing what is specifically Christian
to simply the general human level of social science.
This grounds the new approach to teaching doctrine discussed
in the second shift in catechesis.
One author describes how Christian doctrines function
as conceptual areas within which Christian identity
is shaped and the contours of Christian life are formed.
Doctrines are the "lived imaginative landscapes"
within which the Christians stand, confident in their
truth. They are the "dramatic scripts" which
Christians perform and by which Christians are "performed"
[sanctified]- their "person-shaping" character.[37]
This understanding of doctrines highlights what makes
Christian practices specifically "Christian,"
namely, the intention of the agent caught up in the
Christian narrative of God's gracious relating to the
world. Briefly, it matters what we think/believe we
are doing.
This raises the question of the crucial but complex
relationship between beliefs, as expressing Faith doctrines,
and practices, or more generally, between systematic
theology (as a critical reflection on beliefs) and a
way of life (as the sum of Christian practices).[38]
Beliefs Shaping Practices
It is clear to begin with, basic Chnstian beliefs shape
Christian practices both in setting Christ as our norm
and within the larger stories of God's covenant with
Israel, and God's creation and our final destiny.[39]
Beliefs about God and God's relation to the world form
the heart of Christian Faith, and hence of all theology
and catechesis. Such beliefs ground the Christian insight
into the identity and goal of all human persons. What
is said of God does not have to be "applied"
later to man what is said of God is already addressed
to man![40]
Moreover, these basic Christian beliefs as beliefs
entail practical commitments inherent in the beliefs
themselves. For beliefs are statements not about simple
facts of what was, is, and will be, but rather about
what should be, and what humans should do. Thus the
intrinsic flow from beliefs as normative to our Christian
practices. But ultimately Christian Faith is not primarily
about what we do, but about what God has done, is doing
and will do. It's about human receiving. [41]
Practices Exercising Beliefs
In ordinary experience we know Christian practices
often come first, and the beliefs entailed in the practices
are explicitated later.[42] Engagement in Christian
practices often opens our eyes to how to understand
core Christian beliefs and even reformulate them in
the ever changing context in which Christians live out
their faith. Thus we can say: Christian beliefs normatively
shape Christian practices; and, Christian practices
can lead to a deeper insight into and understanding
of the beliefs.
But which grounds which? Do beliefs ground practices,
or practices ground beliefs? Many today prefer to subordinate
beliefs to practices-functionalizing beliefs. Or they
assign chronological priority to the way of life and
logical primacy to the set of beliefs. But Christian
beliefs are not just talk about God, but refer to God's
very Self. Adequate Christian beliefs about God's very
self, therefore, cannot be ultimately grounded in a
way of life. Rather the Christian way of life must be
grounded in adequate beliefs about God. We engage in
Christian practices for the sake of our belief in God;
we don't make up a picture of God to justify our practices.[43]
But if Christian beliefs ultimately ground Christian
practices, with God’s own Self the focus of beliefs,
the question of the TRUTH claims about God arise immediately
- precisely for the sake of the way of life. The truth
claims must be defended by showing how beliefs in God
and his relation to the world fit together. The belief
in the Eucharist has to fit with the account of Christ's
death, and with the belief in the Trinity, and the reality
of Grace within us -and all these beliefs must fit with
the way one understands the human predicament, and exercises
this understanding in daily practices.[44]
A third and final advantage of practical theology's
focus on Christian practices is their community-situated
nature-family, parish school- all bringing out the essential
ecclesial dimensions of the practices. This is another
development of the thrust for a more holistic study
and use of Scripture in catechesis, as well as in teaching
Doctrine and the specifically Christian insight into
human experience. This may serve to contextualize your
"Starting Afresh from Christ."
It is about time I end this reflection which is already
quite long. I must confess that I felt a strange sense
of freedom to be able to speak out about what ECCCE
should be doing. The reason is naturally obvious: now
I do not have to worry about the necessary consequence
that is called implementation. I leave that to others.
I am grateful enough for being allowed to lay down
before you some reflections which I hope are useful
for your purpose. This speaks of your trust. For me,
this speaks also of your kindness.
End Notes
1. "Practical" but not in the sense of resolving
immediate crisis to religious education, as was discussed
in the national CEAP convention of 1998. See my "Catholic
Schools in Crisis -- A Framework for Survival,"
Docete 21 No.93 (Apr-June 1998): 3-12.
2. The text presumes the reader is acquainted with
the magisterial sources listed in the abbreviations
used in the Catechism of the Catholic Church (1994),
and our own Catechism of Filipino Catholics (1997).
3. See FABC "Asia: A Call for Renewed Catechesis
Towards Year 2000 and Beyond," Bol. Ecl. 72 No.794
(May-June 1996): 258-68. See also relevant sections
in John Paul II, "Ecclesia in Asia," Origins
29 No.23 (Nov. 18, 1999): 357, 359-84; and the particular
study of Georg Evers, "Christianity and Harmony:
From Past to the Present," EAPR (1992) 348-64.
4. The following summarizes FABC's exposition, pp.
258-62.
5. See my "Globalization and Its Impact on Catholic
Higher Education," Docete 22 No.98 (July Sept.1999):
13-21; see also Felipe Gomez, "Signs of the Times,"
EAPR (1989): 365-86.
6. The GDC insists repeatedly on both the urgency for
making effective use of the relevant social science
data and communication media, and God's revelation as
the ultimate norm for their authentic catechetical use.
7. Cf Nicholas Lash, "The Laboratory We Need,"
The [London] Tablet (15 April 2000) 514.
8. Outstanding episcopal catechetical periti, have
proposed numerous different expositions on the exact
nature of catechesis, its interrelation with evangelization,
etc See, for example, "The Fundamental Importance
of Catechesis," [Origins 28, no.27 (Dec. 17,1998)
465-77] by Cardinal Castrillon Hoyos. The GDC's effort
to limit "catechesis" to the initial baptismal
catechesis (no.51, footnote 64) seems contradicted by
both Catechesi Tradendae of John Paul II, and by the
widespread use of "adult catechesis." This
lack of a univocal consensus in the definitions may
be a blessing in disguise, forcing the local catechetical
authorities to take responsibility for their plan of
action. The simple balanced exposition by Archbishop
Pilarczyk is preferred here. Cf. his "Five Implications
of the Church's Nature and Mission for Catechesis,"
Origins 29 No.24 (140v. 25, 1999): 392-96.
9. Other examples of rhetoric substituting for reality
are given in an article describing the process of attaining
official approval from the Vatican for the CFC. Cf "The
'Reality Principle' in CFC's Communicating the Faith,"
Landas 12 (1998):4-24.
10. The discontent with the use of the historical critical
method alone and its pursuit of the literal sense has
developed substantially. See among others, Luke Timothy
Johnson, The Real Jesus, The Misguided Quest for the
Historical Jesus and the Truth of the Traditional Gospels
(San Francisco: Harper, 1996); and "Imaging the
World Scripture Imagines," Modem Theology 14, No.2
(April 1998): 165-80.
11. See Kurz & Miller, "Use of Scripture in
the CCC,” Communio 23 (Fall 1996): 480-507; and
Gerard Loughlin, "Living in Christ: Story, Resurrection
and Salvation," in Resurrection Reconsidered, ed.
G. D' Costa, pp.118-34.
12. See Raymond Brown NIBC 71:30.
13. Cf. The Pontifical Biblical Commission, "Interpretation
of the Bible in the Church," Pt.2 Hermeneutical
QQ., Section B: The Meaning of Inspired Scripture,"
Origins 23, no.29 (January 6, 1994): 511-12.
14. See Stephan C. Barton, "New Testament Interpretation
as Performance," Scottish J. of Theo1. 52 (1999):
179-208; based on a ground-breaking essay of Nicholas
Lash, "Performing The Scriptures," in his
Theology on the Way to Emmaus (London: SCM, 1982), pp.37-46.
15. See Daniel Shin, "Some Light from Origen:
Scripture as Sacrament," Worship 73 (1990):399-425
Paul "The Gospel as a Work of Art," Theology
104 (Mar-Apr 2001) 94-101. Also confer Sandra Schneiders,
The Revelatorv Text (San Francisco: Harper, 1991), pp.66,
78, 82.
16. Cf. Jose Varickasseril, SDB, "The Use of the
Bible in Catechesis," Bol.Ecl. 72, No.794 (May
June 1996): 236-57. For a more general study, see Gerald
O'Collins. S.J. and Daniel Kendall, S.J., The Bible
for Theology: Ten Principles for the Theological Use
of Scripture_(New York: Paulist, 1997) For integrating
critical Bible study and principles of religious education,
see Charles Melchert, Wise Teaching: Biblical Wisdom
and Educational Ministry (Harrisburg: Trinity Press
International, 1998); and "The Sage as Paradigm
for the Religious Educator," Living Light 16 (Spring
1979): 79-89.
17. See, for example, the International Theological
Commission, "On the Interpretation of Dogmas,"
Origins 20 (May 17, 1990): 1-14; Paul G. Crowley, In
Ten Thousand Places: Dogma in a Pluralistic Church (New
York: Crossroad, 1997); also idem, "Catholicity,
Inculturation, and Newman's Sensus Fidehum," Heythrop
Journal 33 (1992): 161-74.
18. For a simple article bringing out and criticizing
the common prejudice against "doctrine," see
W. Michael Westbrook, "Doctrine Versus Compassion,"
America (Nov. 5, 1994): 26.
19. Cf. Frank Hurl, "Religious Ed: Catechetics
or Academics?," Furrow 5 1,# 5 (2000)279-86.
20. See the report of Archbishop Daniel Buechlem, "Sound
Theology's Importance in Pastoral Life," Origins
28 (Oct. 8, 1998): 290 ff, as a member of the Bishops
Commission reviewing the RE publications of Catholic
publishers in terms of their conformity with the Catechism
of the Catholic Church.
21. How using Scripture relates to teaching dogma is
examined in Brendan Byrne's "Gospel Narrative and
the Jesus of History: Where Should Christology Begin?",
Pacifica 13 (Feb. 2000): 49-66.
22. See, for example, Catherine Dooley, O.P., and Mary
Collins, O.S.B., eds., The Echo Within: Emerging Issues
in Religious Education (Allen: Thomas More, 1997); Francis
Martin, "St, Matthew's Spiritual Understanding
of the Healing of the Centurion's Boy," Communio
25 (Spring 1998): 160-77.
23. See Bill Cosgrove, "Our Emotional Life,"
The Furrow 49 (1998): 270-81.
24. See the CBCP, "Pastoral Exhortation on Philippine
Culture," Landas 13 (1999): 736. With commentaries
by Daniel Patrick Huang, S.J. "Emerging Global,
Post Global Culture,": Landas 13 (1999): 48-58
and Joseph L. Roche, S.J., “The CBCP's 'Exhortation
on Philippine Culture' and Catechesis," Docete
22, No. 99(OctoberDecember 1999): 2-7.
25. See M. Dhavamony, Christian Theology of Religions.
A Systematic Reflection on the Christian Understanding
of World Religions (Bern: Peter Lang, 1998) 242pp.;
also Aloysius Pieris, S.J., "Inter-Religious Dialogue
and Theology of Religions: An Asian Paradigm,"
EAPR 29 (1992): 365-76; Michael Amaladoss, S.J., “The
Pluralism of Religions and the Significance of Christ,
" EAPR (April 1989): 276-93. Other significant
articles have appeared in "New Evangelization in
the Third Millennium" Studia Missionalia 48 (1999).
Some idea of the divergences in positions on this broad
topic is given by Vinoth Ramachandra in The Recovery
of Mission: Beyond the Pluralist Paradigm (Eerdmans,
1996) which offers a serious critique of Stanley Sa
martha, Aloysius Pieris and Raimundo Panikkar.
26. Cf Therese D'Orsa, "The New Evangelization
and Its Implications for Religious Education,"
Aust.Cath.Rec. 80, No.3 (July 2003): 287-305. See also
Robert Pazmino, "Surviving or Thriving in the Third
Millennium?" in Forging a Better Religious , Education
in the Third Millennium, ed. James M. Lee (Birmingham:
RE Press 2000): 69-88.
27. See Daniel Louw, "Fides Quaerens Spem: A Pastoral
and Theological Response to Suffering and Evil,"
Interpretation 57 (Oct. 2003): 384-97.
28. Lieven Boeve, "The Sacramental Interpretation
of Rituals of Life," Heythrop Journal 44 (2003):
401-17; and Clare Watkins, "Mass, Mission, and
Eucharistic Living," Ibid.: 440-55.
29. Debra Dean Murphy cautions that many accounts of
self, knowledge, human freedom and consciousness, moral
development, stages of faith, etc. are deeply indebted
to modern social-science accounts which are highly questionable
within a thoroughgoing Christian narration of identity
and selfhood. Cf. her "Worship as Catechesis: Knowledge,
Desire, and Christian Formation, "Theology Today
58 (Oct. 2001): 321-32.
30. Thomas Groome puts this bluntly: "I'm more
convinced than ever that the dynamics of religious education
should enable people to 'bring their lives to faith,
and faith to their lives.'" Cf. his "Remembering
and Imagining," Religious Education 98 (Fall 2003):51
1-119, at 519.
31. Groome writes: "Truthfully, I'm worried about
faith education that simply socializes people into religious
identity, without any kind of critical education and
consciousness... at a minimum all religious education
should enable people to 'learn from' the great spiritual
traditions of humankind for their lives, more than 'learn
about' them for their heads." Ibid. 518. Also see
the cautions of D. Murphy cited above in footnote 29,
and the position of D. Bass cited in footnote 33 below.
32. See, for example, Ray Anderson, The Shape of Practical
Theology: Empowering Ministry with Theological Praxis
(Downers Grove: InterVarsity Press, 200 1); Craig Dykstra,
Growing in the Life of Faith: Education and Christian
Practices (Louisville: Geneva Press, 1999); and Robert
Pazmino, God Our Teacher: Theological Basics in Christian
Education (Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2002), especially
"Crossing Over to Post-modernity: Educational Invitations,"
161-72. These are second generation sources, developed
from the originating articles of R. Maddox, "The
Recovery of Theology as a Practical Discipline, Theol.
Stds. 51(1990) and R. Imbelli and T. Groome, "Signposts
Toward a Pastoral Theology," Theol.Stds. 53 (1992)
127- 37.
33. Barbara Fleischer, "Practical Theology and
Transformative Learning: Partnership for Christian Religious
Education," in Forging a Better Religious Education
in the Third Millennium, ed. James M. Lee (Birmingham:
RE Press 2000), 203-25, at 205.
34. See Dorothy Bass, "On the Bearing of a Living
tradition," Religious Education 98, no, 4 (Fall
2003): 503-10, at 506. She adds: "My conviction
[is] that participation in Christian practices requires
steady resistance to the larger culture … The
context of my commitment to Christian practices is one
of cultural disestablishment." Ibid. p.509.
35. See "Introduction: A Catholic and Evangelical
Theology?" in Knowing the Triune God: The Work
of the Spirit in the Practices of the Church, ed. James
Buckley, S.J., and David Yeago, S.J. (Grand Rapids:
Eerdmans, 2001), p4.
36. Dorothy Blass, "A Theological Understanding
of Christian Practices," in Practicing Theology,
ed. Miroslav Volf and D.Bass (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans,
2002), 1-9, at 6-7.
37. Serene Jones, "Graced Practices: Excellence
and Freedom in Christian Life," in Practicing Theology:
Beliefs and Practices in Christian Life, ed. Volf and.Bass,
51-77, at 75-76. See also Stephen C. Rowan, "The
Nicene Creed: Poetic Words for a Prosaic World,"
Stds. in Formative Spirituality 10 (May 1980:197-206.)
38. Miroslav Volf "Theology for a Way of Life,"
in Practicing Theology, p.247.
39. Ibid. p.251.
40. Ibid. p.253, quoting Gerhard Ebeling.
41. Ibid. pp.253-54
42. Ibid. p.256
43. Ibid. pp.258-60
44. Ibid. p.261.
|
