The Importance of Good Catechesis

I would like to follow Patrick’s post from earlier today to discuss the importance of good catechesis and its eventual impact on the law. Patrick tackled the problem from the perspective of a lack of catechesis; in doing so, he is very much on track. When Catholics lack catechesis, strange things happen. But I find a need to offer a complementary train of thought. Indeed, there are occasions when catechesis has been provided to the faithful who are engaged in the duties of citizenship and public office. However, this catechesis is not good—it is erroneous thereby implanting false doctrine in the minds and actions of some of the faithful who are persuaded by the siren call. Today’s world has a lot of highly educated individuals who—as citizens or as law makers, judges, and administrators—have an extraordinary impact on the law. For some weeks now, Mirror of Justice contributors and readers have seen on this website a great deal of discussion about the role of Catholics in public life and, therefore, the influence of Catholics in the juridical institutions of public life. And, this discussion has given prominence to highly educated Catholics who, nevertheless, are lacking in good catechesis.

And, we have seen in this discussion the diversity of views on important legal and related public policy issues that are of vital interest to all members of society but also divide these societies. This division is patent in the community of citizens who identify themselves as Catholics. Here we must ask a vital question: why does this division exist amongst those who identify themselves as Catholics? Are the principal teachers of the Catholic faithful, the bishops, responsible? I think they will be addressing this question in one fashion or another at their annual meeting next week. But, there are others who claim a role in catechizing the faithful, and many of them are university professors. As we have seen on the MOJ website, several of us have offered our perspectives on the influence—be it good or bad—that university educators have had in informing the faithful about what the Church teaches (or appears to teach) on social and, therefore, legal issues.

The disagreements of MOJ contributors emerge in large part, I think, from the quality of the catechesis of the professors who have clearly influenced the faithful—in other words, is the catechesis of the professors whom we have identified as having an influence solid, or not; orthodox, or not; faithful to the Magisterium, or not. In the present day, discussions about the quality and fidelity to the Church’s teachings are not restricted to the work of American academics. Over the past several weeks, a group of professors from the Ateneo de Manila University, which is affiliated with the Jesuit order, have issued a position paper Download individual_faculty_of_the_admuposition_paper_on_the_reproductive_health1.pdf  on the Reproductive Health Bill, HB 5043, introduced in the Philippines House of Representatives. The president of the University has responded to the position paper.

As we have seen with some academics in the United States, this group of Philippine professors who teach at a Catholic university in their country have departed from the Church’s teachings. This is one issue that presents a grave matter when we consider the influence of the professorate on society at large. But the gravity is intensified by the professors’ declaration that “Catholics can support the R[eproductive] H[ealth] bill in good conscience.” I must respectfully disagree with their contention.

The professors offer a disclaimer that their paper expresses opinions that “do not necessarily reflect the views of other faculty” nor “do they represent the official position of the Ateneo de Manila University nor the Society of Jesus.” However, in spite of their disclaimer, it is clear that they intend the paper to offer catechesis to the faithful citizenry enabling them to support the legislation “in good conscience.” I respectfully suggest that their catechesis is both flawed and irresponsible; moreover, it is in many instances in direct conflict with the Church’s teachings. Consequently, their claim that Catholics can, in good conscience, support the bill is counterfeit.

For example, their paper repeats language—“reproductive health” and “population development”—that is often used by the United Nations Population Fund, which is by the way favorably relied upon in the position paper, to explain and endorse programs sympathetic with abortion access, artificial contraception, and population control. The authors of the position paper make a remarkable appeal to Catholics that the proposed legislation is consistent with Catholic teachings. In doing so, they attempt to reinforce their appeal to the words attributed to St. Thomas More at his trial regarding the protection of conscience. But they fail to mention that it was the State that had tried More for treason against a civil law that, in good and well-formed conscience, he could not support. Moreover, they fail to mention that it was the teachings of the Church that formed his well-formed conscience. The authors also rely on the Decree on Religious Liberty, Dignitatis Humanae Personae, to support their argument regarding conscience, but as I have addressed elsewhere, their views regarding conscience and its role are misinformed.

The authors’ catechesis is deficient in understanding the nature of conscience and why it is important to protect it. They consider the view of the autonomous person influenced by their views as the conscience that is worth protecting against the Church and not the State. What they fail to point out is that the bill that they endorse as one that “Catholics can support… in good conscience” would not only undermine but would destroy the protection of authentic conscience that is crucial to any member of the faithful. By way of illustration, the bill alienates the role and legally acknowledged right of parents—which is protected by conscience—in the education of the children on moral and religious matters; moreover, the bill in Section 21 criminalizes the actions of institutions and individuals who, who in the exercise of their conscience, could not do what is mandated of them in order to provide “information” and “services” regarding the “rights” protected under this bill. So what if the schools and hospitals are called “Catholic”! They must do what the State demands and would compel by the force available to the State, should this bill become law. To agree that artificial contraception (“essential medicines”!), sterilization, mutilation, and “other family planning methods requiring hospital services” are consistent with steps that the well-formed Catholic conscience could endorse is evidence not just of a poorly formed catechesis but a malformed catechesis whose corruption is uncontained.

The position paper is a clever but unsuccessful attempt to replace sound catechesis with a deformed instruction. It, the paper, selectively relies on passages of Magisterial documents that are taken out of context. Of course, when placed back in their context, it is patent that the position paper’s reliance on them is grossly misplaced. It would seem that the professors of the Ateneo de Manila apparently would not be too interested in anyone cite-checking the “authority” upon which they rely. Moreover, their critique of the Church’s Magisterium on issues they develop throughout the position paper barely conceals their contempt for good catechesis.

I have mentioned only a few of the problems that the position paper contains. A complete analysis of it, the legislative proposal that it promotes, and the Church’s teachings on the issues the professors address would reveal a great deal about the unreliability of the claim that “Catholics can support the RH bill in good conscience.” It should be patent that the professors’ claim is false. Moreover, if I may borrow from Dorothy when she queried Glenda in The Wizard of Oz: are you a good catechesis, or are you a bad catechesis?... it is clear that with regard to the position paper of the Ateneo-fourteen, it is bad; it is very bad.

RJA sj