On memorization in catechesis

Yesterday, Rich Leonardi at Ten Reasons posted a quote from Ven. Pope John Paul II's 1979 Post-Synodal Apostolic Exhortation Catechesi Tradendae.  It emphasized the importance of memorization in the building up of our Catholic faith.

A certain memorization of the words of Jesus, of important Bible passages, of the Ten Commandments, of the formulas of profession of the faith, of the liturgical texts, of the essential prayers, of key doctrinal ideas, etc., far from being opposed to the dignity of young Christians, or constituting an obstacle to personal dialogue with the Lord, is a real need, as the synod fathers forcefully recalled. We must be realists. The blossoms, if we may call them that, of faith and piety do not grow in the desert places of a memory-less catechesis.

Believe it or not, I haven't read this document!  It's one I should, though, given its subject matter. But I've decided, first, to read St. Augustine's work De Catechezandis Rudibus.

Catechetical Literature (Catechesi Tradendae 49)

This is what I am striving for with my Praying the Mass series of catecheses on the Mass.  From Catechesi Tradendae 49:

One of the major features of the renewal of catechetics today is the rewriting and multiplication of catechetical books taking place in many parts of the Church. Numerous very successful works have been produced and are a real treasure in the service of catechetical instruction.

But it must be humbly and honestly recognized that this rich flowering has brought with it articles and publications which are ambiguous and harmful to young people and to the life of the Church. In certain places, the desire to find the best forms of expression or to keep up with fashions in pedagogical methods has often enough resulted in certain catechetical works which bewilder the young and even adults, either by deliberately or unconsciously omitting elements essential to the Church's faith, or by attributing excessive importance to certain themes at the expense of others, or, chiefly, by a rather horizontalist overall view out of keeping with the teaching of the Church's magisterium.

Therefore, it is not enough to multiply catechetical works. In order that these works may correspond with their aim, several conditions are essential:

1. they must be linked with the real life of the generation to which they are addressed, showing close acquaintance with its anxieties and questionings, struggles and hopes;
2. they must try to speak a language comprehensible to the generation in question;
3. they must make a point of giving the whole message of Christ and His Church, without neglecting or distorting anything, and in expounding it they will follow a line and structure that highlights what is essential;
4. they must really aim to give to those who use them a better knowledge of the mysteries of Christ, aimed at true conversion and a life more in conformity with God's will.

"Structures of sin" and "social sin"

Here are two quotes from documents by Ven. Pope John Paul II on "structures of sin" and "social sin", phrases which sometimes get used out of the context in which the Holy Father insisted they must be understood in:

1984's Reconciliatio et Paenitentia 16, "Personal Sin and Social Sin"

Sin, in the proper sense, is always a personal act, since it is an act of freedom on the part of an individual person and not properly of a group or community. This individual may be conditioned, incited and influenced by numerous and powerful external factors. He may also be subjected to tendencies, defects and habits linked with his personal condition. In not a few cases such external and internal factors may attenuate, to a greater or lesser degree, the person's freedom and therefore his responsibility and guilt. But it is a truth of faith, also confirmed by our experience and reason, that the human person is free. This truth cannot be disregarded in order to place the blame for individuals' sins on external factors such as structures, systems or other people. Above all, this would be to deny the person's dignity and freedom, which are manifested — even though in a negative and disastrous way — also in this responsibility for sin committed. Hence there is nothing so personal and untransferable in each individual as merit for virtue or responsibility for sin.

As a personal act, sin has its first and most important consequences in the sinner himself: that is, in his relationship with God, who is the very foundation of human life; and also in his spirit, weakening his will and clouding his intellect.

At this point we must ask what was being referred to by those who during the preparation of the synod and in the course of its actual work frequently spoke of social sin.

The expression and the underlying concept in fact have various meanings.

To speak of social sin means in the first place to recognize that, by virtue of human solidarity which is as mysterious and intangible as it is real and concrete, each individual's sin in some way affects others. This is the other aspect of that solidarity which on the religious level is developed in the profound and magnificent mystery of the communion of saints, thanks to which it has been possible to say that "every soul that rises above itself, raises up the world." To this law of ascent there unfortunately corresponds the law of descent. Consequently one can speak of a communion of sin, whereby a soul that lowers itself through sin drags down with itself the church and, in some way, the whole world. In other words, there is no sin, not even the most intimate and secret one, the most strictly individual one, that exclusively concerns the person committing it. With greater or lesser violence, with greater or lesser harm, every sin has repercussions on the entire ecclesial body and the whole human family. According to this first meaning of the term, every sin can undoubtedly be considered as social sin.

Some sins, however, by their very matter constitute a direct attack on one's neighbor and more exactly, in the language of the Gospel, against one's brother or sister. They are an offense against God because they are offenses against one's neighbor. These sins are usually called social sins, and this is the second meaning of the term. In this sense social sin is sin against love of neighbor, and in the law of Christ it is all the more serious in that it involves the Second Commandment, which is "like unto the first." Likewise, the term social applies to every sin against justice in interpersonal relationships, committed either by the individual against the community or by the community against the individual. Also social is every sin against the rights of the human person, beginning with the right to nd including the life of the unborn or against a person's physical integrity. Likewise social is every sin against others' freedom, especially against the supreme freedom to believe in God and adore him; social is every sin against the dignity and honor of one's neighbor. Also social is every sin against the common good and its exigencies in relation to the whole broad spectrum of the rights and duties of citizens. The term social can be applied to sins of commission or omission — on the part of political, economic or trade union leaders, who though in a position to do so, do not work diligently and wisely for the improvement and transformation of society according to the requirements and potential of the given historic moment; as also on the part of workers who through absenteeism or non-cooperation fail to ensure that their industries can continue to advance the well-being of the workers themselves, of their families and of the whole of society.

The third meaning of social sin refers to the relationships between the various human communities. These relationships are not always in accordance with the plan of God, who intends that there be justice in the world and freedom and peace between individuals, groups and peoples. Thus the class struggle, whoever the person who leads it or on occasion seeks to give it a theoretical justification, is a social evil. Likewise obstinate confrontation between blocs of nations, between one nation and another, between different groups within the same nation all this too is a social evil. In both cases one may ask whether moral responsibility for these evils, and therefore sin, can be attributed to any person in particular. Now it has to be admitted that realities and situations such as those described, when they become generalized and reach vast proportions as social phenomena, almost always become anonymous, just as their causes are complex and not always identifiable. Hence if one speaks of social sin here, the expression obviously has an analogical meaning. However, to speak even analogically of social sins must not cause us to underestimate the responsibility of the individuals involved. It is meant to be an appeal to the consciences of all, so that each may shoulder his or her responsibility seriously and courageously in order to change those disastrous conditions and intolerable situations.

Having said this in the clearest and most unequivocal way, one must add at once that there is one meaning sometimes given to social sin that is not legitimate or acceptable even though it is very common in certain quarters today. This usage contrasts social sin and personal sin, not without ambiguity, in a way that leads more or less unconsciously to the watering down and almost the abolition of personal sin, with the recognition only of social guilt and responsibilities. According to this usage, which can readily be seen to derive from non-Christian ideologies and systems — which have possibly been discarded today by the very people who formerly officially upheld them — practically every sin is a social sin, in the sense that blame for it is to be placed not so much on the moral conscience of an individual, but rather on some vague entity or anonymous collectivity such as the situation, the system, society, structures or institutions.

Whenever the church speaks of situations of sin or when the condemns as social sins certain situations or the collective behavior of certain social groups, big or small, or even of whole nations and blocs of nations, she knows and she proclaims that such cases of social sin are the result of the accumulation and concentration of many personal sins. It is a case of the very personal sins of those who cause or support evil or who exploit it; of those who are in a position to avoid, eliminate or at least limit certain social evils but who fail to do so out of laziness, fear or the conspiracy of silence, through secret complicity or indifference; of those who take refuge in the supposed impossibility of changing the world and also of those who sidestep the effort and sacrifice required, producing specious reasons of higher order. The real responsibility, then, lies with individuals.

A situation-or likewise an institution, a structure, society itself-is not in itself the subject of moral acts. Hence a situation cannot in itself be good or bad.

At the heart of every situation of sin are always to be found sinful people. So true is this that even when such a situation can be changed in its structural and institutional aspects by the force of law or-as unfortunately more often happens by the law of force, the change in fact proves to be incomplete, of short duration and ultimately vain and ineffective-not to say counterproductive if the people directly or indirectly responsible for that situation are not converted.

1987's Sollicitudo Rei Socialis 36

It is important to note therefore that a world which is divided into blocs, sustained by rigid ideologies, and in which instead of interdependence and solidarity different forms of imperialism hold sway, can only be a world subject to structures of sin. The sum total of the negative factors working against a true awareness of the universal common good, and the need to further it, gives the impression of creating, in persons and institutions, an obstacle which is difficult to overcome.

If the present situation can be attributed to difficulties of various kinds, it is not out of place to speak of "structures of sin," which, as I stated in my Apostolic Exhortation Reconciliatio et Paenitentia, are rooted in personal sin, and thus always linked to the concrete acts of individuals who introduce these structures, consolidate them and make them difficult to remove. And thus they grow stronger, spread, and become the source of other sins, and so influence people's behavior.

"Sin" and "structures of sin" are categories which are seldom applied to the situation of the contemporary world. However, one cannot easily gain a profound understanding of the reality that confronts us unless we give a name to the root of the evils which afflict us.

One can certainly speak of "selfishness" and of "shortsightedness," of "mistaken political calculations" and "imprudent economic decisions." And in each of these evaluations one hears an echo of an ethical and moral nature. Man's condition is such that a more profound analysis of individuals' actions and omissions cannot be achieved without implying, in one way or another, judgments or references of an ethical nature.

This evaluation is in itself positive, especially if it is completely consistent and if it is based on faith in God and on his law, which commands what is good and forbids evil.

In this consists the difference between sociopolitical analysis and formal reference to "sin" and the "structures of sin." According to this latter viewpoint, there enter in the will of the Triune God, his plan for humanity, his justice and his mercy. The God who is rich in mercy, the Redeemer of man, the Lord and giver of life, requires from people clear cut attitudes which express themselves also in actions or omissions toward one's neighbor. We have here a reference to the "second tablet" of the Ten Commandments (cf. Ex 20:12-17; Dt 5:16-21). Not to observe these is to offend God and hurt one's neighbor, and to introduce into the world influences and obstacles which go far beyond the actions and brief life span of an individual. This also involves interference in the process of the development of peoples, the delay or slowness of which must be judged also in this light.

Pray for us, Venerable Popes!

It's official.  Pope John Paul II and Pope Pius XII have been declared "venerable", meaning that it has been shown that they lived lives of heroic virtue.

Venerable Pope Pius XII, pray for us!
Venerable Pope John II, pray for us!

On Redemptive Suffering (part 1)

Pope John Paul II wrote an Apostolic Letter in 1984 entitled Salvifici Doloris, on the Christian meaning of human suffering.  Next Wednesday, I will be leading a discussion at Princeton University on the first half of this Letter (paragraphs 1-18).  The John Paul II Reading Group meets once a month at Murray-Dodge Hall from 7:30 - 9:00pm.

Below (or click here) is my summary with excerpts from the first half of the document.  The late pontiff could be a bit verbose and repetitive (at least, that's how I perceive it), so I've produced a "kernel" version of this masterpiece.  I recommend you read the real thing, but I think my summary is adequate to gain familiarity with the subject matter.

From Pope John Paul II's last Holy Thursday letter

"Mysterium fidei!" Every time he proclaims these words after consecrating the bread and wine, the priest expresses his ever-renewed amazement at the extraordinary miracle worked at his hands. It is a miracle which only the eyes of faith can perceive. The natural elements do not lose their external characteristics, since the "species" remain those of bread and wine; but their "substance", through the power of Christ's word and the action of the Holy Spirit, is changed into the substance of the body and blood of Christ. On the altar, then, Christ crucified and risen is "truly, really and substantially" present in the fullness of his humanity and divinity. What an eminently sacred reality! That is why the Church treats this mystery with such great reverence, and takes such care to ensure the observance of the liturgical norms intended to safeguard the sanctity of so great a sacrament. (Letter to Priests for Holy Thursday 2005, 6)

The link between St. Paul and the Pope's call to revisit the Constitution on the Sacred Liturgy

At the close of the International Eucharistic Congress, the Pope called the Church (individually and in groups) to revisit Sacrosanctum Concilium, Vatican II's Constitution on the Sacred Liturgy.

Today (or last night, starting with vespers) marks the beginning of the Pauline year, celebrating the 2000th anniversary of his birth.

And there's a link between them.

St. Paul, in his first letter to the Corinthians, reminded them of the traditions he had handed onto them, which he had received from the Lord. (cf. 1 Cor. 11:2,23). He gives them a reminder of the liturgical tradition (as it were) of the universal Church of which the church in Corinth is a member. The reason he felt urged to do so was because the celebration of the Eucharist was falling prey to abuses, and was becoming an occasion of division and sacrilege! (cf. 1 Cor. 11:18ff)

Sacrosanctum Concilium, which described the ways in which the Roman liturgy should be reformed and revised, speaks highly of the tradition the Church has received from the Apostles:

4. Lastly, in faithful obedience to tradition, the sacred Council declares that holy Mother Church holds all lawfully acknowledged rites to be of equal right and dignity; that she wishes to preserve them in the future and to foster them in every way. The Council also desires that, where necessary, the rites be revised carefully in the light of sound tradition, and that they be given new vigor to meet the circumstances and needs of modern times.

23. That sound tradition may be retained, and yet the way remain open to legitimate progress Careful investigation is always to be made into each part of the liturgy which is to be revised. This investigation should be theological, historical, and pastoral. Also the general laws governing the structure and meaning of the liturgy must be studied in conjunction with the experience derived from recent liturgical reforms and from the indults conceded to various places. Finally, there must be no innovations unless the good of the Church genuinely and certainly requires them; and care must be taken that any new forms adopted should in some way grow organically from forms already existing.

106. By a tradition handed down from the apostles which took its origin from the very day of Christ's resurrection, the Church celebrates the paschal mystery every eighth day; with good reason this, then, bears the name of the Lord's day or Sunday. For on this day Christ's faithful are bound to come together into one place so that; by hearing the word of God and taking part in the Eucharist, they may call to mind the Passion, the Resurrection and the glorification of the Lord Jesus, and may thank God who "has begotten them again, through the resurrection of Jesus Christ from the dead, unto a living hope" (1 Pet. 1:3). ...

107. The liturgical year is to be revised so that the traditional customs and discipline of the sacred seasons shall be preserved or restored to suit the conditions of modern times; their specific character is to be retained, so that they duly nourish the piety of the faithful who celebrate the mysteries of Christian redemption, and above all the paschal mystery. ...

111. The saints have been traditionally honored in the Church and their authentic relics and images held in veneration. ...

112. The musical tradition of the universal Church is a treasure of inestimable value, greater even than that of any other art. The main reason for this pre-eminence is that, as sacred song united to the words, it forms a necessary or integral part of the solemn liturgy. ...

120. In the Latin Church the pipe organ is to be held in high esteem, for it is the traditional musical instrument which adds a wonderful splendor to the Church's ceremonies and powerfully lifts up man's mind to God and to higher things. But other instruments also may be admitted for use in divine worship, with the knowledge and consent of the competent territorial authority, as laid down in Art. 22, 52, 37, and 40. This may be done, however, only on condition that the instruments are suitable, or can be made suitable, for sacred use, accord with the dignity of the temple, and truly contribute to the edification of the faithful.

Now, there has been no little debate over the past 40 years (since the publication of that Constitution) about the "organic" nature of the reform of the Roman Rite that followed the Second Vatican Council. Pope Paul VI hoped that the 1969 reform of the Roman Rite would "[put] an end to uncertainties, to discussions, to arbitrary abuses." But it appears that was not the case.

Many changes were introduced that were never mentioned in the Constitution. Some practices were illegally introduced and legalized (via indult in some occasions) after the fact. Elements traditional to the Roman Rite (such as Latin, chant, and worship ad orientem) were silently lost. And abuses crept in; some abuses barged in.

Consider the words of the late Pope John Paul II, in his encyclical letter Ecclesia de Eucharistia (2003):

10. In some places the practice of Eucharistic adoration has been almost completely abandoned. In various parts of the Church abuses have occurred, leading to confusion with regard to sound faith and Catholic doctrine concerning this wonderful sacrament. At times one encounters an extremely reductive understanding of the Eucharistic mystery. Stripped of its sacrificial meaning, it is celebrated as if it were simply a fraternal banquet. Furthermore, the necessity of the ministerial priesthood, grounded in apostolic succession, is at times obscured and the sacramental nature of the Eucharist is reduced to its mere effectiveness as a form of proclamation. This has led here and there to ecumenical initiatives which, albeit well-intentioned, indulge in Eucharistic practices contrary to the discipline by which the Church expresses her faith. How can we not express profound grief at all this? The Eucharist is too great a gift to tolerate ambiguity and depreciation.

It must be lamented that, especially in the years following the post-conciliar liturgical reform, as a result of a misguided sense of creativity and adaptation there have been a number of abuses which have been a source of suffering for many. A certain reaction against "formalism" has led some, especially in certain regions, to consider the "forms" chosen by the Church's great liturgical tradition and her Magisterium as non-binding and to introduce unauthorized innovations which are often completely inappropriate.

52. ... I consider it my duty, therefore to appeal urgently that the liturgical norms for the celebration of the Eucharist be observed with great fidelity. These norms are a concrete expression of the authentically ecclesial nature of the Eucharist; this is their deepest meaning. Liturgy is never anyone's private property, be it of the celebrant or of the community in which the mysteries are celebrated. The Apostle Paul had to address fiery words to the community of Corinth because of grave shortcomings in their celebration of the Eucharist resulting in divisions (schismata) and the emergence of factions (haireseis) (cf. 1 Cor 11:17-34). Our time, too, calls for a renewed awareness and appreciation of liturgical norms as a reflection of, and a witness to, the one universal Church made present in every celebration of the Eucharist. Priests who faithfully celebrate Mass according to the liturgical norms, and communities which conform to those norms, quietly but eloquently demonstrate their love for the Church.

This letter was followed by the Instruction Redemptionis Sacramentum, one of the documents against liturgical abuses which, in the words of Bishop Albert Malcolm Ranjith, "unfortunately have remained a dead letter, forgotten in libraries full of dust, or even worse, thrown into the waste basket."

The cry of the Church against these liturgical abuses has been going up for many years:

• 2007: Pope Benedict XVI, Sacramentum Caritatis: nn. 3, 54
• 2004: Congregation for Divine Worship and the Discipline of the Sacraments, Redemptionis Sacramentum
• 2003: Pope John Paul II, Spiritus et Sponsa: n. 15
• 1997: Congregation for the Clergy, Ecclesia de Mysterio: n. 4; Art. 6, n. 2
• 1993: Pontifical Council for Promoting Christian Unity, Directory for the Applications of Principles and Norms on Ecumenism: n. 6
• 1988: Pope John Paul II, Vicesimus Quintus Annus: n. 13
• 1988: Congregation for Divine Worship and the Discipline of the Sacraments, Paschale Solemnitatis: nn. 49, 78
• 1980: Pope John Paul II, Inaestimabile Donum: preface; nn. 1, 4, 5
• 1976: Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, Inter Insigniores: n. 4
• 1973: Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, Mysterium Ecclesiae: n. 6

Even before the Council, Pope Pius warned against abuses (and doctrinal errors creeping in because of them) in his encyclical Mediator Dei (in 1947).

The Pope liberated the Extraordinary Form of the Roman Rite (also called the "Gregorian Rite"). He celebrated Mass ad orientem (well, ad Dominum, anyway!) and has re-introduced the placement of candles and crucifix on the altar. He has been distributing Communion to people on the tongue as they kneel recently (including today). He has restored the organic development of the Papal pallium (and has been restoring to use many traditional vestments and liturgical objects). There is a call from the Pope to revisit the Constitution on the Sacred Liturgy, to re-examine that tradition which was handed down to us through the centuries by the Church, by Her Apostles, and ultimately by the Lord himself. He hinted at this two and a half years ago, speaking to the Roman Curia at Christmas. The Pope is trying to tell us something. Perhaps it is time to recall the whole of our Catholic identity.

Let us pray for the wisdom of the Holy Spirit to settle upon the Church and Her leaders and all the faithful, that we might again receive the sacred tradition and pass it on uncorrupted to the future of the Church.