In article <9212212214.AA22036@cirrus.SEAS.UCLA.EDU>, John Weitzel <weitzel@CIRRUS.SEAS.UCLA.EDU> writes:
|> I do not think that all
|> Catholics need to understand Aquinas, Augustine, and Borromeo in depth, but
|> do you not think that we should all know why we are Catholic, how we are
|> saved and how to discuss such with our seperated brethren?
I agree wholeheartedly that there is a major failing to teach CORE doctrine (dogma) in favor of a touchy-feelly religion. One sees it among religious as well as among laity. In the first half of this century, religion has swung too far to the rational/scientific side; after Vatican II many swung too far to the emotional/psychological side. We seems moving towards the center again.
I seems to me that proper religious education has to distinquish carefully between ultimate truths (dogma) which one must believe to the Catholic, traditional truths (Tradition) which is generally believed, and transitional truths - those things that are true at one stage of spiritual development but not necessarily at another. And within each of these the range of human interpretations (finite grapplings with infinite truths) needs also to be explored so that a re-evaluation of a particular truth does no
t shake one's faith but permits a re-evaluation and re-interpretation that is more mature and comprehensive.
An example of transitional truth is the concept of sin where one first teaches a child by rules, then teaches the older child the principles behind the rules, then as an adult lives by the principles rather than rules, and as one matures spiritually you find the principles themselves slowly changing to be more and more inclusive. Example:
child: Don't bite
older: Don't bite because it hurts someone (and passes on disease)
adult: If it is harmful to another, you must weigh heavily the consequences to be sure that the good done exceeded the harm done
mature: Act only out of love as God loves
We seems to always want to simplify religion either to a science or to religious feeling - and end up arguing for religious education that matches our bias. Only if our religious education includes both can we claim to have truly prepared our children for the spiritual journey.
